There was no good reason to remove the trees. None. Three times the city’s Shade Tree Committee recommended pruning them, not killing them. Salem’s urban forester agreed. So did independent arborists. Neighboring business owners wanted the five trees saved.

So why did Public Works director Peter Fernandez approve US Bank regional president Alan Allbritton’s application to have the trees removed? Here’s where the story starts to sound more like the New Jersey of Tony Soprano than supposedly squeaky-clean Salem.

After the second no-cut decision by the Shade Tree Committee, which reviews all tree planting and removal applications in Salem’s Historic District, Allbritton made a “verbal appeal” to Fernandez.

We don’t know whether this was in Salem’s equivalent of the Bada-Bing club, a golf course, or wherever. But this fact is clear: Allbritton, the incoming president of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, reminded Salem’s Public Works director of a promise Fernandez had made to him in 2010.

The promise: those five State Street trees would be cut down. This was before US Bank had applied for a Historic District tree removal permit. And it was before US Bank had presented for public review the reasons it wanted those Zelkovas to be cut down.

No matter. The promise was kept. Allbritton got another shot at convincing the Shade Tree committee his tree removal request was valid. He made his best arguments. But once again the committee said “Prune, don’t kill.”
Three strikes usually means, you’re out. But not if you’re regional president of US Bank, and you’ve gotten a promise from Salem’s Public Works director that five trees you want cut down, will be.
Peter Fernandez ignored the thrice-repeated recommendation of the Shade Tree committee. Admitting that US Bank’s sidewalk liability concerns weren’t pertinent to his decision, he conjured up some pitifully weak reasons to cut down the trees. Each reason screamed “prune” to arborists, not kill.

Then the City of Salem sent a letter to tree removal opponents notifying them of Fernandez’ approval. Outrageously, it arrived on the very day of the appeal deadline. An attorney has told me that opponents had grounds to appeal. But its damn tough to appeal a City of Salem decision when you’re notified about it too late to legally do so.

Tony Soprano would love this sort of “stuff it!” attitude toward the citizenry by so-called public servants. I don’t. At every step along the way, the City of Salem tilted toward the special interest of US Bank, and away from the public interest of preserving five beautiful trees in downtown Salem.

Two remain, temporarily saved by baby birds nesting in their branches. Some measure of good will toward the city and US Bank will be preserved if those trees are kept alive, as all five should have been.

Brian Hines is a Salem writer & land use activist. He blogs at hinesblog.com

For one, a nine-year old girl in Oregon City was killed on Sunday April 14th in her back yard by a gun fired accidentally by a neighbor, an Iraq war veteran, who was practicing his holstering skills at his home nearby. The day before, a man at the NRA 500 NASCAR Race shot and killed himself in the course infield during the race. Then, on Monday, a police officer in Brooklyn shot and killed her infant son and her boyfriend before killing herself. Nine days earlier, a four-year-old boy in Tennessee picked up his uncle’s gun and shot and killed his aunt.

These stories made the news because of their shock value. But they are just a fraction of the gun deaths that happen in this country every week, most of which are not deemed as newsworthy, because they are so common.

More than 30,000 people die in this country every year by firearms. But my observation is that almost none of the gun casualty stories are about citizens harming “bad guys.” The father or mother successfully protecting his home and children, or even himself or herself, with a gun — that would be a good story.

Why aren’t we seeing those shootings broadcast and written about? Where are the news stories about a person saving a family’s life with a gun? Because those stories occur almost entirely in the imagination of the NRA. When it happens, the NRA will be there to bleat about it. But they have no comment on the fact that by far most gun deaths happen to the families and friends of gun owners themselves.

A gun is ELEVEN TIMES more likely to be used in a suicide attempt than to injure or kill someone in self-defense, according to the Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care. That gun is FOUR TIMES more likely to result in an accidental injury or killing than to be successfully used in self-defense.

