Salem Political Snark

Salem, vote "NO" on the $82 million police facility bond measure

Public debate on a controversial Salem police facility is on the starting blocks. Today I saw that the City of Salem has filed Measure 24-399 with Marion County Elections. 

So, as expected, this November Salem voters will be asked whether they want to approve $82,088,000 in general obligation bonds to pay for a new 148,000 square foot police headquarters on the old O'Brien auto dealership site just north of downtown.

I'm urging a "NO" vote on the bond measure for a simple reason: Salem can do better.

There are very good reasons to reject the City of Salem's poorly-thought-out, overpriced, oversized police facility plan. A Salem Can Do Better web page lays out five reasons to vote "No" on the $82 million bond measure. Plus, a bonus reason. 

1. Cost is too high

2. Size is too large

3. Earthquake preparedness being ignored

4. New 911 center not necessary

5. Salem has many other needs

bonus: lack of public involvement in the police facility planning process from start to finish

(click on the image below to see the full reasons why Salem Can Do Better) 

I've formed a Salem Can Do Better PAC. Goal: "Enhance Salem's livability, vitality, and vibrancy" 

The PAC's first political stand is opposition to Measure 24-399. Carole Smith and I have each contributed $500 to get Salem Can Do Better off the ground. If anyone else wants to contribute to the cause, email me at [email protected], and I'll send you a contribution form.

My personal opposition to the $82 million police facility plan flows out of my active involvement with Salem Community Vision (SCV). SCV hasn't taken an official position on the police facility bond, but remains critical of the flawed plan that the bond measure would fund.

On behalf of the SCV steering committee (I'm a member), I wrote a 2016 Salem Community Vision position paper: "Salem's New Police Facility: the Best Way to Achieve It." I've maintained the SCV web site, including a compendium of every newspaper story and blog post about this issue. I've written 52 HinesSight and Salem Political Snark blog posts on this subject myself, having closely followed the police facility planning saga for about three years.

So my opposition to the $82 million police facility bond measure is well-informed.

I need to emphasize that it has nothing to do with how the Salem Police Department operates and is managed. I haven't heard anything bad about Chief of Police Jerry Moore, or any serious criticisms of his department.

To me, it's the same as being a strong supporter of the United Stated armed forces, while also being a critic of wasteful military spending. There's no reason why somebody can't do both. I want the Salem Police Department to have a new police facility. But NOT the one that'd be built if the $82 million bond passes. 

Like I said on Salem Can Do Better:

The flip side of NO is YES. Saying No to one thing can open a Yes door to a better thing. Rejecting a bond for an over-sized and over-priced new Salem police facility in the November 2016 election will clear the way for a better approach — one that meets the needs of the Police Department without wasting taxpayer's money and risking lives. Here's 5 reasons to VOTE NO.

I'm available to speak or debate the police facility bond measure at civic organizations, neighborhood associations, editorial boards, or wherever. Other people knowledgeable about the City of Salem's police facility planning process probably also will be available to discuss why the current plan is seriously flawed. 

Critics of the proposed $82 million police facility have various #1 reasons for opposing the current plan. Mine is "Earthquake preparedness being ignored." This is how I put it in Salem Can Do Better: 

The supersized $82 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.

This video shows why voters need to say NO to the $82 million police facility bond — so a better plan can be developed that includes money for making the Library and City Hall earthquake safe.

  

An idealistic ex-flower child has some thoughts for diehard Bernie supporters

Let's bridge a generational gap, Berniacs. Many, if not most, of you are about the age I was in my most revolutionary period: circa 1966 to 1971, my college years at San Jose State (the Berkeley of the South Bay in my decidedly deluded imagination).

Here I am, in my 1970 yoga-and-meditation-dude guise. If I look more than a little messianic, that's because I was. I thought I was well on my way to grokking the deepest secrets of the cosmos.

Guess what... (as the old saying goes, you've got two guesses, and the first one doesn't count).

That didn't happen.

But in no way do I regret my 20-something idealism. My search for the truth about rock-bottom reality led me in many wonderful directions during the years between these photos. 

