HinesSight

Truth Bomb #4: City of Salem charges me $117 to get a one page email

Long-time observers of what goes on in Salem, Oregon's city government tell me that the current crop of officials at City Hall are the most secretive, closed-door'ish, and dismissive of citizen involvement they've ever seen.

I believe them. 

I could give lots of reasons from my own experience. Here's a single shocking story that recently happened to me.

After I made a public records request for documents City officials are required to share with the public, I was charged $117 for one brief email message that came close to what I had requested, but wasn't really what I was looking for.

I'll explain the further outrageousness of how the City of Salem handled my public records request. 

First, the hourly cost of the three people who handled my request ranged from $81 to $110 an hour. But what I asked for wasn't complicated. It involved a motion by a city councilor to initiate changes to the downtown parking policies.

“Documents (including emails) relating to the 7-part motion made by Councilor Clem at the August 25 City Council meeting that directs staff to prepare and present an ordinance amending SRC Chapter 102. I’m particularly interested in documents relating to item (2) of the motion regarding removing restrictions on the State St. lot.”

I assumed that a mid-level staffer of some sort would attend to my request. But when I got this message from someone in the Recorder's Office, I was blown away by the hourly staff rates.

Mr. Hines, the deposit amount required to fulfill your request is $116.90. This includes:

$ 20.16        .25 hrs review time by the Assistant City Attorney at $80.64/hr
   41.50        .50 hrs staff time @ $82.99/hr
   55.24        .50 hrs staff time @ $110.47/hr
$116.90        Total

I asked this person to let me know who was getting paid $82.99 and $110.47 an hour to respond to a citizen's simple public records request. Here's the answer I got.

Mr. Hines, the staff involved in your request are Linda Norris, City Manager, burden rate $110.47/hr, and Kacey Duncan, Deputy City Manager, burden rate $82.99/hr.

Are you freaking kidding me!?, I thought. This is like President Obama and Vice-President Biden personally dealing with a federal FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

Why are the City Manager and Deputy City Manager handling my request to get documents relating to a city councilor's motion? Don't they have better things to do, like managing an enterprise with a half billion dollar annual budget?

Yesterday the Associated Press ran a story, "Ferguson demands high fees to turn over city files." 

Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them. The AP has not paid for the search because it has yet to negotiate the cost.

Well, I was charged $97 an hour to retrieve some documents -- less than Ferguson, but still way too high. As the AP story goes on to say:

Price-gouging for government files is one way that local, state and federal agencies have responded to requests for potentially embarrassing information they may not want released. Open records laws are designed to give the public access to government records at little or no cost, and have historically exposed waste, wrongdoing and corruption.

I thought this was an exorbitant hourly rate, but gave the Recorder's Office a check for $116.90 anyway. Why? Because I'm a crazy citizen activist. And my birthday was coming up. (I've got a thing for public records requests.)

When I got a PDF file containing a bunch of documents, at first glance I was pleased. But upon closer inspection, I realized that the City Manager and Deputy City Manager hadn't given me what I asked for. I wrote back to the person in the Recorder's Office I'd been dealing with.

Thanks for sending this batch of documents. However, all but one weren’t what I asked for, so the PDF file isn’t responsive to my public records request. Which was…

“Documents (including emails) relating to the 7-part motion made by Councilor Clem at the August 25 City Council meeting that directs staff to prepare and present an ordinance amending SRC Chapter 102. I’m particularly interested in documents relating to item (2) of the motion regarding removing restrictions on the State St. lot.”

After reviewing them, I’m quite sure all but one of the documents/emails I received had to do with a motion Clem made at the August 11 meeting, directing staff to prepare a report on downtown parking for the August 25 meeting. This is interesting stuff, but not what I requested.

Since there were considerable emails regarding Clem’s August 11 motion, seemingly there should be emails and/or other documents relating to Clem’s 7-part August 25 motion. Yet I wasn’t given any directly relating to the 7-part motion. One email from Councilor Bennett indirectly referred to the motion.

Having been informed who was handling my request, I’ve cc’d them on this message. I look forward to either receiving documents responsive to my public records request, or getting confirmation that no such addiitonal records exist. In that case, naturally I’d like to get a substantial refund on what I paid for the request, since so far only one email has been sent to me that pertains to this request. 

Thanks.  — Brian HInes

Soon I got an email from the City Attorney. 

 

Mr. Hines:

 

The records previously provided are all the city public records responsive to your request.  As to your statement that the records provided are not responsive, we disagree.  The August 11, 2014 Council motion and August 25, 2014 staff report are related to the August 25, 2014 motion referenced in your request.

 

Your request broadly sought documents "related" to the August 25, 2014 motion.  Outside of stating that you were "particularly interested" in "item (2)" of the motion, your request did not contain any other limitation.  Without any clarification from the person making a records request, city staff must provide the records as requested.

 

In the future, you may want to provide additional clarification in your written request so to limit the amount of staff time and documents provided.

 

Daniel B. Atchison
City Attorney
City of Salem

 

This was, in my opinion, complete bullshit. I told the City Attorney just that. But using nicer words.

 

Dan, I disagree that public records about the August 11 motion are “related” to the August 25 motion. If I’d wanted records about the August 11 motion I would have asked for them. Nothing in the records I got about the August 11 motion relate to the August 25 motion.

 

The August 11 motion concerned a staff report about the downtown parking situation. The August 25 motion was a specific 7-part motion about changes to the city ordinances governing downtown parking. 

 

How much more specific could I have been? I asked for documents related to the August 25 motion. Except for one email, you gave me documents related to the August 11 motion. 

 

Why didn’t you give me documents related to the formation of Salem, or the first city government in this town? Trace the connections back, and everything is related to everything else.

 

Lastly, I gave the PDF file to someone else interested in this subject before I’d had time to read the documents. I figured that they were responsive to my request. When I saw this person at a meeting, he told me “There’s nothing relevant there. Aside from one email, all the documents are about the August 11 motion.” 

 

This shows that an independent third party agreed with me that the documents you gave me weren’t about what I requested.

 

I’m still requesting a refund.  — Brian

 

This episode is depressingly typical of how City of Salem officlals fail to understand what the term "public servant" means.

 

Whenever they have a choice between representing the broad public interest and supporting open government, or representing special interests and keeping governmental deliberations secretive, almost always they choose the latter.

 

A citizen shouldn't be charged $117 to get one email that isn't really even what his public records request asked for. The highest paid officials in Salem city government shouldn't be responding to public records requests. When a citizen says "You didn't give me what I asked for," he shouldn't get a dismissive reply by the City Attorney.

 

There's a lot more to say about how the City of Salem is failing to abide by both the spirit and the letter of Oregon's public records law. But I'll save that for another Truth Bomb.

Oregon marijuana legalization opponents fear the truth

Josh Marquis is the Clatsop County District Attorney.

Law-abiding guy that (one would think) he is, Marquis shouldn't have a problem with someone making public record requests to see whether he broke the law against using taxpayer dollars for a political purpose. 

But Marquis is freaking out over marijuana activist Russ Belville's efforts to learn whether officials in Clatsop County, Marion County, and other places in Oregon illegally used federal funds to plan an inaccurately named "Oregon Marijuana Education Tour" -- which actually is an effort against Measure 91, Oregon's marijuana legalization effort.

Head over to The Weed Blog to read an interesting tell-all post, "DA Josh Marquis Attacks Russ Belville Over Open Records Requests."

Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis of Astoria, Oregon, is none too happy about citizens like me poking around in his public records. 

Now DA Marquis, the de facto spokesperson for law enforcement’s opposition to Oregon’s Measure 91, our marijuana legalization initiative, is trying to intimidate me into ceasing my investigation into misuse of federal grant money and county resources to plan, produce, promote, and present so-called “educational events” that only occur when marijuana legalization is on the ballot.

Yesterday I learned that DA Marquis has filed a complaint with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office regarding my fundraising for this investigation.  I have created an online fundraiser at http://gofundme.com/fightsabet to raise $5,000 for the fees that five counties will charge me for Oregon Open Records Requests. 

I’ve made requests for these counties’ district attorney’s and drug prevention coordinator’s emails concerning the planning of the Oregon Marijuana Education Summit & Tour featuring my nemesis, Kevin Sabet.  Knowing Sabet’s anti-legalization marketing campaign like I do, I knew that this “education” would consist of scaremongering, half-truths, and obfuscations intended to produce doubt among Oregon voters who are predicted to pass Measure 91.

DA Marquis’ complaint is frivolous, but it is a significant reaction to the headway I have been making in this investigation. 

It isn't surprising that Marquis is afraid of Belville finding out the truth.

This is just about the only strategy opponents of Measure 91 have: spreading falsehoods and distracting voters from knowing the many benefits marijuana legalization would bring Oregon.

The Eugene Register Guard has joined the Portland Oregonian in calling for a Yes vote on Measure 91. The newspaper's editorial makes a lot of sense.
Download Legal, regulated marijuana: Yes | Opinion | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

Removing the threat of a drug bust from the lives of nearly one in eight otherwise law-abiding Oregonians would be one primary benefit of Measure 91. Another would be to kill or cripple the black market in marijuana.

Prohibition keeps drug dealers in business — dealers who have no compunction against selling pot and other drugs to children, selling products of dubious purity and feeding profits to organized criminal enterprises. Measure 91 would pinch one of the conduits for the cash that finances drug cartels by bringing much of the underground marijuana economy into the open, where it could be monitored, regulated and taxed.

Under Measure 91, legal sales of marijuana would be taxed at a rate of $35 per ounce — a rate low enough to ensure that licensed outlets could compete with illicit sources, yet high enough to generate revenue for the state.

The Legislative Revenue Office estimates that marijuana tax revenues in the first biennium would amount to $46.6 million. Forty percent of the money would be dedicated to public schools, 35 percent to law enforcement and 25 percent to drug education, treatment and mental health programs.

The Yes on 91 folks are holding a Party to End Prohibition on October 14 at The Jupiter Hotel in Portland. Tickets are $100. Congressman Earl Blumenauer will be a special guest. This is a great opportunity to support what hopefully will be a historic marijuana legalization vote this November.
Download Party to End Prohibition (PDF file)

Victory is by no means a done deal, not with truth-shaders like Josh Marquis and Kevin Sabet running around spreading falsehoods about Measure 91. Donate what you can to Measure 91.

Patti Milne was a terrible county commissioner. Vote for Courtney.

Democrat Peter Courtney has been an excellent state senator in the Oregon legislature.

His opponent is Republican Patti Milne, someone my wife and I, along with others in our rural south Salem neighborhood, know quite well as an elected official. 

Here's my well-founded advice to voters of all political persuasions in Courtney's district: Vote for him! Milne was a disaster as a county commissioner. There's no way she deserves to be a state senator.

This dismal opinion of Milne was shared by virtually everybody in my neighborhood, conservatives and liberals alike, during our five-year fight against a subdivision proposed to be built on high-value farmland that threatened our wells and surface water.

Along with Sam Brentano, Milne displayed a horrendous disregard for facts and the law. She kept voting to approve construction of the subdivision because of her personal feelings. 

We and our neighbors, along with water experts we'd hired, spent many hours testifying about why it was both illegal and wrong to allow the subdivision to be built in a groundwater limited area. Our attorneys correctly argued that the law didn't allow Marion County to approve the subdivision.

After we finally won our case in Marion County Circuit Court, I wrote "Judge slaps down Marion County Commissioner Patti Milne." The truth had to be told.

Ooh, I love it! A judge gets into a slapdown.

Not literally, of course, but judicially. A front page story in today's Statesman Journal tells the tale: "Judge blocks 43-lot subdivision in south Salem."
Download SJArticle-Laack subdivision

I had the news here first, in my Circuit Court reverses Marion County commissioners post. This was hugely reassuring for our neighborhood, which has been fighting the Ridge View Estates development (a.k.a. Laack subdivision) for almost five years.

Repeatedly, the Keep Our Water Safe committee formed to protect our property rights and senior water rights came out on the short end of 2-1 votes at meetings of the Board of Commissioners.

Patti Milne and Sam Brentano kept refusing to honor both facts and the law -- which isn't a good thing if you're an elected official sworn to defend the public interest, not your personal political and personal beliefs.

...My wife and I have spent a lot of time in Board of Commissioners meetings, a lot, so we're intimately familiar with how Patti Milne makes decisions. In short, poorly. She thinks from her gut, so to speak, not with her head.

