Salem Political Snark

Chris Hoy is best choice for Ward 6 Salem City Councilor

The March 14, 2017 special election to fill Daniel Benjamin's seat on the Salem City Council is really important for everyone in our town, not just people who live in Ward 6 -- the McKay High School area shown in brown below.

Currently there are four progressive councilors on the nine-member City Council: Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec.  The Ward 6 election is an opportunity for progressives to be a majority, ending quite a few years of conservative domination in our liberal city. 

There are four people running for the Ward 6 seat. Only two lean progressive, Chris Hoy and Jonathan Crow.

I've talked with Crow and like him a lot.  But after hearing Hoy speak recently, I'm convinced that he is the guy who should be elected to the City Council. Check out his campaign's Facebook page.

The front page of Hoy's handout lists some of the key issues he vows to tackle after he's elected. In addition, I heard Hoy talk candidly and forcefully about other issues that are central to Salem.

For example, regarding tax breaks for developers, Hoy said: "I think helping people is great. But helping millionaires is ridiculous. Why should we subsidize rich people?"

Speaking about homelessness, Hoy said: "We need to do more. Smart people can solve this problem if it's a priority. We need both low-income and affordable housing."

When asked about improving mass transit, Hoy said, "People in my ward need buses at night and on weekends. This is at the top of my priority list."

After someone asked a question about Salem becoming a sanctuary city, Hoy said: "Well, the whole state already is. But I'm in favor of reiterating this here in Salem. It is important to make this statement out loud."

Hoy told us some details about his life story, which is both impressive and moving. He's dealt with hardships (as have we all) in a courageous fashion. As you can see from the back of his campaign handout, Hoy is very well qualified to be a great Ward 6 city councilor. 

Plus, he's a dog lover!

I've donated to Hoy's campaign because I strongly believe that Salem will be a better town with him on the City Council. Consider doing the same. 

Disturbing facts revealed about $749,000 Park Front urban renewal grant

After making a public records request to the City of Salem for documents related to approval of the $749,000 Park Front LLC grant, and reviewing what I got, I'm even more disturbed by how this grant request was handled -- which relates to how Downtown Urban Renewal funds are being handled in general.

The easiest way to read this post is via an Adobe Spark web page I've fashioned. The images are larger on that web page, and copies of the documents are a bit easier to download and view. Just click below. Alternatively, scroll down and continue reading the post on this blog.

This is a lengthy post, so here's key "headlines" about the Park Front grant:

Park Front developer T.J. Sullivan wrongly asserted in his grant application to the City of Salem that 80 permanent new jobs would be created by the project. This should be grounds for the City Council revoking, or at least revisiting, approval of the $749,000 urban renewal grant, since the actual number of permanent new jobs likely is zero, or very few. 

It is clear that the Park Front building was going to be built with or without urban renewal funds, so the City of Salem's claim that public funds leveraged private investment with public money is false.

The Park Front developers said they plan to use the $749,000 to "add back" features of the building that they were going to leave out after construction costs escalated and Pioneer Trust Bank failed to loan them as much money as they asked for. So I continue to call this crony capitalism, since these are normal problems encountered by developers.

Approval of the grant by the City Council acting as the Urban Renewal Agency Board was rushed through by City staff before the end of 2016 so it wouldn't be considered by the 2017 City Council that would include three newly-elected progressive councilors.

In this post I'm sharing 20 public record documents that struck me as being of special interest. All of the documents can be perused in these two PDF files that I got from City staff.
Download UD records_Redacted
Download Untitled records_Redacted

(I've got to give a big thumbs-up to Urban Development Director Kristin Retherford and City Manager Steve Powers for approving a fee waiver of my public records request that I asked for because the request was in the public interest. Otherwise I was going to have to pay $407 for the documents.)

Some of the requested documents were considered to be exemptions to Oregon's public records law. Here's a cover letter I got that shows what wasn't given to me.
Download PR request cover letter 1-19-17

If you want to know the background of the Park Front grant, check out my previous blog posts about this issue:

More crony capitalism in Salem: $750,000 for T.J. Sullivan's downtown building
Urban renewal crony capitalism is alive and well in Salem (may it die soon)
Salem Business Journal publishes my urban renewal "crony capitalism" story

As you can read in the last Salem Business Journal post, I emailed the Mayor, city councilors, and other City officials, asking them to explain in clear and simple language why they approved or opposed the $749,000 Park Front LLC grant. Only Retherford replied, and at considerable length. 

(Below, in item #20, there's a public record document where Councilor Tom Andersen explains in an email to a citizen why he voted against the grant.)

I had a productive back-and-forth exchange of emails with Retherford, the Urban Development Department Director, but I still failed to understand the rationale for giving so much public money to a private development that was going to be built anyway and didn't provide any substantial urban renewal benefits.

So I submitted a public records request to learn more about how and why the Park Front grant was made. My misgivings about how urban renewal funds are being used by the City of Salem not only remained after I reviewed the documents, they were strengthened.

What follows is both geeky and fascinating.

The documents I'm sharing are listed in chronological order, with two undated documents at the beginning. Because some struck me as being especially disturbing, I've highlighted them in red. So if you don't want to look through all of them, these are the ones to focus on.

Retherford assured me that the Park Front LLC  grant was handled in a customary fashion. This probably is true. But "customary" doesn't mean "properly." My conclusion from delving into what still seems to be a case of crony capitalism is that the customary way the City of Salem is using public urban renewal funds needs to be changed.

(1) Undated message to T.J. Sullivan
Download Blog post file 14 PDF
This email from Sheri Wahrgren, Downtown Revitalization Manager, shows what Sullivan needs to do to get a $300,000 grant at the Urban Development Director's discretion. Later the amount was increased to $749,000, which required City Council approval (acting as the Urban Renewal Agency board). I include this document as background information.

(2) Undated message from Sullivan to Wahrgren
Download Blog post file 24 PDF
Here we learn the reason Sullivan wants a grant for the Park Front building. Construction costs have increased, and he wants $749,000 to "add back" some building enhancements. Is urban renewal money supposed to be used to enhance an office building that was going to be built with or without public funds? Should taxpayers bail out a private project that is experiencing cost overruns? I say NO. Also, Sullivan says that the building will be home to 80+ family wage jobs. These aren't being created, because my understanding is that all of the tenants already are located in Salem; the businesses are just moving to the Park Front building. 

(3) May 12, 2014 staff report regarding changes to Riverfront-Downtown Urban Renewal program.
Download Blog post file 16 PDF
This report describes how the previous smaller "rehabilitation and restoration" urban renewal grant programs came to be replaced by the larger "capital improvement" grant program that Park Front LLC took advantage of. Basically, previously urban renewal money was used to renovate existing downtown buildings. Now large grants, again, up to $300,000 at the Director's discretion, can be made for new construction -- in this case, for an office building that has no retail space, no housing, no (or very few) permanent new jobs, and no real public benefits.

(4) April 7, 2015 letter from Pioneer Trust Bank.
Download Blog post file 11 PDF
Early on, Pioneer Trust Bank told Park Front LLC that it intended to finance the development of their $8,500,000 building, with the requested loan being $7,225,000. This was before an urban renewal grant was applied for, another sign that Park Front was going to be built with or without public funds. I've argued to Retherford that it makes no sense to talk of urban renewal money "leveraging" private investment when that investment was going to be made anyway. The $749,000 grant given to Park Front really was a gift of taxpayer money to a private developer.

