Salem Political Snark

Daniel Benjamin looks on as black guy gets threatened at Trump rally

If this is how ex-Salem city councilor Daniel Benjamin is working on rehabilitating his image after being unanimously censured by the Ciry Council for racial insensitivity on Facebook, he needs to rethink his approach. 

Below is a video of a recent pro-Trump rally at the Capitol that drew counter-protesters to a Stand For Love rally. A Statesman Journal story, "Trump rally, protests turn violent at State Capitol," describes what's shown in the video: Cameron Whitten, a Portland activist, being threatened, cursed at, and generally treated nastily by the Trump supporters.

Cameron Whitten, 25, live streamed the environment leading up to the fight, but captured his own altercation with Trump supporters who falsely accused him of being the leader of Portland's Resistance, Micah Rhodes, who was accused of sex abuse of a minor.

"They immediately assumed that I was that person," Whitten said. "The group circled around me and called me a child rapist and they were threatening me."

Whitten's live stream shows a masked man wearing camouflage garb screaming. The confrontation got ugly and included threats and expletives.

"Someone saw me as a black person, confused me for another black person, and now I'm a target," Whitten said. 

Daniel Benjamin appears in the background of the video at about the 2:50 mark. Here's some screenshots I took.

Now, Benjamin had every right to be at the pro-Trump rally.

But standing by within close earshot and eyeshot while the masked Trump supporter curses at Cameron Whitten, threatening him with violence, while Whitten calmly keeps asking "What's my name?" as the masked guy keeps mistakenly calling him a child molester, is disturbing. 

Here's how the person who sent me a link to the video described the situation.

I compare this to the posting of a video of cars running over black protesters to your Facebook page. [Which is what Benjamin did that led to his being censured by the City Council.]

Here Benjamin is a witness to the terrible, violent harassment of a black man who (very foolishly, but without malice, I think) was trying to engage with Trump supporters. I think that makes him a participant. In a way this is worse than what Benjamin did to cause his forced resignation from the City Council.

About this whole episode, most of the commentary is focused on the Black Bloc protesters (including Tom Andersen’s in the paper today). But they told the organizer of the Stand for Love rally that their main purpose in being there was to protect our rally from the March4Trump participants whose original plan, I understand was to march in front of the Capitol where we were having our rally. They never did that, thankfully.

Should the Black Bloc protesters have gone down to confront and disrupt the March4Trump? No. Should they have burned an American flag? No. 

Those two things were provocative and ill-advised. But it needs to be emphasized, I think, that it was the March4Trump people who sent two people to the hospital and had one of their members, a felon, arrested for having a gun. Their behavior was far worse than the Black Bloc.

A story in The Skanner, "Black Man Assaulted at Trump March in Salem, Ignored by Police," provides another perspective on what happened. Excerpts:

Portland activist Cameron Whitten was met with racist remarks, physical aggression and death threats during the pro-Trump rally, “Oregon Make America Great Again March” in Salem on Saturday. Onsite police did little to mitigate the hostile incident.   

Whitten, the 25-year-old executive director of the nonprofit Know Your City – which provides educational and arts programs to youth and adults in Portland – attended the rally on March 25 because, he explained in a Facebook post about the encounter, “I personally believe there is value in talking to everyone. Even people you disagree with.”

Whitten had hoped to engage in civil discourse on the Salem Capitol grounds, but was instead surrounded by several masked members of a patriot movement group. One of the men loudly and aggressively threatened Whitten’s physical safety, while accusing him of being a child molester.

“I made the grave mistake of thinking that I could stand peacefully at the March4Trump rally without becoming a target of threats and hostility,” wrote Whitten in a letter addressed to Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett and Salem City Council. “Because I am a Black man, a White Trump supporter saw me and loudly accused me of being a child sex predator, because they thought I looked like a different Black man who has been accused of such crimes in the media.”

...Whitten is asking local government to view his livestream footage to ascertain that he was not conducting himself in a disrespectful or disruptive manner; and that the Salem police ignored his concerns for safety and did not wear any visible identification, making it impossible for Whitten to direct these concerns to any individual.

...Whitten hopes his testimony will be considered by the Salem City Council and local law enforcement as verified proof of racial profiling.

In case you're wondering how much Cameron Whitten looks like Micah Rhodes, who's been accused of sex abuse of a minor, the answer is... not much. But apparently all black people look alike to racists and thugs.

Micah Rhodes

Cameron Whitten

Salem should have an annual political roast: "A Mingling of the Tribes"

Nationally, politics is really divisive. Less so in Oregon. Here in Salem, we're kind of at a middling state of political tension. Intense nastiness rarely is overt, but under the surface irritations fester.

Conservatives, progressives, and everybody in-between (or something else) never are going to hold hands and sing kumbaya together.  But I've got a more realistic goal:

Local politicians and other community leaders get together annually for a good-hearted roast of each other and, equally importantly, themselves. 

A couple of things would be essential for this to be a success. #1, a copious amount of alcohol. Beer, wine, mixed drinks. #2, a willingness for roasters and roastees to embrace jokes and insults with good relaxed humor.

(Which is why #1 is so important.)

I sort of like this name for the roast: “A Mingling of the Tribes." By tribe, I mean a collection of like-minded people who normally hang out mostly with each other. Salem has many "tribes" with different political, cultural, religious, and other sorts of views.

So I like the theme of mingling, strange bedfellows, that sort of thing.

I see this as a dinner, possibly a fundraiser for some universally-admired community cause. There could be assigned seating spots for some attendees.

For example, we’d have the Salem Weekly and Statesman Journal publishers sitting next to each other. Ditto for Chuck Bennett and Carole Smith, who ran against each other in the 2016 Mayor’s race. An avid supporter of the Third Bridge would sit next to Jim Scheppke, an avid opponent. My wife, who has organized a Salem atheist discussion group, could sit next to the minister of a fundamentalist evangelical church. An immigrant rights advocate could be seated with a Strong Borders advocate. And so on. 

We could have these people, along with a moderator/M.C., make jokes about themselves and each other. Then each “odd couple” would have a photo taken posing in an interesting fashion (arms around each other, thumbs up, hugging, whatever).

This wouldn't mean that they agree with each other. Maybe it wouldn't even mean that they like each other. It simply would mean that beneath our differences, we all share a common humanity and a common concern for Salem.

Roasts are fairly common. Political roasts, not so much. I could only find a few examples of these at a community level. The Los Angeles Political Roast picks on a single city or county leader. 

For one night, the Roast brings together over 1,000 individuals from the world of politics, philanthropy and business to roast a Los Angeles city or county leader and poke fun at colleagues. People put rancorous, partisan politics aside and join together in the effort to find a cure for diabetes.

That's fine. I just envision something different than a typical roast that focuses on a particular person.

In Connecticut there's an annual political roast that's a bit closer to what I'm thinking of.

In the midst of election season, politicians gathered Friday for an annual political roast where in good spirits they ribbed their opponents, their allies, and themselves.