Truthiness is her thing, not truth.

In satire, truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

As I noted before, sixty-five people signed a letter from the Keep Our Water Safe committee asking Patti Milne and the other commissioners to hold a hearing before they voted on the vested rights application.

We correctly pointed out that a hearing officer's report was inconclusive, inaccurate, and incomplete.

Yet Milne and Brentano said there wasn't any need to learn key facts and legal information. They just had a feeling that the developers should be able to carry on with the subdivision.

Judge Johnson proved them wrong. Milne and Brentano gave the subdivision a pass on all six common law vesting factors; Johnson ruled fail on the most important five factors.

That's a serious judicial slapdown. Marion County voters should do the same in their own way come November, when Patti Milne is up for reelection.

Same advice applies now, in her race against Courtney. Milne simply isn't competent when it comes to being able to serve as an elected official. 

I've seen first-hand how she thinks and analyzes issues: extremely poorly and shallowly.

Milne makes up her mind first, then comes up with biased arguments that fit with her predetermined position. Sure, we all are prone to do this to some extent, but Milne takes twisted thinking to extremes.

Recently the Statesman Journal editorial board interviewed Courtney and Milne. Astoundingly, Milne claimed that she has never made a mistake in politics or in government. Milne also said she has never changed her mind about a political or governmental issue.
Download Mistakes: Peter Courtney, many; Patti Milne, none

This shows what a closed mind Milne has.

Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody changes their mind. Milne is just so unaware, so fearful of letting reality into her made-up psychological world, she doesn't know about her own mistakes and mind-changings.

Vote for Peter Courtney. He's honest, while Milne is untruthful. He's competent, while Milne is clueless (don't forget how she oversaw the failure of Courthouse Square).

Truth Bomb #3: City of Salem kills trees for no good reason

Here's a dirty (or let's say, sawdusty) open secret: the City of Salem doesn't really care much about trees.

It allows beautiful healthy trees to be cut down when they don't need to, bowing to special interests rather than the broad public interest, often ignoring expert arborist advice in favor of making "political" tree removal decisions.

Yeah, this is Oregon. Tree country. Green Land. Environmentally proud.

So the gang at City Hall -- Mayor Anna Peterson, City Manager LInda Norris, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez, Urban Forester Jan Staszewski -- try to fool this town's many fervent tree lovers into believing that Salem's city government is with them.

Not true. Here's some of the reasons I say this with confidence.

Tree experts agree with me. I've talked with several of Salem's outstanding arborists. They've been blunt with me about what a crappy job City officials do with this town's street trees. They're infuriated by the B.S. going on here.

It seems that who you are, and who you know, all too often determines whether a tree lives or dies, is saved or is removed.

This is a horrible way to manage Salem's urban forest.

Citizens should be able to have confidence that the care of this town's street trees is founded on what's best for the community, not what a particular business or property owner wants done with publicly-owned trees.

Two of the five U.S. Bank trees

My "Outrage" report blew the cover on Salem's outrageous tree policies. Remember the five beautiful Japanese Zelkovas that graced downtown's State Street in front of U.S. Bank? I hope you do, because memories are all that remain of them after they were needlessly cut down in 2013.

Cut down for no good reason

I was so enraged by this senseless act of tree cruelty, I paid $726.61 to get public records (emails, memos, and such) from the City of Salem that told the true story of how Public Works Director Peter Fernandez ignored his own Shade Tree Advisory Committee, expert arborists, and many concerned citizens so he could keep a backroom deal with U.S. Bank President Ryan Allbritton to cut down the trees -- a deal made several freaking years before Allbritton even applied to have the Zelkovas removed. 

Outrageous, oh yeah. You can read all about it here.

Similar thing is happening now with three High Street trees. South of the Elsinore Theatre, on downtown's High Street, three large healthy trees are slated to be cut down. They aren't diseased. They aren't about to die. They aren't causing any problems with the sidewalk that require them to be removed.

No, Public Works Director Fernandez issued a removal order on Urban Forester Staszewski's recommendation because... well, I have no idea. The order admits that the trees are healthy and not causing any problems other than dropping leaves on the adjacent property owner's building. 

Which, duh, is what decidious trees do in the fall. 

I asked three expert Salem arborists, two of them currently Certified Arborists who have to abide by a code of ethics (unlike Staszewski, who isn't certified), to look at the trees. All of them agreed: the trees are healthy; they could benefit from judicious pruning and other care, having been neglected for a long time; they don't need to be removed.

One of the arborists, plainspoken Elwood Newhouse, started off his conversation with me with, "It's all bullshit." I agree. Read more in my "City of Salem kills more downtown trees for no good reason."

I wrote that post last April when Ira's Alley property owner Steve Ross told me he wanted to save the trees after learning Newhouse's opinion of them. Now they are back on the chopping block. Ross hasn't responded to my inquiry asking why. 

Salem Weekly recently published a story on this new tree outrage. 

City officials are allowing Salem Hospital to needlessly kill marvelous white oaks. This additional Kill the Trees debacle can be understood via a short video that should get tree lovers fired up.

 

You also can read about this issue in another Salem Weekly story, "Neighbors object to 'clear cutting' historic trees." And in a well-written letter to the editor in today's Statesman Journal.

Yesterday I took a walk in the area around Howard Hall. I had read that as many as 40 trees may be destroyed in order to make a parking lot there.

The trees there are majestic, tall and beautiful. They provide oxygen, shade, habitat and a rich environment for humans and non-humans who live in Salem. They are valuable.

In 2012 a popular movie was “The Lorax.” The Lorax spoke for the trees. He spoke against tree-cutting and pollution and sprawl. He spoke for clean air, clean streams and a healthy environment. I hope for the many children and adults who saw this movie that this was not just a “feel good” moment. Maybe it encouraged people to take action.

My understanding is that there is a tree ordinance in Salem that prevents the cutting of “significant” trees in Salem. Some of the trees on this property owned by the Salem Hospital are old Oregon white oaks. This ordinance received a variance from the city’s planning administrator.

Who speaks for the trees in Salem? Apparently not the city administrator.

Let’s speak for the trees and find a way to save them.

Lois Stark

Being a "Tree City USA" means nothing. Every year Salem's Mayor proudly hangs a banner in the City Council chambers showing that, once again, this town has earned Tree City USA status. 

Whoopty-doo. Do you know what this means? Next to nothing.

Thousands of cities in the United States have gotten the same designation, including 56 cities in Oregon. What would be unusual is for an Oregon city to not be a "Tree City USA." 

Here's all it takes to become one. 

1. A Tree Board or Department
2. A Tree Care Ordinance
3. A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita
4. An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation

Salem may have a Tree City USA banner hanging on the wall, but no way does it deserve to be called a city that cares about its trees. 

It doesn't. Stumps don't lie. City officials have a nasty habit of cutting down healthy beautiful trees for no good reason.

Some downtown Salem restaurants may try to keep out food carts

Today a Facebook post clued me in to a worrisome possibility: some restaurants in downtown Salem might attempt to keep food carts from establishing a long-term "pod" in the area. Or maybe even ban temporarily positioned carts.

Here's the post from Rob Drinkenstein, a.k.a. Rob the Bartender, a.k.a. Rob Melton. Rob is part of the Table Five08 team, which recently opened this cool restaurant on State and High in downtown Salem.

So let me get this straight. A group of "downtown core" restaurants are getting together to "discuss" food trucks in downtown Salem.

It appears some are worried about the impact on their business.

I have news. If you really think a food truck is going to put you out of business, you need to change your business plan.

The more business we have downtown the better I say.

Additionally why should their dream be less valid because they opt not to pay one of our many downtown slum lords huge rent for brick and mortar.

Welcome to downtown Salem kids I say! I for one support you!

As for the "panel" Thanks but no thanks, I try not to judge. Remove me from your email list.

This seems really dumb to me, a few restaurants trying to stifle dining competition from food carts in Salem's urban core.

I was at a city council meeting where representatives of Venti's, Gamberetti's, and Napoleon's (will be re-opening its crepe cafe soon) testified that they feared losing business to downtown food carts. 

Well, my attitude about this was expressed about six weeks ago in my Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column, "Embrace downtown food carts." 

Who’s afraid of food carts? Not me. I’m thrilled that the City Council recently approved revisions to a food cart ordinance, thanks largely to the Salem Food Cart Association and Councilor Diane Dickey.

...Food carts are a big success in Portland, drawing national acclaim from Bon Appétit magazine and CNN. So what’s not to like about having a vibrant food cart scene everywhere in Salem, including downtown?

Nothing. But to some people here change is scary even when it is for the better. Diversity, creativity, more eating options… Eek!

At the July 14 city council meeting I was surprised to hear several councilors and restaurant owners talk about their Big Fear that people would flock to a downtown food cart pod and — oh no, the horror — enjoy eating there!

Theoretically, possibly, just maybe, the worry was that some of these people might choose a quick and easy food cart meal over a sit-down restaurant offering.

Well, this is called competition and free enterprise.

Even in the People’s Republic of Portland, where downtown food cart pods harmoniously coexist with restaurants. On SW 9th and Alder there are more than 60 food carts; on SW 4th and Hall, 25 food carts.

Hopefully the downtown restaurant folks who contacted Rob and tried to get him to join the anti-food cart crusade will back off. Nothing good will come of this. 

Food carts are popular. People aren't going to be happy with any restaurant that tries to squash these dining alternatives.

Those "brick and mortar" restaurants who are afraid of them need to heed Rob's advice: If you really think a food truck is going to put you out of business, you need to change your business plan.

Salemians appear to agree. Here's some of the comments on Rob's Facebook post so far.

Food Truck Haiku ...
Your aromatics
beckons me closer to you.
I love you, food truck.

Competition breeds innovation. I as someone who eats in this city welcome it.. The downtown food scene could use a little shake up. Or better yet, food anarchy.

Sounds like some folks are afraid to "let the market decide..."

I heartily agree with you. More is better for downtown, more of everything. Including competition. [my comment]

Classic Salem "we really want small business to succeed" (but don't tell anyone that we really don't!)

*Stands up clapping* Rob Drinkenstein for Mayor!!!

If I wanted the restaurant experience I would not choose a food truck and vice versa. Restaurants would do better by focusing on self-improvement rather than worrying about competition.

Truth Bomb #2: Why I don't trust City Hall and the Statesman Journal

A few days ago I Truth Bombed about how our community newspaper, the Statesman Journal is failing us. This is part of my new blogging passion, "Salem, open your eyes."

It's tough to clearly see what's going on in Salem when your local paper won't report news that puts City officials or Chamber of Commerce types who are our town's "1%" in a bad light.

It's also tough when important decisions at City Hall are made behind closed doors to hide special interest dealmaking that overrides the general public interest.

At the end of my first Truth Bomb I shared a guest opinion piece that I'd submitted to the Statesman Journal after the newspaper killed an already-written story about my report on the outrageous killing of the beautiful U.S. Bank trees that I'd appropriately titled "Outrage." 

(To read a PDF file of the report, click here.)

Well, not only did the Statesman Journal kill a story about how Public Works Director Peter Fernandez and U.S. Bank president Ryan Allbritton (incoming Chamber of Commerce president in 2013, when he asked for the healthy trees to be removed) made a backroom deal to kill the trees, the newspaper also refused to publish my guest opinion piece about why no story.

That unpublished guest opinion about how I've lost trust with City Hall and the Statesman Journal was shared in a continuation to my lengthy Truth Bomb #1 post. So here it is, more prominently displayed.

If you read the Statesman Journal, keep in mind that by no means does it adhere to the adage "all the news that is fit to print." Our local newspaper only runs stories that are acceptable to the Salem powers-that-be, which include the Gannett Corporation executives who run the Statesman Journal.

Likewise, when you hear about what is going on at the City of Salem -- city council meetings, commission/committee hearings, and such -- keep in mind that much or most of the decisions actually are being made behind closed doors so citizens can't see all the special interest crap being thrown around.

Here's my piece that the Statesman Journal didn't want you to read.

Unpublished Guest Opinion

I’ve lost trust in City Hall and the Statesman Journal. After living in the Salem area for thirty-seven years, this disturbs me. I used to believe that City of Salem officials were committed to serving the broad public interest, not special interests, and our community newspaper had the same goal.

Not any more.

In May I released a report on the notorious 2013 U.S. Bank tree removals, where five marvelous Japanese Zelkovas in the Historic District were cut down. The report is based on public records documents I requested, including emails that previously had been hidden from view. 

