HinesSight

Salem's Climate Justice march/rally: 3 things to know

Yesterday I took part in the "Salem to Paris: Support Climate Justice" march and rally that was sponsored by our local 350.Org group.

It was part of a worldwide movement to support the climate change talks in Paris -- one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever.

Here's three things you should know about Sunday's event:

(1) People in Salem turned out! Yay for citizen activism! 
Since this was the weekend after Thanksgiving, I headed to the intersection of Court and High in downtown Salem figuring that just twenty or so aging baby-boomers would march to Riverfront Park, where the climate justice rally took place.

But way more people marched -- including a bunch of youngsters (of course, at my age just about everybody is a "youngster" to me). This photo was taken at the gathering spot adjacent to Courthouse Square. We then walked through downtown to the park. Here's a video I took on Court Street.

 

(You'll hear a guy at the end of the video say "Homeless children..." As we walked the rest of the way to Riverfront Park, he told me about the urgent need to find places for homeless children to live. Our Mayor and City Council aren't doing enough about this. But that's a subject for another blog post.)

(2) Dealing with climate change is a Big Freaking Deal. The problem is seriously real.
Walking along with the crowd, enjoying the signs, chanting, singing, and such, some lyrics of a Buffalo Springfield song from the 1960's, "For What It's Worth," came to mind. 

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

Sure, that's the nature of most demonstrations. Not the climate justice march, though.

There is no "other side" when it comes to preserving the habitability of Earth. Who is in favor of allowing human actions to endanger civilization as we know it? 

Well, some people are -- those who are either willfully or ignorantly failing to heed the facts about climate change. So even though these facts are very well known, and beyond scientific dispute, here's a summary of the situation: a New York Times piece, "Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change."

Some excerpts:

In the end, though, experts do not believe the needed transformation in the energy system can happen without strong state and national policies. So speaking up and exercising your rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.

...But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. 

...Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

(3) Climate change deniers likely are running the City of Salem. 
Efforts to combat harmful climate change have to occur at every level: global, national, state, local. Close to home, there's a lot that needs to be done right here in Salem. Unfortunately, Mayor Peterson and her right-wing City Council majority appear to be climate change deniers. 

I wrote about this last January in a Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column, "Salem fiddles while the planet burns."

This sort of giving-the-finger to people who care about preserving what’s left of the natural world may play well in Texas, but its become a major irritant to environmentally-minded Salemians.

Officials at City Hall currently are led by a Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors whose general attitude toward caring for our one and only Earth is decidedly at odds with the values of most local citizens and Oregonians as a whole.

Last year I wrote to them, asking if they believed global warming was happening, humans are mostly responsible, and we need to do something about it.

Only two out of the ten top City of Salem officials said “yes.”

The rest cowered in a science-denying hidey-hole, unwilling to admit that their support for environmentally destructive actions was at odds with the obvious necessity to do everything possible to avert catastrophic changes to the ability of our planet to support human civilization.

So while both the Earth and the western United States experienced record warmth in 2014; while ski resorts in Oregon face steadily declining snowpacks as hotter air causes more precipitation to fall as rain; while drought becomes an ever-increasing threat to farmland and forests…

Salem’s clueless politicians and corporate executives go on their merry Screw the Planet way.

We need to hold their feet to the fire, so Earth doesn't burn up. Every city leader -- in both the public and private sector -- needs to be asked the questions I asked of our Mayor and City Council last January. And the questions need to keep being asked until clear answers are given.

(1) Do you believe that global warming is occurring, and is causing the Earth's climate to change in various ways?

(2) Do you believe that humans are mostly responsible for the global warming/climate change that is occurring?

(3) Do you believe that humans need to engage in actions to deal with both the causes of global warming and its detrimental effects on humanity?

Like I said, this isn't a matter of "my side" and "your side." This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing, or a Democrat vs. Republican thing. 

This is about preserving the habitability of Planet Earth for humans and other living beings, including our children, grandchildren, and future generations. 

If our City leaders don't know the climate change facts, they need to be educated.

If they know the facts and choose to deny them, they need to be voted out of office (if an elected official) or otherwise pressured to change their ways.

Enlightened Theatrics "The 1940's Radio Hour" -- see it, Salem!

Last night my wife and I enjoyed an Enlightened Theatrics' musical show at Salem's downtown Grand Theatre just about as much as we liked a previous production, "Hair." 

"The 1940's Radio Hour" is much different, of course -- a generation apart in setting. Which gave it much of its appeal.

I was born in 1948. The Radio Hour show is set in 1942. When I first heard the name of this production, I thought, "That's ancient history, the 1940's; I'm not sure if I want to listen to old-folks music."

But when I first heard a mention of 1942 from one of the actors, my still super-sharp senior citizen brain whirled away from our reserved front-row center seats (a steal at $20), calculating that, um, let's see now, subtract 2 from 8, why, I was born just six years later!

A bit more glass-of-red-wine-enhanced reasoning revealed that my mother was 30 years old in 1942, close to the same age most of the "1940's Radio Hour" characters appeared to be.

So she lived through those times, and I was born soon after that time. This made the songs, dancing, dialogue, hair styles, clothes, and such more real to me. 

Not hard to do, though, given our front-row seats and the generally intimate atmosphere of the Grand Theatre. In this age of cyberspace, there's something deeply appealing about live theatre. 

I sat there gazing at the actors, immersed in a super-wide unobstructed view of the production, enjoying a 3-D immersement in the action, feeling like the cast were so close to me I could almost touch them. Gosh, the show was better than any sort of virtual reality, because...

It was freaking real reality!

For the price of a few generously equipped and sized expresso drinks, Laurel and I had a marvelous Salem entertainment experience. My only gripe was that so many seats were unfilled. The cast and crew got enthusiastic applause (even when the stage's "applause" sign wasn't lit up), but they deserved a packed house.

So get with it, Salem.

Enlightened Theatrics is putting on very high quality productions.

Their tag line is "Broadway to Salem." I've never seen a Broadway Show, but I've seen lots of professional plays/musicals. Our local theatre company is offering shows that are just as good, but a heck of a lot less expensive and easier to get to (no drive to Portland or Eugene).

The acting, singing, and dancing last night were simply superb.

"The 1940's Radio Hour" starts off rather slowly, then builds in energy as the live radio hour begins. I've got to believe this is a pretty accurate reflection of how musical radio shows did things back in those days.

Makeup, hair, clothes, NY accents, general 40's vibe, musicians (who are on stage) -- the whole presentation of the play seemed perfect to me. And given the loose, relaxed spontaneity of the production, there really was no way to tell if there were any "bloopers." 

If so, they must have added to, rather than detracted from, the action. These actors (about half from Oregon, and half from other states) are so skilled, they could make a forgotten line into an unforgettable moment.

Speaking of such... one of mine was a rendition of "Blues in the Night" by, I'm pretty sure, actress Allison Barrale, who lives in New York. Playing Ginger, when she posed in various sultry ways on a chair while singing the song, I was mesmerized. 

Anyway, folks in Salem have eleven more chances to see "The 1940's Radio Hour." Buy tickets online. Or at the box office at certain times of day. 

Lastly, I enjoyed the Director's Note in the back of the program. Here's how it ends:

The people we notice and name in our history books are the ones at the top of the pile, the crest of that wave. But they are never first nor can they exist alone. Just as a wave needs an ocean under it, there are oceans of people who had to be the first to push the boundaries, to be at the beginning of the idea that snowballs into a revolution.

1942 saw FDR's call for inclusion, no matter race or gender, to band together, working side by side for our future. Eleanor Roosevelt as well, calling on women to take a new place, to inhabit a newly expanded version of female.

In a time of transition when our comfortable ideas of what men and women are, what they should do and who they should be. When we, sometimes in spite of ourselves, are being forced to see the gifts  our neighbors bring to our community, regardless of age or race or gender... home is supposed to be the place where there is room for whoever you are AND whoever you are becoming. 

