Sounds like a "fun" (in a certain sense) time at the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting last night.
Four Salem city councillors and the Mayor were desperate to get a We want a Third Bridge! vote -- since a main purpose of spending $600-800 million on a new bridge is to improve traffic flow from/to West Salem.
But... strikeout. Third whiff.
The No Third Bridge folks report this was the third time the West Salem Neighorhood Association has declined to support the project.
Supporters sure gave it a "good" (in a certain sense) try, though.
After an 18 to 18 tie vote, City Councilors and the Mayor watched silently as Councilor Clem added his name to the list of eligible voters. At that same time a school age student was declared eligible to vote and cast the deciding vote that killed the motion.
It is fitting that the voter who decided the issue was the youngest person in the room and has the most at stake.
At least a handful of those attending and voting against the motion were a direct result of the door-to-door campaign in the area of the River Valley Subdivision that was organized by NO 3rd Bridge supporter Fritz Ulrich. NO 3rd Bridge supporter Les Margosian was already out the door when a voice vote was called and came back into the meeting to vote. Another example that every vote counts.
Do you find it more than a little slimy that Councilor Clem joined the vote of the West Salem neighbors when the purpose of the vote was to advise the City Council (including Councilor Clem) when they deliberate next Monday night? We'd love to hear your comments about that.
It's clear that the City Council has already made their decision in favor of the Salem Alternative. In fact a quorum of the Council was there at the WSNA as part of the sales effort. Why didn't they just vote and be done with it? This raises a troubling question about how our current council does their business. They do it by email among themselves and not in the public eye. The "deliberation" next Monday is going to be a sham. The fix is already in.
Posted by: Jim Scheppke | June 19, 2013 at 09:14 AM
Raising a "troubling question" about how our current council does their business should have been done long ago. How many more actions do we need to convince us that we need to get these clowns and self-serving individuals out of there?
Posted by: Virginia Clemson | June 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM