HinesSight

My damn fine reportin' on today's Orygun storm

I am one HELL of a stormchasin' reporter. Proved that today with my coverage of what I call an Oregon Stupid Storm (copyright reserved, all that legal stuff, blah, blah, blah).

For the technically inclined envious out there, all you need to make professional-quality storm-reportin' videos like this is (1) an iPhone, (2) the way cool Lumify app, and enough stupid in you to keep hauling your unwaterproofed phone out in heavy rain.

 

Trying to be positive as DirecTV lacks Pac-12 Network

When I realized that both the Oregon State and Oregon football games today only were being shown on the Pac-12 Network, I leaned toward spending my weekend cursing DirecTV.

After all, DISH has come to terms with the Pac-12 Network, along with most cable outfits. This is the second football season I've been irritated, annoyed, and otherwise pissed-off at DirecTV (see previous blog post blasts here and here).

My first thought was to come up with more creative curses to direct at DirecTV. Yiddish tradition has some pretty good ones that I could embellish. (Though I was thinking along more obscene lines.) For example:

May you get passage out of the old village safely, and when you settle, may you fall into the outhouse just as a regiment of Ukrainians is finishing a prune stew and twelve barrels of beer.

I could easily picture DirecTV executives in that crappy position, since they've condemned me to miss several Oregon/Oregon State football games that I really wanted to watch this season. The U of O vs. California game starts in about half an hour, I'm unpleasantly reminded by the Oregonian sports page:

Time: 7:30 tonight
Lines: Oregon by 37
On air: TV on Pac-12 Networks (Comcast 420; no DirecTV); radio on KXTG 750 

But, hey, I try to have a positive outlook on life. Even when idiot DirecTV executives or politicians give me every reason to be negative. 

So this afternoon I sucked it up and forced myself to re-read the previously annoying "Pac 12 update" page on the DirecTV web site. As I remembered, it was still irritating. Had to admit, though, that some of the DirecTV spin makes sense.

Indeed, the Pac-12 Network should allow cable/satellite television providers to offer the network on an individual subscription basis. Why can't I pay extra for the Pac-12 Network while other DirecTV customers don't, because they aren't interested in it?

It seems stupid for the Pac-12 Network to require that it be bundled into a DirecTV package. I already watch only a handful of the stations that I pay for on the HD package my wife and I get. I'd rather not pay for the Cartoon Network and many others I don't care about.

Likewise, many (if not most) DirecTV subscribers don't give a rip about the Pac-12 Network. I agree with DirecTV that ideally the network should be offered as an individual option, an extra add-on for a reasonable price.

Plus, I realize -- as DirecTV points out -- that the really important Oregon/Oregon State games will be shown on something other than the Pac-12 Network. And that the other games tend to be blowouts, like the Oregon State game was today, with them beating Colorado 44-17.

I still enjoy blowouts, though. If it is Oregon or Oregon State doing the blowing out. Thus I'll continue to curse DIrecTV every time I look at the sports page and see that damn "no DirecTV".

That said, this afternoon I fired up my way-back mental machine and tried to put myself in my high school era frame of mind, when I habitually listened to SF Giants baseball games on the radio while doing homework. 

I loved listening to the games. There wasn't any choice. No TV. So I found an online radio stream of today's Oregon State-Colorado game and did my best to recreate my teenage years at my age of 64. It sort of worked.

I enjoyed the announcers. I enjoyed the play-by-play action. It was much better than reading game updates on the Oregonian web site, or wherever. But still nowhere near as good as watching on our big screen TV in HD.

So get your act together, DirecTV and Pac-12 Network. You're both acting like bozos. Get a deal done. There's plenty of Yiddish curses left for you guys. Like...

May your tapeworm develop constipation while trolley cars run through your intestine as thieves camp out in your belly and steal your guts one by one.

Creative vision for Salem City Hall and Riverfront Park expansion

I've told Geoffrey James, a noted Salem architect, that he needs to be cloned. One Geoff can keep on with what the original is doing. The clone should be in charge of urban design for the City of Salem. 

(See my previous post, "Architect Geoffrey James critiques Salem's lack of urban design.")

Last night I was pleased to get an email from Geoff that went to me and many others concerned about development in the downtown riverfront area. More great ideas. 

I really like his "Proposal for the Expansion of City Hall and Riverfront Park." As the City should be doing, but apparently hasn't been, these two projects should be viewed as an integrated whole. 

Well, actually there are three projects, because redevelopment of the old Boise Cascade property east of the railroad tracks also is part of Geoff's vision. (The area west of the tracks would become part of Riverfront Park.)

Here's Geoff's email message.

RIVERFRONT PARK SOUTH EXPANSION connected to SALEM CITY HALL EXPANSION

Community leaders have suggested we meet soon, maybe at the [Salem Library] Anderson Room, and discuss how these can be connected.

A community workshop, or design "charette" similar to what we did at Fairview, is in order.

Please see the following report for some preliminary ideas, to get the discussion started.

Also ... it is now on Facebook, so do join that ... and do "like" the Facebook page.

It is for an online exchange of ideas.

1. Where and when to meet, to get this started

2. Extent of Riverfront Park south expansion

3. How the proposed City Hall addition can be integrated into the solution and provide visitor parking

4. Form a steering committee and organization for this effort

5. Start a fundraising campaign: several people have already said they will donate for park expansion

6. Plan a design "charette" and start developing a community urban design plan for connecting and funding the two projects

Here is a copy of the preliminary planning report:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/171318190/Riverfront-Park-City-Hall-Additions

Here is the Facebook page or website for this:

https://www.facebook.com/SORPS

Here is the 2006 ULI Urban Land Institute plan or report, which is the City's guiding document for this area:

http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/UrbanDevelopment/DepartmentProjects/BoiseProject/Documents/salem_uli_report.pdf

Geoffrey James
[email protected]

My unfriendly advice for blog comment spammers

Hey, spammer dudes and dudettes, wherever you may be, which pretty obviously isn't in this country given the fractured English you use...

I am not at all thrilled when you try to leave comments on my blog posts in order, I assume, to get a better search engine ranking when your spammy URL is included with the comment.

But if you're going to pretend to be leaving a cogent observation about one of my posts, I really wish you'd put some effort into it. How about at least taking a quick glance at what I wrote, and attempt to say something vaguely relevant to it? 

And isn't there anybody your Spam Bosses can hire who speaks passable English?

Since I'm going to take a quick glance at your spammy compositions before I send them off to delete-land, I'd appreciate it if a little more effort was put into this bottom-of-the-bucket literary genre.

I mean, come on... you can do better than these recent attempted submissions:

I used to be suggested this web site by my cousin. I'm now not positive whether this publish is written by way of him as no one else understand such targeted about my problem. You are wonderful! Thank you!

I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts in this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this website. Studying this information So i'm satisfied to convey that I have an incredibly good uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed. I so much for sure will make sure to don?t fail to remember this site and provides it a glance on a continuing basis.

What's up to all, it's actually a pleasant for me to visit this site, it consists of important Information.

Hi it's me, I am also visiting this web site daily, this site is actually good and the viewers are in fact sharing fastidious thoughts.

Somebody essentially help to make critically posts I would state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and up to now? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual put up extraordinary. Magnificent job!