Held in the Lake Compounce ballroom, the 133^rd Crocodile Club reunion dinner is an opportunity for Hartford's archrivals to put aside their political differences and enjoy a hearty lunchtime meal, complete with a beer and a cigar, as tradition at the long-running event dictates. Statewide candidates sat on a stage Friday and took turns stepping up to the microphone to exchange jabs in front of the capacity crowd of more than 400 guests, who sat elbow-to-elbow at picnic tables dining on meat and potatoes.

But I don't see Salem's "Mingling of the Tribes" as a solely political affair. Sure, the Mayor and City Councilors should get their fair share of ribbing (since there would be a vegetarian dinner option, we could also call it "tofu'ing"). 

And so should other people who, roughly speaking, could be called community leaders. Importantly, I really like the idea of requiring these people to make some jokes about themselves, along with roasting members of an opposing "tribe." 

If we can't laugh at ourselves, we have no business making fun of other people. For example, my wife and I find religious believers, especially fundamentalists, to be worthy of mockery. Yet us atheists have our own quirks that are worthy of ridicule. 

(Well, I'm confident that we do, even though I have trouble thinking of any at the moment. That's the beauty of my roast idea: if you're a community leader who is having trouble coming up with a joke about yourself, believe me, people who butt heads with you will be glad to point out your foibles.)

Anyway, I throw this idea out in hopes that it could become a reality. 

Whenever I meet someone in person whom I've only argued with on social media, or heard negative things about from a third party, I'm always amazed what a difference getting together face-to-face makes. 

I realize that even though I disagree with them about some community issue, they're a caring, concerned, thoughtful person, just as I am. And if we leave aside the particular things we differ about, we have a lot in common. 

In a small town, this sort of personal contact happens naturally.

In a city as large as Salem, where people of a particular "tribal flavor" tend to flock together, we need to have some organized ways to bring folks into the same room -- where they share drinks, food, and jokes for at least one night a year. 

[Update: Over on my HinesSight blog I've written about a broader view of a Mingling of the Tribes project in "Mingling of the Tribes" effort could help heal divisiveness in Salem.]

Salem Statesman Journal seems to be scamming subscribers

I've been a Statesman Journal subscriber for 40 years. Recently I got a notice that my 7-day subscription price will go up from $36/month to $41/month.

At first that didn't bother me. Yeah, it's a 14% increase in an economy where inflation is running under 3% a year. And I was paying only $205 a year back in 2009, which translates into a Statesman Journal subscription price of $17/month. 

So that's a 140% subscription increase over eight years, an average of 17.5% a year. 

I was curious to see if the $41/month our subscription was going to cost starting in April 2017 was the regular price. Or the price a new subscriber would pay.

What I learned has led me to conclude that the Gannett Corporation, in the guise of the Statesman Journal, appears to be scamming new subscribers and confusing current subscribers.

Here's what the Statesman Journal says a 7-day a week subscription costs: $22/month.

There's an introductory offer of just $11/month, 50% off the usual rate -- which my razor-sharp senior citizen mind was able to calculate equaled the above $22/month rate.

OK. I now knew that the regular advertised subscription rate for 7-day home delivery is $22/month. Which led me to wonder, why the heck is my subscription going to cost $41/month? 

Optimistically, I figured that if I phoned the toll-free number on the rate increase notification that came from the Statesman Journal, a customer service person would give me the $22/month rate after I told them my story.

But that didn't happen. Instead, the person I talked with said that the $22/month rate was just an introductory rate that would jump after the first three months were over. 

I replied, "No, the introductory rate for 7 day delivery is $11/month. That's shown as a 50% savings from the regular rate, which is $22/month. So why can't I have the $22/month rate?" 

Her response was to reiterate that the introductory rate would jump up to the regular rate, which apparently was my $41/month rate, after the first few months were over. Since that was her final offer, I thanked her and tried a different approach. 

The other customer service option on the rate increase letter: "log in at StatesmanJournal.com/customer service for a live chat with a Customer Service representative."

Result: same answer. This is most of our chat exchange. What's missing is my initial question, which isn't shown on the thread. But I repeated that question in my first chat message (in blue) below.

Well, this was disturbing.

The way I see it, Kevin had told me that the $22/month rate actually was a "promotional" rate, and the $11/month rate was an "introductory" rate (or maybe the reverse), even though nothing I could find on the Statesman Journal site indicates that $22/month is anything other than the regular rate. 

When I log out of my Statesman Journal account and visit the SJ web page as a non-subscriber, I'm met with an invitation to subscribe in the upper right corner. This is what pops up when I click on it.

Again, the Monday-Sunday 7 day a week option says $11/month for the first three months, "save 50%." Fifty percent of $22 is $11. When I click on "subscribe," I'm led to a page where I took this screenshot:

Now, this page doesn't say what the price will be after three months. But the previous page said that I'd pay $11/month for three months, a 50% saving. So this sure seems to mean that the regular price will be $22/month.

Except... I'm paying $41/month starting in April. And I was told by two different customer service people that I couldn't get a lower subscription rate. 

So it appears that the Statesman Journal is misleading people with the $22/month Monday-Sunday price offer. Or, I was misled that there is no lower price than $41/month. 

Either way, somebody is getting scammed. 

I'll ask Statesman Journal staff to comment on this blog post. Also, I'd be interested to know if anyone else is paying a different amount for a regular Monday-Sunday subscription. Again, I've been paying $36/month, which is going to jump to $41/month in April 2017.

It's difficult to get comparable up-to-date figures on newspaper circulation these days. A few years ago I presented evidence that from 2008 to 2014, the Statesman Journal had a 41% decline in daily circulation (excludes Sunday). 

Thus it is understandable that Salem's daily newspaper would be both raising subscription prices and trying to attract new subscribers. I just wish the Statesman Journal would be more open and upfront about its pricing, because it looks like the paper is attempting to suck in new subscribers with an approach that arguably is a scam.

Meaning, making it look like $22/month is the regular Monday-Sunday price, even though I was told by two customer service representatives that the price I'm paying, $41/month, is the lowest non-promotional price.

Update: I tried to find the email address of Barbara Smith, VP Customer Service, who signed the oh-so-personal letter addressed to me with a Statesman Journal return address. But it turns out that Ms. Smith is a Gannett executive who signs letters that go to Gannett subscribers all around the country.

A bit of Googling turned up a marvelously snarky 2013 piece from the Nashville Scene, "Dear Customer: Pay More for Less. Love, Barbara." Some excerpts:

In a move that truly merits a place of honor in the corporate hallucination hall of fame, the "customer service" wing of The Tennessean dropped me (and presumably all 16 other remaining print subscribers) a line this week informing me that the paper's utter fabulousness warrants an arresting 26% hike in the subscription price. This big an increase all at once would be irksome on its own given a low-inflation economy and the ever-declining quality of Gannett's product, but coming as it does on the heels of multiple rounds of newsroom layoffs it's downright appalling.