The obvious fact is, though the guns themselves don’t commit these acts, the events will happen less often if the number of firearms is reduced. I urge everyone to contact their elected representatives and keep the pressure on for more stringent gun regulations, which most Americans support according to polls. Tell them to listen to their constituents more than they listen to the NRA.

Larry R. Nelson is a Salem resident and gun-owner who would welcome more firearm regulations that would protect civilians much more than our current “hands-off” policies.

NOW, Salem’s government intends to install parking meters downtown that will harm our city.

As successful businesswoman, I believe that meters are counterproductive. Customers should never have to pay directly for the honor to shop in my store.

Unfortunately, of all the parking meters available, the Mayor’s Parking Task Force selected  the scattered Portland-style meter stations.    Without public hearings, nor community discussion, shoppers will be regulated by the deadliest of all monsters: inconvenient parking meters.

I am convinced these silent, threatening, Parking Meter Monsters will kill downtown.

Just when optimistic new investors are invigorating our city center updating the allure of Downtown, and Oregon’s economy is bouncing back, “Pay and Display” Station meter stations will soon appear, one in each block.  These stations force shoppers to leave their car, find a machine, pay for a receipt and return it to inside their car door, before shopping.  Imagine doing this preliminary task in a hurry, or with small children, or as a disabled senior.

Like every downtown, Salem’s prosperity exists with a balanced, unwritten covenant between business and customers.  The store, shop, foodie, tavern or office takes the risk, hires the staff and brings the selection – the shopper ultimately rewards with a purchase.

City governments everywhere don’t understand retailing.  In their never-ending search for more money, they must beware of inserting new policies to upset this applecart.

The Downtown Parking Task Force project began hopefully enough last year.  The original intent was to listen to the public first, to both the business owners and the customers. Hear them share their needs and dreams, perhaps in our Library’s auditorium, and from those conversations, develop potential strategies at open meetings.

Instead, Task Force and city staff members met at 7:30 a.m. in the library’s lower-level Anderson Room; seated in a “U” with their backs to the public they were meant to serve. As the months passed there was never an opportunity for the public to speak. Knowing the importance of free parking, I attended anyway, just to observe.

We are all badly served with the decision to buy “Pay and Display” Stations to be scattered downtown.

We have a wealth of knowledge and experience in our community, but there was no opportunity for the sharing of the people’s expertise.  When government rejects public input it can act against the best interests of its constituency.  The community suffers. I’m sad, it seems the Parking Task Force has not served us well.

This form of democratic decision-making disappoints me.  If you are disappointed too, swamp the email circuits!

Speak UP!!!

Britta Franz, called “one of Salem’s most retail minded citizens,” has lived in Oregon most of her life.  She operated a successful group of fashion stores for many years, headquartered in Salem since 1966.  Franz remains committed to the community she loves and can be reached at brittafran@aol.com

While I recognize the value of religious education and agree that parochial (religion-based) schools can serve a valuable role for many children, I don’t want my tax dollars paying for either.
Whatever taxpayer money we have in Oregon should instead be invested in our underfunded public schools.

At this moment, three Republican lawmakers have written a bill that greatly concerns me.  The Oregon legislature is considering this bill.  The wording may, at first, sound reasonable; the summary of HB 2994 says it “creates tax credit for educational expenses paid for special needs student attending private school or public school charging tuition.”  However, since this is a tax credit and not just a tax deduction, the government is, in effect reimbursing the taxpayer for the tuition. This leaves less money for public schools and other public programs.

I’m an Oregonian and a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and I think tuition tax credits are a very bad idea.  They are ineffective, they permit discrimination, lack accountability to taxpayers, and use taxpayer money to fund religious schools.

Because most religious and parochial schools either cannot or do not wish to separate the religious components of the education they offer from the academic programs, they should not be given tuition tax credits.

It’s only fair that parents can choose a religious education for their children, but no taxpayer should be required to pay for another’s religious education.   Instead of being funded by the taxpayer, these schools must be funded by voluntary contributions by their supporters.

