Salem Political Snark

Salem Public Works Director doubts science of climate change

A few days ago our local chapter of 350.org, 350 Salem OR, called out Peter Fernandez, the Public Works director of the City of Salem, for appearing to doubt the reality of human-caused climate change that is causing our one and only Earth to warm dramatically and dangerously.

When 350 Salem OR said it is "very troubling" that Peter Fernandez is unwilling to embrace the clear scientific consensus that climate change is happening, we humans are causing it, and reducing carbon emissions is a necessity, that's an understatement.

Fernandez oversees Public Works, which probably is the largest department in the City of Salem. Among other things, he's responsible for Salem's transportation network, which a recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory showed is the biggest contributor of carbon pollution in our city.

It's a big freaking deal that Fernandez either may be clueless about such an important scientific and public policy fact, or, worse, is a global warming denier who could be working to undermine Salem's efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

So I emailed Fernandez three days ago, last Monday, May 20.

Peter, here’s a screenshot of a recent Facebook post by the Salem branch of 350.org. I’m planning to write about this and wanted to give you a chance to comment on their assertion that you’re unwilling to say climate change is occurring. 

Do you consider that the Earth is warming because of human-caused climate change and that our city, nation, and the world need to act to deal with this? As Public Works Director, obviously climate change is central to your work.  So do you accept the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change?

        — Brian

The response from Public Works Director Fernandez was... nothing. No reply. Maybe Fernandez is taking some vacation time so he can attend a Global Warming Denier's Club get-together.

More likely, I guess, is that Peter Fernandez doesn't want to admit that he is an anti-science global warming skeptic, since a majority of the City Council wants Salem to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and institute a Climate Action Plan with measurable goals to do just that.

I say this in part because I've previously asked Fernandez if he accepts the science of global warming. Back in April 2016 I asked 30 Salem-area civic leaders three questions about climate change, as described in "How Salem's candidates and other local leaders look upon climate change." 

Fernandez was a no-response then, as now. Maybe Fernandez just doesn't like to hear from me. Hard to believe, since I'm such a likable guy.

Of course, I did write a scathing tell-all report in 2014 after Fernandez engaged in sleazy back-room deal-making with the U.S. Bank president that resulted in the removal of five beautiful, healthy, large trees on downtown's State Street for no good reason.

(Read all about it, if you haven't already, in "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings.")

So if you want to ask Fernandez whether he accepts the science of human-caused climate change, have at it: [email protected]

Let me know if you get a response from him. That will tell me two things: how Fernandez looks upon global warming, and whether he likes you more than me.  (I'm much more concerned about the first thing, of course.)

A perspective on how homeless people are hurting downtown

I've said it before, and I want to say it again:

We've got to get over a reluctance to talk honestly about downtown's homeless problem. It's possible to both (1) feel compassion toward homeless people and (2) feel bad about how homeless people are making downtown Salem less pleasant for visitors, residents, and business owners.

Downtown Court Street in the morning

Yesterday Carole Smith, who lives downtown and owns property there, sent me the message I've shared below.  

In an email to the Salem City Council, Smith describes how a prospective tenant backed out of signing a lease because of the homeless problem; how a friend views downtown; and shares her view that downtown businesses are suffering due to a lack of attention to homelessness by city officials.

Then Smith shares a response she got from City Manager Powers. No member of the City Council replied to her email message. Lastly, you can read Smith's reply to Powers. Here's her message:

Brian, along with several other business and property owners from downtown and businesses north of downtown, I sent an email to the City Council about the problems we have had to address on our own downtown.  Here is my email:

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

After our downtown antique store tenant lost thousands of dollars, was physically assaulted, then died of a stress heart attack -- all as a result of your lack of policy on homeless downtown, we thought we had found the perfect long term tenant for his space. Today he was supposed to come walk through the space. Instead,  this is the text we received:

 

“Carole, I’m hearing from some of my staff that they are not comfortable with being on the street level; safety concerns with homeless at the doorstep. Go ahead and put your for-lease sign up”

 

The same day I received this email from a friend who normally doesn’t come downtown until later in the day:

 

"Hi Carole,

 

This morning I was in Downtown Salem at around 8am - usually it's later in the day when I'm down here, but I was so surprised by the number of people either sleeping on sidewalks, (2 people within 30ft of the Gov Cup) or people with mental health issues wandering around the core downtown area.

 

Not a welcoming environment. Just four or five years ago it did not look like that down here. I realize the city leaders can't fix this issue overnight, but I'm wondering if the issue is more about not taking the problem seriously, or not knowing what to do, or worse, not caring enough. 

 

Also seems to be more empty storefronts than normal, at least on the corner of Chemeketa and Liberty, on the west side of the street. On the east side, the bank that had been vacant for ages has been torn down, but now it's just an empty lot full of water.

 

Even the Beanery (Allan Bros) has shuttered. Is the old Brick restaurant location still in remodeling? The old beauty school building on Court and Commercial is still vacant, and has been for a long time. 

 

Is it because business happens at a pedestrian pace in Salem? Why are so many storefronts empty for extended periods of time?"

 

Everyone downtown is tired to death of your inaction. If you don’t start solving this problem you won’t have a downtown.  The last time I contacted you about this problem, not one of you responded to my email. Have you forgotten you REPRESENT US?    