Of course, the missive from Customer Service VP Barbara Smith doesn't bother to mention the old rate or the scope of the increase. The hope, obviously is that we won't notice its magnitude, nor recall that subscription prices rose big time as recently as mid-2012 when the paper unveiled digital apps and an online paywall. In all, the cost of my seven-day home-delivery subscription in the last 15 months has jumped a whopping 68 percent, from $17.25 in May 2012 to the new rate of $29.00 starting next month.

...Look, we readers get it that the newspaper business is economically dire, and that over the long run, daily dead-tree home delivery is becoming an expensive luxury. Many news organizations are confronting their uncertain future by struggling heroically to maintain the mission and the quality while bracing against the gathering storm. At The Tennessean the approach is a little different: deplete the staff, kill morale, dilute the quality of the product, jack up the prices, and hope nobody notices.

Sounds familiar. This is the Gannett modus operandi. It's being done here in Salem, and also elsewhere. For example, check out this report, "Layoffs in Local Newsrooms," which describes recent cuts at Gannett newspapers in New Jersey.

 

Four reasons to vote NO on Measure 24-420, the second-try Salem police facility bond

Today I updated the Salem Can Do Better web page to reflect our new campaign: urging a NO vote on the $62 million police facility bond measure on the May ballot. 

Because even though the rejection of last November's hugely overpriced $82 million bond measure forced City officials to reduce the size and cost of the proposed police facility -- a win for Salem citizens -- the $62 million second-try bond still suffers from some major flaws:

Notably, (1) an excessively high cost per square foot, and (2) a continued failure to realize that saving the lives of everybody at City Hall and the Library when the Big One earthquake hits is just as important as saving the lives of Police Department employees.  

Click on the image below to peruse the four good reasons why Salem Can Do Better is opposing this second-try attempt at funding a new police facility.

There's lots of good information on this web page, including several videos. Here's some additional FAQ's, Frequently Asked Questions that I either get quite often, or that I'm pretty sure are in the minds of people who favor Measure 24-420.

Why do you hate the Salem Police Department? 
I don't. Not at all.

In fact, I have nothing bad to say about the Department, which is ably run by Chief Jerry Moore, who I like a lot. My problem isn't with the Police Department. It is with City officials who have now proposed two plans for a new police facility that aren't worthy of being approved by voters.

Do you agree that a new Police Facility is needed? 
Yes.

During last year's campaign for the first-try police facility bond, Mayor-elect Bennett and I would present "pro" and "con" arguments at neighborhood association meetings. After Bennett would present the reasons why the current Police Department space in City Hall is woefully inadequate, I'd say "I agree with what Mayor-elect Bennett just said. But you still should vote NO on the bond measure."

City officials plan to put a bond for Library seismic improvements on the November ballot. Isn't this good enough for you? 
No.

As the Salem Can Do Better web page points out, there's an urgent need to make both the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe. There's no reason to force citizens to choose between Police and Library when it comes to saving lives. I and others showed City officials how easy it would be to reduce enough unnecessary costs in the second-try police facility budget to pay for the cost of seismically retrofitting the Library. 

Instead, their attitude was, "What's the big deal of waiting six months for another election?"

Well, the big deal is that splitting Library seismic retrofits from building a new earthquake-safe police facility sends the message that saving the lives of  Library employees and visitors (including children) is less important than saving the lives of Police Department staff. Further, it is very likely that the Salem-Keizer school district will have a large bond measure on the November ballot. 

Thus voters need to reject this second-try bond measure.

Then a third-try can be voted on that does what should have done on the first- and second- tries: reduce the development cost per square foot to the cost other police facilities in Oregon have been built for recently, and make seismic retrofitting of at least the Library (ideally, City Hall also) part of a unified Public Safety bond.

Since you live outside of the city limits, why are you leading the fight against the police facility bond? 
Because I care about Salem.

I've had a Salem address for 40 years, having moved here in 1977. For 13 years I lived in the city limits when my daughter was going to Salem elementary, middle, and high schools. During high school, when she and her friends said they were going to the Library to study, sometimes they actually did. At the time I didn't know that the Library would collapse when the next major earthquake hits, a matter of when, not if. 

Now, I do.

Even though I've lived about five miles outside of town for 27 years, Salem continues to be my home in every way other than living in the city limits. My daughter now lives in Orange County, California, which also is earthquake country. If my ten-year-old granddaughter is spending time in buildings that aren't earthquake-safe, I hope that someone down there is pushing to have those buildings seismically retrofitted.

Which is what I'm doing here in Salem.

It deeply bothers me that City officials have known for a long time that the Library and City Hall are going to collapse when the Big One hits, yet haven't yet seismically strengthened these buildings.

When they put off seismic retrofitting of the Library once again, even though several citizen groups urged them to put a combined Library Seismic + Police Facility bond before voters this May, I knew that I couldn't live with myself unless I opposed this second-try bond measure.

I won the Tree City USA photo contest! Mayor Bennett won't like my acceptance speech.

Woo-hoo! My poignant photo of a citizen's flower memorial placed on a stump belonging to one of the U.S. Bank trees that were needlessly cut down in 2013 won the City of Salem's Tree City USA photo contest.

Well, let's say that I'm virtually sure that I won, given the announcement on a rather obscure Facebook page belonging to the City, City of Salem Public Works Water. 

Since my photo was the largest, and my name was mentioned first, I'll accept a win on behalf of the five beautiful Japanese Zelkovas that were killed for no good reason by clueless City officials and the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton. 

(Congratulations to Stephanie Smetana and Robert Duvernet for their top finishing photos. I readily admit that yours are more beautiful. Mine is more of a citizen activist statement, not a work of art, though beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.)

My fantasy was that I'd be able to make an acceptance speech for my Tree City USA Photo Contest win at a City Council meeting presided over by Mayor Chuck Bennett. I'd say something like the following.

Which wouldn't make Mayor Bennett happy, but in this case the truth is more important than a City official's feelings.

The needless destruction of the U.S. Bank trees was a sad moment for me and everybody else in Salem who values our leafy friends.

I spent $727 on public record requests to understand why these trees were killed even though expert arborists and the City of Salem's own Shade Tree Advisory Committee recommended that they be pruned, not removed, because they were healthy and weren't causing any problems with the sidewalk (or anything else).

I learned that the trees were removed because the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez (who is still on the job), had made a backroom deal with U.S. Bank president Allbritton to cut the trees down several years before U.S. Bank applied for a tree removal permit. 

The shameful details of this unethical episode are in my tell-all report, "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank Tree Killings." Subtitle: The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.

I want to thank everybody who voted for my photo of a stump which was all that remained of a large, healthy, beautiful Japanese Zelkova that, along with its four sister trees, made this block of downtown's State Street a draw for both visitors to Salem and residents alike.

After they were killed needlessly, I vowed to never forget. Here's what I said at the end of my "Outrage" report. 

