PGE's tree-cutting plan is bad news for Portland
Former president of Forest Park Conservancy calls out city's ruling
Current PGE power line at edge of Forest Park.
Such hypocrisy. A city of Portland hearings officer recently approved PGE’s terrible plan to cut through Forest Park for its Harborton Reliability Project.
This is a travesty, and not only because Forest Park is natural jewel beloved by Portlanders and tourists alike. With the city having one of the worst heat indexes in the country, Forest Park provides essential tree canopy and a natural respite that all citizens can access and enjoy.
All this is happening at a time while the Bureau of Environmental Services and Urban Forestry can’t seem to figure out how to fix our disappearing tree canopy – a problem that reportedly mainly impacts low canopy, low-income areas and communities of color. Well, guess where PGE plans to slash trees in acres of Forest Park? In the park’s northern section, near manufacturing and blue-collar areas – areas that need trees the most.
PGE’s proposal is particularly egregious because it will kill off one of the last remaining stands of urban old growth trees. Mature and old growth trees are carbon-storage champions, helping slow climate change in ways young trees simply can’t. Some estimates show that fewer than 10% of old growth trees remain in Oregon. To thoughtlessly destroy what’s left right in our own backyard seems particularly shortsighted.
So, the city greenlights a plan to chop down acres of old-growth trees while having no idea how to fix Portland’s tree canopy problem? The city’s approval of PGE’s plan is a clearcut example of how Portland simply doesn’t work.
Darcie Meihoff, Portland
Meihoff is past board president of the Forest Park Conservancy
 |
|
The states mandates that all energy used in the state of Oregon must be from clean sources by 2040. At the same time there is pressure to have all electric vehicles and homes. The only way to meet these goals and the dramatic increase in electrical use is to build expensive new infrastructure. There is no way to avoid it just as there is no way to avoid dramatic increases in the cost of electricity.
What evidence do you have for our "disappearing tree canopy?" The real problem with our urban trees is that many of them were planted in the wrong place and/or they are old, sick and dangerous and need to be removed. The narcissistic bully who runs the division of urban forestry will not grant the permits to remove dangerous trees because she does not care about the people of Portland. My neighbor's house was damaged during a storm when one of these dangerous trees came down on his roof.
Note the narcissistic use of woke buzzwords: "a problem that reportedly mainly impacts low canopy, low-income areas and communities of color." The psychologist Rob Henderson calls this "luxury belief systems." You use these words to show off your affluence, but you are actually hurting low income people by causing dramatic increases to the cost of electricity. It also hurts low-income home owners who can't get the permits to remove dangerous trees to save their homes. It is really about showing people how wonderful you are, not about helping low income people. And by "low canopy" and "communities of color" areas I assume you mean the outer east-side, which if far from Forest Park. How many people from those communities are actually concerned about about a small amount of logging in Forest Park to build needed electrical infrastructure?
this is interesting. i’ve long assumed that there are zero true old-growth trees remaining anywhere in/near portland… simply due to 150 years of timber demand and proximity to the city. i’m not questioning the point of the letter… and i concur that logging in forest park, for whatever reason, should be avoided at essentially all costs. but… just a matter of of historical record and accuracy… -are- there any true genuine, actual, old-growth stands in forest park? ie. forest that has -never- been logged? or… are these trees that have grown back since the first years of logging in the 1850’s?