I n November 2004, city residents voted to approve a street-bond program addressing the long overdue repair of some of the city’s run-down roadways. This spring funding from that program will be spent to redo Bernard Street between 14th and 29th avenues.

Many who voted for the street-bond program have been dismayed to learn their tax dollars will be used to remove 22 street trees during the course of that reconstruction project. They have been told half of the trees ravaged by storms and improper pruning are too damaged to be saved and the remaining trees are unlikely to survive the reconstruction disturbance.

The proposed design for Bernard reflects the singular focus of traffic engineers within the city’s Engineering Services Department on improved traffic flow and neglects the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and trees.

In one of his first acts as our new mayor, Dennis Hession chose to side with the city’s traffic engineers, supporting the proposed tree removal. To compensate for trees lost the mayor offered to replace them, but not in pedestrian buffer strips separating sidewalks from the street. Instead, they would be planted in private lawns removed from the street and subject to gaining the owners’ permission.

There are multiple grounds for questioning the wisdom of the proposed street-tree removal program.

First, the project goes against the expressed wishes of neighborhood councils representing citizens living within the impacted area. The Cliff/ Cannon, Manito and Comstock neighborhood councils have passed resolutions opposing the Bernard project’s current design. Those resolutions call on the city to postpone the project until a design scheme is developed that incorporates pedestrian, bicycle and tree considerations.

That redesign could, for example, reduce or eliminate the rarely used parking lanes on both sides of Bernard and instead create wider buffer strips capable of supporting street trees and enhanced options for walking and biking.

At the Feb. 13 City Council meeting, Councilman Brad Stark proposed a resolution to reconsider the current design. Councilwoman Mary Verner sought to amend the resolution, calling for greater citizen and agency involvement in the redesign. Both suggested measures were defeated by a 4 to 3 vote, with puzzling rationales offered to justify opposition.

It was, for example, suggested the council’s role was one of setting policy, not micromanaging city agencies once policy had been established. It is, however, difficult not to view the decision to remove street trees made by city engineers as the establishment of a new policy that will guide future street reconstruction projects.

It was also suggested the resolution was unnecessary because the mayor had already scheduled an open house on the project this evening to meet with citizens. However, as will be noted, the flier for that meeting does not suggest a willingness to consider a redesign of the reconstruction project that would save the street trees scheduled to be removed in March.

The current project design can also be questioned on grounds that it violates Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan. Both the statewide growth-management act governing planning in the city and the city’s municipal code require that public capital funds be spent in a manner that conforms to and implements the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

The current Bernard Street project design would violate multiple policies in the plan, including one that specifically calls for street trees in every street improvement project. It can therefore be argued the project sets the city up for litigation since it violates both state law and the city municipal code.

And finally, the project ought to be questioned because of its degradation of the city’s urban forest. The American Forests organization has published research indicating most American cities have lost one-third of their urban forests in the last 25 years. Progressive communities are acting to protect this valuable green infrastructure rather than spending public funds to cut it down.

At this evening’s open house, the mayor is scheduled to present the use of a local improvement district to improve the Bernard streetscape after the reconstruction project degrades it. That suggestion seems both hypocritical and disingenuous.

It is hypocritical because the city advertises itself with the slogan “Near Nature, Near Perfect” while it advances a project that will degrade one of the city’s greatest natural amenities.

It is disingenuous because it is unlikely citizens will agree to tax themselves a second time to enhance a streetscape just degraded with their tax dollars.

The open house gives citizens the opportunity to evaluate the current ill-conceived design project. If you care about the quality of life in our city, attend the open house and let the mayor know you expect more from the expenditure of your tax dollars.