Older, and admittedly only questionably wiser, I still feel like I've learned a few things that you Sanders-crazed "Bernie or Bust" supporters might benefit from hearing. 

Before I was messianic about attaining cosmic consciousness (without psychedelics; I'd already achieved this via LSD), I was messianic about us Flower Children irrevocably changing the world. For the better, naturally. 

I marched in the streets, protesting the Vietnam War. I chanted "shut it down, shut it down" during student strikes at San Jose State. I blissed out with other hippies at San Francisco Be-In's. We thought that our generation was going to change the direction of history.

Peace. Love. Understanding. The Age of Aquarius was dawning. Well, this didn't happen either.

However, I firmly believe that my Baby Boomer generation brought a lot of much-needed progress to this country and the world -- just as Bernie Sanders' movement has. Idealism doesn't have to result in an ideal outcome to be well worth pursuing. 

I know this is going to sound trite and obvious to Millennials who form the core of Bernie's most committed revolutionaries, but I'm going to offer up some old man advice anyway:

(1) Pat yourself on the back for pushing the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton decidedly leftward. Then, put your hands together and clap for Clinton when she accepts the presidential nomination Thursday. It's perfectly possible to do both things while remaining true to your principles.

(2) Simply consider -- I'm not asking you to believe this, just to consider it -- that the person you will be tomorrow is going to look at the person you are today not quite as a stranger, but kind of like a friend whose behavior puzzles you, and you have to ask: "Dude, what were you thinking when you did that stuff?"

(3) So because us idealistic Baby Boomers (I'm 67) have experienced more tomorrow's than you idealistic Millennials, we're more familiar with how our fervently-held passions and beliefs have evolved over the years. Not always, but usually, this makes us a bit less rigid about our current passions and beliefs -- political or otherwise -- because we know this too shall (likely) pass.

(Of all the blog posts I've written, one of my favorite titles is "I've become the person I warned myself about.")

Young Berniacs, I admire your zeal to stand firm for a vision of what this country could and should be. You don't want to compromise your ideals. You are deeply reluctant to vote for Hillary Clinton, who you consider to be highly flawed in comparison with Bernie Sanders, the candidate you view as almost perfectly embodying your idealistic vision.

I'm just suggesting that, from my Baby Boomer perspective, all revolutions take an unpredictable meandering course.

Because life itself does. Nature abhors straight lines. Likewise, no one can predict how a cause will unfold, how it will get from here to there, just as no one can predict how their own life will change between today and tomorrow.

Like you, I get disappointed when my idea of what should happen doesn't comport with what does happen. However, I've learned that it isn't defeatist to accept reality as it is. Rather, it is... realistic.

Believe me, it isn't a disaster that Hllary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president rather than Bernie Sanders. It is a setback for you, an unwanted detour on the road toward a better future that is continually being constructed. 

Since there is no reliable roadmap in life for what comes next, try to accept that this political disappointment in no way stops progress toward the sort of world Sanders has so eloquently called for -- in the same way that the quite-abrupt end to the Flower Child era didn't stop the drive to peace, love, and understanding. 

(I was at the Altamont Free Concert in late 1969; it was supposed to be a "Woodstock West," but turned out ugly, a harbinger of the fading days of flower power.)

You have to decide how you're going to vote in November, now that you can't vote for Bernie Sanders. I recommend gritting your teeth, hopefully with a smile, and voting for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. They are way more in tune with your ideals than Donald Trump and Mike Pence are. And they're the reality you have to deal with. 

Remember: you don't always get what you want. Which is OK. Also, unavoidable. So says some voices of experience. 

 

LYRICS

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she would meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

But I went down to the demonstration
To get your fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse"

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"
I said to him

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need

You get what you need, yeah, oh baby

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need 0h yeah

Day 1 of Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett's "put up or shut up" challenge

Time for some summer fun: I'm challenging Salem Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett (currently a city councilor) to "put up or shut up." 

Namely, either put up demonstrable evidence that I and other members of Salem Community Vision have been distorting facts about the $82 million City of Salem police facility proposal that will be voted on via a bond measure this November, or shut up about our supposed false statements. 