Even when that might make us uncomfortable. Because that is what family, born and built, is for.

Welcome to our home.

Jamie M. Rea
Director, The 1940's Radio Hour

Take down those illegal signs, Kelly's (and other Salem sign scofflaws)

I hate the illegal signs that have sprouted all over Salem on the public right of way.

But today I, and some unknown other Fighter Against Urban Ugliness, struck blows against one of the worst offenders -- Kelly's Home Center.

Turning from River Road into Minto Brown Island Park to exercise in the early afternoon, I saw three Kelly's "Big Sale" signs between the road and railroad tracks. This is one of them.

Wanting to do my Streetstrider (outdoor elliptical bike) ride first, after I was done I vowed to walk from Parking Lot 1 up to the road and uproot the signs.

This, I've heard, is totally legal -- and a public service -- since the City of Salem Code Enforcement folks aren't able to enforce the sign ordinance due to budget cuts. 

Uprooting a sign(s) and leaving it on the ground reportedly is the legally preferred way to go. Personally, I view illegal signs as litter, just as a plastic bottle or soft drink can on the public right of way would be. So I don't see why removing a sign would be a problem.

But I was planning to do the "uproot and leave" thing, even though I was worried that Kelly's would just put the signs somewhere else. 

Well, it turned out that in the hour or so I was riding my Streetstrider, someone else had taken the Kelly's signs down. Way to go, guy or gal!

Two are shown in this photo. Another was close to the park entrance. Two more were laying on the ground across the street. So my fellow Hater of Illegal Signs had bagged five. Well done.

I was a bit disappointed, though, having wanted to make my own anti-sign statement. So I picked up one of the signs, stuck it in the bark for a few seconds, then pulled it out and laid it back on the ground.

It felt good. I wanted to take a public stand against the Sign Blight that has spread through Salem. We don't have to put up with this crap. Uproot and leave. Or, uproot and throw away, if you agree that the signs are litter.

I'm not talking about temporary signs like those plugging yard sales or Christmas trees. These aren't objectionable, so long as they're taken down promptly.

What bugs me -- and many others -- are commercial signs by businesses and other organizations in the public right of way (if they're attached to the front of a utility pole, this usually means the sign is illegal, since the poles are placed on the boundary of the right of way).

I enjoyed taking down the Kelly's sign, even though it was a symbolic action, given that someone else had already done the deed. I had to take a selfie to commemorate my act of citizen activism.

It didn't take long, though, to come across more Kelly's signs. Three were near the intersection of Kuebler and Liberty streets. Uproot and leave, thrice repeated. 

I hope Kelly's Home Center realizes that whenever my wife and I see a Kelly's sign on the right of way, our interest in buying more stuff from them takes a hit (we've had good experiences with Kelly's salespeople, but their marketing department is hurting the Kelly's image with their irritating illegal signs).

I'm going to email Kelly's Home Center a link to this post. So here's a message to Kelly's management:

If I see that the signs have been put back up, I'm going to take them down again. After that, if the signs have been replaced a second time, I'm going to take them home. If you want them back, email me.

At some point I'll find some time to let you know where they are. But I'm a busy guy, so I might not be able to do this for, oh, a few months. Or longer. 

While you're waiting to get your signs back, I suggest that you consider a radical idea: read the City of Salem sign ordinance! And follow the law.

900.100. Signs Installed Over or Within the Right-of-Way. No sign shall be erected over or within the public right-of-way unless the placement of the sign is first approved by the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the right-of-way. (Ord No. 4-12)

Salem's Mayor wrongly believes marijuana kills brain cells

Often it's frustrating to live in Salem, Oregon.

Nestled in an Uncool Zone between the more with-it towns of Portland and Eugene, our city officials are prone to archaic attitudes that belong more to 1955 than 2015. 

Case in point: Salem Mayor Anna Peterson believes that marijuana kills brain cells.

If this were true it would be bad news for Oregonians, given that medical marijuana has been legal here since 1998, and adult/recreational use was legalized in 2014. 

This is what Mayor Peterson said on a local conservative talk show.

I'm frankly fed up. It's against the law federally. The science proves that it kills your brain cells. Why would we be saying that it's a good thing to distribute and encourage people in fact, just because it's so readily available, to encourage people to use a product, a drug, that's really detrimental to them?

Mayor Peterson on KYKN 9-30-15

But Peterson is wrong. Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells. In fact, cannabis has many health benefits, both physical and mental. 

Those opposed to marijuana sometimes argue that the substance fries your brain, but new research published earlier this year in the Journal of Neuroscience found that marijuana does not kill brain cells. In fact, marijuana can actually have a positive impact on a person’s mental health, as ATTN: has noted before.

A few days ago a Salem City Councilor, Warren Bednarz, made a less dramatic, but also highly questionable, statement about marijuana grow sites. During a discussion of where adult/recreational sites should be located, Bednarz said:

I know that NE Salem has had its problems with crime … I’m not trying to deny [imply?] that there may be a direct link between the manufacture — the growing of marijuana — and crime, but again, being cautious, I think the more conservative approach would be not to include the IC zone at this point …

 

For those not in the know, "IC zone" means Industrial Commercial. That sure sounds like an appropriate area for marijuana grow sites, since the City of Salem description of this zoning says that agricultural uses are permitted (as is "tobacco products manufacturing").

But Bednarz appears to think that, directly or indirectly, marijuana = crime. Which, given the experience of Colorado after adult marijuana use was legalized there, isn't true. After a year of retail sales: 

Since the first retail marijuana stores opened on January 1st, 2014, the state of Colorado has benefitted from a decrease in crime rates, a decrease in traffic fatalities, an increase in tax revenue and economic output from retail marijuana sales, and an increase in jobs.

Well, like I said, Salem and Marion County are behind the times.

Our clueless county commissioners have banned the production of marijuana in unincorporated areas (Marion is the only county in the Willamette Valley to do this), leaving other parts of Western Oregon with the jobs and economic activity that comes with the burgeoning marijuana industry in this state.

And Salem's Mayor, along with several city councilors, also don't understand that marijuana legalization is a powerful train that isn't going to be stopped by a few public officials. Putting roadblocks in the way of marijuana production and sales just means that money and jobs will go elsewhere.

Like Portland and Eugene.

Why do poorer areas, in Salem and elsewhere, vote against their own interests?

Laurel and I picked a great weekend to visit my daughter, Celeste, and her family for the first time in Laguna Niguel, California, where they moved the rea few months ago.

The late November weather was in the 80's. The sky was clear and sunny.

Here we are in a triple-selfie -- Laurel, Celeste, me -- enjoying the nearby Dana Point beach, where bikini-clad southern Californians defied the calendar (I guess there were men on the beach also, but I didn't notice them).

Soon after we landed at the Orange County Airport and reached the Laguna Niguel area I started to repeat what would be an oft-stated mantra to my daughter and her family: Everything looks so perfect here. 

The streets are broad, smoothly paved, litter-free. There aren't any tacky billboards or other large signs. The architecture of both homes and businesses flows together beautifully. Almost everybody is well-dressed, attractive, and fit. There's even a more lightly-traveled toll-freeway for those with disposable cash who want to avoid the rush hour crush on I-405.

Also, the residents are mostly white. And well-to-do.

Driving around, I didn't see one homeless person. Nor did we encounter anyone asking for money. This part of southern California struck me as almost eerily perfect, given a certain definition of that word, "perfect." 

But getting into that subject would lead me astray from the point of this post. Which is that it is completely understandable why Orange County in general, and the area where my daughter's family lives in particular, would lean strongly Republican. 

Life is good there.

The average cost of a nice, but not extravagant, house seems to be around a million dollars. Lots of good-looking people are out and about shopping, dining, recreating. The bird of the American dream has come to roost in Laguna Niguel and the even-more-chic artsy oceanside town of Laguna Beach.

So why not vote for the politicians who promise to keep taxes low and government small? Most people here have plenty of money. They aren't dependent on social programs -- aside from the retired folks who push away the reality of how Medicare works.