Great work! That is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the net. Disgrace on the search engines for now not positioning this publish higher! Come on over and discuss with my web site . Thanks =)

I get pleasure from, result in I found exactly what I used to be having a look for. You've ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

Hey, spambots, some of which of you may even be quasi-human, I do appreciate the fawning compliments. Not enough to publish the spam, of course, but on some extremely minimal level.

If I ever suffer a debilitating mental illness marked by a complete loss of self-esteem, its good to know that I've got some spam supporters out there who are unfailingly positive about my blog posts.

Your names, though, make it tough for me to picture you as potential friends.

So here's another tip: if you expect a blogger to believe that a spam comment is coming from a real person, don't use names like "omega juicers" or "actual new car price" or "singapore residential property." 

Lastly, I have never, ever, published an obvious spam comment on my blogs. I moderate every comment. So if there's some Spam Central HQ out there, do yourself a favor and take my blogs off of your attempted spam list.

You're wasting your time, and you're wasting some of mine. Though I do get a tiny bit of amusement from your pathetic efforts.

Salemians should vote on downtown parking meter ban

Tomorrow the Salem (Oregon) City Council will decide how to handle the stupendously successful citizen initiative petition that seeks to ban parking meters in the downtown area.

It's on the Monday meeting agenda. The staff report notes that almost 9,000 signatures were submitted in just a short time. 

The people have spoken. For quite a few reasons, making people pay for onstreet downtown parking is a really bad idea. Stop Parking Meters Downtown explains why. 

So let's have a vote in May 2014 on this issue. The City Council should choose that route, rather than putting the initiative into effect on its own. The staff report lays out the options open to the Council:

If Council elects to adopt the Initiative, the Initiative shall become law, effective on the date Council adopts it through resolution.

If Council elects to reject the Initiative, the Initiative shall be placed on the ballot at the next available election, which will be the May 2014 election.

Further, if Council rejects the Initiative, Council may refer a competing measure to the voters at the same election at which the initiated measure is submitted. If the council refers a competing measure to the voters, it must prepare the measure not later than the 30th day after the initiated measure is filed with Council. 

A vote is needed so a clear, unforgettable message is sent to the City of Salem. I think it would be, Salem voters don't want parking meters downtown. 

But, hey, if meters are such a great idea, let their proponents make a case for them. Maybe the voters would favor paying for onstreet parking downtown.

Have a vigorous, well-publicized debate over how making people pay for parking downtown would affect the many struggling small businesses in the area. Discuss the fairness of the City's recent action: more than doubling the parking tax on small businesses, while letting large retailers like Penneys off the hook with a much smaller percentage increase.

I'm worried that if the City Council adopts the initiative without a May 2014 vote, the Council could un-adopt the initiative in a year or two.

Sure, this would be a insult to the 9,000 people who signed the petition. But the Council would be much more worried about the political consequences of undoing the parking meter ban if voters in a citywide election had said, No meters downtown, no way, no, no, no.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.

Asking Salemians to vote on a downtown parking ban is a great idea. The petitioners, Patricia Moss, Stephen Perkins and Carole Smith, deserve this. As do the over 50 small business owners in downtown Salem who supported the initiative drive. And, of course, the 9,000 people who said, "let's vote on this."

Craziness of today's Republican Party is unparalleled

Has any political party in American history been crazier than the current Tea Party-fueled antics of Congressional Republicans?

Not in my lifetime. And I'm getting to be damn old (65 next month).

Threatening a shutdown of the federal government because of Affordable Care Act hatred, along with holding the nation's economy hostage with a threatened refusal to pay bills Congress already has incurred (a.k.a. not raising the debt limit) for the same reason -- this is new Crazy Territory.

Listening to reasonable talk radio today, I heard a historian say that maybe, just maybe, politicians in the mid-1800's acted even crazier. But that craziness led to the Civil War.

Which isn't a ringing endorsement of today's not-so-grand GOP.

Yesterday Paul Krugman wrote about "The Crazy Party." Right on, Paul.

In recent months, the G.O.P. seems to have transitioned from being the stupid party to being the crazy party.

I know, I’m being shrill. But as it grows increasingly hard to see how, in the face of Republican hysteria over health reform, we can avoid a government shutdown — and maybe the even more frightening prospect of a debt default — the time for euphemism is past.

It helps, I think, to understand just how unprecedented today’s political climate really is.

...Most of the time divided government led to compromise; sometimes to stalemate. Nobody even considered the possibility that a party might try to achieve its agenda, not through the constitutional process, but through blackmail — by threatening to bring the federal government, and maybe the whole economy, to its knees unless its demands were met.

It was a Tweet, I believe, where I saw something like "Imagine if Democrats had demanded that Bush withdraw all troops from Iraq before they would raise the debt ceiling."

That's a pretty good analogy to what Congressional Republicans are doing. And they have no standing, no mandate, no support for doing it. They lost the 2012 elections handily, as Rachel Maddow points out. Last year we had a big debate about the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.

Romney made that a central aspect of his presidential campaign. So did Obama. Obama won. The people of the United States spoke. Democrats added seats in the House and Senate. 

These are not minor details. We have a constitutional system of government and free national elections in which we, the people, help set a course for our country. GOP candidates made their case, lost, and forfeited their claims to a popular mandate.

And yet, when it came time to govern, Republicans decided it was still time to pursue an aggressive, right-wing agenda, predicated on manufactured crises, extortion politics, a misguided culture war, and non-negotiable demands.

We've all heard the "elections have consequences" adage many times, but let's be clear about what we're witnessing in 2013: Republicans are very clearly telling the country, "No, actually, elections don't have consequences. We're still going to do as we please."

Democracies aren't supposed to work this way.

No, but when crazies are allowed to take control of Republican caucuses, it isn't surprising that unprecedented craziness prevails. Recognizing reality, never a strong suit of the GOP, has faded away completely.

It's virtually certain that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to be done away with or defunded. Senate Democrats and President Obama won't agree to taking away health insurance from 30 million or so people, and rescuing many millions of other private insurance policy holders from the nasty games insurors play.

Yet it sure seems like House Republicans are blind to that fact. Today they held a "ghoulish defunding rally." 

The party atmosphere was so boisterous, the cheers and laughter so loud, that it was easy to forget everyone in the room had just voted to keep tens of millions of people from getting health insurance.

By keeping spending at its current levels through mid-December, they had also voted to continue the sequester, which is preventing millions of people from getting public housing subsidies, Head Start seats, and unemployment benefits. The sequester is also taking a serious toll on scientific research and investment in infrastructure, not to mention its infuriating drag on employment and the economic recovery. How about another round of applause?

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, of course, from a House that had voted the previous day to cut food stamps for 3.8 million low-income people, including many very young and very old recipients. But at least they didn’t have a party to celebrate that vote.

There is something seriously wrong with the Republican Party these days.

I speak as someone whose mother was as avid a Republican as could be imagined in the 1950s and 1960s. I read National Review along with her. I went to see Ronald Reagan campaign for California governor along with her. Until I went to college, I embraced the conservatism that my mother knew, expounded, and loved.

Believe me, it wasn't anything like what passes for conservatism these days -- which is anything but conservative. Back then, conservatives believed in conserving the environment. Back then, conservatives believed in rational, reasonable policy debates. 