 

Why are you not helping solve this problem before it kills every business downtown? How many more merchants have to die of stress heart attacks, how many more businesses have to move out of downtown, and how many more possible tenants are going to pass on leasing space downtown before you realize it's your job to help us solve these problems?

 

Please respond,

Carole Smith
---------------------------

Not one city councilor responded but the City Manager sent this email:

On May 17, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Steve Powers <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Smith,

 

Thank you for contacting the City with your concerns regarding the state of the downtown.  Any incident that causes someone concern is unfortunate. The Salem Police Downtown Enforcement Team is dedicated to keeping the downtown area safe.  The Urban Renewal Agency provides grants to downtown property owners for security and safety improvements. The City is continuing partnerships to help and house the homeless.

 

Please be assured the City is committed to a vibrant, growing downtown.  New businesses continue to come downtown.  Businesses are leaving spaces to expand and grow into larger spaces downtown rather than choosing to leave downtown. Existing businesses are opening new businesses and investing even more in our downtown. Downtown is attracting major investment from large developers from outside the city. There are many recent examples of businesses and property owners investing in the downtown. 

 

o   Two new women’s clothing boutiques have opened. One is on Center Street between Liberty and Commercial, and the other is on Liberty Street in the Metropolitan Building. The latter opened just in the last few months.

 

o   The Gray Building (former Brick restaurant) –  The entire second story, previously undeveloped and vacant, has been leased with multiple (3-4) new business. Bigwig donuts has opened on the first floor in a portion of the former Brick space.

 

o   This week the Noble Wave brewpub is opening on Liberty in the Reed Opera House taking the space that Brown’s Towne Lounge vacated when they moved further down the street to expand.

 

o   Perle Holistic Skincare opened in a ground-floor space at 170 Liberty St.

 

o   Issacs and Valley Dance Academy moved into downtown in the last year at Commercial and Court.

 

o   195 Commercial Street was purchased by LMC Construction and Sturgeon Development Partners for the development of a $43 million dollar, 123 room hotel and they are preparing for design review by Historic Landmarks Commission.

 

o   440 State Street is nearing completion of its buildout and will operate multiple eateries similar to the Pine Street Market in Old Town in Portland.

 

o   Koz Development is going through land use approval to develop 146 residential units at the corner of Commercial and State.

 

o   Rudy’s has leased the space on the corner of Chemeketa and Commercial and will be opening another business in this location.

 

o   The site where the former Wells Fargo building was demolished is in due diligence for a purchase and a pre-application meeting has been held for a potential mixed use project with retail and housing.

 

o   The Nordstrom’s building is under contract and in its due diligence phase. This is the second prospective buyer for this property, which has been under contract for about 9 out of the 12 months it has been on the market for sale.

 

o   The tanning salon in  Liberty Plaza has moved to another location downtown. They did not leave downtown.

 

Most of these new businesses have been the beneficiaries of new construction or renovations that have received support from the Riverfront-Downtown URA grant program.  

 

Thank you for your interest and contributions to a prosperous downtown.

 

Steve Powers

[email protected]

503-588-6255

City Manager

City of Salem

Salem, Oregon

And my response today:

 

Thank you for your reply.  

 

Reading your reply was like going to the doctor to discuss cancer and all the doctor can talk about is all the healthy patients he saw that day.  It doesn’t matter about the healthy patients, your downtown has cancer - mostly caused by the refusal of the city to address problems that only government can solve.  

 

When people ask for help solving problems in the City of Salem, it is offensive to receive a reply pointing out how many new businesses are coming downtown.  

 

Don’t you realize they will soon see the corpse of downtown that we all have to live with?  I guess you are okay as long as there is a fresh batch of dupes coming along each year. You don’t care to communicate and solve the cancer you are letting infiltrate almost all businesses downtown .

 

For decades, downtown has hosted the lowest rents and the highest vacancy. And that makes you proud that new businesses are drawn to cheap and vacant. Great job.

 

Can you please furnish an equally researched list of businesses who have left downtown over the past 2 years?  I think you will find they are NOT leaving downtown to expand, they have lost all their money and they closed. Long established businesses have not been able to find buyers when retirement looms.  

 

Our neighbors' building value was lowered from $380,000 value in 2017 to $280,000 in 2018. Marion County lowered their building value by $100,000. What does that say about the health of downtown? Please supply the proof for your statement that businesses are leaving to expand outside of downtown.  

 

You have abandoned the historic business and property owners downtown and are now only interested in hearing or helping the younger business/property owners. Look at your advisory boards like DAB [Downtown Advisory Board].  Do you really feel the age group reflects the downtown community or just the part of downtown your staff want to listen to and control?

 

My email was intended for the City Council. They represent the citizens, not the City Manager.  

 

Carole

Salem water getting $40 million ozone treatment system

Yesterday the Salem City Club learned how officials at the City of Salem are planning to prevent a repeat of last year's horrendous toxic algae infestation in the water supply.

Horrendous, because city officials delayed notifying people about the cyanotoxins that had entered the water supply following a toxic algae bloom in Detroit Lake. This led to a lot of anxiety among both vulnerable populations and the rest of the citizenry that largely could have been avoided with more transparency from city staff.

