Salem Political Snark

Raul Marquez will add much needed diversity to the Salem-Keizer school board

Raul Marquez. David Salinas. Remember those names when you fill out your ballot for the May 21 Special District Election where three board members of the Salem-Keizer School District will be elected.

Then, vote for Marquez and Salinas! 

Last Saturday I got to hear Raul Marquez speak and answer questions at a house party hosted by Salem city councilor Tom Andersen and his wife, Jessica Maxwell. 

David Salinas and Raul Marquez

He's a really impressive young man.

This photo of Salinas and Marquez was shared on Facebook by Councilor Andersen. Salinas couldn't make the house party due to a family emergency. From what I've heard about Salinas, I'm confident that he'll also be an excellent addition to the seven-member school board.

A big reason why was brought up by Marquez: "No one on the school board looks like me. Yet over 50% of the students are people of color."

Here's what the current Salem-Keizer school board looks like.

Electing Marquez and Salinas will add some much-needed diversity to the Salem-Keizer School Board. Wiser decisions are made when a group is composed of people with varying backgrounds and experiences. 

At the house party Marquez spoke of his low-income upbringing. Enjoying music, he had to rent an instrument during his time at McKay High School because his family couldn't afford to buy one. He said that it wasn't the highest quality instrument, not surprisingly.

Impressively, Marquez led a successful campaign to raise $400,000 for a homeless youth shelter, Taylor's House. Here's excerpts from a Salem Reporter story:

Taylor’s House is Salem’s newest shelter, a home for teens and young people between 11 and 18 who are homeless or in foster care and don’t have another place to go. Employees work with teens on completing high school or a GED, finding work and resolving family problems.

...Taylor’s House opened in December [2018], less than a year after then-high school student Raul Marquez presented the idea to the United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley’s board and asked for their support.

Marquez walked out of that meeting with a commitment of $100,000, and quickly raised an additional $300,000, including $200,000 from the Legislature, to buy and renovate the small blue house in a residential neighborhood just north of downtown.

Raul Marquez now is a Willamette University student. He told us house party guests, "I know how to listen and act collaboratively with others."

Sounds like perfect qualifications for the first young Latino Salem-Keizer school board member.

Downtown Cherry Pits takes a satirical jab at Salem issues

I like satire. I admire humorous writing. And I appreciate efforts to improve downtown Salem. Downtown Cherry Pits is a funny satirical newsletter that hits on all three cylinders for me.

The March 2019 issue has a great cover.

There's a lot of good stuff in the other eight pages also. Check out the issue via this PDF file of a scan I made of it.
Download Downtown Cherry Pits March 2019

Or if you're lucky, there will be some free copies left in a box hanging on the wall outside 363 Court Street NE in downtown Salem (next to Lullu's).

Carole Smith is the creative force behind Downtown Cherry Pits, which was born last December as I reported in "Downtown Cherry Pits debuts as Salem satirical newsletter." Each issue has improved, in my decidedly personal opinion.

Here's the January issue if you want your brain to munch on another Cherry Pits.
Download Downtown Cherry Pits January 2019

The March issue features both humor and some serious examination of how the City of Salem has been managing -- or rather, mismanaging -- a Downtown Parking District tax that originally supported a downtown association and maintenance of parking garages. 

Here's a story in the March issue that talks about how that money has been frittered away on other budget items by Mayor "Chuckles" Bennett and other city officials.

A chart on page two of the March issue shows that after 32 years of parking tax money going to funding for downtown projects and support of a downtown association, from 2012 to 2017 the City Manager kept all of  the funds. 

This happened during the reign of City Manager Linda Norris, with the willing connivance of then City Councilor Chuck Bennett. I reported on this debacle in a couple of blog posts. I'll share an excerpt from each.

Should Salem City Manager be known as Exalted Emperor Linda Norris?
It deeply bothers me when "public servants" are pleased to suck up taxpayer money for their often-lofty salaries, yet fail miserably at their core job -- choosing to lord it over the people they should be serving.

Case in point: Salem (Oregon) City Manager Linda Norris.

A recent Statesman Journal story, "Will latest downtown group succeed?," only tells part of the sorry tale of how Norris did away with the existing downtown association so she could personally rule over how funds provided by businesses are spent.

...The SJ story by Michael Rose reveals that City Manager Exalted Emperor Linda Norris rules without the usual open government transparency demanded by Oregon's public records law.

After taking control of the EID money contributed by downtown property owners, Norris doesn't allow anyone to know what is going on with her and the "hand-picked" yes-people she has chosen to be her lackeys.

...This is amazing. Amazingly disturbing.

The top non-elected city official dissolves a duly organized downtown organization so she can take control of the group's money. Then chooses to keep records of her Imperial Pronouncements secret. I can't believe this would be tolerated even in Tony Soprano's New Jersey, much less in supposedly squeaky-clean Oregon.

City of Salem took over Salem Downtown Partnership for lousy reasons

A few days ago I talked with someone in-the-know about how the Salem (Oregon) City Manager, Linda Norris, ended up controlling on her own $215,000 in Economic Improvement District funds paid by downtown businesses.

It was a lengthy conversation. This person asked to talk with me because he/she was so disturbed about how the EID was handled, and liked my blog-reporting on other downtown issues.

I was on the phone with this person for about 90 minutes. I learned a lot about how the City of Salem ended up cancelling the contract Salem Downtown Partnership had to administer the Economic Improvement District (EID) money. 

The headline, so to speak, is this:

Norris and other City of Salem staff set up Salem Downtown Partnership to fail. Instead of working cooperatively and collaboratively with this duly-selected organization that represented downtown businesses, the City undermined its efforts in various ways.

Now, admittedly this is the opinion of only one person. But this person was in a position to be very well informed about what happened during the period Salem Downtown Partnership (SDP) had the EID contract.

