Salem Political Snark

Mountain West Investment Corporation gives $125,000 to conservative Salem PAC

Back in March I wrote about how the Chamber of Commerce appeared to be trying to hide a $25,000 contribution from Mountain West Investment Corporation, whose president is Larry Tokarski. 

(See Salem Chamber of Commerce apparently trying to hide $25,000 in PAC money.)

Now Mountain West Investment Corporation is making campaign contributions in an indirect way by funneling five times as much money through a different political action committee.

On August 26th, Mountain West Investment Corporation gave $125,000 to the Jobs PAC.

Just two days prior, the Jobs PAC gave $2,500 to Republican Danielle Bethell’s campaign for Marion County Commissioner. On the same day, the Jobs PAC gave $10,000 to Republican Raquel Moore-Green’s campaign for the Legislature and on September 4 they gave $15,000 to Republican Denyc Boles' campaign for the Legislature.

Here's a screenshot of part of the most recent Secretary of State's transaction report for the Jobs PAC. I indicated the Mountain West Investment Corporation contribution in red. 

As I noted in a May post, Hit piece on Trevor Phillips gets facts horribly wrong, the Jobs PAC is run by the Public Affairs Counsel firm in Salem. The treasurer of the Jobs PAC is James L. Wilson, who heads up that lobbying firm.

 

Public Affairs Counsel lobbies for Salem Health which is where Denyc Boles works as a lobbyist. Yes, the same Denyc Boles who received a $15,000 campaign contribution from the Jobs PAC.

 

Hopefully soon campaign finance reform laws will be in place that prevent these sorts of large corporate contributions from being laundered through political action committees like the Jobs PAC.

Let's act in defense of Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died yesterday. Today, and tomorrow, and for as long as it takes, us progressives need to do what Ginsburg would want -- act to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court seat that she held with great distinction since 1993.

Action relieves anxiety. 

When I heard about Ginsburg's death I was deeply troubled. I knew that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell would try to get her replacement confirmed by the Senate as soon as possible. 

Maybe before election day, November 3. Surely before Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021.

Just because McConnell said in 2016 that Merrick Garland, Obama's Supreme Court nomination after Scalia died, couldn't even have a hearing in a presidential election year, there's no way McConnell wouldn't move full speed ahead on a Trump nominee to fill the Ginsburg vacancy. 

I've spent last night and today perusing the thoughts of knowledgeable political observers about what can be done to stop, or ameliorate, the travesty of Trump being able to get two illegitimate Supreme Court nominees confirmed. Well, three if we count the Kavanaugh nomination.

Here's my conclusions.

(1) Working to elect Joe Biden and a Democratic Senate majority is Job #1. So long as Republicans control the White House and Senate, Democratic options are extremely limited. The best that could be hoped for is delaying the confirmation of the Trump nominee. 

So this morning I donated to an Act Blue campaign that splits contributions between Biden and Democratic Senate candidates. There are several Act Blue campaigns that do this.

(2) Congressional Democrats need to stop McConnell from confirming a Trump nominee prior to Inauguration Day. This would require Nancy Pelosi to play hardball, something I hope she will do.

One idea, though, that is too hardball'ish is the House voting to impeach Bill Barr, the Attorney General, and/or Donald Trump. Yes, impeachment proceedings must be taken up by the Senate before anything else. But this move wouldn't be popular. It could jeopardize Job #1 above, electing Biden and a Democratic Senate.

I haven't seen this idea discussed much, but I like it. A continuing resolution to fund the government has to occur before September 30. Pelosi should demand that the Senate not start hearings on a Trump Supreme Court nominee until after January 20. Most Americans apparently would support this. So it has a fairly low political risk.

(3) An alternative to the above idea would be to demand that hearings not start until after Election Day. This would be better than nothing, but not as good as hearings starting after Inauguration Day. In either case, the Supreme Court would have only eight members in the crucial post-election period when lawsuits regarding the presidential election might find their way to the Court.

A nightmare scenario would be if the Biden-Trump race comes down to a single swing state where Biden has a lead and Republicans contest a bunch of mail-in ballots, or whatever. If a conservative federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Republicans, a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court would allow the lower court ruling to stand. 

But if Trump; was able to get his nominee confirmed rapidly, the nightmare scenario would still hold, since almost certainly the Supreme Court would vote 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump, depending on how Justice Roberts voted on the case.

(4) If Biden wins and the Senate turns Democratic, appealing options exist. This is the dream scenario, even if the Senate confirms a Trump nominee before Inauguration Day. Democrats are talking hardball in this regard. 

This is allowed by the Constitution. Adding four seats would give Democratic nominees seven seats on a 13-member Supreme Court. An alternative would be adding two seats, or any other number that a Democratic Senate and House would be willing to go along with.

