HinesSight

Interesting alternative design for Salem's Minto-Brown Pedestrian Bridge

I'm looking forward to completion of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge from Salem's Riverfront Park to Minto-Brown Park.

Three times a week I head to Minto-Brown to do my Streetstriding thing on an outdoor elliptical bike. It'll be great to have additional trails to ride and a bridge that connects Minto-Brown Park with downtown.

But completion of the bridge likely has been delayed for a year, until 2016, due to a delay in getting approval from the Coast Guard to build a structure over a navigable waterway. 
Download Minto Island bridge delayed as permits await approval

So this may allow for consideration of an alternative to the current bridge design (shown above). That design features two prominent arches, apparently to draw attention to the bridge and make it a "signature" architectural statement.

Gene Pfeifer, an experienced Design/Build specialist from Silverton, is suggesting an alternative design. It would look similar to the Flint Wash bridge above, which is in Pasadena, California. One big plus: this sort of bridge could be $5 million cheaper than the arched bridge design.

Here's how Pfeifer described the alternative in an email that went to City officials and other interested people today. He invited sharing of his message, so I'm doing just that.

This is the type of footbridge that will be budgeted and proposed. 

The clear span will be about 310 feet, and the vertical arches are taller than this photo. There will be some east and west extensions without the arch; but with fewer piers than proposed by City's 30 inch diameter, bulging butterfly arch design. 

This design will be more in keeping with Salem's heritage, and the natural setting. Also, it is more in the interpretation [of] the old railroad trestle foot bridge. 

The railing will be more classic with vertical spindles. Also intended, will be lamp poles with gas light style lamps; rather than more modernistic. 

The metal is "corten" which naturally rusts a protective, natural brown color, as shown. That's correct; no painting maintenance.  The deck will be concrete; and support live and dead impact loads of an
emergency vehicle.

The proposed budget goal is less than $5 million; including $500,000.00 of the City's expensive structural engineering outsource expenditures to date.

In conclusion, a more natural design; faster to erect; cost half the money; happier Salem taxpayers; more longevity; less maintenance; $5 million or more back into the Urban Renewal Fund, to be repurposed for better use; better example as to how Salem and we Oregonians should be better investing our limited funds; a success story for the council. 

All those in receipt of this email introduction to an alternate footbridge proposal may share it with whomever you see fit.

Thank you. 

Gene Pfeifer 
Active citizen 
46 year design build specialist

Exciting videos of me talking about a new Salem police facility!*

[* Note: "exciting" is used in a special sense in this blog post title. I am comparing watching my videos to, say, spending several hours in a doctor's waiting room with no cellular or wi-fi service, ten year old copies of Parent's Magazine being the only reading options.]

Now that I've gotten past the above disclaimer, I'll share my EXCITING videos.

Be careful not to watch them close to bedtime. I'm worried you will be too energized to sleep. However, I suppose there is a counter-argument for watching them when you want some sleep.

Last Wednesday Ken Adams and I spent a pleasant half hour at Salem's CCTV studio filming an episode for his Valley View program. The You Tube description:

Interview with Brian Hines on the issue of the Salem Police Department facility, and the decision not to use the Salem Public Library as the site for the Salem PD.

I found the interview interesting when I watched it. But then, I'm me, watching me.

I was really pleased that my hair was in better control than the first time Ken and I talked on camera (about my report on the outrageous U.S. Bank tree killings). Here's the video:

 

On the other hand, hair-wise my appearance during the public comment period of last Monday's Salem City Council meeting was a disaster. But again, I liked what I said about the crazy notion City officials had to convert the library into a police facility.

Salem Community Vision made a video of this portion of the CCTV telecast. I ended up at the podium for a whole eleven minutes, since the Mayor and several city councilors got a bit (or a lot) testy about what I said during my three minute public comment. 

You can watch it here. 

Salemians, take in the last Stories from the Dark Side

Salem (Oregon) is fortunate that some creative folks organized Stories from the Dark Side -- which is akin to a local version of The Moth Radio Hour: true stories told live.

Tomorrow -- Thursday, June 26, 7:15 pm at the Grand Theatre in downtown Salem -- is the last of three Stories from the Dark Side monthly events. Tickets can be bought at the door. Info here. $15 gets you in; money well spent

I told a story in May about the one hour I spent with my father. Total. 

Audio of my ten minute talk is now available. Click on the top left orange play/stop button next to "Brian Hines." Scroll down the Stories from the Dark Side Facebook timeline for more talks from previous events. 

Best thing to do, though, is come to the Grand Theatre Thursday evening. You'll be entertained. And emotionally moved. Guaranteed. Plus, crepes and beer will be available again, I'm quite sure. 

I tell City of Salem officials to "put up or shut up"

Some email messages to public officials are more satisfying to send than others. This one felt great when I sent it off a few minutes ago to Salem City Councilor Laura Tesler, with a cc to other top City officials.

Laura, you, along with some [other] councilors, keep referring to “lies” (or synonymous words) that people have been spreading about the City of Salem. I assume that, as a blogger, writer, and citizen activist, I am one of those people.

 

Please share with me specific examples of those lies you have found in my blog posts. Let’s fact-check them to make sure they really are lies. 

 

I’ll “cc” other City officials so they can take part in this exercise also if they like. 

 

You and other City officials say you are frustrated about misinformation being spread about your actions. Well, frustration can go both ways. It is frustrating to be accused of something in general, without being presented with any specifics.

 

My blog posts have a comment feature. Anyone is able to submit a comment about something I’ve written. 

 

So far no City official has left a comment challenging the accuracy of any of the many posts I’ve written about City of Salem goings-on. I did get one verbal challenge about when/how a decision was made to site a new police facility at the Civic Center, which led me to investigate the history of this and conclude that I was right.

 

I guess you could call this a “put up or shut up” moment for you and other City officials. I ask you to either point out specific examples of factual errors in my blog posts, or stop telling people not to trust my blog. 

 

Keep in mind the difference between (1) facts, and (2) opinions based on facts. 

 

For example, it was a fact that the City Council asked staff to look into the feasibility of converting the library into a police facility. Based on that fact, I did my best to inform people about this, along with my opinion that this posed a threat to the much-loved Salem Public Library.

 

I look forward to getting documented evidence of significant factual errors in my blog posts so I can correct them. Or, not, if you can’t find any.

 

      — Brian

I am absolutely sincere about wanting to learn if they can prove that I've made significant factual errors in my blog posts about City of Salem goings-on.

I'm a believer in the scientific method. Perceived truths about reality always are provisional. "I could be wrong" is one of my favorite mantras. But science also does the "put up or shut up" thing.

If you can't prove that your take on reality is more true than someone else's, stop with the criticism of them. I look forward to either hearing from Mayor Peterson, City Manager Norris, Councilor Tesler, and other City officials about my factual errors.

Or, as I said, not.

Salem Mayor tells citizens to let City officials make decisions for them

It was a strange Salem City Council meeting last night.

Several people told me, as I was leaving after testifying during the public comment period, that this was the first meeting they'd ever attended. They couldn't believe how disrespectful Mayor Anna Peterson was to citizens who came to speak their mind.

I told them, "I wasn't surprised, because I've seen the Mayor do her 'schoolmarm' act before. Sit down, shut up, stay in your seats. Just listen to what Teacher has to say. No backtalk!"

Repeatedly Mayor Peterson emphasized that she and other City officials are empowered to make decisions, and they are going to do just that.

Whether the decisions make any sense; reflect community values and desires; are based on solid facts; flow out of an open public involvement process... not important.

In the Brave New World of the Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors, Big Brother (oops, should say Big Sister) is in charge and Must Not Be Challenged.

