University of Washington Arboretum Clearcuts Trees While Others Celebrate Earth Day

This past week while others were celebrating Earth Day, at the University of Washington Arboretum they were busy clearcutting an area to remove some 34 trees. Many of them were mature trees that had been around for 50 or more years.

A sign posted on the corner of Arboretum Dr and Lake Washington Blvd claimed that the mature trees including big leaf maple and Douglas fir trees did " not contribute to the horticultural collection" but made no mention that the removal of these trees obviously contributed to the continued loss of Seattle's urban forest canopy.

Click on  the link here to see the short  video by Michael Oxman.  Most of the trees have already been cut but you can listen to the chainsaw as some of the fallen trees are cut up to remove them.

The city's concern for loss of our forest canopy has increased in the last several years as the realization has sunk in that the city has lost some 50% of the forest canopy we had in 1973.  Then some 40% of the city was forested, now it is anywhere from 18% to 23% depending on which study you look at.

The sign noted that the Project master plan was adopted by the City Council and Mayor in 2001. Back then few people were concerned about the loss of the City's forest canopy. 

The land the arboretum is on is owned by the Seattle Parks Department but the trees are owned by the University of Washington. But city taxpayers have contributed some $2.5 million to the project as part of the recent Parks and Open Space Levy. The current clearcutting area is only part of the Arboretum long range plans which involve the removal of many more trees.

The arboretum's removal of the trees is part of creating the Pacific Connections Garden with this particular area to be a Chilean focal forest.  Some 72 Chilean trees will be planted in the area.

A memo from the Parks and Recreation Dept. gives cursory detail of the trees to be removed. No measurement of tree age or height or canopy is given. A list of trees to be planted and an accompanying picture seems to indicate a significant loss of native habitat and canopy when compared with the replacement tree picture. No detail is given as to the ultimate size of the replacement trees but the habitat value to native bird species and other animals displaced by the removal of native trees is likely not minimal.

TREE REMOVALS

Count Botanical Name Common Name Size Native?


1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 12-18" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 12-18" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 12-18" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 12-18" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 12-18" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 18-24" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 18-24" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 24-30" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 6-12" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 6-12" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 24-30" Y

1 Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 6-12" Y

1 Arbutus menziesii Madrone 12-18" Y

1 Juniperus occidentalis Western Juniper 6-12" N

1 Juniperus occidentalis Western Juniper 6-12" N

1 Juniperus scopulorum Telleson's Blue Weeping Juniper 6-12" N

1 Juniperus scopulorum Telleson's Blue Weeping Juniper 6-12" N

1 Juniperus Sp. Columnar Juniper 6-12" N

1 Juniperus them Columnar Juniper 6-12" N

1 Pinus cembra Swiss Stone Pine 12-18" N

1 Pinus cembra Swiss Stone Pine 6-12" N

1 Pinus x 'Mercy' Pine 18-24" N

1 Populas trichocarpa Cottonwood >30" Y

1 Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 6-12" Y

1 Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir >30" Y

1 Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 24-30" Y

1 Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir >30" Y

1 Quercus vacciniifolia Huckleberry Oak 6-12" N

1 Quercus vacciniifolia Huckleberry Oak 6-12" N

1 Thuja plicata Western Cedar 24-30" Y

1 Thuja plicata Western Cedar 24-30" Y

1 Thuja plicata Western Cedar 24-30" Y

1 Thuja plicata Western Cedar 24-30" Y

1 Thuja plicata Western Cedar 18-24" Y

Total 34

IV. Tree Replacements

OVERSTORY PLANT LIST - CHILE

Count Botanical Name Common Name Size Native?