City Manager Steve Powers was appropriately contrite in his opening remarks, before he introduced the speakers who would describe the details of improvements to the Geren Island water treatment facility on the North Santiam River.

"Last year was humbling for me," Powers said.

The principal speakers were Heather Dimke (Public Works Department) and Jude Ground (water treatment expert with the Carollo company). Lacey Goeres-Priest (Water Quality Supervisor) and Brian Martin (city engineer) chimed in during the Q&A period.

I came away impressed with how the City of Salem has learned from its 2018 mistakes, and has come up with expensive, but necessary, upgrades to the current water treatment system (which basically is slow sand filtration basins using a biological means to remove pathogens).

The central piece of the improved system will be ozone treatment that's projected to come on line in Spring 2021 at a cost of $40 million. A Statesman Journal story, "Salem spending $75 million to protect drinking water from toxic algae," describes $35 million in additional enhancements that weren't discussed at the City Club meeting.

This slide shows the main components of the ozone treatment system. Note that the ozone is destroyed before drinking water reaches consumers.

However, for a number of years my wife and I had a small scale ozonator as part of our well-water treatment system (our untreated water is very high in iron). Sometimes water in our house would have lots of tiny bubbles, when an ozone release valve wasn't working properly. We suffered no ill effects.

In fact, one of the City Club presenters joked that ozone in water makes people feel good. Sadly, I don't recall that happening to me, though I recall ozone having a sort of fresh small, like before a thunderstorm (when ozone can be transferred to ground level from high up).

What ozone does, basically, is enhance the ability of the current water treatment system to deal with toxic algae and other noxious stuff. I don't recall how this happens in enough detail to describe it accurately. The following slide shows how the ozone treatement fits into the current system.

It isn't completely clear why toxic algae in becoming an increasingly prevalent problem -- not only locally, but elsewhere in the country. Higher water temperatures and nutrient run-off from forest fires are likely culprits, both arising from global warming, which unfortunately isn't going away anytime soon.

So city officials are wisely planning for the long-term. Yes, 2018 was the first time toxic algae entered Salem's water system. But almost certainly it wouldn't have been the last time absent the improvements to the water treatment system. 

Pleasingly, we were told that the City of Salem now has the equipment to test for toxic algae on site. This will give one-day results for water samples rather than the previous three days. And the Oregon Health Authority has issued rules for toxic algae testing, notification, and such that didn't exist in 2018.

A poignant part of the City Club presentation came in the Q&A portion.

A man said that he had gone blind in one eye at the same time the toxic algae cyanotoxins were reported in the Salem water supply. He seemed to believe the blindness was caused by ingesting toxic algae.

That's possible. However, we need to remember that in a city Salem's size many people are suffering from new medical maladies every day. Just because they occurred during the toxic algae infestation doesn't mean cyanotoxins were the cause.

That said, I deeply sympathize with this man, since he and many others continued to drink city water that contained toxic algae during the period between the time it entered the water supply and the time city officials notified the public of the problem. From what was said yesterday, this will never happen again.

Gov. Brown makes Oregon an anti-vaxx paradise

A few days ago I wrote "Oregon Dems surrender to Republicans like scared little mice."

Now I'm even more irritated at what Governor Kate Brown and her spineless cronies in the state legislature (notably Sen. Peter Courtney and Rep. Tina Kotek) did -- needlessly killing much-needed bills to enhance vaccination rates and control guns in a misguided effort to entice Senate Republicans to end their short walkout, which denied a quorum in the Senate.

I'll let excerpts from some newspaper stories do the explaining for why this was such a bad idea. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.

(1) Nigel Jaquiss' Willamette Week story, "Oregon Lawmakers Abandoned  Vaccination Requirements in Order to Raise Taxes. That Could Make Oregon an Anti-Vaxx Haven." 

An attempt to compel Oregonians to vaccinate their children morphed into perhaps the most emotional and polarizing debate of the 2019 legislative session. Then, on May 13, it blew up in a way nobody expected.

After a brutal process, the bill passed the Oregon House on May 1. As proponents and critics prepared to relitigate their differences in the Senate, Democrats agreed in a backroom deal May 13 to kill the bill—in exchange for Senate Republicans' agreement to return from a self-imposed exile and allow passage of a $2 billion tax measure to fund schools.

...Although the bill passed the House 37-21, five Democrats voted no and at least two Democratic senators opposed it. One of them, Sen. Lee Beyer (D-Springfield), told Oregon Public Broadcasting he didn't think the votes were there. Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), a chief sponsor of the bill, disagrees. He thinks the votes were available in the Senate—but the courage wasn't. "The Senate is a hospice where good bills go to die," Greenlick says.

...Greenlick says he wasn't consulted about senators' capitulation on his bill and only learned about the deal Monday morning. He says he hasn't decided whether to try again next year or leave that task to future Legislatures. "I'm not very happy," Greenlick says. "This really is an important issue. And when you get blackmailed, you shouldn't fold."

(2) AP reporter Sara Zimmerman's "Oregon vaccine bill dead as US  measles count soars."