To which I and others said last night (in so many words), screw that.

Mayor Peterson started off the council meeting by announcing some good news. City officials have given up on the crazy notion of converting the Salem Public Library into a police facility.

In my testimony about this I thanked the many people in the audience wearing red stickers saying "Hands Off the Library." It was obvious that the vociferous objections to moving the library to some other undisclosed location led to the Mayor and City Manager realizing this was a really poor idea.

The bad news, though, was that an almost equally poor idea has been resurrected: building a vastly over-priced police facility at the Civic Center (the current proposal is for a three story Police Palace next to and over Mirror Pond, with very expensive underground parking).
Download Council: Salem library will not become police station

I'd presciently anticipated this in a recent blog post. 

Also, if a new police facility isn't going to go into the library building, this opens the door to City officials bringing back an almost equally bad idea: building an over-priced three story police palace with expensive underground parking next to (and over) the Civic Center's Mirror Pond. A new police facility should be built out in the community at much lower cost.

By "lower cost," we're talking big bucks -- in the neighborhood of $64 million, including bond financing costs (the City wants to spend about $128 million; Salem Community Vision considers the project can be done for aboout $64 million, half the price.)

So why aren't Mayor Peterson, City Manager Norris, and the eight city councilors eager to hear what citizens have to say about lower-cost alternatives to building a police facility at the Civic Center?

Based on what was said at last night's city council meeting, City officials consider they were elected to make decisions without considering the desires and values of the people they represent. Thus they aren't concerned that no public hearings about the best location for a new police facility have been held.

Well, I am. And I will continue to be.

Every time I heard the Mayor or a city councilor talk about themselves being the decision-makers, this strengthened my resolve to work to restore transparency, openness, and a genuine respect for public involvement back into City Hall.

These guys and gals are acting like they're the CEO and board of a private corporation, accountable to no one. Problem is, they're playing this private enterprise fantasy game with public funds -- taxpayer dollars. 

More: those dollars don't exist yet. Approval for a $128 million bond measure, or whatever the final cost is, would have to be approved by Salem voters. What are the chances of a bond measure passing when citizens have had essentially zero input into the project they're expected to pay for?

Just about zero.

Top-down authoritarian management such as that practiced these days at City Hall has gone out of fashion even in the corporate world. It is hugely more out of place in city government where officials ostensibly are servants of the people.

Here's a video of last night's City Council meeting. I start to do my public comment thing at the 32:35 mark and depart the podium at 41:45.

 

Lastly, as a continuation to this post I'll copy in an email I sent to City officials after I got home from the meeting. I was bothered by repeated unsubstantiated comments that "bloggers," almost certainly referring to me, had been promulgating false information about the planned police facility, and how the Civic Center was selected as the site for it.

All of my posts on this subject are listed and clickable on the Salem Community Vision "Other Voices" page. City staff and elected officials know where to find my blog, believe me. None have pointed out any factual errors in what I've been writing about.

In my email message I sent to City officials last night, at one point I had a "put up or shut up" in it.

I decided to take that out in a gesture of good will. But I said the same thing in other ways. If you read on, you'll see that I've researched how the siting decision was made, concluding that City staff chose the Civic Center location without any public hearings or other community input.

Our life in photos, June 2014 version

It's a lazy warm sunny Oregon Sunday, a day past the summer solstice. TIme to browse the iPhone and dig out some unshared photos of what we -- me, wife, and dog -- have been up to recently.

Such as...walking along the Metolius River in central Oregon near sunset. The Metolius has to be one of the most beautiful rivers in the world. Sure seems so to me, anyway. . I wasn't aware of the beam of light when I snapped the photo. A bit of natural "divinity."

Hiking to the top of Black Butte, an ancient volcanic cone that sits near the headwaters of the Metolius. The view is magnificent. Zu Zu, our dog, is doing her best wild coyote imitation. I love the old cabin. Home at one time for those who manned/womaned the fire lookout, I believe.

All of us, including the canine, were breathing hard on the 2.3 mile continous uphill climb to the top of Black Butte. Posing Zu Zu on a rock that overlooked Black Butte ranch gave us a breather. Of course, this being central Oregon, home to fanatic fitness folks, we encountered a guy at the top who passed us -- running -- on the way down. I have a feeling he ran up also. Then probably went for a fifty mile bike ride before getting into the heart of his exercise regimen for the day.

This is a photo of a peak Sisters, Oregon dining experience for us since a Mexican restaurant, Los Agaves, opened in town. The spinach enchiladas hugely appeal to our vegetarian selves. (I don't like beans, so I got a double serving of rice.) Highly recommended, along with Los Agaves' generous margaritas.

THREE ENCHILADAS DE ESPINACAS

A vegetarian delight - Three corn tortillas cooked in a light cream sauce, served with fresh spinach sautéed with tomatoes, onions, and mushrooms in a creamy green tomatillo sauce. 14 

Back in Salem, here's Laurel and Zu Zu at this year's Willamette Humane Society Mutt Strut. Zu Zu is wearing her biker outfit. 

Zu Zu made lots of friends, friendly dog that she is. Some passers-by were impressed that she was relaxed enough at the Mutt Strut event to collapse into her favorite patting pose when this girl asked if she could pat Zu Zu. Could she?! It was a must! 


I took part in a No 3rd Bridge rally down at Courthouse Square, where the bridge proponents were holding an open house in an attempt to sell people on this $450 million unwanted, unneeded, and unpaid-for boondoggle. Jim Scheppke, standing on a "soapbox" and pointing, ably organized the protest. I blogged some about it here.

We're starting to think about where we may want to live if (or more likely, when) our non-easy care house on ten rural acres in south Salem gets to be too much of a hassle to maintain for us senior citizens. Walking across the creek this afternoon made me realize -- as if I didn't already know this -- how difficult it would be to leave our property behind. The photo doesn't do justice to the small creek, filled with ferns and greenery, which tumbles over a few small "waterfalls" in this area on its way to Spring Lake.

Just realized that I didn't include any photos of myself. Here's my Black Butte summit selfie. That's sun shining on my chin, not an extended geezer soulpatch. 

Turning Salem Public Library into police facility looks less likely now

A just-released staff report for next Monday's City Council meeting thankfully throws a lot of cold water on the crazy notion that the Salem Public Library should be converted to a police facility, with the library moving to some other undisclosed location -- maybe the Marion Parkade parking garage.

Download Council Item 7a (6_23_14)

City Manager Linda Norris says in the informational memo:

According to the City's Chief Building Official, the challenges in taking an existing building, constructed earlier than the 1990's when building codes were updated to account for seismic risk, may make it cost prohibitive to reconstruct the Library facility for Police use. The cost of bringing this building to an immediate occupancy standard for the Salem Police Department is likely not economically feasible.  

Great news.

Just what I've been saying (see here and here), echoing others who are deeply skeptical about decommissioning a functional library building and making it into a police facility -- since it makes a lot more sense to build a new police facility somewhere away from the Civic Center.

But this is important: Lovers of the library, and haters of wasteful government spending, still need to come to the City Council meeting on Monday, June 23.

Check out my "Save the Salem Public Library from being moved to a parking garage" post.

Taking a Machiavellian view of the City Manager's memo (always advisable when dealing with public officials), I suspect that the seismic upgrade cost issue is a face-saving way of retreating from a proposal that would meet with intense citizen opposition.

However, there's still a chance the City Council could decide to go ahead with a library conversion study.

So lovers of the library should come to the June 23 meeting. As Salem Community Vision says, speaking during the opening public comment period will help kill this bad idea. A silent presence also will send a message.

