Salem Political Snark

Salem City Council embarks on investigation into "Sign-Up-Gate" scandal

Oh, man. Last night the Salem City Council passed a motion to investigate me and two other people.

Shit! THIS IS F@#KING SERIOUS!

So serious, it deserves a scandal-worthy name: Sign-Up Gate. The three of us being investigated, naturally, are The Sign-Up Gate Three. 

I've made an annotated photo of myself that can be used by investigators, local media, and the New York Times (once this inquiry goes national, as it deserves to, given its importance).

We can credit (if that's the right word) Councilor Jim Lewis with laying bare the details of this scandal (if that also is the right word) near the end of last night's City Council meeting.

Lewis noted that the minutes of the June 8 Council meeting -- which was a public hearing on a proposal to build a new police facility -- listed Geoffrey James, Susann Kaltwasser, and Brian Hines (moi) -- as testifying on the "Support" side, even though in his opinion what we said in our three minute testimony didn't seem to support us being supporters of "Support."

So he made a motion for City staff to investigate Sign-Up-Gate that passed unanimously.

I move that we request staff to go back and review tapes of the June 8 public hearing and verify that in fact these names are in the right place.

Um, I'm pretty sure that CCTV doesn't keep stuff on "tape" anymore. Regardless, here's a tapeless video I made from the CCTV recording of last night's meeting that shows Councilor Lewis' determination to get to the bottom of Sign-Up-Gate. 

 

This is a marvelously stupid waste of time. Lewis' unsavory motivation seems to be that he wants to paint the three of us with a naysayer brush, because we dared to make some positive suggestions about how to improve the current police facility proposal.

But since I love pointing out stupid stuff that emanates from City officials, I agree with Lewis that an investigation into Sign-Up-Gate is warranted. 

And not just a cursory investigation, a freaking full-blown Benghazi style inquiry. Two years and an 8oo page report -- yeah, that sounds about right to me. 

This is called-for because Lewis' motion opens up a hugely complex can of philosophical and psychological worms. It's going to take some serious effort to delve into the deep cosmic questions underlying Sign-Up-Gate. Such as:

I can't really remember what column I checked on the sign-up sheet for those wanting to testify at the police facility hearing. I recall staring at the "support," "oppose," and "not sure" columns (not sure about the name of that last column, if it even existed) and being uncertain about which box to check. 

After all, I, along with the two other members of  The Sign-Up-Gate Three, support a new police facility, but oppose some features of the current $82 million proposal.

So shouldn't we be able to declare, via the boxes we checked on the sign-up sheet, what position we are taking at the hearing? What gives City staff, or Jim Lewis, the right to decide what, um, box, we should be put in, support-wise or oppose-wise?

These questions lead into deep waters of the Subjective/Objective Ocean, a murky philosophical realm.

Testifying at a police facility hearing isn't like holding up a sign that says either Yes or No. Geoff, Susann, and I each favor certain aspects of the current police facility plan (the location is fine), but not other aspects (such as the size/cost, and not including seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library in a Public Safety bond, as was originally intended by City officials).

Here's a video of my testimony at the June 8 City Council meeting. I focused solely on the need to make the Civic Center earthquake-safe. I supported making this part of the police facility bond -- which again, was intended by City officials until the size and cost of the police facility doubled.

 

But, hey, if Councilor Lewis and City staff want to inquire into my state of mind when I made these remarks, let's get it on. I love to talk about myself! 

I've written 51 blog posts about planning for a police facility. I've never said that a new police facility isn't needed. I've always supported one, so long as it is wisely planned. So as noted before, I support a police facility, but not the particular plan the City Council was considering on July 8.

Which, as the agenda shows, was a progress report. Information only. 

Citizens like me, Geoff, and Susann were invited to testify at the public hearing because supposedly the City Council was open to ideas about how to make the current police facility plan better. It hadn't been voted on yet. That's why a public hearing was being held: to allow the Mayor and City Councilors to hear from citizens.

Councilor Jim Lewis, though, seems to view any criticism of the $82 million plan as being tantamount to opposing a new police facility.

That is SO WRONG, it boggles my mind that he made a motion to have City staff look into whether The Sign-Up-Gate Three should be blazed with an Oppose mark in the minutes of the July 8 meeting, just because we made some positive suggestions about how to improve the current plan.

Groupthink seems to be alive and thriving in the minds of Lewis and other members of the current right-wing City Council majority. Any constructive criticism is viewed as naysaying from boo-birds who don't want any change in Salem. 

Well, on second thought, maybe an 800 page report on Sign-Up-Gate isn't needed. Nine words might be enough:

You're fucked up, Councilor Lewis. Stop this stupid shit.

Salem Can Do Better: Vote "No" on $82 million police facility bond

Tonight the Salem City Council is expected to ask voters to approve an $82 million bond measure to build a new police facility. This is a bad proposal. It deserves to be rejected in the November election.

In this web page, made with Adobe Spark, I give five good reasons (plus a bonus reason) why Salem Can Do Better.

I'm planning to testify during the public comment period at tonight's City Council meeting.

