Scroll down for the Snarky posts.
Click here to learn what this blog is all about.
Click on a category in the right sidebar for Snarks about a particular person or subject.
Give us a Facebook like, also to the right -->
Follow Salem Political Snark on Twitter.
Got a suggestion for a Snark? Email me.
Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals... send me details!
If they know we're looking, there'll be less misbehaving.
Salem's one and only daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal, is falling deeper into a well of mediocrity.
The newest outrage against journalistic excellence was obvious in yesterday's Sunday paper where, for the first time in the 41 years that I've been reading the Statesman Journal, to my recollection, there was precisely zero local content on the opinion pages.
A post on the Salem Community Vision Facebook page nailed the outrageousness of this:
NO LOCAL OPINION IN THE SUNDAY PAPER
Charles Sprague is turning in his grave today. When he was the editor of the Oregon Statesman he wrote a daily editorial that appeared on the front page of the paper for 25 years. Today the Statesman Journal could not even manage to print one opinion piece by a local author. No staff editorial. No guest opinion. Not even a letter to the editor. Pathetic. The Statesman staff should be ashamed. They've hit a new low.
I too was struck by the absurdity of no local opinions in the first Sunday paper published after the midterm elections. Instead, there were five pieces by national writers, plus four editorial cartoons.
Further, there is no longer an editorial board, just two Statesman Journal staff members who, apparently, are staffing a nonexistent editorial board. (Easy job.)
Hopefully local content on the opinion page will spring back to life before too long. I'm a big fan of opinions, in part because I'm so prone to holding them myself. Along with, of course, almost everybody else in Salem. We all have opinions, and an important role of a newspaper is to provide a forum for them.
I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of a Statesman Journal editorial board.
It was a wise decision for the paper to not make any endorsements in the midterm elections, but rather to publish pieces by rival candidates side by side. Or, singly, if one of the candidates chose not to write a piece.
There's really no reason now for newspapers to make political endorsements, assuming there ever was. The Internet allows people to have all the information that editorial boards are privy to, and it is more than a little condescending for newspaper employees to consider that they have a special right, or duty, to tell everybody else how to vote.
But I do enjoy reading letters to the editor and opinion pieces about local issues. For example, City Councilor Tom Andersen has made a reasonable proposal that councilors be paid, which would encourage more people to run for the City Council. But Mayor Chuck Bennett hates the idea.
So I'd like to read dueling opinion pieces by Andersen and Bennett on this subject. Along with letters to the editor taking one side or the other.
I'm finding that the new journalistic kid in town, the totally online Salem Reporter, is making it a bit difficult for me to feel close to this Salem news source. I have to remember to visit the web site each day, whereas the Statesman Journal appears at the end of our driveway every morning.
(Well, most mornings.)
Some days there aren't any new Salem Reporter stories. On the plus side, all of the stories are local, or about state government, whereas the Statesman Journal has a lot of USA Today and national content that isn't of much interest to me. I subscribe to the online versions of the Washington Post and New York Times, plus I browse Politico, Google News, and such.
And so far the Salem Reporter doesn't have an opinion section, nor any way for subscribers to comment on stories. Both of these absences are turn-offs for me, though I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the $100 annual subscription that I signed up for soon after Salem Reporter announced its presence in our town.
UPDATE: Almost forgot to mention that the current Statesman Journal Monday-Sunday home delivery rate is $62/month, which is up from $46/month in June 2017. So that's a 35% increase in a bit less than a year and a half, which is, um, a LOT greater than the overall inflation rate.
My suspicion is that the Statesman Journal's corporate masters at Gannett are trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of subscribers before the paper ceases print publication next year -- and perhaps shuts down altogether. Meanwhile, us subscribers are paying more for crappier content.
There's lots of ways to look at the results of last Tuesday's midterm election. But some ways are wrong -- like the attempt by Republicans to spin the election as a GOP win.
Today Ed Dover spoke the truth about the midterms at an engrossing Salem City Club presentation, "Patterns and Meanings of the 2018 National, Oregon, and Mid-Valley Elections." Dover is a retired Professor Emeritus at the Western Oregon University Department of Political Science and Public Administration.
This was Dover's 10th post-election talk to the Salem City Club.
I've heard a bunch of them. Dover has an astounding grasp of political details. He rattles off a rash of numbers, results, statistics, and such without ever checking his notes -- unless he's got an extra set of eyes that were hidden from view.
He started off by telling us that he prefers to focus on the House of Representatives, since all the House members are elected every two years, the number of people in each district is about the same, and it is a national election. The Senate and Governor races, by contrast, don't provide nearly as good an indicator of the nation's political mood.