Critics blasted a decision by Oregon lawmakers that killed a bill aimed at getting more children vaccinated for measles and other preventable diseases in order pass a tax on large businesses, saying it jeopardized public health.

Despite passing the House and having the necessary votes in the Senate, the measure to make it harder for families to opt out of required vaccinations was nixed as part of a deal announced Monday to end a week-long Republican walkout over a multibillion school funding tax.

Under the vaccination measure, sponsored by state Rep. Cheri Helt, R-Bend, children would only have been be able to forgo vaccine requirements with a doctor's note, otherwise they'd be unable to attend public school.

...Oregon has the highest rate of unvaccinated kindergartners in the country, with at least 7.5% of toddlers claiming an exemption. In some schools, more than 40% of children are unvaccinated through the state's lax exemption process. That makes Oregon uniquely susceptible to an outbreak, according to Diane Peterson, associate director for Immunization Action Coalition, which receives funding from the CDC.

"Oregon in particular is a hotbed for a measles outbreak," Peterson said. "All you need is to introduce one person with the disease into the community and it will spread like wildfire."

(3)  AP reporter Andrew Selsky's "Enough GOP senators return to end Oregon tax bill standoff." 

The sergeant-at-arms of the Oregon Senate had a new regular duty in recent days: Searching the state Capitol for Republican senators who had been staying away and brought the legislative body’s business to a halt.

...To get the Republicans to return, Democrats, who hold a supermajority, agreed to not advance a measure requiring vaccinations for children to attend public schools, unless they have a doctor’s note. Democrats also agreed to drop gun-control legislation. Senate President Peter Courtney told reporters it was a painful but necessary move.

“We had a crisis of government shutdown on us. It could have gone on and on and on,” Courtney said. “It could have involved the state police. It would have been a nightmare.”

Rep. Cheri Helt, a Republican and co-sponsor of the vaccination bill, was incensed that it was sacrificed. Few Republicans were for the measure that vaccination opponents had flocked to the Capitol to protest.

Helt tweeted on Monday that “the loudest/most extreme voices in our politics prevailed.”

...Senate Republican leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., had negotiated with Courtney to end the stalemate, officials said.

The November 2018 election gave Democrats a three-fifths supermajority in Oregon’s Senate and House of Representatives, enabling them to pass tax-raising measures without getting Republicans on board. But they didn’t have enough seats for a quorum.

“The tactic of denying a quorum doesn’t mean we shut them down forever,” Baertschiger said on the Lars Larson Show, a conservative talk radio program. “We all know that we’re gonna have to return. But what it does do is shine a light on what the Democrats are trying to do to us.”

Baertschiger attended the Senate on Monday afternoon, allowing the body to reach its minimum 20 senators for a quorum.

So the Senate Republican leader admitted that the R's weren't going to walk out forever, just long enough to draw attention to the tax bill that they didn't like.

But in an amazing display of political idiocy, Governor Kate Brown gave Republicans way more than they deserved, and expected to get. 

Grover Norquist was ecstatic. Which is why I'm not, being a Democrat who believes that hardball tactics by Republicans that amount to political ransom should be fought, not rewarded.

Oregon Dems surrender to Republicans like scared little mice

Disgusting. Horrible. Shameful.

Those are the non-profane words I can use to describe how Governor Brown, Senate President Courtney, and House Speaker Kotek caved in to the walkout of Senate Republicans without putting up any fight at all.

That walkout prevented the Senate from having a quorum, so no business could be accomplished.

According to a Salem Reporter story, "Tough  choices, closed door deals result in Senate returning to business," Courtney didn't want to do what Wisconsin governor Scott Walker reportedly did in 2011 when Democratic legislators walked out: use the state police to bring them back.

Courtney has been Senate president since 2003. He has the power to ask the governor to call out the Oregon State Police to bring wayward senators back to the Capitol for a vote, and he exercised it in 2007 when Republicans attempted to boycott a tax vote.

This time, Courtney chose not to send state troopers after the missing Republicans, saying that would have been “a nightmare.”

“I don’t have to conquer or win,” Courtney said. “I like it when the institution works.”

OK, I'm now moved to profanity: that's fucking insane, Courtney. You're an embarrassment to Democrats everywhere.

The institution of the Oregon Senate didn't "work" when you and other Democratic leaders agreed to kill the vaccine and gun control bills in exchange for Republicans returning to do the job they were elected to do: take part in Senate proceedings.

Actually what happened here is that Democrats gave in to a ransom request by Republicans.

Not surprisingly, we can expect that since the GOP ploy worked, they're going to try it again. So says a Statesman Journal story, "Education funding bill passes Senate as Republicans end walkout." 

Senate Republicans returned to the chamber floor Monday after securing major Democratic concessions, ending their four-day walkout and allowing Democrats to pass a multi-billion dollar education funding bill.

...In the end, Republicans secured through their extended absence the death of House Bill 3063, which would have removed the non-medical vaccine exemption for schoolchildren, and Senate Bill 978, the session's omnibus gun control legislation.

Lawmakers pushing both proposals expressed frustration that their legislation wouldn't be moving forward this session.

...Despite negotiations for most of last week, Senate Democratic leadership gave credit to Gov. Brown for jumping in on Sunday and providing the framework for the deal that brought Republicans back into the building.