Also, if a new police facility isn't going to go into the library building, this opens the door to City officials bringing back an almost equally bad idea: building an over-priced three story police palace with expensive underground parking next to (and over) the Civic Center's Mirror Pond.

A new police facility should be built out in the community at much lower cost. And seismic upgrades need to be made to the library and city hall.

Less expensive ones, since the seismic safety standard for a Life Safety Performance Level is much less than an Immediate Occupancy Performance Level requred for a police facility. (See staff memo linked above.)

Thus this subject -- not building a police facility at the Civic Center -- needs to be raised at the June 23 City Council meeting, along with a strong "Hands off our library!" message to city officials.

Save the Salem Public Library from being moved to a parking garage

I don't want Salem's library to be moved into the ground floor of the Marion Parkade parking garage. But the City Council might give the go-ahead to plan for this at its next meeting on Monday, June 23.

Crazy? Yeah, of course it is. Mayor Anna Peterson and City Manager Linda Norris have the hots for a vastly overpriced police facility taj mahal at the Civic Center, a monument to... something or other.

Wasteful government spending and bureaucratic egotism, I guess.

 

Read on for a Call to Action from Salem Community Vision. Our Salem Public Library is on the chopping block.

 

Lovers of the library -- which includes Loucks Auditorium, a valuable venue that would likely become the new city council chambers and a courtroom if City officials aren't woken up from their police facility dream -- need to loudly say "Hands off our library!"

 

I've added a few photos to show what will be lost if Mayor Peterson, City Manager Norris, and city councilors move ahead with this insane plan. Also inserted some links to more info.

----------------------------

Dear Concerned Salem Citizen: 

 

The City Council will be discussing whether to fund a feasibility study to retrofit the main branch of the Salem Public Library into the new police facility at Monday's City Council meeting.  

 

The current Salem Public Library and Loucks Auditorium. 

Get ready to say goodbye to them if a plan to convert the building to a police facility moves forward on June 23.

 

Salem Community Vision urges you to attend the Salem City Council on Monday, June 23rd, at 6:30 pm in the Council Chamber at City Hall to make your opinion known on this matter.  

 

You may come and sit in solidarity, or provide verbal testimony at the beginning of the council meeting under the section, Public Comment on agenda items. We do not have the item number yet, but if you want to speak you need to sign in on the sheet at the side of the room prior to the meeting and indicate the topic.  This is not a public hearing.  The staff report will be issued this Friday at http://www.cityofsalem.net/CouncilMeetingAgenda/default.aspx

 

Marion Parkade.

Imagine a library on the bottom with cars rumbling overhead on the parking levels.

 

The proposal as discussed at a Council work session earlier this year, was to convert the existing library building into the police station and to relocate the main library elsewhere. One suggestion from Councilor Warren Bednarz is to convert the first floor of the Marion Parkade parking garage into the new library. He stated at the May 21st Council work session that this might enable the City to close the West Salem Branch Library to save library-operating costs. Salem Community Vision is opposed to the feasibility study.

 

We will ask Council to stop spending money on this plan. Our position on this matter is unchanged. Salem needs to find an affordable location for the new police facility. Perhaps the location can be in the downtown area or elsewhere. Citizens have suggested at least a half dozen alternatives that could be considered.  The City needs to convene a broad community-based task force to consider the alternatives and find the best one that the voters will agree to fund.  

 

Mirror Pond green space.

Mayor and City Manager want to trash either this or the library for their Civic Center Police Facility Palace.

 

This latest library conversion study seems to be the result of the Mayor's insistence that the new police facility be located on the Civic Center campus. Because Salem Community Vision and others have raised strenuous objections to locating the new police facility on Mirror Pond, some Councilors want to explore using the library as an alternative. 

 

SCV supports fiscal responsibility. This new study will cost several thousand dollars of the City's dwindling budget.

 

It is not clear we need a new library building. The one we have works just fine. The Salem Public Library Foundation is about to do a $300,000 renovation of the children's area with money they have raised from private sources. That plan should move forward. 

 

Converting the library into a police facility and relocating the library coupled with the necessary seismic upgrades to City Hall has been estimated to cost $70 million or more - about the same as the cost of a new police facility on Mirror Pond and Civic Center seismic upgrades. A new library might cost an additional $30 million on top of that amount. 

 

It would be foolish to ask voters to raise taxes for a new library AND a new police facility, just so the police facility can be located on the Civic Center campus. 

 

Regardless of where the new police facility ends up, the City Council needs to move forward with seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall buildings without further delay. 

 

Please help us send a clear message to the City Council by attending the meeting on Monday, June 23rd at 6:30 pm. in the Council Chambers.

 

If you are unable to attend, please send a letter or e-mail to the Council at [email protected]  I hope to see you there. 

Susann Kaltwasser

Salem Community Vision, chairperson

Too old for ten acres and a big house -- too young for retirement living

I guess you could call us tweeners. Senior citizen variety.

At 65, my wife and I are beginning to find that the joy of maintaining our large 1970's era house on ten rural acres is beginning to wear thin. So we've started to think about where we'd like to move when and if we really want to.

As noted in my "I'm 65. Where's my 'Aging Hippie' retirement community?" post, we wouldn't fit in with any of the senior-oriented planned communities we've looked at. Not in person; via the Internet, brochures, and such.

Our impression is there's a considerable difference between the retirement desires of baby boomer flower power love children like us, and folks even just ten years older -- who would have come of age in the late 1950's rather than the late 1960's, a whole different time.

So we cringe when we get a DVD/brochure from a "continuing care" community, or something similar, and see mentions of bingo nights, prayer groups, shopping trips in the community bus, hot dog party on the fourth of July, and such.

Hey, we want science talks, organic vegetarian food, progressive political discussions, dancing to classic rock (or at least modern swing music).

Since we haven't found any planned community in Oregon that fits our desired retirement lifestyle, and we don't want to leave the obviously-best-state in the country, we've been rethinking how to handle our tweener status.

When we feel like we're too old for our non-easy-care ten acres and 3,200 square foot house, almost certainly we will still feel too young for a typical retirement community. So we need a halfway house, so to speak.

Which could, of course, be our final destination. Meaning, an easier to maintain home in an urban setting -- where it would be much easier to keep on doing what we need to do if, Tao forbid, one of us were to lose the ability to drive.

Out here six miles from the Salem city limits, there's no public transportation. When folks in our neighborhood can't drive, they almost always end up moving. 

For a long time we figured that we'd stay on our beautiful, quiet, nature-filled ten acres until it was obvious that the time to move had come. But now it's making more sense to me to start thinking about that "tweener" move into a smaller house in town while we're still enjoying ourselves where we are.

I came across this philosophy in several retirement community web sites. At first I viewed it as part of a sales pitch, "It's best to think about moving now, rather than later." Well, even if it is a sales pitch, there's good reason to follow that advice.

Say one of us got some sort of serious illness or condition which made it tough to stay in our current house. Then we'd have two stressful situations to deal with at once: dealing with the health problem and dealing with selling our home and finding a more suitable new one.

Thus we're becoming more enamored of gradually starting to plan for a move that we're too young for now, but will come our way one day, since we're not getting any younger. 

We'll keep looking for Oregon retirement communities that fit our needs and desires. Most likely, though, we'll focus on finding an urban'ish neighborhood somewhere in the Willamette Valley where we'd like to live.

Hey, it could well even be in Salem, nothwithstanding my 37-year-long griping about the blah'ness of the area where I've lived since 1977. (Thirteen years in the city limits; twenty-four years with a rural Salem address.)

