Salem Political Snark

Edgiest moments from Salem City Council Candidate Forum

Here's one unarguable takeaway from last night's City Council Candidate Forum:

If you take the intense in-your-face vibe of either the Republican or Democratic presidential debates (especially the Republican) and flip it upside down, like turning matter into antimatter, you'll end up with something closely akin to Salem's oh-so-decorous candidate forum.

Held in the Library's Anderson Room, and sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Marion and Polk Counties, along with the Salem City Club, the forum accurately reflected Salem's dual political personality: calm on the outside, seething on the inside. 

So as I took notes about what the seven candidates said, I'd pen in an Angry Arrow next to comments that struck me as honestly edgy -- even though usually one had to read between the spoken lines to really understand what was going on.

Here, then, are what I felt were some snarky moments of the Candidate Forum, starting with an introduction to the "teams" each of the candidates belonged to, even though they weren't wearing any uniforms. 

Progressive Team: Cara Kaser (Ward 1), Matt Ausec (Ward 5), and Sally Cook (Ward 7) are the Progressive Salem slate of candidates. I'd also put Ausec's opponent, Tiffany Partridge, on the progressive team. Interestingly, I'm pretty sure that only one of them ever spoke the word "progressive." (Kaser said that Salem was a diverse progressive city.)

Chamber of Commerce Team: Jan Kailuweit (Ward 1) and Councilor Warren Bednarz (Ward 7) are the Chamber of Commerce slate of candidates. Likely Councilor Brad Nanke (Ward 3) would join them, if he wasn't running unopposed in the May election. Kailuweit and Bednarz never referred to the Chamber, though their positions are clearly in line with what the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce favors.

Citizen involvement. Kailuweit and Nanke repeatedly referred to the City Council's Budget Committee as being a marvelous example of how open and transparent city government is. Why, anyone can be involved in the budgeting process. All you have to do is somehow learn that the Committee is meeting, then have the time and inclination to testify. 

They were astounded that -- shock! -- often no citizens take part in the Budget Committee goings-on. But in line with the Chamber of Commerce Team motto, Everything is great in Salem, so keep things just as they are, Kailuweit and Nanke saw little or no need to do anything differently, citizen-outreach-wise. 

On the other hand, the Progressive Team was big on encouraging more public involvement in City of Salem affairs. Ausec said that expensive consultants should be used less, and knowledgeable local people should be used more. Cook said that citizens should be talked to on the neighborhood level, rather than expecting citizens to troop down to City Hall at inconvenient times in order to weigh in on policy issues.

Making Library into Police Facility. Sally Cook took a good shot at Warren Bednarz, even though she didn't mention him by name. Each candidate was asked to talk about City Council decisions that they applaud or oppose. Cook's oppose was the out-of-the-box 2014 proposal by Councilor Bednarz that the Library be converted to a police facility. 

Cook correctly said that this crazy notion, which should have been kept in the box, wasn't handled in a public way. The Library Advisory Committee wasn't involved at all by City officials, who worked on the Library conversion behind closed doors, then sprang it on citizens. 

Expanding Urban Growth Boundary. Right-wingers hate Oregon's highly successful land use system, which requires urban growth boundaries to prevent unfettered sprawl into farm, forest, and other irreplaceable rural lands. The Chamber of Commerce Team's support for an unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette requires Salem to expand its urban growth boundary, so mention of the UGB caught my ear.

Jan Kailuweit rather confusingly said that (1) housing is affordable in Salem compared to Portland, but (2) an option is to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to make more land available for housing. He called for an undefined "sweet spot" between the two that apparently involves some sort of UGB expansion. Matt Ausec, though, said there was no need to expand the UGB, as there is plenty of under-developed space in Salem.

Downtown vitality. When it comes to downtown Salem, the Progressive and Chamber of Commerce teams had predictably different views. An audience member asked about empty buildings downtown. Bednarz said buildings are full there on the first and second floors, which caused me to jot down a large skeptical question mark, ?, in my notebook.

Carole Smith, who is running for Mayor against Chuck Bennett, says that downtown has the lowest rental rates in Salem, and the second-highest vacancy rate, which shows the need to revitalize the Historic District. Since Smith lives downtown and owns property there, I trust her take on the area more than Bednarz'. 

Kailuweit also made the questionable claim that vacancies are normal in the downtown area. His opponent, Cara Kaser, disagreed, saying there are quite a few vacancies. Further, long-time owners of downtown buildings currently have little incentive to invest in upgrades. She said that Salem should join the Oregon Main Street program that has been successful in other cities.

Mass transit. Ah, this was one of my favorite subjects talked about at the forum, because the candidates got pleasingly into it with each other. Cara Kaser said she was disheartened when several members of the City Council contributed to the Chamber of Commerce-led campaign against a payroll tax to fund much-needed improvements to the Cherriots bus system.

(Salem, I've heard, is the only capital city west of the Mississippi with no evening or weekend bus service -- embarassing!)

Kaser wants the City Council to support the mass transit district by helping Cherriots find a way to fund its services. During her campaigning, she's heard from people who say they aren't able to get downtown, or anywhere else, on Saturday and in the evening. Ausec echoed this, saying that people are very concerned about the sorry state of mass transit in Salem. Many can't afford cars and need a bus to get around.

Jan Kailuweit, loyal Chamber of Commerce Team member that he is, regurgitated the nonsensical talking point that I found so irritating when the mass transit payroll tax was being debated last year. He said that since many business owners wouldn't benefit from Saturday and weekend bus service, because they aren't open then, there was no reason for these owners to vote "yes" on a payroll tax.

Geez, Jan.

Have you ever thought that taxes often are levied for a communal public benefit, and that citizens willingly pay them because they feel a responsibility to care for other people? My wife and I don't have any children in school. Yet we happily pay property taxes that support schools.