City councilors sat on their hands while chain saws killed the entirely innocent trees. So did the Mayor and City Manager. This was a shameful, outrageous episode. Yet if it spurs reforms at City Hall, the trees will not have died in vain. On a personal note… I took this photo of the beautiful Japanese Zelkova at the corner of Commercial and State Streets after telling the tree, “I promise that I will do everything I can to save your life.”

I kept that promise. Yet the tree still was killed. I’m deeply sorry for that. Call me crazy — I’ve been called worse — but I felt a strong connection with that tree. I still do. It was a friend of mine. I know this, because I’ve got tears in my eyes as I write these final words, and I don’t cry very often. Usually just when someone or something I love touches me.

There were quite a few "good guys" in this saga who, along with me, did their best to save the U.S. Bank trees. But they were speaking truth to power, and in the end, power won. 

Along with Public Works Director Peter Fernandez, Mayor Chuck Bennett is one of the City officials responsible for this needless tree killing who are still at City Hall. I described Bennett's part in the U.S. Bank tree debacle in "Chuck Bennett's shameful role in U.S. Bank tree killings."

This is how that post started out:

Chuck Bennett is running for Mayor of Salem. I'm sharing an email about Bennett that voters should read before they choose between him and Carole Smith, the other candidate for Mayor. 

The email shows that Chuck Bennett was complicit in a shameful moment -- the needless killing in 2013 of the five large, beautiful, healthy Japanese Zelkova trees on downtown's State Street. At the time, as now, Bennett represented Ward 1, which includes the Historic District.

Yet Bennett not only did nothing to save the U.S. Bank trees from being cut down for no good reason, he actively participated in an unethical backroom deal between Peter Fernandez, the City of Salem Public Works Director, and Ryan Allbritton, the U.S. Bank president.

The whole story is in my tell-all 2014 report, "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."

Now, some may feel that I entered the 2017 Tree City USA Photo Contest just to rekindle disturbing memories of the U.S. Bank tree killings. Well, all I can say is... you're right! This is exactly why I entered the photo of the stump. 

Becoming a Tree City USA town is easy. The qualifications are minimal. The City of Salem takes way too much pride in the Tree City USA banner that hangs in the City Council chambers, because City officials haven't done a very good job of taking care of Salem's trees. 

The U.S. Bank debacle is just one example.

I talk with arborists who are astounded at how the City of Salem allows street trees to be mangled by poor pruning. Many trees were cut down needlessly as part of the poorly-planned Salem Health development of the Howard Hall property. The North Campus of the State Hospital is losing many beautiful trees that some say could have been saved.

And even though the destruction of the U.S. Bank trees led to positive changes in the City's tree ordinance, a citizen recommendation for an Urban Tree Commission wasn't accepted by the City Council in 2015, despite pleadings by me and other tree lovers. 

So Salem has a long way to go before it truly deserves its "Tree City USA" designation. Hopefully this town will improve the way it treats trees. I'm optimistic, given the fresh faces on the City Council. But until this happens, let's not forget the U.S. Bank trees. 

They were killed needlessly. Yet if we remember why, and vow to never let that happen again, the trees won't have died in vain.

Straight talk about Salem's homeless problem: answer is more money

Yesterday I learned a lot about our local homeless problem via a Salem City Club program, "A Profile of Salem's Homeless Population: Our Unique Challenges." 

Jimmy Jones (Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency) and Ron Hays (Community Resource Trust) presented a lot of interesting information about how many people are homeless in Salem/Marion County, and why they're in this dire situation.

I'll share some of those facts below. 

First, though, I'll get to the bottom line of what I grasped from the talks by Jones and Hays, and some follow-up Googling into the broader question of what really works to help the homeless. 

(1) Our homeless problem is so bad, and the currently available resources to help people are so limited, right now the plain truth is... we're screwed. 

(2) What's needed is pretty damn simple: permanent supportive housing where the homeless not only get a place to live, but support services to help them get their lives together. 

(3) This costs -- no big surprise -- money. A lot of it. It really can only come from taxes. Meaning, government. The private sector can help, but the public sector holds the key to housing our homeless.

I realize this isn't cheery news, especially given the Trump administration's antipathy to government programs that help ordinary people. (If you're a defense contractor or a billionaire, Trump's proposed budget is very kind to you.)

But we've got to face reality. Here's some facts from the scribbled notes I took at the City Club meeting and some other sources I've linked to.

• In Marion County (maybe Marion/Polk) there are 1,078 chronically homeless people; 500 in Salem. 
• Overall, there are 5,710 homeless, including the most and least vulnerable. 
• This is larger than any other small city, and just outside the top 10 overall nationally.
• Marion County gets much less money per homeless person than other counties, like Multnomah.
• Mayor Bennett's homeless plan would only house 20% (100 people) of the 500 chronically homeless.
• Bennett estimates there are 1,500 to 2,000 homeless people in Salem, so that leaves 1,400 to 1,900 without homes even if the 100 person voucher program is implemented.
• The rental vacancy rate in Salem is 1% now; 4% is required for successful transition programs out of homelessness.
• Thus there is a need to invest in subsidized and affordable housing.
• About 16,500 subsidized/affordable housing units are needed in Marion and Polk counties.
• Only 180 units are being built at the affordable housing Portland Road Apartments project.
• The average cost of building an affordable housing unit in Marion County is about $142,000; in Oregon, $249,000.
• So between $2.3 billion and $4.1 billion (yes, billion) needs to be spent on affordable housing in Marion/Polk counties.

Like I said, this isn't cheery news. 

I readily admit that I'm not an expert on homelessness. But I regularly talk with homeless advocates here in Salem. And I try to follow the broad outlines of what's happening with efforts to deal with our local homeless problem.

Along that line, today's Googling led me to a marvelous resource on the what's happening front: the CANDO (downtown area) neighborhood association blog. (That link leads to a recent post about the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Task Force, which was pretty much a wasted effort, from what I can tell; scroll down for a treasure trove of archived posts.)

This excerpt from a February 2017 CANDO blog post, "Salem's Homeless Chronic," does a good job of summing up the problem.
-----------------------------
"One, Salem's approach to homelessness, like its approach to so many things, has been habitual, long-lasting, and patterned over a long period of time to conform to outdated norms.  Specifically, the City has, year after year, let religious institutions such as UGM, The Salvation Army, and others provide its residents emergency shelter, with little if any support from the City, while continuing to fund, year in and year out, the same favored social service programs, without regard for whether those programs are, in fact, effective in addressing community needs.

"Two, the City has, as a result of its habitual, long-lasting and patterned approach to homelessness, neglected the most vulnerable, the so-called 'chronically homeless', the 'service resistant', the 'hard-to-house', those who supposedly 'don't want to be helped.'  As a consequence, and as the Weekly observed, Salem has something like twice the national average of chronically homeless.  That's why the downtown is the way it is, and it's only going to get worse if the City doesn't change its approach to the problem.