One thing I want to say is that just as someone can be a strong supporter of our armed forces and still be opposed to wasteful military spending, so can someone be a strong supporter of the Salem Police Department and still oppose an over-priced new police facility that harms this town's ability to meet other pressing needs.

Statesman Journal gets fooled by misleading Republican poll

Shocker! Or so it seemed at the time. 

"Poll: Richardson leads Secretary of State race." That link is to a Google cache version of a story that has been taken down by the Salem Statesman Journal. 

I read the story online last night.

It really surprised me that supposedly Republican Dennis Richardson was leading Democrat Brad Avakian 47% to 38%. A Republican hasn't won a statewide office in Oregon for a long time. And the story by reporter Gordon Friedman said:

The numbers suggest the first time in nearly a decade that a Republican has led in polls in a race for statewide office, said Jim Moore, professor and director of the Tom McCall Center for Policy Innovation at Pacific University. Moore said that by his recollection, Gordon Smith was the last Republican to command such a lead in the polls over a Democrat. Smith lost his seat in the U.S. Senate in 2008 to Jeff Merkley.

But today I saw a Blue Oregon post that demolished the credibility of the Statesman Journal story. Here's how the post starts out:

It was the kind of headline that makes political watchers in Oregon sit up and take notice:

Poll: Richardson leads Secretary of State race

According to the story in the Statesman-Journal, Republican Dennis Richardson was up 47% to 38% over Democrat Brad Avakian in a poll paid for by GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce.

But it didn't take long before the SSJ made one little, tiny, but oh-so-critical update:

It randomly sampled 535 people ... 440 of the respondents said they were Republicans.

That's right: According to this "random sample" poll, 82% of Oregonians are self-identifying Republicans. HAHHAHA.

And just a few hours later, the SSJ yanked the story offline entirely.

Pretty embarrassing for the Statesman Journal, especially since it is the community newspaper in Oregon's capital. The revised online story (shown in the Google cache version) has the update mentioned by Blue Oregon. Here's a screenshot from the post:

Apparently the Statesman Journal was the only newspaper in Oregon to bite on what likely was either a Dennis Richardson or Bud Pierce press release.

Or maybe the info came from Action Solutions, a right-wing polling firm that Pierce has used for a supposedly "random poll" (yeah, right...) that showed him in a virtual tie with Kate Brown (about as unbelievable as Richardson being ahead of Avakian).

Here's what I don't understand about the Statesman Journal story that got trashed: there were several warning signs that the poll showing Richardson ahead was garbage.

First, any poll that showed Richardson nine points ahead of Avakian in the Secretary of State race should have set off "WTF?" warning bells in a reporter's mind. Like I said, I was shocked when I read the story. I found it unbelievable. But since I have a predisposition to believe what I read in a newspaper, I was prepared to believe it. 

If, and this is a big IF, the poll was credible. I'm pretty sure that Gordon Friedman's original story didn't list what firm conducted the poll. I just assumed that this was a reputable organization, or the Statesman Journal wouldn't be reporting the poll results.

So either Friedman wasn't concerned about the fact that the poll was paid for by Republican Governor candidate Bud Pierce and conducted by a right-wing polling firm, or he didn't know who conducted the poll before he wrote his story. Either way, this is poor journalism. 

Second, no matter who conducts a poll (meaning, even if it is a reputable survey research firm), I've found that reporters typically check the validity of the respondents who were sampled. In a political poll, this includes checking whether the distribution of Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters is close to the overall breakdown for the country, state, or whatever.

Wikipedia says that the December 2015 breakdown for registered Oregon voters is 38% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 32% other affiliation. Yet as Blue Oregon pointed out, the Bud Pierce poll showing Richardson ahead of Avakian was based on a sample that was 82% Republican. 

How was the Statesman Journal suckered into essentially reprinting a GOP press release? My search of Google News for "richardson leads avakian poll" turned up only one hit: the Statesman Journal story that got taken down after the poll results turned out to be political garbage.

Thus unless the Statesman Journal was the only newspaper that was informed about the Richardson/Avakian poll (unlikely, but possible), the Statesman demonstrated an unusual proclivity to "bite" on a story that should never have been offered up as journalistic fare to newspaper readers. 

I'm inclined to blame Statesman Journal management and editors more than the reporter who wrote the story, Gordon Friedman. I've found Friedman to be a diligent and competent reporter. Sure, he may have screwed up on this story, but I feel that the larger screw-up is how journalism is being practiced at the Statesman Journal these days.

Being a follower of Friedman's Twitter account, I know that he got a "rookie" award from the Oregon chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Congratulations, Gordon. I also noticed your tweet about how many stories you've written for the Statesman Journal during your first year with the newspaper:

I have no idea if 450 stories in a year is typical for a newspaper reporter. It seems like a lot. Let's take off 115 days, say, from 365 for days off and vacation. That makes 450 stories in about 250 days. Roughly, two a day. 