This Chamber of Commerce notion that only those who directly benefit from a tax should support that tax is ludicrous. It goes against our entire system of taxation: people with more money pay a greater amount in taxes than people with less money;  those in need are helped by others, because this is the freaking right thing to do.

I came away from the City Council Candidates Forum as convinced as ever that the Progressive Team should be voted for in this election. They stand for positive change in Salem that will make this town more livable, economically vibrant, compassionate, and caring. 

More of the same -- the Chamber of Commerce Team mantra -- doesn't cut it for me. Hopefully voters will agree.

Chuck Bennett lobbied for a copper mine in the Opal Creek forest

Today, Chuck Bennett is running to be Mayor of Salem. About twenty years ago, he was a lobbyist for a company that wanted to mine copper, gold, and silver on 32 acres in what is now the Opal Creek Wilderness Area. 

click to enlarge

In 1991 Bennett was called the "public relations counsel" for Plexus, Inc., which referred to the mine as the Bornite Project (bornite is the name of the copper-rich ore discovered at the site).

Plexus and two other companies merged in 1993, becoming Kinross Gold. After that, newspaper stories about the Opal Creek mining project refer to Chuck Bennett as a "Kinross lobbyist." For example, a June 1995 Statesman Journal story says:
Download decision requires trust story

After the Department of Environmental Quality began reviewing permit applications for the project, officials discovered a long-forgotten rule that prohibits any additional industrial discharges in three river systems in the state, including the North Santiam. 

Environmental groups that originally supported the mine became opponents in the ensuing debate about whether the so-called three-basin rule should be changed while the Kinross proposal was pending.

Kinross has since turned to the legislature, pushing for passage of a bill that would allow the project to go forward, a move that has sparked anger among mine opponents.

"We could see it happen when we ran into the three-basin rule," Kinross lobbyist Chuck Bennett said. "We could see it unravel."

This is something voters should consider when deciding who to vote for in the May 17 Mayoral election. The Plexus/Kinross mine issue has been popping up in Facebook posts about Bennett's qualifications to be Mayor, which piqued my interest. (For example, see here.)

Someone gave me old newspaper clippings and other information about the proposed mine. So I'm sharing these materials to give citizens some additional insight into Bennett's background. 

I feel his lobbying for the mine is significant for several reasons:

(1) It went on for at least 4 years, 1991-95, and maybe longer; (2) Lobbyists have a choice about who they choose to work for, in this case a mining company whose project could threaten Salem's drinking water supply; (3) Bennett's efforts to gain approval for an environmentally destructive mine fit into the pattern of Bennett being complicit in the needless killing of the U.S. Bank trees in 2013, and Bennett wanting to press onward with an unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette River.

Fortunately, the Kinross mine never was built.

The materials I've reviewed don't tell the final story, but I'm pretty sure the legislature never passed a bill to allow the mine, nor was Kinross successful in appealing the state Environmental Quality Commission's rejection of the proposed mine. See:
Download water quality exemption rule story

As the story above says, Chuck Bennett and Kinross wanted the mine to be exempted from water quality rules regarding the Santiam River watershed, which is the main source of Salem's water. After the state Senate rejected a bill to do this in May 1995, Kinross Gold Corporation's hopes shifted to the House. A June 4, 1995 Statesman Journal story said:
Download Kinross forges ahead story

For Kinross, its efforts are being focused on the Republican-controlled House, which already rejected one bill that would have exempted the mine from strict water-quality rules.

Lobbyist Chuck Bennett is pitching the plan as an economic boost to a region hard hit by declining timber jobs.

"There will be 100 jobs created during the construction, and we are not talking about minimum-wage jobs" Bennett said. "This deposit is such an extraordinary project, that it will be mined someday."

Well, Bennett was wrong about that. Oregonians wisely decided it didn't make sense to allow a 32 acre mine to operate as an "industrial island" in the Opal Creek area that came under federal protection in October 1996. 

But the Kinross mining company hoped this would happen. Here's a letter Kinross submitted to the Congressional subcommittee that held hearings on the Opal Creek Forest Preserve bill. Part of it says:
Download Kinross Copper testimony

Kinross Copper Corporation is now in the process of permitting an underground copper mine in the Willamette National Forest, a process that began in 1990. If HR 3905 becomes law, the Bornite Project will be surrounded by the Opal Creek Forest Preserve.

Chuck Bennett was fine with this. Lots of other Salem residents weren't, like James Lehner, who had a letter to the editor in the June 7, 1995 Statesman Journal. Lehner said:
Download letter to editor about Kinross mine

With all the pros and cons about the Kinross mine in the valley of the Little North Santiam River, we who live downstream from the proposed project have justifiable concerns about the risks involved. After all, we use the water for play, irrigation and a drinking-water supply... We don't have to accept risks for an out-of-country mining concern to come into our area, remove the profits from mining, and leave us with some potentially catastrophic contamination lurking 50 miles upstream.

A geologist who specialized in water quality and geochemistry, Nicholas Coffey, submitted a letter to Governor Kitzhaber about the state legislation that would have allowed development of the Kinross mine. Coffey said:
Download Coffey letter about Kinross mine

The proposed mine would definitely cause irreparable harm to the watershed. The question that remains would be how severe the damage would be... Water quality in downstream communities including Lyons, Stayton and Salem would suffer.

Another story in the Statesman Journal, "State weighs effects of Kinross mine project," also discussed the risks of the Kinross mine.
Download Effects of Kinross mine story

But Chuck Bennett, current Mayor candidate, spent at least four years working to have the mine constructed.

Like I said, something to keep in mind when you decide between Bennett and his opponent, Carole Smith -- especially if you care about the environment. And love the beautiful Opal Creek area.

Rage against The Machine in Salem's May 17 election

Ah, it felt good to resurrect one of my Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem columns today: "Rage against the Machine." (I now like to capitalize both words in The Machine to indicate how malevolent it is.)

The column seemed like the perfect accompaniment to a post I put on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page today.

RAGE AGAINST SALEM'S MACHINE!