(5) October 28, 2015 email from Sullivan to Mark Becktel and Sheri Wahrgren.
Download Blog post file 18 PDF
This seems to be Sullivan's initial contact with City staff regarding an urban renewal grant. He says that he is closing on property on the North Block, hopes to break ground on the new building in May 2016, and anticipates completion in May 2017. All without urban renewal money, but he wants some. Wahrgren says they'd be happy to meet with him. To repeat, and I'm sure I'll be saying this again, Sullivan had bank financing, land, and plans to begin construction. So why should taxpayers fork $749,000 over to him?

(6) December 1, 2015 application by Sullivan for an urban renewal grant.
Download Blog post file 17 PDF
What leaps out at me here is that Sullivan affirms 80 permanent new jobs will be created upon project completion, However, what I've heard is that most (or all) of the tenants of the Park Front building, including Sullivan's own insurance company, already are located in Salem and simply are relocating to the new building. I've asked Retherford if her agency confirmed that 80 permanent new jobs actually will be created by this project. If not, Sullivan made a serious misstatement on his application and this should be grounds for revoking, or at least reconsidering, the grant.

(7) December 8, 2015 email from Sheri Wahrgren to T.J. Sullivan.
Download Blog post file 15 PDF
On the face of it, this is a City of Salem staffer trying to be helpful to an urban renewal grant applicant. But I included this document because it reflects the extremely solicitous attention given to the Park Front LLC folks. Wahrgren asks if she can help submit the documentation for Sullivan's grant request, and wants him to tell her if she can help in any way. I doubt most citizens who are paying for a permit, or whatever, get treated so nicely. In the public record documents I received, City employees seem like they're almost trying to throw $749,000 at Sullivan. In my view, they should have been asking tougher questions about his grant request, rather than trying to rubber-stamp it.

(8) January 11, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Sullivan.
Download Blog post file 13 PDF
This is another indication of how cozily Sullivan was treated in his quest to get an urban renewal grant. Wahrgren says they will be "issuing a commitment early in the process so you have confirmation of funding." Weirdly, from my perspective, Wahrgren wants confirmation that Pioneer Trust Bank will lend Park Front the money needed to finish the project. Well, if this is the case, why should Sullivan get $749,000 in public funds if he already has what is necessary to construct the Park Front building?

(9) February 8, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Sullivan. 
Download Blog post file 12 PDF
A month later, it appears that Sullivan is having difficulty finalizing a loan from Pioneer Trust Bank. Some language is redacted, but clearly other banks have been contacted. When Sullivan testified at the City Council meeting where his grant was approved on a split vote, he talked about how Pioneer Trust Bank wouldn't give him a full construction loan because the bank was concerned about several lending criteria. Yet throughout the grant application process, the City of Salem showed few, if any, qualms in granting Sullivan $749,000. 

(10) April 14, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Sullivan. 
Download Blog post file 10 PDF
Wahrgren is asking some good questions, but she says the answers are needed to "prepare a funding commitment for Kristin's [Retherford] review/approval." So as noted before, every indication is that Salem's Urban Renewal Agency is eager and ready to give Park Front a grant. Sullivan says they are asking the bank for $8.5 million rather than $8.23 million because they are "looking to beef up the amount of glass and the landscaping." The difference is about $300,000, which happens to be the original amount Sullivan requested before the grant was upped to $749,000. 

(11) May 16, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Sullivan. 
Download Blog post file 9 PDF
Sullivan assures Wahrgren that they intend to break ground on the Park Front project by the end of August or beginning of September, 2016. Again, he hasn't gotten the urban renewal money. But as noted before, this isn't necessary to go ahead with the building. It just is extra money, courtesy of taxpayers, that will enable some "enhancements" to the building.

(12) October 19, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Sullivan.
Download Blog post file 8 PDF
By October, Sullivan and City staff have shifted from a $300,000 grant request to a $749,000 grant request made possible by using redirected "opportunity purchase" funds in the Urban Renewal Agency budget. Sullivan says that the additional $440,000 (which became $449,000) would be used to add features to the Park Front building. Meaning, he could construct the building without the additional public funds, but with the extra urban renewal money more features could be added. To which a lot of ordinary citizens would think, "Hey, can I get $449,000 from the City of Salem to add some features to the building I'm planning to construct?" Answer: No. 

(13) November 9, 2016 emails from Wahrgren to Sullivan, and from Retherford to Wahrgren.
Download Blog post file 1 PDF
There's a couple of interesting things in this document. First, Retherford asks Wahrgren to "follow up to see if this can go in January." I'm assuming this means the $749,000 grant application, and January (20127) refers to a meeting in that month of the City Council acting as the Urban Renewal Agency. In a subsequent document I'll show why this is important.

Second, Wahrgren gives advice to Sullivan on how to revise his funding request letter. She tells him what to say in defense of his grant application so it meets the criteria for awarding a $749,000 grant. Again, pretty darn cozy grantor-grantee relationship.

It reminds me of banks prior to the financial meltdown telling mortgage applicants what information they should put on their application to qualify for a mortgage. She also says to Sullivan that the entire $749,000 appears to be for add-backs to the Park Front building, but apparently Sullivan hasn't listed added-back features that total to that amount. So Wahrgren gives Sullivan advice to make his request letter look better. Once again, we see that this grant isn't necessary to construct the Park Front building, but just to add some niceties to an office building with no retail or residential space that is going to be built with or without a taxpayer-funded grant.

(14) November 9, 2016 email from Sullivan to Wahrgren. 
Download Blog post file 7 PDF
This is the Sullivan email that Wahrgren is responding to in the document above: "Let me know what you think of this letter and what I should change/add/edit." Look, maybe this will strike some people as fine, that the person requesting $749,000 in public funds is getting advice on how to frame that request from one of the people at the City of Salem in charge of giving out grants.

I'll just say that I applied for quite a few private foundation grants when I was the executive director of a non-profit health policy organization. What I remember is that I had to justify the need for the grant on my own. Nobody from a charitable trust or foundation told me what to say in order to get a grant. Yet City of Salem staff are doing just that for T.J. Sullivan -- who happens to be an ex-city councilor, a Chamber of Commerce vice-president, and chair of Mayor Peterson's Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Police Facility. I'm just saying, who happens. Maybe all urban renewal grant applicants are treated equally royally.

(15) November 21, 2016 email from Wahrgren to Sullivan, and his response.
Download Blog post file 6 PDF
Here Wahrgren asks Sullivan to fill in some blanks about the total project cost and the funding sources to meet that cost. Sullivan's answers are: Total Cost - $8,900,000.  Bank financing - $6,200,000; Urban Renewal Agency grant - $749,000; Owner Equity - $1,951,000.

We can compare this to the April 2015 figures (see #4 above) in the Pioneer Trust Bank letter where the total cost was $8,500,000 and requested bank financing was $7,225,000. So while the overall cost of the Park Front project only rose by $400,000, the amount willing to be financed by a bank fell by $1,025,000. Thus it appears that the Urban Renewal grant would be a substitute for money that a private bank wasn't willing to lend to Park Front LLC. Alternatively, Sullivan could have reduced the size/cost of the building, or raised more equity money to put into the project. Usually this is what a private developer would have to do. But in this case taxpayer funds were used to bail Sullivan out, which I call crony capitalism.

(16) November 21, 2016 email exchange between Wahrgren and Anita Sandoval. 
Download Blog post file 23 PDF
This document shows that City of Salem staff were rushing to get the Park Front grant approved before the end of 2016. In January 2017 three newly-elected progressive city councilors would be on the City Council, changing the balance of power. Sandoval, the Urban Development Agency Office Supervisor asks Wahrgren for a report to be written "like its final" "if you want this to be approved by the end of the year." Wahrgren replies, "That is my plan."