But why would people in much less affluent areas vote Republican against their own interests?

This is a perplexing question. I've thought that the reason lay in social issues such abortion and same-sex marriage, where firmly-held religious/moral beliefs trump a voter's economic and other interests.

However, a New York Times story, "Who Turned My Blue State Red?: Why Poor Areas Vote for Politicians Who Want to Slash the Safety Net," casts a different light on this issue. It looks like the working poor are more irked at the non-working or barely-working poor than they are at the GOP's wildly excessive tilt toward the interests of the 1%.

It is one of the central political puzzles of our time: Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net.

...In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process.

...The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns.

...I’ve heard variations on this theme all over the country: people railing against the guy across the street who is collecting disability payments but is well enough to go fishing, the families using their food assistance to indulge in steaks. 

Though Salem, Oregon, where I live, isn't really a poor area, or a "red city," some of the same dynamics are playing out here. 

People in the wealthier parts of town -- south and west Salem -- both lean conservative and vote at a considerably higher rate than the lower income, more liberal people in other areas.

This is a big reason why a recent vote on a ballot measure to impose a very small (.21%, one fifth of a percent) payroll tax on Salem businesses failed.

Salam is the only city of its size in the Northwest that doesn't 'have evening or weekend bus service. The payroll tax would have restored these services, making it much easier for people without a car to get about (including getting to their jobs) outside of 9-5 Monday-Friday.

This wasn't a radical proposal. Cities to our north and south, Portland and Eugene, impose a much higher payroll tax on businesses to fund decent mass transit.

But the measure failed for a couple of reasons: the Salem Chamber of Commerce funded a sleazy anti-payroll tax campaign filled with falsities and half-truth; and voter turnout was very low. Apparently the lower income people without cars who would benefit most from improved bus service didn't bother to turn in their ballots in this off-year election. 

Those opposed to the payroll tax implied (both explicitly and implicitly) that users of the Cherriots bus system were undeserving: out of work, not paying their way, lazy, undeserving feeders at the public trough. The reality, of course, is much different. 

People ride the bus for a wide variety of reasons: personal, financial, environmental, health.

Mass transit benefits the entire community, yet Salem's right-wingers argued that only those who use mass transit should pay for it -- an obviously absurd notion that would mean only families with children should pay for public education.

So the New York Times story appears to point to widespread political truths. 

That pattern is right in line with surveys, which show a decades-long decline in support for redistributive policies and an increase in conservatism in the electorate even as inequality worsens. There has been a particularly sharp drop in support for redistribution among older Americans, who perhaps see it as a threat to their own Social Security and Medicare.

Meanwhile, researchers such as Kathryn Edin, of Johns Hopkins University, found a tendency by many Americans in the second lowest quintile of the income ladder — the working or lower-middle class — to dissociate themselves from those at the bottom, where many once resided.

“There’s this virulent social distancing — suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person,” said Professor Edin. “They’re playing to the middle fifth and saying, ‘I’m not those people.’ ”

New Salem Police Facility getting supersized (and super expensive!)

Like Topsy, a new police facility here in Salem, Oregon just keeps on growing.

When it was first proposed by Mayor Anna Peterson and her staff, a 75,000 square foot replacement for the current 48,000 sq. ft. police department was in the works. Now, consultants have recommended a 148,000 sq. ft. facility -- almost twice as large. 

I don't want to get much into the tangled web of how planning for this new police facility has unfolded over the past five years. For the next few weeks, you can read all about it on this Salem Community Vision web page. (Soon SCV will have a a new web site.)

The bottom line is that planning has been unduly secretive, disjointed, and backwards.

By "backwards," I mean that a Civic Center site for a new police facility was chosen by City of Salem officials very early on, and with essentially zero public input.

Only after plans were revealed for a 75,000 facility that would be built on (and over) Mirror Pond, just north of City Hall, were community meetings held.

Concerned citizens made valid criticisms. For example, a Civic Center site would require very expensive underground parking. Cramming a three story building onto the small Mirror Pond area would uglify the Pringle Creek walkway that eventually will lead to Riverfront Park. 

So a task force was set up to hopefully get the police facility planning process on track. After a bunch of meetings the task force did make some progress, though not a whole lot. 

Now the police facility planning ball is in the court of a City Council subcommittee, which is working with consultants from the DLR Group and CB Two Architects. A few days ago some folks from Salem Community Vision attended the first meeting of the subcommittee. (I'm a member of the SCV steering committee.)

You can read their reports of what went on here, here, and here. And you can peruse the handouts given to the subcommittee via this PDF file.
Download Salem Police Facility Preliminary Findings Study

There's a lot not to like. It looks like mistakes of the past continue to be repeated. Here's my personal take on what's going on.

(1) Salem can't afford a Police Palace. A few weeks ago Salem voters said "no" to a payroll tax that would have raised $5 million a year to improve our woefully inadequate Cherriots bus system. Salem is the only city of its size in the Northwest lacking evening and weekend bus service. 

There are many other unmet needs in this town.

Yet City officials seem to be on their way to asking citizens to pay way too much for a new police facility. The price tag could be in the $80 million neighborhood. Eugene, which has a police department about the same size as Salem's, recently spent just $17 million for a new police facility.

Yet reportedly cost wasn't even mentioned at the first council subcommittee meeting. No questions were asked about how much a 148,000 sq. ft. building would cost. (To visualize its size, the Courthouse Square building in downtown Salem is 163,000 sq. ft.)

(2) Crime rates are down, but this seemingly isn't being taken into account. I'm not a Carly Fiorina fan, to put it mildly. But this Republican presidential candidate made some reasonable points when she called for a "zero based budgeting" approach to federal programs during a debate. 

Why not do the same for Salem's police facility planning?

So far planning has gone along a more of the same trajectory. The consultants appear to be assuming that the same number of square feet per officer will be needed in the future. And that the need for police officers will be the same, or even greater, thirty years from now. 

This is a photo taken at the recent City Council subcommittee meeting. At the bottom you can see that the current number of police officers per 1000 Salem residents is estimated to be 1.16. Thirty years from now, in 2045, the number of police officers per 1000 residents is shown as 1.23. 

Huh? Both property and violent crime rates have dropped a lot over the past twenty years. Why should it be assumed that Salem will need the same number of police officers per 1000 residents thirty years in the future? 

Further, population projections are guesstimates. So the supposed requirement for a 148,000 sq. ft. police facility is based on two highly questionable assumptions: that Salem's population will grow at a certain rate over the next three decades, and that the per capita need for police officers won't change during that time.

Along this line, I found the Square Foot/Officer slide (see the above-linked PDF file) to be more than a little strange. First, Salem's police officers aren't hanging out in the police department building all the time. Most of them are out on patrol. As Chief Jerry Moore likes to say, every patrol car is a mobile police station.

So justifying the size of a police facility by the number of officers seems dubious. Sure, the size of locker rooms and maybe evidence rooms would need to take the number of officers into account. But otherwise, a police department isn't like an office building where each employee requires a certain amount of space. 

Second, I was struck by how the consultants showed "Salem Proposed" by dividing the square footage of the new building by the future number of police officers in 2045 -- whereas the other cities show the current number of officers.

In other words, the 148,000 sq. ft. size of the new facility here in Salem looks reasonable only because the consultants showed "Proposed" with the 260 officers projected for 2045, not the 187 officers Salem has today.

If 148,000 sq. ft. is divided by the current 187 officer size of the force (to make square foot per officer comparable to the other cities), we get 791 sq. ft. per officer -- which puts Salem very close to the upper end of the International Association of Police Chiefs standard.

(3) Make the police facility expandable in the future, not super-sized now. Given the inherent uncertainty about what the future will bring, it seems crazy to spend tens of millions of dollars on building a police facility that is way larger than what is needed now -- and has a good chance of being way larger than what will be needed in 2045.

