There are times when it makes sense to ignore the political mess that is Washington, DC. This isn't one of them.
Today may have marked a milestone in how our democracy died -- not through a violent coup, but through two Democratic senators refusing to do away with the Republican filibuster of the Freedom to Vote Act.
This is the replacement for the considerably more expansive voting rights act that started off as the first bill introduced in both the House and Senate, indicating how important it was to congressional Democrats.
However, Senator Manchin of West Virginia, who often sounds more like a Republican (and currently is rumored to be contemplating switching parties if he doesn't get his way on the Build Back Better reconciliation bill) objected to the original voting rights legislation.
Manchin claimed that if he was allowed to craft his own bill, he could find 10 Senate Republicans who would support it.
Well, today zero Republicans voted to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act, leaving it with 50 Democrats in favor and 50 Republicans in opposition.
(Majority Leader Schumer changed his vote to no so he could bring the bill up again, which is why the final tally was 49-51.)
Given how avidly Trump and his Republican cronies are working to steal the next presidential election if a Democrat ends up winning, it's super aggravating that President Biden is putting so much effort into getting the physical and social infrastructure bills passed, and so little effort in passing the Freedom to Vote Act.
All that's at stake is our democracy. Sure seems like that should be enough to light a fire under our overly complacent president and Democratic leaders in Congress.
They're acting like this is just the usual congressional gridlock and fighting between the parties. Not true.
The Freedom to Vote Act is urgently needed to slow down the Republican stampede of making it more difficult for people to vote -- especially black and brown people.
The bill would set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and make Election Day a national holiday, among other provisions. It would also mandate that voters provide some form of identification before casting a ballot, a requirement that many Democrats had previously resisted, although it would be far less restrictive than similar measures imposed by Republicans.
A Democratic fantasy is that once Manchin sees that the Freedom to Vote Act will never get 10 Republican votes in the Senate, he'll agree to doing away with the filibuster for voting rights legislation. I doubt that will happen.
Joe Manchin basically only cares about Joe Manchin, not democracy. He relishes his role as the conservative thorn in the side of Senate Democrats. And he wants to keep on being re-elected by West Virginia voters, which he believes will only happen if he acts like a Republican much of the time.
What's crazy is that Manchin likes to talk about how the filibuster is needed to preserve the Senate as "the world's greatest deliberative body."
That's a bunch of crap.
The Senate is one of the world's worst deliberative bodies, because the filibuster allows a minority of senators to prevent even discussion of a bill, much less a vote on it. And it's virtually certain that if Republicans ever regain control of the presidency and Congress, they'd do away with the filibuster in an instant if this was needed to pass right-wing legislation.
I realize that Biden and other Democratic leaders are in a tough position with Manchin. They can't afford to lose a single Democrat vote in the Senate. Playing along with Manchin is their only option.
But they need to play tougher if Manchin and Sinema won't budge on doing away with the filibuster for voting rights legislation. Every option should be on the table for pressuring these two Democratic senators.
Maybe this is too extreme.
However, I like the idea of telling them that their precious physical infrastructure bill isn't going to be approved unless both the Build Back Better reconciliation bill and the Freedom to Vote Act are also passed. I just hate the prospect of American democracy dying because a couple of senators wanted to keep the stupid filibuster rule.
Aside from West Salem, which is in Polk County, everybody else who lives in Salem is in Marion County. Unfortunately, when it comes to electing the county Board of Commissioners, too many Salem voters tend to forget the reality of this map.
For a long time -- I'm not sure how many years it has been -- the three members of the Marion County Board of Commissioners have all been Republicans.
Most recently, in November 2020 Republican Danielle Bethell handily beat Democrat Ashley Carson Cottingham 52-44.
It's possible that the non-affiliated voters skew decidedly conservative, which would explain why Republicans keep being elected to the Board of Commissioners.
But another possibility is that many voters in Salem, a liberal-leaning city, don't have much of an interest in Board of Commissioners races. The Bethell-Cottingham race had 10,598 undervotes by people who cast ballots in the election but didn't vote in this race.
That was 6.8% of all votes. Since the margin of victory for Bethell was 8%, if Cottingham had picked up most of the undervote, the race would have been much closer. Of course, I don't know how many of the undervotes came from Salem.
Regardless of the reason for Marion County consistently electing Republicans to the Board of Commissioners, this has real consequences for Salem.
A recent example is the Marion County board expressing no interest in giving Salem funds that came to the county for programs that have mental health workers and medics respond to some crisis calls, rather than police.
Salem City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke and other progressives on the council strongly support this sort of program, as I wrote about in "Setback for Salem mental health crisis response team." I quoted a Salem Reporter story:
The city of Salem paused its plans to start a program where mental health workers respond to some crisis calls, rather than police.
The program was intended to run through United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley and received broad support from Salem residents who testified as the city was planning its budget for the coming year.
But city plans hinged on receiving state money that’s no longer directly available to them.
The House Behavioral Health Committee in January voted unanimously in favor of HB 2417, which would provide matching funds to cities for mobile response units through a competitive grant process.