Vote for People People in the May 17 election.
These candidates will bring us a Fresh Start:

-- Carole Smith, Mayor
-- Cara Kaser, Ward 1 city councilor
-- Matt Ausec, Ward 5 city councilor
-- Sally Cook, Ward 7 city councilor

The Machine wants more-of-the-same.
Because The Machine is fueled by money and power.
And it already has what it wants.
But with People Power, Voting Power -- we can stop The Machine.

I talked about this in a 2014 Strange Up Salem column.

Then I shared the column, one of my favorites. 

Rage Against The Machine

I woke up in the middle of the night with a “Da Vinci Code” insight.

In a flash I understood it all, the ugly reality hidden behind this town’s benign facade, the conspiracy keeping the curtains closed on a truth- revealing window.

The Machine! It was controlling everything!

I’d had glimpses of this monster before. It took some deep sleep unconscious cognizing for my brain to form a coherent picture of how this town is in the grip of difficult-to-discern malevolent forces.

Leaders of the Salem-Area Chamber of Commerce. Executives at the Statesman Journal newspaper. High-ranking city officials, elected and appointed. Other members of Salem’s “1%.”

I doubt they conduct sinister rituals, have a secret society, or exchange coded messages aimed at achieving Salem domination. But The Machine is as dangerously dehumanizing as if they did.

Once The Machine was assembled and got rolling, it became a force that controlled its creators. As the saying goes, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

So much so, the corrupted in power become blind to what has happened to them. They believe they’re doing the right thing, when they aren’t.

The Machine’s core goal is to keep money and power flowing to the people in Salem who already have these things. Other values aren’t important to The Machine. Such as compassion, sustainability, citizen involvement, honesty, truth, social equity.

Lip-service is given to these virtues, but this is just a ruse so the citizenry doesn’t recognize how money and power actually rule in Salem.

Big bucks support The Machine’s carefully chosen candidates for Mayor and the City Council. Political action committees mostly fund their

campaigns, which, as happens everywhere in this country, makes the candidates dance to their donors’ tune after being elected.

A Salem city councilor once told me, “The Chamber of Commerce runs this town.” I hear that a lot. Because it is true. Money talks; politicians listen.

Just look at how the Mayor and City Council keep pushing ahead with an unneeded half billion dollar Third Bridge against intense community opposition. There’s no good reason for the bridge. But what The Machine wants, it usually gets.

Largely because our community newspaper, the Statesman Journal, won’t do any investigative reporting on how money and power are wielded in Salem.

The paper’s executives are part of The Machine. They won’t criticize the Chamber of Commerce or city officials, since they need advertising dollars and access to the powers-that-be to keep their Gannett bosses happy.

So citizens don’t learn about how The Machine operates in Salem. Voters are left in the dark, swayed by PAC-funded campaigns. Elected officials keep doing what The Machine wants. Our daily newspaper fails to report about what’s going on.

And so it goes...until us citizens rise up and rage against The Machine.

It’s gears get blocked when people forcefully speak the truth, vote for the right candidates, and proudly stand up for human values when money and power say “sit down.”

 

Mayor candidates Smith and Bennett duke it out before SJ editorial board

Well, regarding the title of this post, "duke it out" was more of my wish for what would happen when Carole Smith and Chuck Bennett met jointly with the Statesman Journal editorial board, seeking the newspaper's endorsement.

After watching half of the hour-long video of the session, I came away wanting more candidate-to-candidate interaction, rather than what actually happened -- Smith and Bennett separately answering questions posed by editorial page editor Dick Hughes.

As I noted in "Contrast between Smith and Bennett evident at Salem City Club Mayoral debate," there are major differences between the candidates. But this isn't as clear, or as obvious, when they're allowed to blur the lines between them through platitudes.

Bennett, for example, likes to talk about how great a town Salem is. Naturally Smith feels the same way. Why would anyone want to be Mayor of a town they detest?

(I'd find it refreshing, though, to have someone say, "I want to be Mayor of Salem because this town sucks, and I want to rid it of its suckishness.")

Here's the gist of what they said when Hughes asked that question: Why would you want to be Mayor? 

Bennett spoke about how he's been a member of a bunch of committees and task forces during his nine years as a city councilor. He said, "I know how the job is done. I'm excited about the possibilities of what can be done."

This fits with his insider persona. Bennett is a professional lobbyist (he prefers the term "advocate"). He's been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, some unions, and other establishment organizations.

Smith, though, jumped right into her main campaign theme: more public involvement. She said, "I'm concerned about the lack of citizen input... City staff often are rude to citizens... We need a culture of Yes at City Hall."

This fits with her outsider persona. Smith is a businesswoman who has been critical of City officials trying to foist policy decisions on the public with minimal citizen participation.

She's famous (or infamous, depending on one's point of view) for collecting 9,000 signatures on an initiative to stop downtown parking meters when this was the direction the City of Salem was heading toward.

I followed this issue closely back in 2013 and 2014. It came up several times in the editorial board session, once when the candidates were asked, "What's the biggest mistake you've made when it comes to civic engagement?"

Smith said that she underestimated the value of bike paths. At first she thought that bike paths were only for the "fearless" mostly male riders who zoom along on city streets. But now she realizes that bike paths are important to everybody in the community.

Getting in a dig at Bennett, Smith added that she favors the Salemtowne to Downtown multiuse trail in West Salem (Bennett's district). Bennett is on a City Council committee that oversees remaining funds in the 2008 Streets and Bridges bond which contains money to buy the right-of-way that would allow this path to be built with volunteer labor.

But Bennett hasn't done anything to move the multiuse trail project along, even though he claims to support better bicycle paths in Salem. Well, actions speak louder than words, which is why I gave him a WTF! for claiming to support the Marine Drive/Salemtowne to Downtown trail at a City Club debate with Smith.