There are some appealing neighborhoods in Salem where my wife and I could be happy. I spent some time this morning browsing Zillow, having a good time pretend-house-shopping in various parts of south Salem.

Maybe one day it will be for real.

Is the Salem Public Library really a "charmless concrete bunker"?

I disagreed with a lot of what was said in a Salem Breakfast on Bikes post, "How much worse would a Marion Parkade Library actually be?"

The post refers to a proposal by City officials to seriously consider making the current library into a police facility, and moving the library to some other location.

What rubbed me the most the wrong was a repeated Breakfast on Bikes mention of the library being a "charmless concrete bunker."

Well, for comparision here's a genuine charmless concrete bunker -- the Marion Parkade parking structure that City officials have said could be the new library location. Not the whole Parkade, just the ground floor.

I admit to being a library romantic.

My bookaholic mother instilled me in a love for all things bookish. I grew up in a small town, Three Rivers, California, which for a while didn't have an actual library. However, two women made their homes into community libraries.

I remember my mother driving up to their houses. We'd get out of the car, knock on the door, and be admitted into a wonderfully quaint collection of books scattered through rooms in the house. Eventually Three Rivers did have an actual library, but it wasn't as charming as the home-based versions.

This evening I stopped by the Salem Public Library to take some photos. The library is closed on Monday, so I couldn't go inside. This wasn't necessary, though, to dispel the "charmless concrete bunker" appellation. 

I like the look and feel of the current library.

My wife and I moved here in 1977 when our daughter was five. The library was a big part of her childhood, as well as our lives as parents.

Yes, architectural sensibilities have changed since then. I realize that now the Salem Public Library is cited as an example of "brutalism." I just don't find the outside of the library to be brutal at all.

Rather, it appeals to me. A lot more than the Marion Parkade does. Here are the photos I took today.

This is the view from one of the entrances to the parking structure.

After walking through the structure, I saw the Loucks Auditorium on the left,
a dropoff circle in the middle, and a book return box on the right.

Turning to my left, I enjoyed the greenery library patrons walk by on their way to the entrance.

From the Commercial Street entrance, the aproach to the library doesn't look charmless to me.

Here's the tree'y view of the parking area adjacent to Commercial Street.

I took this photo on the Commercial Street sidewalk, standing in front of the parking structure. Again, the vista strikes me as pleasant, not charmless. Especially compared to the Marion Parkade.

June 23, a week from today, the Salem City Council is going to decide whether to move forward with studying the feasibility of converting the library into a police facility. Check out the Salem Community Vision post about this. 

Lovers of the library will be able to tell the City Council "Hands off our library!" during the public comment period at the beginning of the June 23 council meeting (it starts at 6:30 pm; get there ahead of time to sign up).

Or you can email the City Council and tell them how you feel about the possibility of moving the library to the Marion Parkade and having the current library building be remodeled into a police facility.
mailto:[email protected] 

A right-on critique of Statesman Journal lameness

Nicely said, Jim Scheppke. I agree with your cogent Facebook critique of how the Salem Statesman Journal, which aspires to be our town's "paper of record," has gone downhill a lot journalistically. Here's Jim's post:

I can't believe how lame our local newspaper has become. I mean LAME! Today there were two articles on the front page. The headline grabber had to do with a Portland-based accordion club that is having a meeting at Silver Falls State Park. The second was about the Silverton Hills Strawberry Festival. This is the front page! Great editors from the past like Charles Sprague and Wes Sullivan must be rolling in their graves. 

Have these Gannett clowns who run the SJ ever heard of the "Fourth Estate?" Thomas Carlyle quoted Edmund Burke as saying "there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all." We can't have a functioning democracy in Salem if our daily paper will not report on the news that matters. 

I think the terribly low turnout we had in the City Council election in May had a lot to do with the fact that our daily paper does not give prominence to local city issues.

Our City Council will discuss converting our main library into a police facility a week from today and there still has not been a detailed presentation of the pros and cons of this idea in the SJ. They still have time to redeem themselves with a front page story on this issue, which really matters.

Jim was Oregon's state librarian for twenty years. So he's well qualified to talk about what a community newspaper should be. 

The way I see it, this is the SALEM Statesman Journal.

Like Jim said, most of the front page (and indeed the whole first section, now that national and international news is in the USA Today-provided section) should be devoted to what is going on in Salem.

And not just frothy human interest goings-on. Important goings-on. There should be much more in-depth investigative reporting of key policy issues affecting Salemians.

Such as the emerging plan to convert the Salem Public Library into a police facility. I can't understand why moi, a mere blogger, has been the main source of news about this, rather than the Statesman Journal.

(See here, here, here, and here.)

Don't believe biased Salem Chamber of Commerce third bridge poll

It's easy to show why the Salem Chamber of Commerce's poll about a proposed third bridge across the Willamette River is as crappy as the whole idea of this unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for boondoggle.

Here's a quick question for you: "Would you like to have a new car?" Mentally press "1" for yes, "2" for no, "3" for no opinion.

I answered yes. Most people would. Why the heck not? 

Of course I'd like to have a new car. I'd also like to have a new house, a new television, a new computer, and lots of other new things. I just don't want to pay for all of that stuff. But the question simply asked if I'd like a new car, not if I was willing and able to fork out $100,000 for a fancy Mercedes.

Likewise, the biased Chamber of Commerce telephone poll asked only one question:
Download Polling Results Third Bridge

"Do you support or oppose the construction of the third bridge across the Willamette River?"

No other information was given to the 474 registered voters in the Salem area who answered their phone and responded to this robopoll. 

Likely most knew next to nothing about plans for a third bridge, since our local newspaper, the Statesman Journal, has had minimal coverage of this important issue. Even worse, my understanding is that neither the SJ news staff, nor the editorial board, has ever talked with the well-informed opponents of a third bridge -- No 3rd Bridge.

Because I have followed the issue closely, I know that the proposed bridge would cost at least $450 million; few if any state or federal funds are available to pay for it; so either a $1 toll of the new and existing bridges would be required for several decades, property taxes would go up by about $300 a year on an average house, or a local gas tax of 17 cents a gallon would have to be imposed.

Gee, I wonder why the Salem Chamber of Commerce didn't tell Action Solutions, a right-wing robopolling firm, to ask Salemians this question:

Do you support or oppose the construction of a third bridge across the Willamette River that would cost $450 million, displace 20 businesses and 40 homes, and require tolling of the new and current bridges or a large tax increase to pay for it?

Since this question wasn't asked, the poll is worthless. It's just one more example of how desperate the Chamber of the 1% is to push forward a third bridge plan which lacks a reason for being. 

I've asked proponents of the bridge to give me One Good Reason it should be built. So far, I'm still waiting for a decent answer. Salem's Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, whiffed big time when I asked him this question last year.

He said that redundancy and safety are why Salem needs more than one bridge.

Fernandez apparently didn't realize that we already have two bridges. If necessary, two-way traffic can flow on each. Plus, the current bridges can be seismically retrofitted and made safe in a major earthquake for way less money than the $450 million a new bridge would cost.

At last Wednesday's open house put on by Third Bridge planners, I asked an employee of a consulting firm to give me One Good Reason why the bridge is needed. He pointed to the east end of the current bridges and said "Because of congestion getting into and out of downtown Salem."

"Well," I responded, "the current bridges have as many lanes going each way as the I-5 freeway does. So obviously it isn't the bridges themselves that are the rush hour problem; it is the bridgeheads where people get off and on the bridges."

He agreed. I went on.

"Isn't it true that for much less money than the $450 million a new bridge would cost, traffic lights, off/on ramps and such could be reconfigured so vehicles could flow more smoothly across the current bridges, markedly reducing or even eliminating congestion? After all, traffic counts on the current bridges have been steady in recent years."