Salem city councilor Vanessa Nordyke said a change in the bill during the legislative process required counties - no longer cities - to request a piece of the $10 million the state allocated for crisis stabilization services, and cities could in turn ask for money from their respective counties.
“As I understand it, there is no such interest from the Marion County commissioners,” Nordyke said.
Not so much that I wanted to move there -- I've had a Salem address since 1977 -- but Portland seemed like the cool kid to our north, while Salem was decidedly geeky.
Now, though, I'll happily take Salem, even if termed So-Lame, over Portland's increasing dysfunction.
Every night my wife and I watch the Portland late night news on KGW. I used to fast forward through a couple of minutes of crime news, because I don't like the "If it bleeds, it leads" sort of journalism.
Throughout 2021, and especially recently, shootings, vandalism, business break-ins, and such have been consuming much more of the 11 pm Portland news.
On September 23 the Oregonian reported seven shootings in one day, with 837 shootings through August. Today KATU says the Portland Police Bureau announced there have been 1,000 shootings in 2021.
Salem has occasional shootings, but nothing like Portland. As of October 10, an Oregonian story, "Under the Gun," spoke of the very high number of murders in Portland this year: 69.
The survival rules posted by gang outreach worker Lionel Irving Jr. on Facebook starkly spell out the danger for people most at risk of dying in Portland’s daunting surge of gun violence this year:
1. Don’t sit in cars kicking it. 2. Get EVERYTHING you need and get to your destination. 3. Keep your eyes and ears open! Watch your surroundings instead of running your mouth. 4. Know who you’re hanging with and what they’re up to. 5. Google numbers, order your food ahead of time, don’t sit in local spots.
Irving’s advice reflects a pervasive unease that has settled over Portland this year as the city continues on a pace to surpass the most violent year in its modern history when 70 people were killed in 1987. So far this year, 69 people have died.
The victims since January range from an infant who allegedly died at the hands of his father to a 77-year-old woman killed in a hit-and-run rampage.
But a stunning pattern of sudden, sometimes indiscriminate shootings sets this wave apart. Guns have accounted for three-quarters of the homicides, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive.
Fatal shootings in almost all sections of the city have followed fistfights, social media disputes and drug deals gone bad. People sitting in cars, relaxing after work with friends in a bar, attending house parties or walking in a park have been shot dead.
Forensic analysis of spent bullet casings from crime scenes reveals connections between many of the shootings, pointing to gangs and retaliation as frequent drivers of the gun violence, investigators say.
The calls in Portland to "defund the police" after George Floyd's murder in 2020 now seem quaint, if not dangerously outmoded.
Certainly there's reason to question how wisely the Portland Police Bureau is being managed, but it sure seems like more officers are needed, not fewer, given the rise in violent crime and the inability of the bureau to stop vandalism of businesses both in downtown and elsewhere.
Then there's Portland's out-of-control homeless problem. Recently several people have told me about how shocking it is to see miles upon miles of homeless campers along the freeways in the Portland area.
One person told me that freeway signs now have graffiti. They have a relative who lives in SE Portland. Businesses are regularly vandalized there. The relative is afraid to go to downtown Portland.
A July 2021 opinion piece describes how bad the situation is.
Portland’s housing crisis is now in its sixth year. If it was a child, it would be entering first grade this Fall. With kids, the first six years are marked by enormous growth and advancement. With homelessness, these last six year have seen enormous growth but in the wrong direction.
The growing crisis is getting on the nerves of local leaders. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler says the homelessness crisis has hurt the city’s “brand.” In a recent Metro Council meeting, Councilor Mary Nolan suggested the crisis is a “visibility problem.” In some ways they are correct. But, in others, they are way off base.
The crisis has become unavoidable for residents as well. Wheeler and local officials are correct that homeless camps, cars, and RVs are a blight that harms the region’s reputation. Nearly every neighborhood in Portland has a homeless camp. Most residents are within a five-minute walk of one. It’s more than just the camps and campers, there’s the garbage, the piles of bicycles, and the burnt out hulks of shopping carts. Paraphrasing Mayor Wheeler and Council Nolan, it’s ugly.
But, it’s way more than just ugly. It’s a crisis of public health and safety. And it ought to be treated as such
In 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, 113 people in Multnomah County had died homeless. Many of those deaths could have been prevented if our region didn’t have such a hands off approach.
Multnomah County’s latest count of the homeless population found that two-thirds have some combination of substance use disorder or mental health issues. Unfortunately, these are the people who are most resistant to treatment. Drug users want to use drugs. Many of those with mental illness either can’t get the necessary treatment or don’t want it. Shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars toward so-called wraparound services will do nothing if the people who need them don’t use them.
So far Salem's crime and homeless problems aren't nearly as severe as Portland's. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes Portland has made.
There's plenty of room for discussing, or arguing, about what those mistakes are.
My view is that Portland has been hampered by an excessive liberal tolerance of destructive street protests. At first those protests garnered a lot of sympathy in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.
But as the months wore on in the summer and fall of 2020, anarchists and other trouble-makers were allowed to engage in both property damage and attacks on police via fireworks, rocks, and other projectiles.