Of course, Biden would also have to buy off on the plan, which hopefully he would.

Another idea being floated is to make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. into states, thereby likely adding four Democratic Senators. That might be needed if a Democratic majority in the Senate next year isn't large enough to pass a Supreme Court expansion bill.

So all is not lost, fellow anxious progressives. Again, the key thing is that Biden wins on November 3 and a Democratic majority is elected to the Senate. If those things happen, another Trump nominee on the Supreme Court won't matter a whole lot, given the options to address the size of the Court.

"Our Salem" plan needs a top-priority: reducing greenhouse gases

If you care about how livable Salem is, check out a recently-released draft report from the City of Salem, Our Salem Vision. There's a lot to like in that vision, but also a lot not to like. So let city officials know what you think of the report.

Even though the document says that the next step in the Comprehensive Planning process is public comment on the draft, I didn't see any indication in the report about how comments are to be submitted. A City of Salem Facebook post about Our Salem Vision also lacks any mention of how citizen feedback is to be provided.

So send comments to the project manager, Eunice Kim ([email protected]) and the City Council ([email protected]).

It's a nice-looking report. Good graphics and a readable format. Of course, the important thing is what the report says, not its appearance. And here there are grounds for criticism.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has an excellent critique of Our Salem Vision. Here's an excerpt from his post, "Our Salem Vison and Draft Plan Relies Too Much on Arterial Conversion to Mixed-Use."

In order to "protect" existing single detached housing and "neighborhood character," the vision offered by Our Salem in the new draft plan concentrates too much on already busy arterial streets and does not do enough to leverage our system of smaller, minor arterials and collector streets.

The main place this is visible, seemingly the project's "one big idea," is in the way the project team took a "mixed use paint brush" to the major corridors of Commercial Street and Lancaster Drive and changed the color on the existing zoning outlines. This is not by itself a bad move, but because it is an isolated move, it looks like warehousing new projects on streets that are already busy, unpleasant, and polluted.

An important missing ingredient, then, is a boulevard conversion for Commercial and Lancaster. The proposed change from commercial to mixed-use zoning needs to be accompanied by a stroad-to-boulevard conversion in the streets. Otherwise they will still be oversized for autoist primacy and still very zoomy. Boulevard conversions also add medians for street trees and improve tree canopy. They prioritize local travel on the margins at calm speed and give through-travel the center.

Is Mixed Use by itself going to help with this?

I heartily agree. South Commercial and Lancaster Drive are unappealing monuments to an era in Salem's development when the car was king and global warming wasn't an issue. 

Just as Confederate monuments are being removed because they no longer fit with the tenor of our times, so should Commercial and Liberty, perhaps along with some other major streets in Salem, be markedly renovated -- fewer lanes, dedicated bike paths, trees planted, additional pedestrian crossings, and other changes.

In short, made into boulevards. 

Why would residential mixed use areas on these streets be attractive to people when Commercial and Liberty are so unfriendly to anyone not driving a vehicle? As the Breakfast on Bikes blogger said, simply slapping a new zoning designation on the streets doesn't change their character.

My own critique of Our Salem Vision is more over-arching.

Yet it fits in with the above criticism that the draft report doesn't go far enough in calling for changes in Salem's urban landscape that promise to bring major improvements to our city, not simply tinkering around the edges of what already exists.

Currently Our Salem Vision tries to be all things to all people. There's a lengthy list of goals in a number of areas. Economy and jobs. Natural resources. Parks. Transportation. Housing. And such. 

The report contains a lot of laudable objectives. Each section sounds good. It'd be nice if everything called for in the report came to pass. But here's the thing: life involves choices between alternatives. Life demands that this be given a higher priority than that. Everybody with a to-do list, which includes just about every person, knows this.

What is most important? What needs to be done first? What is most central? Unless those questions are answered, either a home chore to-do list or a city planning document is going to suffer from a lack of attention to urgent priorities.

Here's an example of what I mean. 

My wife and I live outside the Salem city limits. We know that at some point likely we'll have to move into town when our 10 non-easy-care acres get to be too much for us. So we have a realtor who sends us listings of houses that might match up with what we're looking for. We've visited some of these houses.

Invariably, there will be one thing, or sometimes several things. that make us say "no way" even though the house fits with what we want in other regards. We have a hierarchy of needs/wants for a house. If a house is good in every regard but our top priorities, we tell the realtor that we'll keep looking.

Now, obviously setting priorities between various goals is a lot tougher when Our Salem Vision has to reflect what several hundred thousand people want. Maybe that's why there was no attempt to do this in the planning process for Our Salem. 

But it needs to be done now, or Our Salem Vision won't be the effective document that it sets out to be. When you try to be all things to all people, you end up not being genuinely yourself. My view is that the top priorities flow naturally from this graphic shown early on in the draft document.