It seems smarter to allow for possible expansion in the future. I can't imagine a private company basing its construction plans not on current employment, but on how many employees they expect to have thirty years from now.

Look, I'm a progressive.

I don't resonate strongly with the whole "make government run like a business" thing. But I resonate with this notion to some extent. In the private sector, it is recognized that markets, customers, demand, competition, and such are continually changing. 

Straight line projections like the City Council subcommittee got at its first meeting would be laughed at by a corporate board of directors. Yet from what I've heard, the council members in attendance accepted what the consultants presented without asking any probing or critical questions. 

Sure, we always will need some sort of police department. But policing/public safety/crime rates have changed a lot in the past, and they will change a lot in the future. The subcommittee needs to take this obvious fact into account. 

In summary, from what I've seen so far, Salem voters would be justified in saying "No" to a ballot measure that asks for money to build a 148,000 sq. ft. police facility.

Geez, City Hall and the Library are going to collapse when the Big One earthquake hits, which is a matter of "when" not "if." It makes much more sense to fund essential seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center rather than waste tens of millions on an unduly expensive Police Palace.

Like I said back in May, "Salem can't afford a $50 million-plus Police Facility." And that now is an underestimate, given how much larger Topsy (a good nickname for it) has grown since then.

Quick trip to Olympia shows some contrasts with Salem

This weekend my wife and I made a quick trip to Olympia, Washington. Well, our focus was Lacey, a smaller town adjacent to Olympia -- sort of comparable to Salem and Keizer, I guess.

Laurel and I went to take a look at Panorama, a retirement community in Lacey. But that isn't my focus in this post. 

Rather, I want to share some impressions of Olympia -- which is, of course, Washington's capital, just as Salem is the capital of Oregon. 

Olympia is quite a bit smaller, about 50,000 population versus Salem's 160,000. But the population of the urban area of each state capital is more comparable: 177,000 for Olympia and 237,000 for Salem.

Through her recent comment on one of my blog posts about Panorama, I met a woman who now lives in the Lacey retirement community, her husband and she having moved there recently from their home in Olympia.

Saturday night Laurel and I had dinner with them at a nice restaurant in downtown Olympia. It was interesting to chat with them about Olympia. Contrasts with Salem were quickly apparent. 

A key difference is that Olympia leans liberal in its voting. Well, Salem does also -- in general elections -- but we have a conservative Mayor and City Council majority, whereas I was told that Olympia doesn't. 

This could explain why, when I told our new friends that Salem doesn't have weekend or late evening bus service, they said "What?!" Olympia's InterCity Transit runs 19 out of 20 routes on Saturday and 15 on Sunday. There's a free downtown shuttle and late night service between downtown and Evergreen College. 

Meanwhile, I came home to read the local Sunday paper, finding this letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal.

(This month Salem voters rejected a payroll tax to fund evening and weekend bus service, after the Chamber of Commerce spread lies and half-truths about the much-needed improvements to our Cherriots bus system.)

Anyone who suggests that bus riders should shoulder the financial burden of the buses has it backwards.

Most cities help provide service to people who would like to ride buses because they can't afford cars or are doing their part to help protect the environment. These are your neighbors who need public transportation to get to work or who want to shop or who need medical care from those same businesses (including Salem Hospital) that rejected the funding proposal.

I have lived in many small towns and metropolitan cities in the U.S. and have to say that Salem has the worst system of public transportation of any of them.

C'mon, folks. Let's find a way for the city to beef up a public transportation system so riders can get where they need to go with direct and frequent routes so we can reduce parking/bridge issues and protect our environment. 

Check out Corvallis, Portland, Eugene and any other city to learn what can and should be done to enable a good bus system.

Sharon Valdez
Salem

Right on, Ms. Valdez. Today I saw city buses roaming around downtown Olympia. Yes, on a Sunday. I also saw a downtown that seemed to be more vibrant that Salem's Historic District is around noon on a Sunday.

We ate lunch at a funky cafe on downtown 5th Avenue called Darby's. The Great God Google Maps found it for me when I searched for "vegetarian restaurants Olympia." The place was packed. Both the clientele and staff leaned decidedly toward liberal, free-spirited, and non-traditional.

After we'd ordered, I went outside with my camera to take a photo of the streetside eating area. Well, not only streetside -- the tables and plantings are right in the street, taking up several parking spaces that have been sacrificed for a better use. 

This sort of thing is becoming fairly common in Portland and other with-it cities. Not in Salem so far, though I recall an experiment on Court Street where some parking spaces were taken over temporarily for something or other (a bicycle corral?).

It made Olympia's 5th Avenue look quite a bit more inviting -- to have some of the street explicitly used for people, rather than cars. 

Here's something else I found inviting: the two lane streets in downtown Olympia.

Crossing the street felt markedly different in Olympia as contrasted to Salem. It felt much easier and more welcoming to head to the next block, since three lanes of speeding traffic weren't separating me from where I wanted to go. 

Now, I can hear the voices of those who often respond to posts like this one: "Hey, Brian, if you love Olympia [or Portland, or Eugene, or Corvallis] so much, you should move there!"

Which is ridiculous.

Salem has a lot of problems. Salem can be a much more appealing place to live and work in. Salem has much to learn from other cities.

As the letter writer above correctly pointed out, Salem has one of the worst mass transit systems for a city of its size. Salem's downtown has much untapped potential. Indeed, so does Olympia's.

By chance, Olympia's newly elected Mayor, Cheryl Selby, walked into the restaurant where we ate with our new friends last night. They went to greet and congratulate her, having worked, I believe, for her election. 

Curious about the issues in the mayoral election, a bit of Googling revealed this post by a local Olympia blogger, who had talked with both candidates. A central issue of street people hanging out downtown was reflected in these excerpts:

Overwhelmingly, the top issue on voter’s minds is the condition of downtown Olympia. 

A woman who just moved here last year asked Selby about the artesian well area and said she doesn’t go down there anymore.

“That’s a situation where everything that could go wrong did go wrong…. ” started Selby. She said that they are working on programs to help many of the people who hang out down there, and explained the role of Community Youth Services. The woman was unconvinced.

Moving along, an old timer bluntly told Selby, “The only thing the city council has done in 40 years is screw up parking.”

So Olympia is by no means perfect.

My wife and I were bothered by three or four street people asking for spare change in the short time we walked around downtown. Olympia just has some qualities that Salem should consider emulating.

Black walnut deaths point to more Salem tree dysfunction

Salem, Oregon is steadily strengthening its reputation as the city where public officials are either incompetent or uncaring when it comes to our trees. 

Today I talked with an anonymous reputable source (love that term! makes me sound like an investigative blogger!) who told me some disturbing tales about the black walnut trees being cut down on the State Hospital campus. 

A black walnut tree

Here's an excerpt from a recent Statesman Journal story by Tracy Loew, "Historic Salem trees felled due to new disease."

Six century-old black walnut trees on the Oregon State Hospital campus are being felled this week due to infection with thousand cankers disease.

The disease already has forced the removal of 15 historic black walnut trees at the hospital, and has infected 32 more that eventually will come down as well.

And, it’s spreading into the surrounding neighborhood. Experts say the disease could eventually kill all of Salem’s black walnuts.

To everybody who loves trees, this is bad news. But there's more to the story. Here's what I was told by Mr./Ms. Reputable Source.

The trees are on state property. But a required Notification Permit wasn't obtained prior to the removal work by R & R Tree Service. (My source knows all about this permit; I don't; it might relate to this.)

The State Forester confirmed that the required permit is lacking. With no permit, the mill that is getting the black walnut remains shouldn't accept the wood.

Even more disturbing, the fungus infection reportedly has been known to tree officials for three or four years. I assume this includes Salem's Urban Forester, Jan Staszewski. Yet nothing, or not enough, was done to control the infection.

Now many other black walnut trees in the area near the State Hospital have been infected. Partly, I heard today, this was due to inadequate trimming work, and maybe also poor planning by whoever requested the work.