Illegal? No. Unseemly? Yes. Political games are being played, sort of like the reverse fashion of Senate Republicans refusing to confirm Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016. In this case, it is evident that City staff didn't want to risk new city councilors voting against the Park Front grant request, so the vote was taken at the very end of 2016.


(17) November 23, 2016 edited draft of a Retherford staff report. 
Download Blog post file 19 PDF
This document is intriguing for two reasons. (1) Edits were made on the first page to take out a previous mention that the Park Front site "has been available for redevelopment for many years because of the challenges and additional costs associated with the infrastructure and environmental costs of a brownfield site."

If this were true, which it isn't, an urban renewal grant might have been justified. But actually the acreage had first been bought by Mountain West Investment as part of its redevelopment of the old Boise Cascade property, and then the acreage was sold to Marquis Properties, which intended to build a rehabilitation center and office building on it. Marquis then sold part of the acreage to Park Front LLC.

So the site had already been sold for redevelopment twice before Park Front LLC bought it. How many times does redevelopment have to take place before the Salem Urban Renewal Agency considers it "de-blighted"? I'd say, once, but three times, as happened in this case, sure seems enough. Yet, the third sale still was viewed as justifying a $749,000 urban renewal grant.

(2) In line with the above, the second page talks about a determination by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that the Park Front LLC project is separate and distinct from the Marquis project, even though both are being built on the acreage that Marquis got another $749,000 urban renewal grant for. Technically this may be correct. But common sense argues that after an urban renewal grant has been given to deblight a property, it doesn't make sense to give an additional grant to Park Front LLC to redevelop the same property. 

(18) December 1, 2016 email from Sullivan to Wahrgren.
Download Blog post file 22 PDF
I find this brief email message from Sullivan irritating. He says about a possible delay in a City Council/Urban Renewal Agency Board (same people on both) vote on his $749,000 grant request, "OK, I would hate to wait for the new council come on line with this request pending."

Look, I'm a political junkie. I know that politics permeates goings-on at the Salem City Hall. But it bothers me that an urban renewal grant is being viewed as a political hot potato.

Sullivan, and by extension Wahrgren, appear to consider that the Park Front grant "potato" will be handled nicely by the 2016 conservative-dominated City Council, and are worried that the new progressive city councilors won't view it as positively. Call me overly idealistic, but I don't like the idea of urban renewal grants being made on the basis of politics. If the grant is justified, it should be acceptable to both conservatives and progressives. City staff shouldn't have rushed to get the $749,000 grant approved by the 2016 City Council at their last meeting in December. This was wrong.

(19) December 1, 2016 email from Wahrgren to Downtown Advisory Board
Download Blog post file 3 PDF
In this staff report Wahrgren claims that given the total project cost of $8.9 million, the urban renewal grant would leverage $10.87 of private investment for every $1 of Riverfront-Downtown Urban Renewal funds. But this makes no sense, since there is plenty of evidence (see above) that the Park Front building was going to be built with or without urban renewal funds. So there is zero leveraging of private investment given that it was going to be made anyway. Instead, the $749,000 was a taxpayer gift to T.J. Sullivan and his fellow investors that made it easier for them to add back enhancements to the building that they didn't want to make due to increased development costs.

(20) December 23, 2016  email from Councilor Tom Andersen to Jess Barton.
Download Blog post file 25 PDF
Lastly, City Councilor Tom Andersen explained why he voted against the $749,000 Park Front grant in an email to a citizen who was concerned about the propriety of giving this money to the developers. Here's what Andersen said, which echoes my own sentiments.

Hi Jess. This is what I have sent to others who have emailed me about this project.

I did so for many reasons, none of which relate to the insider allegations. The process was flawed; with misstatements from the beginning and a very late (11/21) application which led to a rushed decision; the project did not create 80+ jobs, it merely transferred them from one office building to another; there was no housing (I support these kinds of grants downtown where housing is created); it could have been structured as a loan and not a grant; the project would have been built without the grant, albeit at three stories, not four (so what - it still would make a profit for the developers); nearly 80% of the square footage of the building was going to be leased to business owned by the development group; and there are much better uses for the $$$.

I will continue to oppose projects of this nature and continue to support projects which bring residents to the downtown core and which could not be built without city support. This project did not qualify under any of these criteria.

Thanks again for your civic involvement.

Salem Women's March 2017: photos, videos, my take on an amazing day

Though I'm posting this on my Salem Political Snark blog, there's not going to be anything snarky in what I say about last Saturday's Salem Women's March. 

The rally and following march through downtown Salem was the most inspiring political event I've ever been to. And that includes Barack Obama's 2008 campaign stop in Salem. 

A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words. So rather than blab on about why the Salem Women's March was so freaking fantastic, I encourage you to take a look at a web page I made about the event using Adobe Spark. 

Click on the image below and you'll be led to some of my favorite photos, six videos, a speech by City Councilor Cara Kaser, and, yes, some of my own words. The pictures -- both still and moving -- really tell the tale of the day, though.

That said, I can't resist saying some more.

Salem has a semi-well-deserved reputation for not being as politically active as our fellow progressive cities in the Willamette Valley: Portland, Corvallis, Eugene.

(By "progressive," I mean that a majority of the citizenry tends to tilt leftward; in Salem, this is most evident in presidential elections, but progressives are poised to take control of the City Council this year if a special election goes the way I hope it will.)

But the wonderful turnout for the Women's March -- on a cold, rainy, windy day -- showed that when people are motivated to turn out, in its own way this town can strongly rock to the beat of citizen activism. In this case, of course, the prime motivation was the election of Donald J. Trump. 

The 4,000 or so people who took part in the Salem Women's March clearly were fired up for some local positivity after the depressing national election of a man who is horribly unsuited to be President of the United States.

Coming a day after Trump's inauguration, the rally and march was a breath of fresh air for those, like me, who had been feeling stifled by the prospect of four years of confinement in a Trumpian horror show. 

My wife, Laurel Hines, was a co-leader of the Salem Women's March, so we were at the Capitol Mall by 9:30 am to help prepare for the 11 am event. We were one of the last to leave. I saw the speakers up close. I used up all three of my camera batteries taking photos and videos. I've looked at those photos and videos many times. 

Yet every time I see them again, I'm re-energized by the wonderful spirit of last Saturday. Like I said, click on the large image above to see what I mean. (Or click here.)

Even though these videos are in the Salem Women's March web page, I can't resist sharing them below also. Because they make me feel so good, no matter how often I've viewed them.  

Oregon Governor Kate Brown's opening remarks got the rally off to a great start.

Zyel Crier, daughter of the rally's keynote speaker, Shelaswau Bushnell Crier, sang beautifully and movingly.

The post-march dancing back at the rally site showed me that whatever politicians do in Washington, D.C., we here in Salem, Oregon can party on like it's 2017. 

On Trump's first day as president, I predict his next four years

If the title of this blog post were longer, I'd add "...and I'm almost certainly wrong." 

Nonetheless, my political-junkie side wants to make some predictions about Donald Trump's presidency. If nothing else, four years from now this post will be proof that the future always holds unpredictable surprises, and pundits who claim to be able to foretell political happenings are just talking crap.

So... here's my particular brand of crap.

(1) There's a good chance Trump won't be president for his full term. My wife is particularly confident about this, so if this prediction is wrong, I'll blame her. She thinks that Trump's ego won't be able to handle the vicissitudes of the presidency, where criticism is almost non-stop -- even if a president is doing a good job, which almost certainly Trump won't be. So we'll be getting President Pence.