The title and subtitle tell the tale of what I found: “Outrage: Salem’s U.S. Bank Tree Killings. The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.”

(The 18-page report can be found at www.usbankkillstrees.com, or via a Google search.)

I discuss ten reasons why anyone who cares about trees, the environment, and ethical government should be outraged about how the Zelkovas came to be turned into stumps.

The biggest outrage is that back room dealmaking between Public Works Director Peter Fernandez and U.S. Bank President Ryan Allbritton led to the tree killings, even though facts, expert arborist advice, public testimony, and the law all demanded the trees be saved. 

In other words, City officials bowed to a special interest rather than fulfilling their duty to serve the general public. Is this still happening? Sure seems so. 

Howard Hall is one example. Once again, a citizen committee (this time, the Historic Landmarks Commission) voted to preserve a cherished part of Salem. Once again, City officials sided with a large corporation (this time, Salem Hospital) in overturning that vote.

So my report is about a lot more than the U.S. Bank trees debacle. It provides a window into how the Mayor, City Manager, and others at City Hall generally are handling important policy decisions. In short, in an untrustworthy fashion.

Here’s why I also no longer trust the Statesman Journal. An investigative reporter was intensely interested in my “Outrage” report. A story was written. In early May I was told  the story would run on an upcoming Sunday. May became June.

Now it is August. No story. Just a question: “Why no story?” 

Well, the reporter’s editors have squashed it. Just as no one at the City of Salem or U.S. Bank could come up with a good reason why the Zelkovas needed to be cut down, I haven’t gotten a good reason why readers of the Statesman Journal have been kept in the dark about the outrageous actions of City officials.

I want to feel like I can trust City Hall and the Statesman Journal to do the right thing for Salem. I hope this feeling returns. For now, though, my trust is as dead as the U.S. Bank trees.

————————————
Brian Hines 

Am I the best investigative reporter in Salem?

Just got a nice compliment from James M. Schultz, who left this Facebook comment about my blog post Truth Bomb: "The Statesman Journal newspaper is failing Salem."

A number of years back, I decided never to buy another StatesmanJournal newspaper as long as Dick Hughes was there. I have my reasons, and many of them parallel Mr. Hines' reasons here; I just tend to view him as arrogant and self-righteous.

As for the SJ's investigative reporters, I don't know if they just aren't up to the job or if they are good reporters whose work the editors quash -- whether to please their corporate masters, or their Chamber of Commerce overlords, or whatever. I tend to believe the latter -- those in charge keep them under control in order to avoid offending their corporate bosses, the C of C, or the City Council (which, after all, is pretty much hand-picked by the C of C.)

But regardless, solely on the basis of what we get to see in print, I think Mr. Hines is the best investigative reporter currently writing in Salem. Keep it up; as you said, the SJ has definitely failed us and continues to do so.

Well, thanks James. You might be right, but for reasons that don't make me as proud as I would be if the Investigative Reporter Competition in this town was fairly run.

Like Mr. Schultz said, methinks, along with him, that Statesman Journal reporters are leashed quite tightly by newpaper executives when they start to tread into territory Where The Wild Truth Lies.

Namely, how the Salem-Area Chamber of Commerce does its best to run this town with the willing (money talks!) compliance of the City Council and city officials. 

Isn't it interesting how the Statesman Journal will investigate, to offer one example, the Willamette ESD obsessively, yet ignores malfeasance at City Hall -- even when an investigative report is handed to them on a journalistic platter?

James, I'm sure you'll be interested in my upcoming Truth Bomb about the journalistic ethical missteps of editorial page editor Dick Hughes. I'll share some previously unshared information about complaints I filed against him with the Gannett Corporation, and how this turned out.

Truth Bomb #1: The Statesman Journal newspaper is failing Salem

Boom! Here's the first Truth Bomb in my who-knows-how-many-parts series, described in "Salem, open your eyes." 

I'm out to say some things I haven't said before about what needs to change in the city I've lived in or near for 37 years. And to resay more bluntly what has been blogged about previously. First up...

The Statesman Journal is failing Salem. It has stopped being a reputable community newspaper. I've lost trust in the paper's executives. News is censored for "political" (using that term broadly) reasons.

I have first hand experience of this. Here's the story of how there came to be no story in the Statesman Journal, even though an important story was written and needed to be published.

Some background:

The Statesman Journal is part of the Gannett media empire. For many years Salem hasn't had a locally controlled newspaper. Top executives at the Statesman Journal, such as the publisher and executive editor, are put in place by Gannett central.

In 2013 Michael Davis was brought to town. As the new executive editor, he said the right things. I was hopeful Davis was also going to do them.

I just pulled out a folder where I'd put two clippings of opinion pieces written by Davis in June and August of last year. Here's what he promised -- but has failed to provide. In "A focus on watch-dog reporting," executive editor Davis said:

Watchdog reporting is Gannett's top priority for its newsrooms across the continent, and ours is no exception. Our continuing mission is to hold individuals, businesses, agencies and institutions accountable for their action or inaction.

The Founders believed that a vigorous free press would expose wrongdoing or malfeasance by individuals, charities, public officials, public agencies, institutions that serve the public, or by those who do businesses [sic] with the government or public.

At a time when some media companies are backing away from investigative journalism, Gannett is betting its newspaper future on it, offering training, tools and cash awards to reporters who excel at getting to the bottom of things and exposing what's there.

Well, to paraphrase a news organization I rarely quote, I'll report, you decide -- if those Michael Davis platitudes are anything other than empty words.

In May of this year I released my tell-all report about the outrageous removal of five magnificent trees in Salem's Historic District.

Entirely appropriately, I called it "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings. The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it."

In the above-linked blog post (where the report can be downloaded), I said:

This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

Allbritton got an unusual second chance to argue his extremely flimsy tree-killing case. He lobbied city councilors, who weren't bothered by Allbritton's mention of the verbal promise.

Maybe because this is the way the City of Salem habitually does things under its current leadership -- working out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then going through a show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

Sure sounds like the sort of "wrongdoing or malfeasance" by public officials the Statesman Journal executive editor said the newspaper would vigorously dig into, right?

My report wasn't only about the untold story of how the U.S. Bank trees came to be cut down based on $726.61 worth of heretofore unreleased public records documents I paid to get from the City of Salem. It also provided a window into how big decisions are being made these days at City Hall: behind closed doors, kowtowing to special interests, ignoring facts and the law.

On May 2, 2014 I emailed Statesman Journal investigative and environmental reporter Tracy Loew. She, I want to emphasize, was a delight to work with. By and large I have no problem with the newspaper's worker bees.

It's the Queens of the journalistic hive, the editors and executives, who are failing Salem. After contacting Loew it didn't take long for me to realize this.

Initially, though, I was encouraged.

I've had lots of interactions with reporters over the years. My biggest coup was getting a top journalist at the Wall Street Journal to come out and do a story on Oregon Health Decisions when I was the publicist (and later executive director) of this bioethics organization.

Loew related to me just as I'd come to expect a competent journalist to act: honestly and forthrightly. I had news for her, investigative reporting news. Even better, I'd already done the investigating.

I'd pored through many pages of public records documents (including emails) and distilled them into ten fact-based conclusions in my report which didn't make City officials such as Public Works Director Peter Fernandez or the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, look good. 

I got a reply from Loew when I told her about the soon-to-be-released report: "Brian, I'll be really interested to see it!" Then, after she had read "Outrage," Loew asked, "Would you be willing to share the documents you received in response to your records requests?"

Of course I would. I took the big stack down to the Statesman Journal offices.

Loew and I spent a pleasant hour or so thumbing through the documents. I pointed out the "good stuff," the most egregious examples of how the public interest took a back seat to closed-door special-interest dealmaking, which eventually led to the five marvelous U.S. Bank trees being cut down for no good reason.

Reporter Loew copied quite a few documents. She then asked me some follow-up questions, which caused me to give her some additional information. We did all this on Monday, May 5. 

On that day Loew gave me a heads-up about the story she was working on. This is common, if not typical, in my considerable experience working with reporters. Again, good journalism is a partnership. I had news; the Statesman Journal is in the business of reporting news. 

I wrote the "Outrage" report on my own. Loew was writing a story about the report on her own. I didn't expect to know what was going to be in the story until it was published. But I appreciated being told when it was going to run.

Brian, this is going to run on Sunday so it will get better play.

Excellent, I thought. Over the next few days Loew asked more questions, and got some additional information from me. Then Saturday came. I heard from Loew that the story would be on hold for a week. Curious, I asked her why.

With the May primary election coming up, I threw out to Loew a conspiracy theory hypothesis that her editors didn't want criticism of City Hall close to the election. But I was told:

Brian, the truth is it's being delayed because we are so short staffed that I have to work Sunday, so had to take Friday off and didn't get the story done (wrote six other stories last week). And, because they want me to have enough time to make it a really good story. 

Again I thought, excellent. Better to do the story right than to do it quick. 

Eight days later, though, still no story. When I checked in with Loew, she told me she was on vacation, so probably the publication date would be June 1. OK, that was another Sunday. I put "SJ story?" on that day in my Mac's Calendar.

However, on Sunday June 1 I went to our paper box and found... no story. This is when reality knocked on my head and said, "You realize what is happening, don't you?" That day I emailed Loew:

Tracy, I really appreciate your interest in my US Bank tree report. I have good feelings toward you and all of the other Statesman Journal reporters. You’re doing a good job under rather tough situations. In my view, overworked and underpaid.

I just need to know: There isn’t going to be a story about my “Outrage” report, is there? That’s my only question for you. I’ll share my other questions and comments with the Statesman Journal executives/editors.

This started off a series of communications with executive editor Michael Davis. After emailing him on June 1, he wrote back to me and said:

The story is NOT dead, Brian. At my instruction, Tracy is spending more time with it, not less. I understand you believe there is a certain urgency to this, but in my view there is nothing to compel us to rush. It's not breaking news. Rather, it's a glimpse into the way power is exerted in Salem. Your neck is not on the line for what is reported in the Statesman Journal. Mine is, as is Tracy's. 

 

I'm going to be visiting my children this week along the Atlantic Coast. When I return, I'll be available to meet with you. 

Naturally I was encouraged by this.

Ah, Loew would be spending more time with the story, not less. Davis recognized that the real story is about how power is exerted in Salem. I was back to feeling good about the Statesman Journal's commitment to investigative reporting.

On June 12 of this year, Davis and I met at the IKE Box coffeehouse close to the Statesman Journal offices. We had a pleasant conversation.

But it bothered me when Davis told me that he wanted the U.S. Bank trees story to be more of a human interest piece. Well, a tree interest piece, really, since he thought it could be told from the perspective of the trees. That didn't sound like investigative reporting to me. 

Executive editor Davis also asked me only one question about the report, whether I thought Public Works Director Peter Fernandez did anything illegal. I replied, "Probably not, given Oregon law. But unethical, yes." 

I recall that Davis said a story should be published in the next few weeks. Again, I was encouraged. Until June came and went. Then July came and went. Nothing. Loew's story had been crushed, stomped on, suppressed. 

I then figured that if the Statesman Journal was going to squash a story about "the way power is exerted in Salem" -- the executive editor's words -- the newspaper should at least publish an opinion piece from me about why no story. 

I've attached the 500 word opinion piece as a continuation to this post. Here's a PDF file. 
Download SJ guest opinion 7-31-14 PDF

Guess what? (I bet you can.)

I never got a response from Davis or editorial page editor Dick Hughes about the opinion piece either. So not only did the Statesman Journal trash a story that had been written about my "Outrage" report, the paper refused to tell the story about why there is no story. 

Geez, what's a citizen activist to do when his community newspaper refuses to act in the community's interest? 

Use his own blog to tell the truths that the Salem Statesman Journal doesn't want citizens to know about. Of course, many fewer people read my blog than read the Statesman Journal. And of those, even fewer are going to read all 3,200 words or so of this post.

Which suits the Gannett-appointed executives at the Statesman Journal just fine. Along with officials at City Hall and the Salem Chamber of Commerce -- the other two legs of the triumvirate that does its best to control how this town is run, and who learns about how that control is exerted.

It's really disturbing, how the Statesman Journal is shirking its journalistic responsibiities. Again, I don't blame the reporters. I blame the publisher, executive editor, editorial page editor, and other higher-up folks at the paper.