7 ARAUCARIA AURUCANA MONKEY PUZZLE TREE 72" BOX N

5 AZARA DENTATA BOXLEAF AZARA 8' HEIGHT N

13 DRIMYS WINTERI WINTER'S BARK 5 GAL. N

16 EMBOTHRIUM COCCINEUMCHILEAN FIRE BUSH 5 GAL. N

5 JUBAEA CHILENSIS CHILEAN WINE PALM 48" BOX N

5 JUBAEA CHILENSIS CHILEAN WINE PALM 15 gal N

13 PODOCARPUS SALIGNUSWILLOWLEAF PODOCARP 5 GAL. N

6 PRUMNOPITYS ANDINA LLEUQUE 5 GAL. N

3 SOPHORA CASSIOIDES KOWHAI 5 GAL. N

Total 73

Review of the decision paper by David Graves in 2007 entitled "Analysis and Decision by the Superintendent of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the project reveals that up to 550 trees in total will be removed from the arboretum. It states that "The trees to be removed include "native Matrix" forest that consists of trees, shrubs and ground cover that are largely self seeded" In the next paragraph it states that "The Arboretum is not a natural forest, it is a plant collection managed to preserve and protect worldwide species ..." 

Just what is a "natural forest" if not trees, shrubs and ground cover that is largely self seeded.

Maybe this mass scale removal of fully grown trees and urban forest was business as usual in the past but the University of Washington's Arboretum clearcutting is only the latest example of many jurisdictions having trees but each acting independently without regard to thecurrent  overall health of Seattle's urban forest.  These include the Army Corps of Engineers along the ship canal and the Seattle School District at Ingraham High School. Their efforts all contribute to increased loss of existing forest canopy. 

They all have higher purposes and goals.  Trees and their associated habitat and the current urban forest canopy are frequently expendable in pursuit of those goals. These are issues that the City and the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission need to examine if they hope to come to grips with how the city can preserve and increase Seattle's urban forest. 

for additional information on the plans of the Arboretum see:

Washington Park Arboretum and Green Space Levy Project Information

Washington Park Arboretum Pacific Connections Pro Parks Project Information

> DNS


> Determination of Non-Significance Analysis

> SEPA Checklist

> SEPA Appendices

> Figure 1: Vicinity Map

> Figure 2: Garden Sketch

Send Mayor McGinn an Earth Day Message to Save the Trees at Ingraham High School

Today is Earth Day. For over two years the Seattle School District has been trying to add an addition to Ingraham High School by cutting down over 50 trees in the conifer madrone grove in the above picture. What a great environmental message this sends our children. The City of Seattle has twice approved the permit for the project despite the Seattle Hearing Examiner ruling in favor of the neighbors and Save the Trees-Seattle trying to save the 70 year old 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and Pacific madrone trees in the grove.

The Seattle Hearing Examiner ruled that the grove comprised an uncommon and rare plant association in the City of Seattle that city law says should be protected. The Seattle School District in written documents and e-mails discovered during the Hearing process has selected the open North lawn in the picture above as the building site for a future addition but refuses to move the current project to that site.  The Seattle School District has re-filed a slightly revised plan to build in the grove despite the negative ruling by the Seattle Hearing Examiner.

The latest project proposal to cut down the trees has been before the city's Department of Planning and Development since last September. It's time to quit wasting the taxpayers' dollars, ignoring the city's mandate to increase the city's tree canopy, and city law to protect our urban forest.  Cutting down mature trees for no good reason except not wanting to listen to the public is not being a good neighbor or a partner in preserving our city's environmental health and our quality of life.

Please e-mail Mayor Michael McGinn and tell him to deny the School District's current proposed building site.  Under current city law requiring the city to protect rare and uncommon plant and animal habitat, he has the authority to tell DPD to require the School District to save and protect the uncommon plant habitat on their grounds and to build elsewhere on the campus, like the open North lawn.

For Pete's sake, it's Earth Day and isn't McGinn an environmentalist?

Click on this link to send your comments to Mayor McGinn. Thanks

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm

Income Tax Initiative to Kick Off Tomorrow

Proponents of a fairer tax system to benefit middle and lower income cititens of Washington State plan to officially announce the kick off their campaign tomorrow, April 21, 2010 at 10 AM at SoDo Coffee at 1918 Yesler in Seattle. Several drafts of the initiative have been filed with the Secretary of State's Office in the last month so it is no secret that a tax reform measure was being considered. What was uncertain was whether such an effort would be done this year or next.

The measure that has been settled on is officially Initiative 1077.  The ballot title and summary as posted on the Secretary of State's website site is as follows:

Ballot Title


Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1077 concerns taxation.