Anyway, after Smith talked about her biggest civic engagement mistake, Bennett said that his was overestimating the value of discussing downtown parking. The reaction to paid onstreet parking downtown was so negative, Bennett said "I thought we could have a discussion, and I was mistaken."

Well, this also deserves a WTF! 

Chuck Bennett served on a downtown parking task force that held a bunch of meetings, yet never engaged downtown businesses or people who visit downtown in the question of whether parking meters should be installed.

Citizens could attend the task force meetings, but they weren't allowed to take part in the discussion. So Bennett didn't speak truly when he strongly implied to the Statesman Journal editorial board that he sought a discussion of downtown parking.

Actually, the task force Bennett served on recommended downtown parking meters on their own in 2013, then encountered a firestorm of opposition -- largely led by Carole Smith, who feared that this would lead to fewer people shopping and visiting downtown. 

Later, after Smith gathered the 9,000 signatures in opposition to the parking meter plan of Bennett, et. al., she and Bennett butted heads again over the City Council's decision to prevent the initiative from being voted on by Salem citizens. 

See my blog post, "Salem's downtown parking debate: a view from Carole Smith." I would have loved to see this issue vigorously debated by Smith and Bennett at the editorial board meeting,  but, alas, that didn't happen.

Another contrast between Smith and Bennett was evident in their responses to Dick Hughes' question about economic development.

Bennett said he wanted to create a welcoming environment for expanding existing businesses and bringing more businesses to Salem. He extolled the potential of the Mill Creek industrial park, even though there is a lot not to like about it -- as explained in a Salem Breakfast on Bikes post:

Despite $42 million in incentives, nearby Sanyo Solar just announced a second round of lay-offs. In May of 2013 they eliminated about 50 jobs, and this month they announced the elimination of about 50 more. From a high of about 200 employees, they now have about 85.

These office parks on the edges of cities require a lot of subsidy, and while they may enrich individual investors or developers, in totality, including municipal and other governmental subsidies and infrastructure, too often they cost more to service than they actually return to the community. In a memorable metaphor, they are like "dumping all [the] fertilizer on the weeds." (Via Happy City and Salon.)

Maybe we should focus instead on fertilizing our downtown and closer-in areas that already have infrastructure, meaningful adjacencies, and don't cost so much to maintain over their lifetime.

As with roads, so with industry and commercial real estate: Fix it first! It's that same old chestnut: Shouldn't we maintain and reinvest in what we already have instead of chasing after something new and shiny and expensive?

Smith spoke about economic development more along those lines. She said that Salem should polish up its image and bring in family-wage jobs (rather than, say, warehouse jobs in a freeway-adjacent distribution center). 

Smith added, "If we make this town the way citizens want it, it will be a great community for people to live in and employees [of new companies] would be happy living here. There would be no need for big tax incentives."

So basically Bennett favors a Jobs First economic development strategy, while Smith considers that putting Livability First will attract businesses and people.

Me, I'm with Smith.

It seems that these days "creative class" firms, entrepreneurs, and such want to locate in cities with a high livability factor -- Portland being one of them, along with Eugene. Tax incentives and shovel-ready industrial land are fine to have in Salem's economic development toolbox, but first a desirable business with family-wage jobs has to want to locate in this town. 

And that means making Salem attractive to managers and employees who ask the question, "Why should we live in Salem, instead of Portland, Eugene, or other more with-it places?"

Salem Police Facility planning staggers on to uncertain outcome

Dedicated observer that I am of our "public servants" at the City of Salem, I eschewed staying in the sun this gorgeous afternoon and ventured into Room 220 at City Hall, where the Mayor and City Manager oversee their kingdom. 

Topic of the day for a City Council Police Facility subcommitee: an update on police facility planning efforts.

Thankfully, the meeting only lasted about 40 minutes. This felt much better than the 3 1/2 hour City Council work session on the police facility a few weeks ago that fried my brain and frustrated my patience.

This time Mayor Peterson seemed to be keeping track of what was going on.

At the previous meeting Peterson presided over the goings-on for about three hours before coming to the realization that I and seemingly everybody else in the room found obvious: that the entire discussion at the work session to that point had been about a downsized 125,000 square foot police facility rather than the original 148,000 square foot plan. 

Today City Manager Steve Powers said that consultants and staff are working on a revised site plan and cost estimate for the 148,000 square foot, $81 million option that excludes the Mill Creek Medical Plaza building adjacent to the O'Brien site north of downtown -- the chosen location for a new police facility.

The alternative 125,000 square foot, $70 million option leaves out the regional 911 Center (Willamette Valley Communications Center). It's pretty clear that the Mayor and some city councilors still have the hots for including a much larger 911 Center in the new police facility.

However, Powers made some statements about an upcoming staff report on the 911 Center that showed the "build new" option is going to come out looking economically bad compared to the "continue to lease space" option.

"The cost-benefit analysis of building may not be compelling," Powers said judiciously. But he added that qualitative considerations (like, Police Chief Moore wants the regional 911 Center in a new police facility) could alter the economic equation.

Looking at the meeting agenda, I noticed that Councilor Warren Bednarz is no longer on the committee. Maybe this had something to do with Bednarz voting to consider a potential location for the police facility -- the block south of the Library -- without announcing a conflict of interest, because his family owns property on that block. 

That led to a complaint being filed with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. 

Mayor Anna Peterson, along with City Councilors Steve McCoid, Diana Dickey, and Chuck Bennett are the four remaining members of the Police Facility Subcommittee. McCoid was the only councilor in attendance.

I was sorry that Chuck Bennett wasn't there after I heard City Manager Powers report on progress in getting cost estimates for making the Civic Center earthquake-safe.

Bennett is running for Mayor against Carole Smith. Repeatedly he has claimed that no reliable cost estimates exist for seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library -- a falsity that I gave him a WTF! for after hearing him say this at a Salem City Club debate between him and Smith.