Democracy doesn't work when people are kept in the dark about what is going on.

Be sure about this: just as Salemians won't read in the Statesman Journal about my tell-all U.S. Bank trees report, they also aren't learning about a lot of other unethical stuff going on at City Hall.

The Statesman Journal does do some investigative reporting.

But not any that would offend its major advertisers or local politicians who support the powers-that-be in this town. (U.S. Bank president Allbritton, who wanted the trees cut down for no good reason, was the incoming Chamber of Commerce president in 2013; no wonder the Statesman Journal killed a story critical of him killing those trees).

Today is when I believe a new out-of-town publisher, Terry Horne, starts what likely will be a brief stay at the Statesman Journal. I noticed a tweet by a SJ staffer.

Recipe for success from new SJ Publisher Terry Horne: Care about each other. Care about the community. Care about great journalism. #SJNow

That made me want to barf. 

On August 28 I emailed Michael Davis again, telling him that I'd be writing about the story of no story, and asking him to give me reasons for the killing of Tracy Loew's piece. If he did, I'd include his reasons with the story of no story.

Michael, after Labor Day I’m going to be engaging in another phase of my effort to (1) reveal the general truth about what is happening with backroom deal-making and decision-making by our so-called “public servants” at the Salem City Hall, and (2) what is happening specifically with the unnecessary removal of street trees. 

Since this saga of (1) and (2) now includes the story of (3), how the Statesman Journal decided that (1) and (2) aren’t subjects the newspaper wants to inform readers about, among other things I’ll be describing how the paper refused to run a story about my “Outrage” report, then chose not to publish a guest opinion I wrote about the report and the refusal to run a story.

 

If you’d like to send me your comments or take on (3) — the Statesman Journal’s side of all this — I’d be pleased to include your statement in my writings. Meaning, I want to give you an opportunity to explain why the Statesman Journal didn’t consider the findings of my report to merit a story, and why my guest opinion regarding the “story of no story” wasn’t considered to be a proper piece for the editorial pages.

 

If I don’t hear from you by September 8, I’ll assume that “no comment” is the Statesman Journal response, and proceed accordingly.

 

Please understand: I like you personally. I, along with many others, had high hopes that when you came to town the Statesman Journal would get back to being an independent journalistic watchdog of local politics and goings-on at City Hall. It’s disappointing this hasn’t happened, but I realize you don’t have sole control of what happens at the Statesman Journal.

 

Regardless, as a long-time subscriber and resident of the Salem area, I consider it my duty to speak up about issues that deeply concern me. I don’t like what is going on at City Hall these days, and I don’t like the failure of the Statesman Journal to properly inform citizens about this. 

 

Davis didn't respond. I guess that is fitting.

 

I wrote a report about how City officials and the U.S. Bank president cut down five downtown trees for no good reason. Then the Statesman Journal refused to publish a story that a reporter had written about the report. When I asked "Why?" I got no response, no good reason. 

 

This is Salem's dysfunctional vicious circle: crap goes on at City Hall, and citizens are given no good reasons for it. Then the not-really "paper of record," the Statesman Journal, refuses to tell its readers what is going on in town, again giving no good reasons for its news censoring. 

 

I'm glad social media, Salem Weekly, and blogs exist. Otherwise there would be no way out of the Information Control Trap.

My unpublished opinion piece submitted to the Statesman Journal can be found below.

Rick Steves talking in Oregon about travel and legal marijuana

Rick Steves, travel guru, is coming to Oregon! Better yet, SALEM!
"Travel as a Political Act - Ending Marijuana Prohibition in Oregon"

He’ll be in Portland, Beaverton, Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, Medford, Ashland, Bend, The Dalles, and Gresham.

 

Tickets are free, except in Portland: http://voteyeson91.com/ricksteves/

The Salem event is Wednesday, October 8, 7-8 pm at the Grand Theatre in downtown Salem. (Event info says Grand Ballroom upstairs, but I've been told it will be in the ground floor Grand Theatre.)

You should get a free ticket by RSVP'ing. Steves is well-known for his travel expertise, and also was the co-sponsor of Washington state's successful marijuana legalization measure. This should be a popular talk.

RSVP for the Salem event here:
http://voteyeson91.com/rick-steves-salem-rsvp/

 

My wife and I are looking forward to getting high on hearing from Steves about the benefits of legalizing recreational marijuana in Oregon. Vote Yes on Measure 91! 

"Salem, open your eyes." My new blogging passion.

I've been called a bomb-thrower by folks at City Hall. I guess this is supposed to be an insult. I consider it a compliment.

I'm proud to speak out loud and powerfully when I see stuff going on in Salem that shouldn't be. My goal is to throw truth-bombs that open up minds and demolish barriers to seeing what is happening behind closed doors.

My only regret is that I've held back some weaponry for one reason or another. Laziness. Lack of time. Misplaced hope that "playing nice" will lead the other side to reciprocate. 

No more. At least, that's my goal. I'm tired of holding my tongue on some subjects that need blabbing about.

Through the marvelous School of Aging, geezers like me -- I'll be 66 next month -- learn the lesson that tomorrow usually comes, but one day it won't. For all of us. 

So this is the day to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done. If there is a tomorrow, it then becomes this day.

A newfound passion deserves a name.

I'm calling it Salem, open your eyes. I just added it as a blog post category. Time will tell how many posts find a home there. It depends on how much eye-opening I feel needs to be done.

First I'm going to write about two important parts of Salem I've lost trust in: City officials and executives at the Statesman Journal newspaper. This pains me, because I've lived in and around Salem for 37 years. Until recently I never doubted that I could trust City Hall and our local newspaper.

No more. Over the next weeks (maybe months) I'll be explaining why.

Understand: I'm just a blogger who, at the moment, is sitting at his kitchen counter in shorts and a t-shirt, listening to crickets doing their thing on a warm early fall night, trying to find words to explain to unseen readers why he wants to open Salem eyes.

Notably and primarily, his own. 

I don't claim any special vision into what ails this town. All I can do is share how I see things, based on my own experience. Having been an avid writer for almost all of my life, I've come to realize that the first goal of writing isn't to change other people's minds. 

It is to change mine.

I feel best when there is little difference between who I am inside, and how I appear outside. When the two "me's," internal and external, get markedly out of sync, I feel like I need a truth alignment. Sure, it isn't possible or practical to always express myself 100% honestly.

But I've been saying things to myself and others that are more blunt and well, "bomb'y," than have been shared publicly. In short, I'm more pissed at City Hall and the Statesman Journal than I've been letting on. It's time to get the inner and outer anger in adjustment.

I'll end this introductory Salem, open your eyes post with a story from my hard style martial arts days (I've been into softer Tai Chi for the past ten years). 

When several fellow students and I were anxiously training for an upcoming black belt exam, our instructor interrupted a class by saying, "I'm going to show you a kata you probably haven't seen before." He then performed the sequence of moves in what appeared to me a damn fine manner.

Then he said, "I haven't done that kata in many years. Do you know how I was able to perform it so well? Because I don't care!" 

Those words really hit me.

He didn't care, because he already had proven himself in martial arts. Us students, on the other hand, were holding ourselves back from being as good as we could be. We were tight, overly anxious to do the right thing. We worried about being judged. 

We cared. 

Which naturally is fine, up to a point. But we all know that letting loose, going with the flow, dancing like no one is watching even when they are -- that way leads to joyful spontaneous honest play. 

Such is how I feel about Salem, open your eyes.

I really don't care a whole lot if people don't like what I'm going to say. I really don't care much if what I write leaves people uninterested, unimpressed, or unchanged. I'm unpaid and unemployed (being retired). I'm not out to win awards, get a promotion, or pad my resume.

I just want to throw some truth-bombs. 

Take a short survey on parking in downtown Salem, Oregon

Like I said in my recent Salem Weekly column, the debates over how to handle parking in downtown Salem need to come to an end.

Battling via successive dueling petitions is no way to form a viable downtown parking policy. This bouncing back and forth is absurd: 2-hour limit…parking meters on the way… no parking meters; no limits… 3-hour limit.

All in less than a year.

Let's come up with some sensible parking policies after open and honest community discussion, then make them work. 

You can do your part, if you live in or near Salem, by taking a short survey about downtown parking. Just click on this link to the Downtown Salem Parking Survey:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/DowntownSalemParking

Salem Community Vision is urging people to express their views. 

TAKE THE DOWNTOWN SALEM PARKING SURVEY TODAY!

Before the City Council rushes to adopt new rules for downtown parking, we need to hear from as many people as possible to inform their decisions. This survey will only take a few minutes of your time.

www.surveymonkey.com/s/DowntownSalemParking

So far the City Council is basing their decisions on the opinions of a minority of downtown business owners. They need to hear from ALL the stakeholders, including ordinary citizens who frequent our downtown.

Please take the survey now. Share this message with your Salem Facebook friends and ask them to take the survey.

Legalizing marijuana controls use by youth. Vote for Measure 91.

One of the best arguments for Oregon's Measure 91, which would legalize recreational marijuana for adults, is that it will help control pot use among youths. 

Today the Bend Bulletin published a great opinion piece by Inge Fryklund, "Time to put adults in charge of marijuana." She is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
Download Letter: Time to put the adults in charge of marijuana

Here's some of what Fryklund said.

Today in Oregon, kids are buying readily available marijuana from unknown, unregulated sources. The supply chain may go all the way back to some Mexican cartel, and it’s guaranteed that all the profits will go to criminals. No one knows the potency or purity of the substance being sold, or how much pesticide contamination there might be.

People undoubtedly are driving while high — as they do with alcohol — but unlike with labeled beer or wine, consumers have no way of knowing what potency they have ingested before getting behind the wheel.

...With our current enforcement-based system, the responsible adults in the community have abdicated their responsibility to control marijuana, a substance that is both widely available and in demand. We have left all decisions about source, distribution, sale, potency and purity up to criminals.

Instead of proactively working to prevent or reduce problems with the distribution and sale of marijuana, we have been reactive, getting involved only after the sales to kids have already occurred when police make arrests for drug offenses.

...Something that is illegal cannot be managed. Has any public official ever said, “We need to do a better job of managing armed robbery?” It sounds silly. Only if something is legal is it possible for the community to manage and control it.

During the prohibition of alcohol (1920-1933), drinking didn’t stop and there were tremendous downsides to relying on the criminal justice system to control alcohol. Supply was in the hands of criminals, and any dealer prosecuted was simply replaced by another. Remember Al Capone? And gangs fighting over turf? There was no quality control, and hundreds of people died of drinking adulterated alcohol.

The day Prohibition was repealed, state alcohol control commissions could regulate purity, require labeling, license distributors and sellers, and enact and enforce penalties for selling to minors. Beer distributors with contract disputes filed cases in court instead of shooting each other. When was the last time Bud Light and Coors Light engaged in a shootout over store shelf space?

Facts back up Fryklund's thesis. 

In Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012, tightly regulating and taxing its sale, marijuana use among teens is down. Decriminalization of marijuana doesn't lead to increased use or changed beliefs among youth. Legalization of medical marijuana doesn't increase use among adolescents. A group of teens interviewed by the Oregonian agreed that legalization would not increase use among youth.

Makes sense.

As the opinion piece says, currently drug cartels and other black market sellers of marijuana control how it is distributed in Oregon. Contrast this with how marijuana would be regulated if Measure 91 passes: by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

At a recent Salem City Club debate about Measure 91, Congressman Earl Blumenauer noted that it is easier for a 13 year old girl to get marijuana than a six pack of beer. Why? Because the sale of beer to minors is tightly regulated in this state, and the sale of marijuana isn't.

Oregonians who care about reducing marijuana use among teens should vote for Measure 91. Otherwise, as Fryklund says, responsible adults won't be charge of controlling the availability of marijuana to youth.

Drug cartels will.

Pro-marijuana legalization clear winner in Salem City Club debate

Oh, yeah, I was ready for a slugfest of a debate when Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis got ready to settle into their respective corners -- well, seats -- at today's Salem City Club debate about Measure 91, which would legalize recreational marijuana if passed this November.

After all, Blumenauer has called for a federal investigation "to determine if federal taxpayer dollars are being used illegally to influence a statewide election." Marquis is mentioned in the Blumenauer complaint letter.

(Russ Belville has made public record requests to learn if Marquis and other public officials have been trying to influence voters inappropriately by using taxpayer funds. Belville is seeking donations to support that effort.)