And, no, this person wasn't either of the key businesspeople who got SDP up and running -- Carole Smith and Eric Kittleson. He or she prefers to remain anonymous.

Downtown Cherry Pits isn't enamored with a wanna-be, but isn't really, "downtown association" that goes by the name of the Salem Main Street Association or Salem Lame Street Association. Here's how the January 2019 issue describes the group.

It does indeed seem strange that a private group with a self-selected board of directors is acting as if it were a genuine downtown association -- which it clearly isn't. I wrote about the drawbacks of the Salem Main Street Association, and past downtown association follies by city officials, in "Here's why Salem needs a genuine downtown association."

Salem no longer has a downtown association. We need one. What happened at last night's City Council meeting is only one of many reasons why. 

But before I explain what transpired at the meeting, a bit of relevant history about how downtown lost its downtown association is in order. I wrote about this in a couple of blog posts.

...So here we are in 2017.

A new group, Salem Main Street Association, was formed in April, as I discussed in "New Salem Main Street Association debuts with questions and concerns." Among other things, I noted that the Association doesn't really deserve its name, since it doesn't have any members. 

Rather, it is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization with a self-selected board of directors. Meaning, the board established by the founders chooses new board members. Since there aren't any members -- such as downtown business owners -- Salem Main Street Association isn't at all like a real downtown association.

...I get the impression that Salem Main Street Association is angling to be treated like a downtown association without actually being one. I also have a suspicion that Mayor Bennett and other City officials want to have parking meters installed downtown, and they see the Salem Main Street Association as a willing accomplice in helping to make that happen.

Let's make Salem a "Strong Town" with wise development

Excellent news! A Strong Salem group has emerged on Facebook that seeks to do a heck of a lot more than just exist in cyberspace. 


If you're on Facebook, join the group and get in on the ground floor of what promises to be a force for positive change in this town. For example, one of the first posts on Strong Salem talks about the Our Salem effort aimed at updating the Comprehensive Plan.

A primary motivation for starting up this group is to keep a close eye on the the "Our Salem" project at the City, which is a multi-year effort to revise the Salem Comprehensive Plan. The webpage below has lots of information about this you may want to review. As meetings are scheduled in the future we will work to notify everyone so that we can be fully engaged in the process. Our goal is to bring a lot of Strong Towns thinking to the revision of our comprehensive plan.

I first learned about Strong Towns, an organization with a national presence, when its founder -- Chuck Marohn -- gave a talk at the Salem Library in 2016. Before the talk, Marohn got a tour of Salem from some locals. 

So his talk was informed by some knowledge of what Salem is doing right, and wrong. I wrote about his talk in "Five 'Strong Town' things Salem is doing wrong." 

Here they are, with excerpts from my 2016 blog post:

(1) End our Ponzi Scheme development approach.
This truth is at the core of the Strong Towns philosophy: almost always, building new roads, water lines, sewers, and such doesn't pay off in the long-term. Even if private developers pay the full bill for the initial infrastructure construction, the increased taxes generated by the new development isn't nearly enough to pay for maintenance of what has been built.

Roads need to be repaired. Water and sewer lines break, or need to be replaced.

So since the new development isn't generating enough revenue to pay for long-term maintenance, Salem has to keep playing the Ponzi Scheme game: keep building new stuff that produces short-term revenue, but long-term debt. 

(2) Fix what we have first; build new stuff last. 
"We are fools if we build more," Marohn, who toured Salem yesterday morning, said. He made similar negative comments about the $500 million proposed Third Bridge several times during his talk.

As noted above, his main theme was that cities can't afford to build costly infrastructure that costs way MORE money to maintain over coming decades. "How much does your tax base have to go up to pay for this project?" he asked.

The answer is that there is no way the economic benefit of the Third Bridge is going to exceed the costs. This is how cities like Salem go broke: they make stupid, rather than smart, decisions about how to grow.

(3) Downtown and lower-income neighborhoods need to be priority #1. 
Last night Marohn showed other slides that gave a graphical view of the most economically vital areas of a typical town. It isn't suburban places like south Commercial Street. Rather, it is the downtown area, and the older more densely populated neighborhoods that surround downtown.

THIS is where City officials should concentrate on spending public funds. But they aren't.

The core of Salem is a net financial plus for the City of Salem, while sprawling suburban development is a net minus. So why is so much attention given to expensive road improvements in the suburbs, when that money would be much more wisely spent on bike paths, neighborhood greenways, streetscaping, and such in Salem's central area?

Answer: the unwise Ponzi Scheme mentality.

(4) Stop stupid subsidies to developers and corporations.
Marohn was highly critical of the tax subsidies City officials routinely give to both local Salem developers (like Mountain West Investments for the old Boise Cascade site along the riverfront) and corporations seeking an incentive to locate here (like property tax breaks given to occupants of the Mill Creek Corporate Center). 

He said that tax subsidies no longer work, so it doesn't pay to offer them, adding "We have a name for paying someone to love you." Or more accurately, pretend to love you.

The City of Salem shouldn't be prostituting itself to lure developers and corporations into its economic development fantasy room. As is evident by the fact that Portland and Eugene are kicking Salem's butt when it comes to attracting high-growth, high-wage companies, Marohn said it is important for us to "build up our cultural presence so high-quality people move here."

(5) Embrace bottom-up, not top-down, development.
Marohn started off his talk by showing photos of his home town in Minnesota in the early 1900s. Here's a similar one of Salem that I found online.


He pointed out that back then cities didn't have complicated zoning codes, rooms full of planners, voluminous rules and regulations. They just grew. What worked, remained and was built on. What didn't work, faded away. 

This was also true for Ur and Rome, Marohn said. Humans have experimented with what makes for a vibrant, vital, livable city for thousands of years. In the not-so-old days, Salem and other towns grew organically, from the bottom-up. 

But when an autocentric era really took off after World War II, the United States began a very rushed experiment with suburban sprawl and car-focused urban planning. The experiment has failed, in large part because people haven't sat back and taken a calm, cool look at its results. 