(2) Trump isn't going to accomplish most of what he promised. I just ran across a Silicon Valley "Track Trump" dashboard, where his campaign promises for the first 100 days of his presidency will be tracked to see if they actually happen. I bet most won't. Not in 100 days, and not ever. Reality is going to bite Trump in his big-talk butt.

(3) The Affordable Care Act will be altered, yet survive. On the reality-biting front, I'm (perhaps unduly) confident that Republicans won't trash Obamacare like they've been promising for many years. Aspects of it, like prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, are both highly popular and actuarily dependent on not-so-little details like requiring everybody to be insured (or almost everybody). 

(4) So I can see Trumpcare as being closely akin to Obamacare. Unless Republicans want to own 20 million or so people kicked off of Affordable Care Act coverage, and heartbreaking media reports of resulting deaths, they'll keep the core of Obamacare. It'll then be known as Trumpcare, so Trump can claim he did the "repeal and replace" thing. Since Senate Democrats will filibuster any unacceptable replacement, fixes to Obamacare are the most likely result.

(5) Foreign policy will be a disaster. Because the Constitution gives so much power to conduct foreign affairs to the president, this is where Trump can screw things up the most on his own. Early on I suspect Trump will be tested by China, North Korea, or Russia. He'll respond poorly. Hopefully this won't lead to nuclear war, or this post will be irrelevant four years from now.

(6) Scandals will rock the Trump administration. It's hard to see how this won't happen. Trump himself is a walking Scandal Machine. Many of his top appointees are cocky, rich, and used to doing what they want. If investigative journalists do their job, a big "if," the next four years could make Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton look like presidential scandal amateurs. 

(7) Existing trade agreements like NAFTA won't be changed much. Along with pressure to keep the Affordable Care Act's benefits mostly unaltered, so will big business lobby mostly behind the scenes to preserve international trade deals. Trump's fantasy to bring back high-paying manufacturing jobs to this country will remain just that, a fantasy. To save face he'll get a few modifications made to NAFTA and other trade agreements, but they'll continue on pretty much the same.

(8) Few undocumented immigrants will be deported. Trump will continue Obama's fairly aggressive deportation policies and take credit for doing what already is being done. He isn't going to round up millions of people and kick them out of the country. Even more unlikely is Trump doing away with the DACA program. He'll build some fencing, but not a wall. And Mexico won't pay for it.

(9) The United States will remain in the Paris climate change agreement. Through executive actions and a compliant Congress, Trump will be able to eliminate some of what the United States currently is doing to reduce carbon emissions. But I don't see him withdrawing from the international climate change agreement. This would be a P.R. nightmare for our country and encourage various sorts of international retaliation, boycotts, and such. 

(10) Trump will do a few good things. Here and there, maybe almost by accident, the Trump administration will have some positive accomplishments. Like getting pharmaceutical prices down, simplifying the Byzantine tax code, and possibly getting a massive infrastructure spending bill through Congress. 

(I wanted to end on a positive note, but the cynical side of me is also thinking, Trump could find a way to screw these things up also. For example, by making the infrastructure bill centered on encouraging private investment such as toll roads, a plan that has been bandied about.)

I talk with Jonathan Crow about his Ward 6 City Council candidacy

Yesterday I talked with Ward 6 City Council candidate Jonathan Crow over beers and a hummus plate at the Commercial Street Ventis restaurant. 

Jon told me he was going to have a Jonathan Crow for Ward 6 Facebook page up soon. Searching for it just now, I had the honor of being the first "like." And probably the first to share his page's photo. 

After Jon contacted me via Facebook messenger, I was intrigued by his unconventional campaigning approach. Here's what he said:

Good afternoon, I read your article and I thought I would introduce myself to you.

My name is Jonathan Crow and I am running for the vacant ward 6 on city council. I am a married father of 4 sons. I am a full time Lieutenant for Keizer Fire District in addition to being a small business owner. My wife and I run a small concessions/food cart, First Due Smokey BBQ (operations name will be changed to FirePit Kitchen, and First Due kept as the parent company).

I am running for public office for the first time. I am not loyal to any political party, as I vote who I see as the best person for the job, and believe in service and the greater good.

I am running a no campaign type of campaign. I will not be taking any donations or spending 1 dollar on signs or other materials. My wife and I plan on having a block party in the beginning of March where people can come to my front yard and have some food and beverages and address their concerns and get to know my family and who I am. I will also continue to go door to door meeting and talking with the people of ward 6.

If you would like to ever talk about my ideas and thoughts on the issues that our city faces, I would be more than happy to grab a coffee or a beer with you.

Well, sure, I replied. Which led to our congenial conversation.

Jon correctly feels that northeast Salem in general, and Ward 6 in particular, don't get enough attention from the folks at City Hall. "It's a forgotten part of town," he said. Indeed, we couldn't think of a major (or even minor) urban renewal project in this area. 

Pleasingly, since I helped lead the fight against the wasteful $82 million police facility bond measure that was voted down last November, Jon said the City needs to come back with a different option. I liked his suggestion that City officials bring in ten average people to serve on a new police facility task force rather than the usual representatives of the Powers That Be. 

Regarding transportation, he sounded appropriately skeptical about the current plan for a Third Bridge. Jon likes the idea of bringing Uber to Salem, though he wants a level playing field with cab companies. 

His campaign strategy is to talk to people in 20 homes a day on his days off. Jon knocks on every door, irrespective of whether the occupants are registered to vote. (If they aren't, he encourages them to do so.)

So far he's heard that residents of Ward 6 want bus service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. "We need to help people out," he told me. One idea of his is to have Cherriots use smaller buses to allow for more frequent service.

Jon described himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He doesn't like labels, telling me he's neither progressive nor conservative. He's never run for public office before and feels that the amount of money spent on local city council races is ridiculous. 

So he's just talking to people. "I know my neighbors; my neighbors know me." 

We chatted about all kinds of other stuff, but this is the gist of what I jotted down on the subject of his Ward 6 candidacy. Jon is a very easy guy to talk with. He's got his own opinions, but he's open to hearing other views. Jon said he and his wife voted for different people in the presidential election. 

Ward 6 is fortunate to have Jonathan Crow running for city council.

After talking with him, I'm confident Jon would be a good councilor. However, from what I've heard about Chris Hoy, he also would serve Ward 6 residents well as their city councilor. Hoy is endorsed by Progressive Salem, so he appears to be the most progressive of the four candidates. 

It's too early to predict how the Ward 6 race will turn out. But I'll make some observations. 

Since Gregg Peterson, another candidate, has been endorsed by former conservative Mayor Anna Peterson and two of the three Republican Marion County commissioners, that's good enough reason for me to urge Ward 6 residents to NOT vote for Gregg Peterson. 

The fourth candidate is Timothy Perkins, a Christian home-schooling Libertarian. 

Seemingly Peterson and Perkins would attract conservative voters in liberal-leaning Ward 6. Thus Crow and Hoy should get most of the votes from moderates and progressives. My worry is that if  those votes are divided fairly equally, Peterson or Perkins (more likely Peterson) could win the Ward 6 seat.

Which would be bad for both Ward 6 and Salem as a whole, since this election will tilt the current 4-4 City Council progressive/conservative split one way or the other. And I'm hoping it will be in the progressive direction. 

Naturally Ward 6 voters should cast their ballots for whoever they favor as their representative on the Salem City Council. At the moment, I just feel like a vote for Hoy is a better bet than a vote for Crow, because I think Hoy has a greater chance of winning, and Ward 6 needs and deserves a liberal-leaning city councilor.