No more. The crazies have made the Republican Party into a political insane asylum. Which will come back to bite them.

Americans have watched the economy crawl back from near-depression levels. Jobs are coming back. The stock market has come way back, to new highs. All that is threatened by a federal government shutdown and failure to raise the debt limit.

Failing to finance the federal government and to pay the bills already incurred (by both Republicans and Democrats) is no joke. Borrowing costs will skyrocket. Consumer confidence will be shaken. Business uncertainty will shoot up.

What's astounding is that Republicans fail to realize that the Affordable Care Act will keep on chugging along through all of this craziness. Its funding is from non-discretionary sources. Problems in implementation, which are inevitable, can be explained away by Republican interference.

Sane politicians would recognize this. Crazy ones wouldn't. I only hope there are enough mentally healthy politicians in today's GOP to stop the crazies from taking the United States over an economic cliff.

Architect Geoffrey James critiques Salem's lack of urban design

Below you'll find a spot-on critique by Geoffrey James of how the City of Salem does urban design. Or more accurately, doesn't. 

James is an architect here in Salem. It's fair to say, a noted architect, judging from a portion of his bio:

Geoff began his long career in design in 1963 upon graduating as an architect. First licensed in the UK in 1966, he has worked on prestigious buildings around the world from England, Wales, Scotland, and Egypt, to the USA. Licensed in the US in 1979 he has designed buildings in seven states i.e. Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Arkansas, and New York.

He became president of PRA Pacific Region Architects in 1982, then the largest firm in the Willamette Valley, and designed many prominent buildings throughout Oregon. He has also master-planned residential communities, retail centers, office parks and industrial parks in Oregon and Washington. In downtown Salem he was the architect of record for three connected buildings, the Liberty Plaza retail office complex, the JCPenney department store remodel, and the connecting sky bridge over Chemeketa Street.

After Geoff read and agreed with my blog post about going back to the original vision for Pringle Square, he and I exchanged some emails. Geoff said it would be fine to share this message of his, which I heartily agree with.

I am convinced that the reason the capital city of Oregon lacks good design and vision is because it lacks design leadership.

The great cities of the world all have design leaders, and a Vision and an urban design Plan.

I have lived and worked in the capital cities of England, Wales, and Scotland, and have visited the European capitals that are "Meccas" for tourists and visitors.

Why are they so attracting?  Well, because each city is attractive, beautiful, and each has an ambiance that is special and unique.

Even the capital city of the Inland Empire (Spokane), where I worked, is an oasis of culture, with its Riverfront Park and exciting downtown, and 16 block Skywalk.

They all have something we do not have: a city architect, a city planner, and an urban design plan.

Salem has a planning administrator, who just says it's ok to have apartment windows 20 ft. from the Eco Earth walkway, because "that's what the apartment design code says."

No long range planning, no visioning, no urban design plan.

In 1974 at least we had the CSDP Central Salem Development Program. Now we have no real design plan.

Salem's approach is to maybe bring in some U of O students, then hire a consultant for each stand alone project, like the Riverfront Park (went through three consultants at $300,000 each).

Or the conference center, but no vision of its context, like implementing the Mayor's comment that "we need to create views of the River" (from that center).

Other than the Urban Land Institute Study, which was short and sweet, and initially was taken seriously, the [Pringle Square] developers soon departed from that, and want to squeeze a maximum of rented space and paved parking in, so the green spaces are minimal.

So, it may be up to us, the people, to regain some say in how our city develops.

A current example of secret and poor planning by administrators is the $65 million City Hall addition. It removes part of Mirror Pond, creates a canyon effect along Commercial, and is a poor solution. The police department does not really need to be physically in the Civic Center, when the crime and the murders are generally in the north east part of town.

The civic group should demand to know what is going on. The council sub-committee and the city management is being super secretive, and I disagree with their direction.

Maybe the Riverfront Park groups should form a coalition and work for an improved Riverfront South Plan and include the Civic Center expansion in that work. The two topics are connected (and maybe should be physically connected), because Linda Norris recently commented that it (Civic Center addition) will provide "additional parking" that can be used by Park visitors.

It's time for a Design Charette (like we did at Fairview) and a comprehensive Central Salem Community Plan, not by staff, but by the people of Salem.

Let's all get together and do this.

2009 Pringle Square plan way better than 2013 version

Plans to redevelop the old Boise Cascade property on downtown Salem's riverfront have, thankfully, fallen through.

Mountain West Investment's attempted land grab of the Carousel parking lot in public Riverfront Park for a private access road to an apartment complex on the west side of the railroad tracks was met with intense opposition from concerned citizens. 

And somehow the development team missed an obvious fact: conversion of the park land to a private use would require National Park Service approval, since federal funds were used to build Riverfront Park. The 6(f) conversion application would take two years to process, or thereabouts.

So now the question becomes, what to do with the Boise Cascade property purchased by Mountain West Investment? A new vision was laid out in my previous blog posts, here and here. 

But actually that new vision is close to what Mountain West Investment originally planned for their Pringle Square development. I was reminded of this when I came across an October 18, 2009 front page story in the Statesman Journal by Michael Rose (who is still reporting on development plans).

Take a look at "Restoration of Pringle Creek will include path."
Download Pringle_Creek_article 2 

It describes a Phase 1 building plan that is entirely on the east side of the railroad tracks, focused mostly on renovating the concrete shell of the "south warehouse" that continues to uglifiy Salem's downtown riverfront. Here's an enlargement of the illustration in the story that shows the 2009 plan for the east side of the tracks.

Wow.

This is a much better Phase 1 plan than the 2013 version: apartments looming over Riverfront Park on the west side of the railroad tracks, and a nursing home on the east side. The 2009 Statesman Journal story describes what was envisioned by Mountain West Investment.

A path winding along the banks of Pringle Creek has long been in the plans for the Boise Cascade site's proposed redevelopment. The path is intended to become a signature feature of the downtown Salem development, as well as a connection to pedestrian and bike trails. 

...The path would have a plaza with room for food cart vendors, as well as outdoor seating for a restaurant. It would run under the railroad bridge at the Boise site, as well as under Commercial Street SE, and could become another way to reach Riverfront Park.

The labels in the site plan image above are difficult to read, even when enlarged. But "outdoor dining" clearly is shown in the bottom right hand corner, indicating the area along the creekside path west of Commercial Street. 

And "grotto" marks the area in Pringle Creek just upstream from where the railroad tracks cross the creek. 

Outdoor dining and a grotto. Much more appealing than the uninspiring, uncreative plan for this section of Pringle Square that Mountain West Investment had settled on by 2013. See below.

Now Salemians would be "treated" to parking lots on both sides of Pringle Creek. No restaurants with outdoor seating. No food cart vendors. No grotto, apparently. 

Even worse, the area east of the railroad tracks wasn't going to be developed right away. So the concrete shell that was planned to eventually become a four story apartment building would remain ugly rubble for years. Instead, the ill-fated Phase 1 development plan centered on apartments on the west side of the railroad tracks and a nursing home on the east side.

As noted in a previous post, the apartments (top right) were planned to butt up right against, or very close to, the Riverfront Park boundary. This would have drastically degraded the recreational vibe of the south end of the Park.