The Strong Towns web site has lots of information to browse through. An article featured on the home page caught my eye: "Does Your City Have Shiny New Toy Syndrome?" Answer: Salem does, for sure. 

Since at least around the middle of the 20th century, the leaders of most North American cities have had Shiny New Toy Syndrome. We have expanded outward at an unprecedented rate, building vastly more roads, pipes, pumps, and power lines than ever before—simply because those things are new, and new growth shows as a big win on the budget sheet.

Measles vaccine works. Anti-vaxxers are endangering children.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not out to demonize people who mistakenly believe that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. Those people simply are misinformed. 

I'm pretty sure that most of those involved with the anti-vaccine movement are quite different from global warming deniers.

The fossil fuel industry uses false information to keep money flowing into their coffers. Sure, pharmaceutical companies do make money from from vaccines, but vaccines are safe and effective.

(Some do have side effects, such as the new shingles vaccine that my wife and I had brief bad reactions to, but we were pleased to trade those side effects for a greatly reduced risk of getting shingles.)

The 2019 Oregon legislature is doing the right thing by considering a bill that would eliminate the ability of parents to deny their children the measles vaccine because of philosophical or religious reasons. 

As public health officials work to tamp down a measles outbreak in the Portland metro area, Oregon lawmakers are preparing to take up legislation that would increase the number of children vaccinated for the disease.

State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, confirmed to OPB on Thursday that he’s ordered up a bill to eliminate a provision of Oregon law that allows parents to forego vaccinations for their kids because of religious or philosophical reasons.

This makes so much sense, it's hard to see why anybody would oppose the bill. Children's health -- even their lives, since measles used to kill 400 to 500 Americans a year before vaccines were introduced -- shouldn't be held hostage to their parents' mistaken belief that vaccines are harmful.

They aren't. This is a scientific fact. A major study reported on recently found no link between the measles vaccine and autism. 

A major decade-long study has found there is no link between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism, even among children with other risk factors for the disorder.

The study examined every child born in Denmark between 1999 and 2010, a group of more than 650,000.

The study found no increased risk of developing autism after getting the MMR vaccine, no clustering of autism cases among children who were given the vaccine, and no increase in the rate of autism among susceptible children who were given the vaccine.

What's bothersome is that so many parents aren't willing to look at the scientific evidence. Their false beliefs lead them to become strong opponents of efforts to increase vaccination rates by taking away the ability of parents to deny their children health-promoting vaccines for anything other than medical reasons. 

An Oregonian story reported that hundreds of people opposed Rep. Greenlick's bill. 

After three hours of testimony on a bill that would eliminate most vaccine exemptions, 180 people still waited to speak their minds. Nearly all of them were there to oppose House Bill 3063, which the Oregon Legislature has taken up in the midst of one of the largest measles outbreaks the Pacific Northwest has ever seen.

The chairwoman of the House Committee on Health Care prioritized people who had traveled from within Oregon to get to the Capitol, and about 75 people were able to speak. Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, said that as of the 3 p.m. start time, more than 1,000 written documents had been submitted for the record at such a rapid pace that workers putting the documents online couldn’t keep up.

It's really disturbing that these anti-vaxxers are being duped by medical professionals who either aren't familiar with vaccine science, or choose to ignore that science for reasons I'm unable to fathom. The Oregonian story says:

However, groups that oppose mandatory vaccinations are effective at turning out large crowds to quash these efforts in many states. Oregonians for Medical Freedom, the leading group that opposes vaccinations, was at Thursday night’s hearing, as well as Portland Dr. Paul Thomas, a prominent voice in the anti-vaccination movement.

He told lawmakers that they would create hundreds of cases of autism if they approved the bill. His contention, which was echoed by many others at the hearing, is based on debunked reports that claimed a link between vaccines and autism.

Note: debunked reports that claimed a link between vaccines and autism. There is no connection between vaccines and autism. Anyone who says this is either lying or misinformed. Hopefully the Oregon legislature will pass House Bill 3063.

Like I said, the health of children is way more important than allowing their parents to act on their false beliefs about the dangers of vaccines.

Letter writer gets so much wrong about the Third Bridge

Today's Sunday Statesman Journal has a caustic letter to the editor regarding the recent City Council decision to kill the Salem River Crossing/Third Bridge project on a 6-3 vote.

I couldn't find the letter on the newspaper's web site, so wasn't able to leave a comment telling Rose Treasure how much I disagreed with what she said -- which was full of falsehoods. 

So to set the record straight from my perspective, and blow off some irritated steam, here's my responses (in red) to Rose's letter, complete with links to actual facts. 

West Salem is on the short end of the third bridge decision

To the people writing to the editor, crowing about their bridge win -- you are crowing and patting themselves on the back for endangering the lives of your neighbors, your little sibling, over the bridge.

Huh? Some people have expressed their support for the vote by a clear majority of the City Council to pull the plug on a poorly planned bridge project that deserved its nickname of Billion Dollar Boondoggle. What you call "crowing" others call praise for a wise decision. 

No one's life is being endangered. Emergency vehicles can use the Union Street bridge if necessary. The West Salem Fire Station is being re-opened. The Oregon legislature has made a commitment to seismically retrofit the Center Street bridge to markedly reduce the risk of collapse in a major earthquake. 

You're congratulating yourselves and the do nothing city council for, well, doing nothing, a decision which hurts property values, damages life quality, and puts everyone on this side of the river in danger of being cut off.

It's hard to see how property values in West Salem are harmed by a decision to kill a bridge project that had no funding, would have required tolling on both the new bridge and existing bridges, and would have taken many years to build -- if that ever happened.

By contrast, retrofitting the Center Street bridge is estimated to cost only about $60 million, a whole lot less than the $430 million cost of the Salem River Crossing project, excluding financing costs. So there goes the "cut off' argument.