It takes me about two hours to research and write a 1,000 word blog post -- about the length of this one. Sometimes I base a post on attending a meeting, or otherwise getting out-and-about, that adds several more hours. But a newspaper reporter like Friedman likely has to do considerably more telephoning and interviewing in person.

For example, Friedman did a major job of investigative reporting when he delved into correctional officer discipline in Oregon prisons. That may count as just one of his 450 stories in a single year.

So this is why I feel that Statesman Journal management deserves the bulk of the blame for the Richardson/Avakian poll story screwup. Journalistic quality at the newspaper has gone steadily downhill as experienced reporters are laid off or voluntarily depart, while new hires are underpaid and overworked.

As a long-time (since 1977) subscriber, I have this crazy idea that I should be able to read factual, important, thought-provoking local and state news in my community newspaper. That really isn't happening anymore, not compared to the quality of reporting during most of the years I've been a subscriber.

Thus I view this latest journalistic failing within a larger context: the Statesman Journal's transformation from a decent community newspaper into a shallow "click-bait" media outlet that emphasizes quantity over quality, and sensationalism over solid reporting.

"Angry Owl" is on Twitter, saying satirical stuff about Salem

Birds are smart. I'm not surprised that "Angry Owl" has established a nest on Twitter, where he/she tweets out funny observations about Salem.

I'm the dumb one, because it's taken me this long to explore Angry Owl's Twitter feed (which hatched in February 2015; tagline is "Protecting the nest, helping joggers run a little faster").

This was the tweet that caught my attention recently. My @oregonbrian Twitter handle was included in it, since Angry Owl knows how much I enjoy humor directed at the City of Salem. (Some of my blog posts also provided material for Angry Owl.)

That tweet led me to delve into Angry Owl's Twitter feed.

Below are some good additional tweets from the past three months or so. I appreciate Angry Owl's focus on the Statesman Journal, Chamber of Commerce, and other subjects that deserve satirical birdsong.

It's hard for me to pick a favorite among the following. Since I'm a non-fan of the Statesman Journal's "SJ Kids" page, finding it a full-page journalistic waste, I'll choose SJ Kids: Which would you rather be, drunk or stoned?

Enjoy...

Salem can do better... than an over-priced $83 million police facility

The flip side of NO is YES. Saying No to one thing often is the prelude to saying Yes to a better thing.

So I'm proud to be a naysayer to plans for an $83 million police facility here in Salem, because rejecting a bond for this over-sized and over-priced Police Palace in the November 2016 election will open a YES door to a better approach -- one that meets the needs of the Police Department plus other needs that currently are being ignored by City officials.

Here's what I mean:

Cost is too high. Salem can do better... because not only is the proposed 148,000 square foot police facility considerably larger than what this town needs, the construction cost per square foot is much higher than what other police facilities have been built for recently.

This chart is part of a Salem Community Vision post. It shows that the $562/square foot construction cost of the proposed Salem police facility is more than double the square foot cost of facilities built by the State Police and the Eugene Police Department. 

New 911 Center not necessary. Salem can do better... because it isn't necessary to include a new $11 million 911 Center in the proposed $83 million police facility. City officials have been told that the current 911 Center (the Willamette Valley Communications Center, WVCC) is fine where it is in leased space for at least another ten years. 

Also, why should Salem taxpayers pay the full $11 million bill for constructing a new 911 Center when the WVCC is a regional center for twenty-nine police, fire, and medical agencies in Lincoln, Marion, and Polk counties? If and when a new 911 Center is needed, the construction cost should be shared by all of the agencies.

Earthquake preparedness being ignored. Salem can do better... because the supersized $83 million, 148,000 square foot police facility has squeezed out funds for making critical life-saving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall.

Until a few years ago, seismic upgrades to the Civic Center were part of a Public Safety project that included money for a new $36 million, 75,000 square foot police facility. But then the police facility doubled in size and cost after some Chicago consultants came to town.

So now plans have been shelved to save lives at City Hall and the Library when (not if) the Big One Cascadia subduction zone earthquake hits, even though a main reason for a new police facility is because City Hall is expected to collapse in the Big One, and the Police Department currently is on the ground floor of the building. 

Our town has many other needs. Salem can do better... because wasting tens of millions of dollars on an over-priced Police Palace means this money can't be used to meet other needs.

Imagine what $10 million, say, could accomplish if it was used to combat homelessness, or make cycling and walking safer in Salem? In May 2015 I wrote about how Portland's much-admired Neighborhood Greenway streets cost about $250,000 a mile to build. Thus Salem could have 40 miles of bicycle/pedestrian-friendly streets for $10 million.

It should be possible to (1) build a perfectly adequate new police facility, (2) make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe, and (3) save at least $10 million to spend on other needs in Salem for the current price tag of $83 million -- which only pays for a police facility. 

There will be lots of debate and discussion about the proposed $83 million police facility bond between now and the November election.

Here I wanted to explain in general why I'll be urging citizens to vote NO -- so people in Salem can have a better YES after the over-priced bond is defeated and a more sensible revised plan is adopted. 