Dover figures that the Democrats will pick up 35 seats in the House.
This is a conservative estimate since FiveThirtyEight projects a 37 seat gain. In the Senate, the Democrats had to defend 26 seats and the Republicans only nine. Still, Republicans are expected to gain only 1-3 seats.
(FiveThirtyEight predicts two, which will happen if the Arizona Senate race goes to the Democrat, who is leading at the moment, and if the Florida Senate race goes to the Republican, which seems likely, even with a recount.)
Democrats gained seven Governor seats, which brings them almost up to even with Republicans. Currently there are 23 Democratic Governors, 26 Republican Governors, and one race too close to call (Georgia).
This was a core message from Dover: it no longer makes sense to speak of "red states and blue states" (assuming it ever did). Rather, the Big Political Divide is between the suburbs and rural areas. All 38 House seats that Democrats flipped in the midterms were suburban districts.
The Dems lost three seats in rural areas, leaving them with Dover's estimated 35 seat gain, with several races undecided.
Politics, Dover said, follows Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This leads to periodic realignments of the political landscape. The suburbs turning leftward, toward the Democrats, is the realignment much in evidence now.
Most of the 38 House districts flipped by Democrats were in the further out suburbs.
After his talk, Dover answered questions. One person asked why the Democrats didn't pick up any urban House seats, since big cities lean leftward. His (obvious) answer: those districts already are in the Democratic camp, and rural areas are strongly Republican, so the suburbs became the battlefield that Democrats won in the midterms.
Twenty-one of the 38 House seats flipped by Democrats were won by women. Even more, women dominated in volunteering for campaigns and donating money. College-educated women were especially prone to vote Democratic in the midterms. Why? Because they are repulsed by Trump and they care deeply about health care.
By contrast, the GOP has been pandering to the NRA and religious right, while being anti-immigrant and climate change deniers.
The same pattern, Dover said, has been evident in Oregon.
The suburbs have led to Oregon House Democrats picking up nine seats in the last four elections, with a net gain of eight seats. This year the Dems won three more seats -- women in the suburbs. Democrats are likely to keep those suburban seats, Dover said, citing Paul Evans as an example.
After the 2020 census, Oregon is expected to pick up an extra House seat (with West Virginia losing one). This seat will be in western Oregon. The boundaries of Oregon legislative seats also will change, with fewer seats in eastern Oregon.
Dover said that Democrats now have won 10 races for Governor in a row, even though Knute Buehler almost ran as a Democrat.
Regarding the statewide ballot measures, where all but the affordable housing measure failed, Dover observed that it is typical for the Pro side to spend money early, then run out of money late, when the Con side increases its spending.
Looking ahead to the 2020 presidential race, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona are close to becoming "majority minority" states, as California is now. Dover observed that Democrats got 48% in both the Texas Senate race and Georgia Governor race, and in Arizona the Democratic Senate candidate is leading.
So Democrats are going to have a wider political playing field in the next presidential election.
In responding to questions, one of which I asked, Dover said:
-- When it comes to recounts, and voting generally, too many states are using 19th century technology, like punch cards. Counties have to pay for elections, and many are broke. So states and the federal government should pay for modernizing voting.
-- Florida is a strange state, as is Ohio. Their demographics are more important politically than who the Governor is. In various parts of Florida, you can find demographics similar to the Deep South, the Caribbean, Midwest, and East Coast -- because these parts attract people who move to Florida from those places.
-- The infamous "caravan" is being driven by people in central America impacted by climate change, as well as drug violence.
-- Though the Electoral College makes little sense, and is undemocratic (small population states get more votes per capita than large population states), nothing will change until Republicans lose a couple of presidential elections where they won the popular vote, as has happened to Democrats twice recently (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton).
-- Same-day voter registration doesn't make much of a difference, since people who fail to register weeks or months before an election probably won't register the day of an election.
-- MY QUESTION: Why are so many elections so darn close? Like almost 50-50. Does this have something to do with the action-reaction thing? Dover said that incumbents are hard to beat, but I didn't find this answer very satisfying, though it was true. After I asked it, a man sitting in front of me turned around and showed me what he'd written in his notebook: "Evolution."
Naturally I was curious about what he meant, so I spoke with him after Dover finished.
His idea is that we humans need each other, and we need variety -- like both liberals and conservatives. So the political pendulum swings back and forth, leftward and rightward, often landing right in the middle in races. In general, this makes sense to me.