Today Powers said that three studies have been made since 2005 of what it would cost to make seismic upgrades to the Civic Center so lives will be saved when, not if, the next Really Big One subduction zone earthquake hits the northwest. 

One study was for the entire Civic Center; one was for City Hall; and the most recent was for the Library and associated parking structure. Bennett has been saying that the seismic cost estimates were made by some out-of-town guy walking around and coming up with a number.

Well, Powers said that this guy is the same professional estimator who is coming up with cost estimates for the new police facility. So Chuck Bennett hasn't been telling the truth about the reliability of seismic retrofitting cost figures for the Civic Center.

Architect Geoff James, a fellow Salem Community Vision steering committee member, also attended today's meeting. You can check out his report here. Geoff laid out the timeline discussed by the council subcommitee:

HERE IS THE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS (for the calendar)

May 11: Council receive cost estimate packets.

Wednesday June 1 Work Session (assumed to be at 5.30 p.m.)

Monday, June 13: City Council: Public Hearing on Police Facility. Also on City Budget.

Monday, June 27: City Council makes decision on the Bond Measure (in November).

My (not so) secret plan to sway Salem's May election

I'm a big fan of House of Cards, the Netflix series that features devious political machinations in Washington, D.C. 

Sometimes, though, the sneakiest thing to do in politics is be absolutely open and upfront. That's so unusual these days, nobody will believe what you're saying! He must have a secret agenda...

Well, believe it or not, here's my not-so-secret plan to sway Salem's May election for Mayor and four City Council positions.

People power. Especially, social media people power. 

I designed a Salem, Let's Blast Off to a Fresh Start ad for Carole Smith, my choice for Mayor, that ran in today's Statesman Journal. In the ad I was pleased to incorporate the rocket ship part of the new Strange Up Salem logo that was designed recently.

It's a nice fit, this Blast Off to a Fresh Start campaign and my passion for strange'ing up Salem. Which as I say on the Strange Up Salem Facebook page, means:

Let's make Salem, Oregon out of the ordinary. Creative. Fun. Diverse. Vibrant. Artistic. In short...STRANGER!

Politically, Salem is in a stale rut. In one long sentence, here's what this town needs to get away from:

The Chamber of Commerce grooms right-wing people to run for local public office by getting them onto City of Salem committees and urging them to get involved with neighborhood associations, then these people run for office and, not surprisingly, get endorsed by the Chamber's Board of Directors, after which the Chamber's Political Action Committee supports them with lavish (for Salem) amounts of money, and this -- combined with the usual editorial page endorsement from the Chamber-friendly Statesman Journal newspaper, along with low voter turnout in May primary elections where local races usually are decided, allows the conservative Chamber candidates for Mayor and City Council to be elected in a liberal-leaning city.

This isn't good for Salem. 
We need fresh ideas.
We have to get out of a 1950's-era Chamber of Commerce mentality. 
Sprawl. Worship the auto. Let charity take care of people in need.

I put up a Fresh Start Salem web page that advocates voting for candidates in the May election who have a different vision for this town.

People power can elect a new Mayor and three city councilors in the May 17, 2016 election who are committed to a fresh start for Salem. We all know how much untapped potential lies dormant in this town, ready to blossom when City leaders involve people, listen to people, say YES! to people with great ideas.

For example, cities all across America are thriving by embracing Smart Growth and New Urbanism.

But here in Salem, currently we've got a Mayor and City Council majority who are enthralled by Dumb Growth and Old Urbanism. This has to change, or other cities are going to whip our economic and livability ass.

So how is Salem going to break out of the Chamber of Commerce-controlled political system I described in my Long Sentence?

People Power. Which should be way more potent than Money Power, since people vote and money doesn't.

A political revolution is needed here in Salem. Completely peaceful, of course.

The lessons learned in Tunisia apply, though, where people using social media like Facebook fueled the flames of a much-needed political changeover.

So I'm hoping Salem's citizens will take up the Let's Blast Off to a Fresh Start message and spread it widely. I've started to do this via some Facebook posts I put up today. More will follow.

Check out my first Strange Up Salem post and my second Strange Up Salem post. Then share them with others.

If lots of people help share this simple Blast Off to a Fresh Start message -- vote for Carole Smith, Cara Kaser, Matt Ausec, and Sally Cook in the May election -- there's a good chance Salem will elect four people with fresh creative ideas a month from now, May 17.

Salem's May 2016 election: Fresh vs. Stale is voters' choice

Fresh is better than stale, right? Sure applies to bread. Also, to political candidates. Such as the people running for Mayor and four City Council seats in Salem's upcoming May election.

Salem voters have a clear choice between two groups of candidates. Fresh or Stale?

The three Chamber of Commerce-backed candidates (along with Councilor Brad Nanke, who is unopposed for re-election) promise more of the same.

Top-of-the-ticket guy Chuck Bennett, the Chamber's choice for Mayor, makes this clear in the positions I've heard him take. How depressingly stale is this?

-- More ignoring of what ordinary citizens see as best for Salem, while paying rapt attention to special interests and this town's version of the 1%.

-- More wasteful spending on planning for an unneeded half-billion dollar Third Bridge that would mean a $1.50 each-way toll on both the new and current bridges.

-- More sprawl, more trees cut down for no good reason, more lifeless shopping centers like ghastly Keizer Station.

-- More small-hopes for low paying warehouse jobs at business parks far from Salem's urban core, rather than investing in Smart Growth that will make this town attractive to cutting-edge 21st century businesses.

-- More lucrative tax breaks for Salem's already rich and powerful, while ordinary citizens get nickel-and-dimed to death by the City of Salem.

Fortunately, there's a Fresh Choice. I urge you to consider voting for these creative, concerned, compassionate candidates.

Carole Smith for Mayor
Cara Kaser for Ward 1 City Councilor
Matt Ausec for Ward 5 City Councilor
Sally Cook for Ward 7 City Councilor

Salem can't move forward with Chamber of Commerce-backed elected officials. The Chamber is stuck in a 1950's mentality of pave, pave, pave; sprawl, sprawl, sprawl; cars, cars, cars.