It wouldn’t help the special needs students, either.  Department of Education studies of the D.C. voucher program show that participating students are actually less likely to have access to help for English language learners, learning support programs and special needs programs, tutors, counselors, cafeterias, and nurse’s offices – than students not participating in the program.  This is especially problematic, when the stated goal of HB 2994 is to benefit special needs children.

Additionally, students who leave public schools forfeit many of the protections provided to students under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In addition, students accepting vouchers would not receive all of the services that are listed on their individualized education plans (IEPs) that they are currently receiving in their public school. Moreover, vouchers for students with special needs run contrary to IDEA’s fundamental purpose as a civil rights law, which is to bring students with disabilities into the public school system, I urge you to contact your state representative immediately to oppose this wrongheaded and misguided bill.

Bruce Adams is the president of the Columbia Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is a retired teacher who was formerly president of the Oregon Education Association, as well as president of the Oregon Association for Talented and Gifted.  He’s at brucead3@gmail.com.

Here in Oregon, the fact that Farmer “A” growing GMOs can ruin Organic Farmer “B’s” business by being allowed to plant cross-pollinating seeds is inherently unjust.  Cross-pollination, called “gene drift” is not a source of scientific dispute; it can and does happen. It is a problem for organic seed farmers or those who want to grow any crop free from corporate intellectual property claims.

Since 1992 the USDA, in spite of conflicting reports from its own scientists, has managed GMOs with a policy known as “substantial equivalence” which does not require independent scientific research.   If you combine substantial equivalence with the fact that GMOs are patent-protected products, the reality is that scientific studies about GMOs cannot be conducted at all by independent scientists. Some science!

In Oregon’s Jackson County, tens of thousands of dollars of lucrative seed crops have already been plowed under by organic growers in order to protect their certification and market reputation from pollution by gene drift.

The Federal government (USDA APHIS) is not willing to solve the problem confronting our local sustainable agriculture. Economic or possible health impacts on humans are NOT part of their charter.

If you are a certified organic grower/seed saver, and think you have a GMO test plot grown for seed next door, you can file a complaint.  APHIS will send Biotech Regulatory Service investigators to investigate permit violations, but the results are kept confidential. You’ll never know what was in that field.

In fact, Oregon is a hotbed of undisclosed GMO test plots. In 2011, Oregon had the 4th largest number of permits issued in the US.

The state is not helping either.  Oregon Department of Agriculture has shown little regard for specialty seed growers. Their recent attempts to fast-track canola into the Willamette Valley speak volumes about their care about sustainable seed diversity.

Do regulators prefer that farmers become virtual corporate chattel living under the yoke of one-sided non-negotiable seed contracts that give all rights to the biotech companies?  Looks like it.’

The citizens of Jackson County successfully put a countywide GMO crop ban on the ballot.  Home rule, democracy, and the stuff America is made of!  But now, under the guise of normalizing seed regulations, the State would take away the county’s right to determine our own agricultural policy.  They call it SB633. Some democracy!

SB633 has implications for every county in Oregon.  Tell your representatives to vote no on SB633!

Brian Comnes is a resident of Ashland, Oregon and a firm believer that local and sustainable agriculture is the key to making Oregon a healthy place to live and invest.

How do you really feel about that destruction?  When it’s all just to make way for a 3rd Bridge across the Willamette.

I call the 3rd Bridge the “SACC Bridge.”  That’s because nobody really wants it except the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, the city Public Works Director and a couple of City Councilors.

ODOT says the 3rd Bridge would wipe out, “between 65 and 75 business units that employ 490 to 510 people and have annual sales of $71.3 to $79.3 million. These businesses are located primarily in the North Salem Business District, but a substantial number would be displaced on the West side of the river in the Edgewater and Wallace Business Districts.”  Read the plan and check out pages 3-256 and 3-257  (http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/ProjectLibrary/Salem_DEIS_3.05_Socioecon.pdf)

Salem Area Chamber of Commerce has this to say: “For those businesses and residents that would be displaced by a new bridge, it will be extremely important that a collaborative team approach be taken to assist both businesses and residents with relocation.”