I also like the action-reaction explanation, which fits with a pendulum analogy. When things go too far in one direction, like the crazy conservatism of Donald Trump, there's a desire among Americans to get things more in balance. As is well known, this typically happens in midterms, with the party that doesn't hold the presidency picking up seats in Congress.
Good news. The headline of a Salem Reporter story says, "Neighborhood appeal puts Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center on Hold." Here's how the story starts out:
Costco’s road to a new location in south Salem is not over after neighbors appealed the city’s recent decision to allow the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center. The appeals trigger what could be months of more deliberation.
The South Gateway Neighborhood Association, and three neighbors acting on their own through an attorney, cited a number of reasons why Salem planners should not have approved the nearly 200,000-square-foot project in late October.
They contend the shopping center project grew over the years into something incompatible with the area, that the city relied on a flawed traffic analysis, that it threatens to uproot protected trees and that it will pollute the nearby air and water.
Attorney Karl Anuta’s appeal on behalf of the three neighbors — Lora Meisner, William Dalton and John D. Miller — also claims the city didn’t disclose the pertinent documents before its decision and argues “the public was likely misled.”
I like to see people in Salem standing up against development that threatens their neighborhood's livability. Growth is going to happen. But it needs to be smart growth, not dumb growth.
Plunking a giant Costco Big Box store, complete with a high traffic fueling station, right next to a residential area is dumb. Hopefully the City Council will hear the neighbors' appeal of the City of Salem's approval of the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center and make things right.
The appeals and City approval document can be read here.
In a Washington Post piece I read today, I saw a saying: "Republicans are naturally triumphal even when they lose and Democrats tend to get depressed even when they win."
This seems generally true.
But like I said last night, I'm pleased with how the midterm election turned out. Sure, it was distressing to see Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, and Beto O'Rourke fail to win their races. But here in Oregon we enjoyed a genuine Blue Wave, and Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives is a really big deal.
FiveThirtyEight.com is projecting a gain of 37 House seats, which is impressively close to their pre-election forecast of Democrats getting an average gain of 39 House seats.
Plus, even though currently Democrats are down three Senate seats -- Republicans flipped North Dakota, Indiana, Florida, and Missouri, while the Dems flipped Nevada -- there's a lot of votes left to be counted in Arizona, so there's a decent chance that Sinema could overcome McSally's lead, which would reduce the Democrat net loss to two. That'd be a good outcome for the Dems, given how many seats they had to defend in Trump territory.
But this barely scratches the surface of the progressive wonderful'ness that marked yesterday's midterm results.
Here's links, and an excerpt from each, of informed commentary I came across today that should cheer up anyone who believes the Democrats didn't fare very well in the midterms.
First, an encouraging tweet from Nate Silver. It shows that if a presidential election happened with which party won the popular midterm vote in each state, the Democrat would have won the presidency with 314 electoral votes. Great news for 2020!
Then there's a way-cool New York Times analysis of how the vote in each congressional district changed in comparison to 2016. A blue arrow pointing left, not surprisingly, indicates a shift toward the Democratic party. A red arrow pointing right indicates a shift toward the Republican party. The length of the arrow shows the degree of the shift.
The online story has some animations to it, plus some additional maps. Keep in mind that the story says only 30 districts actually flipped from red to blue (so far). This image only shows the direction of the shift: several dozen districts became more Republican, while 317 districts shifted toward the Democrats.
For us progressive Oregonians, the marked blue shift in eastern Oregon is encouraging. Even though Republican Greg Walden won re-election, his Democrat opponent did much better than Clinton did in 2016.
Greg Sargent, a Washington Post opinion writer, said this in "Three of Trump's biggest fables died last night."
The 2018 elections are being widely painted as a “split decision” for President Trump — Democrats won the House while losing seats in the Senate — but this framing actually undercuts just how much there is for Democrats and progressives to celebrate about the results.
Three of the biggest narratives driving our politics now lie in ruins, and their deaths carry important implications for the future of the Trump presidency, public opinion in the Trump era, and the character of our country.
Trump has magical political powers, and his lies are “working.”...Democrats have no answer to the nationalist backlash...Democrats can’t assemble a multi-racial majority to confront Trumpism.
Paul Waldman, also with the Washington Post, wrote "Yes, it was a wave. Here are all the other ways progressives won." I'll quote it at some length, given how positive it is.
There’s a strange character to the post-election analyses of the moment, in which a wave election for Democrats where they won back the House of Representatives is being characterized as something like half a win. That’s partly because a number of dynamic young Democrats who had raised perhaps unreasonable hopes for victory fell short, but it’s also because Republicans are naturally triumphal even when they lose and Democrats tend to get depressed even when they win.