Today Bennett forced this challenge when he left this comment on a Salem Community Vision Facebook post about Bennett's own statements about the police facility:

Unfortunately for the truth of all this, not one of the people below has ever talked with me about the police facility. But then, the truth plays so little part in any of the discussions about the real need Salem has to provide adequate, safe space for Salem's police officers now and into the future. I'm looking forward to a real debate over this issue over the next couple of months. Our police officers and our community deserves better than ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

Damn, man, those are fighting words, Mayor-elect Bennett. So let's get it on.

Show us what you've got in your ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments Proof Basket. I'm an open-minded, fact-loving, science-admiring guy. I'm totally open to being convinced by you that I and other members of Salem Community Vision are guilty of making seriously misleading or outright false statements.

But you can't just say stuff, Mayor-elect Bennett. You've got to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. Let's see evidence of those ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

I wrote the 2016 Salem Community Vision position paper on the police facility, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It." This contains key facts and arguments about why the current $82 million plan being pushed by Bennett and other members of the City Council is deeply flawed.

Last February the report was sent to City officials, including Bennett. No one has challenged the accuracy of facts or arguments in the report. So again, Mayor-elect Bennett, put up or shut up. Even though you've had five months to bring up any problems with the report, I still want to know if us Salem Community Vision folks got something wrong. 

I've also put up a Salem Can Do Better web page that urges people to vote "NO" on the $82 million police facility bond, and gives five reasons why (plus a bonus reason). Mayor-elect Bennett, please look over this web page also and let me know if there are any false statements in it.

Since Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett is a lobbyist, I'm sure he knows the difference between (1) facts, and (2) opinions based on facts. 

My challenge to Bennett doesn't really involve opinions. It involves facts. Naturally people are going to have different opinions about the wisdom of building a 148,000 square foot, $82 million police facility. That's a big building that costs a lot of money.

Rather, I'm bothered by Chuck Bennett's assertion that opponents of the $82 million police facility plan are purposely screwing around with the facts. "False statistics" are 1/3 of Bennett's assertion that people like me are engaging in ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

But I'm also baffled by Mayor-elect Bennett's ad hominem potshots and specious arguments charges. So let's see if Bennett can come up with specific examples of those also. 

The countdown starts: today is Day 1 of Chuck Bennett's Put Up or Shut Up challenge.

I'll report on how he responds, when I get a response. Like I said, if Bennett is right, I'll be pleased to learn what I and other critics of the City's $82 million police facility plan have gotten wrong. 

(Since I've been married for 44 years, if I hadn't learned long ago how to be pleased with being proven wrong, I'd be an unhappy husband.)

Salem City Council trying to sneak through billion dollar Third Bridge

Here's some juicy City of Salem gossip I heard today which has a ring of truth -- because it fits with the habitual secretive modus operandi of the Mayor and her right-wing city council majority: 

Do the public's business as far outside of public view as possible, because that way it's easier for special interests like the Chamber of Commerce to wield their influence on Salem's local politicians. 

What I was told by a usually reliable source is that City officials are hellbent to get local government approvals for the billion dollar Third Bridge boondoggle as far along as possible before January 2017, when three newly elected Salem city councilors take office who are expected to oppose this massive waste of taxpayer money. 

(Note: the link above refers to a 2014 blog post where I talked about a $500 million boondoggle; with financing costs included the cost roughly doubles, so now I like to refer to a billion dollar boondoggle.)

Reportedly, in late September the Salem City Council will have a first reading of an ordinance to add the Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing, to the local Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Systems Plan. A second reading would occur in early December, conveniently timed to prevent the new city councilors from weighing in on this highly controversial project when they take office in January. 

Sometime before the second reading, a joint public hearing with the Keizer City Council would be held, since both Salem and Keizer have to approve this Bridge That Hopefully is Going Nowhere. I was told that the hearing will be on a Wednesday night in the 50+ Senior Center in north Salem, likely with no CCTV to make it tough for citizens to learn what's happening.

Maybe you're thinking, "Shouldn't a billion dollar bridge, the most expensive public works project in Salem history, be better publicized by City officials, and have more public hearings before a vote is taken on making the bridge part of the Comprehensive and Transportation System plans?"