Right.  Sure.  Here’s what I say to them:  http://thirdbridgesalem.blogspot.com/

You have to ask yourself why the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, the Public Works Director and a couple of City Councilors hate Salem so much?

The “SACC Bridge” would cost $800 million and “lose estimated annual property taxes of $259,000 from these displaced businesses. This represents 0.06 percent of Marion County’s 2008 budgeted property tax revenues and 0.14 percent of Polk County’s 2008 budgeted property tax revenues,” according to their own figures! (pages 3-256 and 3-257 at http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/ProjectLibrary/Salem_DEIS_3.05_Socioecon.pdf]

Yes, growth is inevitable but growth requires more police and fire services, more classrooms and streets and growth simply does not pay its share of these costs. The $800 million SACC Bridge is a case in point.

In the coming weeks, Salem City Council is expected to approve the SACC Bridge knowing the collateral damage includes nearly $1 billion and hundreds of taxpayers.

I urge you to tell Council to “Just say NO to the 3rd Bridge” by weighing in at citycouncil@cityofsalem.net.

Tell your officials to use sense instead:
1) The City should finish the traffic mitigation designed and approved in its 1998 Bridgehead Engineering Study (http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/ProjectLibrary/Bridgehead_Exec_summary.pdf)
2) ODOT should support affordable bridges up and down the valley where Salem taxpayers won’t foot the bill;
3) Our transportation leaders should fund bus service and follow through with bike/ped plans so people can travel safely without cars.
We have far better options than a disastrous SACC Bridge.  Let’s use them!

Richard Reid is a founding member of Salem CityWatch www.salemcitywatch.org and state chair of Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations www.ocva.org.

Why should you take the time?  Because though the new plan is filled with information about our park system and has many good recommendations, the implementation suggested does not adequately address our community’s priorities or current budget situation.

Here are my thoughts: The city has been reducing park budgets for years and there is little potential for an increase unless a parks bond is passed. While waiting for additional funding, the city should increase their efforts to recruit volunteers to develop its 600 acres of undeveloped parks. Many park amenities requested by the public could be provided by volunteers. These include trails, tree plantings, community gardens, picnic areas, and natural play areas.

The city’s surveys show that the most popular activity in parks is the use of trails. A full 62% of those surveyed said that they used paths and trails, and 59% said more trails are needed.
Volunteers can and do construct trails such as those at Fairmont Park, Skyline Park, and Croisan Scenic Way.  So I recommend the city more actively promote volunteerism in our parks.
I also believe that, rather than buying more land, the city should first partner with other agencies to obtain more recreation opportunities.

What do I mean?  Examples include:

The Bonneville Power Administration that owns the 100-foot wide strip under the powerlines in West Salem from Highway 22 to Michigan Avenue. This publicly owned land could become a spectacular trail.

The  Oregon Department of Corrections has over 1,100 acres of land in SE Salem and the city could partner with the DOC to create a park larger than Minto-Brown.

The Oregon Department of Transportation owns land under the Willamette River and Mission Street bridges, storm water ponds along I-5, and the large natural areas near the I-5/Highway 22 Interchange that could be used for parks.

The Oregon State Fair has over 100 acres of land that is used for only two weeks a year. The Fair needs a partner and Salem needs more parkland near the fairgrounds.

We should also make edible landscaping a priority in our parks. Oregon has some of the highest hunger rates in the nation and over 20% of the state’s population is on food stamps. How about making it a policy to plant low-maintenance fruit trees and berry bushes in parks, such as mulberries, plums, and evergreen huckleberries? Many of us are already eating the blackberries growing in our parks.

I encourage all Salem-area residents to weigh in on the draft parks plan and let our city government hear your thoughts.  Let’s encourage the city to focus on more trails, on developing land we already have, and in investing in edible landscaping.   Meanwhile, if you want to put a trail in a park near you, or if you want to develop an area, you love – contact Tibby Larson, the volunteer coordinator at talarson@cityofsalem.net or 503-589-2197.