So in order to put the election in perspective, I’d like to widen our gaze beyond a few Senate and House races and look at some of the other results, particularly at the state level. When you do that, you see that Democrats have an awful lot to be happy about even beyond taking the House. Let’s break it down.
Democrats won in key governor’s races. While much of the attention was focused on the campaigns of Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia, both of which fell just short (though Abrams still hopes to force her opponent into a runoff), Democrats won a bunch of key governor’s races around the country. They flipped seven seats: Nevada, New Mexico, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Maine.
...Democrats won big in state legislatures. You’ve probably heard that over the eight years Barack Obama was president, Democrats lost a net of almost a thousand seats in state legislatures. Which is bad, but last night Democrats gained about 300 seats, so they’re well on their way to reversing those losses.
...Democratic women won everywhere. As of now, 95 women have won or are projected to win seats in the House, 82 of whom are Democrats. That includes the first two Muslim American women and the first two Native American women; a record number of women of color will be serving in the next Congress.
...Americans’ health care won big. Voters in the conservative states of Idaho, Nebraska and Utah passed ballot initiatives to accept the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which will bring coverage to hundreds of thousands of their citizens.
...Voting rights and democratic reforms were expanded. Voters in Michigan passed initiatives that will turn over redistricting to a nonpartisan commission and allow for automatic voter registration, same-day registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and straight-ticket voting. Voters in Colorado and probably Utah (votes are still being tallied) approved nonpartisan redistricting commissions, Nevadans approved automatic voter registration, and Maryland voters approved same-day registration.
...Other progressive ballot measures won. A strong gun safety measurepassed in Washington state. Michigan voters legalized recreational marijuana, and medical marijuana was approved in Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah. Voters in Missouri and Arkansas passed increases in the minimum wage.
This really was a blue wave. There’s no question that Republicans won some key victories, but that shouldn’t distract us from just how big a blue wave this was — even if gerrymandering and geography helped contain its effects.
A few days ago I predicted how I'd feel given certain results of today's midterm election. Below I've highlighted in green the outcomes that became reality. I added the Beto O'Rourke loss to the last two scenarios, having neglected to include it in my original post.
You can see that right now -- 10:07 pm -- I thought I'd be in a mood of Sad, but things could have been worse. But actually I'm feeling Happy, though mildly disappointed. Here's my best guess why.
(It has to be a guess, because it's difficult to pin down emotions.)
First, I spent a lot of time this evening flipping back and forth between MSNBC and CNN. So I heard the commentators discussing what Democratic control of the House of Representatives means. In short, it's a big deal.
Subpoena power. Ability to conduct investigations into Trump administration misdeeds. Veto power over legislation. A much louder voice for Democrats on the national stage.
Sure, it would have been good if the Democrats could have held onto Senate seats in Indiana, North Dakota, and Missouri.
But those are red states. Not long ago there was talk of Democrats losing as many as eight Senate seats in states that went for Trump. So tonight's Senate outcome isn't that bad. And as I write this the Nevada and Arizona races are still up in the air, which could be Democratic pickups.
Second, as soon as I perused the Statesman Journal's Oregon election results shortly after 8 pm, my mood brightened. Yes, I still was disappointed that Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams lost their races.
However, seeing that Kate Brown easily won re-election as Governor, and that each of the "bad" ballot measures (103-106) appear to have been defeated handily, with the "good" affordable housing measure (102) passing, made me feel happy that I live in a progressive-leaning state where voters usually make wise decisions.
Here's how my pre-midterm emotional predictions turned out. Again, green shows the prediction came true.
Ecstatic beyond all bounds
Democrats win both the House and Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Beto O'Rourke defeats Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams becomes Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum becomes Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Happy, though mildly disappointed
Democrats win the House, but not the Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Beto O'Rourke loses to Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams becomes Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum becomes Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Sad, but things could have been worse
Democrats win the House, but not the Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Beto O'Rourke loses to Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams loses race for Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum loses race for Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Deep depression
Democrats lose both the House and Senate
Kate Brown loses Governor race to Knute Buehler
Beto O'Rourke loses to Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams loses race for Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum loses race for Governor of Florida
Oregon voters turn down abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Looking back, I realize that my despair over Trump beating Clinton in the 2016 election was caused in part by my failure to anticipate what I thought was unthinkable: Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States.