 

Mayor Bennett is wrong: Third Bridge plan can't be changed easily

Words matter. The truth matters.

It really bothers me when an elected official -- whether President-elect Trump, Salem Mayor Bennett, or anyone else -- says stuff in a public forum that is flat-out false. 

Chuck Bennett has been doing that in regard to the Third Bridge. Fortunately, knowledgeable people are correcting his misstatements.

I did that yesterday in "Mayor Bennett either deceptive or wrong about Third Bridge planning." I did that three months ago in "Mayor-elect Bennett doesn't understand Third Bridge approval process." And I'm doing that tonight in this post. Because again...

Words matter. The truth matters. 

As I said in yesterday's post, Mayor Bennett spoke up at last Monday's City Council meeting, wrongly telling Councilor Tom Andersen that there is no design for the proposed Salem River Crossing, also known as the Third Bridge. 

Andersen had asked City staff whether a West Salem agenda item had taken into consideration the planned design of Third Bridge approaches involving Marine Drive. That was a reasonable question. Yet Mayor Bennett falsely said there is no bridge design yet.

In his message to me that I'm sharing below, Bob Cortright points out that, yes, it is true that there aren't detailed architectural plans yet for the final bridge design. Like, the color of the railings, where the bridge piers will go, and such.

However, everything else about the bridge definitely HAS been designed.

Like, where it would be built, how many lanes it would have, how long it would be, where the approaches would be located, how much it supposedly will cost. And all this obviously is what Councilor Andersen was referring to.

So Mayor Bennett needs to stop with his Third Bridge falsehoods.

This is a billion dollar project. Salem-area residents would pay for most of it via tolls, a gas tax increase, and other ways described in the Third Bridge financing plan. As Cortright says, the bridge design described in the Environmental Impact Statement can't be changed, if the EIS ends up being approved.

If City officials want a different bridge design, they would have to go through the difficult process of amending the current EIS or prepare a new one.

Cortright knows this, because he spent 30 years working for Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development, where he was the Transportation Planning Coordinator.

So please, Mayor Bennett, start telling the truth about the proposed Salem River Crossing.

It is what it is: a big four-lane regional bridge that will cause the destruction of dozens of existing homes and businesses, will do very little to ease local rush hour congestion, probably won't withstand the Big One earthquake, and requires a $1.50 each-way toll on both it and the two existing bridges.

Further, Cortright says that the cost of the bridge likely will be hundreds of millions of dollars more than what the current design is expected to cost. Here's his message to me, which Cortright said would be fine to share.

About there being a design for the bridge, at least what most people would think of when you say that, you won't be surprised to learn that highway engineers might agree with Mayor Bennett because when they talk about "design" they may consider it to be "final design", that reflects detailed engineering and essentially a "ready to build" project.    

In that very narrow sense, the Mayor could be right.  

But the implications of the Mayor's view are 180 degrees from the land use decision that the city just adopted. It amends the city's plan to say that there will be a big four lane regional bridge (on a structure wide enough for six lanes) and it identifies a corridor a couple of hundred feet wide within which that bridge may be built. 

It also includes a two/four lane Marine Drive connection and huge flyover ramps that connect the new bridge and Marine Drive across the existing bridges to Highway 22. 

Left to "design" are detailed decisions about where within the identified "corridor" each of these things will be located, and for the bridge detailed decisions about the "structural" and "architectural" design, for example, how many piers there will be and where they will be located, etc.  

My recollection is that the Mayor has suggested that the bridge proposed in the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] is just a placeholder, and that the city will at some time in the future decide just what kind of bridge it will build, implying that it might be something different or smaller or more "neighborhood friendly."    

I appreciate that intent, but that's wrong because that's not what the city's plan amendment allows.

It only allows a big regional bridge - as it's described in the EIS.   If the city wants something different, it can do that, but it will mean that the city has to start over, by amending the plan and either revising the EIS or doing a whole new EIS.   

The suggestion that the funding plan in the EIS is the "worst case scenario" is the sort of comment that people should write down and remember. If you think the current funding plan is the worst case scenario just wait, assuming the project goes forward.  

A primary reason is that the $425 million cost estimate that the City of Salem and ODOT are using is almost certainly way too low.  

The cost information on the Third Bridge included in the EIS and supporting documents is incredibly vague. The detail provided in the EIS is a one-page chart that includes seven, one-line categories of expense. The chart, and the report it is included in, has no references to studies or reports that were used to prepare the estimate.  

It's almost certain that the cost estimate does not reflect the cost of a bridge designed to withstand a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake.  (City staff and ODOT say it definitely will be designed to meet new requirements, but it's not clear at all that their cost estimates reflect that commitment.)    

And the cost estimates also don't appear to account for the fact that the bridge will need to cross a 50 foot deep gravel pit pond that wasn't there when the EIS started. It would be nice to be more definitive about what assumptions were made about these things, but the answers simply aren't there.  

The bottom line is that the bridge is likely to be much more expensive than the $425 million estimate in the EIS.

The consequence of a bigger bill is that the funding plan will be a much worse "worst case" than the councilors are expecting to avoid.  It would be interesting, although painful, to see what a funding plan for a $600 or $700 million bridge might look like.  

      -- Bob Cortright

Mayor Bennett either ignorant or deceptive about Third Bridge planning

Last Monday's Salem City Council meeting was a poor start for newly-elected Mayor Chuck Bennett.

After Councilor Tom Andersen asked some good questions of City staff about how the design of the proposed Salem River Crossing (a.k.a. the Billion Dollar Boondoggle) could affect a West Salem agenda item, Bennett spoke up, telling Andersen that there wasn't a design for the bridge. 

Which is wrong. Of course there is. Mayor Bennett didn't speak the truth. Have a look: 

Here's what the No 3rd Bridge folks said in a Facebook post about Bennett's falsehood.

MAYOR BENNETT PRACTICES "POST-TRUTH POLITICS"
Hey it worked for Donald Trump so why not for Mayor Bennett. In this video clip from Monday night's Council meeting the Mayor makes a patently false statement: "There is no design for a bridge in place right now."

What?

What did the Council vote to add to the Salem Transportation System plan in December 5th. Was that not a design for a 3rd Bridge?

'Design' is defined as "a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of a thing to be executed." We have that in spades. We have spent 11 years and over $7 million in consulting costs to design a 3rd Bridge. There are thousands of pages of reports that have described the design and its various impacts in tremendous detail.

Here, for example, are some quotes from the "Land Use Technical Report" that speak to the design of the 3rd Bridge:

"As was the case for the DEIS, the No Build Alternative and the preferred alternative were DESIGNED assuming that the future (year 2040) peak-hour traffic volumes across the river would be 8 percent less than those forecasted with the SKATS MPO 2040 traffic model.

The DESIGN team included treatments that would discourage traffic on Hickory Street because it is a local neighborhood street now. The DESIGN focuses east-west traffic on Pine Street.

Additional mitigation measures beyond those elements included as part of the DESIGN of the preferred alternative could be integrated into the design of the project at an advanced level of engineering."

At the very end of the video Councilor Nanke throws in a little post-truth politics of his own when he refers to the official funding plan for the 3rd Bridge that includes new tolls taxes and fees as a "worst case scenario." It is not. It's the funding plan.

Are we going to hold our local politicians accountable for not telling the truth or are we going to let them get away with it?

I say, hold them accountable!

We've already got a president-elect Trump who lies constantly. The last thing Salem needs is a Mayor who views truth as optional, and facts as irrelevant.