The reddish areas where Salem isn't meeting targets, is falling behind other similar cities in our area, and is moving in the wrong direction, relate to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from travel, tree canopy, bicycle and pedestrian use, and walk and transit friendliness.

So the top priority seems clear. 

The Salem City Council has to make a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the highest goal. Since transportation is the main driver of increased carbon pollution, a major change in how our city looks upon streets, mass transit, bike lanes, and such needs to happen. 

Other goals need to fit in with that top-priority vision.

For example, Neighborhood Hubs are properly emphasized in Our Salem Vision. And we shouldn't have just eleven of them, as the report calls for. Many more. Every neighborhood should have restaurants, taverns, shops, and other local businesses within easy walking and cycling distance. 

That will reduce the need to drive cars. That will enhance connections between people. That will expand the economy. Many good things will flow from making a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the over-arching goal for Salem. 

Global warming has markedly increased the wildfire danger in Oregon, as elsewhere. Likely it is responsible for the drought plaguing our state. And global warming poses an existential threat to humanity in general. 

How can reducing greenhouse gas emissions not be the top priority for Salem? This needs to be stated explicitly by the City Council.

Otherwise, those who favor increased vehicular travel and building new roads will be able to point to other goals in the Our Salem document and say, "These things are mentioned along with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, so they deserve to be treated as equally important."

Mark Wigg draws attention to plight of homeless in Wallace Marine Park

Salem citizen activist Mark Wigg doesn't mince words. Here's his advance prepared remarks that closely reflect part of what he said in public testimony at last night's City Council meeting. 

Below I'll share my thoughts about what Wigg says.

Mayor Bennett,

I ask you, Steve Powers and Peter Fernandez to resign because your criminally negligent policies and actions may have led to the rape and murder of at least a dozen women in Wallace Marine Park.

When you forced the homeless to leave downtown Salem, you told them that they could camp at Wallace Marine Park and Cascade Gateway Park. You were aware that the homeless downtown included violent felons and psychotic men. You concentrated these people in the two parks.

In addition to the men you sent to Wallace, you sent women and girls. You told them the only place for them to camp was in these parks. So you took rabbits and tossed them in a cage with wolves. Is there anyone who couldn’t predict the outcome?

Imagine a young woman that was evicted from her apartment or is fleeing domestic violence. She grabs a few things that are precious to her, a sleeping bag, a tent and a few clothes. She goes to Wallace Marine Park because that is where you told her to camp. She gets there and sets up her tent.

That night or maybe the next, she wakes when a man cuts open her tent and sits on her while she is in her sleeping bag. She can’t move her arms or legs, she is helpless. Think of the terror and hopelessness she feels as clothes are stuffed in her mouth to stop her cries for help.

A few minutes later, she is dead. The murderer drags her to the river’s edge in her sleeping bag, tosses a few rocks in the bag and ties it up. Dragging the bag to knee deep water, the murderer lets it sink and drift downstream.

I have seen the torn tents with the precious personal effects left behind. The sleeping bag and girls are gone. We may never know their names. Their things will be washed away in the next high water or piled with the other trash that is occasionally picked up at the camps.

You didn’t have to be so cruel, but it was so much easier than doing the right thing.

I hope tonight when you are about to fall asleep that you will imagine the terror and pain you caused and are causing. I hope you feel enough shame to resign so more competent and compassionate leaders can take your place.

It's great that Wigg drew attention to the plight of homeless people who are camping in the two Salem parks. I haven't spent time in downtown lately, but I believe the homeless population there has been markedly reduced. So for most people they're out of mind if not visible.

And women must have a tougher time living in the parks than men do. The scenario Wigg describes of being raped in a tent likely occurs, and maybe even is common.

The notion that women have been killed and their bodies dumped in the river is much less believable. Seemingly there would be talk of missing homeless people, since the women must have friends and relatives who would wonder why they haven't been seen for a long time.

That said, hopefully Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, and the city councilors will take seriously the basic message Wigg gave them last night. Salem's homeless women are having a tough time in the camps set up in the two parks. This situation shouldn't last much longer, especially with bad weather and winter being close at hand.

Photo of Wallace Marine Park in April 2020 StreetRoots story

Last night the City Council approved money for security services at Marion Square Park and Wallace Marine Park through fiscal year 2021. That covers the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

It would be horrible if homeless people are still living in the parks through the end of June next year. Sure, it is better to have some security services, rather than no security at all. Much better still would be for those homeless people to have options other than camping out at Salem parks.

Here's what was approved.