Reportedly the trimming was delayed for several months.

So I was told that most of the leaves on the black walnuts were down by the time the trimming of infected limbs occurred. This made it difficult to identify the infected parts of the tree. By spring it was obvious that many infected areas had been missed, allowing the fungus infection to spread to other black walnuts. 

I also recall my Reputable Source saying that there was a problem with how wood from diseased trees was handled. If my scribbled note is correct, this had something to do with chipping the wood before infected material was separated from normal wood.

Now, the handling of the black walnuts on the State Hospital property is just one of many instances where trees have been, and are, being cared for poorly in Salem. I've documented this in numerous blog posts, including here, here, and here.

It's also disturbing that this is the second time in just a few months that required permits haven't been obtained before trees have been cut down on the State Hospital property.

Back in September I asked City of Salem officials why a large red oak was removed prior to the appeal deadline -- which obviously prevented concerned citizens from challenging the decision to cut down the tree.

Below is the response I got from the Interim City Manager. He said that the State Department of Administrative Services (DAS) was hit with a $250 fine for removing the tree prematurely.

This may not seem like a big deal. But taken in the context of how many other questionable tree removals have been happening in Salem, it's understandable why tree-loving citizens are dubious about how committed City and State officials are to caring for our leafy friends.

Hello Brian,

Our Community Development Department has provided me some information about your inquiry. Mr. Fernandez and Atchison do not have dealings with this matter as the tree is property owned by the State of Oregon, not the City of Salem. 

The Yaquina Hall tree was removed by the State of Oregon after an Administrative Decision was issued to authorize removal of the tree due to safety concerns. The tree was reported to be damaged and unsound; the condition was confirmed by our Urban Forester, Jan Staszewski.

The City was informed by neighbors that the removal of the tree took place prior to the end of the appeal period on the decision. The City contacted the Department of Administrative Services to discuss the matter. Staff at DAS indicated they were unaware that removal had taken place prematurely. 

Staff took the opportunity to explain the appeal process and help identify the appeal date on the decision. The action was determined to not be a tree violation under SRC Chapter 808 and was investigated as process violation under SRC Chapter 110.  DAS provided assurance about future compliance and agreed to pay a $250 fine for the inadvertent violation.

 

Kacey Duncan

Interim City Manager

City of Salem, Oregon

I scream at the TV during the Republican presidential debate

Well, I've got to give credit to the GOP and the Fox Business Network for this: last night they got this proud progressive involved in Republican presidential politics.

OK, briefly involved -- for as long as the debate went on.

And my involvement consisted of me loudly yelling at our television when I heard one of the candidates say something especially stupid or wrong. Which was frequent.

PolitiFact has put together a partial truthfulness scorecard of what was said by Trump, Carson, Rubio, et. al.

They didn't fare well on the truth scale. Nobody got better than a "Half True." Florina got a richly deserved "Pants on Fire" for saying Obamacare isn't helping anyone.

So I felt perfectly justified yelling out corrections to the B.S. being spread over the airwaves last night. If I hadn't done that, my head would have exploded from a build-up of right-wing political crap entering my fact-loving liberal brain.

For example...

That's absurd, you freaking idiots! when every candidate (I'm pretty sure) rejected the idea of raising the minimum wage, with Trump even claiming that wages are too high now, causing jobs to be lost to other countries. I guess we're supposed to pay our workers whatever they'd get in China. Which is less than $5,000 a year.

Impossible, you fools! erupted from me when almost all the candidates blabbed on about their plan to have a low (10-15%) flat tax on billionaires and fast food restaurant workers alike. Somehow lowering tax revenues by trillions of dollars was supposed to lead to a balanced budget through the fantasy of "dynamic scoring," where reducing taxes mythically leads to more government revenue. 

No way, you imbeciles! roared out of my lips when several GOP presidential hopefuls vowed to kick millions of undocumented workers out of this country, claiming they are lowering wages and harming our economy. Actually they help the economy, especially in the agricultural sector, which couldn't function without these workers.

Lies, lies, lies! was my loud response to the repeated claims that Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced with... something or other. Yeah, right, like things were so great before Obamacare, when insurance companies could deny applicants with preexisting conditions and the "high risk pools" Fiorina praised were doing next to nothing to provide quality comprehensive health care to people without insurance. Going back to those not-good-days would be a disaster for this country.

Florina richly deserved her Pants on Fire for saying that Obamacare isn't helping anybody. 

But so did all of the Republican candidates at some point last night. It's ridiculous that this is the best the GOP can come up with. None of these guys or gals struck me as competent to be president. 

This is the first time I've felt that way.

For example, I had a lot of criticisms about Mitt Romney and John McCain. However, I could envision them doing a half-decent job as president. Meaning, I could see them implementing conservative ideas that I disagreed with in a way that might harm our country, yet wasn't completely bat-shit crazy. 

Jeb Bush and John Kasich were the only candidates on the stage last night who seemed at all reasonable. And right now they are trailing in the polls behind the Bat-Shit Crazy Contingent. 

Looks like I'll be doing more yelling at the TV during the upcoming Republican presidential debates.

My advice to Cherriots bus system: be true to Salem's values

Tomorrow is the one week anniversary of last Tuesday's disappointing defeat of the small (.21%) payroll tax that would have paid for much-needed improvements to Salem's behind-the-times Cherriots bus system -- which lacks late evening and weekend service.

Cherriots faces some tough choices now. As do others in this town who care, or claim to care, about creating viable, appealing, modern mass transit options in Salem. 

Two recent letters to the editor in the Statesman Journal did a good job of summing up the situation.

Defeat of transit tax ruined Salem's chance to shine

What a sad day for Salem.

Salem-Keizer Transit General Manager Allan Pollock’s comment, “This sucks,” in response to the failure of Measure 24-388, is an understatement. The fact that the Salem Hospital spent $50,000 in fighting the measure — the same amount that Cherriots gave it to improve transportation — is unconscionable.

To the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, businesses that fought against the measure and those who voted against the tax, shame on you. You had an opportunity to improve the lives of those with limited transportation options economically, educationally and socially and with an overall positive impact on the city.

This was a chance for Salem to shine and you blew it.

Thomas Hedge 
Salem
---------------------
When will those opposed to transit tax step up with solution?

Now that 21 percent of the eligible voters in the Salem-Keizer area have voted against expanding our city’s bus services, we are left wondering what this vote reflects:

• The desire to ensure that Oregon’s capital continues to have no late-night, weekend or holiday bus service?

• A rejection of the concept that students, the disabled and the working poor should have someone else assist them to afford public transportation?

• Or maybe just support for our business community (which spent heavily to defeat the measure), believing they alone should not shoulder the cost?

Whatever the reasons, we now await what positive actions the measure’s opponents will take to help meet our community’s unmet transportation needs.

Who — Salem Hospital, large business leaders, small business owners — will make the first call to Cherriots’ volunteer board and supporters who have struggled year-after-year to define and tap our community’s sense of community, offering to work with instead of against, to find community solutions to our community need?

We wait by the phone, looking forward to your call.

William Dalton
Salem

Both letters speak the truth. The Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of the mass transit payroll tax did indeed blow it.

Members of the Cherriots Board of Directors met four times with leaders of the Salem Chamber of Commerce prior to deciding to put a payroll tax on the ballot. The Chamber rejected this attempt to collaborate on finding a way to pay for evening and weekend bus service.

So the question asked by letter writer Dalton -- who will now work to find community solutions to our community need? -- almost certainly isn't the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had its chance to work together with Cherriots and said "no way."

Thus here's my three-part advice to the Cherriots Board:

(1) Don't expect the Chamber of Commerce to change its anti-tax philosophy. It isn't much of an exaggeration to say that the Chamber, along with Salem's right-wing Mayor and City Council majority, want this town to be the Mississippi of the Willamette Valley.