I don't know what the letter writer means by "damages life quality." If she means stuck in traffic, the City Council authorized a Congestion Relief Task Force that has made recommendations for alleviating downtown-area traffic problems. 

Congratulations. You're a big bully, and you forced us to accept your will.

The City Council is composed of eight councilors and a mayor elected by Salem voters. Six of the nine members of the City Council made campaign promises to oppose a Third Bridge. Doing what you promised citizens you would do isn't bullying. It is what elected officials should do: keep their word. 

Also, who is "us"? The City Council represents all of Salem. Bridge supporters who live in West Salem seem to feel a sense of entitlement. Because this minority wants a Third Bridge, they believe that everybody in Salem should do their bidding. That isn't how democracy works. 

After all, our lives after a major earthquake or a bridge-damaging event are not worth tearing down houses or moving streets, or even dealing with a little congestion in your neighborhood.

As noted above, no lives are threatened because the Third Bridge project was put to a well-deserved death. 

It is over and we have our answer, so we should all shut our mouths now and let you talk about unity. No thank you.

I haven't heard any elected officials telling bridge supporters to shut their mouths. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Mayor and city councilors have been urging supporters of a Third Bridge to work on other ways to alleviate traffic problems in the downtown area. This is the "unity" being talked about. Everybody coming together to move forward in a positive manner. 

This city council does nothing to benefit us.

That's a ridiculous statement. I recently wrote about accomplishments of the City Council. Some people may object to what the Council has done, but that's how politics works. Rarely is a decision applauded by everybody. 

They took plastic bags and left us with nothing. Took streets and camp-ways from the homeless and left them with nothing. Took one bridge and left us with nothing. They are the 2019 do nothing council. 

More ridiculousness. You're left with reusable bags. And with paper bags that likely will cost 5 cents. The City of Salem is working on ways to reduce homelessness. You're left with the two current bridges and the Union Street bridge. 

That is their legacy, and now yours, east Salemites. You did nothing, gave nothing, and produced nothing but damage. Congratulations. 

Rose, what you call "damage," many others applaud as wise decision-making. Just because you don't like what the City Council has done, it makes no sense to call it nothing. That's amazingly self-centered.

I'm a liberal/progressive. I often (well, usually) disagree with what conservatives in Congress and the White House do when they're in control. However, I don't call what they do nothing. I call it bad decisions. Likewise with what conservatives on the Salem City Council did when they had a majority. 

In our representative democracy, elections are how people can register their dissatisfaction with decisions made by elected officials. Meaning, vote them out. Or, register their satisfaction by re-electing the officials. Progressives have worked hard to move from a 1-8 City Council minority in 2014 to a 6-3 majority in 2019. 

Elections have consequences. Like, killing the Third Bridge, as the six progressives promised voters.

Rose Treasure
Salem

Tom Andersen: progressivism is alive and well in Salem

I'm a proud progressive. I'm a member of Progressive Salem. I enjoy hearing City Councilor Tom Andersen speak. And I like the food at the Marco Polo restaurant a lot. 


So today it was great to mix those pleasures together and listen to Andersen talk about the past, present, and future of local progressivism at the first Progressive Salem Power Lunch meeting while munching on a tasty Marco Polo buffet meal.

If you're a conservative wondering if I'm going to share any inside political secrets, I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I hope you'll read this blog post anyway.

Andersen did refer several times to "Trumpism's emotional illogic." However, he also stressed the need for elected officials of all political persuasions to work together on making Salem a better place.

I heartily agreed with his call to make "livability, livability, livability" our mantra, rather than "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Jobs, after all, are a means to an end: livability. And that end will draw in more businesses and jobs, since livability is a key factor in why a company decides to locate in one city rather than another. Chasing warehouse jobs, such as those to be offered by an Amazon distribution center, shouldn't be our highest goal. 

Andersen is a proponent of giving City Council members a monthly stipend, since currently they are unpaid. This restricts the ability of people to seek to become a city councilor. He noted that 28% of Salem residents are non-Caucasian, 18% are below the poverty line, and the average household income here is $49,000.

So a stipend would make it more likely that the City Council reflects the diversity of Salem. Currently, it doesn't. The City Council has rejected the stipend idea on a 7-2 vote. Likely Andersen will keep pushing it, since it seems like a desirable thing to do.

He was the lone Progressive Salem-backed councilor when elected in 2014. As he put it, "organized people beat organized money." That formula has been successful ever since, with progressives now being a 6-3 majority on the City Council following the election of Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung. 

What a difference five years makes. Elections matter.

Running unopposed for re-election in 2018, Andersen joked that he was disappointed to only get 99% of the vote. Someone did write in the name of his wife, Jessica Maxwell. It could have been Andersen himself, though,

He talked about his disappointment at not being able to have the streetlight fee made more equitable. Currently a homeowner pays $2.80 a month, and Walmart (along with other businesses) pays $13.50 a month. When Andersen suggested doubling that latter fee to $27 a month, he was accused of being anti-business.

Pretty clearly he isn't. Andersen spoke about the generally good job SEDCOR (Strategic Economic Development Corporation) is doing locally. He said that 85% of their money/time is spent on retaining and strengthening homegrown businesses.

Given the new progressive majority on the City Council, developers appear to be keeping this political reality in mind, sometimes asking themselves, "Do we want to bring our project to the Council?" This is a good thing, as it encourages dialogue and cooperation with people affected by a proposed development.

One example is a residential development on Wiltsey Road in Jackie Leung's ward that now is going to save more white oaks than was originally planned after Leung asked to have the project reviewed by the City Council rather than being rubber-stamped on the "Consent Calendar."

I've written about another example, a proposal for an apartment complex on the Sustainable Fairview property that the Heritage School wanted some changes made to.

Perhaps because the developer was aware that the City Council rejected a controversial relocation of Costco, Andersen said that Mountain West has agreed to make some changes to their development that the Heritage School is pleased with. So a willingness to compromise headed off a contentious hearing before the City Council.