But it wasn't much of a fight, mostly because there aren't many good reasons to oppose marijuana legalization. I give Marquis credit for not raising spurious ones along "Reefer Madness" lines. Marquis also was pleasantly spontaneous and humorous. 

As reported in a Statesman Journal story, Marquis got the best laugh of the debate.
Download Marijuana legalization takes center stage in Salem

""It's called weed for a reason," Marquis said. "It's not like brewing your own whiskey. It's not that hard to make."

He suspects that even his wife, who supports marijuana legalization, could grow "some awesome weed" in their greenhouse.

Otherwise, though, Blumenauer kicked butt on the Salem City Club podium. He started off the debate by using his opening statement to argue why Measure 91 makes so much sense. 

Including: Lots of Oregonians are using marijuana. Keeping it illegal supports drug cartels. Nationally, minorities caught with pot are singled out by the legal system for harsher penalties. Criminalizing a substance much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco fosters disrespect for the law.

I was curious to see how Marquis would respond.

Rather strangely, he started off by touting Oregon's 1973 law which decriminalized cannabis, first law in the nation. Then Marquis described how possession of less than an ounce just gets a citation supposedly akin to a traffic ticket, and how mostly only big-time drug sellers are sent to prison in Oregon.

This theme carried on throughout the debate. Blumenauer and Marquis often seemed to be on the same side, which didn't help Marquis much in his anti-Measure 91 arguments.

They both agreed that marijuana is widely used by Oregonians; that it is easily available; that it  is considerably less addictive than alcohol and tobacco; that most users are unlikely to get in trouble with law enforcement; that Measure 91 is likely to pass; that minors shouldn't be using it; that prescription drug abuse is a larger health problem; that marijuana shouldn't be federally classified as a "most dangerous" Schedule 1 drug; that there is no coherent national drug policy strategy.

In essence, Marquis' core theme was that marijuana already is close-to-legal, so why legalize it? Blumenauer made more sense: since marijuana is close-to-legal, let's take the next step and legalize it.

Marquis is afraid that legalizing marijuana will make it more accessible to minors. Blumenauer responded by asking whether a 13 year old girl has more trouble getting a joint or a bottle of booze. In other words, marijuana already is easily obtained by youth who want it. 

Legalization, Blumenauer argued, should make marijuana less available to minors by drying up the black market. Liquor, a substance that is regulated and taxed in Oregon, isn't commonly sold on street corners. Marijuana is, because that's the only way most people can get it. 

Blumenauer estimated that taxes on legal recreational marijuana could bring in somewhere between $16 million to $30 million or so a year, if I recall correctly. Marquis wondered if this would be the case, since Measure 91 allows citizens (such as Marquis' wife) to grow four plants of their own.

When he said that, I muttered to the guy sitting next to me, "We don't have a garden; I buy stuff at the store; same would be true with marijuana." Likewise, Blumenauer said that most people don't grow their own tomatoes, so why would they grow their own marijuana? 

Only Salem City Club members got to ask questions. I was fortunate to be handed the microphone for the last one.

I said something like, "Since most Oregonians live close enough to Washington to be able to drive there easily, and Washington has legalized marijuana, why should that state be collecting taxes from Oregonians rather than Oregon?"

Marquis noted that if Oregon legalizes marijuana, we'd enjoy some Pot Tourism of our own from Idaho and California. Again, not so much an argument against Measure 91, as in favor of it. Blumenauer agreed that Oregon should be collecting marijuana taxes, not Washington.

[Update: Peter Wong has a good summary of the debate in the Portland Tribune.]

I guess my overall take on the debate echoes that of marijuana activist Russ Belville. Here's what he tweeted after the event. 

Russ Belville‏@RadicalRuss

If Josh Marquis is best oppo has against @voteyeson91 this should be a landslide victory! #mmot #marijuana

Another tweet contained some good news for current grow-your-own'ers.

Russ Belville @RadicalRuss 

Jennifer asked Marquis where she should get her decrim pot, he told her to grow it! She: commit a felony? He: we don't really go after that.

My fart-filled investigation into Nicki Minaj's feminist credentials

Until recently I was disturbingly unaware of several important bits of information relating to female rapper Nicki Minaj.

Though I'm 65, not exactly Minaj's target audience, I still try to keep up on youth culture by watching the MTV Video Music Awards each year and...

Um. Well. Let me think. And...

OK, not much else. 

Still, I was vaguely aware of Minaj's assets, so to speak, having noticed somewhere the difficult-to-forget image of her album.

What truly drew me into learning more about Minaj, though, was coming across a mention of how someone had added fart sounds to her "Anaconda" video. Believe me, anytime I see the words "fart sounds," I will damn well click on that link. 

I was hugely glad that I did. So was my wife. We laughed uncontrollably at the video. 

Naturally I then became curious about what Minaj's original Anaconda video was like, since some (well, a lot) of the sexual allure was obscured by the fart-sounds. 

That video also was appealing. Sorry, it can't be embedded. Watch on You Tube. With over 146 million views, obviously many other people felt the same way.

Not everyone though. Browsing through some comments on the above-linked video, I noted some along the lines of "I can't believe Minaj is considered to be a feminist."

Now, I am totally comfortable -- no, more than that, highly approving -- of women who shake their asses seductively in the course of making a cultural statement about female empowerment.

At the same time, I could understand why some would question Minaj's feminist credentials given the lyrics to "Anaconda."

Which include:

Don't don't don't, my anaconda don't
Don't want none unless you got buns, hun

Oh my gosh, look at her butt
Oh my gosh, look at her butt
Oh my gosh, look at her butt

Yeah, he love this fat ass
Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the fucking club
I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club?
Fuck those skinny bitches, fuck those skinny bitches in the club
I wanna see all the big fat ass bitches in the motherfucking club
Fuck you if you skinny bitches WHAT?

I got a big fat ass
Come on

This does seem to set women in the "fat ass" category against the "skinny bitch" contingent, though maybe just in the "fucking club." Not sure about the grocery store, coffeehouse, or PTA meeting. 

I then sought further enlightenment about Minaj's feminism through the Great God Google. Here's an excerpt from "Nicki Minaj's Feminism Isn't About Your Comfort Zone: On 'Anaconda' and Respectability Politics."

Nicki Minaj is not a woman who easily slides into the roles assigned to women in her industry or elsewhere. She’s not polished, she’s not concerned with her reputation, and she’s certainly not fighting for equality among mainstream second-wave feminists.

She’s something else, and she’s something equally worth giving credence to: a boundary-breaker, a nasty bitch, a self-proclaimed queen, a self-determined and self-made artist. She’s one of the boys, and she does it with the intent to subvert what it means. She sings about sexy women, about fucking around with different men. She raps about racing ahead in the game, imagines up her own strings of accolades, and rolls with a rap family notorious for dirty rhymes, foul mouths, and disregard for authority and hegemony.

While Beyoncé has expanded feminist discourse by reveling in her role as a mother and wife while also fighting for women’s rights, Minaj has been showing her teeth in her climb to the top of a male-dominated genre. Both, in the process, have expanded our society’s idea of what an empowered women looks like — but Minaj’s feminist credentials still frequently come under fire.

To me, it seems like a clear-cut case of respectability politics and mainstreaming of the feminist movement: while feminist writers raved over Beyoncé’s latest album and the undertones of sexuality and empowerment that came with it, many have questioned Minaj’s decisions over the years to subvert beauty norms using her own body, graphically talk dirty in her work, and occasionally declare herself dominant in discourse about other women.

That concluding link led me a Salon article, "Nicki Minaj's retroactive feminism: How the biggest female rapper stops just short of being the best feminist."

Minaj truly can be a wonderful role model in the way she encourages embodying your own destiny. But this interview on Nightline, in which she forgoes naming herself a “feminist” in lieu of “girl power,” brought to light exactly what her feminism is about: the 1990s.

If you’ll recall, in the ’90s, the term “girl power” was invoked by the Spice Girls and other corporate entities to neuter the explicit feminism inherent in other music of the day—the in-your-face woman power of Yo Yo, the subversive energy of Bikini Kill, as two examples.

“Girl power” feminism ushered in a convoluted feminism that gave birth to sentiments like “I am the female Weezy”: sex positivity was often framed as “if men can be promiscuous, so can I”; throwback glamour to the ’50s and ’60s was framed as countercultural, rather than retroactive.Minaj’s invocation of the term recalls that era. And while complex, complicated definitions of feminism are important to its progression—there is a point in which the water gets stale. We’ve heard it all before.

Perhaps so.

This is why the fart-enhanced video of Minaj's "Anaconda" is so important. It takes a wrecking ball to the patriarchal ideology of what a female rapper music video should be, subverting the culturally dominant male gaze through radical humor. 

Or something like that.

How contaminated is Salem's Riverfront Park? More info on DEQ testing.

The story keeps getting more interesting of how the Salem City Council is spending $200,000 to conduct additional tests for dioxin and other nasty chemicals in and around heavily used Riverfront Park. 

Yesterday I blogged about a "New City of Salem 'corporate welfare' giveaway to Mountain West Investment." It bothered me that public urban renewal funds were being used to test for contaminants on private land that is now, and will remain, owned by Mountain West Investment. 

I could understand why the City wanted to test for pollution from the old Boise Cascade operations on the 3.8 acres west of the railroad tracks. Mountain West has agreed to sell this part of its property to the City so it could be added on to Riverfront Park. 

But, I wrote:

It’s like me wanting to buy a lot owned by someone who also has an adjacent abandoned gas station with a possibly leaking old storage tank. The guy wants ME to do the testing on the tank to make sure it isn’t releasing contaminants into the lot I want to buy.

 

My reaction would be, “Hey, dude, it’s your gas station. It’s your problem. Deal with it. Then we can talk about going ahead with the lot sale once you assure me you’ve taken care of the mess on your own property.”

There's more to this issue, though. Now I've got even more questions about how City officials are handling this issue.

First, the City Council, Mayor, and City Manager discussed the additional $200,000 worth of environmental testing in a closed executive session. A consituent of Councilor Laura Tesler asked her to explain why taxpayers were paying for testing on Mountain West Investment property.

Tesler replied that since this was discussed in an executive session, she couldn't say anything about the meeting. So Tesler told the constituent that she'd try to get information from City staff.

Now, I don't think it is a wild, crazy, Green-freak, eco-zealot notion to expect that discussions about possible dioxin and other contamination adjacent to or in a public park should be completely open to the citizenry. 

The only reason I can think of why this was discussed in a closed executive session is that confidential matters relating to Mountain West Investment business plans and financing were talked about.

If so, this fits into my "corporate welfare" conspiracy theory. If not, what other reason would there be to shut out the public and press?

Second, contrary to the impression given in Statesman Journal stories, most of the additional testing is being done on RIverfront Park land already owned by the City, and already used by the public. I'd wondered how finding an underground pipe on the railroad right of way adjacent to the 3.8 acre planned purchase could boost the cost of DEQ testing from $150,000 to $350,000.

Testing is required by the Department of Environmental Quality before it will issue the Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) sought by the City of Salem. A PPA limits the liability of someone who purchases previously contaminated land -- sort of a "clean bill of health" guarantee.

But a PPA only is granted for land that hasn't already been purchased. So this part of a Statesman Journal story isn't accurate.
Download Salem council to pay for more environmental studies

The council agreed to use $200,000 in urban renewal funds for the environmental work. The environmental studies are needed to protect the city's interests, as it prepares to buy 3.8 acres for an expansion of Riverfront Park, city officials said.

This can't be true, given what John Wales, the City's Urban Development Director, said in an email message to the Councilor Tesler constituent (full message can be found in a continuation to this post).

The proposed new tests along the banks of the Pringle Creek and the Slough will be paid with Urban Renewal funds from the Downtown Riverfront and South Waterfront URAs. Of the 19 proposed test sites, four are located on/or adjacent to the 3.8 acre Park Parcel while the remaining 15 are located on the edge of Riverfront Park.

Thus only four of the 19 tests appear to be needed for the Prospective Purchaser Agreement.

Fifteen are on current Riverfront Park property. Meaning, City officials are concerned that there could be dioxin and other contaminants on the banks of Pringle Creek and the Willamette River Slough that are already accessible to park users.

This raises some questions:

(1) How did City officials become aware that part of Riverfront Park could be contaminated by noxious chemicals? How long have they known this?