To which I and other opponents of the Third Bridge answer, YES!

But like I said, the goal of Mayor Anna Peterson and her big-spending city council majority is to get approvals for the bridge voted on with as little citizen involvement as possible. This helps explain why, as reported by the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger earlier this month, a notice about a September 19 Salem City Council work session on the Third Bridge suddenly appeared. 

Then suddenly disappeared.

Looks like someone at City Hall put the brakes on open discussion of the billion dollar boondoggle. My source told me that now city councilors are supposed to meet privately one-on-one with Transportation Planning Manager Julie Warncke.

This is no way to run city government. At least, if the goal is have an open, transparent, honest, responsive city government that cares about public involvement and citizen participation. 

Pretty clearly, this hasn't been the goal of Salem's Mayor and city council majority since the Chamber of Commerce and other special interests were able to take control of City Hall quite a few years ago.

Thankfully, the times are a'changing.

This year's election of three progressive city councilors means that the balance of power will shift considerably in January 2017. Unfortunately, the incoming Mayor, Chuck Bennett, is a Third Bridge supporter, as are a majority of the current city councilors. They face a tough vote on making the Salem River Crossing part of the above-mentioned plans.

The current funding plan for the Third Bridge says that little state and federal money will be available. Most of the billion dollars is slated to come out of local taxpayer pockets: a local gas tax, a local increase in vehicle registration fees, and at least a $1.50 toll each way on the two current bridges and the Third Bridge. 

So citizens are going to be watching closely to see how the five members of the Salem Council up for election in 2018 vote later this year. Mayor Chuck Bennett and city councilors Steve McCoid, Jim Lewis, Daniel Benjamin, and Tom Andersen will have to answer for their vote come election time. 

Campaigning on a platform of "I voted for a $1.50 toll each way to cross the Willamette River, even though a billion dollar Third Bridge isn't needed" doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me. 

Thus I see this issue as a win-win for those of us who want to see Salem become a 21st century city, not one mired in outdated urban planning notions that promote sprawl and a pave-it-over mentality.

Either the current City Council will come to its senses and vote against the Third Bridge later this year (unlikely, but possible), or the councilors who go on record as approving a unnecessary near-billion dollar tax increase on local citizens will find it considerably tougher to be re-elected in 2018.

(Give the No 3rd Bridge Facebook page a "like" to stay in touch with efforts to stop this boondoggle.)

Bend sets goals for climate change. Salem's City Council sits on its butt.

As a long time Salem-area resident, I'm used to having my town's environmental reputation kicked in the ass by more with-it Oregon cities like Eugene, Corvallis, and Portland. 

But now also Bend?

Geez, Bend is in Deschutes County, central Oregon, which used to be reliably Republican. And hence, not much concerned with supposedly optional niceties such as protecting the livability of our one and only planet Earth. 

With a lot of new people moving to Deschutes County, though, the gap between Democratic and Republican voter registration has shrunk considerably in recent years. 

So this helps explain why today's Bend Bulletin newspaper has a story, "Bend City Council wants feedback on climate change plan."

Bend residents have a chance this week to give the City Council input on how Bend should combat climate change.

On Thursday, the council plans to hold a special meeting to get the public’s feedback on a resolution that sets goals to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate change.

Considering a large part of Bend’s economy is based on outdoor recreation on the river and in the mountains, it’s important the city takes a proactive approach to protecting the environment, said Nikki Roemmer, of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. Other cities such as Eugene and Boulder, Colorado, have adopted similar measures, she said.

“This really just says, ‘We care, and we care enough to do something about this global problem,’” Roemmer said.

The effort came after environmental groups asked the city to develop a government policy that addresses climate change, said Gillian Ockner, a senior policy analyst for Bend. The City Council responded by forming a group that started working to draft the resolution in May, she said.

One of the goals in the draft plan is to make all city facilities and operations “carbon neutral,” meaning city operations would emit no greenhouse gases or would get offsets — such as through tree plantings or purchasing renewable energy — for any emissions.

Meanwhile, the resolution would also ask the city to reduce fossil fuel use by 40 percent by 2030. And by 2050, it would have to reduce fossil fuel use by 70 percent, according to the plan.