Parks Security Services
Fund 101, General Fund, Non Departmental
From: Non Departmental, Contingency, 101-60961000-61110, $312,000
To: Non Departmental, Materials and Services, 101-60961000-52670, $312,000

During FY 2020 the City Council approved funding for security services at Marion Square Park. The services were expanded to include Wallace Marine Park and provide two personnel from 8:00am until 12:00am. The City Manager has directed that this service continue into FY 2021 and funding was not included in the FY 2021 budget. This action provides funding for this service through the end of FY 2021.

This is a video of yesterday's City Council meeting that starts when Mark Wigg presents his testimony. Watch the video, and you'll see Wigg also describe how he may have prevented a wildfire at Wallace Marine Park through some cookies.

As forests burn, Salem parks board OK's cutting trees without a permit

It was quite a juxtaposition last night.

While wildfires burn forests across Oregon, I watched the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB) say "no problem" to a developer cutting down two large White Oak trees without a permit, after which Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, granted an after-the-fact tree removal permit 105 days after those trees, and three others, were removed.

This was a horrible decision for reasons I'll describe below. The only good news is that the vote to deny an appeal by the Southwest Association of Neighbors (SWAN)  of the after-the-fact permit being issued was close, 5 to 3.

The three members of the SPRAB board who did the right thing were Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris. The five SPRAB members who said cutting down trees in a public right of way without a permit is OK were Alan Alexander, Woody Dukes, Dylan McDowell, Paul Rice, and David Fridenmaker.

There was a lot of discussion about the merits of the SWAN appeal. Here's what bothered me about the final 5-3 vote to deny the appeal, which you can read here.

(1) This establishes a disturbing precedent. Glenn Davis, a Public Works Department employee, said that it is common for electrical, plumbing, and other permits to be issued after someone has started work without a permit. That was surprising news, but in those cases unsatisfactory work can be reversed.

Davis said that the City of Salem has never issued a tree removal permit after the trees already had been cut down. Thus the bad SPRAB decision sets a disturbing precedent: developers now know that they can cut protected trees first, and get a permit later.

In this case, Thomas Kay was the developer who failed to follow the rules and got a permit anyway. From now on, other developers may do the same. It's crazy that a majority of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members thought this was a good thing.

(2) The appeal process was blatantly unfair. In my experience, appeals of a decision by a government body give equal time to the person(s) making the appeal and those who made the decision being appealed. But last night Glenn Davis and Thomas Cupani, a City of Salem attorney, got way more time than Ted Burney, who argued the SWAN case in favor of the appeal.

For a long time I thought Cupani was an attorney for the developer, Thomas Kay, since he kept defending the tree removals without a permit. Eventually I realized that he was an attorney with the City of Salem. Since the Public Works Department is part of the City of Salem, this meant that the developer's representative and the two city staff were on the same legal side.

Somehow it didn't seem strange to the SPRAB members that they were hearing from the defendants of the appeal hugely more than from those who supported the appeal -- Burney and several residents of the Salem Heights Avenue neighborhood where the trees were cut down without a permit.

(3) A central basis for the appeal was ignored. In the dystopian 1984 novel by George Orwell, it was said "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Discussion at the meeting I watched last night didn't rise to quite that level of absurdity, but it was close.

One oft-heard argument basically was The trees were cut down without a permit, so it makes sense to issue an after-the-fact permit to remove the trees, since they already have been cut down. The more sensible counter-argument was, How can you issue a tree removal permit for trees that don't exist?

A SPRAB member who voted in favor of the appeal noted that this is akin to someone adding money to a parking meter after it has expired. That won't stop you from getting a ticket if the violation was discovered by a meter patrol person. However, the SPRAB board was fine with granting a tree removal permit to a developer after the trees had been cut down illegally.

(4) Reasonable alternatives existed to removing the trees. With the time he was given (again, much less than what those supporting issuance of the after-the-fact permit got) Ted Burney did an excellent job explaining why reasonable alternatives existed to cutting down the two White Oaks and another tree on public property.

If the developer had applied for a permit before the trees were removed, those alternatives could have been considered by City of Salem staff. Burney described how a slight change in the alignment of street improvements would have left room for the White Oaks to remain.

Sure, perhaps that would have been impractical. But it might have worked. We'll never know. Burney quoted from a city ordinance that says reasonable alternatives must be explored before street trees are removed. City staff claimed that previous land use decisions ruled out any alternative other than cutting the trees down.

However, it seems indisputable that the land use process and the tree removal permit process are separate legal entities. The SWAN neighborhood association and others who wanted to save the trees should have had a chance to argue their case before the trees were cut down, not afterward. 

(5) A Public Works inspector watched the trees being cut down without a permit. A final disturbing fact that came out last night was brought up by the developer's representative. He said that a Public Works inspector was on the site as the trees were cut down and didn't say a thing as they were removed without a permit.