(2) Given that Riverfront Park has been converted from a former Boise Cascade industrial site, was adequate environmental testing done before the property became a public park? Why is the shoreline testing only being done now?

(3) Won't the footings for the soon-to-be-built Minto Brown Pedestrian Bridge disturb the ground in the area of the 15 Riverfront Park test sites? Will this increase the cost of the bridge, if contaminants are found?

(4) Why are urban renewal funds being used to pay for the entire $200,000 worth of environmental testing, since only about $42,000 of that amount (4/19 of $200,000) apparently is for test sites related to the Prospective Purchaser Agreement sought as part of the deal to buy 3.8 acres from Mountain West Investment for an addition to Riverfront Park?

Regarding that last question, I'm no expert on urban renewal. But I've always thought it had to do with improving rundown areas and changing their character, not maintaining what already exists in a city.

Most of the $200,000 is being used to test for contaminants in an existing city park, Riverfront Park. Expenditure of that money seemingly has little or nothing to do with the proposed purchase of the 3.8 acre addition to Riverfront Park. It seems to me the 15 test sites should be considered park "maintenance," while the four test sites related to the new potential park acreage is "renewal."

[Update: I just noticed that this agenda item for the Urban Renewal portion of the September 8 City Council meeting claimed that the entire $200,000 is needed to complete the purchase of the 3.8 acres. This seems decidedly misleading. How is testing for contaminants on property the City already owns, which have no way of affecting the 3.8 acres (being downhill and downstream of the 3.8 acres) needed for "environmental due diligence" regarding the proposed purchase?]

(a)  Grant Agreement for Environmental Due Diligence Necessary to Purchase 3.8 Acre Park Parcel – Ward 1 – Board Member Bennett – CANDO (UD)

Recommended Action:  Approve the grant agreement, attached to the staff report, to provide $170,000 of Riverfront-Downtown and $30,000 of South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area funds, a total of $200,000, to the City of Salem for environmental due diligence necessary to acquire 3.8 acres of land adjacent to Riverfront Park.

I look forward to learning how City councilors and other officials answer these questions. If I don't have an accurate or complete understanding about what is going on here, I'm open to being educated.

Comment away on this post, City leaders. (I'll send them a link.)

Here's the complete message from John Wales, and my reply to him.

New City of Salem "corporate welfare" giveaway to Mountain West Investment

Tonight the Salem City Council, in its Urban Renewal Agency guise, is going to decide whether to spend $200,000 to investigate possible pollution on private property that might affect a planned expansion of Riverfront Park.
Download New environmental tests loom for Riverfront park land

During environmental investigations related to the city's planned purchase of 3.8 acres at the former Boise Cascade site, a long-forgotten pipeline was found. The pipe, a remnant of a paper manufacturing operation's bleach plant, has raised environmental questions. Those questions will need to be answered before the city attempts to expand Riverfront Park.

John Wales, the city's urban development director, said the discovery of the buried pipe "was a surprise to everybody." The pipe isn't on the property the city intends to buy, but located nearby along railroad tracks above Pringle Creek, he said.

Here's how I see this situation.

Mountain West Investment bought the downtown riverfront property from Boise Cascade, which had an industrial operation there for a long time.

 

Mountain West thus bought the pollution that came with it. Mountain West should have gotten a guarantee from Boise Cascade that the folks who produced the pollution had to deal with it whenever and wherever it was found.

 

I guess this didn’t happen.

 

So now Mountain West owns the pollution along with the property. Mountain West also didn’t think ahead and realize it would be really tough, if not impossible, to develop the portion of the property on the west side of the railroad tracks, since that area doesn’t have a RR crossing.

 

Oh, no problem, Mountain West thinks.

 

We’ll just get the City of Salem to approve access through Riverfront Park. Except a bunch of people, including me, show that this requires National Park Service approval and it could take years to process an application to convert land from a public to a private use.

 

Oh, also no problem for Mountain West.

 

Because the City of Salem agrees to buy that undevelopable land, arguably for way more than it is worth, to add to Riverfront Park. This, after the City gives Mountain West $750,000 or thereabouts in tax breaks for private development on the east side of the RR tracks.

 

But now, oops, a pipe that may be oozing dioxin or other contaminants is found on the Mountain West property east of the tracks, on what will remain private property, the property Mountain West plans to develop after buying it from Boise Cascade. 

 

The pollution might affect the property on the west side of the tracks that the City wants to buy for a park. So a reasonable person would think, “Hey, the pipe is on Mountain West property. Mountain West should be responsible for investigating and cleaning up pollution on its own property.”

 

But once again, no problem.

 

The City of Salem wants to spend $200,000 in urban renewal funds to do testing on Mountain West private property so the sweetheart deal with Mountain West can go forward. 

 

It’s like me wanting to buy a lot owned by someone who also has an adjacent abandoned gas station with a possibly leaking old storage tank. The guy wants ME to do the testing on the tank to make sure it isn’t releasing contaminants into the lot I want to buy.

 

My reaction would be, “Hey, dude, it’s your gas station. It’s your problem. Deal with it. Then we can talk about going ahead with the lot sale once you assure me you’ve taken care of the mess on your own property.”

 

Like so much else going on at City Hall these days, this stinks of corporate welfare cronyism. The staff report does nothing to dispel that smell. 

http://www.cityofsalem.net/CouncilMeetingAgenda/Documents/306/URA%204.3a.pdf

I left a comment along this same line on the Statesman Journal story. Here's what other people have commented.

-- We know who really runs Salem and he's getting his way again. Thank you for questioning this. Shared.

-- Why it is the Chamber of Commerce way. It is called "socialized losses". Any profits made off of the city, Mountain West keeps it all. Any losses related to their privately owned land, the city pays for it. These people are the true socialist in America.

-- It is common knowledge that the land down there and the slough are toxic laden soups. From the old Coal Tar factory to Boise Cascade it has been a dump for more than a century. Why isn't Boise Cascade being forced to clean this up as well? You know.....I need to get one of my friends elected to the city council/mayor's office so the city will pay my bills as well.

-- When the city makes land purchases over market value and continues to invest in property that is not useful to the city, how do they think the city tax payers (You and I) are likely to approve upgrading city hall and police station? At this point I hope it all falls down around them. Let's not forget the possible $500,000 pay out to the owners of the River Eyesore Paddlewheeler over the next ten years.

-- Leaking dioxin into the river! Yikes! Did the City know this? Why haven't they done something about it a long time ago? And why didn't someone report this to the ODEQ long ago?

-- The Salem City Council paid a highly inflated price for the Mountain West parcel, and given Mountain West a free grant of $750,000? Now why do the citizens of Salem owe Mountain West a free environmental assessment on their property. Haven't we done enough?

-- Do you all remember back before the park was even built, all the discussion about the thousands of yards of soil that was going to have to be remediated before anything could go forward? Well, between you and me, I don't remember seeing any remediation effort going on long term or short and shazam! there was this cool new park and all this green grass separating us from all this bad and nasty stuff. Just saying.....

Video of zany marching band at 2014 Salem Sunday Streets

I loved today's second annual Salem Sunday Streets. Soon I'll share photos and some commentary on the way-fun event in another post. Here's a preview. That's our dog, ZuZu, in front!

For now, enjoy my iPhone video of the astoundingly entertaining MarchFourth Marching Band from Portland, Oregon. The stiltdancers... amazing.

 

Salem's downtown parking debate: a view from Carole Smith

In my last Strange Up Salem column in Salem Weekly about downtown parking, I asked a simple question, "Can we all get along?"

Great question, Rodney King. Police brutality isn’t the same as heated debates over how to handle downtown parking, but the unnecessary fighting over this issue also is bothersome.

At its last meeting the city council initiated the return of a 3-hour time limit even though discussion of downtown parking was billed as “informational” on the agenda, with no action expected.

Yet without advance notice a motion suddenly appeared and was quickly passed unanimously. This violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Oregon’s public meetings law, which requires “that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly.”

Also, Council President Chuck Bennett falsely claimed that in 2013 the council had to adopt a citizen initiative to ban downtown parking meters and do away with 2-hour limits.

Actually the city council didn’t have to adopt the initiative language after 9,000 people signed a petition. Initiative backers wanted citizens to vote on the proposal in the May 2014 election.

Instead, the council voted unanimously to implement it immediately, choosing on its own to institute free unlimited parking.

Now the council has flip-flopped, unanimously moving to impose 3-hour limits from October through January after 30 downtown businesspeople submitted a petition asking for parking time limits to be reinstated, along with other changes.

Battling via successive dueling petitions is no way to form a viable downtown parking policy. This bouncing back and forth is absurd: 2-hour limit…parking meters on the way… no parking meters; no limits… 3-hour limit.

All in less than a year.

Below is an email that Carole Smith, downtown business owner and resident, sent to Chuck Bennett, the city councilor who represents the downtown area. She led the initiative drive to ban parking meters downtown and do away with 2 hour limits.

 Carole makes some excellent points about how the Salem City Council and a self-selected "parking group" have been trying to make changes in downtown parking policies in a sneaky and secretive way.

I respect your opinion Chuck. Most of your reasons why parking isn’t working downtown is because the City failed to make it work.

I am not so concerned about the 3 hour limits, but I am very concerned about how this decision was hidden from the downtown community, decided by a very small group, in a non-public manner. There are over 500 businesses downtown.

Can you tell me how many people made the decision to do what City Council wanted? What percentage of the 500 businesses were surveyed or invited to the Vu meetings? How many downtown customers, business and property owners were polled about their parking preferences? Did you have a majority vote of the full downtown community?

You say the 3 hour limits only goes until Feb -- are we moving on to meters then? Why didn’t the Vu parking group make 3 hour limits go through Valentines Day -- the second largest buying holiday after Christmas? Why did Councilor Clem have a pre-written motion ready for an INFORMATION ITEM (requiring no council action)? Why did the City Council undo everything in the 9,000 signature customer petition - except ONE item?

The item left out of council’s pre-written motion was how much the City can increase the parking tax annually. Do you know why that particular section was left out of the motion?

Because the City plans to vote in parking meters next year and eliminate the parking tax. So they didn’t need to eliminate that restriction. The fact is, the Vu group negotiated away all the ground gained with the initiative petition and okayed the City to start installing parking meters downtown -- and got nothing in return.

This kind of secret decision making, private meetings, and pandering to the City only creates divisiveness and distrust. If the city caused the current parking situation to fail, what makes you think the city won’t do the same with 3 hour parking?

The City doesn’t care about time limited parking -- they want meters. The Vu group just guaranteed the City will get parking meters at the expense of the downtown businesses and customers. How often does a city council throw away 9,000 signatures to follow what 32 businesses and employees want?

Respectfully, Carole

"Oregon Marijuana Education Tour" coming to Salem area under cloud of scandal

When I first learned about the so-called Oregon Marijuana Education Tour, it sounded like what I now know it really is: a thinly-disguised political campaign against Measure 91 -- which will legalize recreational marijuana in this state if voters approve the citizen initiative in November. 

Today Oregon Represenative Earl Blumenauer called for a federal investigation "to determine if federal taxpayer dollars are being used illegally to influence a statewide election." His letter to federal authorities is here. Links to backup documents are here.

This is a big deal.

Portland's Russ Belville, a.k.a. Radical Russ, has done some great reporting on this. Check out his post, "Oregon officials may be covering their tracks on illegal electioneering."

Belville quotes emails that show both state and federal mental health/addiction officials agree with Blumenauer that the Oregon Marijuana Education Tour is political, not educational, so no public funds can be used to plan or promote these events.

One of which was scheduled for October 2 at the Keizer Civic Center. (Based on what Janet Carlson says below, the date may have shifted to October 1.) Keizer, for those not in the know, is just north of Salem, Oregon's capital. 

Yesterday I was curious about whether the Keizer portion of the Oregon Marijuana Education Tour, which features Kevin Sabet, an out-of-state crusader against marijuana legalization, was still happening. I phoned LIsa Miller, who was one of the two contact people listed on the Tour flyer.

Miller was very pleasant. She was quick to tell me she has nothing to do with planning for the event. This job, she said, has been taken on by Marion County Commissioner Janet Carlson. Miller works in the County Health Department.

Even more curious now about whether public dollars were being used for a political anti-Measure 91 event, I phoned Carlson, leaving a message on her voice mail. This morning I decided to email Carlson my basic questions, since deck staining was on my agenda for the day, and it's difficult to interrupt that process for a phone call once I started.