This contributed to a decline in police officer morale. I'm not saying that the Portland Police Bureau didn't deserve some criticism for how they handled the protests, just that the bureau found itself caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Don't use force with protesters, but protect us from all the shootings and property damage.
Likewise, Mayor Wheeler and other city officials have been unduly passive as homeless camps spread all around Portland. It's easy to imagine that as word got out that Portland was allowing the homeless to do pretty much whatever they wanted, this could have led to more homeless people coming to the area.
One acquaintance told me that he thought Oregon's decriminalization of drugs in November 2020 could have caused our state to be viewed as a welcoming place by homeless people with drug problems. That's just conjecture, of course.
The good news for us here in Salem is that the Police Department seems better equipped to deal with our lesser crime problem, and the City Council is doing the right thing in setting up tiny home managed homeless camps in each of Salem's eight wards.
That won't be enough to do anything other than put a small dent in our homeless population, but it's a step in the right direction -- as was banning camping in city parks following a failed experiment that allowed this.
Racism is bad. This should be a uncontraversial position, but last night there was plenty of arguing about the pros and cons of a Salem-Keizer School Board resolution calling for a commitment to equity and antiracism.
I watched much of the public testimony online, along with the board's discussion of the resolution.
My main takeaway is that the school board did the right thing when it approved the anti-racist resolution on a 4-2 vote -- with the four recently elected progressive board members voting in favor, and two conservative holdover members voting against. A conservative member was absent.
There were good arguments made by reasonable people on both sides, along with some lousy arguments made by extreme people on both sides.
Here's the video of the meeting. I've made it start at the beginning of the public comment period. The testimony is well worth watching.
What I found encouraging was that the school board meeting served as a forum where people who ordinarily wouldn't be talking with each other because they belong to different political camps were able to listen to those who disagree with their position.
This is one purpose of education: to expose yourself to a variety of ideas that push you out of your comfort zone. Several school board members spoke about the resolution being just the beginning of a broader community discussion about racism and anti-racism.
Hopefully that will occur.
Salem, along with the rest of the United States, needs to take a big step backward from the political cliff where many on both the right and left view the other side as so utterly wrong, they deserve to be pushed over the edge into societal oblivion.
Yet I doubt that there were any genuine racists in the room last night -- just people who disagreed about the wisdom of passing an anti-racist resolution.
Opponents of the resolution correctly noted that sometimes "white supremicist" is used as an undeserved epithet. Just because someone disagrees with a BIPOC (black, indigenous, person of color) individual doesn't mean any sort of racism is going on.
And they espoused a goal that few would disagree with. As Martin Luther King put it, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
However, currently too many conservatives consider that racism is nowhere, while too many progressives consider that racism is everywhere. The truth is somewhere in-between. Much progress has been made with racial justice, while much work remains to be done.
Likewise, opponents of the resolution had a good point when they decried a push for equal educational outcomes as opposed to equal educational opportunities.
But this assumes that all students are able to make equal use of those opportunities. Disadvantaged students, either through systemic racism or some other unfortunate circumstance, deserve special attention until that hoped-for day when all young people have generally the same opportunity to thrive in school.
The so-called "school to prison pipeline" due to police officers assigned to schools came in for repeated mention. A woman who opposed the resolution said that she had researched this question and learned that less than 1/2 of one percent of student arrests were associated with School Resource Officers.
This points to the need for solid data to back up claims of pervasive racism in Salem-Keizer schools. It's easy to be swayed by anecdotes where a teacher or student acted badly toward a BIPOC individual. But in any large group of people, a few always will act like jerks.
So it was good to hear school board members and others say that they're committed to getting as much data as possible to inform the goals of the anti-racist resolution. I suspect that racism in Salem-Keizer schools isn't as widespread as those on the left believe, while it is more common than those on the right believe.
Lastly, I have to note school board member Chandragiri's curious comment that he has been told that BIPOC people like himself can't be racist. This can't be true. I'm not even sure that someone can't be racist toward their own racial group, not to mention others in the broad BIPOC category.
In India, for example, there's a longstanding bias against those with darker skin, as a New York Times story says:
Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes.
Here's the resolution that was approved last night.