Last night I emailed Mayor Bennett, asking him if he had a comment on the No 3rd Bridge post. So far Bennett hasn't responded to me. Here's my message.

Chuck/Mayor Bennett, would you like to comment on the No 3rd Bridge Facebook post put up tonight?

https://www.facebook.com/no3rdbridge/videos/1250983611659042/

The post says you are engaging in “post-truth politics” because at yesterday’s City Council meeting you said there is no design for the Salem River Crossing.

I’m planning to write a blog post about this, so wanted to give you a chance to comment on what the No 3rd Bridge folks are saying. In my, view they’re right, since seemingly there definitely is a bridge design.

Further, this design is the basis of the federal Environmental Impact Statement. How would it be possible to determine how the bridge would impact the environment, if there wasn’t a specific design showing where the bridge would be located, how it would be constructed, and such? 

An abstraction, “a new bridge,” doesn’t have a measurable impact, because the bridge could be three inches wide. Or three hundred feet wide. Thus I’m virtually certain that the EIS requires a specific design, specific funding sources, and so on. This is what No 3rd Bridge is saying, and they’ve been deeply involved in this issue for a long time.

I look forward to your response. Did you misspeak, and now wish to correct yourself? Or do you truly believe there is no design for the Salem River Crossing?

    — Brian

Without a reply from Mayor Bennett, it isn't possible to know why he wrongly claimed there is no bridge design. The most likely explanations are:

(1) Bennett is woefully ignorant of the Salem River Crossing planning process. 
(2) Bennett is trying to deceive citizens about how the bridge has been designed, and the negative impacts it would have.

Whichever is true, this is a disturbing debut for Salem's new mayor. Ignorant or deceptive are both bad choices when the topic is the most expensive public works project in this town's history.

I have a feeling that Bennett acted as cranky as he did because he is feeling the heat as the Salem River Crossing project heads into deep troubled waters. 

An appeal of the City of Salem's expansion of the urban growth boundary to accommodate the Salem River Crossing has been filed by local citizens opposed to the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for bridge. This would be bad enough for backers of the bridge, like Bennett, but the State Department of Land Conservation and Development also has filed a lawsuit against the City of Salem.

It isn't a good legal sign when the agency responsible for enforcing Oregon's land use laws is telling the Land Use Board of Appeals, City officials in Salem screwed up.

And it isn't a good political sign when Salem's Mayor starts out his two-year term of office by saying something demonstrably false in defense of a billion dollar bridge that would be a disaster for this town if it ever came to be built.

Salem Weekly's bright ideas for the new City Council

Salem Weekly, our alternative newspaper, is an indispensable voice for those who aren't listened to by the Powers That Be in this town.

The Salem Weekly editorial board leans decidedly progressive, but that's as it should be in Salem, a city that votes liberal.

Here's their end-of-year editorial -- a wish list of ideas to be considered in 2017 by the new City Council. New, because there are three fresh progressive faces on the council. 

Naturally I couldn't resist adding in my own comments (in blue) on each of the 18 ideas.

18 IDEAS FOR THE NEW SALEM CITY COUNCIL

On January 9th, a new era will begin in Salem city government. Three new progressive City Councilors will be sworn in to begin their four year terms. Cara Kaser, Matt Ausec and Sally Cook will join progressive Tom Andersen to form what we hope will be a new progressive caucus. Veteran Councilor Brad Nanke, who ran unopposed, will also be sworn in, as will our new Mayor Chuck Bennett.

So what should the new Council do to try to make Salem a better place for everyone? There are lots of solutions to consider, some that have been talked about for years that now have a chance to move up on the priority list. There are other new ideas that are emerging, and are deserving of consideration.

Here’s our list of ideas we hope the new Council will consider over the next year or two…

1) Put a bond measure for a new police station and seismic upgrades of City Hall and the downtown library on the May 16th ballot at a cost $20-30 million less than the measure that failed on November 8th.

Yes! I helped lead the fight against the poorly thought-out $82 million bond measure that was rejected by voters. Aside from the exorbitant cost, another reason Measure 24-399 failed was that people wanted everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library to be safe when the Big One earthquake hits, not just police department staff.

2) Create a Salem Sustainability and Resiliency Commission led by knowledgeable citizens who will advise the Council on ways the City and its citizens can work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other initiatives to make Salem a model for sustainability and resiliency.

Absolutely. We've got to combat the global warming deniers among City officials with facts, reason, and passionate demands to preserve the livability of our one and only Planet Earth. The effect on Salem's carbon footprint should be a consideration for everything considered by the City of Salem. 

3) Remove the Salem River Crossing Preferred Alternative from the Salem Transportation System Plan and Comprehensive Plan and withdraw from all regional planning activities on the 3rd Bridge, working instead to advance low cost and no cost ways to reduce peak hour congestion problems on the approaches to the Marion and Center Street Bridges downtown and in West Salem.

This makes so much sense, there's no reason not to do it ASAP. The Salem River Crossing/3rd Bridge, is better termed the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. The sooner it is put to rest, the better.

4) Engage our Legislators and ODOT to work to fast track a seismic retrofit of the Center Street Bridge so that it will not collapse in the next Cascadia megaquake, thus preserving a vital lifeline to West Salem.

Any transportation plan developed by the 2017 Oregon legislature needs to include funding for this. And that plan should have zero dollars for the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for 3rd Bridge. 

5) Renew the City Council’s commitment to Salem’s 18 neighborhood associations as the primary means for citizen input into the decisions of the City Council; provide better staffing and budget support for the work of the neighborhood associations.

People who have been active for a long time in Salem's neighborhood associations tell me that support for their activities by City of Salem staff has dropped hugely after conservatives took control of the City Council. Hey, don't be afraid of hearing from the people you serve, City officials. 

6) Create an Urban Tree Commission along the lines recommended by the Shade Tree Citizens Advisory Committee in 2015 and empower them to advise the City Council on ways to strengthen prohibitions against tree removal on both City property and private property and to improve the tree canopy throughout the city.

Citizens charged with improving the City's Tree Ordinance recommended an Urban Tree Commission. But this was axed by Mayor Anna Peterson, with the help of Councilor Chuck Bennett, who now is Mayor. Peterson and Bennett were accomplices in the outrageous destruction of the U.S. Bank trees in 2013, so they have no credibility on tree protection issues. Salem needs an Urban Tree Commission.

7) Increase the transparency of City government by ending the practice of exorbitant costs for public records requests, by taking and disseminating minutes of all public meetings, large and small, and encouraging citizen observers at public meetings.

Couldn't agree more. After making a recent public records request for some documents, I was quoted a cost of $407 to get 50 pages. That's $8 a page. I was told that someone making $88 an hour would put in most of the time to fulfill my request. Really? There's nobody making less who could find the documents? 

8) Take immediate action to provide more temporary housing for the homeless, with priority on homeless women, children and youth.

No-brainer. Stop with all the committees, reports, and useless talking. Just do it. 

9) Work in partnership with the Transit District to find creative funding solutions to restore weekend and evening bus service; then work on longer term plans to bring transit service in Salem up to the level of quality and affordability common in other Oregon cities like Eugene and Corvallis.

Oh, man, this would be SO great. I speak as a senior citizen who is becoming increasingly senior'ish. My wife and I live outside the city limits now, but we see ourselves moving into Salem proper when the time is right. Having good bus service is important for older people who can't drive. Also, for the many younger people who don't have a car, or don't want a car. It's embarrassing that Salem is so behind the times, mass transit-wise. It put us at a competitive disadvantage with other cities.