So this time around, I'm going to envision various emotional states of mind I might be in late Tuesday night -- election day -- or on Wednesday morning, if voting results of the races I most care about aren't all in before I go to bed.
I need to say that while I just said races I most care about, the absence of certain races from the following emotional forecasts doesn't mean that I don't care a lot about them.
For example, I'll be really happy if Shelaswau Crier and Bill Burgess win their races for Marion County Commissioner here in Oregon. Ditto if Danny Jaffer wins his Oregon house race.
I'm simply aware that the results of these local races don't have quite the same emotional pull for me -- probably because these seats have been held by Republicans for quite a while, so if Democrats fail to win this time, it won't be a big surprise or major disappointment for me.
So here's my projected emotional frame of mind given various election outcomes.
Ecstatic beyond all bounds
Democrats win both the House and Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Beto O'Rourke defeats Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams becomes Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum becomes Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Happy, though mildly disappointed
Democrats win the House, but not the Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Beto O'Rourke loses to Ted Cruz
Stacey Abrams becomes Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum becomes Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Sad, but things could have been worse
Democrats win the House, but not the Senate
Kate Brown re-elected Governor of Oregon
Stacey Abrams loses race for Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum loses race for Governor of Florida
Oregon voters protect abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Deep depression
Democrats lose both the House and Senate
Kate Brown loses Governor race to Knute Buehler
Stacey Abrams loses race for Governor of Georgia
Andrew Gillum loses race for Governor of Florida
Oregon voters turn down abortion rights and sanctuary state status
Of course, likely there will be "mix and match" in the actual outcome of next Tuesday's election results. My emotional state could be improved, for example, if Crier, Burgess, or Jaffer win their races. And while it is very unlikely that control of the Oregon House or Senate is turned over to the Republicans, if the GOP gains some seats, this would be a downer.
I'm betting that Happy, though mildly disappointed most likely is going to be how I'll feel after the midterms.
Each of the outcomes I listed in that category seems eminently possible. And if Iowa's right-wing-wacko House member, Steve King, somehow loses his race, that would take away the "mildly disappointed."
Echoing a Who song: Salem, let's not get fooled again. In the early 2000s a pioneering, far-reaching, creative Salem Futures project was killed by clueless conservatives. Our town has been paying the price ever since, as I'll discuss below.
Here's how someone active in land use issues at the time recently described to me the ax'ing of Salem Futures. (Note: LCDC stands for Land Conservation and Development Commission. It oversees the Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD.)
Mayor [Janet] Taylor killed the Salem Futures project after almost two years of work and a million dollars. LCDC was giving Salem grants to create a model comprehensive plan for the State.
Taylor decided to have a public meeting prior to the public hearing. Some property owners had heard about a proposal to do an overlay zone not unlike what just recently was recommended for the State Street area.
She went in unprepared. She did not lay the groundwork with staff. The business people got upset after they felt blindsided. Too much seemed predetermined to them and she did not handle the meeting well. She got into a shouting match with a couple of big owners and then she stormed out of the meeting. I think there was a newspaper article at the time.
The project began in late-November 1998 with a public lecture by Gordon Price, Vancouver B.C. City Councilor and noted lecturer on urban affairs and design. Councilor Price presented a talk titled “Vancouver BC and Lessons for the Future of Salem”.
This talk was followed by three Community Forums to discuss what makes Salem a unique place and what should be the guiding principles for future growth. During this time, the Statesman Journal published a Community Questionnaire as another opportunity for citizens to express their views about the future.
The CAC [Citizens Advisory Committee] used this public input to draft a Vision Statement. In January, 1999, a town hall meeting was held to discuss the draft Vision Statement.
Since then, the Vision Statement has undergone numerous refinements to ensure it reflects what is important to Salem’s quality of life, such as a vibrant downtown, safe and friendly neighborhoods, and the preservation of the natural environment. It also addresses future change, such as ensuring quality design for new development, saving mature trees, and making it easier to walk, bicycle or ride transit.
Salem, Oregon
At 0900 hours Saturday 28 September 2002, the Progressive Liberal Democrats, Greens, Socialists, and Communists will launch an attack on unsuspecting citizens in cities throughout America. Their objective is securing the signatures of millions of Americans endorsing the Earth Charter Initiative.
Their purpose, abdicate individual freedom and the Nation/State that made America one the greatest Nations in history.
In a desperate last ditch effort the Democrats hope is to garner the signature and votes of millions of unsuspecting Americans who do not have a clue that the Earth Charter is a declaration designed to destroy America and supersede the Declaration of Independence signed in 1776.