Statesman Journal editorial about Orlando killings irritatingly silent on solutions

After so many tragic mass shootings in this country, I've got no patience left with the "thoughts and prayers" crowd -- unless their thoughts and prayers are accompanied by a strong call for action. This is why I found a recent Statesman Journal editorial so irritating.

A few years ago I wrote about this in "Why I don't like 'Our thoughts and prayers are with you.'"

After the [Boston] bombing I came across a Twitter Tweet by someone I follow, "scriptdave" here in Salem. He's a screenwriter with a great sense of humor. Also, some wise observations. He tweeted:

I respect the need people have to pray. But that prayer is meaningless unless you get off your knees and do something.

To which I Twitter-replied, "Amen." Later someone else commented on scriptdave's tweet. He told them:

I hear you. People need to reflect, meditate, process tragedy. But prayer being the end all is ludicrous. Do something real.

A double Amen to that.

And only last December, I blogged "Another mass shooting. No more 'thoughts and prayers.' Gun control ACTION!"

Only in America do we have this much gun violence. Why? Because we have way more guns per capita than any other nation. So we have way more gun deaths. 

Responsible gun control is the answer. 

Thoughts and prayers are useless. They accomplish nothing (if a person directly affected by a shooting is told you are personally thinking of them, then they might feel a little bit better, but this rarely happens).

So, please Americans, stop with the thoughts and prayers.

All these rote expressions of sympathy accomplish is relieve your guilt that you're not doing anything to stop the needless gun violence.

Instead, ACT!

Support those calling for universal background checks and other reasonable gun control measures. Refuse to vote for politicians who mindlessly do the bidding of the NRA. Put pressure on federal, state, and local officials to prevent more mass shootings.

It's fine to feel for the victims. But if this is all we do, feel, we're being uncaring, not compassionate. One direct action to stop gun violence is better than a thousand thoughts and prayers.

So it was frustrating to read Dick Hughes' editorial in the Salem Statesman Journal about the Orlando mass shooting -- the worst in the history of the United States -- and find a lot of thoughts, but a zero call for action beyond vague platitudes like these (emphasis added by me):

This is a day for rational people to stand strong — shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm, hand in hand — with people whose sexual orientation or religious practices or world view differ from our own.

This is a day to remember that America was founded on the ideals of political freedom and religious tolerance, by people who rejected the state-enforced religion of their British master. It is a day to remember that throughout our history, America has been seen as the great melting pot of civilization, where people of different heritages and different beliefs and different skin colors can live together and promote the good of all.

Wow. Stand strong and remember. That'll do a lot to stop the next mass shooting. (NOT!) 

After I went to our paper box, got that day's Statesman Journal, and read Hughes' exceedingly toothless editorial, I sat down at my laptop and expressed my frustration in a comment on the online opinion piece.

This editorial gets the problem wrong. "Rational" was mentioned many times. But more rationality isn't going to stop mass shootings. The gunman, Omar Mateen, almost certainly wasn't mentally ill. He just believed in some weird stuff, like Donald Trump does, like a majority of Republican primary voters do, like WE ALL do.

Yes, religions are the source of much of the weird stuff people believe. Many Muslims and Christians share a mistaken belief that homosexuality is forbidden by God (who somehow also creates gays and lesbians). But we're not going to be able to do away with religions, no mattter how good this would be for the world.

Modern psychology and neursoscience understand that emotion, not reason, is the foundation of most of our actions. We FEEL that something is right, then we find reasons to support that feeling. Science, by and large, is our best way to use facts and reason to understand the world.

But scientific understanding isn't going to stop mass shootings. As I said in a blog post last night, it's obvious that the problem isn't people, it is guns. The United States doesn't have more people with weird beliefs; it has way more guns. That's why our nation's gun death rate is so far above that of other countries.

Universal background checks is one thing that could be done to prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Banning assault-style weapons is another good idea. See:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2016/06/tough-to-know-what-to-do-about-mass-shootings-in-united-states.html

This editorial failed to say anything about what concrete, realistic steps should be take to reduce the number of mass shootings. Big omission. It just talks about the usual useless "thoughts-and-prayers," "be kind to each other" stuff that has done, and will do, exactly NOTHING to stop innocent people from being killed by shooters.

Let's see another Statesman Journal editorial with specific recommendations to stop mass shootings. Only then will I believe that the SJ editorial board really wants to do something about this.

As noted in my comment and the linked blog post about the Orlando killings, here's four things that I think would help to stop the endless string of mass shootings in this country:

(1) Elect Hillary Clinton as the next president, so she has a chance to appoint Supreme Court justices who will revisit the horrible 2008 Court decision to overturn the previous long-held legal position that allowed reasonable regulations on the individual "right to bear arms."

(2) Pass a federal ban on assault-style weapons, just as President Ronald Reagan favored.

(3) Pass legislation across the country for strong universal background checks on gun purchases, an action favored by about 90% of American citizens. 

(4) Pass stronger gun-control legislation in the 2017 Oregon legislative session. 

So what are your recommended actions to help stop mass shootings, Dick Hughes and the rest of the Statesman Journal editorial board? 