10) Direct the Public Works Department to place a higher priority on improving biking and pedestrian infrastructure in the city, including more funding for sidewalk repair and sidewalk construction on all residential streets.

It's insane that the City of Salem spends so many millions on highly expensive street "improvements" that do little to help people get around town, while spending so much less on ways to bike and walk easily/safely.

11) Develop and implement a plan for a branch of the Salem Public Library in Northeast Salem to serve underserved children, families and seniors who live far from the downtown library, with support from the Salem Public Library Foundation; consider the old Borders/Book Bin location on Lancaster Drive.

Makes sense. Northeast Salem doesn't get much attention from top City officials, in part because most of them live elsewhere.

12) Reform the Water-Wastewater Task Force: it should be made up entirely of citizens (no Councilors) representing a cross-section of the community, including mostly ordinary rate payers, and it should make recommendations directly to the Council, not to the Public Works Director.

Good idea. The attempted water rate giveaway to Creekside Golf Course shows how dysfunctional the Water-Wastewater Task Force is. Regarding the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, it's time (past-time, really) for him to be let go. I'll never forgive Fernandez for making a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president that led to the killing of the State Street trees. I have no idea why the City Manager and City Council keep Fernandez around.

13) Improve City communications with citizens, including a greatly improved City website and social media presence that allows for respectful dialogue with and among citizens; make a special effort to reach out to Salem’s large and growing Latino population to engage them in City issues.

The City of Salem web site is a disaster. Supposedly it was improved recently, but it's still really hard to find what you're looking for. The folks at City Hall view "public outreach" pretty much as a burden to be minimized as much as possible. Under her Majesty Mayor Anna Peterson, citizens were supposed to sit down, shut up, and go along with whatever the Chamber of Commerce told City officials to do.

14) Create a special City task force to look at compensation for the considerable time spent by Salem City Councilors and the Mayor on their civic duties, as a way to allow a more diverse group of citizens to hold public office.

City Councilors and the Mayor should be paid, for sure. Currently only those willing and able to spend a lot of volunteer time carrying out their unpaid elected position are able to run for those offices.

15) Dust off the Salem downtown “streetscape” project developed in 2012 by the Salem Downtown Partnership and begin to implement it to make Salem’s historic downtown the best in the state.

Another no-brainer. I recently blogged about this big, bold, exciting idea.

16) Create an Emergency Services Streamlining Task Force to examine best practices in other communities to reduce the cost of police and fire services that now consume 58% of the General Fund — this, given the City’s declining crime rate and declining incidence of fires.

Yes, the police and fire departments get too much of a free pass from City officials, especially considering how much of the General Fund they get. I'm especially perplexed by why giant fire trucks are dispatched to accidents and medical emergencies. This seems really wasteful. If there aren't enough fires to keep Fire Department staff busy, then downsize the department or change how it operates. 

17) Revisit the City’s streetlight fee: evaluate its effectiveness in increasing road maintenance and installing more streetlights in the neighborhoods that want them; consider changes to the fee structure to make the fees more fair for ordinary homeowners.

I don't know much about the streetlight fee. From what I've been told, it indeed is biased against ordinary people, and favors businesses. 

18) Create a Revenue Reform and Enhancement Task Force, with members from throughout the community, to consider ways Salem can have the revenue to invest in improved livability in our city, including many of the improved services mentioned above.

Part of this effort should be directed at finding ways to fund above-mentioned improvements to Salem's Cherriots bus service. The Chamber of Commerce fought hard, and quite sleazily, to defeat a payroll tax that would have funded weekend and evening service. Businesses need to pay their fair share in Salem, as elsewhere. Naturally other sources of revenue also need to be looked into, with the goal being to make funding for livability investments more equitable and effective.

Few City of Salem "stakeholders" are ordinary citizens

Officials at the City of Salem are engaged in a strategic planning process that involves, in part, learning what sort of place people want our town to become. It's been criticized by the Breakfast on Bikes blogger in "City Strategic Planning Process too Opaque, Open House on 31st."

Because of the winter storm earlier this month, the City's Open House on a strategic planning process was postponed until January 31st.

At least from here the whole thing has seemed a little strange. If Council authorized it, we all missed it. If Council didn't authorize it, it's being funded by some secret slush fund! It probably originates in the City Manager's office rather than from Council. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but it's just a little odd. Usually these kinds of things go before Council first.

Significantly, notes from the November SCAN meeting appear to confirm its origin in the City Manager's office:

Councilor Andersen commented on three items of interest 1) City Manager Steve Powers has launched a strategic planning initiative for the City...

So why is it such a secret?

The project's description, too, has seemed murky, with a lesser instance of word salad:

The City of Salem is undertaking a strategic plan to articulate the mission, vision, values, and goals for the organization to help the City sustain delivery of core services as the community and the organization grow and change.

Anyway, they've conducted some of the proverbial "stakeholder interviews" and also a phone survey.

Ah, yes, that wonderfully perplexing term, stakeholder. The dictionary has a couple of definitions that make sense in this context: one that has a stake in an enterprise; one who is involved in or affected by a course of action.

So seemingly every Salem resident and property owner, along with every person who works in or regularly visits Salem, is a stakeholder in the City's strategic planning process.

One would think that this would be an opportunity for City officials to hear from people who usually don't have much of a voice in civic affairs. 

Well, anyone who thinks like that would be wrong.

Because it turns out that of the 48 Stakeholder Interviews scheduled to be conducted, I counted up only 9 -- nine! -- that weren't interviews with the Mayor, current and incoming city councilors, top City management, people affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce, and people affiliated with City of Salem committees/advisory groups.

Thus only 19% of the supposed "stakeholders" could be generously considered as ordinary citizens. I say generously, because even most of those nine arguably are part of the power structure in this town.

My evidence for this is based on a Stakeholder Interview Roster obtained via a request to City staff by a fellow member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee, Jim Scheppke. 
Download Interview Roster - 10_6_16 FINAL

Jim was struck by how many of the 29 "community group leaders" had connections with the Salem Chamber of Commerce. He researched what those connections were and shared the resulting document with me. I then did my own Googling, which led to some editing of Jim's work. 

Along with the clear Chamber of Commerce connections, 10 out of 29, I found that 10 other community stakeholders had ties with City committees/advisory groups. Here's my analysis in PDF and JPEG forms (click to enlarge the photos).
Download Citizen stakeholders PDF

Chamber types are shown in red: City of Salem committee types are shown in purple. There's some overlap of course. Some of the stakeholders could be put in both groups.

It should be noted that not all of these people ended up being interviewed. Susann Kaltwasser, for example, is another member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee. Susann said she responded four times to an interview request, but nobody from the City got back to her.

I'm bothered by the mostly insular "good old boy/girl" approach to choosing these community stakeholders. Like I said, everybody in Salem has a stake in how our city grows, evolves, changes, addresses its problems.

Asking members of the Powers That Be strategic planning questions is almost certainly going to lead to answers pointing to a continuation of their privileged position. Yet this is what City officials have done. 

The Stakeholder Interview Roster document says this. I've boldfaced some passages for emphasis.

For this initial stakeholder interview session, we are working with as many as 48 interview slots over two days (October 18, 19 and 20). “Stakeholders” means “people judged to be able to represent the interests and opinions of groups with a specific interest in the project.” Our goal is to achieve a balanced and broad range of community perspectives through this limited engagement, with an emphasis on the community’s diversity (gender, age, ethnicity; political affiliation; and a mix of business and neighborhood voices). Those who may be unable to participate in this initial session can receive focused invitations to future engagement opportunities.

Well, I don't think City officials achieved that goal.