...The proponents of the Earth Charter fail to disclose that the authors of the Earth Charter are in fact representatives of the United Nations. The Earth Charter Summit propaganda proclaims:
The Earth Charter is an international people's (not governments, UN or organizations) agreement for a compassionate, just and sustainable world that was written by thousands of folks in 78 countries over the course of 12 years and was launched at The Hague Peace Palace in June 2000. It has the core value of interdependence and calls for economic and social justice, peace, democracy and ecological integrity.
...All across the Nation the Trojan horse for the Earth Charter campaign is buried in the Smart Growth program that encourages cities and counties to foster land use planning programs that reach into neighborhood watch organizations. Federal dollars from the Clinton-Gore administration funded local initiatives for livability and transportation. Professional land use planning organizations were co-opted and facilitated the movement using tax payer dollars for a political purpose.
A beachhead was secured in Oregon, when on July 3, 2001, the Oregon Legislature adopted the Oregon Sustainability Act.
In Salem, Oregon Mayor Mike Swaim is rapidly moving the implementation of the Sustainable Development program through a project called Salem Futures and in the Willamette Valley the program is known as the Willamette Valley Livability Project. The Mayor and a committee of the League of Oregon Cities drafted a Template for Local Government Sustainable Development Initiatives.
...In Salem the Progressives or their sympathizers dominate (66 percent) of the Salem Futures Citizen Advisory Committee. On Saturday 28 September 2002 the Progressives are sponsoring through the Oregon Peace Works a program titled "ALL ABOARD THE LIVABILITY EXPRESS!" The focus is to create a community-wide democratic platform so that "We the People ... " can focus and direct "the Will of the People" into our City government.
OMG! Salem Futures wanted to represent the Will of the People! That sounds... um... WONDERFUL. We can only hope that the Our Salem project has a similar aspiration, even though like I said, it doesn't look that way at the moment.
It's great that a bicycle sharing program, Capitol City Cycleshare, is set to begin around late January to mid-February.
Aside from giving people in Salem an easy and inexpensive way to cycle, another benefit is that the program will show how difficult it is to ride a bicycle in most parts of our town.
An email message I got from Evan Osborne, who is leading the Cycleshare effort, says that seven stations are planned, with money currently available for six stations.
Hello Cycleshare Sponsors and Advocates,
The Cycleshare web site shows the location of four stations. A Statesman Journal story says these will be at: Salem's Riverfront Carousel, the Union Street Railroad Bridge, Courthouse's West Salem location and the Downtown Transit Center.
This makes sense, since it is the only part of Salem with access to safe, pleasant, easy-to-ride multiuse trails at Minto-Brown Island Park, Riverfront Park, and Wallace Marine Park.
But that leaves almost all of Salem as almost entirely lacking places to ride a bicycle that, at best, are denoted by painted lines on a busy road filled with vehicles whizzing by a few feet (or even a few inches) away.
In a post today, "What should we expect from a Public Bikes Program," the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger did his usual excellent job writing about transportation and land use issues in this town.
After noting the usage of bike share programs in Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis -- 1 to 3 trips per day per bicycle -- came these observations about Salem's program, which will start with 30 bikes from the ridesharing company Zagster:
So if we expect something more like one trip per day per bike, that's 30 new bike trips each day.
That might be a nice amenity for tourism marketing and cachet, but that's not a meaningful difference in downtown transportation.
So, you know, start small, hope for success, and build off of that. But we should be clear this is a perk or amenity, not a difference-maker for mobility.
It's an ornament.
It's also not clear that there will be much riding outside of the Wallace-Riverfront-Minto Park system. To be sure, that the Union and Minto Bridges connect them all is a great boon! But that's recreating, not commuting or utility cycling.
You might remember the piece from a couple of years ago about an attempt to bike downtown. There will be a station at the transit mall, but how will users ride?
From the piece:
I'll confess that our tour was a combination of cycling and walking. This mom errs on the side of caution when it comes to bicycling with kids. I'm very thankful for the new bike lanes recently created in downtown Salem, but when the map took us on busy streets where bikes and cars travel together, we walked our bikes on the sidewalk. [italics added]
One of the probable consequences of having a public bike system downtown without also adjusting the streets, especially for east-west travel, is that we will have more sidewalk biking.
Certainly there will be more path riding in the park system.
Altogether, what I see is a city that likes the idea of being able to say it has a bikeshare system, as a kind of symbol of hip culture, but not a city that's really very passionate yet about making it easy to bike and ensuring that riders have the right infrastructure, especially downtown where the stations are clustered.
Right on.