Concise Description: This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $400,000 joint ($200,000 individual), reduce the state property tax levy, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]


Ballot Measure Summary


This measure would establish a tax on “adjusted gross income,” as determined under the federal internal revenue code, above $400,000 for married couples filing jointly, and above $200,000 for individuals; reduce the state property tax levy by 20%; and increase the business and occupation tax credit to $4,800. Revenues from this measure would first replace revenues lost from the reduced levy and increased credit. Any remaining revenues would be earmarked for education and health services.

Click here to see the text of I-1077.
 
The campaign will provide more details and answer questions at the press conference tomorrow. Bill Gates Sr. is one of the backers of this measure.He has been a long time proponents of tax reform in our state and about 10 years ago headed the Gates Commission which did a report of tax reform.  The state has done little to change our regressive tax system since the report came out.
 
A preliminary summary provided by the campaign notes that state property taxes would be reduced by 20%, saving the average homeowner $180.
 
Small business tax credits for the B&O tax would increase from the currrent $420 to $4800 annually.  This would eliminate B&O taxes for 80% of businesses in the state.
 
Dedicated revenue would be generated to fund education and health services by the state from a tax on high earners in the state, defined as couples with income over $400,000 and individuals with adjusted gross income over $200,000.  This would apply to only 3% of households in the state. The remainder
of households would see a reduction in their taxes.
 
Watch for more details as the campaign kicks off, including where you can get petitions to collect signatures.  The initiative deadline to turn in signatures is July 2, 2010 to get on the November ballot.  Sponsors must submit the signatures of 241,153 registered voters.  Typically extra signatures need to be turned in to account for an invalid rate of up to 20%, which means the campaign will have to submit 300,000 signatures to be relatively sure of qualifying.

State Employees Union Loses its Marbles

The leadership of the Washington State Federation of State Employees has lost their marbles. Piqued because they believe the Democrats in the Washington State Senate did not do enough to support to support them in the budget, they decided to not just not endorse any Democratic Senators in their early endorsement process; they decided to endorse a strong supporter of Eyman's Initiative 1053 that will make their plight even worse next year if it passes.

They endorsed Republican Pam Roach who is hardly a friend of labor or raising revenue to pay state employees or fund any state services being cut. Roach spoke at Tim Eyman's press conference when he filed I-1053 earlier this year. Roach is for cutting the state budget which means cutting state employees.

Initiative 1053 would restore the 2/3 voting requirement that Democrats in the Legislature suspended in order to raise the revenue they did this year - some $753 million, after not raising any revenue last year because of the provisions of Eyman's I-960.

It's one thing to argue the Democrats should have done more, like eliminate more special interest tax exemptions that deplete the state budget to benefit certain businesses and corporations. But it is the height of ill advised political posturing to turn around and support someone like Pam Roach.

If the Washington State Federation of State Employees thinks Democrats did not go far enough, then they should field their own candidates that support their position. There are many of us that believe that the Democrats could have been more aggressive in revising our tax code to make it fairer to working families and done more to eliminate tax exemptions that unnecessarily reduce overall revenue to benefit only a few special interest taxpayers.

A picture can say a thousand words. Go to the following post on the Pam Roach Report  and view the picture at the bottom. These are the folks the Washington State Federation of State Employees is throwing their lot in with by endorsing Pam Roach. Pam Roach is seated with friends Senator Don Benton on one side and Tim Eyman on the other, flanked by Eyman financier Michael Dunmire.

Yes, the Federation of Washington State Employees has lost their marbles. Let's hope this is only a temporary lapse as labor has been a strong force for tax reform in Washington State. We all make mistakes.

Be Wary of Right Wing Charges of Liberal Judicial Activism

One of the myths fostered by the right wing is that liberal judges are activists and conservative judges are strict constructionists and only follow the law.  The right wing froths at the mouth, painting judges they don't like as trying to write new law through their judicial decisions.  Yet as Jeffrey R Stone points out in an article in the New York Times entitled "Our Fill-in-the-Blank Constitution" conservatives are grossly misrepresenting the actions of conservative judges when the record is examined.