My first reaction after reading this was envy. 

Envy that the Bend City Council is willing to go on record that climate change is a serious problem that has to be addressed by politicians at all levels, local, state, regional, national, international. Because 7 out of 9 members of the Salem City Council won't even admit that climate change/global warming is happening and humans are responsible for it. (See my blog post, "How Salem's candidates and other local leaders look upon climate change.")

Envy that Bend has environmental groups that are willing to push their city government to develop a climate change policy. Because environmental activists in Salem haven't shown much of a willingness to get involved with City of Salem goings-on, leaving our right-wing Mayor and her current City Council majority distressingly free to pursue anti-environmental policies. 

Envy that City leaders in Bend are willing to set goals for reducing carbon emissions. Because here in Salem, community leaders have a head-in-the-sand attitude toward climate change and the urgent necessity of stopping global warming before it is too late for civilization as we know it. As I said in my 2015 "Salem leaders need to say where they stand on climate change":

Only two city councilors out of the ten City of Salem officials responded to me. They agreed with the scientific consensus, saying "Yes" to each question.

The others wimped out, probably because they fear being held accountable for City Hall's environmentally destructive policies: pushing for a billion dollar sprawl-inducing carbon-spewing unneeded Third Bridge; allowing large, beautiful, healthy trees to be cut down for no good reason; ignoring the urgent need for bike lanes and pedestrian safety while throwing big bucks at 1950's style autocentric road projects.

it isn't only City officials who are in the environmental dark ages. Salem Hospital, the Chamber of Commerce, and other corporate types are acting just as destructively. 

This was the theme of my most recent Strange Up Salem column in Salem Weekly, "Salem fiddles while the planet burns."

Salem is a great town. I've loved living here for the past 39 years. However...this city also regularly drives me nuts. Or rather, nuttier than I am in my normal nutsy state of being.

Salem is the state capital of Oregon, a state with a well-deserved reputation for being on the cutting edge of wise environmental policies (for example, our marvelous farm/forest-preserving land use system with strict urban growth boundaries). Yet Salem lags far behind other neighboring Willamette Valley cities when it comes to ecological awareness, alternative/public transportation, and local government commitments to reduce this area's carbon footprint.

If the Chamber of Commerce types who run Salem -- hopefully not for much longer, given the encouraging election of three progressive City Council candidates in the last election -- think having a 1950's "pave it over" mentality is helping Salem compete for new residents and businesses, they really need to think again. 

Bend is on the right track, even though the latest version of the climate change policy document is weaker than it should be.

Here in Salem, the Mayor and City Council aren't even trying to look like they care about the environment and dealing with climate change, much less actually do something about preserving the habitability of Planet Earth.

A plea to Sanders supporters to remember 2000 and vote for Clinton

I'm both an avid Bernie Sanders fan and a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton. If Sanders had won the Democratic presidential nomination, I would have unhesitatingly jumped on board the Bernie Train, hoping that it would lead to the White House.

So it's been painful and perplexing for me to peruse my Facebook feed now that Sanders has dropped out of the race and formally endorsed Clinton. I keep seeing posts from Salem-area Berniacs along the lines of "Hillary should have been indicted," "Sanders had the nomination stolen from him," and "Keep the dream alive, vote for Jill Stein."

Stein, of course, is the Green Party candidate. She has a close-to-zero chance of becoming president. But Stein has a much greater chance of making Donald Trump the next president of the United States.

That's what happened in the 2000 election. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore in Florida and New Hampshire to give those states to George W. Bush. 

The rest, as the saying goes, is history.

Bush went on to become a horrible president. He invaded Iraq under false pretenses. He pursued an anti-environmental agenda. His social policies were dreadful. On his watch the country experienced a financial meltdown that almost led to another Great Depression.

I understand the allure of pursuing a high-minded idealistic political ideology. But I hope Sanders supporters who haven't yet heeded his call to support Clinton remember the lesson of the 2000 election: a few thousand idealists who vote for the Green Party candidate can put a right-wing Republican in the White House.

Anyone who thinks there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush isn't seeing the political landscape clearly. Ditto with anyone who thinks there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. On just about every liberal/ progressive/ Green issue, Clinton is far superior to Trump.