Let’s work together to make Salem rich in parks, trails and outdoor life.

Mark Wigg is an environmental consultant and recreational map publisher. He lives in Salem and he appreciates the friendly assistance he receives from the Parks Staff when volunteering on park projects.  mark_wigg@hotmail.com.

Salem prides itself on being unique, but just because Eugene does something is no reason to do exactly the opposite. Look where that’s gotten us in terms of options to get around without a car.

Why is Salem 40 years behind Eugene in transportation infrastructure like bike bridges and transit service, and how does it impact Salem residents and businesses? How does it affect employment opportunities, car-involved bike or pedestrian accidents, and the amount of disposable income circulating around the community?

Salem bus service now is probably less than it was in Eugene in the mid-70s. Stingy local funding for Cherriots is an embarrassment, and employers like the State and Salem Health aren’t doing their part via payroll taxes to support full transit service and reduce parking demands and congestion.

During the last six years, Salem and ODOT spent $6 million planning for a third bridge and the City Council decided this month to start over. Meanwhile, it took years to approve updates to the bicycle and pedestrian plan. In contrast, Eugene had a clear vision for alternative modes and built dedicated bus lanes and more bike bridges.

I have often wondered if something besides the obvious differences between a college town and a farm and government center might explain why Salem and Eugene are so different. Eugene’s head start on modern transportation infrastructure thinking and planning might be traced to a lucky coincidence in 1970. Exposed hard bedrock precluded burying a utility pipe under the Willamette River so the City planned to run it over a bridge, then let the county and University build a lane for bicycle and foot traffic over the top. This may have been the Aha! moment that changed the way Eugene viewed its needs and opportunities.

Something similar happened in Salem with the $1 option to buy the Union Street Railroad Bridge, but it was 40 years later. Now Salem has the Union Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge and this could be a game changer. At a City Council meeting last month, the Chamber of Commerce president noted that he had been skeptical of the Union Street Bridge conversion but now acknowledges it is an undeniable success.

Salem needs to build on that success. Let’s ask our City Council to redirect their efforts and our limited resources from the failed third bridge planning process, and look to Eugene as a model of a town our size that seems to be doing some things right to get people out of their cars and onto alternate modes of transportation.

Scott Bassett is a 32-year Salem resident and earned a Master’s degree from Willamette University. He also lived in Eugene and is a graduate and former student body president of the University of Oregon. He works for ODOT but the opinions expressed are his personal views.

S#@t is “uncalled-for ugly”
Recently Salem Weekly received a letter from a reader complaining about a Very Bad Word printed in our October 4 issue. The word was “shit.”

The reader stated, “The gratuitous bit of vulgarity adds nothing to the article. Nothing but a bit of uncalled-for ugly. So one must ask if the intent was to add to the coarsening of our society. Why?”

The word was used in a story about a local mushroom grower. The phrase it was used in was a reference to an old saying that mushrooms are “kept in a dark place and fed shit.”

If this wasn’t an appropriate context we can’t imagine what is.

It’s our opinion that it’s the people who get upset about Bad Words that give those words power. The word “shit” in the article about growing mushrooms isn’t meant to insult anyone. Shit is no more than a simple, common word used to denote excrement.

Progressive Radio Gets Sudden Ax
KPOJ (620 AM of Portland) no longer broadcasts political programming.

As of Friday, November 9, the news and talk that made “Portland’s Progressive Talk Station” the only commercial progressive voice in Portland radio – was no more.

On that date, station owner Clear Channel Media cancelled all political programming and introduced all sports programming.

As of 5:30 p.m. the station became “Fox Sports Radio 620.”
* 9 Portland stations already broadcast sports .
* Portland will keep several rightwing talk radio stations
* One rightwing station, KEX, is owned by Clear Channel
* Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital

On reporting the flip from progressive talk to sports, political observer Brad Freidman wrote on November 9: “That there is no major commercial outlet over our public airwaves for political voices other than those friendly to corporations like Clear Channel in most of the major media markets in the U.S., much less, as of tonight, in a progressive city like Portland, is simply another national disgrace.”