It's like Dwight Eisenhower is still president, not Barack Obama.

Citizens who care about making Salem into a town that works for everybody, not just the already rich-and-powerful, should vote for Fresh, not Stale. 

Here's how I put it in the final Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column that I wrote in April 2015, "Time to Take Back this Town."

Salem currently is being led by a Mayor and City Council majority who view citizen participation as an irritant. They put on outward happy-face smiles in public meetings while fuming inside when anyone challenges their predetermined policy pronouncements.

Their policies almost always bow at the altar of Salem’s version of the 1%, who already are rich and powerful, yet desire more wealth and influence. Not coincidentally, municipal elections typically are bought by money from the Chamber of Commerce and special interest groups.

So even though Salem’s citizens authentically want their town to be more environmentally friendly, caring of our historic heritage, compassionate toward those in need, and economically equitable, the Powers That Be divert our attention from pressing problems by trying to persuade us that everything is fine, don’t listen to the boo-birds, and, hey, how about that Angry Owl?!

Sadly, the Statesman Journal, a sorry excuse for a community newspaper, has surrendered its journalistic credentials, including any attempts at serious investigative reporting, and become a simplistic cheerleader for the Pollyannaish civic boosterism crowd, filling its pages with human interest stories.

Our City officials would rather waste half a billion dollars on an unneeded Third Bridge than deal with problems concerning the homeless, bicycle infrastructure, tree preservation, downtown vitalization, earthquake safety, and many other pressing concerns.

Salemians need to take back their town. Speak out loudly, confidently, passionately. And vote! In every election, May and November.

True Story revealed of Carole Smith's feud with Mayor Anna Peterson

A lot of malicious political gossip gets spread around supposedly-friendly Salem. Here at Salem Political Snark, we're out to separate false accusations from true facts.

This time, the accusation is that Mayor candidate Carole Smith promoted divisive, unproductive conflict while on the Downtown Advisory Board.

Like Fox News likes to say -- and I'm barely capable of typing these words, given the source -- "We Report, You Decide."

Brent DeHart is a recent past president of the Salem Chamber of Commerce. Smith's opponent, Chuck Bennett, has been endorsed by the Chamber. Here's DeHart's letter to the editor that appeared in the Statesman Journal on April 10.

The part about Smith is in red. 

Letter: Bennett a worthy, effective choice for mayor

In our upcoming mayoral election, we have a choice. City Councilor Chuck Bennett has the experience, expertise and the collaborative attitude to keep Salemites engaged, and to move positive things forward.

Carole Smith’s civic attitude has resulted in divisiveness and unproductive conflict. Because of this, she was removed from the downtown advisory board by the City Council.

The choice should be quite easy for us, as the contrast is clear. Chuck Bennett has proved himself respectful, worthy and effective. I served with him on City Council, and even when our views conflicted, he worked to find a solution all parties could live with to get things done.

Brent DeHart
Salem

Hmmmm. What DeHart said regarding Smith's removal from the Downtown Advisory Board (DAB) didn't fit with other things I've heard about this.

So I asked Carole Smith to tell me what happened from her point of view. Here's what she sent me:

Here is the back story on why I was removed from DAB.

On June 14, 2011, I had an appointment to speak to the Mayor [Anna Peterson) on concerns I had, but before I could open my mouth in the meeting the Mayor was shaking with anger and started shaking her finger in my face and telling me I had to find a way to vote with the rest of the people on the Downtown Advisory Board (DAB) or she would get rid of me.  

This went on for 20 minutes and was very demeaning.  When I asked if I could tell her my side of the story, the Mayor answered, “No, I have heard enough." After 20 minutes I finally said, “Nothing is being accomplished here so I think I will leave."  The Mayor answered, “Yes, I think you should”. 

Afterward, I thought about the fact that a Mayor has no right to tell a citizen on an advisory board how to vote, and to actually threaten them with removal was shocking.  

I believe I have the right to vote for whatever I believe is best for my community. When I began to tell other people about this threat by the Mayor, I found others that had been treated the same way -  and they were mostly women, including the then city councilor Sheryl Thomas.    

I stayed on the Downtown Advisory Board for 1 1/2 years. Every meeting, the Mayor came and sat directly behind me.  Right before the City moved to create a Parking Task Force to implement parking meters in the downtown, I was removed from DAB and the City fired the Salem Downtown Partnership. 

Interesting timing, everyone who was against parking meters downtown was eliminated within 24 hours.

At meetings of the Downtown Advisory Board, I was respectful to always raise my hand before speaking and to make short comments and questions. Then I voted for what was best for my neighborhood. But what the Mayor was after is unanimous votes, not free thinkers and visionaries.

The Mayor claimed my questions and comments were divisive, and my explanations of how programs downtown worked in the past, or why policies were implemented, was met with “That’s the past, we do things differently now."  

I believe a Mayor does NOT have the right to tell citizens how to vote, and my resulting commitment to continuing to represent the citizens in my community was met with my removal from the Downtown Advisory Board.  

I believe my behavior is exactly what citizens need in a Mayor - someone who will stand up for them, to research all angles of the problem and find the best solutions, and not to be so insecure as to demand everyone vote unanimously.  

And Chuck Bennett voted along with the Mayor, the only no vote was from Sheryl Thomas. 

I am attaching the letter I wrote to City Council asking them not to remove me. Eric [Kittleson] was also in the room with me when the Mayor cut loose. You can ask him to verify what I have said.  I sent him a copy also.

     -- Carole

Below is the February 2013 letter to the City Council Carole refers to. It makes for interesting reading, especially compared with the following memo Mayor Peterson sent to the City Council asking for Smith's removal.

Download Carole's letter to council

Download Downtown Advisory Board membership

I favor Smith's version of her DAB dismissal, having observed Mayor Anna Peterson in action at numerous City Council meetings, and having heard similar stories about how Peterson dislikes people who disagree with the "party line" being promoted by herself and her right-wing City Council majority.