This victory of sorts caught the eye of House Republicans embroiled in a slow-down of their own, and raised the possibility of a similar walkout in the lower chamber.

The House of Representatives clerk has been reading bills in full for a week and a half — ever since the education funding bill came up for a vote and eventually passed.

"My caucus doesn’t tend to want to walk. They’re very comfortable with reading the bills and slowing it up. Yet, on the other hand, I’m sure they’re tantalized in seeing what walking can do," House Republican Leader Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass, said.

"Any time you see something like that, it’s instructive," he said. "It makes it more likely to be considered."

Sure, why not walk out, House Republicans?

The Democrats will give in without getting anything in return, because we have a Governor and legislative leadership who seem to have forgotten that Oregon voters gave Dems a supermajority in both the House and Senate so they could act like Democrats -- not like frightened little mice who screeched eek! when Senate Republicans dared Dems to call their walkout bluff.

I'm beyond disappointed.

Until now I've had the fantasy that while Republicans control most of Washington, D.C., allowing Trump to carry out his authoritarian agenda, here in Oregon we have a reassuring island of progressivism -- since the Governor's office plus both the state House and Senate are in the hands of Democrats.

Sadly, Oregon Democrats don't know what to do with power once they have it. What happened today was that the Dems surrendered their power to Republicans without a fight. 

Tomorrow, or some day after that, the Oregon GOP is going to push Democrats into another corner, even though it should be the Democrats doing the pushing. 

Usually I hate it when Republicans gloat about a victory over Democrats. But you're entitled to not just a little gloating, Oregon Republicans, you're entitled to a lot. You kicked Democratic asses with your Senate walkout stunt. I bet you never believed it would be as successful as it was.

I didn't either.

I had confidence that Gov. Brown, Courtney, Kotek, and other Dem leaders would stand up to the Republicans. I was wrong. And now I feel like shit, because Oregon isn't a refuge from Republican attempts to subvert democracy.

Instead, Oregon Democrats are happy to cooperate in that subversion.

Salem Comprehensive Plan update needs a dose of pizazz

First off, it's been a long time since I used "pizazz" in my writing.

The word dates from 1935-40, and is out of fashion, but it seemed absolutely perfect to describe what I found missing in last Wednesday's meeting where progress on an update to the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan was discussed by City of Salem staff and hired consultants.

This photo of the beginning of the "Our Salem" open house in the Court Street Christian Church captures the non-electricity of the gathering, which attracted about 30-40 people. 

Sure, it was a warm sunny day, so sitting inside from 6-8 pm, or thereabouts, likely didn't sound all that appealing to some potential attendees. Still, the first page of a meeting handout said:

Now we ask:

"Are we heading in the right direction?"
"What is our community vision for the future?"

It could be that the now didn't really refer to this meeting, but to the Future Work described on the handout that sounds a lot more exciting.

Establishing a community vision for future growth, and updating the Comprehensive Plan.

-- What do we value?
-- How do we want Salem to grow and develop?
-- What goals do we have?
-- How can we improve our community?
-- What goals and policies do we want to guide development and how we grow?

Don't get me wrong: the meeting was well organized and the staff/consultants did a good job. I'm just hoping, and waiting, for the Future Work that is billed as starting in Summer 2019.

After all, I still believe in what I said in an October 2018 post, "Salem Comprehensive Plan needs simple vision, not complex platitudes."

"Why?" and "How?" are the only questions that need to be asked. Why is an upper-level question. How explains what's needed to attain the Why. Why's and How's alternate as needed for a particular situation. 

For example, why does Salem exist? This is a top-level question that I've never heard asked, much less adequately answered. It, or a question very much like it, should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Here's some answers that I think ordinary people would offer up:

To help people who live here be happy 
To be an economic center with good jobs
To preserve Oregon farm and forest land by limiting urban sprawl

There are many other possible answers, of course. My point is just that unless simple high-level vision questions are asked and answered first, a planning process is prone to veer off into bureaucratic objective/criteria setting that isn't grounded in fundamental human values.

I did enjoy the Q&A portion of the meeting. That's when people expressed what matters to them in everyday language. Such as, dealing with income inequality, having as much open space as possible, reducing carbon emissions.

A good portion of the Our Salem presentation dealt with the results of a draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory. As noted by a Salem Breakfast on Bikes post, "Greenhouse Gas Assessment points to cars," transportation is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions in Salem.

What grabbed my eye in the presentation was this slide.

This shows greenhouse gas emissions for all of Oregon, with the red line at the top being projected emissions under current policies and the steeply descending yellow line being "Oregon's statewide GHG goal trajectory to 2050."

Wow. If Salem is to do its part in meeting this goal, our city has to markedly reduce its carbon pollution, particularly in the transportation sector. The good news is, this subject is filled  with...pizazz! Here's some pizazz'y buzz words.

Less driving, more walking and bicycling.
Dedicated bike paths all over town.
Young and old meeting as they safely and happily walk and bike.
Expanded mass transit that everyone wants to use.
A downtown designed for people, not cars.
Electric vehicles, including buses, everywhere.
Rapid charging stations everywhere. 
Trees planted everyplace possible.
Open space preserved everywhere possible.
Zoning that allows restaurants/shopping in more residential areas.
Wider choice of energy-efficient housing.