Likely this wouldn't have happened if progressives weren't a 6-3 majority on the Council. Here's some other accomplishments during Andersen's first term as a councilor that he mentioned in his talk today.

-- Salem is officially an "Inclusive City."
-- Supported DACA and Dreamers.
-- Opposed the Trump administration's border plan and Measure 105.
-- Voted to develop an Environmental Action Plan for Salem.
-- Defeated a sit/lie ordinance.
-- Said no to the Salem River Crossing project.
-- Established a downtown Congestion Relief Task Force.
-- Banned most plastic bags in grocery stores.
-- Increased system development charges to pay for new parks and traffic improvements.

During a Q & A period following his talk, Andersen said that progress is being made on homelessness, though much more remains to be done. Eighty-three of the 100 homeless people identified as most in need of help are being housed. Other measures are being implemented, such as providing a place for the homeless to store their belongings.

He noted that the "engine" driving the homeless problem is income/wealth inequality -- which obviously is impossible to solve at the local level.

Regarding the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge, Andersen said this was a regional problem that tried to be solved locally (meaning, Salem residents were going to be expected to pay most of the bill for a half billion dollar regional bridge). Now it's time for proponents and opponents of the Third Bridge to move forward together on better ways to deal with transportation problems in our area. 

Since the books in the Salem Library will need to be removed when seismic retrofitting and other renovations begin, someone in the audience suggested that the old Book Bin building on Lancaster Drive be used as a temporary library -- which could remain as a branch library. 

Lastly, the Progressive Salem lunch meeting ended with someone thanking Councilor Andersen for the countless (almost) hours he puts in on public service. 

"There's no way I'd do this for free," the person said. Me neither, I thought.

Third Bridge talked about in three acts last night

Driving home from the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting last night, I pondered the weirdly wonderful discussion of how the City Council killed the Third Bridge on February 11, and what to do next about downtown-area traffic congestion.

Troy Brynelson of the Salem Reporter wrote a good story about the meeting, "After splitting on third bridge, councilors seek common ground in West Salem." Excerpt:

Salem City Councilors Cara Kaser and Jim Lewis bridged some political differences Monday night, pledging to work together to solve the city’s congestion woes after staking opposing views last week about the Salem River Crossing.

The two are the only councilors whose wards fan over West Salem, home to some of the most vocal supporters of the third bridge.

Kaser joined five other councilors in voting against the project and found herself the subject of social media murmurs of a recall. But she shrugged it off, saying she heard more kudos than condemnation.

“Of course there were people who were negative toward me, but the thank yous outweighed the people who were upset,” said Kaser, elected in 2016.

Being a blogger, I'm going to take a more personal approach in describing the meeting -- which struck me as being somewhat akin to a three-act play with different plot lines in each portion of the production. 

Act 1: Salem Bridge Solutions fails to read the crowd. 
After dealing with some other business, Jim Allhiser, the chair of the neighborhood association, opened up discussion of the City Council decision to kill the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, project on a 6-3 vote. His initial remarks were warm and fuzzy, saying "We're all neighbors. We all want to do what's best for the community."

But things went downhill from there. Way downhill. 

His first mistake was to fail to mention that a propaganda PowerPoint presentation was going to be shown.

After silently fumbling at his computer in an attempt to get it going, eventually it started to play, with an eerily disembodied voice singing the praises of the Third Bridge and insulting the six councilors who dared to bring this Billion Dollar Boondoggle to a well-deserved end.

As false statements about the bridge project began to multiply, the audience grew restless. Many people were there to support Councilor Kaser and her five progressive colleagues on the City Council who voted against proceeding with a Third Bridge.

Apparently Mike Evans, co-leader of Salem Bridge Solutions, who created the presentation, assumed that most of those attending the neighborhood association meeting would have their (metaphorical) pitchforks out, prepared to skewer Kaser and the other bridge-denying councilors.

This is the problem with a canned presentation.

If Evans or another Third Bridge supporter had been standing at the podium and speaking live, they would have seen and sensed that a large proportion of the crowd wasn't there to praise them. This screenshot of a recording of the meeting shows only two people wearing the iconic green Salem Bridge Solutions t-shirts -- the Evans brothers. 

Quite a change from the February 11 City Council meeting, which featured a sea of green.

So last night got off to a shaky start from the perspective of Salem Bridge Solutions. Act 1 ended with Third Bridge supporters having to deal with the aftermath of a recorded slide show presentation that got bad reviews from about half of the audience.

Act 2: Mostly polite dialogue replaces one-sided propaganda.
With the Salem Bridge Solutions slide show debacle out of the way, Allhiser did a good job introducing people who had signed up to speak for a maximum of three minutes about how they felt about the City Council decision to kill the bridge.

I didn't count the number for and against that decision. My impression is that more were for the Third Bridge, but not dramatically more.

Opponents of the Salem River Crossing made good points, as did supporters of the project. This was a welcome change from the Salem Bridge Solutions approach of talking loudly with no serious attempts at finding common ground with those opposed to the Third Bridge.

Mike Evans did speak for three minutes in his typically annoying manner.

He referred to the six councilors as "a few misguided people who call themselves progressives." Evans also said his group was ready to recall all or some of the councilors, along with engaging in an effort to make West Salem its own city.

Here's some of the things people said that elicited a right-on inside my head when I heard them:

-- The City of Salem should put a halt to further housing developments in West Salem until infrastructure catches up to population growth in that area.

-- Dreams of getting a lot of money from the state legislature for a new bridge need to be tempered by the fact that a Columbia River Crossing project to replace the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver will be a higher priority.

-- Making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe needs to occur as soon as possible now that the Salem River Crossing project is dead.

-- The recommendations of the City of Salem's Congestion Relief Task Force will help traffic flow more smoothly across the two current bridges at a relatively low cost.