Commissioner Carlson promptly responded. Kudos to her for that. Below is her email message. My questions are in bold. Carlson's responses are in regular type. My comments to her responses are shown [in bracketed italics.] 

Hi Brian - Let me answer your basic questions via email and then we can follow up by phone.

 

(1) Is the event still planned for the Keizer Civic Center?

 

Yes, the event is a two-hour educational forum about the impacts of marijuana on children and youth.  I understand, as you noted below, that there are political figures and other people who are asserting otherwise, but I do not concur that this is a political event. 

 

[Well, as noted above, a Congressional representative, along with state and federal mental health program officials disagree. The Bend Bulletin reports that Clatsop County DA Josh Marquis, one of the event speakers, also agreed the forums are political: “Marquis said a cluster of seminars scheduled throughout the state in October could pour water on the measure.”]

 

As I heard the story, it was originally planned as part of the annual prevention conference that has been happening since at least the 1990s (when I got involved at the state level with children's issues), but instead of holding a conference in one place, the idea was to hold a series of events in various locations throughout the state with a similar group of presenters.  However, when the directive came from Oregon Health Authority that prevention funds that go to health departments for education about substance abuse should not be used for the event, our county counsel advised the Health Department to no longer be involved in the planning.  These funds have been used for many years for similar forums about alcohol, drugs and tobacco and their negative impacts on youth.

 

[Oh, please. Let's get real. The Oregon Marijuana Education Tour was obviously planned to take place just before November election ballots begin to be mailed out. The only speakers are avid opponents of marijuana legalization. Why would state officials order that no prevention funds be used for these particular events if they were just the same as forums in previous years? Answer: because they aren't just the same.]

 

Our counsel's advice was not at all a statement about the nature of the event.  It is the duty of legal counsel for any organization to offer advice that avoids the organization being subject to lawsuits - whether those lawsuits have merit or not.  Certain proponents of the legalization initiative were apparently criticizing the use of the grant funds and our legal counsel advised it would be wise to Marion County staff not to be in the middle of the controversy.

 

[It wasn't just proponents of Measure 91. As mentioned before, it also was state and federal officials, who concluded that the Oregon Marijuana Education Tour was clearly political in nature, not educational.]

 

I double checked the legalization measure and it is focused on adults age 21+.  Marijuana is not proposed to be legalized for children and youth under age 21. My view is that should the measure pass, it will be equally, if not more, important for parents and community members to understand the impacts of marijuana on youth.

 

[Sure. But alcohol is a much bigger problem for high school students than marijuana is. So why isn't an Oregon Alcohol Education Tour taking place instead? Further, Kevin Sabet isn't a respected researcher regarding the effects of marijuana on youth. In fact, an Oregon State University professor heard Sabet speak when he came to this state earlier in the year to argue against legalizing marijuana and concluded, "Dr. Sabet is willfully misleading his audiences." So parents and community members aren't going to get much, if any, accurate information from Sabet.]

 

(2) Is Marion County still involved in sponsoring and planning the event?

 

I have taken the role of coordinating the event.  When Commissioner Patti Milne resigned, the board office made some reassignments of responsibilities and I was appointed to chair Marion County's Public Safety Coordinating Council.  The Council's Steering Committee met coincidentally during the time period when the Health Department was in the process of responding to the OHA directive and associated county legal advice.  Sheriff Jason Myers, DA Walt Beglau, and others were in strong support of preserving the event.  As elected officials, even if the event were political (and again, we strongly believe it is not), elected officials have the latitude under state law to take positions on candidates and measures and are not limited to doing this outside work hours.

 

Marion County is no longer being listed as sponsoring the event financially.  The speaker and the cost of the room will be covered by private donations.

 

[OK, that's good. But a county staffer, Lisa Miller, has been shown as the event coordinator. She, and possibly other county employees, must have done some planning for the event before Marion County cut its ties with the Oregon Marijuana Education Tour. Which led to my next question...]

 

(3) Is Marion County going to reimburse the federal/state agencies who provided funds used so far in planning the Oregon Marijuana Education Tour event?

 

No county monies have been expended yet.  There was not even a contract between the county and the speaker when I assumed the coordination role.  I am currently coordinating with the sponsors so that the contract is with another fiscal agent and the sponsor monies can be distributed directly to the speaker without going through the county.   Same situation with the contract for the Keizer facility. Again, this was after consulting with legal counsel.  If the county were challenged, we would not have had any financial involvement.

 

[Maybe not officially, or as shown in budget documents. But again, a county employee was shown as one of the event coordinators. I find it difficult to believe that no staff time was expended on planning for the Keizer event. For example, someone had to arrange booking of the Keizer Civic Center.]

 

(4) If the event is still being held, who are the speakers?

 

Dr. Kevin Sabet is the keynote speaker.  I have been exchanging emails with him.  He has been the keynote speaker at other national events, such as the Amer Society of Addiction Medicine meeting and the AMERSA meeting last year.  His presentations are science based.

 

[Not! Please read "Dr. Sabet Goes to Salem." There is plenty of other evidence showing that Sabet spreads false information. This came from the aforementioned OSU sociologist.]

 

We will also have a district attorney from an adjacent county as part of the event.  Walt Beglau is working on that invitation., since he will not be available on the day of the event (the afternoon of Wednesday, October 1).  I believe the DA's role is to make some brief remarks but primarily be available to answer questions after Dr. Sabet concludes his remarks.

 

The format will include the opportunity for the audience to ask questions.  There will be moderators who will distribute cards and deliver the cards to the speakers.  The information sheet (which was prepared prior to the assertions that the event is not educational) said that this was to avoid any debates among the audience and keep the event focused on the topic of youth substance abuse.

 

[Yikes! This proves the point of those who say this is a political, not an educational, forum. Only Sabet and other anti-marijuana legalization speakers will choose the questions to be asked and answered. Anyone who stands up and points out that the speakers are wrong, scientifically or otherwise, will be tossed out, I presume. Is that how you view education, people being lectured to without any opportunity for debate and discussion?]

 

Thanks,

Janet

 

Here's what I said in an email reply back to Commissioner Carlson. (Note: the italicized comments above were written for this blog post; but they reflect the points I made in my reply).

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

Janet, thanks for your detailed response. Most helpful. At the moment I’ll offer just a few observations. 

 

Some of the “other people” (in your question 1 reply) who consider these events are political include officials who administer the state and federal addiction/mental health programs. Here’s an excerpt from the Russ Belville post whose link I shared with you before: 

There is no question among members of the public health community that these events are clearly designed to influence the election.  In an email obtained by 420RADIO listener Jennifer Alexander, Karen Wheeler, the administrator of the Addictions and Mental Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority writes:

We have determined the multi-city educational tour that has been planned falls inside the lines of political activity given the featured speaker and the timing of the events right before the election.

Alexander responded by asking Wheeler for more detail as to whom “we” refers to, and in response, Wheeler makes it clear that federal agencies consider the Summit and Tour as political, not “educational” events:

To answer your question, “we” means AMH leadership which includes me and Pam Martin, the Director.

Pam and I were called by a Congressman’s office yesterday as well to make sure no federal funds were being used to support these events in any way.

Prior to that call, last week I was contacted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and asked for written confirmation that no SAPT block grant or SPF grant funds were being used for political or lobbying purposes in light of the events.

So the federal government officials who administer funds that come to us have made this pretty clear to us I believe. 

So Karen Wheeler and federal officials consider them to be political events. The question then becomes, why don’t you and others involved with the forums simply admit that these are part of the anti-Measure 91 effort? 

 

It would be perfectly appropriate for members of the community, including elected officials on their own time, to campaign against Measure 91. The problem with calling them “educational” is that they obviously aren’t. My understanding is that the speakers and format will be exactly the same as they were before.

 

So since state and federal authorities consider the original Oregon Marijuana Education Tour to be political, not educational, it seems clear that even though federal funds apparently now won’t be used for these events, they still are political, not educational.

 

I’m concerned that the credibility of Oregon’s addiction and mental health community is going to be undermined if they get sucked into a thinly camouflaged anti-Measure 91 effort. How can youth, or anyone, believe their messages if the people speaking at these events represent only one side of the scientific, moral, and cultural debate over legalizing marijuana?

 

I’d encourage you to rethink the wisdom of continuing to brand the Keizer event as “educational.” In that regard, I refer you to a blog post I wrote that includes a critique of Kevin Sabat’s credentials by an Oregon State University faculty member. Sabat comes with a lot of scholarly/intellectual baggage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

 

Here’s a link to the blog post, followed by an excerpt from the post that includes quotes from the OSU sociologist.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2014/08/taxpayer-funded-reefer-madness-tour-coming-to-oregon-outrageous.html

Proving how political Sabet's "education tour" is, he came to Oregon in January to present his anti-marijuana legalization rant at an Oregon legislature committee hearing. Seth Crawford, a sociologist at Oregon State University, debunked his testimony in "Dr. Sabet goes to Salem." 

Kevin Sabet appeared at 2pm today before the House/Senate joint judiciary committee to present his anti-marijuana legalization argument (his trip and presentation were paid for by the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association–highly ironic considering his persistent railing against the “big marijuana lobby”).  I tried to talk to him after the presentation, but he essentially flipped me the bird and ran out of the capital. Very professional.  During this presentation, he claimed (among other things) that:

(1)  adolescent marijuana use rates have increased in states where medical marijuana is legal (he used data from a single state–Colorado–to support this claim),

(2)  marijuana use rates will increase in states that legalize adult recreational use of the drug

(3)  1 in 6 adolescents who try marijuana will become addicted

(4)  marijuana use is associated with declines in IQ

All of the above points are demonstrably invalid; furthermore, they are the result of an incredibly narrow and pernicious reading of the collected scientific evidence.  My claim—that Dr. Sabet is willfully misleading his audiences while presenting these claims across the nation—is not new or novel, but my presentation of evidence demonstrating his inaccuracies is. [emphasis added] 

 

Save ancient trees and Howard Hall from Salem Hospital's greed

Let's understand one thing about Salem Hospital: it is the biggest part of a giant corporation, not a small community health care provider.

The revenue of Salem Health, its parent organization, was over $500 million a few years ago. It's CEO, Norm Gruber, is said to make over a million dollars a year now. He made $877,000 in 2011. 

So this is one reason I'm rooting for an elderly blind woman, Beverly Rushing, who is going up against Salem Hospital in her appeal of the City of Salem's outrageous approval of the hospital's plan to needlessly cut down thirty majestic trees for an over-sized parking lot, and demolish a historic building, Howard Hall, that has deep significance to Oregon's blind community.

Download City's Howard Hall demo decision appealed to state board
Download Howard Hall has significance for the blind community

For Rushing, Howard Hall was a second home when she was growing up. The dormitory at 700 Church Street SE is the last remaining building on the former Oregon State School for the Blind campus.

The thought of Howard Hall's demolition "breaks my heart," Rushing said. Howard Hall, which was built in the 1920s, has too much historic significance for the city to allow it to be razed, she said.

It's a classic David vs. Goliath situation. One person who has an abiding sense of This isn't right fighting City Hall and this town's largest employer. 

Hopefully Salem Health and Salem Hospital will realize there is no way they can win this battle. Even if their high-paid lawyers end up coming out on top after the Land Use Board of Appeals hears Rushing's appeal, their reputations will be forever tarnished.

Representatives of the blind community have said that five times their attempts to negotiate a compromise with Salem Hospital over Howard Hall were rejected. Likewise, professional architectural renderings that show it is possible to save most of the ancient trees on the property, rather than cut them down for a barren parking lot, have been rejected out of hand by the hospital.

If you care about preserving trees and historic buildings, take a few minutes to learn about what will be lost if Salem Hospital gets its greedy way.

Here's a short video prepared by Salem Community Vision showing the beautiful trees the hospital wants to trash.

 

Salem Community Vision also has a description of this issue on its web site, "Save ancient trees and historic Howard Hall." A call to action is at the end. Please heed it.

What can I do to save the ancient trees and preserve Howard Hall?

You can write to the CEO of Salem Hospital, Norm Gruber. Urge him to compromise with the neighbors and the blind community to save the ancient trees and preserve Howard Hall. 

[email protected]

You can write to Alan Costic, who chairs the Board of Trustees of Salem Hospital. Tell him that the policy-making Board has a responsibility to review the staff decisions to determine if they are in the best interests of Salem Hospital and the Salem community.