I'm sure other people could add to these ideas. But what I've listed excites me. More ideas would excite me even more.

Hopefully future Our Salem meetings will involve visioning exercises that attract lots of people eager to explore and discuss how they want Salem to change for the better. With... pizazz. 

We're in a constitutional crisis. Yet Dems shouldn't impeach.

A little while ago I watched the House Judiciary Committee vote to hold the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, in contempt of Congress. This is only the second time in our nation's history that an A.G. has gotten a contempt citation.

It's a big deal. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the chair of the committee, just told reporters that we're now in a constitutional crisis. 

The Trump administration is refusing to honor every subpoena Congress issues. The Trump administration refuses to allow Robert Mueller to testify about the report he issued into Russian interference with the 2016 election, how Trump officials interacted with that Russian effort, and Trump's efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. The Trump administration has declared that the entire Mueller Report is subject to executive privilege, which is legal bullshit. 

So this has gone way beyond the usual fights between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Trump and his cronies are refusing to recognize Congress as a co-equal branch within our republic. 

Plenty of people, including Nadler, if I recall his news conference correctly, are saying that we're well on the way to becoming a banana republic ruled by a strong man who refuses to abide by long-established norms of presidential behavior.

Problem is, our system of government is largely based on those norms.

Sure, laws and the Constitution are important. But equally important has been unwritten norms such as: the president speaks  truthfully most of the time; Congressional oversight isn't stonewalled; a free press is encouraged, not disparaged; subpoenas from Congress are taken seriously, not rejected entirely.

Impeachment is the strongest weapon Congress has to constrain abuses of presidential power.

Yet it is clear that Senate Republicans would never vote in favor of an impeachment resolution sent over by the House. Further, impeachment isn't favored by most Americans, though beginning impeachment-related investigtions is more popular.

Why attempt to impeach, though, when impeachment would never happen? I realize the emotional appeal of impeachment. What Trump is doing is beyond bad. It is despicable. All presidents behave badly at times. Trump is the first president who truly is acting like a wanna-be dictator.

The courts are another check on presidential power.

However, lawsuits by Congress and others likely would take many months, if not years, to be settled. And even if a favorable court decision happened earlier, who is going to make the Trump administration act in accord with it?

Attorney General Barr has sacrificed himself onto the altar of Full-Out Trumpian Acquiescence, like so many other Republicans.

When the head of the Justice Department isn't interested in pursuing even-handed justice, but acts like the president's personal attorney, and the Supreme Court seems to be firmly in Trump's camp, it's hard to be optimistic about the American legal system being a serious check on Trump's dictatorial ambitions.

This is why my reasonable side says focus on the 2020 election, while my emotional side says impeach the S.O.B.

Nate Silver, editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, had some provocative tweets today that resonated with me. They were in response to someone who argued that Nancy Pelosi isn't being a bold enough leader. 

FiveThirtyEight staff engaged in an interesting chat today on the subject of "Nancy Pelosi is Going After Barr and Rejecting Impeachment. Is That a Smart Plan?" There were good arguments on both sides. Here's the final chat comment.

The big issue, I think, is that the House Democrats have to decide what they’re going to do about their relative lack of power, compared to the executive branch, and they may have to do that sooner rather than later. Pelosi can try to continue to stake out a middle ground, but they are running up against some big structural limitations — and I agree that impeachment lite is not a workable strategy in the long term.

It seems like the central challenge for Democrats is: Can you run on normalcy and basically treat Trump as an aberration? Or do you have to deal with the structural problems his presidency is exposing? The latter, of course, is incredibly hard to do.

By "impeachment lite," I believe this person meant that Democrats do as much investigating into wrongdoing by Trump as possible, but hold off on actually trying to impeach him. The obvious problem with this is that the more wrongdoing that's discovered, the harder it becomes to ignore it -- and accompanying calls from the Democratic base to impeach Trump.

Here's the way I see things. 

I ask myself a couple of questions: (1) What if the Dems attempt to impeach Trump and he wins re-election in 2020? Would I be happy? Answer is NO. I don't want Trump impeached. I want him out of office ASAP. (2) What if the Dems don't try to impeach Trump and he loses re-election in 2020? Would I be happy? YES.  Deliriously.

This shows that, along with most Democrats and a large share of independents, what I most care about is Trump being kicked out off office in the 2020 election. Impeachment is secondary. If it helps accomplish a Trump defeat, great. If it doesn't, not great.

Another way of putting it is, what's the core problem facing our country?

I'm optimistic enough to say that it really is Donald Trump, not a desire among Republicans and Trump voters to refashion our constitutional democracy into a banana republic ruled by a succession of strong men (and maybe women).

So in line with the FiveThirtyEight quote above, I'm inclined to view Trump as an aberration. A dangerous aberration, yes. An aberration who has to be fought mightily, yes. But an aberration that can be out of office in January 2021 if Democrats play their cards right between now and the 2020 election.

Impeachment proceedings would suck all of the air out of the news cycle.

Even if Democrats want to talk about Trump's latest attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, further enrich the already wealthy, engage in unneeded trade wars, screw up our relationships with long-time allies, promote hateful immigration policies, ignore the dangers of climate change, and such, impeachment will be front and center in voters' minds until the Senate votes to absolve Trump.