The consultant admitted this was true.

As we talked some more, he agreed that there wasn't a real need for a third bridge now. But there might be in 20 years. So even someone working for the consulting firm hired to plan the bridge admits a bridge isn't needed for decades. 

And maybe never.

Because I told him that already people in Salem are driving less and walking/biking more. If this trend continues, and if our mass transit system improves (it could hardly be any worse, with no weekend bus service), the current bridges might be able to handle area traffic for a long, long time.

So it's crazy for the Chamber of Commerce to push so hard for a $450 million tax increase on area residents when there is no need for the third bridge product they're selling.

If the respondents to the robopoll they paid for last March had known the facts about the unwanted, unneeded, and unpaid-for bridge, I doubt very much 65% would have said "yes" to being asked to pay half a billion dollars for it.

Update on proposal to convert Salem Public Library into a police facility

Previously I've blogged about the Children's Room at the Salem library being held hostage to an ill-advised notion of converting the entire building into a police facility. (See here and here.) 

Today I attended a two hour meeting of the Library Advisory Committee where this issue was discussed. A dozen or so people watched the proceedings, testimony to how much the library means to Salemians. (The committee chair said they usually only have one or two observers in attendance.)

City Manager Linda Norris was delayed getting back from Eugene. So most of the library into a police facility discussion occurred after she arrived. Before that, though, some interesting facts about the Children's Room project were laid out for the committee.

The much-needed $294,000 remodeling of the Children's Room area -- which will produce two Storytime areas, rather than one, along with an ADA restroom with diaper changing area, plus other improvements -- apparently was all ready to begin.

Until it had to be put on hold after the Salem City Council, in a work session, asked city staff to prepare a report about how feasible it is to conduct a feasibility study of converting the library into a police facility.

The firm that submitted the winning Children's Room bid, Woodburn Construction Company, was asked if they were OK with a 90-day extension of the remodeling contract. They said a 30-day extension was acceptable. Any delay longer than that might require repricing due to changes in the cost of materials (like copper wire.)

So the big question is what the City Council will do at its June 23 meeting, when the staff report will be discussed. Things are going to get complicated for the Children's Room project if the council decides to keep looking into the possibility of making the library into a police facility.

In my view, which I bet is shared by almost all users of the Salem Public Library, the only smart thing to do is shelve this whole crazy idea. As several people said at today's meeting, the current library isn't broken, so why try to fix it?

Meaning, it doesn't make sense to take a functional library, close it down, move everything to an undisclosed new library location, and then do all the construction work needed to make a building designed for easy public access into a very different sort of building -- a secure police facility.

Yet City Manager Linda Norris repeatedly said this notion deserves to be seriously considered by the Salem City Council.

I asked Norris a couple of questions.

One was, during the 35 or so community meetings where City staff presented the original proposal to build a new police facility adjacent to Mirror Pond at the Civic Center, did any citizen ever say that a better idea was to convert the library into a police facility?

Answer: no.

Norris wasn't aware that anyone did. So where the heck did this idea come from? Well, Councilor Warren Bednarz was at today's meeting. He said that he has been "thinking out of the box," and came up with the notion of converting the library into a police facility.

Well, I doubt that Bednarz is the only one pushing this weird idea. He just is the front person for City officials like Norris and Mayor Peterson who irrationally cling to their desire to have what amounts to a Police Facility Palace with vastly expensive underground parking built at the Civic Center.

Meanwhile, the same city staff are ignoring much lower-cost police facility options raised at the same community meetings where no one -- repeat, no one -- suggested kicking the Salem Public Library out of its current location and moving it... somewhere or other... so the police could take over the building.

Thus the whole crazy notion of convering the library into a police facility emanates from the minds of a few City officials. Once again, Mayor Peterson and City Manager Norris are attempting a top-down bureaucratic planning approach that is wrong-headed from both a political and policy perspective. 

My second question to Norris asked why she and other City staff are ignoring an alternative police facility plan that did -- repeat, did -- have significant support from citizens who attended the aforementioned community meetings.

Namely, to build a police facility away from the Civic Center, such as on Portland Road, where the Northgate Neighborhood Association and owner of the property are eager for a police facility to be built there at a potential savings of tens of millions of dollars.

So don't be fooled, lovers of the Salem Public Library. Don't trust City officials when they claim that a new police facility has to be at the Civic Center, so the library needs to be considered as a possible location. 

They aren't telling the truth.

The Portland Road location and other potential sites out in the community have never been seriously considered by the City of Salem, which from the start has been crazily committed to a backwards and secretive planning approach that began with a desire to have a new police facility at the Civic Center, and then tried to sell a skeptical citizenry on a proposal that never made sense.

And still doesn't. Especially now. 

Because the much-needed remodeling of the Children's Room, paid for with private funds, is at risk if the City Council doesn't kill the library-into-a-police-facility proposal at its June 23 meeting. 

Another request for proposals for bids on the Children's Room project might have to go out if the remodeling is delayed much longer. But if the City Council votes to move ahead with a feasibility study of converting the library into a police facility, this likely would take several months, if not longer. 

The private funding sources for the project would have to be notified of this. Yes, there was some talk at today's meeting about going ahead with the Children's Room remodeling regardless of what the City Council decides to do.

It was noted that even if a decision is made to move ahead with finding a new location for the library and converting the current library into a police facility, this could take years -- public hearings would have to be held; a skeptical citizenry would have to be convinced that a bond measure for this purpose made sense; plans for both a new library and police facility would need to be drawn up; construction would then begin after competitive bids had been evaluated.

OK.

But would those who donated money for the Children's Room project be happy with seeing the remodeling project demolished in a few years when the library was de-booked and made into a police facility?

I seriously doubt it. So in my view the Children's Room project is dead unless the absurd idea to convert the library into a police facility dies soon. I didn't hear anything today that made me change my mind about this.

If you're a lover of the Salem Public Library, tell the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council to put an end to the craziness. At the June 23 City Council meeting, city officials need to say 'no way" to having the Salem Public Library made into a police facility.

Tell them: [email protected]

Otherwise you might find that the Salem Public Library has been moved to the ground floor of the Marion Parkade, one of Councilor Bednarz's "out of the box" ideas. Stuff it back in the box, Mr. Bednarz.

Several mothers at today's meeting told him what a crazy idea this was. They don't want to bring their children to a library in a remodeled downtown parking garage immediately adjacent to busy streets. Too dangerous. Plus, what's the chance that the ground floor of the Marion Parkade can be made into a library that is as good or better than the one we have now?

Yet Councilor Bednarz and City Manager Norris said that if Salem can't end up with a new library that is an improvement over the one we have now, the current library shouldn't be converted into a police facility.

Best argument I've heard for shelving this notion came from the people who are pushing for it. Voters aren't going to approve a bond measure to demolish the current functional library and pay for a less-functional new library in a parking garage, or anywhere else.

Again, this idea needs to die a quick death.

Then the City Council should form a broad-based citizen task force to select the best location for a new police facility. Not in the library building. Somewhere else. Try some bottom-up community-based planning for a change, city officials. 

You'll find that the public will get behind you when you stop trying to force bad plans on them.

Come to No 3rd Bridge sidewalk rally in Salem -- June 11

What's not to like about next Wednesday's rally against the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid for $400 million Third Bridge that special interests want to foist on Salemians?

Us ordinary people, of course, would be expected to pay for it. Somehow or other. Bridge proponents haven't figured that out yet. Along with not-so-little details like why the bridge is needed in the first place.