-- Marine Drive needs to be constructed now that it no longer can be viewed as part of the Third Bridge project.

Act 3: Elected officials show that a disagreement doesn't equal discord.
There were quite a few elected officials at the meeting: Salem city councilors Jim Lewis and Cara Kaser; Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett; State representative Paul Evans; and a Polk County commissioner whose name I didn't get. (May have forgotten some others.)

Lewis and Bennett spoke about how disappointed they were with the decision to kill the Third Bridge.

However, they weren't bitter or insulting like Mike Evans of Salem Bridge Solutions was. Pleasingly, they expressed a willingness to work with opponents of the Third Bridge to find common ground on moving forward with a different sort of new bridge project. 

The Salem Reporter story says:

The two councilors and Mayor Chuck Bennett joined more than 100 people in attending the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting Monday night at the West Salem Roth’s conference center, eager to debate the city’s congestion problems and solutions old and new.

After listening to citizens speak, all three officials took the chance to say they hoped to work together on new ideas.

 “I’m willing to work with anyone — anyone — who is committed to help address our mobility and congestion issues via an additional bridge across the Willamette River,” Lewis said.

“I really am encouraged. I think you can count on Lewis and Kaser and the other councilors to move forward on this,” said Bennett. “We’ve got a ways to go but I hope we can keep talking about it. I really hope you stay engaged.”

Kudos to Jim Lewis and Chuck Bennett for being so positive, given the pain they felt at seeing the demise of a project they strongly believed in. I found their remarks to be honest, forthright, and inspiring. 

Which I guess isn't all that surprising, because elected officials are different from the rest of us in these politically polarized times. Meaning, they have to sit in a room and work closely with individuals they disagree with -- while others interested in politics can sit in their corner of the political spectrum with like-minded people.

Bottom line: I walked away from the neighborhood association meeting feeling way more positive than when I walked in.

I was expecting more discord than actually transpired. Once Act 1 was over, the rest of the meeting featured people with a wide variety of views about a new bridge across the Willamette who generally spoke politely without demonizing the other side.

It's too early to say whether Paul Evans' proposal for a regional Special Bridge District will turn out to be a viable way to move forward with planning for a wiser approach to a new bridge. But it may be. I agreed with what I recall Cara Kaser saying: we need another bridge, but it should be outside of Salem.

Meaning, a regional bridge funded by people in several counties. A major problem with the Salem River Crossing was that it was intended to be a regional bridge, yet with Salem residents being expected to foot most of the cost to build it. 

Before last night's meeting I thought it would be a losing proposition for Salem Bridge Solutions to attempt a recall of one, some, or all of the six city councilors who voted to kill the Third Bridge.

Now I'm even more convinced of this. There's considerable enthusiasm for exploring a different sort of new bridge across the Willamette. Embarking on recalls would be a major distraction from this effort, with little chance of success.

Lastly, I recall someone expressing surprise that suddenly progressive members of the City Council are sounding all positive about another bridge across the Willamette, after being so opposed to the Salem River Crossing project.

But that sentiment was on display at the February 11 council meeting, where "I'm in favor of a bridge, just not this bridge" was heard fairly frequently.

Which reminds me of my divorce from my first wife, Susan, in 1989. After we split up, I got married again -- and soon. After all, I was in favor of being married (as was Susan), just not to this person. 

Salem Bridge Solutions should think twice about recalling city councilors

Well, notwithstanding the title of this blog post, actually Salem Bridge Solutions should think more than twice about the wisdom of attempting to recall the six progressive members of the City Council who voted to kill the Salem River Crossing project last Monday.

I'll describe the more-than-two reasons below.

First, though, let's look at some evidence that Salem Bridge Solutions, a group that's pushed hard (fanatically, even) for a Third Bridge across the Willamette truly is seriously considering embarking on recall efforts. 

A post on the Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook page brings up the subject of recall elections.

One person then questions why this should be pursued given the September 30, 2019 deadline for completing an Environmental Impact Statement -- which was going to be difficult to meet even if the City Council had voted to continue on with the bridge project last Monday.

Another person then leaves a comment that shows the motive of some Salem Bridge Solutions supporters is revenge, not getting the bridge built.

Mike Evans is one of the leaders of Salem Bridge Solutions. He tells another commenter that the group will be organizing to make recalls happen.

The recall kickoff is a West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting on Monday, February 18. It's questionable that this sort of blatant political organizing is allowed by the City of Salem ordinance governing neighborhood associations, but I'll leave this issue aside.

So now let's turn to what Salem Bridge Solutions should consider before it commits to attempting to recall some or all of the six city councilors who aroused their ire.

(1) Only three councilors currently can be recalled. The state Elections Division Recall Manual says that a local office holder can't be recalled until six months of their current term has expired. Progressive councilors Tom Andersen, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung were elected in 2018 and their terms began in January 2019. 

So they couldn't be recalled until sometime in July.

That leaves councilors Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec -- who were elected in 2016. If Salem Bridge Solutions wants to shift the balance of power on the City Council, two progressives need to be replaced by two bridge supporters, which would turn the recent 6-3 vote against the Third Bridge to a 5-4 vote in favor of it. 

(2) How liberal are the wards of the three recallable councilors? Salem Bridge Solutions needs to remember that Salem leans decidedly leftward, based on the results of the last presidential election (Clinton won in each of the eight wards).

Using Clinton's winning percentage as a proxy for how liberal a ward is, Cara Kaser and Tom Andersen represent the most left-leaning areas of Salem (tied for #1). Sally Cook represents the next most liberal ward (#2), followed by Chris Hoy's and Brad Nanke's wards (tied for #3), Matt Ausec's ward (#4), Jim Lewis's ward (#5), and Jackie Leung's ward (#6). 