Which will lead Trump to scream another witch hunt at the top of his lungs just before the 2020 election, most likely.

Instead, I favor the Democrats saying, "We're not going to impeach Donald Trump in Congress. Instead, the voters are going to have the opportunity to remove him from office in November 2020. Yes, we believe he has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. We just want you, the American public, to make the decision to deny him a second term."

Oregon Right to Life behind deceptive Marty Heyen postcard

If you got this postcard in the mail, don't be fooled by the Women's Leadership Coalition name in the return address. Actually that group is an Oregon Right to Life organization. Below you'll find proof of this.

So keep this deception in mind when you cast your ballot in the May 21 Salem-Keizer School Board election. Heyen is running against Raul Marquez, a much better candidate who isn't beholden to a special interest like Oregon Right to Life.


Here's how I know Oregon Right to Life is behind this postcard. It didn't require much sleuthing.

The return address -- P.O. Box 20103, Keizer, OR -- matches the address of one of the people listed as a director of the Women's Leadership Coalition PAC: Lois Anderson, the political director for Oregon Right to Life. Here's a screenshot from the ORESTAR database in the Secretary of State's office.

Note that all of the directors of the Women's Leadership Coalition PAC are employed by Oregon Right to Life. The Oregon Right to Life PAC also is a major contributor to the Women's Leadership Coalition PAC, having given $35,000 to it in the past eight months. UPDATE: originally I said $10,000 in seven months, but someone called my attention to two large Oregon Right to Life donations in September 2018 that totaled $25,000.

So it seems clear that the blandly-named Women's Leadership Coalition actually is a front group for an extremist organization, Oregon Right to Life. 

Extremist, because Oregon Right to Life is a fanatical single-issue group that fantasizes Planned Parenthood is plotting to get its tendrils into the Salem-Keizer School District in order to enrich itself by foisting abortions on students.

Part of the proof presented by Oregon Right to Life is a Google Maps image that shows a Planned Parenthood clinic in Salem indeed is several blocks away from McKay High School.

Gosh, that's proof of... well, the clinic being several blocks away from McKay High School -- nothing else. There's a Kaiser Permanente Medical Office even closer to McKay High School, but Oregon Right to Life isn't bothered by that.

So why is Oregon Right to Life backing Marty Heyen via a front group, rather than being open about this?

Probably because a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that 63% of people in Oregon favor abortion being legal in all/most cases. Among Oregon women the percentage almost certainly is higher.

UPDATE: I've gotten results for Salem and Keizer on 2018's Oregon Measure 106, which would have banned public funds from being used on abortions unless necessary to save a woman's life. It was defeated statewide by about 64% No and 36% Yes.

Here's the local results. This shows that Oregon Right to Life is out of touch with voters in Salem and Keizer. Note that every ward in Salem, even the most conservative ones, supported abortion rights.

I've heard that a Women's Leadership Coalition, a.k.a. Oregon Right to Life, postcard supporting school board candidate Danielle Bethell also either has been sent out, or will be.

Here's the people to vote for in the school board election: David Salinas, Raul Marquez, and Chuck Lee. Believe me: I've heard them speak. They're all impressive candidates.

Salinas and Marquez (left and center in the photo) will bring fresh perspectives to the school board. Lee, running for re-election, brings experience. Mark your ballot for these three.

 

Three journalists talk about the Oregon Legislature

"Journalism is a public service, like being a fireman or policeman." I heartily agreed with what one of the three journalists shown below said at today's Salem City Club program, The Oregon Legislature Through the Eyes of Journalists."

(From left to right: Aubrey Wieber of the Salem Reporter; Connor Radnovich of the Statesman Journal; Claire Withycombe of the East Oregonian and Salem Reporter -- who was filling in for Hillary Borrud of the Oregonian, whose editor called her away at the last moment for some other duty.)


Before I  talk about the substance of what Wieber, Radnovich, and Withycombe said, I want to praise how they said it. Their language was wonderfully concise, to the point, precise. It was like I was listening to a well-written story that told me everything I needed to know, without being overly verbose or overly brief.

Some of the credit goes to City Club member Jan Margosian, who MC'd the program and asked some excellent questions of the journalists, which stimulated their cogent answers. Still, I came away feeling that these reporters were unusually skilled speakers, as well as writers -- perhaps because their job requires them to ask clear questions of people at the Legislature and elsewhere.

Margosian started by asking how many in the audience subscribed to the (online-only) Salem Reporter. It looked like a quarter to a third of us raised our hands. When asked how many subscribe to the Statesman Journal, at least three-fourths did. I also subscribe to the Oregonian, plus the online editions of the New York Times and Washington Post. 

Nonetheless, we were told that in recent years there's been a 30-35% decline in newspaper subscribers, with a concomitant drop in reporters. So if you don't subscribe to a daily newspaper/news source, do it. Some reasons are described below.

(I'm not going to identify which of the journalists said what, given that all three had similar attitudes and often started off a reply to a question by saying they agreed with their colleagues.)

When asked what would be different if there were no journalists, an acceptable level of corruption was part of the answer.