Glenn Davis made a feeble attempt to excuse this by saying that inspectors are looking for other things, like whether erosion control measures are being carried out. 

So apparently staff sent out by the Public Works Department to inspect what's going on at a construction site don't care whether a permit has been issued for the work. I find this hard to believe. Seemingly the most important thing an inspector should do is determine whether what's been done is legal.

But not at the City of Salem.

Lastly, here's some comments on a post regarding the SPRAB vote on the Salem Tree Advocates Facebook page. I heartily agree with them. I've corrected a few typos.

I think that SPRAB's majority decision to go along with the Public Works Director decision to retroactively approve a tree removal permit without any expression of disapproval really disqualifies it from any role as a public advocate or watchdog for our trees. SPRAB is clearly too captive to staff to think outside of the framework that they're provided with. Thanks to members Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris, who hopefully represent SPRAB's future. And thanks, too, to Counselor Vanessa Nordyke, for advancing the idea of an urban forest commission.

The city is no longer worthy of the Tree City designation. I am disappointed they have betrayed our trust.

This sends a huge message to developers to just cut down trees at will and ask Peter [Fernandez] after the fact for forgiveness. At minimum there should have been a huge fine.

Developers already realize they can get away with virtually anything while operating in the kingdom of Peter Fernandez. The developer in this case, Thomas Kay, did virtually the same thing several years ago in my West Salem neighborhood. In that case, his permit required him to save a number of trees in a beautiful Doug Fir grove. The first thing he did was to cut them down!!

Although his name was never uttered, throughout last night's hearing there was continual reference to "The Director" who, in the context of Salem government, is synonymous with "The Dictator". Salem's counterpart to Attorney General Barr, Thomas Cupani, twisted and otherwise made a mockery of Salem Ordinances. So long as Peter Fernandez continues his roughshod rule over Salem's City government our "Tree City" certification should be suspended, as noted above. While Micki Varney and two other members of SPRAB, Tony and Keith, bravely sought to follow our ordinances, rules and regulation, the other 5 members cowardly crumbled when confronted by Fernandez' thuggish henchmen.

City Manager is OK with a developer illegally removing trees

I'm no fan of Donald Trump's re-election campaign themes, but I do believe in law and order -- along with almost every other American.

Unfortunately, the City Manager for the City of Salem, Steve Powers, has said that he is OK with the Public Works Director (Peter Fernandez) bestowing a tree removal permit on a developer (Thomas Kay) 105 days after the trees were cut down without a permit.

Michael Slater, a strong advocate for trees in Salem, sent the following letter to Powers. Slater shared the letter on Facebook. You'll see that he made some strong arguments about why granting a tree removal permit after the developer illegally removed them is bad public policy.

This seems obvious, of course. But keep reading and you'll see that the City Manager disagreed with Slater. Here's Michael Slater's message.

MY LETTER TO STEVE POWERS ON ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS IN WREN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

Dear Mr. Powers, I am writing [to] express my frustration, once again, that the Public Works Director has failed to protect Salem’s street trees. The latest incident, as you know, is Director Fernandez’s ratification of the unlawful removal of five street trees by the developer of the Wren Heights subdevelopment.

Director Fernandez’s decision to award a street tree removal permit after the developer cut down the trees is bad public policy.

First, it rewards illegal conduct. The developer was required to obtain a street tree permit before removing any trees. This requirement was spelled out in the decision approving the developer’s land use application. And, it was not certain that the developer’s application would have been approved had he respected the process.

Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent for the future. Director Fernandez’s action has signaled to the developer community that it is okay to ask for forgiveness rather than go through the process of seeking approval. It is also an affront to all of the developers who follow the rules.

Finally, Director Fernandez’s decision is contrary to recent decisions by SPRAB [Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board] and the City Council, both of which have taken action to expand protection of Salem’s street trees.

This incident follows just a few months on the revelation that the Public Works Department had not been enforcing the City’s street tree ordinance related to pruning or removing a tree without a permit.

During the Council session in which this issue was discussed, Director Fernandez made a statement to the effect that Public Works staff simply didn’t believe the Council understood its own ordinance and, rather than going back to Council, simply choose to not enforce it. This is, to say the least, a rather extraordinary sentiment for a City department director to hold.

This pattern of activity undermines the public’s trust in Director Fernandez’s ability to supervise the city’s street trees in good faith.

Of course, it may be that Director Fernandez does not have the time to give much attention to street trees in light of the fact that his portfolio includes not only the traditional scope of public works, but also drinking water, sewers, stormwater, transportation, parks, and street trees.

I ask that you relieve Director Fernandez of his responsibilities for Salem’s street trees and assign them to the City’s Urban Forester. I would also ask that you seek Council approval for the creation of an Urban Forest Commission with authority to both recommend tree policy to Council and make decisions on individual permit applications.