Radio airwaves are, by law, owned by the public, the people of the United States.  The progressive view is generally that this medium should not be used exclusively by profit making corporations and that, in inexorably moving toward exclusively rightwing political broadcasting, Clear Channel does not meet the needs of the community at large.

Persons wanting to make their feelings known to Clear Channel should contact Clear Channel’s Robert Dove at 503-323-6400.

The airwaves are a federal matter, regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC.)  Concerned persons may wish to contact the FCC at 1-888-225-5322 to urge them to insist that broadcasters in Oregon meet the needs of the community in a more balanced way.

Our Federal representatives, Representative Kurt Schrader 503-588-9100, Senator Ron Wyden 503-589-4555, Senator Jeff Merkley 503-362-8102, may also be contacted with concerns.

To sign a petition going around go to SaveKPOJ.

Calling All Delivery Problems
We get a lot of phone calls from people who didn’t receive their delivery of the Statesman Journal.

We, of course, are another paper entirely. But apparently we are listed in the phone book (yes, some people still use them) under “Newspapers.” So people phone us.

The confusion continues until we convince the poor soul that we are a cool weekly free paper that doesn’t deliver to houses.

We don’t know how to stop the calls. We first hoped Statesman Journal might start delivering papers more consistently – but that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Art, especially public art, can change the way we perceive a place.  It can even change our relationship with the place where we’ve lived for years.

Art can help a city to establish and express its identity.  This is particularly pertinent for Salem as it wrestles with the stereotypical image of itself as a dozy, bureaucratic backwater, perpetually in the shadow of Portland’s cultural bounty.

Murals, street art, and public sculpture allow a city to examine itself, to ponder its history and identity, and to project a positive vision of itself and its future.  It is not hard to visualize a city whose many murals and public sculptures embody its civic pride and proudly project its optimistic sense of self.  Unfortunately Salem is not currently such a city, but if our mayor and city council make the right decisions, it could become such a place.

How would we initiate such a transformation here in Salem?  The short answer is that it would require vision and leadership on behalf of the city and the active participation of a coalition of public and private sector entities and educational institutions.

It could, for instance, take the form of a series of collaborations between the city, the business community, the Marion County Historical Society and local artists, where they convince downtown business owners to provide outdoor wall space for the painting of murals that address Salem’s history and identity based on research and information provided by the State library or the Marion County Historical Society.  The Oregon Arts Commission could help to fund the project, and the Salem Art Association might want to contribute its expertise and the benefit of its connections with the region’s artists.  Similarly, local businesses under the leadership of the chamber of commerce could exhibit their civic spirit by paying for the cost of paint, while artists donate their time and their skill.  Local colleges, universities and schools could become involved through student participation either in terms of historical research or mural painting under the guidance of experienced artists.  All of these elements could combine to realize a vision of art as an endeavor that is collaborative, educational, socially involved, and that energizes and brings together a variety of community constituencies in the pursuit of a common goal.

The beauty of this kind of project is that it need not cost much, could be initiated relatively quickly, and would make an immediately visible difference.  We already possess the expertise and the resources.  We need only cultivate the will to employ them.

The city might begin by appointing a committee of volunteer stakeholders to focus on ways to make public art a central part of its urban revitalization process, and to spearhead the solicitation of proposals and the selection and approval of projects.  Such a committee could easily be organized and supported by the City of Salem’s Community Development Department’s Neighborhood Enhancement Division.

If we adopt this vision and strategy, our city can be transformed in short order to a place where public art enhances the quality of residents’ lives and projects the distinct identity and cultural vibrancy fit for a state capitol.

Andries Fourie is a Associate Professor and Curator of the Roger W. Rogers Gallery, and Department of Art atWillamette University