The rally will feature nice weather, almost certainly. Soapbox for ranting provided. Plenty of sidewalk standing room. Opportunity to ask pointed embarassing questions of politicians and bureaucrats immediately after the rally. 

Love it! 

So I plan to be there: June 11, Courthouse Square, 4 to 5 pm. Here's the press release from the No 3rd Bridge folks 

June 6, 2014

 

Contact Information:

Jim Scheppke, Campaign Co-Coordinator

503-269-1559

[email protected]

 

NO 3rd Bridge Holds Sidewalk Rally to Coincide with Salem River Crossing Open House

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Salem, Oregon – NO 3rd Bridge will hold a public rally of opponents of the 3rd Bridge on Wednesday, June 11th to coincide with the Salem River Crossing Open House. The rally will be held outside the entrance to Courthouse Square, 555 Court Street, beginning at 4 p.m.

 

The rally will feature a sidewalk soapbox for activists and citizens to voice their opposition to the 3rd Bridge. A NO 3rd Bridge position paper will be handed out to people attending the Open House. After hearing remarks on the sidewalk soapbox, rally attendees will participate in the Salem River Crossing Open House.

 

NO 3rd Bridge has been actively working against the Salem River Crossing project since 2012. The group mobilized strong citizen opposition to Alternative 4D which was initially recommended by the project Oversight Team. Because of this opposition, the Salem City Council had to develop "the Salem Alternative," a less destructive version of Alternative 4D, but one that is still strongly opposed by NO 3rd Bridge.

 

NO 3rd Bridge believes that a new $400 million bridge connecting North and West Salem is not the right solution to solve peak hour congestion problems. Traffic has declined about 5% on the Marion and Center Street bridges since 2006 despite continued population growth in West Salem. This is consistent with state and national trends of declining traffic. Vehicle miles traveled in Oregon peaked in 2004.

 

There is a peak hour traffic congestion problem at the ends of the Marion and Center Street bridges that can be alleviated by making improvements to the bridgeheads that were developed in the 1998 Bridgehead Engineering Study, most of which were never built. Improving transit service in West Salem and encouraging more bike and pedestrian commuting using the Union Street bike and pedestrian bridge can also eliminate the need for a 3rd Bridge.

 

The Salem Alternative, that will be presented at the Open House, is harmful to neighborhoods on both sides of the river. It would displace up to 65 homes and businesses. It would destroy the peace and tranquility of Pioneer Village and Wallace Marine Park.

 

Building the Salem Alternative would require that exceptions be made by the Department of Land Conservation and Development to four Oregon Land Use laws that are designed to protect rural and agricultural land. The 3,200 foot bridge would be built outside of the Salem-Keizer Urban Growth Boundary and through the Willamette River Greenway. It would be built over McLane island in the Willamette River, a sensitive habitat for birds and other animals and a destination for recreational users of the river.

 

These and other reasons why the Salem Alternative is a bad idea will be presented by speakers at the NO 3rd Bridge Rally. Everyone will be invited to use the sidewalk soapbox and explain why they oppose the 3rd Bridge.

 

"The NO 3rd Bridge rally is designed to send a message to ODOT and the City of Salem, that most Salem area citizens do not want a 3rd Bridge and we certainly aren't willing to pay for it," said NO 3rd Bridge Co-Leader Scott Bassett. "There are better, cheaper ways to solve our peak hour congestion problems." 

Library Children's Room "hostage taking" to be talked about June 11

A week ago a humble local blogger -- ME! ME! -- revealed that City of Salem officials were holding a much-needed remodeling of the library's Children's Room hostage... to a possible conversion of the Salem Public Library into a police facility.

Since, I've come across interesting snippets of information related to this. They've come from here and there, which is all I'll say about my sources.

Hey, this isn't the New York Times.

I'm just a blogger. I'm not wearing pajamas at the moment, but pretty close: shorts and sandals while sitting on a deck. Anonymous snippets is what you get -- which is way more reporting on this subject than our town's so-called "paper of record," the Statesman Journal, has provided citizens (to date, nothing).

I'll number the snippets to give them an air of journalistic solidity.

(1) Library Advisory Committee meeting next week should be interesting. I've been told that the main agenda item for a Wednesday, June 11, 5:30 pm meeting of the Salem Public Library Advisory Committee in the Library's Heritage Room will be on finding solutions for both the continued existence of the library and construction of a new police facility.

Reportedly City Manager Linda Norris, Deputy City Manager Kacey Duncan, and city counsel will be at the meeting. Public comments will be taken at the end of the meeting. I plan to attend. This is an intriguing political and social policy issue, as discussed below.

(2) City finds itself between (cliche alert!) a rock and a hard place. I have no idea how Mayor Peterson and City Manager Norris are going to extricate themselves from what is turning out to be an ill-conceived notion to study the feasibility of turning the library into a police facility, which also was first reported here (and also not at all by the Statesman Journal, a fact that makes my blogger-self gleeful).

If they hold up the privately-funded Children's Room remodeling until the feasibility of converting the library into a police facility and building a new library somewhere else is completed, this is going to look really bad. The many lovers of the Salem Public Library will go, appropriately, bonkers. But if the remodeling goes forward and the Children's Room becomes holding cells, or whatever, in a few years, then those who funded the remodeling project will go, appropriately, bonkers.

(3) The Salem Library Foundation wants to go ahead with the remodeling. This isn't surprising news. The total amount raised seemingly is more like $300,000 rather than the $250,000 I cited in my first post on this subject. It must have irked the Library Foundation to be told by a City official (City Manager Linda Norris, I heard) that their top current priority, the Children's Room remodeling, has to be put on hold.

However, the library is a public building owned by the City of Salem, so it can put the brakes on the project. Funds for the Children's Room remodeling were raised by a private non-profit organization, the Salem Library Foundation. Mayor Peterson and City Manager Norris really, really want a new police facility to be located at the Civic Center, even though lower-cost alternative locations out in the community are available.

Maybe a compromise will appear at next Wednesday's meeting; it just seems to me that the goals of the Library Foundation and City officials are decidedly at odds.

(4) Money raised for the Children's Room project could be in jeoprady. I used to be the executive director of Oregon Health Decisions, a non-profit organization that got quite a few foundation grants to support efforts to involve the public in discussing bioethical issues such as death with dignity and resource allocation.

So I know that foundations usually give grants for specific causes/projects. Almost certainly this is the case with the money raised for the Children's Room remodeling. Individuals who are large donors likely did the same: earmarking the donation for this particular project. If construction doesn't start by the fall 2014 date cited by the Library Foundation, it's possible one or more funding sources could take back their money. Then the whole project could unravel.

(5) The Salem City Council will address the library into a police facility possibility on June 23. At this meeting of the City Council the plan is for a staff report to be discussed that essentially looks at the feasibility of doing a feasibility study for converting the library into a police facility. An emailed update to interested persons (I'm one) from City staff said this about last month's Council work session:

To further explore this possibility, Council requested information concerning:

1) whether the Library could be reconfigured to meet the Police Department’s needs and at what cost and

2) what City-owned properties are available (e.g. Marion Parkade, leased properties downtown, Windows to the West) that might work for a new Police or Library facility. 

Staff anticipates returning to Council in late June with a report on what it would take (staff time, schedule and cost) to provide the requested information.  At that point, Council will review the schedule and determine if the costs are an appropriate investment.

After digesting all this stuff that I've heard about, I've become increasingly skeptical about the whole idea of converting the library to a police facility and moving the library elsewhere. Some people optimistically believe that Salem would end up with a better library than the one we have now.

Well, anything is possible.

But let's keep in mind that saving money from the current $80-90 million price tag for a new police facility and seismic/other renovations to the Civic Center is the main goal of looking into the library conversion.