Thus it would be tough for the conservative Salem Bridge Solutions group to win two of three recall elections among the councilors currently eligible to be recalled. Plus, I suspect many voters wouldn't take kindly to recall efforts aimed at two of the three women on the nine-member City Council (Mayor Bennett is the ninth). 

Councilor Ausec seemingly would be the group's best shot at a recall victory. But even so...
(3) A replacement election would follow any successful recalls. Above is what I found on the City of Salem web site regarding vacancies on the City Council.

The two sections don't make sense, perhaps because of a typo. Seemingly one section should refer to what happens if a vacancy occurs more than one year to the next primary election, and the other section should refer to what happens if a vacancy occurs less than one year to the next primary election.

But both sections speak of "more." Which is confusing.

Logically it seems that a special election would be required if there's more than a year to the next primary election, and a majority of the City Council would appoint a replacement if there is less than a year to the next primary election.

Regardless, Salem Bridge Solutions needs to keep in mind the possibility that even if they're successful in recalling one progressive councilor, that still would leave a progressive majority on the Council that might be able to appoint a temporary successor.

And if a special election is held, obviously there's no guarantee that a pro-bridge candidate would be elected.

(4) It'd be a tough sell to argue why a councilor should be recalled. The Recall Manual says that a petition to recall a local elected official has to state the reason, which appears on the recall ballot along with a statement from the official about why they should remain in office. 

Good luck with that, Salem Bridge Solutions.

Each of the six progressives on the City Council made a commitment to oppose a Third Bridge during their election campaign. Last Monday these councilors fulfilled that pledge. I deeply doubt that voters are going to consider that keeping a campaign promise is a recallable offense. 

Salem Bridge Solutions seems to live in a political bubble of their own making that reflects their own passionate desire to have the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, built at a cost of half a billion dollars or so -- which almost certainly would require tolls on both the new bridge and the two current bridges, plus increases in various taxes.

But they need to remember that other people in Salem are just as passionate about other things. Such as, not building a wasteful bridge that studies show wouldn't reduce congestion, just shift it from one part of town to another. Tom Andersen made the case against the Salem River Crossing in this video of his remarks at last Monday's City Council meeting.

And people also are passionate about not having elected officials removed from office for no good reason. Which gets me to my last reason...

(5) Pushback against recalls would be powerful. I know how strongly my fellow liberals feel about their hard work over a series of City Council elections paying off with a 6-3 progressive majority on the council. Believe me, they will not react meekly to recall attempts by a conservative single-issue group, Salem Bridge Solutions.

Especially since Salem Bridge Solutions didn't support any candidates in the 2018 election other than incumbent councilor Jim Lewis.

Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy were unopposed in their re-election campaigns. If Salem Bridge Solutions wants to win votes in the City Council, they need to do it the old fashioned way: by winning elections, not by trying to recall people who won their council seats fair and square.

I also suspect that independents and even many Republicans would react strongly against recall efforts whose only basis is that a public official voted in accord with a campaign promise. People can smell unfairness a mile away, and what Salem Bridge Solutions is considering doing reeks of it. 

Even more lastly... just noticed a Facebook post by State Representative Paul Evans that shares a press release from his office regarding a proposed formation of a bridge district in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties. This is the sort of positive effort that Salem Bridge Solutions should be focused on -- not on the negativity of recall elections.

Time for Chuck Bennett and Jim Lewis to do some bridge building

Let's be clear: By "bridge building" I don't mean constructing a Third Bridge in Salem across the Willamette River. That project died last Monday night when the City Council voted 6-3 to kill it. 

What I'm talking about in the title of this blog post is what happens next in Salem.

Ideally, those fervently in favor of the now-defunct Salem River Crossing project and those fervently opposed to it will come together to work on ways to reduce rush hour congestion in the downtown area that don't involve spending upwards of half a billion dollars on another bridge. 

This effort should include lobbying efforts at the State Capitol to make sure that the money already earmarked for making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe is spent on this as soon as possible. 

But I'm worried that this isn't going to happen without some serious work by Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Jim Lewis (who represents most of West Salem) to channel the anger of the Salem Bridge Solutions folks in a positive direction. 

Earlier today Salem Bridge Solutions, the group that has been pushing hardest for a Third Bridge, put up a Facebook post that is pretty much the exact opposite of what needs to happen. 

Now, I readily admit there's a chance (albeit seemingly a slim one) that "fixing this travesty" and "organizing something soon" could mean something other than, say, working on a recall of all or some of the six progressive city councilors who voted against continuing on with the Salem River Crossing Project. 

But a recall is mentioned in some of the comments on this post. And so far the Evans brothers haven't shown themselves to be anything other than single-minded passionate -- fanatic might be a better word -- advocates for a Third Bridge. 

Michael Slater wrote a right-on Facebook post today over on the page where City Council goings-on are discussed. I urge you to read it, because Slater nailed it in what he called "The 5 Reasons the Bridge Advocates Lost." Here's number 2 and 3. I corrected a few typos.

2. They didn't build any bridges. Ironically for a group advocating a bridge, they did not work hard to build bridges to voters in other wards. You know, the people that would have to help pay for the bridge. Their advocacy was an inside game of lobbying and pressuring the City Council members. Bridge leaders ran no radio or cable ads, sent no mail, and knocked (to my knowledge) on no doors in wards outside of ward 8. If you want a community to spend $400 million plus to help you out of your (traffic) jam, it's best to persuade them to support by explaining why they have either a moral responsibility or self-interested reason to do so. Bridge advocates didn't bother.

3. Their leadership was divisive and bullying. The Evans brothers became the face of the Build the Bridge effort. They came across as mean, bullying, and disruptive. Yes, some people can get away with that (again, think DC), but it didn't play in Salem. Enough said.

Today someone told me that Councilor Cara Kaser is planning on coming to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting publicized in the Salem Bridge Solutions post (that group engineered a takeover of the association, so now controls the agenda).