Not to mention a diminished Carousel parking lot with the private apartment access road going right by. Bad plan. 

Mountain West Investment had it mostly right back in 2009. The mixed-use vision for the area along Pringle Creek on the east side of the railroad tracks was in line with the Urban Land Institute report that was prepared by nationally recognized experts.

Salem now has a chance to go back in time.

Nothing prevents Pringle Square from being developed in accord with the original plan of Mountain West Investment. Renovate the south warehouse, which everyone considers to be the biggest eyesore. Make Pringle Creek a locus for dining, both indoor and outdoor. 

I love the idea of food carts that Rose mentioned in his 2009 story. Food carts have become hugely popular in Portland. Having them along Pringle Creek so close to downtown would draw people to dining along the riverfront.

Make the property west of the railroad tracks part of Riverfront Park.

Originally Mountain West Investment didn't plan to develop this land until a Phase 2, or maybe Phase 3. Now it should be Phase O, never. Almost all of the public opposition to Pringle Square centered on the Carousel parking lot access road to apartments on the west side of the railroad tracks.

The developers should put apartments where they originally planned them to be: on the east side of the tracks, as part of the renovated south warehouse building. 

Salemians want the old Boise Cascade property to be redeveloped into an enticing, exciting mixed-use area. They also want their beloved Riverfront Park protected, and, I'm confident, expanded. There's a win-win for Mountain West Investment and the citizens of Salem here. 

Back in 2009, the country was in a severe recession. Almost a depression. Real estate values had tanked. Yet the Pringle Square development team came up with a mixed-use plan that envisioned apartments in a renovated south warehouse building, and a cool outdoor/indoor dining area along Pringle Creek. 

If that plan made sense back then, it makes even more sense now, given a much-improved economy. Interest rates are still quite low. Interest in properly developing the old Boise Cascade property is high.

Let's get it done. 

Photos: imagine what Salem's Riverfront Park could become

After Jack Bushek sent me his new vision for Salem's old Boise Cascade property, which became a blog post, last Thursday I took a sunset walk in the south end of Riverfront Park.

I wanted to imagine what Riverfront Park could be like if the land west of the railroad tracks was added on to the park, and if the Pringle Creek banks were remade into a cool mixed use area.

Also, how the Park would have been changed (for the worse) if Mountain West Investment's original development plan for the Boise Cascade property hadn't fallen through.

Here's the photos I took, plus commentary.

A train went by as I began my walk from the Carousel parking lot, which was surprisingly busy at 7:30 pm on a Thursday evening. Nice timing. Makes it easy to see how much land would be added to Riverfront Park if the Boise Cascade acreage west of the tracks became part of the Park. It's mostly flat and covered in asphalt or grass.

Walking toward the Eco-Earth Globe, I was thankful that the planned multi-story apartments wouldn't be built almost up to the current Riverfront Park boundary. They would have ruined the ambience of this end of the Park.

Imagine a wall of looming apartments blocking out the sky to the east of the Eco-Earth Globe. Not a good plan for Salem's Riverfront Park treasure.

This is Pringle Creek, from the Eco-Earth overlook by the Willamette River slough. It'd be great to have a path leading from Riverfront Park up the banks of Pringle Creek. The shell of the last remaining Boise Cascade building is in the background. Ah, easy to imagine creekside restaurants and brew pubs with attractive views.

The slough, near sunset, with Pringle Creek in the foreground. 

Tear down that fence! Build a bridge over Pringle Creek with walkways on both sides. Fashion a mixed-use development on the west side of the railroad tracks with a big Wow! factor. 

This is a view of Pringle Creek as it heads through the old Boise Cascade property. A private railroad underpass is on the right side of the creek.

Again, make the land on the river side of the tracks part of Riverfront Park. On the other side of the elevated tracks would be the cool mixed use private development, restaurants and other eateries/drinkeries on street level, with condos/apartments on upper floors.

A new vision for Salem's old Boise Cascade property

With the seeming demise of Mountain West Investment's ill-considered Pringle Square plans, there is a fresh opportunity to make this downtown riverfront area into a place that will elicit a Wow! rather than ho-hum from Salem visitors and residents. 

Here's a letter that Jack Bushek, a long-time West Salem resident, sent to me. He has shared it with Salem Weekly, the Statesman Journal, Salem City Council, Mayor, and others. Hopefully it will get the attention that it deserves. 

I like Jack's ideas. They fit with the basic vision of the 2006 Urban Land Institute report that analyzed the best uses for the old Boise Cascade property. 

Dear Friends and fellow Citizens,

We now have an opportunity to get it right--about the Boise-Cascade property development--with a plan that would benefit all Citizens.

What would really enhance this property and make it a centerpiece for downtown activity would be to expand our treasured Riverfront Park.  And there is a natural and simple boundary for this: (Look at a map or aerial view)-- the Railroad!

The city needs to take the land west of the Railroad--condemn it if necessary. (We weren't afraid to do that under more dubious circumstances in regard to Straub Middle School). This land would greatly enhance Riverfront Park. And we could add a little more parking as well as plenty of Park!

Then a wide walkway East of the Railroad, streetscaped like Twelfth St. going from Commercial and Front Sts. (to connect the Conference Center area) to Pringle Creek, where I envision the "crossing" of the Railroad via a wide Pedestrian tunnel.

Connect this tunnel with an epic Esplanade or Promenade along the Creek on both sides, a really spacious area featuring the natural habitat and the salmon of the Creek, landscaping, water features, fountains, benches, two or three decorative bridges, sculptures, places to view the salmon runs, and classy street lighting--lots of open space and all for pedestrians. (Possibly a lot wider in the middle than at each end.)

Lining this area on both sides of the Creek, would be restaurants with outdoor seating, and shops and businesses, and other attractions for us locals and tourists alike-- along with tourist information. A miniature San Antonio style Riverwalk, but still awesome--wide tunnel access to Riverfront Park and the Bridge to Minto Island on one end, and (also with a wide tunnel access) the City Hall Park, Peace Plaza, and Commercial St. at the other end.

There would still be room for other commercial development, smaller scale but still significant Condominium and Apartment Complexes (one could always build one or two stories higher than was previously thought), both East of the Railroad, and South of Pringle Creek. The restaurants, shops, and businesses along the Esplanade could be the first floors of condos and apartments or offices. The important feature is plenty of open space.

And parking with access ONLY from East of the Railroad (only from Front St. or Commercial St,) thus keeping the traffic and safety problems of the Park parking area at a minimum, and eliminating the need for another Railroad crossing.

It would be really wonderful to have as a focal point of the Esplanade, something to represent Salem as the City of Peace. It could serve as a site for memorials of all kinds, by individuals and various and diverse groups in our community. This could range from a small monument  to something that could also serve as the City's symbol. Could we dare to envision a PeaceTower--such as a replica of the Old City Hall tower!?

It seems to me that this Plan enhances EVERYONE'S interests in this property---and the benefits to all Citizens and our children will be many and ongoing.

Here's to Salem, City of Peace! -- and a world-class Capital!

Jack Bushek      

 

Video: senior citizen skateboarder rolls at Salem Sunday Streets

I had a great time at the Salem Sunday Streets event a few days ago.