I find it difficult to envision how the functional library we have now -- complete with Loucks Auditorium, meeting rooms, ample parking, easy access -- could not only be replaced, but made better, for a reasonable cost that includes the big expense of remodeling the library building into a space suitable for a police headquarters. 

As I said in my first post about this notion, after attending the May 21 City Council work session: 

My intuitive reaction is skepticism: currently Salem has a functional library and a crappy police facility crammed into inadequate space on the ground floor of City Hall. So it makes sense to leave the library alone, other than making seismic upgrades, and to build a new police facility somewhere on vacant land out in the community with lower cost surface, rather than underground, parking.

That way a new police facility could be designed from the ground up. I heard Police Chief Moore say that if the library were to be converted into a police facility, it would requre a lot of remodeling. For sure. A library and a police facility are very different architectural animals.

So what we'd probably end up with under the notion discussed at the work session is a semi-crappy police facility in the old library building, and a semi-crappy library in some new location.

I'm assuming that a new library wouldn't have the same easy access from a parking structure and two one-way streets going south and north, nor the same kind of meeting rooms and other amenities in the current library, nor an auditorium comparable to the current Loucks Auditorium.

Regarding Loucks, the talk today was to make it into a combined City Council chambers and Courtroom. It was unclear whether it still could be used as a community auditorium. Certainly the availability of Loucks would be much reduced.

What's clear from the meeting today is this: the Mayor and City Manager are still deadset on building a new police facility at the Civic Center. This is the unmovable conceptual object that's preventing worthy ideas such as a new police facility elsewhere in Salem -- like on Portland Road -- from being considered by the City. 

The joy of being crazy -- in a sane way

"You're crazy." When people say that to me, or when I say it to myself, I realize that we're not talking about clinical craziness. 

I'm in touch with reality. I can relate to people appropriately. I don't hear voices inside my head, other than the usual chattering of my own mind (a topic I wrote about on my other blog).

No, the sort of crazy being referred to is different. It's main quality, I'd say, is an imbalance that doesn't make sense to other people. And sometimes to myself. For example...

Today I did some major mowing. We have a large yard in rural south Salem. We also have ten acres of left-natural land extending beyond that large yard. In short, we have a maintenance nightmare.

Not only a non-easy care yard -- the rest of our property has trails that need to be kept clear, blackberries and poison oak requiring spraying, trees that regularly fall down or drop limbs in inconvenient places. We're each 65 years old (me now; Laurel in a few weeks).

Handling my large self-propelled DR mower this afternoon, spending more than an hour cutting tall grass in both our lawn and walking trails, I kept thinking "This is crazy." I often think that when doing chores on our property.

Other senior citizens head to condos or small houses at our age.

They don't spend nearly as much time as we do on home and yard maintenance. (My wife's current garden battle is with an unusually large infestation of voles, small burrowing creatures who are a pain to deal with.)

But recently I've come to a different realization of what someone saying "You're crazy" often means: You're different. Meaning, you have a way of looking at the world that is so unlike mine, I can't understand how what you're doing makes sense.

This puts a whole other spin on those two words. Mowing away today, I realized that I enjoy taking care of our ten acres as much or more than I dislike it. 

I feel like I've been married to our property so long, we've established a relationship like many old couples have: outwardly caustic, inwardly loving.

You know, like when the wife says "Oscar is a goddamn pain in the butt; he drives me crazy; I should have married my boyfriend in high school rather than this old coot; I've been able to live with Oscar for fifty years but now I'm praying the Good Lord will take me so I don't have to listen to his snoring any more."

So, yeah, it's crazy for us to keep driving ourselves, um, crazy by keeping on doing what we have to do on our property. Yet for now we wouldn't have it any other way. Still, I can completely understand why other senior citizens chuck it in and head for some sort of Retirement Village.

However, they are them and we are us. 

I've come to look upon "You're crazy" as a compliment -- whether someone else is saying that to me, or I'm telling that to myself. I heard that when I decided to start riding a big Burgman 650 maxi-scooter. Also, when I decided to sell the Burgman and get a skateboard (at the age of 63). Both turned out to be excellent decisions.

Again, for me. Not for anybody else. My risk-reward balance calculation, which smartly led me to take up these activities, was uniquely mine.

In my most recent Strange Up Salem column in our alternative paper, Salem Weekly, I talked about the good side of crazy in "Congrats, crazy city council candidates." Excerpt:

Crazy thing to do. Yet they did it. Why?

Because when craziness feels so right, it’s the only path to pursue. When I hear, “You’re crazy,” this often is a sign I’m on the Robert Frost’ish road less traveled that leads to the pleasurable place of No Regrets.

Life is most emphatically lived on the uncrowded edge. Here change happens, growth occurs, tipping points are reached.

Absolutely. I agree with myself! 

When I feel that I'm completely sane, that's when I'm going to really worry about my mental health. Embracing craziness makes life much more livable for me. If I don't expect that life will make sense, I'm never disappointed. 

Then whatever happens, no matter how crazy it seems, becomes an object of admiration rather of worry. I can marvel at the crazy rather than shun it.

Climate change is the big job-killer, not EPA carbon regulations

It was an interesting juxtaposition of truth-telling and fear-mongering.

Sunday night my wife and I watched the most recent Cosmos episode, which was about global climate change. Scary scientific conclusions, as recapped by the LA Times.

Here's the thing: Nature doesn't care about your politics, or what you want to be true. It just does its thing according to the well-established rules described by science. We ignore reality at our peril.

The sharp rise since the late 19th century means that the average global temperature is rising, with some pretty devastating consequences for our environment. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, heat waves, record droughts, severe storms, mass extinctions — this is the legacy we're leaving to future generations, unless we find the collective will to do something about it and become better stewards of our planetary home.

Then on Monday the Environmental Protection Agency announced new regulations on existing power plants to curb the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. They're market-friendly and required by law.  

But climate change deniers freaked out, predictably, saying the regulations would lead to the loss of many jobs. They ignored the fact that the coal industry has been losing jobs for a long time -- down more than half since 1985.

Plus, renewable energy is a growth industry. Coal is on its way out. It's an outmoded way of producing electricity. It's good for both the planet and the American economy to wean ourselves off of coal as soon as possible.

Fortunately quite a few corporations aren't buying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce bullshit. 

Days before President Obama’s EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced sweeping new rules to limit the amount of carbon pollution that existing power plants can dump into the atmosphere, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report blasting the then-unreleased regulations as certain to raise electricity prices, kill jobs, and slow the economy.

But leading climate-friendly members of [the] Chamber don’t want to be associated with its anti-climate report. Several member companies, contacted by ThinkProgress, declined to endorse the Chamber’s efforts against the administration’s move to address a direct cause of climate change.

Good for them. This is a sound decision, from both a scientific and business standpoint. Voters strongly support the new carbon pollution standards. Just as with gay marriage, it isn't smart for a company to be on the wrong side of history.

Reality can't be argued with in the long-term. Eventually truth triumphs over fiction. Global warming is real. Anyone who watched Neil deGrasse Tyson explain the science of it in the last Cosmos episode should understand this. 

Like I said before, scary stuff. Tyson said:

We just can't seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we'd be home free climate wise.

Instead, we're dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn't seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can't seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves.

All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can't we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?

Well, greed. Ignorance. Religious fundamentalism. Selfishness. 

These aren't good excuses. Future generations will look back at the early 21st century and wonder how so many people could have been so blind to the reality of impending climate doom. 

Hopefully we will avert catastrophe. The EPA's power plant regulations are a step in the right direction. But we need to do more. A lot more.