Since Kaser was singled out for special criticism because she represents part of West Salem, the person who told me she was coming to the meeting worried that she might need police protection. Hopefully this worry was overblown.

Regardless, I'm hoping that both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will do what they can between now and February 18 to urge the leaders/members of Salem Bridge Solutions to work cooperatively with all of the City Council -- including the six progressives who voted against the Salem River Crossing proposal -- to find common ground.

A City of Salem task force has come up with numerous ways to reduce rush-hour congestion in the downtown area. Salem Bridge Solutions should involve itself with making those improvements a reality. And there's considerable openness toward exploring a different location for a new bridge.

Sure, it will take many years for another bridge project to come to fruition. But backers of the Salem River Crossing need to come to grips with the fact that it is dead. Nothing will bring it back to life, including attempts to recall the councilors who voted against it.

Hopefully both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will come to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. They should sit next to Councilor Kaser and vow to work with her, and with her progressive colleagues, on ways to address the traffic concerns raised at last Monday's City Council meeting.

Some of those concerns were valid. Some weren't. Through respectful open discussion, people in Salem can do their best to bridge the divide that currently separates our community. 

I understand the anger and disappointment that backers of the Salem River Crossing felt after the 6-3 City Council vote to terminate the project. It hurts to see a cause that you deeply believe in go down in flames. But life goes on. Negativity needs to turn to positivity.

The February 18 meeting is a great place to start.

I'll end by noting that I found the Facebook post by Jim Allhiser, chair of the West Salem Neighborhood Association, to be highly questionable.

I've been to NA meetings where both sides of a political issue have made presentations, but what Salem Bridge Solutions is doing is so blatantly one-sided, I'm wondering if it fits under the purpose of neighborhood associations -- since they are supposed to represent everybody who lives in a certain part of Salem, not just those with a particular viewpoint.

It took a village to stop the Third Bridge

After I watched the Salem City Council kill the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge project last night, my first reaction was to feel deeply thankful toward the six councilors who did the right thing by saving Salem from this Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

But with a bit more reflection, my thankfulness expanded to include many hundreds, in fact many thousands, of people who stopped the Third Bridge. 

Most broadly -- and in some ways most importantly -- everybody who worked so hard to elect the six progressive councilors on the nine-member City Council. The Third Bridge would have continued on with no serious roadblocks if the Council had remained dominated by conservatives and a lonely progressive, Tom Andersen.

Thus arguably the unsung heroes in this saga of people-power triumphing over money-power are the people who donated money, knocked on doors, and otherwise helped with the campaigns of Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung. Progressive Salem greatly aided these campaigns, with the notable exception of Leung's.

Salem owes all of you a big debt of gratitude, along with the voters who cast their ballots for these six progressives. This debt can't be quantified, even though a billion dollars is a defensible nice round number.

Next, a big shout-out to those who appealed the City of Salem's go-ahead for an expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate a Salem River Crossing bridgehead. When the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled in favor of the appellants on several "assignments of error," it was clear that the project was doomed.

Why?

Because the legal remand back to the City Council to address the errors meant that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Third Bridge would be on hold until the Council acted to fix the problems. Last night, the Council voted not to do this, which killed the project (since a deadline for completing the DEIS was coming up).

So massive thanks go to those who petitioned LUBA: Sarah Deumling, Linda Wallmark, Gary Wallmark, Linda Bierly, Ken Bierly, James (Jim) Scheppke, Robert Cortright, and Doug Parrow. E.M. Easterly joined in as an Intervenor-Petitioner. John Gear served as their able attorney.

I'll add that last night Councilor Jim Lewis, an avid Third Bridge supporter, posed a ridiculous question to Cortright after Cortright testified against moving the project forward. Lewis asked why the LUBA petitioners didn't appeal the decision, since they prevailed on only a few rather minor points.

Well, duh, if Lewis had read the press release issued by the No 3rd Bridge folks after the LUBA ruling, he would have seen:

The eight citizen petitioners who brought the appeal are very pleased with the remand. They urge that Salem pursue a number of less-costly actions to address traffic congestion problems rather than try to repeat the UGB expansion process to accommodate the new bridge on the new route.

In other words, once Third Bridge supporters were a minority on the City Council, there was no way the UGB expansion was going to happen.

No UGB expansion meant no final Environmental Impact Statement. No EIS meant no Third Bridge. Thus Cortright simply told Lewis that he was pleased the Council was revisiting the legal issues, since he was confident the six progressive councilors wouldn't want to address the assignments of error.

I just said No 3rd Bridge folks, as in plural, but in large part the group's Facebook page and organizing efforts were led by one guy, Jim Scheppke. Yes, he had help.

Scott Bassett initiated the fight against the Third Bridge and deserves a lot of credit for his solid research on the drawbacks of this project. Scheppke then was instrumental in keeping the drawbacks of the Third Bridge in the public eye through frequent Facebook posts over a number of years and other means. 

As did the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger (summary here), and yes, me (Third Bridge posts here). Ken Adams conducted a great CCTV interview of Bob Cortright, and likely informed people about the Third Bridge in other ways.

The citizen members of the initial Salem River Crossing Task Force helped out by voting for a "no build" option, as this showed that while bureaucrats and special interest groups favored the Third Bridge, the general public and Salem neighborhood associations were opposed.

Surely there are other people who were instrumental in stopping the Third Bridge who I haven't mentioned. Accept my thanks in abstentia. 

Lastly, I want to thank those who helped kill the Third Bridge by their clumsy support of it.

This includes several Salem mayors, most recently Chuck Bennett. Heavy-handed politicking with rampant fact-free spin-doctoring by public officials and the Chamber of Commerce helped sway people against the project, as did a failure to reach out to opponents and seek common ground.

The green-shirted Salem Bridge Solutions group didn't advance its cause by spreading similar blatant falsehoods, along with a notorious display of bad behavior at a West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. With friends like that, it's no wonder the Third Bridge has died a well-deserved death.