Meaning, a conservative outlier among cities that lean liberal: Portland, Corvallis, Eugene. This takes deception, since Salem also is a liberal town. In general elections such is evident. In off-year and primary elections marked by low voter turnout, such as last Tuesday's election, it isn't.

Just because most of our local Chamber of Commerce leaders and elected City officials seem like moderates, doesn't mean they are.

Actually they are just as Tea Party'ish as other right-wing ideologues in Congress and elsewhere. They don't like taxes and government, except when government funnels tax dollars to business special interests. Further, our local right-wingers tend to be anti-environment global warming deniers.

So it's wishful thinking to believe that suddenly Chamber of Commerce leaders are going to turn into avid mass transit supporters who will back a new funding source for Cherriots.

(Their claim that Oregon Lottery funds can be tapped for Cherriots operating expenses is ludicrous; I give this a 5% chance of succeeding, at best.)

(2) Cherriots needs to stay true to mass transit values, which are shared by most people in Salem. As the letter writer said, a small minority of Salem voters decided this off-year election. If the payroll tax had been voted on in November 2016, when the turnout will be much higher, the outcome might well have been a "yes" majority.

Right-wingers try to maintain control in Salem by pumping a lot of money into low-turnout elections. The mayoral and city council races usually are decided in a May primary. This produces a divisive situation: a liberal town being led by conservatives who got into office via special interest money, which makes them beholden to those same special interests.

Cherriots, as a mass transit agency, should stay true to its values.

Environmentalism. Social equity. Compassion for the elderly, infirm, and those carless by necessity or choice. Just because a fifth of Salem registered voters turned down a mass transit payroll tax doesn't mean Cherriots should jump into the political arms of the Salem Chamber of Commerce.

Most people in Salem, and most voters in Salem, don't share the Chamber's values.

They want taxes to be used to provide necessary services to our community. They want carbon emissions lowered through the wise use of mass transit and other means. They want the rich and powerful in this town to pay their fair share for community improvements.

(3) Cherriots should play hardball with the Chamber of Commerce, just as the Chamber does. I'm a proud progressive/liberal who was raised by a fervent Republican mother. Having grown up reading National Review and thrilling to the words of William F. Buckley, I understand the appeal of genuine conservatism. 

But that isn't what is being peddled by the Salem Chamber of Commerce. Over the years conservatism in this country has hardened into a rigid doctrinaire anti-tax anti-government fundamentalism that isn't interested in compromise or collaboration.

So, Cherriots board members, there is little chance that the Chamber is going to play nice with you now that the payroll tax has been defeated.

What Chamber officials will try to do is bring you into their fold, hoping to buy you off with lofty impractical promises that their lobbying team will be able to find a mythical non-tax Pot of Gold that will pay for evening and weekend bus service.

If Cherriots goes along with this game, you'll lose the trust and respect of the people you need the most: Salem's liberal-leaning voters.

I urge you to play hardball with the Chamber, just as they did with you in the recent election. However, the Chamber spread falsities and half-truths about the payroll tax. The Cherriots board should be more ethical, while just as tough.

Tell the Chamber of Commerce that you're reconsidering your support for the Third Bridge. My understanding is that if Cherriots rescinds this support, the Third Bridge can't move forward. Which it shouldn't, being an unneeded billion dollar disaster in the making. 

Most Salem voters would respect you for this. You will have taken a stand for fiscal responsibility and protecting our planet. The Third Bridge would be a major contributor to increased carbon emissions, sprawl, and environmental degradation. 

Salem's mass transit agency shouldn't be supporting these negative effects. Go all in on mass transit values and good things will happen. Of course, maybe you still won't be able to find funding for evening and weekend bus service. 

But it would be better to take a firm stand for what's right for Salem, instead of compromising Cherriots values in a fruitless attempt to make friends with the Chamber of Commerce which, believe me, isn't your friend. Nor the friend of most people in Salem. 

 

Statesman Journal asks how to improve Salem. Newspaper should start with itself.

Today Dick Hughes, the editorial page editor of Salem's daily newspaper, used half a page in the Statesman Journal for his "My Top 10 list for helping, improving the community." 

Here's a suggestion that you missed, Dick: Start close to home. Improve the increasingly worthless Gannett Corporation paper that you work for. 

I've been, and will continue to be, a relentless critic of the Statesman Journal -- a paper that I've subscribed to and read every day of the 38 years I've lived in the Salem area.

It's gone so far downhill, I'm not sure if there's much journalistic ground remaining for it to slide past. The titles of some of my critical blog posts tell the sorry tale.

"Maybe it's time for the Statesman Journal to die"
"The Statesman Journal newspaper is failing Salem"
"The Statesman Journal is trying to trick Salem"
"Layoffs at Statesman Journal tied to worrisome Gannett 'newsroom of the future'"
"Salem Statesman Journal hit with journalistic ethics complaints"
"Salem Statesman Journal daily circulation in steep decline"
"Statesman Journal vs. Willamette Week -- investigative journalism pissing contest"
"Statesman Journal staff are wrong: readers ARE interested in ethics complaints"

After reading Hughes' piece, I've got three main gripes about what he wrote, and his newspaper as a whole.

(1) The Statesman Journal hasn't been adequately covering the issues he feels so strongly about. 

Among other things Hughes says we've got to do something about, he mentions homelessness, downtown Salem, a new police facility, and the proposed third bridge across the Willamette.

So where are the in-depth Statesman Journal stories on these subjects?

Where is the investigative journalism about the wasteful, incoherent, closed-door planning on both the police facility and third bridge? Where is the digging into how City of Salem officials have harmed efforts to improve downtown by trashing a duly-selected downtown organization and causing the demise of the Economic Improvement District? Where are interviews with community leaders trying to deal with homelessness about how pitiful the Mayor's and City Council's response has been in this area?

Nowhere. They don't exist. Here's one reason why...

(2) The Statesman Journal won't seriously challenge the Salem Chamber of Commerce and City officials who were elected with the backing of the Chamber.

Tough questions aren't asked by the Statesman Journal because the answers often won't put the Powers That Be in Salem in a good light. Facts aren't reported because those facts would point out how positions taken by the Chamber of Commerce, Mayor, and her right-wing City Council majority (bought and paid for by the Chamber) lack a substantive foundation. 

So we get mindless reporting and editorializing in the Statesman Journal. Thoughtful writing doesn't mesh with the poorly thought-out wish lists of special interests in this town -- which focus, as they do nationally, on feathering the nests of the rich and powerful rather than furthering the interests of the general public.

Thus somehow Hughes was able to say that Salem needs to become more attractive to the millennial generation, who favor living in "cool" environmentally-friendly, dense, central, mixed-use areas where cars aren't necessary, and simultaneously call for the building of an unwanted, unneeded, and unpaid-for third bridge that will promote sprawl, auto-centrism, and increased ecological harm.

Salem needs a coherent vision for becoming more livable and vibrant into the rest of the 21st century.

This won't happen until those who already have money and power stop controlling the agenda in this town. Since the Statesman Journal can't survive without their advertising dollars, the newspaper is failing Salem by sucking up to the Power Structure instead of The People.

(3) Shallow cute journalism isn't serving Salem well

Look, I understand the pressures on print newspapers. Some cost-cutting is necessary. But if the Statesman Journal throws away its journalistic soul in order to keep its barely-beating body alive, is that worth it? 

When I walk to our paper box, browsing through the paper as I return to our house, most days I find very little substance in the Statesman Journal. When an investigative piece about an Oregon issue catches my eye, usually I see that it was first published by another newspaper in this state.

I'm not content with reading what sort of superhero kids want to be; what a bunch of people said to the executive editor at a Court Street diner; how the Rapid Response readers feel about this or that; what Salem was like 50 years ago; inserts from USA Today; and all the other stuff in the Statesman Journal that has little or nothing to do with Salem's pressing problems and future evolution. 

Yeah, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to newspapers.

I still believe they mostly should have news in them. If I want cuteness I can turn to my Facebook feed and watch kitten videos. If I want uninformed opinion I can watch Fox News.