RESOLUTION NO. 202122-2 COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND ANTIRACISM
WHEREAS white supremacy is the upholding of white people as a superior race and systematically excluding other communities based on their ancestry, religious beliefs and/or country of origin, including those of Jewish and Islamic heritage, from services and opportunities such as housing, education, and migration; and white supremacy has no place in our schools or in our boardroom; and
WHEREAS an antiracist is a person who, by their beliefs and actions, supports and advocates for ideas and policies to dismantle oppressive structures and promote racial equality; and
WHEREAS it is a cherished asset that the Salem-Keizer Public Schools community is full of people with traditions from all over the world as well as the traditions held right here upon the land we live, through the Kalapuya, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians; and
WHEREAS our students’ diverse learning needs and cultural values are an integral part of the learning community, we must create systems that are inclusive and celebrate our students' learning assets, and speaking a language other than English is an asset we celebrate; and
WHEREAS we collectively acknowledge that racism is real and is a threat to students’ and employees’ physical and psychological well-being; and the systems of structural racism have historically oppressed students from Black and African American, Latino/a/x, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American and Indigenous heritage; and
WHEREAS every student must feel safe, welcome, and fully included in their school community; and when students are alienated from their school communities and experience bias and discrimination, they are inherently less safe psychologically, emotionally, and physically and it hinders their ability to learn and grow; and we must build inclusive environments that empower students and employees to thrive; and
WHEREAS community engagement and involvement are paramount to achieving equity; and we will engage with respect, authentically listen, and have the courage to share decision-making, control, and resources; and
WHEREAS we must directly address the overrepresentation of students of color in special education and the underrepresentation of students of color in talented and gifted and college-prep programs; and
WHEREAS we know that students of color are overrepresented in suspensions and expulsions in our schools, starting at middle school, and this impacts their ability to stay meaningfully engaged and graduate successfully; and
WHEREAS hiring and retaining a workforce that reflects the diversity of the community we serve is an antiracist action, and we commit to ensuring this occurs; and
WHEREAS being antiracist means looking deeply at systems, policies, and curricula that oppress our diverse populations; and it involves making real changes so that we change biased yet predictable outcomes related to disproportionate discipline, achievement rates, and the school-to-prison pipeline;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Salem-Keizer Public Schools commits to being antiracist, knowing we must continually work to do better by developing knowledge and bystander intervention will and skill; and we commit to routinely interrupt systems of oppression on behalf of the students and staff in Salem-Keizer Public Schools and in our community; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Salem-Keizer Public Schools Board of Directors commits to support the district’s efforts to build a restorative model for discipline, to monitor discipline data and our key performance indicators disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and to develop a system for monitoring the diversification of our workforce.
The Salem Police Department wants people to take a survey about the strategic plan being developed to guide how the department operates in coming years.
I completed the survey today. And I could have completed it over and over, for as long as I wanted, because the survey allows people to respond more than once to it.
This alone makes the value of the survey dubious.
Letting people fill out the survey multiple times makes it vulnerable to vote manipulation by vested interests -- either pro-police or anti-police -- who want to skew the results in their favored direction.
The survey was designed using Microsoft Office. I'm a Mac user, but it was easy for me to Google "microsoft office survey multiple" and find instructions about either allowing or disallowing multiple responses.
So this is one major problem with the survey. Those responding already were going to be people especially interested in the police department. Letting them fill out the survey as many times as they want makes the results even more questionable.
Another problem is that the survey is decidedly bureaucratic. The questions don't relate to the lived experience most people have with Salem police. It's sole focus is on dry descriptions of goals and objectives, which isn't what most people care about.
Here's a screenshot of one question, which includes my response to it.
I used to design questionnaires and surveys back in my days as a health services planner/researcher. I got to be pretty good at it. This police department survey strikes me as poorly designed. It uses management language of goals and objectives even though as noted above, this isn't how ordinary people think about policing.
Further, this particular question is way too broad to provide useful feedback.
I said this objective was very important to me because how unsheltered (homeless) people are treated by police is very important to me. Otherwise, I don't think police should be much involved in traffic safety, since red light cameras and other automated means of detecting violations are more cost-effective.
As you can see from my response to the question, I also think police shouldn't respond to calls involving a mental health crisis or any other issue that could be handled better by non-police personnel.
The plan is being developed based on anindependent audit conducted earlier this year, community and staff input and the chief's philosophy. Womack said he emphasizes making "data-driven decisions," balanced with "community trust-building."
The results of the audit, approved by the Salem City Council and released in March, recommended hiring more officers to adequately address homelessness and mental health calls, and to better engage with youth and diverse populations.
Womack, who was sworn in as police chief in December, said the survey results weren't surprising as many of the department's shortcomings in community policing are due to lack of staffing.
Well, hopefully the Salem City Council will base police department staffing decisions on the sort of "data-driven" approach Chief Womack claims he wants to use.
Councilor Vanessa Nordyke spoke clearly in a recent Facebook post about the need for a crisis team to be staffed by non-police officers. This Cahoots-style program could markedly reduce the call volume handled by the police department based on data from Eugene.
Another problem is that the Statesman Journal story repeats a claim that the Salem Police Department is seriously understaffed compared to other similarly-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest. I'm assuming that the reporter got these numbers from the police department, which appear to be wrong.
The department currently has 190 sworn officers for a population of 169,580 — about 1.1 officers per 1,000 people. In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people.
Jim Scheppke, a retired state library director who knows how to research questions like this, sent me his response to the Statesman Journal reporter who wrote today's story about the police survey.
Ms. Barreda: I would like to request a correction to your article today about the Salem Police Department. This statement is inaccurate or at best misleading:
"In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people.”
And the general impression given by your article that the Salem Police Department is understaffed is just not true when you consider the entire staff and not just the sworn officers.
Attached is a spreadsheet with some tables that were derived from the latest data for 2019 collected by the FBI. There is a URL at the bottom of each table where you can go to verify the data if you wish.
The first table shows staffing for all Oregon cities with populations greater than 30,000. It is sorted by total employees per 1,000. It shows that only one other Oregon city had more police department employees per 1,000 than Salem did! It is true that many of these cities had more officers per 1,000 than Salem did, but Salem’s number is comparable to similar cities like Eugene and Corvallis and it is not that far off the average.