Finally, I ask that you begin the process of reviewing whether the public is best served by a public works department with such a broad scope or whether we would be better served by returning to a model where City parks and street trees are managed by a separate parks department.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yesterday Slater shared the response he got from City Manager Steve Powers. Amazingly, Powers considers that issuing a tree removal permit more than three months after a developer ignored a requirement to get a permit and cut them down illegally is "appropriate."

CITY MANAGER RESPONDS TO MY LETTER ON STREET TREE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Slater, thank you for the letter regarding the street tree removal along Salem Heights Road. I believe staff’s actions, culminating in Mr. Fernandez issuing a tree removal permit, were appropriate considering SRC [Salem Revised Code], the specific property, and the circumstances. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will determine if the permit was correct.

I disagree that there is a pattern of staff disregard for trees. Through site plan review and development conditions, the City is proactive in ensuring SRC is followed. When violations occur, action is taken. We have learned from the past, and have improved the timeliness of enforcement.

I appreciate your wish for parks and natural spaces to receive more attention. I disagree that a way of increasing attention is by creating a parks department. As you know, Salem’s resources are stretched. Needs exceed available resources. Resources that are available should, whenever possible, go into direct services and not additional organizational layers and costs.

Steve Powers

On the bright side, it's good to see that City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke wants to do something about Public Works Director Peter Fernandez going light on those who illegally remove or damage trees in Salem.

This is a message Councilor Nordyke shared on Facebook.

It’s time to increase public oversight over City government. Here are three things I’m working on, with more to come.

First, at an upcoming City Council meeting on climate/environmental matters, I will propose the creation of an Urban Forest Commission in response to community concerns about the Public Works Department’s handling of tree issues.

Second, I’m exploring ways to create more public oversight and input into proposed development, to help us identify and objectively examine the concerns that neighbors frequently bring to City Council.

Third, as you all know, I spearheaded the performance audit of the Salem Police Department. This audit will include a public advisory group to oversee it. I tapped a professional auditor to serve on the public advisory group, in order to enhance the group’s watchdog capacity.

These plans all have one thing in common: public oversight.

We need more transparency and accountability in our city, and I cannot do this alone.

I hear and understand the frustrations about the way that government responds to challenging and unprecedented times. Tensions are high around the country, and too many are being asked to do more with less. We all must rise to the occasion.

We must recognize that social distancing and face mask rules are in place for everyone’s safety. Our schools, businesses, workers, nursing homes, parents, students, and so many others are counting on each of us to do our part to keep our COVID numbers down. So, please, wear a dang mask.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your concerns with me and demanding better.

This is how democracy works.

This is how we get better.

There’s more to come. Stay tuned!

City officials allow Covid super-spreader event in Riverfront Park

I have a tough time figuring out who is more irresponsible:

(1) The Salem Awakening organizers who held a Christian event in Riverfront Park attended by hundreds of people in violation of Governor Brown's order limiting outdoor gatherings to no more than a hundred individuals. 

(2) The attendees, most of whom weren't wearing masks and failed to engage in required physical distancing. 

(3) Officials with the City of Salem who have been allowing Salem Awakening to use the park without a permit for most of the summer, and who did nothing to control last Thursday's super-spreader Covid event.

I'm going to go with a three-way tie. Salem Awakening, the attendees, and city officials all deserve a Who Gives a Shit About Life? award, given that they all displayed an astounding degree of uncaring about reducing the spread of the deadly Covid-19 virus.

On a positive note, today the Statesman Journal has a story by Whitney Woodworth about this, "COVID-19 'super spreader'? Concert, religious gatherings at Riverfront Park draw concern." To be clear, the Let Us Worship concert also was a religious gathering. Here's excerpts from the story.

Hundreds of people gathered at Riverfront Park on Thursday for a concert and religious celebration with little social distancing at times and few attendees wearing masks.

There is concern the concert could become a "super-spreader" event, especially as Marion County continues to have one of the highest rates of COVID-19 cases in the state.

Despite outdoor gatherings being limited during Phase 2 of reopening and masks being required outdoors if social distancing isn't possible, hundreds of people met at Riverfront Park for the Let Us Worship.

City officials said they were aware of the event but gave no answer on what enforcement would be taken to stop violations of the governor's orders. 

...Salem Awakening continued to meet at Riverfront Park and has said they will continue to do so until Labor Day. Their Facebook page promoted and included photos of the Let Us Worship concert on Thursday. 

After Labor Day, organizers said they plan to begin meeting outside Planned Parenthood in Salem regularly for a "worship service at the gates of Hell."

According to their social page, Salem Awakening organizers also helped organize Thursday's Let Us Worship concert. 