So look in the mirror, Statesman Journal editors and executives, next time you think about reporting or editorializing about what needs to improve in Salem.

Your newspaper is near the top of my list.

Statesman Journal staff are wrong: readers ARE interested in ethics complaints

Yesterday I decided to investigate whether the powers-that-be at our local daily newspaper, the Gannett owned Salem Statesman Journal, were correct when they told me that readers wouldn't be interested in the complaint I filed with the IRS against Salem Health, the parent company of Salem Hospital. 

Below is the post I put up on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page, followed by the comments I've received in just one day. (Some of the comments were made on the post that I shared on my personal Facebook feed.)

Statesman Journal staff were wrong. Lots of people here in Salem DO want to read substantial stories about local goings-on.

Unfortunately, the Statesman Journal appears to have decided that it just wants to be a newspaper with a few pages containing shallow stories and USA Today reprints holding together a bunch of advertising inserts. This isn't how journalism used to be practiced in this town, which is sad.
-------------------------
Strange Up Salem

Yesterday at 8:38pm 

THE STATESMAN JOURNAL THINKS YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS STORY. TRUE... OR FALSE?

"More evidence that Salem Health violated IRS rules on political donations."

Today I was told that Salem's so-called community newspaper, the Statesman Journal, wasn't going to publish a story about the complaint I filed with the IRS against Salem Health -- a tax-exempt organization that donated $50,000 to a PAC (Political Action Committee), which sure seems to be against IRS rules.

After I notified the Statesman Journal about the complaint 13 days ago, a staffer emailed me that this wasn't of interest to the newspaper's readers, even though the $50,000 went to the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC, which opposed the mass transit payroll tax measure that was voted down in yesterday's election.

So I emailed back: "You guys at the paper don’t think people in Salem are interested in this issue. You may be right; you may be wrong. One way to find out is to ask citizens here if they think this is a newsworthy story."

I believe it is. But what do YOU think? Leave a comment on this post. I'll share the comments with Statesman Journal editors. 

Maybe they're right -- people in Salem don't care about the legality of a large donation from a tax-exempt corporation that was given to a Political Action Committee which supports individual political candidates, an IRS no-no. 

But I hope the Statesman Journal is wrong. Just because this town's daily newspaper has given up on local investigative reporting doesn't mean this is a good thing. 

It's well known that the Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC does its best to buy elections. That's bad enough. Worse is when a giant organization like Salem Health seemingly abuses its tax-exempt status by donating $50,000 to the PAC in violation of IRS rules.

Do you care about this? Do you think the IRS complaint against Salem Health merits a story in the Statesman Journal? Weigh in with a comment.

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

Teresa Joslin i hope you win

Carole McAfee Yes, report the news SJ!

Thomas Roshone I wish this came as a shock, but really nothing, that the journal or chamber does shocks me anymore

Eric T. MacKnight Yes, this is newsworthy.

Elizabeth Schulte heck I'll read anything once. let us have it, SJ!

Maryann Lane Yes. This is newsworthy. If the SJ won't report perhaps one of the news channels in Portland or perhaps WW will be interested in reporting that the SJ which derives a good bit of revenue stream from Salem Hospital adverts thinks the people don't want to read about how the hospital violated the IRS rules. SJ needs to report ALL the news, not just the stories approved by Salem Hospital, otherwise it seems as if they play favorites. But then perhaps they condone political incest?

Scott Shambaugh I would like to see the SJ write this up. Shine lights in those dark corners so we know what businesses and our government are doing, wrong or right.

Jamayca J. Nelson Call the Oregonian!

Jim Costello I honestly probably wouldn't read it, but the Statesman Journal has a duty to the community to report it.

Galen Peder Brownson If the organisation were not Salem Health would it warrant an article? What if, say, Oregon State Hospital were accused of violating IRS regulations?

Chad Halsey Since when is possible corruption not news? Of course the Statesman Journal should report on this.

Cyndi Smith come on SJ. Report it to Willamette Week.

Kevin Bryan Hell yes it's news! Anything that uncovers the truth should be looked into to report the true facts to the people!

Desta Sirrine Yes! I want to know when shady things are going on. It's important to know the truth.

Carrie Lovellette Evidently the Statesman Urinal has been bought and paid for by the same folks who buys elections. I say publish the damn article!

Rich Beatty Makes me think about whether i want to renew my subscription when my current subscription expires........

Lorie Strauch Fontaine Yes, it is news. Thank you for your efforts to inform our community.

Randi Miller-Grasseth Potential corruption is always news. I was shocked they pay no property taxes.

Tanya Patzer It is news and I believe people would be interested. Thank you for your blog and all you do to inform about what is going on.

Becky Beaman It is news and should be made public. Shame on the local paper for saying we're not interested... perhaps this is why fewer and fewer people take the paper!

Charolette Stoehr Perhaps you should see if the Oregonian thinks it is newsworthy?

Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe The O is even less interested in investigative journalism than the SJ....

Keith Quick This type of contribution is totally legal. It's going to a ballot measure not a candidate. The rules are not enforced by the irs. The Oregon Secretary of State enforces election rules in Oregon.

Strange Up Salem Keith Quick Please read my two blog posts on this subject, one of which is linked below. The IRS does not allow tax-exempt organizations like Salem Health to give money to PACs. They can only give money to dedicated Measure Committees whose sole purpose is endorsing or opposing ballot measures.

The Create Jobs PAC is a Miscellaneous Committee which supports/opposes both individual candidates for public office and ballot measures. Giving money to this sort of PAC is not allowed by the IRS for tax-exempt organizations. 

As I noted in the post, the money in that sort of PAC, such as the Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC, gets commingled -- just as cash given to a street person gets commingled once it is in his pocket. He then can use it for beer, food, or whatever, even though you might say "Don't buy beer with the $5 I gave you." 

Likewise, there is no way to tell how the Create Jobs PAC used the $50,000 donated to it by Salem Health. It could go to individual political candidates. This is why the IRS does not allow tax-exempt organizations to donate to a Miscellaneous PAC.

Phil Krug YES!!!

Stacey Phillips yellow journalisim is what you get from the statesman urinal. and out right lies come from them. This is why i will not do interviews with them again. I exposed corruption that involved neil goldschmitt in 1989 and it finally came to light after the statute of limmitations ran out on him. Frankie knew Neil was a child molester and was going to expose that fact. The corruption that was exposed was a decoy. the statesman played along. Here is a classic for you. Justin Much wrote an artical on Occupy salem he wrote that we were leaderless and in the same artical called me one of the leaders ````````` idiots ..Flush the Urinal

Mary Ann Baclawski SJ might be right- more people will read nature stories. But that's no excuse since they are a NEWSpaper, not a soap media platform. Perhaps contact Kristoff and ask him to make a national example of how crony capitalism is destroying the small American city?

Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe If y'all are reading other posts.... I would like to know if Keith Quick's reply is correct. If so, this is moot point. For those thinking the O might be interested; they are even less involved in investigative journalism that the SJ, to which we happily subscribe for information about local activities good and bad. We hope they print this .... Unless Keith is right.

Strange Up Salem Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe no, Keith Quick isn't right. I replied to him, pointed out that the IRS doesn't allow tax-exempt organizations like Salem Health to donate money to PACs like the Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC. 

Someone from the Oregon Elections Division confirmed that money in these "Miscellaneous Committees" gets commingled, so there is no way to tell whether donations go to supporting/opposig individual candidates or ballot measures.

Galen Peder Brownson "...just as cash given to a street person gets commingled once it is in his pocket"? I'm calling you out this time, @Strange Up Salem:

Firstly, the 50,000 filthy, bloody dollars for political ends are related to the 5 dollars in a technical sense only. The concept of commingled funds in a PAC is not elegantly described by a reference to a handful of spare change in someone's (anyone's) pocket, which brings me to my second complaint: seemingly your sole motivation for drawing the simile was to invoke an emotional response from a tired and hurtful stereotype. Not only are you now fucking up what credibility you possessed, but you're missing an opportunity to demonstrate journalism with honour in favour of taking classist shortcuts designed to denigrate and oppress the already-ignored, already-discarded, already-totally-fucked.