As Stone points out:

Rulings by conservative justices in the past decade make it perfectly clear that they do not “apply the law” in a neutral and detached manner. Consider, for example, their decisions holding that corporations have the same right of free speech as individuals, that commercial advertising receives robust protection under the First Amendment, that the Second Amendment prohibits the regulation of guns, that affirmative action is unconstitutional, that the equal protection clause mandated the election of George W. Bush and that the Boy Scouts have a First Amendment right to exclude gay scoutmasters.

Whatever one thinks of these decisions, it should be apparent that conservative judges do not disinterestedly call balls and strikes. Rather, fueled by their own political and ideological convictions, they make value judgments, often in an aggressively activist manner that goes well beyond anything the framers themselves envisioned. There is nothing simple, neutral, objective or restrained about such decisions. For too long, conservatives have set the terms of the debate about judges, and they have done so in a highly misleading way. Americans should see conservative constitutional jurisprudence for what it really is.judicial activism

The right wing has done a good political job of framing the issue through its aggressive media advocacy to infiltrate and indoctrinate its message into the news media. The left has not been as successful.  David Brock wrote a book a few years back entitled, The Republican Noise Machine Right-Wing Media and how it Corrupts Democracy, that details how the right wing came to be adept at getting their message out.  The current manipulation of the Tea Party by Republican operatives like former House Speaker Dick Amery at Freedom Works is a current example of the resurgence of the Republican Noise Machine as a backlash against Obama.

Expect in the upcoming effort by President Obama to appoint someone to fill the US Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens that the right wing will vigerously denounce any Obama nominee as too liberal and extreme and that the false mantra of judicial activism will be brought up with any prospective nominee  involved in decisions not supported by the right wing. Keep the Republican Noise in perspective and realize that the volume of noise by the Right Wing, including the so called Tea Party folks, in no way is a valid measure of the truth.

As Media Matters notes in an article entitled "Right-wing media demonstrate "judicial activism" by urging landmark healthcare bill be overturned by courts",  it is the right wing that is practicing judicial activism.

A 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.

A 2007 study by Cass R. Sunstein (subsequently named by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism -- the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial activism" while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."

BIAW Dumps $100,000 into Initiative1067 Campaign to Privatize State's Industrial Insurance

PDC reports filed for March show that the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington) has just dumped $100,000 into their Initiative 1067 campagn.  Word is that they have hired Roy Ruffino's Citizen Solutions of Lacey, WA to start collecting signatures using paid signature gatherers. Citizen Solutions has run previous paid signature campaigns for Tim Eyman's initiative efforts.

As David Ammons of the Washington Secretary of State's Office notes in his blog From Our Corner, the initiative is:

"aimed at ending the state-run workers’ comp insurance program, which covers 2.5 million workers with coverage for work-related injuries, including lost-time compensation, medical care and other services.

The BIAW initiative, filed with the state Elections Division ...would transition the state from the government-run plan to a privatized system. Currently the state covers 171,000 employers, but some of the larger companies are allowed to self-insure."

Here is the official ballot title and summary for Initiative 1067:

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1067 concerns industrial insurance.
Concise Description: This measure would establish a joint legislative task force to develop legislation that would eliminate Washington’s state-run industrial insurance fund by December 1, 2011, with recommendations to the legislature by February 1, 2011.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would establish a joint legislative task force on industrial insurance privatization consisting of sixteen members: eight legislators, five representatives of business, two representatives of insurers, and one representative of labor. The task force would be directed to develop proposed legislation that would eliminate the state industrial insurance fund by December 1, 2011. Task force recommendations would be provided to the legislature by February 1, 2011. The legislature would provide staff and budget support.

One obvious negative impact for workers in this proposal is obvious in the proposed task force mentioned above. Besides 8 Legislators: the committee has 5 business representatives, 2 insurers and only 1 labor representative. Yet the issue is about providing worker's compensation for injured or sick workers. This committee composition immediately sets up a bias against workers.

David Groves of the Washington State Labor Council writing in Outside the Echo Chamber notes that Washington State has the fifth lowest employer costs of any state.