When 34% of the community leader interviews are of Chamber of Commerce types, and another 34% are of people involved with City of Salem committees/advisory groups, it's pretty damn clear that those City officials weren't looking for fresh perspectives. 

More of the same is going to lead to more of the same. Somehow, someday, this town has to break out of its tired old ways of doing things, because those ways aren't working. 

Understand: I'm hopeful that this strategic planning process is going to produce some positive results. I'm going to take part in the January 31 Open House. I'll encourage others to do the same.

But I agree with the Breakfast on Bikes blogger. What should be an open, inclusive, transparent planning process sure seems anything but at this point.

[Update: a commenter on this post noted that a scientific survey of residents also was to be done as part of the strategic planning process. Here's a PDF file of the December 2016 DHM Research survey report. I haven't looked closely at it yet.]
Download EcoNW City of Salem Community Priorities--00481--Report 

Good to see John Kitzhaber on Salem City Club health policy panel

Ex-Governor Kitzhaber is back! Not that he ever really left Oregon, but since his resignation in 2015 Kitzhaber hasn't been very visible. 

Gradually, though, he's been popping up again in the public eye, as noted in an August 2016 Willamette Week story, "The Rehabilitation of John Kitzhaber Continues," which was about his participation in a Portland health care policy conference.

Today Kitzhaber was one of three panelists in a Salem City Club discussion, Policy and Impact: Healthcare Reform in Oregon. The other panelists were Jesse O'Brien, Policy Director of Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) and Dean Andretta, CFO of Salem's WVP Health Authority. 

As noted in a 2009 blog post whose title was the name of a position paper I wrote during my health policy days, "Quality of Life in Allocating Health Care Resources," I got to know Kitzhaber when he was President of the Oregon Senate and I was executive director of Oregon Health Decisions.

Imposing title for a blog post. It may sound kind of boring, but before we die each of us -- more than likely -- is going to face the bioethical question, "What kind of life is worth living, and at what cost?"

Back in the 1980s I lived and breathed health policy issues. That was my job. Also, my passion.

Recently I got to reminiscing about the days when I worked with Portland psychiatrist Ralph Crawshaw and Senate president John Kitzhaber (who later became Oregon's governor) on a project that laid the foundation for the Oregon Health Plan.

Getting into spring cleaning, at my wife's urging I started going through some boxes in the garage that held old memories. Out popped some Oregon Health Decisions publications -- an organization that I helped found, and was executive director of for several years.

It had been a long time since I'd seen "Quality of Life in Allocating Health Care Resources," which I wrote in 1988 on behalf of a Citizens Health Care Parliament. Reading it with fresh eyes, I was amazed at how the issues Oregon and the nation wrestled with then are the same issues being debated now. 

Well, that now wasn't only 2009. It also is 2017, because the health care issues talked about at the Salem City Club meeting today were pretty much the same ones being grappled with back in the 1980s.

Accessibility. Quality. Cost. 

Each of the panelists spoke well and knew what he was talking about. But to me, Kitzhaber was the star of the show. Clad in his trademark blue jeans and big cowboy belt buckle, Kitzhaber both looked great (he was born a year and a half before me, so, yeah, he's old) and talked clearly in his usual wonky, yet precise, style. 

Kitzhaber still has a lot to offer Oregon, especially in the health care arena. And with the Republicans in Congress threatening to dismantle the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare, arguably our state needs him now more than ever.

I was pleased to hear O'Brien use the term Trumpcare for the currently-mythical replacement for Obamacare. I recall that one of the panelists noted that just as Obama was held responsible for everything that happened in health care after the Affordable Care Act passed, so will Trump be held similarly responsible after he and Congress do whatever they're going to do with an Obamacare replacement.

I didn't take notes during the hour long panel discussion, which was ably moderated by Cindy Condon. Here's some of the topics that have stuck in my memory.

Cost is still a big problem, even though the Affordable Care Act has brought health insurance to 20 million people, or thereabouts. So far, we've mainly gotten health insurance reform, not health care reform. Oregon has been a leader in establishing "coordinated care organizations" for Oregon Health Plan/Medicaid recipients,  but changes in the entire health care delivery system need to happen, a tough job. 

Priorities have to be set in health care, but this raises the illusory fear of rationing. Illusory, because rationing always has been part of health care. It just usually is done in a haphazard way. Kitzhaber talked about how early on the Oregon Health Plan prioritized services rationally so when money wasn't available to pay for everything for everybody, the least essential services were cut first. (I included some passages on priority-setting from my report in the 2009 blog post.)

Whether Obamacare or Trumpcare, the core problem of cost will remain. Again, because both Democrats and Republicans have been focused on figuring out how to get people health insurance rather than on reforming the health care delivery system so it brings the desired product, health, to citizens at a much more reasonable cost -- as every other advanced nation has been able to do.

Single Payer Health Care seems to be the answer, but was barely mentioned today. As I walked out of the City Club meeting, I was handed a brochure by someone from PNHP, Physicians for a National Health Program Oregon. I glanced at the brochure and told the guy, "This is the answer. And nobody talked about it." He smiled and said, "Right." Probably the reason was that when Congress and Trump seem determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with the progressive dream of a single payer system seems absurd. Well, maybe after Trumpcare crashes and burns, the political winds will blow much more strongly in a Single Payer direction.

There's no "market" in health care today. Along this line, the panelists talked a lot about the lack of market forces. Again, I suspect this stemmed more from a recognition of political reality, than a genuine conviction that what health care needs is more competition on the basis of cost, quality, and such. Someone, I believe it was O'Brien, correctly said that the demand for medical care is inelastic. When you're sick, or really sick, the last thing you're thinking about is "Where can I get the best deal on a heart bypass?" Or whatever. And the Affordable Care Act already is sort of a market, since the idea is that people can choose from among competing health insurance plans that offer comparable benefits. 

Kitzhaber wants Congressional Democrats to work with Republicans on an Obamacare replacement. This might help explain why he spoke more often about market forces than I expected. Probably that's the buzzword which appeals to conservatives in Congress, and Kitzhaber might be able to play a role in bringing D's and R's together on a health care reform proposal. Kitzhaber said that he hoped Democrats wouldn't do what Mitch McConnell did to Obama after he was elected: fight him on everything.

I'm torn on this. 

My inclination is that Democrats shouldn't do anything to help Republicans do their repeal and replace thing. If they want to take Affordable Care Act coverage from many millions of Americans, Republicans need to own the consequences. Notably, lots of pissed-off people. 

Republicans made a big deal out of Obama supposedly not fulfilling his "if you like your current coverage, you can keep it" pledge. But it would be a hugely bigger deal if Trump takes health insurance away from people who currently have it, and then doesn't replace it with anything. 

People will suffer. People will go bankrupt from medical bills they can't pay. And yes, some people will die because of a lack of health care.

So I can understand why Kitzhaber wants Democrats to work with Republicans. If Dems can make an Obamacare replacement more effective than it would otherwise be, this would be a good thing for people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for medical care.

Yet this would have some political drawbacks.

A bipartisan Obamacare replacement plan would leave Democrats owning the consequences of it, along with Republicans. And there's a decent argument to be made that if the nation's health care system gets worse -- maybe much worse -- under conservative governance, this would improve the chance of a single payer plan, or something close to it, being implemented under a Democratic president elected in 2020.

Anyway, today's panel discussion was intelligent, informative, and interesting.

I came away feeling better about how Oregon has been, and will be, handling health care in this state. It's the crazy goings-on in Washington, D.C. that's worrisome. I've got little confidence that the Trump administration can handle anything well, including our country's health care system.