Well, that mention of Planned Parenthood shows some astounding hypocrisy.

If Salem Awakening really cared about preserving life, they wouldn't be sponsoring a Let Us Worship concert that put both attendees and their friends/families at considerable risk of being infected with the Covid virus.

Here's a short video someone sent me of what I assume is last Thursday's event. I uploaded it to You Tube because it deserves to be shared.

Rubber bullet lawsuit undermines credibility of Salem Police Department

I'm changing my mind about the Salem Police Department. By and large, I've believed that Salem has been fortunate to have a well-run department marked by honesty, integrity, and a willingness to admit mistakes.

Sure, the department's actions during this year's Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd were questionable at best and outrageous at worst. Using tear gas and playing nice with armed counter-protesters put chinks in the Police Department's "well-run" reputation.

To me those chinks widened to a crevasse after I read the front page story in today's Statesman Journal by Whitney Woodworth, 
"Protester sues city, Salem police for civil rights violations, shooting her in face, chest with rubber bullet." Excerpts:

A young Black woman struck and seriously injured by rubber bullets during a protest in May is suing the City of Salem and the Salem Police Department and accusing officers of violating her civil rights, assaulting her and intentionally targeting Black people with deadly force.

...Salem police drew sharp criticism from community members for using tear gas on the protesters and were accused of showing favoritism toward armed right-wing militias gathered outside downtown businesses. 

The allegations made in the lawsuit contrast starkly with an after-action report released by Salem police in the weeks after the protests. 

The report said police responded to the crowd with tear gas and "other munitions." The report mentions a female protester was injured after being struck in the head with a brick thrown by another protester but it makes no mention of the rubber bullet injuries reported by McCrae. 

...McCrae said she, her sister and riend linked arms and silently knelt at the front of the march. 

Suddenly, police sirens blared. McCrae said she turned around to leave but was shot twice with rubber bullets. 

"At least one bullet struck her chest and one bullet struck her eye," Brague said in the lawsuit. "SPD Officers intentionally shot Black participants using deadly force in violation of SPD Policy."

The force of the blow caused McCrae to double over in pain holding her eye.

She stumbled a few feet. Her vision was gone, and her ears were ringing. Tear gas stung her uninjured eye. 

McCrae fell and passed out. 

She said she awoke to the chaos and commotion around her. She heard footsteps rushing toward her. 

"I can't see," she told the person.

"That's what you (expletive) get," the unknown man replied. 

McCrae said she then became afraid for her safety. Another voice identified themselves as Salem police and helped her to her feet. 

"(She) begins crying from fear and pleads, 'please, I don’t want to talk to you'," Brague said in the lawsuit. "One of the Salem PD officers responds and states 'talk or get arrested'."

Brague said McCrae begged the officer to let her leave and find her family, but he refused. 

After a medic examined McCrae, she was rushed to the emergency room and was later diagnosed with retinal hemorrhage, macular hole and vitreous hemorrhage. 

Contrast those allegations in the lawsuit with what Police Chief Jerry Moore said in a June 24 after-action report to Steve Powers, the City Manager. The following is part of a description of what happened on May 31, the day Eleaqia McCrae was shot by rubber bullets.

At 2158 hours, Lt. VanMeter authorized the use of CS gas and other munitions on the unlawful protestors and those launching items at the officers. LRAD announcements continued to be given. While we are not aware of any injuries to those in the crowd due to police actions, we were able to assist one female protestor who officers witnessed being struck in the head by a brick thrown by another protestor/rioter. After providing medical assistance and ensuring she was safe we had her transported to the hospital via ambulance.

This sure sounds like a Salem Police Department cover-up. There's little or no doubt that McCrae's injuries were caused by rubber bullets. She says that a police officer spoke with her after she was shot in the chest and eye. She was taken to the Salem Hospital Emergency Room.

Yet Chief Moore claimed that he wasn't aware "of any injuries to those in the crowd due to police actions."

Wow. Chief Moore must not have done much investigating before the after-action report was written. Or his police offices lied to him about their not being any injuries to protesters. Or Chief Moore deliberately withheld the rubber bullets injuries from his report.

Whichever possibility is true, it's a big blow to the credibility of the Salem Police Department. Shouldn't the department have contacted the Emergency Room to learn if there were people admitted with injuries caused by the actions of police officers?

They learned about a protester being struck in the head by a brick thrown by another protester. Yet the department was clueless, supposedly, about a protester being shot in the eye and chest by bullets fired by a police officer or officers.

There's no doubt that Chief Moore's after-action report was deeply flawed. The only question is whether this was deliberate or a result of incompetence. 

Hopefully we will learn which is true in the course of the lawsuit being adjudicated.