"One of the most persistent myths about Washington state's business climate is that our workers' compensation costs are higher than in most other states. The fact that many employers and public policymakers believe this to be true is another indication of the power and resonance of the negative internal rhetoric about our competitiveness.

....In fact, the gap between the truth and the negative rhetoric about our workers' compensation costs is shocking. Not only do we have comparatively low premiums, by the national measure most often cited, the workers' compensation costs to employers in Washington state are the fifth lowest of any state in the nation.

Despite these low costs, Washington's model state-run system is able to provide comparatively high benefits to injured workers. That's how this myth took hold that Washington is not competitive in this area. Business lobbying groups continually and deliberately decry the level of benefits --not employers' actual costs -- in their quest to cut premiums even further."

We are sure to be in an intense campaign of misinformation and disinformation from the BIAW about this measure. The BIAW has previously run an initiative campaign against ergonomic standards for workers which grossly misrepresented the facts. They also have dumped enormous amounts of money into political campaigns to try to elect their candidates to the Washington State Supreme Court as well as backing Dino Rossi for Governor and Rob McKenna for Attorney General.

Obama Needs to Appoint Another Woman to the US Supreme Court

Speculation is that 90 year old US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will retire sometime in the next few months.  This will give President Obama  a second nominee to the U S Supreme Court. The current makeup and history of the Court suggests that he should nominate another woman to fill the next vacant seat.

 Last year Obama  appointed Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter. In the Supreme Court's 220 year history, Justice Sotomayor was only the third woman nominated and subsequently approved by the US Senate. This is despite the fact that there have been a total of 16 Chief Justices and over 100 Associate Justices since the Court began.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed. Ronald Reagan appointed her in 1981 and she retired in 2006.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Clinton in 1993 and is still serving.  This brings the current Supreme Court composition to 2 women and 7 men.  Justice Ginsberg has had health problems including pancreatic cancer last year and is currently 77 years old. She has been rumored also to possibly step down soon but right now Stevens resigning is more likely in the short term.

The Wall Street Journal mentions two women as likely candidates to succeed Stevens:

"One is Mr. Obama's solicitor general, Elena Kagan, a former dean of Harvard Law School who was considered for the nomination that ultimately went to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Despite her scholarly career, Ms. Kagan hasn't produced the kind of provocative writings that could provide ammunition for conservative opponents, legal experts say.

That also dims enthusiasm for her from liberal groups, who have been hoping for a full-throated progressive ready to joust with such determined conservatives as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.

Liberals see a surer voice in another finalist for last year's vacancy, Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. On a court known for its intellectual heft, Judge Wood has proven a serious counterweight to such influential conservative judges as Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, legal observers say.

For the same reason, conservative activists say they are more likely to fight Judge Wood's nomination."

Jeffrey Tobin in an interview last month on NPR agreed regarding Kagan as a strong possibility:

" I think it's going to be Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general and the former dean of Harvard Law School. She has a reputation as a consensus builder. She is someone who brought vigorously fighting factions at Harvard together. She worked in the Clinton administration and had good relationships with Republicans in Congress at the time. She has never been a judge, which I think is a point in her favor for Obama. There are all former judges on the court now, and I think Obama wants people of more different backgrounds. So I think she's the likely choice."

Given the uncertain future of Justice Ginsberg and the almost total male dominance of the Supreme Court appointees over the lifetime of the Court, it is time to balance out the Court by appointing more women.  Obama needs to appoint future Supreme Court Justices that reflect the principles he ran on and that won him election.

 No matter who he nominates, it is certain that the Republicans will filibuster or stall the nomination process for any Obama Appointee.  The worst thing he could do is try to nominate someone who will appease the conservatives and further push the Supreme Court to the right. After the health care fight it is pretty obvious that Republicans will do anything they can.

 Obama's best chance to regain and strenghten public support for his Presidency is to do the right thing, rather than cater to political inaction and right wing fear mongering. Appointing another woman to the US Supreme Court is the right thing to do. It's time to right this injustice to women who comprise one half of our nation.  A proper balance would be to have 4 or 5 women Justices on the US Supreme Court.