Another table widens the scope to cities between 100,000 and 200,000 in the Pacific Northwest. Again Salem has the second highest number of total employees per 1,000. The average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.21, not 1.6 as reported in your story, though I realize this is 2019 data and not 2018 data.
Another table widens the scope further to include cities up to 300,000 in the Pacific Northwest and again the average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.28. Here Salem has the third highest number of total employees per 1,000.
The last table is from 2018, with cities in the Pacific Northwest between 100,000 and 300,000. It shows the average number of officers to be 1.29 per 1,000.
The number you reported in your article may have included other cities, but I don’t see how an average of 1.6 officers per 1,000 could be accurate.
My spreadsheet also includes two smaller tables side by side that compare staffing at the SPD and that at our public library. While the SPD has the highest total staffing per 1,000 of these cities in Oregon, our library has by far the lowest!
The reality is that the Salem Police Department, while having a slightly lower than average number of officers per 1,000 in the Pacific Northwest (1.1 compared to 1.2 or 1.3), it has among the highest number of total staff per 1,000. Your readers should know this and not be left with the false impression that the Salem Police Department is understaffed.
Best, Jim
If Chief Womack or one of his staff was the source for the seemingly erroneous figure of 1.6 officers per 1000 population in cities comparable in size to Salem, Womack needs to explain where he got that figure, since it doesn't match up with the statistics cited by Jim Scheppke.
West Salem's city councilor wants the council to reconsider allowing a managed homeless camp on Wallace Road after residents objected to the plan.
At a Monday meeting, the council will hear a motion from Councilor Jim Lewis to reconsider the council’s previous approval of a managed camp along Wallace Road following overwhelming opposition to the project voiced during a Tuesday meeting at Salemtowne.
In council documents, Lewis explained that he wanted the council to withdraw its approval until city staff analyzed the site to determine if it’s feasible and met with west Salem neighbors to discuss alternate locations in that ward.
I can't be sure about this, but from the tone of the Salemtowne meeting -- lots of shouting and interruptions of those trying to explain how the homeless camp would operate -- this feels like a bunch of conservative Republicans taking a Trumpian stand against supposed government overreach.
A town hall over a planned managed homeless camp in west Salem turned vitriolic Tuesday night as hundreds of people gathered in a crowded room at Salemtowne to ask questions and voice concerns.
The gathering was tense, with audience members repeatedly cutting off or shouting over a handful of speakers from the city of Salem and homeless service provider Church at the Park who were there to answer questions over two hours.
What's decidedly strange is that so far as I know, there wasn't much (or any) opposition to the managed camps that have been set up in north Salem. I guess west Salem residents are just crankier about doing their part to deal with the homeless crisis.
However, City officials did screw up by not engaging in community outreach before revealing the plan for a micro shelter homeless camp on city-owned property on Wallace Road just a few days before the City Council was set to approve the camp.
On the whole, the micro shelter approach seems way better than letting homeless people camp in city parks or downtown sidewalks. The shelters are small, one design being just 64 square feet, but they're a heck of a lot better than a tent or cardboard box.
What's sad, of course, is that living in a glorified shed passes for progress in housing the homeless. This shouldn't be happening in a country as well off as the United States. Our social safety net has so many holes in it, it's better termed a Swiss Cheese approach to doing as little as possible for our most vulnerable citizens.
I'm no expert on homelessness.
But the reading I've done says that "housing first" is the best way to help homeless people break the cycle of living on the streets. Give the homeless a home, even a very basic one, and they're much more likely to find a job, stop excessive drinking or drug use, get healthier, and otherwise transition out of what's caused them to become homeless.
It sure seems like the federal government should be footing the bill for micro shelters. Absent that, there's a push to get people in Salem to donate the $5,000 cost of a micro shelter. A Statesman Journal story tells how to get involved with this effort.
Those wanting to sponsor a shelter or learn more can email:
Not surprisingly, city officials put a positive spin on the results in their Salem Connection email blurb.
Ah, note the mention of "core City services." It's true that most people, 70%, are satisfied with city services. But that's a big drop from the 86% satisfaction in 2020. Since Covid was with us in both years, the pandemic doesn't seem to be the reason for the decline in satisfaction.
Something else is. The report's authors note that satisfaction also is down in other Oregon cities and Oregon as a whole, but we don't know if there are special circumstances in Salem causing dissatisfaction.
That decline was across all city services (the water/sewer/stormwater plus 2 is within the 5% survey margin of error).
Thus it appears that Salem residents have become more cranky in general with how things are going in Salem. And a large percentage blame the City of Salem in whole or in part. The question asked was, "All in all, would you say things in Salem are headed in the right direction, or are things off on the wrong track?"
Almost two thirds, 65%, say "wrong track," up from just 41% in 2020. Those saying "right track" dropped from 38% in 2020 to 23% in 2021.
The survey didn't ask whether citizens specifically blame, or credit, the City Council, Mayor, or City Manager Steve Powers and other city officials for the direction Salem is headed.