There is no perfect presidential candidate. Never has been. Never will be. Perfection isn't part of the human condition. 

In every election, voters necessarily choose between flawed candidates. Mr. or Ms. Perfect won't be found on the ballot. Neither will a third party candidate -- Libertarian or Green Party -- with a chance of winning the presidency. So I am unable to grasp what would lead a Sanders supporter to ignore Bernie's call to work for Clinton's election and Trump's defeat.

After all, everyone who rooted for Sanders to get the Democratic presidential nomination was taking part in our country's political system, which is dominated by the two major parties. 

Some people reject politics all together, or view voting as a useless exercise. I get why these people aren't interested in voting for Clinton, since they're equally uninterested in voting for Trump, Stein, or the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. But Sanders ran as a Democrat within the Democratic Party system.

He put up a great fight, drawing Clinton and the Party to the left on lots of issues. Kudos to Sanders for that. The Democratic platform is considerably improved because of Sanders. 

Now is the time for Sanders and Clinton supporters to join forces in a unified Stop Trump effort. Please, Berniacs, don't throw your vote away by failing to vote for Clinton in November. Along with remembering the lesson of 2000, when George W. Bush was elected president by an exceedingly narrow margin, keep in mind the lesson of Brexit.

Reportedly many United Kingdom voters chose "Leave" over "Remain" because they didn't think Leave would win, and they wanted to send a message with a protest vote.

Well, the message now is that the UK is on the way to leaving the European Union. There's no protest message, just as virtually no one remembers what Ralph Nader and the Green Party stood for in the 2000 election. The main memory is that Nader voters caused Al Gore to lose the presidency, and George W. Bush to win it. 

I can't believe that this is what Sanders supporters want to have happen in 2016: a Donald Trump presidency.

Yet it is definitely possible. Currently Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight site gives Trump about a 33% chance of winning. That's uncomfortably high. And his apparent choice of Mike Pence for the Republican vice-president slot is pretty smart (especially by Trump standards).

So we all need to vote in November as if the future of this county depends on who wins the presidency, Clinton or Trump. Because, really, it does.

 

Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett wants to ban "negativity" about Salem

Jokes can have a serious side. So when I heard Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett laughing about the need to pass a law to ban negativity about Salem, I didn't think this was very funny. 

Bennett, who currently is the Ward 1 City Councilor, was being interviewed by KYKN talk show hosts Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke. (She is the wife of Ward 3 City Councilor Brad Nanke.) Someone sent me this audio clip.

Naysayers Should Move

I've made a transcript of the last part of the interview, which followed a discussion of how absolutely wonderful downtown Salem is.

It's pretty clear that Bennett, Gaynor, and Nanke viewed anyone who thinks the downtown area could be improved in some way obviously is a naysaying boo-bird who should keep their mouth shut. 

Then Mayor-elect Bennett launched into a criticism of citizen activists in this town who dare to raise questions about the wisdom of current policies being pushed by City officials like himself.

Lack of safe bike paths... unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge... supersized over-priced police facility -- people need to keep their damn mouths shut about this stuff and just do what City officials and the Chamber of Commerce tell them to do!

After Gaynor and Nanke chimed in about people needing to leave Salem if they believe other cities like Eugene or Portland are doing better than we are in some regard, Bennett laughingly agreed with them that a law should be passed to ban negativity in this town.

Which, again, I don't find funny, because citizen involvement in City Hall goings-on already is pathetic.

The current right-wing Mayor and City Council majority favor a top-down approach to governing. The only time they reach out to the public is when they want people to grab on to whatever poorly thought-out scheme they're currently pushing.

So what you'll read below is a discouraging preview of what the Bennett Administration will be like in 2017, when Chuck Bennett takes over as Mayor -- being the hand-picked successor of current Mayor Anna Peterson and her Chamber of Commerce allies.

I've color-coded the words of the interview participants. Chuck Bennett is in red. Gator Gaynor is in green. Denise Nanke is in purple. I couldn't understand a few words, but omitting them didn't affect the meaning of what follows.