Do you have any specific realistic actions? Or are you guys content with "thoughts and prayers" -- which so far has done nothing to stop people from being killed in mass shootings?

[Update: I just came across a New York Times piece that supports what I said in this post. "Why Do Terrorists Commit Terrorism?" concludes that it really isn't possible to know why someone does something (applies to everybody, not just terrorists). Instead, the focus should be on what they want to do. Like, commit a mass shooting. 

Stopping them from doing the what doesn't require knowing the why behind the what. Yet the Statesman Journal editorial wrongly said:

But we also know that the number of mass shootings has increased in the U.S. And to stop such actions, we must understand what drives them.

No, we don't need to understand the why of what drives them. We simply need to stop the actions undertaken in a mass shooting: one of which is buying guns and using them to kill people.]

Salem City Council meetings are unduly scripted

Scripts are for plays, movies, and TV shows where the plot, including the outcome, is laid out ahead of time. Public hearings aren't supposed to be scripted. 

After all, what's the point of inviting citizens to express their opinions on an issue if members of a government body -- in this case, the Salem City Council -- have already made up their minds? 

But as you can read below, this was the reaction of several people who attended last Wednesday's City Council hearing on a proposed new police facility: Mayor Peterson and the eight city councilors weren't open to new ideas or fresh arguments. The outcome of the meeting had been determined ahead of time just as surely as a movie production following a script.

(I wrote about my testimony at the hearing in "To save lives, in November vote NO on Salem police facility bond .")

I agree. I've attended lots of Salem City Council meetings. I've testified at many of them.

It feels weird to spend three minutes speaking passionately about an issue I deeply care about, see the red light come on at the podium (indicating that my time is up), and then almost always be met with... utter silence. No reaction, other than the Mayor uttering her habitual "Thank you for your testimony."

Disturbingly, at the past few public hearings I've attended it has been the official policy of the City Council to forbid councilors from asking questions of citizens who testify, or commenting on what they said. 

This seems decidedly wrong to me.

The way it works now, at the beginning of the meeting Mayor Peterson announces that after hearing public testimony (which can go on for hours) with no questions allowed after a person speaks, the City Council will ask questions of staff. Only after that happens can councilors ask questions of citizens who testified.

By that late time on a midweek work night, many of those citizens have left for home. So the emphasis isn't on the Mayor and city councilors listening to people who care about an issue, learning more about what they think and why they feel that way, and then possibly changing one's mind about the issue.

Instead, a Salem City Council public hearing is about going through the technicalities required by Oregon law, then doing what, pretty clearly, was decided before the meeting started. As the comments below point out, motions for the City Council to take a specific action appear suddenly, all written out ahead of time.

Discussion of the motion usually is perfunctory. The Mayor and city councilors aren't even open to having their minds changed by each other, much less members of the public. 

This is way different than I'm used to here in our local neighborhood "government," the board of directors of Spring Lake Estates Recreational Properties, Inc. -- which is responsible for overseeing the common property in our rural south Salem development. 

I've been the board secretary for over twenty years. It'd be a lot easier for me to write up the meeting minutes if decisions -- such as how to handle excessive weeds in the lake -- were determined by board members ahead of time. 

Instead, because those who serve on the board act like normal human beings rather than politicians, we give any property owner who comes to the meeting all the time they want to talk about an issue. Then everybody discusses the subject -- sometimes heatedly. 

In the end, often board members decide to do something quite different from what they originally favored. This is the way decisions should be made by a group: openly, being receptive to new ideas and information, not bound by preconceived notions. 

Which is the opposite of how the Salem City Council handles important issues.

There's very little opportunity for citizens to engage City officials in a back-and-forth conversation, or debate. Every indication is that decisions are "wired" before the meeting starts. Hopefully this will change in 2017, when a new Mayor and three new city councilors join the City Council. 

Groupthink needs to be made a City Council no-no. Currently there's a lot of pressure from the Mayor, and some councilors, to enforce unanimity -- even when a majority has made a very weak case. I was surprised at the last meeting to even hear the most progressive councilor, Tom Andersen, vote for a motion that he tried unsuccessfully to amend after saying "I understand the need for a unanimous vote."

Huh? How about the need for a wise vote? I'd rather see members of the City Council stand up for what they think is right, and be on the short end of an 8-1 vote, than go along with a bad decision just to make the vote unanimous.

Here's the content of a recent post on the Salem Community Vision Facebook page about last Wednesday's meeting/hearing. Comments on the post from two people follow.

THE FULL MEAL DEAL IT IS!

Last night the Salem City Council unanimously directed staff to go forward with an $82,088,000 bond measure for the November ballot. After making the motion, Council President Steve McCoid made these remarks. "I'm convinced that a full meal deal is the way to go," said McCoid. Councilor Tom Andersen made motions to downsize the project and reduce the cost, but his motions failed for lack of a second. The bond measure will be for everything recommended by the DLR group — a 148,000 square foot facility including the regional 9-1-1 center, a community room and a double-decked parking garage.