Regardless, 91% say that whichever track Salem is on, this is either mainly or partially because of actions the City of Salem has taken. This is close to the 90% who said this in 2020, the big difference being an increase in those who say "mainly because of actions the City has taken" -- up from 22% in 2020 to 34% in 2021.
Even more striking is that of the 65% who consider that Salem is on the wrong track, 40% percent say this is mainly the City's fault.
This means 26% of Salem residents think Salem is on the wrong track and actions of City officials are the main reason (.65 x .40). Only a small percentage overall, 7%, absolve the City, saying that the direction Salem is going is mainly because of circumstances outside the City's control.
So what is the main concern of Salem residents? Homelessness, by a big margin. The detailed result is more interesting than the summary discussed in the report.
You can see that concern about homelessness has steadily increased from 7% in 2016 to 58% in 2021. Of course, people have different reasons for this concern. Some feel compassion for the plight of homeless people. Others focus on the ugliness of homeless camps and their effect on surrounding neighborhoods, including crime.
Whatever the reason, homelessness is by far the first thing that people in Salem think about when asked what issue is most important for the City of Salem to do something about.
Covid is the #2 concern at 8%. After that no concern was the first mention of more than 4%, though if you add together "roads, potholes, infrastructure," "traffic congestion," and "additional bridge," it could be argued that roads are on the mind of 5% of the population.
But "additional bridge" got only 1%, four people out of 400. This shows that the frenzy over the Third Bridge has virtually disappeared after the City Council voted to kill the project several years ago.
Likewise, "police reform" got exactly zero mentions, following 3% in 2020 when Black Lives Matter protests were in full swing. This goes a long way toward explaining why the City Council's efforts at police reform have been decidedly minimal. It's a big concern to a small number of people, but is the top concern of very few, maybe none.
Of course, it would be nice to know the top three concerns, say, of those who took part in the survey. Still, it appears that in next year's races for City Council and Mayor, candidates would be wise to focus on homelessness and income equality/poverty.
And obviously even if few people (1%) mention "environment" as their top concern, this doesn't mean the City of Salem should downplay the Climate Action Plan currently being developed. Some issues demand attention because of their evident importance, no matter how many people have it as a #1 concern.
The same could be said for all of the issues below, really. Each has passionate advocates. That's what politics and community involvement is all about -- allowing everybody to speak out about what concerns them, then sorting out which issues deserve the most attention.
Just when I thought the dysfunction in Congress couldn't get any worse, it has. And not by a little, by a lot. What's grabbed the part of my brain that is prone to panic is another fight over raising the debt ceiling.
That's the ridiculous century-old law that requires Congress to vote on paying for the federal debt that already has been incurred. The usual way of describing it is agreeing to pay for the credit card charges you've already made.
For almost all people, that's a non-choice. Of course, we pay for what's already been put on our credit card. If we don't, the credit card company will come after us and our credit rating will take a nosedive.
A New York Times piece, "How the Debt Ceiling Came to Be a Political Cudgel," describes how raising the debt ceiling used to be a routine exercise, but became politicized by both Republicans and Democrats starting in 2006. Even so, we've never defaulted on the national debt, though our nation has come scarily close when brinksmanship gets too close to the default cliff.
Raising the limit used to be a bipartisan nonevent. But, like everything else in Washington over the last 15 years, it has been sucked into the tornado of no-holds-barred politics. In 2006, the Democrats, including then-Senator Joe Biden, refused to support a debt-limit increase by the George W. Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress, as a protest over the Iraq war and tax cuts. In 2011 and again two years later, the Republicans tried to use their potential support as a bargaining chip, to force the Democrats and Barack Obama to concede on spending cuts.
Each time, columnists and Treasury officials warned about the consequences of default, should the limit not be raised. And each time, in the end, Republicans and Democrats reached a deal, and the crisis was averted.
Things feel different this time, though — not because we’re at any more risk of default, but because of what the details of the fight show about the danger of government dysfunction.
Now we're creeping up to that cliff again. Today Treasury secretary Janet Yellen warned of dire consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised by October 18 to account for bills racked up by both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned lawmakers on Tuesday of “catastrophic” consequences if Congress failed to raise or suspend the statutory debt limit in less than three weeks, saying inaction could lead to a self-inflicted economic recession and a financial crisis.
The stock market already is warning of such a crisis. Today the Dow dropped 1.6%, the NASDAQ was down 2.8%, and the S&P 500 declined 2.0%.
Much worse will happen if our country actually does default on its debt, even if only for a few days or weeks.
Buyers of Treasury bonds, both foreign and domestic, will demand higher interest rates because of the risk of owning federal debt. So a failure to raise the debt ceiling will make it much more costly to finance additional debt. What's deeply worrisome is that this once unthinkable prospect might be thought of fondly by Senate Republicans.
But there’s something else about the current debt-limit fight that bodes ill for the future. Much of the scare-quote commentary about the possibility of default assumes that it would come about as a result of a miscalculation. But what if it’s intentional? What if one party comes to believe that forcing a default would sink the other, politically, and decides to prioritize its short-term political fortunes over the country’s long-term economic health?
Of course, that "one party" currently is the Republican Party. And probably always will be, because Democrats aren't nearly as nasty and cutthroat when it comes to politics.