BENNETT:   And there are, as you pointed out, a small group who will say something negative about just about anything, if they can identify what it is.

You know what’s interesting? It’s the same people, all the time, who talk about this, about their police station, bike paths, they want to talk about a Third Bridge.

But they can’t talk positively about any aspect of their community. And you kind of get to the point of… what’s the problem here? You know, is it your problem, or is it this entire and really wonderful community?

GAYNOR: I have a not-so-secret campaign, Chuck, to get all of these people to move to the cities they so desire us to be like.

NANKE: Exactly. Portland, Eugene… move, off you go.

GAYNOR: I mean, if you want us to be like that, why don’t you just go to the source?

NANKE: Why would you want to live every day in just angst and agita, that you live in this city. If it’s so horrible, then move. Move to Eugene!

BENNETT: I think sometimes it’s a habit, of just kind of being negative. That’s all it is.

GAYNOR: Well, they need to stop it, Chuck.

BENNETT: Well, they should.

GAYNOR: Pass a law. 

BENNETT: Yeah, I’ll pass a law. I’ll pass a law to “stop it.”

NANKE: Ban the negativity.

GAYNOR: And there you have it. Chuck Bennett, Salem city councilor for Ward 1 and Mayor-elect.

Well, thankfully the First Amendment and Oregon's Constitution protects free speech. Oregon has even broader free speech protections than at the federal level. 

I get it that Bennett, Gaynor, and Nanke were joking around. However, I've heard Mayor-elect Bennett say similar things in other settings. He is thin-skinned, wrongly viewing constructive criticism as destructive complaining. 

What's strange, of course, is that Chuck Bennett is so negative about negativity. If everything is perfect here in Salem, then aren't this town's citizen activists also part of that marvelous harmony?

But if everything isn't perfect, then what gives Mayor-elect Bennett the right to shut down calls from people who have ideas to make things better?

Salem only town in Oregon that bans tiny houses

Ah, Salem. I so look forward to the day when the name of my home town isn't regularly mentioned after someone says, "The last town in Oregon to not allow [some cool thing] is..."

Tiny houses are an example. Salem bans them. Along with only one other city in the northwest. A 2014 Statesman Journal story said:

Tiny houses.

Everyone loves them. Cute, inexpensive, and eco-friendly, tiny houses are popping up all over the Northwest.

Portland, which just relaxed its permitting rules, is seeing a boom, and even boasts a tiny house hotel.

But don’t look for them in Salem.

The Capital City is alone in the state in banning tiny houses, more formally known as “accessory dwelling units.”

In fact, a recent study of large and mid-sized cities in the Northwest found that only Salem and Idaho Falls have outright bans on accessory dwelling units.

It's embarrassing, and not conducive to Salem's attractiveness to new residents and businesses, that this town often is so far behind the times. 

Here's a couple of recent KGW News stories about Salem's ban on tiny houses.

I captured the first video via my iPhone, since I couldn't find it on the KGW web site. The July 5 story was on the 11 pm news. A City of Salem planner says that "long overdue" zoning changes are in the works that would allow tiny houses.

 

And here's a KGW video of an earlier version of the story. It shows Eric Olsen talking about his Fairview Addition development, which features both "granny flats" (ADUs) and tiny houses. 

 

I sure hope the Salem City Council approves tiny houses. A proposal to do this is being worked up.

The first video shows the owner of Salem-based Tiny Mountain Houses saying that he's selling his homes all across the country. But not in Salem. Sigh... 

Great critique of November's $82 million police facility bond measure

Today the Statesman Journal published an excellent opinion piece by local architect Geoffrey James, "Proposed Salem police facility too large, too expensive."

I've shared it below in its entirety, along with the links inserted by newspaper staff, since soon the piece will disappear into the Statesman Journal's archives.

I agree with James that the $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot likely will fail. I just go one step further and say, "It SHOULD fail." 

A few weeks ago I put up a Salem Can Do Better web page that lays out five reasons to vote "No" on the $82 million bond measure. Plus, a bonus reason. 