"We agree with the Weekly's observation that resources 'need to be used in the most effective possible manner' (really, who would disagree?).  But how shockingly ignorant the statement, 'Providing a place to live or sleep may meet immediate basic needs, and that may be a needed first step.' (Emphasis added.)  What other first step, dear Weekly, did you have in mind?  And based on what research?

"Research has shown that providing housing first is the needed first step.  So, wake up Salem Weekly.  Wake up City of Salem.  This is not a new idea.  What's needed is permanent supportive housing, not sanctioned camping and car-camping programs.  A resource center would be nice, but it won't begin to address the needs of Salem's most vulnerable - the chronically homeless.

"Salem's homeless problem is not widespread and uncontrollable, meaning it's not of 'epidemic proportions.'  It's chronic; built in; systematized.  It's the result of 1) capitalism, and 2) long-term neglect, and while we can't do anything about 1), we can do something about 2).  Other communities have made inroads, but only after they gave up habitual, long-lasting and patterned approaches to the problem, and followed the research.  C'mon Salem Weekly, help us out.  Don't follow habitual thought patterns.  Do your research." 
------------------------

That last link, "followed the research," leads here: to a Cost Savings With Permanent Supportive Housing page. Which says:

The chart illustrates the fact that the cost of permanent supportive housing is offset in most instances by reductions in emergency shelter costs and health care (physical and behavioral) costs.

This fits with a thoughtful piece in The Atlantic called "How Can the U.S. End Homelessness?" It discusses several approaches that sort of work, but have serious drawbacks. Here's how the piece ends:

Across the country, experts on homelessness have solutions they think will work best. The problem is, housing in many cities is getting more expensive every month, and as prices rise, so do the costs of programs to combat homelessness.

Meanwhile, federal funds for affordable housing have stayed at the same levels for years. So as housing costs go up, those funds are spread more thinly and help fewer people.

But if homelessness is really a problem the country wants to solve by 2020, why not increase the amount of money overall that the government spends on programs to help the homeless? Where could that money come from?

Why not stimulate the creation of affordable housing so to assist both the chronically homeless and those who are homeless temporarily?  Such housing could be available to people below certain income levels, and they could qualify whether they are on the streets or are in an apartment they can’t afford.

For some, it’s hard to imagine carving out more money from the country’s budget to address these issues. But solving homelessness can help fix a lot of other problems too, including truancy from schools, food insecurity, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment. Is it possible that directing more resources toward solving homelessness could actually save society money by helping to fix its other ills at the same time?

Yes! 

So I come back to what seems to be the only way to solve Salem's homeless problem. Which is the only way to solve Oregon's and the nation's homeless problem. 

More money. A lot more money. 

The private sector, such as Mountain West Investment, which is developing the Portland Road project, isn't going to come up with the many billions of dollars needed to build the affordable/subsidized housing units needed to take care of our local homeless problem. 

Only government can do this. Sure, private-public partnerships are needed, but it is foolish to believe that "the market" is going to solve Salem's homeless problem. Developers are in business to make money, not fix social problems. 

Vouchers to help the homeless afford a place to live are great. However, those vouchers cost money, and building those places to live costs money. 

What we have is a systemic societal problem, the way I see it. It's much the same as our health care problem. A good share of the the citizenry, including most of the Republicans who currently control the federal government, view homelessness (and also lack of medical insurance) as a personal problem.

Meaning, homeless individuals are largely responsible for their not having a place to live, as are individuals without medical insurance largely responsible for lacking access to health care.

Until we change this pervasive attitude -- that having a place to live or health care is a privilege, not a right -- it won't be possible to summon up the political will to put our tax money into programs that benefit people in need, rather than corporations, the military-industrial complex, the already wealthy, and others who currently get massive government support.

Likewise, here in Salem Mayor Bennett and other City officials are determined to waste a billion dollars on an unneeded Third Bridge. They need to shift their passion to seeking funds for helping the homeless.

Likely even a billion bucks won't solve Salem's homeless problem, but it would be a damn good start.

How will Chris Hoy's victory affect the Salem City Council?

It was a happy night for Salem progressives yesterday. Chris Hoy won the special election for the Ward 6 City Council seat left vacant by Daniel Benjamin's resignation last year.

Hoy's large margin of victory over the other candidates -- including Greggery Peterson, the "establishment" pick endorsed by current Mayor Chuck Bennett and previous Mayor Anna Peterson -- was aided by the enthusiastic support of volunteers from Progressive Salem, who put in a lot of time canvassing for Hoy.

Here's a photo of the Hoy election night party at La Margarita Express, courtesy of a Facebook post by Geoff James.

Hoy is standing in the back left of the photo, apparently looking at election results on his phone.

The jubilant upstretched arms belong to Councilor Tom Andersen, a fellow progressive who obviously is happy that his liberal "tribe" now will command five of the nine seats on the Salem City Council. Here's what James said in his post:

CHRIS HOY CELEBRATION ... It was packed at La Margarita Express tonight. The Progressive Salem team of dozens of members, who worked hard on Chris's successful campaign to become Ward 6 Salem City Councilor, were there for delicious Salvadorian and Mexican dishes, wine and beer, and when the election results were posted online just after 8 p.m. there were huge cheers and standing ovations. Organized People once again beats Organized Money.

By once again, James is referring to a recent string of City Council victories by progressives.

Prior to the May 2016 election, Andersen was the lone progressive on the nine-member City Council (eight councilors representing wards, plus the Mayor). Then Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec were elected, with Cook pulling off a victory over a conservative sitting councilor, Warren Bednarz.

Benjamin's resignation gave the four progressives an early chance to become a majority, since his term otherwise ran until 2018. With Hoy's win, the balance of power on the City Council has shifted. 

Well, more accurately, it will shift if Andersen, Kaser, Cook, Ausec, and Hoy band together in votes on issues of major concern to progressives in this town. Hopefully they will.

Because if they don't, the many people who have supported their election campaigns with money, time, and effort will begin to wonder, What was the point? Along this line, the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger had this to say in a post about Hoy's victory:

Hoy is on the Board of the Salem Bicycle Club, works in law enforcement, and seems well positioned to have a balanced approach towards a transportation mix in which walking, biking, busing are realistic options for people. With a fifth vote on Council, there may also be opportunities to apply some brakes to the waste of the Salem River Crossing project. The current bloc of four Councilors hasn't seem inclined to block anything by a 4-4 tie, but maybe with the fifth vote they'll be more assertive.

I've been worrying a bit about this also.

Almost certainly Mayor Bennett and the other three remaining conservatives on the City Council (Nanke, McCoid, Lewis) will do their best to drive a wedge between the five progressives on key issues such as the Salem River Crossing, a.k.a. the Third Bridge.

But a comment by Councilor Andersen on the Breakfast on Bikes post is encouraging:

Excellent! 

Rejecting the Memorandum of Understanding will be an important first step in efforts by the new City Council progressive majority to repeal approval of this Billion Dollar Third Bridge Boondoggle and replace it with much more cost-effective improvements to the two existing bridges. 