Currently Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't making any demands in exchange for Republicans agreeing to supply the ten votes needed to break the filibuster that occurred in the Senate today when Democrats tried to raise the debt ceiling.
McConnell keeps saying that because Democrats control both houses of Congress and the presidency, it's up to them to raise the debt ceiling on their own. OK, that argument would make at least a bit of sense if Republicans allowed a debt ceiling bill to pass in the Senate with 51 Democratic votes, Vice-President Harris being the 51st.
But since Republicans are using the filibuster to stop this from happening, the only options left to Senate Democrats are (1) do away with the filibuster for the purpose of raising the debt ceiling, or (2) include a debt ceiling increase, or better, abolition of the law that requires this to occur, in the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill that would only need 51 votes to pass.
That second tweet is something that hadn't occurred to me. I'd been thinking that McConnell was making a political mistake by forcing Democrats to use the reconciliation bill (which may end up under $3.5 trillion) to increase the debt limit, given the resistance Manchin and Sinema are raising to that bill in the Senate.
I figured that since financial and fiscal disaster would ensue if the debt limit isn't raised by mid-October, this would be a big incentive to get Manchin and Sinema on board with voting for the reconciliation bill -- given that this would be the only way to raise the debt limit, given the resistance of those senators and Biden to doing away with the filibuster.
But the tweet has me worried that since Manchin and Sinema often are willing to play nice with Republicans, even when it's clear that Republicans are trying to destroy the Democratic agenda, one or both of them might be fine with letting the United States default on its debt.
After all, they haven't shown much interest in the reconciliation bill, Sinema more so than Manchin, who at least has put forward his concerns with the bill, while Sinema is just being a roadblock.
If the debt limit can't be raised via the reconciliation bill, and if Manchin and/or Sinema remain opposed to doing away with the filibuster for any purpose, thereby taking away the possibility of raising the debt limit in a standalone bill with 51 Democratic votes, the end result can only be that...
Our country is headed for disaster.
On that cheery note, I'll end this blog post. Hopefully my fear won't come to pass. It's just going to be a scary few weeks as the Republicans, Manchin, and Sinema play "chicken" with our nation's financial security.
One way out of this is if our country's business leaders make it crystal clear that failing to raise the debt limit isn't an option, and if Republicans allow this to happen, they'll pay for it at the ballot box and in much reduced corporate political contributions.
Led by Vanessa Nordyke, last June the Salem City Council appropriated $135,000 for a mental health crisis response team similar to the CAHOOTS program that has been a big success in Eugene -- where a medic and crisis worker handle about 17% of the police department's call volume, saving about $12 million a year at a cost of about $2.1 million a year.
The city of Salem paused its plans to start a program where mental health workers respond to some crisis calls, rather than police.
The program was intended to run through United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley and received broad support from Salem residents who testified as the city was planning its budget for the coming year.
But city plans hinged on receiving state money that’s no longer directly available to them.
The House Behavioral Health Committee in January voted unanimously in favor of HB 2417, which would provide matching funds to cities for mobile response units through a competitive grant process.
Salem city councilor Vanessa Nordyke said a change in the bill during the legislative process required counties - no longer cities - to request a piece of the $10 million the state allocated for crisis stabilization services, and cities could in turn ask for money from their respective counties.
“As I understand it, there is no such interest from the Marion County commissioners,” Nordyke said.
This is unfortunate, yet sadly predictable.
It seems clear that City of Salem officials are much less fond of the crisis team proposal than Nordyke and the progressive members of the City Council are. City Manager Steve Powers didn't include any money for this in his draft recommended budget. It got added in by the Budget Committee after citizens expressed strong support for the crisis program.
The Police Department budget is about $49 million. So the $135,000 set aside for a mental health crisis team is insultingly pitiful.
Insulting, that is, to the homeless people, suicidal people, and others in Salem who need a caring, compassionate, competent response to their distress that a medic and mental health worker would provide, rather than sending police officers out who aren't trained to deal with those sorts of crises and often make them worse rather than better.
Now, I understand that Nordyke and others pushing for a Salem version of the CAHOOTS program had to accept whatever pittances they could get out of the $146 million City of Salem General Fund budget.
It's just irritating that chances for the program to get off the ground now rest on the three Republican members of the Marion County Board of Commissioners deigning to send Salem the county's share of the $10 million in state funds for crisis stabilization services.
Almost certainly that will happen, like, never.
Councilor Nordyke is a persuasive advocate for a Salem crisis response team. But she's a progressive trying to get money from the very conservative Board of Commissioners, who undoubtedly view this proposal as a way to undercut traditional law enforcement.
Which, in a way, it is. And that's a good thing.
This isn't an attempt to totally defund the police. It's a small, but important, step toward redefining what the Salem Police Department should be doing. Or rather, not doing. As noted above, in 2017 Eugene's CAHOOTS program was able to deal with 17% of the Police Department's call volume.
The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques.
CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.
There's simply no reason to have police officers dealing with problems that can be handled more competently and less expensively by a crisis response team. However, likely the Marion County commissioners never will admit this, so funds for a Salem program need to be sought elsewhere.