Police Chief Jerry Moore

I've got an important question for Trump supporters in Salem

In 2016, Donald Trump got 38% of the presidential vote in Salem, while Hillary Clinton got 49%. So when I go grocery shopping, as I did today, likely around a third of the people I see are Trump supporters.

(I'm hoping his support has slipped a bit during the past four years.)

Obviously there's a wide gulf between conservatives and progressives these days. Yet being a moderate sort of progressive, in no way do I view those who want another four years of Trump as crazy.

Having been raised by a fiercely Republican mother, who never wavered on her conservative principles, I'm familiar with the traditional Republican mindset. 

Small government. Capitalism. Anti-communist. Low taxes. Strong military.

Heck, until I was about sixteen, I devoured the issues of National Review that came into our house. My political leanings were as conservative as my mother's. I then became more liberal, especially after going to college in 1966.

I mention this because I could have a good conversation with a Trump supporter about the sorts of conservative principles I cited above. There are decent arguments on both the progressive and conservative sides.

But here's what I don't understand about those who voted for Trump and plan to do so again.

How can you go along with the attacks on American democracy that Trump is engaged in? This is something that I find unforgivable and indefensible. 

Meaning, we can disagree about what elected officials should do once they are voted in. But fair elections should never be a matter of debate. Every American who is eligible to vote should be able to do so without hindrance.

Do you agree with that statement, Trump supporters? If you do, I'm encouraged. Maybe Trump is trying to lead a war on voting that lacks an army to back him up.

However, this doesn't fit with the acquiescence of Republicans to actions that deeply concern progressives like me. For example:

-- Trump has said that if he doesn't win in November, this shows that the election was rigged. 
-- Trump is attacking vote by mail. 
-- Trump favors voter I.D. laws even though voter fraud is almost nonexistent.
-- Trump wants police at polling sites, which is unlawful.
-- Trump opposes Postal Service funding that would support mail-in voting.

So how can Trump supporters claim to be patriotic Americans if they are OK with these attempts to prevent a fair election in November? 

The most disturbing answer to that question is that Trump supporters would be fine with the United States becoming an anti-democratic authoritarian nation, if this enables Trump to have another four years in office.

If I'm wrong about that, and I hope I am, then I look forward to learning what other reason Trump supporters have for going along with Trump's attempts to discourage voting. Feel free to leave a comment with your explanation.

Trump's use of the White House as a political prop -- disgusting

After more than three and a half years of enduring Trump's disgraceful presidency, I thought my psyche had become inoculated against further outrages. How much lower could Trump morally go than rock bottom?

But when I saw this image on Twitter last night, I realized the answer was, as low as he can get away with until he leaves office. Walter Shaub is a former director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.

Being 71, and interested in politics for almost my entire life, I've seen countless photos of the White House. This is the first time it has ever been used as a backdrop for a blatant political event. 

Not only does it look completely wrong to have Trump-Pence signs defiling government property, what makes it even more disturbing is that so far as I can tell, no Republican apologists for Trump see anything wrong with failing to abide by the Hatch Act, which this stunt likely did.

Until Trump became president, I'd strongly disagreed with Republican presidents like Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. However, I never viewed them as denigrating the office they held, as Trump has done incessantly. Trump makes everything about him, due to his stupendous selfishness and egotism, which masks his low self-esteem, according to his psychologist niece, Mary Trump.

It's Trump's authoritarianism that is most disturbing.

I used to say "authoritarian tendencies," but those days are long past. Trump is a full-blown authoritarian now, held in check by the most fragile of restraints. This is why it's so crucial to vote him out of office this November before he can become even more of a wanna-be dictator.

Here's another example of how Trump is using the reins of power in unheard of ways. I'll let the New York Times story do the talking through an excerpt from "N.Y.C. Tenants Say They Were Tricked Into Appearing in R.N.C. Video."

It started with an unexpected call last week from Lynne Patton, a longtime Trump associate who oversees federal housing programs in New York.

Ms. Patton told a leader of a tenants’ group at the New York City Housing Authority, the nation’s largest, that she was interested in speaking with residents about conditions in the authority’s buildings, which have long been in poor repair.

Four tenants soon assembled in front of a video camera and were interviewed for more than four hours by Ms. Patton herself. Three of the tenants were never told that their interviews would be edited into a two-minute video clip that would air prominently on Thursday night at the Republican National Convention and be used to bash Mayor Bill de Blasio, the three tenants said in interviews on Friday.

“I am not a Trump supporter,” said one of the tenants, Claudia Perez. “I am not a supporter of his racist policies on immigration. I am a first-generation Honduran. It was my people he was sending back.”

The episode represents another stark example of how President Trump has deployed government resources to further his political ambitions. Ms. Patton is head of the New York office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and under the Hatch Act is barred from using her government position to engage in political activities.