Shame.

Elizabeth Schulte they say they've contacted the iRS

Melody Fahey I am very interested in this matter, but no longer very interested in the SJ--wish we had a better paper.

Delia Appleberry Yes! Please investigate!

Darren Craigberry Please investigate and write the article! Salem health enjoys bully status as the largest private employer in the area... What they did was morally wrong if not illegal.

Marie Murdock yes we care! investigate and report!

Jim Scheppke Brian, time for another ethics complaint to Gannett, Inc. The Statesman Journal is violating Gannett's Code of Ethics... "Maintaining independence —We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report. We will maintain an impartial, arm’s length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news. We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content." Statesman Journal Publisher Terry Horne sits on the Board of Directors of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, so of course they are not going to investigate the illegal campaign contribution to the Chamber's PAC.

Loreen Ostrander Wells I believe this issue, all facets of it, deserve a public airing. The bus syatem is getting decimated. If you need to rely on our buses, good luck.

Tim Patterson It is definitely news by any angle. The SJ should be ashamed of their stance on this. I say this as a former radio news reported and journalist.

Michelle Achée I thought newspapers were supposed to report NEWS, not spoon feed us bland entertainment that they imagine we might like. Ninety percent of what they do publish is so vapid that it kills off brain cells. The other ten percent come from other news sources such as AP. It's an embarrassment.

Kit Close We are of course interested in this type of information. We just don't look for it in the Statesman. I say this as a person who has read the daily almost every day since 1962. That said the Statesman is more for entertainment than hard news these days.

Aileen Kaye Can you please give us an specific email address for the SJ?

Brian Hines Aileen Kaye Michael Davis is the executive editor at the Statesman Journal. He makes the editorial/content decisions. His email address is [email protected]

Aaron Erhardt SJ's disinterest increases the interestingness of this story. Thank You, Mr. Hines!

I love our new Apple TV, even without Amazon Prime

Today our Apple TV arrived. (For those who don't obsessively follow all things Apple'ish, this isn't an actual TV, but a little box that hooks up to your TV and streams content to it via wi-fi).

We've used the previous incarnation of Apple TV, along with a Roku. We also got a "smart" Samsung TV a few months ago that has apps for streaming services like Netflix and Hulu built-in to the television. 

But all of these devices have been quite difficult to use. Playing a movie or TV show has been pretty easy, but finding what you're looking for has been frustrating. The Samsung has a voice command feature. However, it works so crappily I gave up on it.

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and such have search features. Only for their own content, though. So I've had to laboriously type in the name of a TV show or movie in each one to see if its available. 

Thus when I heard that the new Apple TV had Siri built into the remote control, that was all I needed to order one. After an hour or so of playing around with it today, I'm happy with the Apple TV. My experience, though more limited than Engadget's, pretty much mirrors what's said in "A weekend with the new Apple TV."

After finally getting to test one out over the weekend, I found that the new fourth-generation Apple TV was worth the wait -- though there are still plenty of issues to iron out.

For me, the remote control and Siri are the best things about the new Apple TV. Since I use a MacBook Pro laptop with a trackpad, I felt right at home with the mini trackpad on the Apple TV remote -- the gray space above the top buttons in the photo above. 

I much prefer using the trackpad to navigate my way around the screen than by clicking arrow buttons, or, on our Samsung TV, waving the remote while holding down a button.

However, as reviewers of the Apple TV have noted, there's nothing new or different about how you enter log-in information for Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services. I had to click one by one on every letter and number in my email address and password for each service. 

This seemed archaic.

Why couldn't I speak that information and let Siri fill it in? Or type out the log-in data on my iPhone and have it transfer to the Apple TV? As advanced as the Apple TV seems in other respects, the set-up process was irritatingly old school.

Another gripe was discovering that Amazon Prime isn't among the Apple TV apps.

I couldn't believe this at first, since my wife and I frequently watch Amazon Prime content -- the Catastrophe series, for example. Apparently some sort of corporate pissing match is going on between Apple and Amazon, with people such as us who like both companies caught in the middle.

This isn't a huge deal, since we can access Amazon Prime content via our Samsung television. But it sure would be nice to be able to use Siri on the Apple TV to search for stuff we want to watch across all of the streaming services we have a subscription to.

Regarding Siri, she's a pleasure to talk to on the Apple TV remote. Not nearly as smart as the iPhone Siri, since her search repertoire is much more limited. But I hugely prefer pressing the Siri button and speaking my search request -- "Find movies with Steve Martin" -- than typing this in on various streaming services.

When I played around with the Apple TV Siri, looking for favorite movies, at first I thought that she was only giving results for iTunes -- since often this was the only streaming service that came up. However, eventually it dawned on me that iTunes simply has a lot more movies available for streaming than Netflix does.

(And obviously Amazon Prime wasn't part of Siri's searching.)

All in all I'm pleased with the new and improved Apple TV. It feels like a technological work in progress that is going to become better as software updates and new apps -- hopefully including Amazon Prime -- are rolled out. 

I expected more, only because Apple products usually surpass my expectations. So far the new Apple TV doesn't feel like a revolutionary streaming device -- just a marked evolutionary advance from what's been available before.

But that's plenty enough for me.

Daylight savings time should be permanent -- no more "fall back" time change

Ah, this is the horrible day Daylight Savings Time ends.

Time for another speaking of truth to the few people in this country who think it's a good idea to have the sun set an hour earlier in the already depressingly-early-sunset seasons of fall and winter.

Last spring I shared the reasons for making Daylight Savings Time full-time in "Let's make daylight savings time permanent." Excerpt:

In my extensive personal research regarding this issue, which includes (well, totally encompasses) brief conversations with friends and asking a plumber who is working in our house right now how he feels about daylight saving time, everybody loves it. 

They prefer having more light in the late afternoon and evening than early in the morning. After all, after work/school is when people have an opportunity to go for a walk, bike, run, or otherwise get outside and do stuff.

When daylight saving time ends and we put our clocks back an hour in the fall, I've never heard someone say "Oh, joy, now it is going to get dark at 5 rather than 6. I can walk the dog with a flashlight!"

Today the wise folks at Vox updated their highly persuasive article on this subject, which I cited in my post. Check out "It's time to make daylight savings time year-round." 

There's really no good reasons not to do this. The farmers need it argument is weak, as the Vox piece points out. 

One particular group has been opposed to DST from the start: farmers.

Unlike most other workers, farmers can't easily do some of their work when it's dark out. This is the original reason DST is only in effect part of the year — because, due to the late-rising winter sun, year-round DST would mean it'd still be dark out when the clock says farmers should get up to work.

But there are also far fewer farmers than there used to be. In 1918, when daylight saving time went into effect in the US for the first time, farmers made up nearly 30 percent of the US population. Today, that number has dwindled to about 2 percent. So the compromise system we now have means that for 98 percent of the population, DST isn't in effect during the part of the year when we'd benefit from it most.

And those benefits are substantial. More opportunity to get outside after work/school to exercise, recreate, shop, relax. Less crime. Fewer traffic-related deaths. The Vox article makes all this clear. 

Hopefully legislators will realize that daylight savings time shouldn't end in fall; it should be year-round. I quoted from the original Vox piece in my previous post...

Lots of social problems are really hard to solve. There are often big, powerful players with a stake in keeping the status quo, or the actual solution is messy and hard to implement.

This isn't the case with yearlong DST. An act of Congress — just like the act that extended DST in 2005 — could instantly fix this problem, saving us the annoyance of switching our clocks and giving us more sunlight to enjoy during our leisure hours. Over time, even farmers' opposition to DST has softened, and most people simply want to stop switching their clocks twice a year.

...Let's make this weekend the last time we set our clocks forward — and let's leave them there forever.