1. Cost is too high

2. Size is too large

3. Earthquake preparedness being ignored

4. New 911 center not necessary

5. Salem has many other needs

bonus: lack of public involvement in the police facility planning process from start to finish

James' opinion piece hits on most of those points. Salem needs a new police facility. But the supersized, "full meal deal," proposal that some Chicago consultants came up with, and City officials went along with in a dismaying display of groupthink, isn't right for Salem. 

A few years ago, the Mayor and Police Chief were pushing for a less expensive 75,000 square foot police facility that they claimed would meet Salem's needs for the next 30 to 40 years. That's the same plan James calls for in his opinion piece.

Since City officials agreed in 2014 that this locally-produced plan was good for Salem, voters need to reject the poorly thought-out November bond measure and force City officials to return to the Better Way described by James below.

Proposed Salem police facility too large, too expensive

The Salem City Council has voted to refer a bloated $82 million bond measure to Salem voters in November.

As a member of the Salem Community Vision Steering Committee, I have testified many times in favor of a more fiscally responsible bond measure to build the new police facility we so desperately need and to retrofit City Hall and the library.

The bloated bond measure the council approved on June 8 is almost sure to fail. Why? It would fund a police facility that is simply too big and too expensive and it ignores the urgent need to prevent the collapse of city hall and the library in the Cascadia megaquake that could happen at any time.

In my last testimony before the council on June 8, I presented a better plan that Salem Community Vision thought would pass in November. It was not our plan. It was a plan that was presented to the council by city staff and consultants on June 3, 2013. It called for a 75,000-square-foot police facility that would fit nicely on the O’Brien site (that has since been selected) without the need for an expensive parking structure.

It could be built for around $30 million, so additional money could be added to the bond measure to complete the urgently-needed seismic upgrades to city hall and the library to prevent catastrophic loss of life. The total cost would be well under $60 million, an amount we think Salem taxpayers could support.

The 148,000-square-foot facility that the council approved on June 27 is too big. It includes a regional 911 call center that serves emergency response agencies in three counties. Why should Salem taxpayers have to foot the bill for that?

It includes space for 83 officers and support staff that are projected to be hired in the next 30 years. But who knows if that will really happen? It includes a huge parking garage that is not needed if we use surface parking on the O’Brien site and the underutilized Marion Parkade just a block away.

The 148,000-square-foot facility that the council approved on June 27 is also too expensive. It pencils out to be $562 a square foot. Eugene’s new police facility only cost $230 per square foot and the Oregon State Police just moved into a new headquarters building that cost $250 per square foot.

It is now too late for the Salem City Council to change course. The November bond measure for what one councilor has called “the full meal deal” will surely fail, as it should. In the meantime, our Salem Police Department will continue to work in woefully inadequate facilities and city staff and library patrons will continue to be at risk of getting crushed in unsafe buildings.

We can only hope that our new City Council that will be sworn in in January will immediately get to work to craft a responsible measure that can pass in 2017.

Geoffrey James of Salem is a member of the Salem Community Vision Steering Committee. He can be reached at [email protected].

Democrats a clear majority in Salem

Here's a good analysis of political trends in Salem from my friend and fellow citizen activist Jim Scheppke, who posted this on Facebook. The days when this town was controlled by an overly conservative, keep-things-the-same, special-interest-favoring Mayor and City Council do indeed seem to be numbered.

I look forward to the time when Salem becomes progressive in the best sense of this term: creative, forward-looking, and fair-minded, with a commitment to making our city a great place to live for EVERYBODY -- not just a few.

"Salem has an undeserved reputation as being a conservative Republican city. Maybe it's because the Republicans took over our city government 14 years ago by reaching into their deep pockets.

We ended that this year when Progressive Salem elected three progressive Democrats to the City Council. Next year half of the City Council will be progressive Democrats. The mayor will be the swing vote. He's registered as a D but he got a lot of support from Rs in his campaign including an endorsement from the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce. It will be interesting to watch how he votes next year.

This year the Democrats in Salem increased their registration. A friend of mine who watches this closely tells me that now 40% of Salem voters are Democrats and only 31% are Republicans. 29% are registered with a minor party or are non-affiliated. Most of these voters tend to vote Democrat. I think the days when Republicans can get elected to local offices in Salem are over!"