This may sound harsh, but it seems absolutely true. Oregon has no campaign finance regulations. A great series of stories in the Oregonian this year cast light on how lobbyists and big-money donors to state legislators wield great influence over decisions of state agencies that often are decidedly at odds with the public interest.

I got to ask about the Oregonian series during the Q&A portion of the program, suggesting that the revelations of corporate influence over supposedly independent regulators (often in environmental/safety issues) likely hit the halls of the legislature with a dull thud that led to no meaningful reforms.

Yes, that was the case, was the response from these legislative journalists. There was some talk of the Oregonian series at first, mainly from upset environmental advocates, but soon it was back to business as usual.

The journalists asked how many people in the audience look at campaign finance reports. I raised my hand. I didn't see any other hands raised. [UPDATE: I've heard from a few people who also had their hand raised.] The message was that if no reporters wrote stories about who is giving money to which candidates for public office, Oregon's unregulated campaign finance system would have no accountability at all. 

Politicians respond to people, since that is how they get elected. Public opinion is very important to them. Thus journalists are both vital to state legislators, while also a potential threat to them. Some legislators are highly transparent, while others are much more restrained in their interactions with journalists.

On the whole, though, this is a situational issue.

Meaning, if a politician thinks it is in their interest to be revealing to a reporter, they will be, with the converse being equally true. However, some politicians will tell a journalist that they're not telling them something.

Lobbyists got a surprising amount of love, or at least like, from the three journalists.

Lobbyists often have spent more time at the legislature than the legislators themselves, or reporters. So they can provide a valuable historical perspective. They also are experts on the subjects they lobby about, a boon to journalists even if they choose to speak off the record.

Lobbyists also have a good sense of which bills are likely to pass or fail. However, it is a maxim that no bill is truly dead until a legislative session has adjourned, since there are various techniques (such as "gut and stuff") that can bring a bill back to life at the last moment.

When asked about this legislative session, the Democratic supermajority was felt to provide a different feel than in past sessions. There is more of a sense of momentum to Democratic priorities, not surprisingly. The rent control bill was an early victory that Democrats were proud of.

Tax packages and Cap-And-Trade, the carbon emissions bill, are on the horizon in the next few weeks. 

Talk of sexual harassment at the legislature dominated for the first few months of the session. Then a vaccination bill got lots of attention and public interest (to put it mildly). So far gun control legislation has been going nowhere, along with a proposal to lower the DUII level to .05. Utah is the only other state with that level, and even there it was controversial. 

Each of the journalists said they have a lot of leeway from their editors to cover whatever legislative issues interest them.

"I go with my gut" said one of them. Another said that the small contingent of reporters covering the state legislature don't want to write the same story, so they tend to focus on different subject areas.

Weirdly, one of the journalists said that after he told someone he was a legislative reporter, the person asked what he was lobbying for. That led to an explanation of the difference between editorializing and reporting -- though personally I think "That's a f**king stupid question" would have been a justified response.

Here's the most shocking thing Barr said today

If you like the prospect of the United States becoming a banana republic dictatorship where the rule of law doesn't apply to the Supreme Leader, you'll applaud Attorney General William Barr's trumpian display of arrogance, bad faith, and misleading testimony today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

But being part of the majority of Americans who want our democracy to remain intact, I found one statement by Barr rose to the top of the OMG! I can't believe the head of the Justice Department just said that! pile, which was teetering precariously by the end of the hearing, the crap Barr said being so voluminous.

Here it is, highlighted in a Slate piece, "William Barr thinks Donald Trump is above the law."

Then, in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein about why it was that Trump ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to end the Mueller probe, Barr seems to have again taken the legal position that the president’s anger and frustration over press reports that he had instructed McGahn to fire Mueller somehow made this directive permissible.

Barr seemed to be saying that Trump could not have committed obstruction by asking McGahn to fire Mueller, so long as he was attempting to forestall further negative press. As Barr put it:

If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel.

This is an astonishing claim—that if the president feels that the investigation is unnecessary and is resulting in him being harassed or misrepresented in the media, then the president is justified in taking any action he sees fit to stop it without running afoul of the obstruction laws.

It’s also a claim that was refuted in the Mueller report itself. It’s Nixonian in scope to imply that anything Trump wants to do in order to push back against the media and protect his reputation is legal and justified.

So Barr's right-wing-wacko legal theory is that if President Trump feels he's been falsely accused of something, he can fire those who are investigating the possible wrongdoing without fear of being guilty of obstruction of justice.

This is the dream of every criminal -- to be able to get rid of the police, prosecutors, judge, jury, and anyone else who threatens to bring them to justice.

Your honor, it is my distinct pleasure to inform you that your services are no longer needed in this case, along with the jury, district attorney, and all of the witnesses. In accord with the view of the Attorney General of the United States, I feel that I've been falsely accused and I don't like how newspapers have been covering my trial. So I'm ending this farce.

Before I heard Barr say what he did today, I would have thought it impossible that the Attorney General would hold that if a president thinks he is being falsely accused, he can fire those investigating the accusation with no fear of punishment.

But Barr said exactly that. Which is why I consider this to be the most shocking thing William Barr said today. Unfortunately, tomorrow is another day.