Yes, Carole Smith can be opinionated. And she pushes hard for what she believes is best for Salem. I see nothing wrong with this, and a lot right. 

Better decisions are made when all voices are heard.

Over and over, I see a premature consensus being advocated at City Council meetings, which are chaired by Mayor Peterson. Those with an alternative point of view, whether citizens or city councilors, too often are ignored, marginalized, shunned. 

Something to keep in mind when voting in the May 17 election. Chuck Bennett is a long-time city councilor who is Mayor Peterson's chosen replacement. Carole Smith is an outsider with fresh ideas. 

I've reported. You decide. 

Courthouse Square lies being spread to justify Police Facility wasteful spending

Looks like John Lattimer, the Chief Administrative Officer for Marion County, has been caught in a lie -- along with some members of the Salem City Council, who have been spreading the same falsehoods.

Here's what Lattimer said in a recent Statesman Journal letter to the editor, "Don't 'nickel and dime' police facility plan":

The community has a great example of what happens when buildings are re-designed to reduce costs. The Courthouse Square and Transit Mall is a perfect example of attempts to cut costs. There was a great amount of political heat on the decision makers at the time to reduce costs. Eventually, both the building and transit mall had to be re-engineered at great cost.

The Salem City Council should not make the same mistake.

I don't know whether Lattimer intentionally misrepresented the cause of the problems with Courthouse Square in downtown Salem to justify wasting money on an oversized and overpriced new police facility, or if he is just clueless about why Courthouse Square (built by Marion County and the Cherriots Transit Board) had to undergo extensive repairs after being built.

Here's what really happened with Courthouse Square. The building's problems weren't caused by cost-cutting. They were caused by mismanagement and poor construction practices. 

Before sharing what architect Geoffrey James, who chaired a Courthouse Square Task Force repair committee, has to say about Lattimer's letter, here's what Susan Kaltwasser said in a Facebook post. (I've corrected a few typos in both her post and James' messages):

John Lattimer should be ashamed of himself as Marion County CAO to so misrepresent what happened at the Courthouse Square! There are public records that clearly show that the problem was not due to cutting corners on the budget, BUT rather lack of oversight by the county and errors made by the construction contractors and engineers.

This is not opinion as Lattimer is giving, but fact based upon impartial investigation and court documents. This engineer made more mistakes in buildings in Salem projects (Salem Hospital parking structure).

The City Council is negligent in not questioning the consultants thus far and stating that they will trust the experts. Well experts can be wrong. Oversight is what is needed, NOT more money.

This lie is being promoted by those who want to fool the Salem public into thinking more money means a better building. They think that an expensive PR firm can "sell" the project to the voters. I hope that the voters will see through this.

I also hope that the voters throw these current politicians who are making these wrong and costly mistakes out in May. We need people who think for themselves and read the staff reports and vote on what is right for citizens and not just what lines theirs and other builder friends' pockets with taxpayers' hard earned money.

We need a police station. We can have a large, adequate and well built facility for $30 million. We do not need another expensive parking structure when one is just a block away.

And here's what Geoffrey James said in an online comment on Lattimer's letter to the editor:

The writer is incorrect. I served on both the Courthouse Square Task Force (and chaired a committee) and on the Blue Ribbon Police Facility Task Force.

My work on Courthouse Square started in 1986 with early site studies and conceptual design, for County and Transit. The building was constructed for $34M in 2000, with a perfectly adequate budget, i.e. certainly not built on the cheap.

The facts are that both the Salem Hospital Parking Garage and the Courthouse Square were designed by the same structural engineer, who made some serious design mistakes in the post-stressed flat slab concrete structure design and calculations, of both buildings.

Salem Health decided to fix their building. Marion County (the letter writer is county administrator) decided not to, because they insisted on staying on time and budget, i.e. no change orders. So that meant that I (as committee chair for the fix) had to spend hundreds of volunteer hours (10 years later) finding a way to repair the building for $20M, versus the $65M the Portland consultants had estimated.

Local volunteers were proven right. The expensive out-of-town consultants were proven wrong (by $40M) and the taxpayers won. Sounds familiar?

Chicago consultants recommend a $82M Police Facility, when we know that Eugene's new one was $17M. The bottom line is that Courthouse Square had an adequate budget of $34M. It was the engineering consultant, and the city's lack of an engineer reviewing the plans, that led to the $22.8M problem that we (locals) devised a fix for.

It would have cost a fraction of that if the county administrator had recommended a $3M? fix during construction. Beware of out-of-town consultants and their big cost estimates, and watch out for consultants' mistakes. Quality control (by city or county) is needed, not excessive budgets.

This fits with the "How did things go so wrong?" section of a blog post from the law firm that handled a legal battle about the Courthouse Square structural defects. Excerpts:

In their report, Golder found serious problems with the building's structural design, writing that it was inadequate; lacked sufficient detail and clarity; and was never subjected to peer-review before or during construction. Design revisions made during construction were also cited in the report as worsening the building's already-flawed structural design.

The report also blamed management and supervision errors for the poor construction practices which led to the building's structural and other defects... 

The lack of experience in managing and overseeing construction projects similar in size and scope to the Courthouse Square project among County and Transit officials, the architect and the primary contractor were also cited in the report as contributing to the flawed construction.

Finally, the forensic engineering report, citing data from concrete strength tests it conducted during its investigation, concluded that the building's concrete elements were too weak.

Lastly, I asked Geoffrey James to respond to Lattimer's claim that cost-cutting was the cause of Courthouse Square's construction problems. Here's the message that he emailed back to me. It provides more detail than James' online comment.

Salem Chamber of Commerce is overly political

"The Chamber of Commerce runs this town," a Salem City Councilor said to me in a moment of candor at a social event. I hear this frequently. 