Well, my experience could have been even greater if I'd gotten the media coverage that I had shamelessly sought in my Statesman Journal press release. Which began with:

For immediate super-important stop-the-presses release

Salem's Senior Citizen Skateboarder, a.k.a. Brian Hines, a.k.a. me (though I will speak in the third person for greater dramatic effect) will be making an appearance at the Salem Sunday Streets event tomorrow. All available Statesman Journal reporting and photographic resources should be diverted to this locally, stately, nationally, and, arguably, cosmically important event. 

Syria will still be a problem on Monday.

Sadly, the online next-day SJ story featured a cute 3 1/2 year old riding a bike rather than a not-cute 64 year old riding a longboard/skateboard. 

Sigh... I am now required to be my own publicity agent. OK, more accurately I am once again required to do so.

Here's a Go Pro video that I made of me taking a return trip down pleasantly car-less State Street.

Along the way I talk with a bicyclist who made a point of catching up to me, being curious about how my longboard was propelled by a stick rather than a pushing leg.

 

I hope Salem Sunday Streets does a repeat of the event. If it were better publicized next time, likely there would be a lot more people taking part. 

What struck me was how different State Street seemed without any cars or trucks on it. The state Capitol area felt wonderfully calmer and more natural. As a bicyclist rolled by, I heard him say "This should happen every Sunday!"

Well, at least a few Sundays a year. 

Super cute 4 year old dancing "gangnam style"

This video made me smile, a lot. And realize all is right with the world. So long as little girls dressed up for a wedding can dance with such energy and joy.

Have a watch. And laugh. (She warms up after a minute or two; her marvelous Gangnam style gets going after that.)

Pringle Square developers lie in Statesman Journal ad

"Lie" is a strong word. But it is honest. Straightforward. Direct.

So I'll use it instead of "untruth," "falsity," or some other term for the supposed First Fact in the Pringle Square developer's "Fact Check" ad in today's Salem Statesman Journal.

This is the developer's supposed Myth, which actually is a Fact.

There are other ways to access the apartment site. The developer can construct a new railroad crossing or build a bridge over Pringle Creek.

This is the developer's supposed Fact, which actually is a Myth.

There is no other feasible access to the site. The state has a policy "to eliminate at grade crossings whenever possible." There will be no new crossing without closure of the State Street crossing to the Carousel and park.

Getting cars to a bridge would involve either going through the 100-year floodplain, which is prohibited, or building a tunnel under the railroad tracks large enough for two lanes of traffic and a fire truck. Such a tunnel or a bridge over Pringle Creek is cost-prohibitive for this size and type of development.

I call the statement above a lie. Feel free to say "myth" if you like a weaker word. Here's why I'm confident in saying this.

Follow my logic. It's as simple as 1,2,3. For reference, see the City staff report on Pringle Square access.
Download Pringle Square staff report 

(1) In 2007 the developer purchased the old Boise Cascade property with the idea of redeveloping it into what is now being called Pringle Square. Rental apartments, a small retail center, and a nursing home are proposed for the first phase.

Would anyone pay millions of dollars for downtown riverfront property without being assured of public access to it? Is it conceivable that the developers and whoever provided the money for buying the property would have said, "Maybe we can get public access to it; maybe we won't; let's buy it anyway."

No individual thinking of buying a single lot to build a home on would be this foolish. For sure, these professional real estate developers weren't. So when they now claim there are no other feasible ways to access the site than by taking over part of the Carousel's parking lot, they are lying.

(2) We know this, because the Carousel proposal is Plan B. The developers did indeed have a Plan A. The City staff report describes it.

The majority of the Waterfront Block is paved and was previously used by Boise Cascade as parking for tractor trailers. During the time it was used by Boise Cascade, the parcel's access was via a private railroad crossing through the Boise Cascade property south of State Street. In a prior development proposal, the Developer proposed to create a new public street and railroad crossing that would have connected Front Street SE to the Waterfront Block and the Riverfront Park south parking lot. The Developer had dedicated the right-of-way for this new public street and Council approved closing the State Street railroad crossing to allow for this new crossing (see Exhibit C of Attachment 1). 

A letter from Mark Shipman, the developers' attorney, also describes Plan A. 

In order to accommodate early designs for development on the Waterfront parcel and the North Block, the City obtained a permit from ODOT for a new, at-grade railroad crossing between the two parcels. See Exhibit "E." The crossing required new right of way dedication for public streets to the new crossing. See Exhibit "F." A condition of ODOT's permit for the new crossing was closure of the existing, at-grade railroad crossing at State Street to Riverfront Park and the Carousel. Subsequently, general consensus was against closure of the existing rail crossing at State Street. The new crossing was not constructed, and the ODOT permit for the new crossing was allowed to expire. 

Thus there is indeed feasible access to the site: a new Front Street railroad crossing.

Approval was granted for the crossing. This was the developer's own Plan A. It wasn't put into effect, in part because at that time the Rail Division/ODOT wanted to close the existing railroad crossing at State Street leading to the Carousel parking lot. A public outcry, as I recall, led to the shelving of this idea.

(3) However, nothing prevents the City of Salem from making a fresh application to the Rail Division for a new Front Street crossing. But, ooh!, what about that scary quote in the supposed "fact" section?: The State has a policy "to eliminate at grade crossings whenever possible."

Well, I Googled that quote.

I was led to a 2012 ODOT Development Review document. And a section which doesn't say at all what the Pringle Square developers want us to believe. I've boldfaced the language to pay attention to.

1.3.11. Railroad-Highway Crossing Safety Rules and Regulations of the Rail Division

ODOT Rail Division implements standards and procedures to manage the safety of rail facilities and rail crossings to the degree necessary to maintain functional use, crossing safety, and the preservation of public investment consistent with the 2001 Oregon Rail Plan (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Publications/railplan01.pdf?ga=t ).

Relevant statues and rules are ORS 823/824 and OAR 741 Divisions 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125 and 200. This authority requires a public road authority or railroad to file an application for a Crossing Order with the ODOT Rail Division for permission to construct a new separated or at-grade crossing, make alterations to an existing public crossing, or to close an existing public crossing. The ODOT Rail Division is in agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration in its efforts to close crossings wherever possible. The Division is required by statute to eliminate crossings at grade wherever possible. Find more information about Rail Division programs online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/Pages/About_Us.aspx. 

Pretty damn clear.

The City of Salem can file an application to construct a new at-grade crossing. It could also file an application to close an existing public crossing. But the City doesn't have to ask for the closing of a crossing!!! (I don't usually use multiple exclamation marks, but they are deserved here.) 

I phoned Rick Shankle, the Rail Division manager who deals with new crossing applications. He told me that nothing in state statute or rule requires that an old crossing be closed if a new crossing is opened. The City could have appealed the previous decision that required the closing of the State Street crossing if a Trade Street crossing was opened.

I'm pretty sure the City didn't do this. If the Rail Division were to make the same requirement again, and this is by no means certain or even likely, the City could appeal. The Rail Division doesn't have final authority over new railroad crossing applications. The state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court do.

So don't believe the Pringle Square developers when they say, "There will be no new crossing without closure of the State Street crossing to the Carousel and park." They can't provide evidence for this. I say this with 100% confidence, because they can't predict the future.