Earlier this month I noted in a blog post that the 2018 City of Salem Community Report had only one mention of bicycling, and that was in a section about LED street lamps.
I searched the report for every mention of "bicycle." There was exactly one. Here it is. LED lamps provide good lighting for bicycles, along with cars and pedestrians. Whoopee.
Of course, that assumes it is safe and easy to read a bicycle in Salem, which it isn't. The absence of any mention of bike paths or dedicated multiuse paths shows how autocentric City of Salem policies are. We're way behind other cities in Oregon in this regard.
Hopefully Capitol City Cycleshare will help spur a redirection of resources away from hugely expensive road projects to much more cost-effective protected paths for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, scooter riders, and other alternative ways of getting around town.
When people sign up for the Cycleshare program and start riding the bikes, they're going to find that it's neither easy nor safe to cycle in Salem in most places outside of the "tri-park" area where the first stations will be located.
Complaining to City officials and city councilors to do something about this will be in order.
I've already voted NO on Measure 105, which would overturn Oregon's successful sanctuary state law that prevents law enforcement agencies from using state resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is federal immigration law.
Nothing I heard at today's Salem City Club debate on Measure 105 made me question in the slightest how I voted.
The debate was between Cynthia Kendoll (on the left) and Andrea Williams (on the right). Kendoll is president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Williams is executive director of CAUSA, Oregon's statewide immigration rights organization.
Williams' expression as Kendoll was speaking mirrored how I felt about Kendoll's exceedingly weak argument for voting Yes on Measure 105. Basically, Kendoll said that laws have to be followed; immigrants who are here illegally are breaking the law; so Oregon law enforcement agencies should help federal ICE agents find them so they can be deported.
On the other hand, Williams pointed out sound reasons to vote No.
She talked about examples of racial profiling that occurred in Oregon prior to the passage of our sanctuary state law. Williams also said that without that law, undocumented immigrants would be wary of contacting the police or testifying in an investigation.
There was some back-and-forth about whether undocumented immigrants commit more or fewer crimes than the general population. Studies show that "fewer" is the correct answer. (See here and here.)
So Kendoll was wrong when she tried to argue that Measure 105 would make Oregonians safer. She vainly tired to claim that undocumented immigrants engage in more lawbreaking than documented immigrants.
But as a City Club member pointed out in the course of asking a question, it makes sense that people who can't get a drivers license (for example), yet need to drive to get to work, will have more "driving without a license" citations than those who can get a license.
In other words, illegality most often is a case of this country's broken immigration laws, which don't allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.
Not surprisingly, I felt that a question I asked of Cynthia Kendoll was brilliant.
It came to me while I was staring at a slide that was left on a screen for most of the debate to summarize the core difference between voting yes or no on Measure 105. I began to wonder about substituting a different word in the bottom line for "immigration."
Like, "marijuana." So this is how my question went to Kendoll, as best I can recall:
Along with others in the audience, I'm a federal lawbreaker, since I use marijuana, and it's illegal under federal law. So I'm wondering if you'd be in favor of local and state law enforcement agencies here in Oregon working with federal agents to arrest people who are using marijuana -- even though it is legal in this state. Conservatives like you usually are in favor of state's rights. But since you favor using state resources to enforce federal immigration law, are you in favor of also using state resources to enforce the federal marijuana law?
Kendoll's answer was so lame, and so unresponsive to my question, I can barely remember what it was. It had something to do with federal immigration law catching criminals, I think. But every marijuana user in Oregon also is a criminal in the eye of federal law enforcement, so this response made little or no sense.
This just shows the hypocrisy of conservatives. They're all for states rights when it comes to gerrymandering, restricting the right to vote, and limiting access to abortions, but on immigration policy and sanctuary state laws, they're all in for federal control.
Bottom line: vote NO on Measure 105.
What's the value of eight lives? Is it greater or less than the desire of Costco to build a new Salem store on the graves of the deceased?
I'm talking about the lives of large white oaks, not humans. But those are important questions to tree-loving people like me, which includes many of the neighbors who live near the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center where the Salem Costco is planned to be relocated.
Here's a photo of a beautiful white oak in our yard. I wanted to show it before discussing the rather dry details of what Costco is proposing to do with the property, and what City of Salem officials recently approved.
My wife and I love this tree. We've been told it's about 250 years old. It was here long before us, and we hope that it will be here long after we're gone. The tree is about 43 inches in diameter, best I can tell.