[email protected]

You can write to the Salem City Council. Tell them they need to reconsider their decision to allow the demolition of historic Howard Hall. They also need to review the City staff decision to allow the destruction of significant Oregon white oak trees on the site.

[email protected]

We hope that appeals to LUBA will slow down, if not halt, the rush to demolish a Salem historic landmark and destroy more than 40 trees in our urban core. But we can't rely on this process alone. We need an outpouring of citizen concern expressing the strong opinion that in Salem we don't tear down our historic landmarks, and we don't clear cut ancient Oregon White Oaks and Douglas Fir trees.

Please do your part and make your voice heard.

Salem's downtown parking scandal (PG, like Salem)

Don't get me wrong. I prefer clean government to dirty government.

But if we're going to have scandals here in Salem, it'd be cool to have R- or X-rated House of Cards'ish ones, big elaborate devious mischievous goings-on led by Machiavellian politicians and their cohorts who are so clever, it takes an equally strong dose of investigative prowess to get even a clue into what's happening behind the scenes.

Instead, what's happening with the latest episode of the downtown parking saga is sleazy and disturbing, yet seemingly pretty damn obvious to discern.

Hence, this scandal is fittingly Salem. More So-lame than OMG! Nixonian. 

This didn't stop me from calling my first blog post on this subject "Salem City Council pulls an OMG! downtown parking surprise." I described three OMG!'s.

OMG! The City Council passed a motion to move forward with 3 hour time limits and other parking policy changes after the agenda shared with citizens said the only discussion on this subject would be informational, no council action required.

OMG! It sure looks like some people did know the City Council was going to act on reinstating parking time limits, because they came all organized with recommendations that echoed the motion passed unanimously by councilors. 

OMG! The parking group organized by Jim Vu (and Doug/Gayle Doty, I believe) excluded the leaders of the Stop Parking Meters Downtown initiative drive which, as noted above, gathered 9,000 signatures from Salem-area residents to stop the ill-considered meter plan being pushed by City officials.

Here's an update on what I've learned since.

(1) Leaders of the above-mentioned parking group have something to hide. Over a week ago I emailed Jim Vu and Dino Venti, who presented a petition to the City Council in support of 3-hour time limits and four other parking changes that purportedly reflected a consensus of downtown businesses. 

I had several questions for them, including who put together the five recommendations, since the parking group never met to discuss or vote on them. Vu said he wouldn't be able to talk to me. Venti never responded at all.

So it looks like Vu and Venti, plus maybe the Doty's (who instigated the parking group), wrote up the recommendations that were presented to the City Council as if they came from a broad-based consensus of downtown business owners.

Far from it.

Only employees or owners of 28 separate businesses signed the petition. There are hundreds of businesses downtown, I believe. Over fifty backed the previous initiative petition to ban downtown parking meters and do away with the 2-hour limit. 

Yet Vu and Venti were treated by city councilors and the Mayor as if they were emissaries from a marvelously cohesive new-found coalition of downtown businesses who had come together to speak with a single voice about parking policies. 

Not true. 

(2) A consensus conclusion of the parking group wasn't emphasized in Vu and Venti's recommendations. I attended an August 11 meeting of the parking group that preceded the August 25 City Council meeting. As I said in this blog post, there was only one thing that everybody in the room agreed on that night:

Use a blend of "carrots" and "sticks" to keep employees (and ideally downtown residents also) out of onstreet parking, and in the parking garages.

This is crucial, because everyone agreed that currently the City of Salem isn't properly enforcing the ban against employees using onstreet parking while they are at work downtown. So many spaces which could be used by visitors are being sucked up by employees and the increasing number of downtown residents. 

Thus it isn't possible to tell whether the current free unlimited parking policy is working when it hasn't even been implemented yet by City officials. Meaning, until employees are prevented from illegally using onstreet parking while at work, no one knows what sort of a parking problem downtown has, if any. 

However, the five recommendations presented by Vu and Venti didn't stress the one thing everybody agreed on at the parking group meeting I was at. Here's the memo to the City Council, plus the names of those who signed the petition.
Download D Venti Testimony

For some reason one of the recommendations is a new ordinance that discourages employees from moving their car every three hours to take advantage of what is expected to be a 3-hour onstreet parking limit downtown. 

But there already is a ban on this.

Why go from ban to discourage? Well, the "conspiracy theory" reason is that Vu and Venti are complicit in a scheme by City officials to rekindle their downtown parking meters fantasy as soon as possible.

Step one in this sleazy effort to overturn the Stop Parking Meters Downtown initiative language that was adopted by the City Council last year was the City's pathetic non-enforcement of the ban against employee parking.

This led to onstreet spaces being clogged by employees, which enabled the City to claim that free unlimited parking isn't working. Step two will be going to 3-hour parking, also with little enforcement on the ban against employee parking.

Without that enforcement, downtown visitors will continue to find it more difficult to find vacant onstreet spaces. Then City officials will proclaim, "We tried 2-hour parking; we tried unlimited parking; we tried 3-hour parking. Nothing worked. The only solution is... parking meters!"

(3) The City's State Street parking lot came in for some suspicious special attention at last week's City Council meeting. Under Oregon's public meetings law, the City Council is supposed to deliberate openly before making decisions. It doesn't. 

It's obvious that motions and votes are scripted ahead of time, since the Mayor knows which councilor is ready to make a motion, and often votes on a important motion are unanimous, passing or failing with little or no discussion.

So just by watching the meeting it wasn't possible to tell why this part of Councilor Clem's seven-part surprise motion was included:

(2)  Remove restrictions on the City’s ability to manage parking in the City-owned parking lot located at State Street, including the ability to install 30 minutes spaces, parking meters, and other parking management tools for that lot;

I often park in that lot. I was curious why Dan Clem included that language, so asked him. (I'm also curious why the councilor representing West Salem made the motion, rather than Chuck Bennett who represents downtown, but didn't ask Clem about this).

Clem replied that this was part of the 2013 Parking Task Force report, which also included a recommendation to install parking meters everywhere downtown -- thus setting off the Stop Parking Meters Downtown initiative effort.

What caught my eye about this portion of the motion is that Doug and Gayle Doty are remodeling the McGilchrist building on High and State. The State Street parking lot is adjacent to the building. Doug Doty had spoken at the parking group meeting I attended about how important it is for his tenants to have a high turnover of nearby parking spaces.

The Doty's initiated setting up the parking group.

Vu and Venti, leaders of the group, came up with five recommendations that, judging from their reception at the City Council meeting, fit into the City's long-term scheme to overturn the will of the 9,000 people who signed the Stop Parking Meters Downtown petition.

Thus it is easy to see the possibility of some "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal-making going on here. The Doty's hand-picked parking group comes up with recommendations that give City officials some political cover to reverse their 2013 implementation of the Stop Parking Meters Downtown initiative.

In return, a city councilor moves to change the State Street parking lot to mostly 30 minute and parking meter spaces, the only place in downtown where this is allowed. Now, I can't be sure this backroom deal-making actually occurred.

But it certainly could have, given the City Council's failure to abide by Oregon's public meeting law and discuss parking policy issues openly in full view of the citizenry.

Like I said, this isn't House of Cards-style sleaze. Just Salem's milder version, which is still objectionable.

2014 Salem Sunday Streets: different, yet probably better

I hugely enjoyed the 2013 Salem Sunday Streets event, our town's first version of the much more expansive car-free ciclovias pioneered by Gil Peñalosa, the executive director of 8-80 Cities, who got this going in Bogota, Columbia with great success and now is preaching the cilclovia gospel around the world.

“Streets are like a forbidden place,” Peñalosa says. “Almost nothing scares you as much as when your parents say ‘Watch out! A car is coming!’” But with the ciclovía, the streets “become open so people can enjoy the forbidden place.”

In Bogotá, the ciclovía is used to promote public health: exercise classes are taught in city plazas, dance parties are held in the street, and thousands of people stroll down the boulevards. But Peñalosa says that whatever happens, happens—people are more than welcome to set up small shops, pop-up schools, art fairs, and picnics. Loosen up the streets, loosen up the city.

“People are so hungry for public space,” said Peñalosa, “that when they have it, they’ll take over, and things will develop!”

Oh, yeah! Like a senior citizen skateboader, moi, doing his longboard land paddling thing along an automobile-empty State Street last year. 

It would have been to great acclaim, if I'd gotten the media attention that I had shamelessly sought and, sadly, failed to receive. Here's my GoPro video of last year's Salem Sunday Streets.

 

When I learned from the great Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog (a must-read) that this year's route had been considerably reduced, I was worried that City officials had bowed to the autocentric sprawl lobby, condensing Salem Sunday Streets into an island of a loop around the capitol building instead of the longer 2014 route connecting State Street to Riverfront Park to the Union Street bridge to Wallace Marine Park.

But the more I've learned about this year's event, the better I feel about it. Check out the Salem Sunday Streets Facebook page. Bike, scoot, skate, walk or whatever next Sunday, September 7, 12 to 4 pm. 

Yes, in the future more streets should be closed to traffic. In fact, I think the entire Historic District should be carless several Sundays a year. This will let Salemians get a feel for what it would be like to lose a lane on the freeway'ish core streets and add pedestrian-friendly streetscaping and real bike lanes.

(Not just bike logos painted on a car lane.)

That's hopefully in the future. For now, planners are probably wise to focus on having a bunch of stuff -- music, food, yoga, booths, and more -- to draw people into an intense condensed Salem Sunday Streets experience.

Next year, consider doing both: longer carfree route, at the end of which is the central event happenings. I agree that in 2013 booths and such were too spread out, a few on this street, a few on that street.

Since I now am addicted to riding an outdoor elliptical bike, the StreetStrider, I began wondering how I'd get to the 2014 Salem Sunday Streets. Last year I drove to Riverfront Park, then longboarded down a car-free State Street to the capitol area.

I'm not wild about riding on downtown streets, especially since the StreetStrider is a few inches wider than a regular bike and takes up a bit more room on a bike path due to its elliptical'ness. Plus you turn by leaning, not via handlebars.

So I shared my quandary with the City staff person coordinating Salem Sunday Streets. Corinne Fletcher told me:

We have reserved the Capitol Mall underground parking garage as an option for participant parking.  You're also free to park at Wallace Marine again and ride over with one of the organized bike caravans scheduled to depart from Wallace Marine.  Here's more info about the bike caravans:http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/NeighborhoodEnhancementDivision/neighbor/SalemSundayStreets/Documents/Bike%20Caravans%20to%20Salem%20Sunday%20Streets.pdf

These caravans have been designed with safe routes in mind by people who ride daily with their kids. 

Well, I'll pass on the caravans. I'm sure some people will take advantage of them, but I don't want to be tied to arriving at this year's event at a certain time in order to be part of a "bike caravan."

This is why next year's event should have closed-off streets all the way to Riverfront Park. It sends the wrong message when, in order to get to Salem Sunday Streets, people concerned about biking safely on downtown streets have to band together in a caravan to navigate their way to the car-free area.

I also asked Corinne why it wasn't possible to completely close off State Street all the way to the riverfront. Last year there were "soft closures" of State Street at several intersections where police were on hand to allow north-south traffic through.

She told me:

As Brian [Hart] mentioned on FaceBook, this year's route was mapped out with both help from community volunteers and feedback from last year's event.  The intention of this year's design is to provide a fully closed to cars route for families to enjoy safety.  Because Front, Commercial, and Liberty cannot be closed to cross traffic, we decided to focus on streets that could be completely opened up for participants to ride without worrying about traffic lights and cars. 

This was my reply.

Thanks for the response. I’m glad the underground parking garage is available. This would be my first choice. The bike caravan idea will work for some, but the timing isn’t good for me. As with all things, you’ll learn from this year’s event, as from last year’s. 

I’m curious: what prevents Commercial and Liberty streets from being closed to cross traffic? I realize that Front Street is a state highway (correct?), but I thought the purpose of Front Street was to channel through traffic away from downtown. So why can’t Commercial and Liberty streets be completely closed to “local” traffic?

 

What would be really cool would be to have the whole downtown core closed to cars. This would make the entire Historic District a walkable/bikeable “Mecca” one or more times a year. Downtown businesses could have special events. As it is this year, they pretty much are out of the picture for Salem Sunday Streets. 

    — Brian

 

l'm looking forward to the 2014 event. Look for me on my hard-to-miss yellow StreetStrider.