We will obviously have much more to say about this, but here we would like to hear your comments. What do you think? Was the "full meal deal" the way to go? Can it possibly pass in November? Please comment below.

Susann Kaltwasser commented:

At the hearing it was clear that the mayor had recruited a number of Chamber people and other friends to speak in favor and praise the council...how could you tell? Well, on the sign in sheet one person wrote down about 6 people's names and they all sat together on the benches near the wall chatting amongst themselves. It was also clear that this was a set up for the cameras. Also, no questions from the council were allowed.

When everyone was done with their testimony, the mayor asked [Councilor] McCoid to enter a pre-written motion and staff had a presentation all ready to go on how much they could tax the public. After that it all just fell in place. I left because I could not take the dog and pony show that was scripted before hand. No deliberation took place in the open meeting. It was all choreographed for the cameras. Going through the motions after they had made the deal behind the scenes.

And Geoffrey James added this comment:

Yes, totally scripted. Chamber folks got there half hour early and locked the door. Signed up entire group with addresses that all just said "97302". So they got to speak first. The pre-scripted motion was promptly ready to go, after the few others testified. The super sized full meal deal was ready to go, pre-scripted and was voted on unanimously by robots. COC is Chamber. CCC is Chamber City Council. There is no discernible difference, but there will start to be, beginning in January 2017.

To save lives, in November vote NO on Salem police facility bond

Last night the Salem City Council decided to press on with an unwise $83 million plan for an over-priced and over-sized new police facility. 

Sadly, this means making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe likely won't happen for many years, if ever.

Reason: the hugely costly police facility proposal, which has doubled in cost and square footage from $36 million/75,000 sq. ft. to $83 million/148,000 sq. ft., has squeezed out the money that previously was going to be spent on seismically retrofitting the Civic Center so lives aren't lost when, not if, the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits (could be any time, according to geologists). 

Don't be fooled by what is in today's newspaper story, "Council passes next step for new police facility." (The reporter should have said "city hall and library," because the library is part of the civic center.)

Mayor Anna Peterson also requested a study of the seismic safety of the civic center and library to be undertaken and completed by the end of 2016 to ensure the safety and security of city staff and visitors. The motion also passed unanimously.

Whoopee. Another study.

City officials already know that the Civic Center isn't earthquake-safe. An engineering study of City Hall was completed in 2011. An engineering study of the Library was completed in 2014. 

So for the past five years, the Mayor and city councilors have sat on their butts and done nothing to save the lives of the people who work at, and visit, City Hall and the Library. Yet now we're supposed to believe that a new study is going to lead to immediate action.

Yeah, right.

I testified at last night's City Council meeting, spending my allotted three minutes urging City officials to make seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library a top priority now. City staff have said that the cost would be approximately $26.6 million. 

Maybe that cost estimate needs updating. Maybe not. If it does, that could have been done months ago. Instead, Mayor Peterson admitted at a June 1 City Council work session that the focus has been solely on finalizing plans for the newly supersized $83 million Police Palace.

So I am deeply skeptical that the Mayor's motion to do another study of seismic conditions at the City Hall and Library is anything more than a thinly veiled attempt to assuage the concerns of citizens who are wondering, "What the hell happened to the money for making the Civic Center earthquake-safe, which previously was going to be part of a Public Safety bond that included funds for a new police facility?"

Last night I talked about this in my testimony. 

 

And here's my video, which I mentioned in my testimony, that provides more detail about the shameful failure of the Mayor and City Councilors to protect the lives of people who work at and visit City Hall and the Library.

 

Only a week ago, at a June 1 City Council work session on the police facility, Councilor Tom Andersen asked why updated cost estimates for making seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall hadn't been requested in February -- since now he's been told that it would take two or three months to get those estimates.

Mayor Peterson took Andersen to task, saying that City staff hadn't been authorized by the City Council to work on seismic upgrades to the Civic Center. So it was strange to see Peterson making a motion at the June 8 meeting to get estimates for what it would cost to seismically retrofit buildings owned by the City of Salem -- including the Library and City Hall.

I can't be sure what Peterson's motivation was for doing this. However, her newfound interest in making the Civic Center earthquake-safe came at the very last moment in the planning for a supersized $83 million, 148,000 square foot police facility.

So I strongly suspect that the motion approved by the City Council, which calls for the cost estimates to be prepared by the end of 2016, is viewed as a way to tamp down criticism that it makes no sense to get Police Department staff out of the ground floor of City Hall so they aren't crushed to death when the Big One earthquake hits, while leaving other City employees vulnerable to the same "pancaking" of the seismically deficient building. 

Well, this isn't going to work for one critic, moi. 

There's good reason to believe that the only way City Hall and the Library are going to get urgently needed seismic upgrades is if voters defeat the police facility bond measure that will be on the November, 2016 ballot. If the measure fails, City officials and the City Council will have to reduce the cost and size of the current over-priced $83 million plan. 

This will allow Civic Center seismic upgrades to become part of a revamped Public Safety bond measure. So for the same cost, or even less, citizens will get a much more appealing deal: a perfectly adequate new police facility, plus seismic retrofitting of the Library and City Hall.