For tree-lovers like us, a white oak means a lot. I sit on our deck and look at it (yes, I even talk to it) when I'm feeling down. The fact that it has stood there for centuries, lasting through all kinds of storms, helps make me feel that whatever I'm going through, I too can endure -- just for not nearly as many years as the tree.
Here's a image from architect Geoffrey James that shows the proposed site plan for the new Costco store.
I found it in the October 23 Land Use Decision documents posted on the City of Salem web site. James added the language under the black line, since he favors saving the significant white oaks by having the Costco store built in a different location on the property.
Those little green dots in the footprint of the proposed store represent "significant" white oaks, meaning oaks greater than 24 inches in diameter. Note that there are five Pros listed for this site plan, and only one Con: "All oak trees removed."
Four little words. But they say a lot.
Costco and the City of Salem view "All oak trees removed" as the price of allowing commercial development to occur next to a residential neighborhood. Neighbors, not surprisingly, see those words much differently.
Above is a portion of a letter submitted to City officials by an attorney hired by neighbors who oppose the current Costco development plan. The letter correctly says that removal of significant Oregon White Oaks for a commercial development is allowed only when the removal is "necessary."
So what does "necessary" mean in this context?
Given the dictionary definition of this word, seemingly it means required, unavoidable, inescapable, compulsory. But the image above, again with language added by Geoffrey James, shows an alternative site plan prepared by the Costco consultant that preserves all of the white oaks.
Several other alternative site plans, which I haven't shown, would also preserve all or some of the white oaks. Here's a PDF file of testimony submitted by James in opposition to the "kill all the Oaks" Costco site plan. It shows all of the alternative plans submitted by the Costco consultant.
Download COSTCO OAKS PROTECTION
Thus it sure seems that destruction of the eight significant white oaks wasn't "necessary" for Costco to do; it just was what Costco "desired" to do. And so far City officials have gone along with that desire.
This isn't the end of the Costco development tale.
Neighbors might appeal the City's decision to approve the current design of the project. (I'd certainly contribute to a Save the Oaks fundraising campaign that pays for legal fees.) And the City Council might have the final say on the current proposal that removes the eight significant white oaks.
It's good that both the Salem Reporter and Statesman Journal have published stories on this subject. But I don't think either Troy Brynelson or Jonathan Bach covered the proposed removal of the white oaks in sufficient detail. The Statesman Journal story said:
The city pegged 17 conditions onto its decision, released Tuesday.
Among them: there must be bicycle parking for every one of the proposed buildings; at least 16 Oregon White Oaks have to be part of the shopping center's landscape design; a driveway on 27th Avenue SE should be transformed into a single-lane roundabout; and a stop sign should go in on the new driveway approach for Boone Road SE.
It's true that two white oaks have to be planted for every oak removed. So that probably is how the figure of "at least 16 Oregon White Oaks" was derived. But the new oaks only have to be two inches across, while the eight significant oaks are at least 24 inches in diameter. And hugely bigger and more attractive, of course.
This is what the Salem Reporter story said about the trees:
In a 34-page document outlining its decision, the city said the project must meet at least 17 conditions. The conditions tell PacTrust Realty Group, the Portland firm proposing the project, to include pedestrian pathways, more landscaping, bumper guards in the parking lot, bicycle parking and more.
One condition asks that at least 16 Oregon white oaks are "incorporated into the landscape design for the shopping center." Neighbors had worried construction would chop down existing Oregon white oaks, which Salem city code deems "significant."
Today I emailed Brynelson and told him that I thought he needed to revise the story, since the significant white oaks were slated for removal, showing that the worries of the neighbors were justified. To his credit, Brynelson phoned me this afternoon, and we had a good talk about his story.
He defended the current wording as being technically correct. I agreed, but said that when I first read his story I got the impression that the existing white oaks were going to be part of the landscape design. In fact, I said as much in some Facebook posts that contained a link to the Salem Reporter story.
In my view, it would have been better to add a sentence after the second paragraph: "In fact, the proposal approved by City officials does allow the removal of eight significant white oaks that are at least 24 inches in diameter, with the 16 replacement trees only being required to be 2 inches in diameter."
Brynelson indicated that he may write another story that focuses on how Salem has treated its Oregon White Oaks, which sounds like a great idea. I'm enjoying the Salem Reporter, so don't mistake my quibble with part of the Costco story for a serious criticism of how the journalists there are doing.
Lastly, the City of Salem has a history of treating large, beautiful, healthy trees badly. Whenever I write about trees, I like to share a link to my 2014 tell-all report about how City officials wrongly cut down five gorgeous downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it. See:
"Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."
Recent Comments