The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce is highly political. Photos I took last Sunday at the Chamber's office on Commercial Street NE tell the tale.

Mayor candidate Chuck Bennett has been endorsed by the Chamber. Bennett, a lobbyist, is running against Carole Smith, a businesswoman.

Councilor Warren Bednarz also has been endorsed for re-election by the Chamber. His opponent is Sally Cook.

Jan Kailuweit is the other person endorsed by the Chamber in the May 17 election. He's running for the Ward 1 City Council seat being vacated by Bennett. His opponent is Cara Kaser. 

Here's what strikes me as weird -- and unhealthy for this town -- about the Salem Chamber of Commerce's hyper-political activism.

(1) Many Chambers of Commerce aren't political. A recent issue of Salem Weekly had a great piece on this subject, "Different chambers, different approaches." 

“The Ashland Chamber of Commerce plays an important part in bringing the community together,” says Pam Marsh, city councilor in Ashland, OR. For the last 30 years, although the Ashland chamber coordinates community issues forums and hosts a discussion series to introduce all candidates to local people, it does not endorse candidates at any level, and does not provide funding for any candidate with a PAC.

“Avoiding politics really enables our Chamber to reach out to every part of the community,” Marsh says.

In Salem, the Salem Area chamber of Commerce endorses candidates and funds their campaigns through its Create Jobs PAC. Advocacy is emphasized at the local, regional and state level, with prominent links on the organization’s website to its PAC, to its positions on policy matters and to current openings on City of Salem boards and commissions, bodies the chamber encourages members to apply for.

The Salem Chamber of Commerce has made a choice to be overtly political in a polarizing right-wing way. But why should it be assumed that businesses in this town are better served by conservatives rather than liberals?

Alex Kohan left some interesting comments on the Salem Weekly story. One said, "Since 2008 the Chamber of Commerce has given money to 17 candidates, of those 15 have been Republicans." Well, even if one assumes the Chamber should be political (which I don't), does this make sense? 

Which gets me to...

(2) Democratic leaders tend to be better for the economy. Today the Statesman Journal reported that Oregon unemployment hit a record low in March, 4.5%. 

State employment economist Nick Beleiciks said in a release that the jobless rate shows the Oregon labor market is "stronger than it's been in decades." Beleiciks said people are "flocking to Oregon's labor force."

Oregon has a Democratic Governor and Dem majorities in both the state Senate and House. If liberals have been good for the state economy, why does the Salem Chamber of Commerce only favor conservatives for Mayor and City Council?

Likewise, on the national level the economy does much better when a Democrat is president. 

“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

So another question is, if liberals have been good for the national economy, why does the Salem Chamber of Commerce favor conservatives for Mayor and City Council?

(3) Salem is a liberal-leaning town. Businesses want customers/clients. Period. I've never been told by a Salem business owner, "We don't serve Democrats."

So it's hard for me to understand why businesses that are members of the Salem Chamber of Commerce are OK with the Chamber taking political positions that not only are at odds with what is arguably good for this town's economy, as noted in (2) above, but also go against the political leanings of a majority of Salem's citizens. 

Yes, Salem leans liberal. Check out my post about how Salem voted in the 2012 presidential election, "Salem, Oregon is more liberal than many people think." 

Six of the eight wards went for Obama, two of them (wards 1 & 2) overwhelmingly. Only two wards, 4 and 8, cast a majority of votes for Romney. Yet even in conservative-leaning South Salem and West Salem, Obama got 46% and 48% respectively.

Yet the Salem Chamber of Commerce is dead-set against people in a liberal-leaning town electing -- oh, the horror! -- liberals. 

Here's what the Chamber said in their March 2016 announcement where they endorsed Bennett, Bednarz, and Kailuweit. 

It is important not to become complacent. There is still a small, but vocal, group who would like to see Salem return to the way things were 20 years ago. We believe that agenda will take Salem in the wrong direction. The livelihood of businesses and the livability of our community is dependent upon electing the right people to local government.

Hmmmm. I guess the Chamber is referring to the Mayor Roger Gertenrich and Mayor Mike Swaim era, 1994-2002. 

I wasn't following Salem city politics very closely back then.

From what I hear, the liberal voters of Salem elected liberals to be Mayor and a majority of the City Council. Then the Chamber of Commerce rose up and said Can't have that!, which led to the Chamber throwing around its money and influence to elect conservative candidates.

Well, I found a statement by Swaim from 1998, when he decided to run for re-election. His vision doesn't sound at all like it would "take Salem in the wrong direction," as today's Chamber of Commerce leadership considers. Decide for yourself:
Download Community Values - Making Choices for Livability by Mike Swaim

I feel like the divisiveness and polarization in Salem would be much reduced if the Chamber wasn't so committed to pushing a right-wing political agenda.

I come from a very business-oriented family. Growing up, I never got the impression that business was all about politics. Business was about making money by providing products and services to people.

Here's part of another Salem Weekly comment from Alex Kohan which expresses nicely how I feel:

As far as I am concerned, the Salem Chamber should act like the Ashland Chamber. They should remove themselves from politics, stop buying city elections along with their friends the Salem Realtors and the Homeowners Association. I would have zero problem with the Chamber if they actually worked to make Salem a better place instead of just buying elections, pushing their Republican agenda and trying to gain benefits for the small elite of Salem residents.

Update: Googling another subject related to the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, I came across a 2011 PDF file of the "Create Jobs PAC & Salem Chamber Endorsement Process." Interesting reading, if you're into this sort of political stuff.
Download Create Jobs PAC

The Create Jobs PAC board makes a recommendation to the Chamber's board about which candidates to endorse. Then the Chamber board votes on the endorsements.

Peculiar factoid -- in the questionnaire that goes to candidates, there's this statement:  "The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce is made up of over 1,200 businesses located in the Clackamas County area."

Salem is in Marion County. Does the Chamber of Commerce know this? Or does it really have lots of members in Clackamas County?