Oh, here's an idea! How about we look in the $49 million budget for the Salem Police Department and find a few hundred thousand dollars by, say, leaving a few police officer positions vacant for the next year or so.
Jim Scheppke, citizen activist and retired librarian who knows how to research things like this, recently sent me a spreadsheet showing Salem crime statistics for the first seven months of 2020 and 2021, using Oregon State Police data.
Reported offenses are down 9%. One reason is that Drug/Narcotic offenses are down 68%, probably mostly or entirely because Oregon has decriminalized possession of all but large amounts of drugs.
This points to something obvious, but frequently forgotten: crime isn't like gravity, an immutable law of nature. It's a social construct. Redefine what "crime" means and you change the role of police departments.
Likewise, a mental health crisis doesn't need to be handled by a police officer.
This is just something our society has gotten used to. Since it doesn't make sense for this to happen, Salem should unapologetically say, "Police Department, we still need you to deal with serious crimes, but not for handling problems that don't require a police officer response."
Most people, including me, who favor "Defund the police" aren't calling for no police at all. We just believe there is plenty of room to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that is going into the budgets of police departments.
The first step toward doing this is getting away from the indefensible notion that police are so special, taking a close look at what they do and how they do it shouldn't happen.
Actually, and obviously, police officers are just people.
Their job can be difficult. So are almost all jobs. Their job can be dangerous. So are lots of other jobs. There's no reason to morally elevate police over other professions that also are important to society just because they generally carry a gun in this country.
With that first step out of the way, we can move toward considering the "why" and "how" questions that are basic to budgetary decisions in both the public and private sectors.
Why is this program or policy important? Why is it valued? How are those goals best achieved? How could things be done more effectively and efficiently?
Nicely done, Salem branch of the 350 climate action organization that advocates for reducing carbon pollution as much and as rapidly as possible.
Below are the top ten climate action strategies that 350 Salem OR submitted to the City Council as a public comment in advance of last Monday's work session on the Salem Climate Action Plan. This is how their web site introduced the strategies.
To meet the Salem City Council’s goal of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2035 it is critical that the City focus on the most effective reduction strategies immediately, particularly related to transportation emissions. The science has spoken—business as usual is not an option. This memo focuses on these strategies. Many of our priority strategies have long lead times and must be implemented immediately, while other reduction strategies can be adopted over time as funding becomes available.
I've highlighted in red the strategies that are the most bold, and hence likely the most controversial. You can read the rationale for each strategy on the 350 Salem OR web site.
Transportation (1) No more widening (or adding lanes to) existing roadways. No new freeways or parkways. Invest instead in pedestrian and biking network/safety to transit network, schools and major employers. (2) Charge for city-controlled parking in and near downtown. (3) Mandate that major employers implement sustainable transportation for employees. (4) Lobby/support intercity transit and rail at the state level. (5) Improve pedestrian safety at crossings.
Electric vehicles (6) Require EV charging stations at new (and later at existing) multifamily residences.
Solid Waste (7) Send all of Salem’s mixed trash to the Coffin Butte landfill. Adopt a comprehensive municipal waste program to reduce methane emissions.
Development (8) Ban new fossil gas residential and commercial hookups. (9) Exempt System Development Charges within ¼ mile of the core transit network.
Administration (10) Hire a city staff person to implement CAP [Climate Action Plan].
All of the strategies make a lot of sense. I like how 350 Salem OR speaks of the "most effective" greenhouse gas reduction strategies rather than the "most cost-effective."
City staff and the consultants hired to prepare the Salem Climate Action Plan have chosen some piddling actions that they view as the most cost-effective. I haven't checked how cost-effective is defined, mostly because I don't believe the whole notion of cost-effectiveness has much of a place in discussions of how to reduce greenhouse gases.
How do you place a cost on saving our planet for human civilization as we know it? How would future generations look on our failure to deal with the damage global warming is causing because politicians felt effective climate action strategies cost too much, so we went with less costly ineffective strategies?
Plus, the direct cost of implementing the four bold strategies in red will be minimal.
Not widening streets or adding lanes while putting that money into non-vehicular improvements should either be a wash or a net saving, since road construction is much more expensive than building bike/walking paths. The cost of downtown parking meters would be much less than the revenue generated by them. My understanding is that sending Salem's trash to the garbage burner is more expensive than sending it to a landfill would be. Banning new natural gas/fossil gas hookups would cost nothing.
Naturally people would have to change some habits if these strategies are implemented, as they should be.
For example, it might take a bit longer to drive from here to there. No big deal. I'd happily leave home five or ten minutes earlier to get somewhere if it meant Salem was doing its part to combat global warming by putting a freeze on street widening/construction.
Again, given the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change, I don't see that the City Council should fail to make the most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategies a top priority just because those actions will irritate some people and lower the profits of companies like Northwest Natural.
(Which has taken "Gas" out of its name, probably to look more, well, natural. Note: coal and oil also are natural. And also dangerous for the environment.)
There's no time to waste when it comes to combatting global warming. The signs of impending doom are all around us -- which means "impending doom" should be changed to simply... doom.
Recent Comments