The only way to know whether approval of a new Front Street crossing would require closing of the State Street crossing is for the City of Salem to apply for one. This should be done. The proposal to take over part of the Carousel parking lot for access should be shelved.

Focus on Plan A, the developer's own original access proposal. It is much more feasible than Plan B, which will require a two-year or more process of applying to the National Park Service for a 6(f) conversion of Riverfront Park land.

The Environmental Impact Statement for that 6(f) application requires that other access alternatives have been considered and rejected. Without applying for a new Front Street railroad crossing, the City won't be able to demonstrate this has been done. 

So all roads lead to a new railroad crossing application.

The City should get a big table and seat the affected parties around it: City staff, Pringle Square developers, Portland & Western Railroad officials, Carousel staff/volunteers, other informed members of the community.

They can figure this out. Pringle Square had a feasible access plan: a new railroad crossing. Plan A is the way. Taking over the Carousel parking lot is a very bad idea. This cartoon says it all.

 

Pringle Square's Perfect Parking Plan -- great cartoon

Yeah, the saying (I just made up) is so true: One cartoon speaks more than a thousand words. Just got this from Elaine Sanchez of the Pringle Square Access group. 

Love it! Even with "convenient" spelled wrong. Could be a subliminal message about how wrong the Carousel parking lot access plan is, though.

 

Salem's Senior Citizen Skateboarder makes appearance tomorrow

I just sent a press release to the Statesman Journal. Didn't have the New York Times' email address. Also, probably too late for them to get a news team to Oregon by tomorrow noon. Local newspaper, it's up to you!

For immediate super-important stop-the-presses release

Salem's Senior Citizen Skateboarder, a.k.a. Brian Hines, a.k.a. me (though I will speak in the third person for greater dramatic effect) will be making an appearance at the Salem Sunday Streets event tomorrow. All available Statesman Journal reporting and photographic resources should be diverted to this locally, stately, nationally, and, arguably, cosmically important event. 

Syria will still be a problem on Monday.

Hines has received extensive media coverage in the Oregonian, Salem Weekly, and, um, nowhere else (hey, he only had to write half of the coverage himself). For background see:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2012/11/64-year-old-longboarding-fanatic-featured-in-oregonians-my-workout.html

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2013/06/strange-creature-roaming-minto-brown-park-is-me.html

Hines is noted for his tricks in Salem's senior citizen skateboarding/longboarding/land paddling community, which so far appears to only consist of himself, thus explaining his notability.

Hines says, "My main, and indeed only, senior citizen skateboarding trick is that I am a senior citizen who rides a skateboard. OK, a longboard. And I push it with a stick, not a foot. This is called land paddling."

Several times a week he land paddles five to seven miles at Minto Brown Island Park. Rarely seen in civilization, this is a rare opportunity for the general public and journalists to observe Salem's Senior Citizen Skateboarder. He can be picked out from the crowd by being (1) old, (2) on a longboard with purple and orange wheels, and (3) holding a black 6 foot Kahuna Creations Big Stick.

If more than one person at the Salem Sunday Streets event fits this description, Far Freaking Out! …dude.

Hines will be available for fawning admiration from young and old alike, including both human and canine sentient beings, from 11:30'ish to 1:00'ish around State Street and Riverfront Park. Media availability is subject to change depending on when he wakes up and how long it takes to caffeinate himself.

    -- Brian

Good Statesman Journal story about Pringle Square

If I was a self-promoting, egotistical, I-told-you-so sort of blogger, I'd say about Michael Rose's excellent story in the Salem Statesman Journal, "Federal government could have final say on Riverfront Park easements," you read it here first.

So naturally I'll do just that.

You read it here first.

In my September 3 "Pringle Square development could be delayed 1-2 years." Rose's story makes the same point, without mentioning the time frame that I was given by Michele Scalise, the state coordinator of the federal program that requires the lengthy application process.

Salem City Council on Monday will deliberate an apartment developer’s request for traffic and fire protection easements across Riverfront Park. But the federal government might have final say on the easements.

If Salem City Council grants the easements requested by Mountain West Investment Corp., the feds would be next in line to review the plan.

City officials said the federal process could include a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, a 30-day public comment period, and appeals.

Mountain West Investment Corp’s officials say the proposed $17 million apartment complex could launch the redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade site in downtown Salem.

A lengthy federal review could stall the project. Developers could move earth on the site while the access issue is being resolved, but city building permits cannot be issued until access is granted, according to city records.

The only disappointing thing I found about Rose's story is that, for a while, I'm no longer disappointed in the Statesman Journal. Not being able to take reporter Rose to task for anything else, I sent him this email:

Damn, man. You've caused me to feel all chilled. 

That warm glow of irritation at the Statesman Journal went away after I read your National Park Service story. Now I feel empty inside. What will keep me fired up now (other than strong coffee)?

But I take solace in the fact that, before too long, another news story or another editorial will rekindle a feeling of what the hell!!?? at the Statesman Journal. 

Then I'll feel like myself again. For now, though, I actually read your entire story, twice, and didn't find anything to take issue with. Guess the drugs are working… it's all good… far out...

    -- Brian

Pringle Square Access group determined to protect Riverfront Park

Here's a photo that warms my citizen activist heart:

Salem-area residents meeting this evening at the Carousel to talk about better alternatives to the ill-advised proposal to convert part of the Carousel parking lot into a private access road to the Pringle Square development.

Elaine Sanchez and Hazel Patton, two women who know how to get good things done, organized and led the meeting. I was hugely impressed by them and everybody else who had things to say.

Key theme: everyone wants to see the old Boise Cascade downtown riverfront property redeveloped. This isn't a Stop the Development crusade.

The aim of Pringle Square Access is to point out the better way: leave much-beloved Riverfront Park and the Carousel alone, and build a new public railroad crossing at Ferry Street. Sweet and simple. This is a better plan for the development, and it is a better plan for the public. 

Everybody wins. Check out the Southside Access plan. It makes great good sense.

        Why Southside Access is a Better Way

• Unobstructed 24/7 access for all emergency vehicles
• Maintains safe access and adequate parking for everyone
• It can be built without changing or shutting down the carousel

I'll add another reason why the Salem City Council should either vote "no" next Monday night on the proposal to use the Carousel parking lot for access, or postpone a decision until alternatives can be assessed in an open, collaborative, deliberative fashion.

Converting part of RIverfront Park to a private use will require the City to go through a lengthy, complex, and expensive "6(f)" conversion process.

Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money was used for Riverfront Park. The City agreed to keep this property for public recreational use "in perpetuity." Meaning, forever. Backing out of that agreement is only possible by applying to the National Park Service for permisson to convert some of the park to a private use.

This won't be easy. An Environmental Impact Statement must be completed. The City will have to show that there are no viable alternatives to giving Pringle Square access through the Carousel parking lot. But there are! 

Pringle Square Access has a plan for an excellent alternative. So why go through a 2-year 6(f) conversion process when there's a very good chance the National Park Service will end up denying the City's application?

This is one reason Pringle Square Access calls its plan The Better Way. Because it is.

Now, I suspect the Pringle Square developers have a fantasy of side-stepping the federal regulations through some political lobbying and backroom deal-making. Well, good luck with that. The Land and Water Conservation Fund folks are familiar with the games developers play.

And the Salem citizenry are awake, aware, and ready to fight any attempt to bypass the normal LWCF conversion application process.