Below is a video I made of a portion of yesterday's meeting that supports my contention that defeating the police facility bond measure is the best way to ensure that lives are saved when the Big One earthquake hits.

As background, the current property tax rate for paying off City of Salem bonds is $1.01 per $1,000 assessed valuation. City staff are recommending that this rate be raised to $1.25 per $1,000, which is about a 25% increase. This would allow bonds already issued, plus a police facility bond and a planned "streets and bridges" bond, to be paid off over 20 years.

But that's it. Lewis says, "that would be what we could do for 20 years."

 

Meaning, no bond for seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library could be issued, unless the property tax rate was raised above $1.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Thus the Mayor and City Council are planning to raise taxes by 25% in order to pay for their over-priced Police Palace, then close the door on other bond measures for Salem needs (other than streets and bridges) unless City taxes are raised substantially again.

Is the 2017 City Council going to ask citizens to approve another Public Safety bond measure for seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library if the police facility bond passes? Very doubtful. This is why money for the seismic upgrades should have been part of the Public Safety bond being presented to voters this November.

Which was the original plan by City officials, until the size and cost of the police facility doubled, squeezing out money for seismically retrofitting the Civic Center.

So voting NO this November is the best way to say YES to saving lives. 

"Make Salem's Library Earthquake Safe" video

I'm deeply disturbed -- no, let's make that pissed off -- at how making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe is being ignored by the Salem City Council.

Mayor Peterson and the eight councilors are focused on an ill-considered $83 million plan for a new over-priced 148,000 square foot police facility. A few years ago City officials were fine with a 75,000 square foot, $40 million police facility. 

But after some Chicago consultants came to town, the size doubled along with the cost.

And that made money for urgently needed seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall go bye-bye, since City officials didn't think taxpayers would pay for an over-sized police facility and making the Civic Center buildings earthquake safe.

So saving the lives of children at the Library's Storytime is less important to them than building a Police Palace that's twice the size of the proposed building the Police Chief and Mayor were happy with in 2013.

Today I made a video explaining why it is so important to make funds for seismically retrofitting the Library and City Hall part of a Public Safety bond that also would include money for a new police facility. This was the original plan of City officials before the size and cost of the police facility mushroomed.

(Having just learned about Adobe Spark, I used it to make the video.)

 

New Salem police facility seems to be on shaky voter ground

Well, after attending a 2 1/2 hour Salem City Council work session last night, I can report that six years of planning for a new police facility appears to be on track to end up as dysfunctional as it began. (See here for documentation of the messy process.)

Which is too bad.

The police department needs a new facility. But I observed the work session thinking, "Man, here's another reason voters probably will reject a bond measure in the November 2016 election."

(For a comprehensive and readable analysis of this project, check out the Salem Community Vision position paper, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It.")

John Horvick from DHM Research started off the work session by reviewing the previously-released results of a sample survey of 508 Salem registered voters. One of his key statements was that a bond measure should have at least a 60% up-front approval rating to have a good chance of it passing.

But the Salem survey found that only 52% said they favored an $81 million police facility bond. Not good, Horvick said, since it is "easier to move people to no than yes." Especially if there is community opposition to a bond, as there will be in this case. 

So support for a new police facility starts off weak. Given this fact, one would think that the Mayor and City Councilors would adjust the project plan to make it more appealing to voters. What I heard last night, though, didn't offer up much hope of this happening. 

Here's my main takeaways supporting this pessimistic conclusion.

A "Police Palace" is the current goal, not cost-effectivenesss. Originally the Mayor, Police Chief, and other City officials favored a 75,000 square foot building with underground parking on the Civic Center campus. Strong community opposition to this plan led to a Blue Ribbon task force being formed to take a fresh look at things. The task force recommended a new police facility in the range of 75,000 to 106,000 square feet. 

But after a Chicago consulting firm was hired to design a police facility, the original desired size doubled to 148,000 square feet. Naturally the cost soared accordingly. The current $83 million proposal is much more expensive than other recently built police facilities in Oregon.

Sure, it is the best money can buy. Question is: given that Salem's per capita income is considerably lower than the Oregon average, and this town has many other unmet needs, will voters buy the notion of a Police Palace?

The doubling of the building size increased costs in this not-so-obvious way: structured parking is much more expensive than ground level parking. If the police facility were smaller, there wouldn't be a need for an expensive parking structure on the chosen site just north of downtown, which previously was occupied by O'Brien auto dealerships. Also, the entire approach to parking is archaic and out of step with evident trends. 

A critical Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog post about police facility parking is well worth a read. Some excerpts:

Council meets tonight, June 1st, for a work session on the Police Station, and the City continues to do a lousy job of proving its case! ...Why don't we seek to reduce the amount of superfluous drive-alone trips rather than seek to accommodate more of them in a costly parking structure?... An important reason for a downtown facility is to make it more accessible to transit! That should obviate at least some of the "need" for car parking.... Remember, the Marion Parkade operates no more than 40% full.... Since the garage operates at 40% peak occupancy, to say there are only "45 spaces available" is so highly misleading that it is close to an outright falsehood.