(See this post for details about the MOU and falsehoods about tolling being spread by City officials.)

It's going to be fascinating to watch how dynamics on the City Council change after Chris Hoy takes his Ward 6 seat in early April. 

Salem is a liberal-majority town that has been controlled by conservatives at City Hall for quite a few years. As Geoff James noted, People Power has finally been able to overcome the Money Power wielded by the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups in previous local elections. 

So the tension that has existed between a left-leaning citizenry being led by a right-leaning City Council should begin to lessen. Of course, this likely will mean that increased tensions will be evident between the five progressives and the four remaining conservatives on the Council.

When the Powers That Be find their influence slipping away, we can expect some resistance. Maybe even a few temper tantrums. 

But such is the way of politics. Andersen and Co. need to stand firm and represent the interests of the people who elected them, who happen to be a majority of people in Salem. The Chamber of Commerce types will wail and moan.

Which is fine. Let them cry themselves out while the five progressives do what is right for this town. 

Daniel Benjamin's right-wing "compassion." No sidewalks in your part of Salem? Just move.

A couple of weeks ago Mary Nikas shared this photo in a post on the Salem City Council Facebook page (a private page which isn't associated with the City of Salem).

She said: "Photo taken this morning on Oakhill Road in SE Salem. Can we start spending our community development money on sidewalks now, please?!"

When I saw the photo of a woman having to ride an electric wheelchair in the road, I thought This is terrible, Salem needs sidewalks everywhere so people can get around safely. 

Just about everyone who left comments on the post felt the same way.

But notably, not ex-city councilor Daniel Benjamin, who was unanimously censured by the City Council last year following his Facebook sharing of a video showing Black Lives Matter protesters being rammed by cars, which led to his resignation.

Below I've shared some comment interchanges on the post between Benjamin, a conservative guy who was endorsed by the Salem Chamber of Commerce when he ran for the City Council in 2014, and liberal people who had a much more compassionate attitude toward the woman who was forced to ride her wheelchair in the street.

The back-and-forth comment conversation says a lot about the political landscape in Salem. This is a liberal-leaning town. I'm confident that most people reject the right-wing view that taxes should be as low as possible, even if they are needed to pay for vital public services. Like, sidewalks.

However, unfortunately the Chamber of Commerce'ish viewpoint expressed by Benjamin still has a lot of influence in Salem. An excessive amount of money and power still is in the hands of the aptly-named Powers That Be.

As you can read below, Benjamin believes that if someone lives in a part of town without sidewalks, and they need to get around in a wheelchair, the solution is simple: move to an area of Salem that does have sidewalks. 

Selfish? Yes. Stupid? Yes. 

Yet Benjamin isn't alone in favoring public policies that screw over the poor, and bestow even more wealth on the rich. That's the Republican playbook. And believe me, it isn't only guiding conservatives in Washington, D.C. Anyone who closely watches goings-on at the Salem City Hall, as I do, can see the attitude expressed by Benjamin -- need a sidewalk? tough, suck it up -- reflected in local public policy decisions.

Read on for the comment conversation. I highlighted some pertinent liberal views in green, and some of Benjamin's conservative views in red. 

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

Daniel Benjamin Probably shouldn't use it when on foot...or in this case... electric wheelchair.... I can't imagine what's so important that one would risk their life in that manner.

Mary Ann Baclawski This is the only way some people can get to the store for groceries and other necessities.

Daniel Benjamin That is the only street and route to the grocery store?

Susann Kaltwasser No sidewalks anywhere in that area. There is a bus stop at Commercial. So if you want to get anywhere you must walk or ride in the street until you get to Commercial. Know you city...

Daniel Benjamin

 

Evan Manvel I'd invite people like Mr. Eastwood who aren't familiar with the experience of not being able to drive places to tour the neighborhood via GoogleMaps satellite view. 

(Or even better, spend a day in a wheelchair to understand how difficult it is to get around to meet one's basic needs). 

From my brief look, it appears as if people can either:

(a) travel on Madrona and Commerical, busy streets with sidewalks but lots of cars turning across them, or 

(b) travel on virtually any other road, without sidewalks. And to access option (a), people have to do (b) anyways.

We have a complete network for people who drive. We have very incomplete network for the 30% of Salemites who cannot.

Daniel Benjamin Good thing the last budget Community add more money to sidewalks Construction and repair.

Jennifer Hillman-Magnuson Now imagine you don't have a car, and you are not physically able. Some people have to risk their lives for mundane things like going to the store for food.

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards It is at least 3 miles of no sidewalk and no bus routes before I can get to a bus stop or sidewalk to take me to a grocery store, pharmacy or other necessity. 

I am disabled and often cannot walk at all, let alone 3+ miles in terribly unsafe conditions (River Rd S is a super fast thoroughfare) to meet just the basic needs of existing, like food and medicine, let alone doctor visits or quality of life. 

In a Capital city this is primitive, archaic and a gross misuse of funds (we certainly do not need another mall or bridge before safe walkways and transportation routes).

Daniel Benjamin Alright I'm not trying to be mean here.... if your environment is so inhospitable perhaps you should change your environment... I agree more sidewalks are definitely needed as well as bus service.... however your needs aren't the only ones that need to be met and regards the sidewalks...

 

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards So it's my fault because I don't just up and move along to a much more upscale neighborhood that has these basics of urban dwelling, I see. 

Thank you so much for your wise observations, I will take note and apply that nonsense at first opportunity.

 

Daniel Benjamin It's what I what do.... if I want better schools I moved the neighborhood with the better schools or want better access to I-5 I move somewhere that has better access to I-5... I need to be close to the goods and services or even a hospital.... that's just common sense lady... or you can call it nonsense whatever.

 

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards May you always be able bodied, resource rich and never have to make any hard choices that pit one basic need against another. May you never have to experience these kinds of obstacles or understand the consequences of things beyond your control. May you always feel justified in hiding behind societal acceptance of hate and discrimination (if one has to preface a statement with "Alright I'm not trying to be mean here" perhaps it is pertinent to rethink the statement period). May you never have to walk a step in the shoes of your fellow citizens that may not possess your resources, abilities or social privilege. 

The oversimplification of the struggles within our society is void of compassion, observation and reality. The strategies you employ my internet stranger-friend are a failed attempt at distracting from the reality that the City of Salem and the County of Marion have not done their jobs in providing for all of it's citizens, even the most basic of needs, as this photo presents a compelling case for. 

I am finished engaging you, for there is no benefit to what you have to offer, it is only masked xenophobia and hate, neither of which do I choose to feed. Good day to you. May it be blessed with diversity and sidewalks.

 

Daniel Benjamin May I help you move?....how is that that for "intolerant" "hate" and "discrimination?"