So if the City Council votes "yes" next Monday, what they will be voting for is a one, two, or even three year delay in the developer gaining public access for Pringle Square. Again, that's how long it typically takes for a 6(f) conversion application to be processed by the state Parks and Recreation Department and the National Park Service. 

Us Salemians who don't want anyone messing with Riverfront Park, and do want downtown riverfront development, need to get behind The Better Way. Give a "like" to the new Pringle Square Access Facebook page.

Write the Salem City Council: [email protected] 

Tell them you support the Southside Access plan, and you don't want the Carousel parking lot used for a private driveway.

Salem Weekly has a good story about the alternative access plan in the just-out issue. My Strange Up Salem column in that issue is on this subject also. 

Stop Parking Meters Downtown gets enough signatures. Yay!

Great news from Carole Smith and the other folks at Stop Parking Meters Downtown (downtown Salem, Oregon, that is). This was an amazing demonstration of democracy in action, citizens doing what their elected officials refused to do: listen to the people of Salem and small downtown business owners.

From the Stop Parking Meters Downtown web site:

WE COLLECTED ALMOST 9,000 SIGNATURES! 

As of Sept 4th, we have enough sigatures to get on the May ballot!   The City Recorder will be taking our petition to city council on Sept 23rd.  They can voluntarily adopt it word-for-word.  If they do not – it automatically goes to a vote of the people in May 2014!

What problem is being solved with meters?  

There are two problems the City would like to solve:  

1.) The City believes it has a revenue problem because the $1.4 million annual parking garage income is not enough to pay for maintenance.  The City wants $700,000 more a year.

2.)  Too many part-time employees are parking on-street because they cannot afford to pay $50 – $60 a month to park in the garages.

Can the city increase revenue other ways?

Yes, there are ways the city could increase revenue in their garages and get employees off the street – without parking meters.  The most popular idea is to charge $1 a day to use the downtown garages -this would solve both problems.

Making parking affordable for employees to park in the garages would free up spaces on-street for you, our customers, and increase the city’s parking garage income by half a million a year.

Employees WANT to park in the garages, but cannot afford it.  Many of our customers WANT to park on-street, but its full of employees.  Penneys, Nordstrom, and Kohls could validate the $1 fee if they choose -  their customers would pay nothing to park in the garages.

The important thing to remember is, this is NOT a parking problem.  Don’t get drug down into solving a  problem we don’t have – it’s a revenue problem disguised behind a smoke screen of parking.

Whats the next step after parking meters?

The city has offered to sell the parking garages in the past.  No one would buy them as long as we have free parking on-street.   Once the garages are sold- they will have parking meters also.  The three downtown parking garages are a public asset, like our city parks, our library, fire and police stations – we should never sell them.  They should make money for the city, but the way the city manages them, they won’t.

How can we have free, unlimited time parking downtown?

Downtown Salem had a highly successful free, unlimited time parking program for 35 years – until the city broke it when they stopped enforcing employees from using on-street parking.

The City allowed employees to park on-street to increase parking congestion so they could justify adding 2 hour parking limits.  Even with so many employees parking on-street the statistics still didn’t justify 2 hour parking.  The city then adjusted the survey area to just 6 of the 26 downtown blocks and then, for one hour, parking occupancy tipped over 85% usage- 2 hour limits went in.

It has been illegal for any employee, volunteer, student or business owner to park on-street since 1976 – and it is still illegal today - the city just needs to enforce their own ordinances.

Has 2 hour parking worked?

The Citys parking consultant has shown, parking occupancy and turnover have not improved with 2 hour parking.  Today there are no more parking spaces available than there were in 2005 before 2 hour limits were implemented. No improvement.

The City Manager told the downtown that our customers who wanted to shop longer than 2 hours would use the garages.  The consultants measurement of garage use went DOWN after 2 hour limits were implemented.   That means – not only did our customers not use the garages, but our employees began leaking out onto the street. . . .

Enforcement of 2 hour parking cost $110,000 more than ticket revenue last year.  Two hour parking has failed on all measurable levels but that has not caused the City to hesitate making an unsuccessful program worse by adding meters.

Do you have confidence in the City’s solution?

The City terminated the Salem Downtown Partnership in April 2013 to prevent any organized opposition to installing parking meters downtown.

The City took the same tactic in 2004 when it also terminated the Salem Downtown Association – the year before 2 hour parking went in. . .

The City Manager reported she terminated the Salem Downtown Partnership because she had “lost confidence”. If that is a valid reason to terminate an organization – watch out city, many people may be questioning their “confidence” in your parking management practices right now.

What can I do?

Vote in the May 2014 Primary election.  Tell the city you are tired of their hidden fees on your sewer bill, increased costs, and doubling the parking meter charge around the capitol. Be honest about solving your financial problem so we can help you and respect your decisions.

Pringle Square development could be delayed 1-2 years

At next Monday's City Council meeting, Salem officials have a choice about whether to delay the proposed Pringle Square downtown riverfront development for one to two years (could be longer), or to allow it to move forward more expeditiously.

However -- this is important -- it is a Yes vote on the developer's access proposal that will result in the delay.

This will surprise proponents of the ill-considered plan being voted on Monday to allow the Pringle Square developer access via a takeover of part of the Salem Carousel parking lot. 

Going that route, which will require National Park Service approval of a 6(f) conversion of Riverfront Park from the current public recreational use to a private use, will be time-consuming, complex, and expensive. 

Other access alternatives, such as those described in a recent blog post, almost certainly would be better both for Minto View LLC/Mountain West Investment, developers of Pringle Square, and the people of Salem. 

If the Statesman Journal publishes a draft editorial by Dick Hughes without making changes in accord with the facts I've learned, SJ staff should relinquish their Boy Scout Journalism merit badges.

This is part of the draft editorial that is completely off-base:

City staff approved the design review in February and the project site plan in March. Mountain West is ready to begin construction immediately, pending City Council approval of the access. However, Monday’s hearing was continued until Sept. 9.

The downside: Further delays — whether by postponing approval or placing unreasonable conditions on the developers — could jeopardize the entire project. Site work must be completed before winter rains arrive. Furthermore, the current sluggish economy, with its lower construction costs and low-interest rates for financing, make this an optimal time for the project.

Actually, city approval of the Carousel parking lot access would trigger a one to two year delay in the Pringle Square project. Below is an email message that I sent recently to City of Salem officials and Statesman Journal newspaper staff.
---------------------------------

I just had a highly informative phone conversation with Michele Salise, the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant coordinator with the State Parks and Recreation Department. She would be the point person for reviewing a 6(f) conversion application for Riverfront Park, should the City Council approve this process moving forward at next Monday's council meeting. 

Here's what she told me, which goes against much of what is being implied -- or outright claimed -- by people who favor the conversion of the Carousel parking lot into an access road to the Pringle Square apartment complex.

(1) This would be a "regular" rather than a "small" conversion application, in part because it is controversial. 

(2) A regular 6(f) conversion application of property from public recreational use to a different use takes at least a year to process. Two years is the average. An application filed in 2010 is still being processed by the state and National Park Service.

(3) Naturally the developer would not be able to use any part of Riverfront Park for access to Pringle Square until a 6(f) application is approved by the National Park Service. Again, this would take one to two years at least.