Giddily, I catch another Dick Hughes journalistic ethics violation

When you read the title of this blog post, what do you think "giddily" meant? Probably something like happy, right? Joyful, maybe. This indeed is one definition of "giddy." As in, he was giddy with delight.

Almost certainly you weren't thinking of another definition: dizzy, causing dizziness. As in, a giddy climb to the topmast.

Therein lies my newest gripe about the Salem Statesman Journal's editorial page editor, Dick Hughes. Dick and I have a history of journalistic disagreements. It's sort of a fun game between us, and sort of not. (The first "sort of" made my use of giddily in the post title believable.)

Today I was pleased to see my name in the lead Statesman Journal editorial, "Downtown resentments, infighting trump Salem's needs." I wasn't happy, though, about being misquoted.
Download Downtown resentments, infighting trump Salem's needs

Thus, it was shortsighted for supporters of the previous EID manager, the Salem Downtown Partnership, to treat the EID as a referendum on city management.

"The vote today, doing away with the EID, is not a vote against flower baskets and First Wednesday. It's a vote against essentially an authoritarian takeover of what was an independent, democratic downtown organization by the city manager and you guys, and you just let it happen," Brian Hines told the City Council, adding that he was giddy about the evening.

Ah, "giddy."

When you read what Dick Hughes wrote, doesn't "he was giddy about the evening" make you think that I was happy the Economic Improvement District was done away with by a vote of downtown property owners? (The Urban Dictionary definitions focus on the happy and excited meanings.)

You'd think that even more if you had read the entire editorial, which started out this way:

The angry accusations directed at Salem's city manager and City Council on Tuesday were coarse and divisive:

"Dirty politics."

"The city came in and stole our money."

"I want to make it very clear the failure tonight is on your head, not ours."

Critics of the Salem Downtown Economic Improvement District were imprudently but giddily celebrating its demise at the City Council meeting. Under state law, enough downtown property owners had opposed the EID that the council was barred from continuing it.

Pretty clever of Dick Hughes, huh? He begins his editorial by saying that critics of how the City of Salem, in the person of City Manager Linda Norris, has been handling the EID, imprudently but giddily celebrated its demise at last week's City Council meeting. 

Then he supposedly quoted one of those critics who spoke at the meeting, me, as saying he was giddy. Case closed! Giddily guilty as charged!

Except, Dick Hughes purposely misquoted me. It had to be purposely, because the Statesman Journal put a video of the public hearing on the Economic Improvement District on its web site. This enabled Hughes to accurately quote me as saying to the City Council:

The vote today, doing away with the EID, is not a vote against flower baskets and First Wednesday. It's a vote against essentially an authoritarian takeover of what was an independent, democratic downtown organization by the city manager and you guys, and you just let it happen.

So Hughes knew that when I used the word "giddy" it was in this context.  

And I'm a little giddy because I've got low blood sugar and I've sat here listening to something I don't care about for two hours, but you need to wake up and the city council needs to exercise oversight over what's happening to downtown because it's important.

A way different meaning of "giddy," right? I was talking about feeling a bit dizzy. I'm a vegetarian. I left my house without eating much at 5:50 pm to go to the City Council meeting, telling my wife that I'd be back soon because I was going to speak about the EID during the opening public comment period.

But when I got there, a city staffer said I had to sign up for the public hearing on the EID. So I sat for three hours, until 9:30 pm, so I could have my say for three minutes. During most of that time the City Council was holding a lengthy hearing on a zoning change for a boarding house in a residential neighorhood. Sort of interesting, but not after two hours when I was hungry and bored.

So near the end of my allotted three minutes I felt the need to explain why I was talking a bit faster and more emotionally than usual. I was giddy in the mildly dizzy sense, not the delighted sense.

Hence, it was a breach of journalistic ethics for Dick Hughes to say that I was "giddy about the evening" where the demise of the EID was announced. He knew damn well that I was using giddy in a completely different way than his "giddily celebrating." 

Maybe you're thinking, this is no big deal. Why devote a whole freaking blog post to it?

Well, because this is one in a series of misleading editorials based on falsities that Dick Hughes has written over the years. Two weeks ago I made a formal journalistic ethics complaint to Gannett, the Statesman Journal parent company, about one of them from 2013.

Tomorrow I'm emailing the guy who handles such complaints for Gannett. I'll ask him to add on the content of this blog post to my initial complaint. I would have held off on this if Dick Hughes had acknowledged that he misquoted me after I pointed it out to him this morning. 

But what I got back was this entirely unsatisfactory response. I have no idea what Hughes is trying to say here. Obviously I was at the meeting. I'm on the freaking video! Maybe Hughes was giddy when he wrote this.

Dick Hughes 

We stand by our editorial and we appreciate yur confirming about the evening, referring to being at the city council meeting. As you noted, you sat through something you didn't care about -- thanks for such compassion -- and you had low blood sugar, etc. etc. etc. That all had to do with your being at the council meeting.

Here's the comment I left on the editorial that Hughes replied to, along with my response to what Hughes said above.

Brian Hines 

Ah, another SJ editorial, more fact-free falsities. Carole Smith did a good job demolishing the untruths in the editorial.

My personal gripe is this. The editorial accurately quotes my statement that businesses voted to eliminate the EID because of the City Manager's authoritarian takeover of an independent, democratic downtown organization.

But then Dick Hughes and Co. said "...Brian Hines told the City Council, adding that he was giddy about the evening."

Wow. Cheap shot, Dick. You made it sound like I was giddy about the EID being voted down and downtown being left without promotional funds. 

You knew very well that what I said, at 9:30 pm after sitting for three hours waiting to speak for three minutes at the City Council public hearing, was:

"And I'm a little giddy because I've got low blood sugar and I've sat here listening to something I don't care about for two hours, but you need to wake up and the city council needs to exercise oversight over what's happening to downtown because it's important."

I expect a correction and apology on tomorrow's opinion page. I realize your favorite saying, Mr. Hughes, is "It's just opinion!" But you need to realize that facts are different from opinion. I never said I was giddy about the evening. I said I was giddy from low blood sugar and boredom.

 

Brian Hines 

Dick Hughes You have failed to understand my point: journalists, and other writers, have a responsibility to use quotations appropriately. In my opinion, you didn't do that, as I'll further explain below.

So here's a challenge for you: Invite me to your next SJ reporter's meeting, or your next Willamette journalism class. I'd like to lead a discussion about what people think "giddy about the evening" connotes to them.

When I read this, I think, "The person was happy." As in, "giddy with happiness after the wedding." I wouldn't think, "The person was giddy with low blood sugar and boredom."

What you did, I'm arguing, is take my quote out of context. 

I was explaining to the city council why my speech was rushed and rather emotional, since I had three minutes to speak about a complex issue, after waiting three hours to do so. I left the house after saying to my wife, "i should be back soon," because I thought I'd be able to speak during the opening public comment period.

Your use of "giddy about the evening" made it sound like I was happy with the demise of the EID, which was the exact opposite of what I conveyed in my three minutes of speaking.

Sure, it may seem silly to argue over this misquote. But it points to a larger issue with Statesman Journal editorializing: are you concerned with basing opinions on solid facts, or do you twist/omit facts to support an editorial opinion?

In your columns you have inveighed against candidates who will use only part of an editorial non-endorsement, as in "John Jones is top-knotch," leaving out "... at incompetent management of public funds."

What you did was akin to me saying, "Dick Hughes is the most skilled editorial writer in Oregon at taking quotes out of context and twisting facts," and you quoting only "Dick Hughes is the most skilled editorial writer in Oregon."