 

...Susann Kaltwasser Jennifer Hillman-Magnuson True! I havea friend who must used a motorized wheelchair as their main transportation. Every time she goes to the grocery store, she almost get hit by some car that either has not patience or doesn't yield the right of way...even in a crosswalk with a light, she is at risk. This is shameful!

 

Susann Kaltwasser Daniel Benjamin If you can find them a place, pay their application fee, their deposit and first and last month's rent, then that might be a reasonable offer.

 

...Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe Regular bus transportation and sidewalks... these should be as basic and required as water lines and electricity. And yes, I know that means more taxes. As much as I'd feel the pain, it know it is worth it.

 

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards It doesn't even have to mean more taxes, only that the existing taxes be used more responsibly.

 

Daniel Benjamin Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards...take a look at the City Budget from just last year...then look at it from 5 years ago...all you would have to look at is how much the city spends on sidewalks.... then comment back what you found.

 

Daniel Benjamin As my drill sergeant used to say.."I can't hear you!"
Funny how folks say the government needs to spend more wisely so their particular need or cause can get more funding...and you point out the government budget...then they get quite. 
I want better streets so I can drive my car with safety and assurance... but somehow now I'm supposed to sacrifice my safety and assurance so other people can have sidewalks... I propose we have a sidewalk tax... that way you can increase the amount of sidewalks that are installed and maintained...any takers?

 

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards I stopped engaging you a while back. It has nothing to do with disagreement on any given topic. It has to do with managing my time in far more productive and successful ways. Arguing with strangers on the internet is not one of my strategies. Sorry, you will have to find someone else to hawk your opinions at. My best advice to you is this: Just. Stop.

 

Daniel Benjamin Lol... I offer Solutions and you call me Petty... typical leftist... good luck to you I hope you get your sidewalks

 

City of Salem strategic planning effort seems to be going backward

Showing that I'm either (1) crazy, (2) got too much time on my hands, (3) a glutton for punishment, or (4) a dedicated citizen activist blogger (I like this choice!), I just spent two hours of my remaining lifetime watching a Salem City Council work session on its strategic planning effort that was streamed live on Facebook.

One of the most interesting comments came from Mayor Chuck Bennett when he said, "I'm tired of planning" and "We don't need to sit around and talk about it."

Understand: these sentiments were expressed during a meeting of City officials who have been paying consultants a lot of money to figure out how the City of Salem should plan. which has involved a bunch of people sitting around and talking. 

So that was weird.

The consultants must have felt like their heads would explode when they heard those words. But to their credit -- and maybe because it was the Mayor expressing doubts about planning -- they kept their cool and made some appropriately polite observations that didn't exactly undermine Bennett, while not exactly agreeing with him either.

Mayor Bennett mostly was talking about one of seven issue areas that emerged after a lengthy initial phase of the strategic planning process. These are the issues, which were given letters rather than numbers. Each was intended to have a Work Group develop a four page or so report about the issue.

(My scribbled notes may not reflect the exact titles, but these are close.)

A. Vision for growth and development, including the natural environment
B. Critical infrastructure and capital projects
C. Public transportation
D. Affordable housing, social services, homelessness 
E. Economic development and downtown
F. Policy/planning processes within City government
G. Communication with residents

Bennett didn't see much, if any, need for a Work Group on affordable housing and homelessness because he felt that an existing City committee was doing a great job on these problems. As reflected by his "I'm tired of planning" comment, Bennett felt that whatever this committee was doing, that was all that needed to be done regarding a strategic plan in this area.

Which struck me as being highly debatable. 

Former Mayor Peterson's task force on homelessness achieved essentially nothing after many meetings, from what I hear. So far I'm not aware that the homelessness/ affordable housing effort Mayor Bennett has instigated has come up with any earthshaking solutions either. 

But, hey, maybe they have. Doubtful, yet possible.

My problem with what Bennett said is that the City's strategic planning effort is supposed to be looking at broad goals, or visions, to guide public policies for the next five years. It seems wrong-headed to, as one of the consultants suggested, simply take what the current homelessness/affordable housing committee is doing and call that the Strategic Vision.

What's the point of going through this whole extensive strategic planning process if what comes out at the end is what City officials are already doing? Yet this is what Bennett wanted in the area of homelessness and affordable housing.

This points to the most interesting theme at the work session that was sometimes spoken about openly, and sometimes was a undercurrent below the evident conversation:

To what extent are fresh ideas, creative visions, and major changes of direction going to be part of the final Strategic Plan? 

Councilor Tom Andersen did a good job of making this theme explicit early on in the work session.

He noted that City staff picked the small group "stakeholders" who have gotten the major share of attention in the strategic planning process so far. I talked about this in "'Stakeholders' and 'Citizens' have different priorities at Salem Strategic Plan meetings," and Salem Weekly exposed the stakeholder truth in "City of Salem out of touch with identifying stakeholders."

For the January 31 meeting, the city invited 32 people it felt met this definition to participate.

• Nearly half (47%) were Republican (and 33% Democrat) in a town where Democrats hold a 9-point registration advantage over Republicans (40% to 31%) and Hillary beat Trump by 11 points (49% to 38%)

• 27% did not live in Salem but instead in Keizer, near Independence, Canby, Turner, Aurora and rural locations outside of Salem

• 43% had strong affiliations with the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce

• 30% (9 of 32) have held present or past leadership positions in the chamber. This includes past and present board members and officers, the CEO, the Executive Leadership Council and Career Achievement Network members

No Latinos, who comprise about 25% of Salem’s population, were invited to participate.  Men, at 77%, were over-represented. No lower-income individuals were apparently regarded as “stakeholders,” even though 43% of Salem residents have household incomes under $40,000 a year.

Likewise, the Breakfast on Bikes blogger cogently analyzed the problems of reconciling the views of a small group of handpicked "stakeholders" with the views of a much larger group of people who attended a strategic planning open house in a post about the upcoming March 6 strategic planning work session. 

To their credit, the City's consultants seemed to have realized this. Unfortunately, they realized the mistake of elevating the input of a few Chamber of Commerce types over input from the general citizenry too late.

So this is why I'm saying that the City of Salem strategic planning process is going backward. I'll illustrate this with the example of the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, issue.

The Chamber of Commerce-dominated "stakeholder" group loved the idea of a half-billion-dollar Third Bridge. The 250 or so people who attended a strategic planning open house hated the idea. So how are these diametrically opposed views going to be reconciled?  

Meaning -- and Mayor Bennett is correct in this regard when he says he wants to stop planning -- at some point fairly soon the City of Salem has to decide whether it is going to continue pushing for a Third Bridge as part of its long-range strategic plan. 

Yet here's what the consultants proposed, and the City Council went along with, at tonight's work session:

The A-G issues I listed above are just that, issues. Amazingly, after all of the meetings, all of the conversations, all of the public input, none of that is reflected in the issues selected for further examination other than the fact that these are important issues of concern to most people.

Geez.