(4) A full NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) environmental assessment would have to be prepared by the City. For those unfamiliar with NEPA, check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act

(5) The assessment would have to describe what alternatives to Carousel parking lot access were considered, and why those alternatives were rejected (such as a new railroad crossing on Pringle Square land). This is no simple task. Merely saying "we didn't think this would work" isn't enough.

(6) Cost of the NEPA review and other expenses associated with the 6(f) application would be the responsibility of the City of Salem. This isn't cheap. When I mentioned that a new RR crossing could cost $500,000, Ms. Salise said "that isn't much." In comparison with the cost of a 6(f) conversion, was the evident implication.

(7) Appeals of the National Park Service decision on the 6(f) application are possible. Ms. Salise wasn't sure what this entails. My Googling indicates that federal courts, not surprisingly, are where appeals end up at some point.

I wanted to get this information out as soon as possible, because it is so cogent to the decision that the City Council will be making next Monday. 

Proponents of the Carousel parking lot access option mistakenly claim that this will allow development of the Pringle Square property to occur almost immediately. Not true. Going this route will take 1-2 years before a decision is made on a 6(f) application. Likely applying for a new public railroad crossing would be considerably quicker and less expensive.

Food for thought.

Salemians say: Pringle Square developers, don't mess with Riverfront Park

The developers of Pringle Square -- who propose rental apartments and a nursing home on Salem's downtown riverfront -- walked into a concerned citizen hornet's nest with their ill-advised plan to gain access to their property by taking over part of much-beloved Riverfront Park.

Let's marvel at how poorly Mountain West Investment and its developer spinoff, Minto View LLC, has handled things. 

First, the old Boise Cascade property is bought without the buyers knowing how they were going to be able to access the portion of the land west of the railroad tracks. Most people who buy land want to have the access question settled first. 

But Minto View LLC had a backward attitude, which has gotten them into well-deserved problems. Yesterday local architect Geoffrey James released a terrific analysis of Pringle Square, "Access to Boise Property: The Solution." 

Here's what James has to say about the developer's backwardness.

Normally a developer ensures he has ACCESS first, before proceeding with detailed designs. The "Team" were so anxious to take up council time by talking at length (a series of consultants) about the detailed design of the apartments. The Mayor was right that the basic question to start with is ACCESS and explain why the access through the park is claimed to be the only way. However, in this case, the applicant proceeded with detailed Site Plan Review etc. BEFORE confirming access.

They should have confirmed that a NORTH access was permitted before hiring an expensive team of consultants to do a detailed design, possibly ready for building permit processing. A very backwards way of project management, but possibly a high stakes poker game, i.e. having a development designed and ready to go, assuming the Chamber [of Commerce] could help them get a park access anyway.

They did not count on the Public being awake, enlightened, and perceptive. They will not get away with that ploy. There IS access available, in a way that the Carousel and Riverfront Park is not violated.

Yes, there is. Several ways, in fact. Ways that don't require the City of Salem having to go back on its agreement to keep Riverfront Park in public outdoor recreation use in perpetuity. 

There is no need to hand over part of the Carousel parking lot so the Pringle Square developer can build a private access road through it. Most of the people who testified at last Monday's City Council meeting were appropriately outraged by this attempted public land grab.

Which is completely unnecessary. 

Minto Brown LLC and Mountain West Investment are trying to make the Carousel parking lot takeover into a "my way or the highway" deal. If the City doesn't allow access to the Pringle Square apartments through the parking lot, they threaten that the entire development plan could collapse, because there is no other viable access route.

To put it bluntly, that's bullshit. Here's why I say that.

For one, James presents a detailed plan for access through a Bellevue Street railroad crossing. 

The attached aerial map shows the Pringle Square complex entrance to be at Bellevue SE. You turn right to enter the Mixed Use development of the old mill, with parking at its lower levels, and commercial leased retail office space above, and residential units above, and added on the south (Bellevue) side.

You drive straight ahead and cross the tracks at that existing railroad crossing and drive through the Slough parking lot. Location of the proposed bridge (see above) will be where it needs to connect to the apartment interior parking lots, so maybe close to the tracks. That solves the Access Issue, and still allows the apartment development to proceed.

For two, the Pringle Square Access web site shows a plan that assures emergency access via Bellevue Street and a current railroad underpass on the Pringle Square property. (A backup route is needed in case a train blocks a railroad crossing into the apartments.)

Main public access to the property would be off of Front Street. Thus there would be no need to mess with the Riverfront Park Carousel parking lot. And the safety of people visiting the park.

With the current proposal, all carousel traffic would be forced to exit via the apartment complex driveway. This would further traffic congesting through this small access.

If access is granted, 900+ additional vehicles EVERYDAY will pass directly through the Carousel entrance. In the event of an emergency, if the Carousel entrance is blocked by a train, Salem’s Emergency Responders would have to use the path through the park as an alternative emergency route. If that happens, Emergency Responders will have to choose between rushing to an emergency or driving slowly to protect the safety of park users.

Elaine Sanchez, an opponent of the Carousel parking lot takeover, describes some other reasons why this access plan is a bad idea.

Even though Pringle Square developers plan to reduce the size of the south parking lot by 30%, they say they will add seven new spaces and reconfigure it. That’s true, but here’s how they plan to do it:

1. They will eliminate the center island which currently serves as a safety refuge and allows parents to unload strollers, coolers, diaper bags, and other equipment before unbuckling small children from their car seats.  

2. They will designate nearly half of the spaces as “compact” parking.

3. They will add spaces in front of the 1,200 square foot retail space next to the apartments.  (Bear in mind the retailer will have the option to post “Reserved” signs, which would make those spaces off limits to park visitors)

A much better alternative is for the City of Salem to apply for a new public railroad crossing on the Pringle Square property. I've learned that nothing prevents the City from doing this; there is no requirement in state law or rule that opening up a new railroad crossing requires the closing of an old one.  

Yet proponents of the development keep insinuating (or outright claiming) that the popular State Street pedestrian and vehicle railroad crossing into the park would have to be closed if a new crossing was built on the Pringle Square property.

Almost certainly, not true.

Go ahead and apply for a crossing, City of Salem, in concert with the developer and railroad. Make the developer access the apartments via private Pringle Square property, not public Riverfront Park property. If the estimated $500,000 cost of a crossing is too much for Minto View LLC, maybe it shouldn't be trying to build a $17 million apartment complex.

Meaning, if spending less than 3% of the project budget is going to make the apartments, a.k.a. The Residences at Riverfront Park, financially infeasible, maybe this isn't the right development for Salem's one and only downtown riverfront.

It's imperative to re-develop the Boise Cascade property right the first time, because there won't be a second chance. 

How much is protecting the treasure of Riverfront Park worth? How much is protecting children and others who use the Carousel parking lot worth? At next Monday's City Council meeting, we'll learn how Salem's political leadership answer these questions.

Email them some advice: [email protected]

[Update: The always-interesting Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog had a recent post that presented a variation on the Pringle Square Access approach described above. I wrote about that plan in "Salem's Pringle Square development needs more creative planning." My main concern with it is that pedestrian access to the apartments across a bridge isn't enough. Nicely bike and walking-centric, but not really practical.]