Saving lives through earthquake-safety has gone bye-bye. A big reason for a new police headquarters is that currently it is on the ground floor of the Civic Center, which will collapse when (not if) the "Big One" Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.

A previous City Manager, Linda Norris, said in 2013: "The way it is, right now, city employees wouldn't even be able to get out of the building alive, much less use the building." 

At that time City officials planned to make seismic upgrades to City Hall, and probably also the Library, as part of a Public Safety bond that included funds for a new police facility.

Now, though, the goal of saving lives of children at the Library, along with other people at the Civic Center, is no more. Instead, the estimated $27 million this would cost is effectively going to help pay the doubled price of the newly supersized police facility. 

I see this as morally outrageous.

Police are expected to "protect and serve." So it seems absurd that an over-priced Police Palace is going to prevent critical seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library that likely would save many lives when the next massive earthquake strikes the Northwest. I've talked about this in several previous posts: 

Why a new police facility could cost many lives
A Moral Must: make Salem's Library and City Hall earthquake-ready
City of Salem officials acting stupid on earthquake safety

Lovers of the Library, and lovers of saving lives, would work hard to pass a bond measure if it included funds for making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe.

But if voters know that this won't happen because the cost and size of a new police facility doubled from the original plan, this will be potent ammunition for those opposed to a bond measure.

The argument opponents will make is that rejecting the Police Palace bond measure is the only way to wake City officials up to the urgent need to make the Civic Center earthquake-safe along with building a reasonably priced police facility.

A new $10.5 million 911 center is part of the proposed police facility. Because... um... for some reason. City officials are considering two options for the new police facility (there should be more, obviously, but this is all that's on the table at the moment): the 148,000 square foot Police Palace "full meal deal" and a reduced 125,000 square foot facility that omits 23,000 square feet for a new 911 call center.

Currently the regional call center (WVCC, Willamette Valley Communications Center) is in leased space. The police chief and center director have said that the WVCC is fine where it is for the next ten years. So it is difficult to understand why a new 911 center needs to be part of the proposed police facility, especially since Salem taxpayers would fit the bill for building it -- even though the center serves many other jurisdictions. 

At the work session City staff presented a financial analysis showing how continuing to lease space for the 911 center compares with building a new center. I believe the analysis assumed that 23,000 square feet would be leased, which seemingly overstates the cost of leasing, since the current smaller 911 center (10,000 sq. ft. or so, I recall) reportedly is adequate for at least the next ten years.

Regardless, it turned out that the break-even point for including a 911 center in the new police facility is 30 years. Meaning, it would take that long before any money would be saved over leasing.

Since no one knows how emergency services will evolve over the next three decades, it sure seems like the smart thing to do would be to lease space for the regional 911 center. (On a personal note, this is why my wife and I have leased our Chevy Volt; electric car technology is changing so fast, we don't want to be stuck with owning a car that is outmoded in a few years).

Tricks being played on the "bonded indebtedness" front. I'm no expert on City of Salem bond sales. But I heard enough about this last night to question how straightforward City officials will be when it comes to selling the public on a $83 million bond for the "full meal deal" police facility project ($72 million if the 911 center ends up being dropped). 

Several city councilors spoke approvingly about rigging the timing of this and other bond sales so the annual amount paid by Salem taxpayers stays the same over the years.

Of course, there is no free lunch.

Taxpayers still would be on the hook for paying the $83 million (or $72 million), including financing costs that would add on much more to the cost. But voters would be told "your taxes won't go up," in much the same way a mortgage broker could say "your payments will be the same" if someone took out a 30 year mortgage on an expensive house versus a 15 year mortgage on a cheaper house.

Actually, this isn't true.

Obviously taxes will go up in Salem by $83 million/$72 million, plus financing costs, if a police facility bond were to be approved by voters. Apparently the City would just juggle things so the annual amount paid would stay the same, with people paying that amount for many more years. Hopefully City officials will be honest about this, rather than trying to make it sound like tax payments will stay the same.

Lastly, a City Council public hearing on the police facility is scheduled for Wednesday, June 8, 6:30 pm. Here's what Salem Community said about this in a Facebook post:

DOES THE CITY OF SALEM REALLY WANT YOU TO COME AND TESTIFY AT THE POLICE FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 8?

You wouldn't know it from the notices that the City staff puts out about it.

Below are screenshots from the City's Facebook page, the City Council Agenda website and the City of Salem website (click to view). None of them tell the public where the public hearing will be held. None of them encourage the public to come. None of them tell the public what will happen at the public hearing. None of them mention much in the way of background information that the public might review prior to the public hearing. For example, the public might be encouraged to view the work session that was held on Wednesday evening that is now available on YouTube.

We posted an event on our SCV Facebook page about the public hearing and we encourage all of you to come and share your opinions with the Council. The chances of a successful bond measure in November to meet some real needs will only be improved by the greatest possible public participation.