Just about anybody in Salem could have figured out that those issues would rise to the top. ("Culture and recreation" seemingly will be another issue to be integrated with A-G.) The BIG PROBLEM isn't realizing that, say, Critical Infrastructure and Capital Projects is a concern for the future. 

No, the BIG PROBLEM is deciding what kinds of critical infrastructure and capital projects should be part of Salem's future, and how much money should be spent on them. For example, dedicated bike paths and neighborhood greenways versus major street improvements and a new bridge across the Willamette?

I'd hoped that the strategic planning process would have gotten Salem closer to resolving these sorts of questions. (Another example: expand public support of the Cherriots bus system vs. allowing Uber and Lyft to operate in Salem?)

However, the consultants and Mayor Bennett kept saying that after all the talking so far, what has been accomplished is just the identification of the A-G issues to focus on further. Again, no vision or goals for the issues. Just the issue itself.

Public Transportation is an issue. Vision for Growth and Development is an issue. What to do with these and the other issues is completely open, based on what I heard at tonight's work session.

So who is going to decide the goals/vision for each issue? Well, a Work Group. And that group will consist of 1 to 3 city councilors, a couple of City staff (top managers, apparently), and 2 to 3 members of the public.

Wow.

It seems obvious that a few people are going to be able to recommend what direction the City of Salem should move toward on each of the A-G issues.

Take the Third Bridge, for example.

If the Critical Infrastructure and Capital Projects work group has a majority of city councilors, staff, and public members who support the Third Bridge, then this becomes part of the draft Salem Strategic Plan. If the reverse is true, the Third Bridge is dropped.

It looks like each Work Group will have about the same number of members as the Supreme Court, nine. Thus one person could be the swing vote who decides whether a vote is 5-4 in favor, or 5-4 against a certain vision for the future.

This seems really unwise to me.

It isn't how a broadbased community planning/visioning effort should work. Other cities have engaged citizens in a much more extensive process of debate and discussion that leads, if not to a community consensus on important issues, an understanding of how most citizens feel about those issues.

Salem seems to be going in a much more elitist direction.

A few people are going to decide what the components of the Strategic Plan will consist of. Citizens then will have one chance at a June (or maybe September) open house to weigh in on the draft plan. Then, it appears that the City Council will vote on a final version.

Thus all of the preceding testimony, input, and comments from citizens to date seems to be for naught. Or at least, capable of being ignored by the nine or so people who will decide what the goal/vision is for each Work Group issue. I'm skeptical this is going to lead to a broadly accepted Salem Strategic Plan.

At the moment, it looks like more of the same: a few people getting to determine the direction of Salem in a top-down manner.

Salem right-wing talk show hosts Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke decry Inclusive City resolution

Last Monday the Salem City Council unanimously approved an Inclusive City resolution after hearing highly emotional, and also highly reasoned, testimony from 45 citizens -- all but two of whom supported the resolution.

Person after person talked about the fear being experienced by both undocumented and documented immigrants after Trump announced stepped-up deportation efforts. They urged passage of the resolution to show these immigrants that Salem cares about them and will support them.

But as I blogged about in "Citizens strongly support Salem 'Inclusive City' resolution. Conservatives not so much." there was both subtle and not-so-subtle resistance to the resolution among the four conservatives on the City Council: Mayor Bennett and councilors Brad Nanke, Steve McCoid, and Jim Lewis. 

Likewise, Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke (wife of Councilor Nanke), who are right-wing talk show hosts on KYKN, engaged in a rant about the City Council's approval of the Inclusive City resolution. They actually called the 43 concerned citizens testifying about the fear and anxiety caused by Trump's effort to deport undocumented immigrants a "mob mentality."

I shared the vehement remarks by Gaynor and Nanke on SoundCloud. But since many people won't take the time to listen to the 10-minute recording, I've made a transcript of a portion of what they said.

I was stimulated to do this after reading an OPB story about an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arrest of an immigrant who has lived and worked here since 2001.

I defy anyone, including Gaynor and Nanke, to read "ICE Plans to Deport Oregon Immigrant With 5 Children, No Criminal Background," without feeling outrage at the Trump administration's action, and sympathy for Roman Zaragoza-Sanchez and his family.

Roman Zaragoza-Sanchez picks strawberries in an undated family photo. Amelia Templeton/OPB

Here's an excerpt from the OPB story:

Zaragoza-Sanchez’s arrest, along with a recent immigration raid in Woodburn, Oregon, illustrates the expanding categories of undocumented immigrants federal officials are targeting for arrest and deportation.

Most significant, ICE has confirmed that in Oregon it has arrested and detained Roman Zaragoza-Sanchez and at least four immigrants in the Woodburn raid who do not have criminal records aside from offenses related to their entering the country illegally.

These cases appear to validate the concerns of immigration activists, who say President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, and two Department of Homeland Security memos that followed it, effectively make all 11 million people who have entered the country illegally into potential targets for deportation.

But all this doesn't matter to Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke, who don't see any need for the Inclusive City resolution. Of course, Nanke's husband, Councilor Nanke, voted for it. As you can read below, though, Gaynor and Nanke saw no purpose to the resolution, and actually believe it made Salem worse.

Obviously these right-wingers are out of touch with the majority of people in Salem, judging from the amazingly inspiring, and virtually unanimous, display of support for the Inclusive City resolution at Monday's City Council meeting.

It's disturbing that Mayor Chuck Bennett has chosen to appear on Gaynor and Nanke's talk show after every City Council meeting.

One would think that Bennett would rather choose some other way to communicate with citizens other than a right-wing radio program that disparaged Salem progressives, including City Councilor Tom Andersen, who sponsored the Inclusive City resolution. 

Read on. I did my best to make this partial transcript as accurate as possible. The 10-minute recording of Gaynor and Nanke's remarks can be heard here. 

Gator Gaynor: I am not a racist. The idiots who say this are clearly exactly who I describe when I am discussing progressive tactics.

…Denise Nanke: There was one side, and it was Tom Andersen, who brought this whole thing up, grandstanding on the backs of these people. It was using it as a wedge. It was really cynical. It was cynical politics and it was hiding behind a veneer of compassion. Because the very people that they’re claiming to be helping are the ones they’re standing on top of to make a point. So they use this as a wedge to further divide our community.

…This group Progressive Salem used the very people they claimed they wanted to be helping as a wedge issue in this community. They wasted everybody’s time, they whipped up the crowd, they whipped up everybody, into an emotional… I mean people were practically crying, Tom Andersen was practically crying. And you know, it was just theatre. It really was theatre.

…Gator Gaynor: One thing I kept hearing, Denise, throughout the arguments last night and today, “Well, in response to the national climate that President Trump is setting…”, I was thinking, “Are you children?

Denise Nanke: And, Trump. There it is. OK, we’ve got that out. And you know, Councilor Kaser’s comments again, heartfelt or whatever, they are talking points that is a part of a narrative that is being spun out by a certain faction of these organizing groups from the left, echoing talking points. But my question is, what was the motivation for putting… this resolution, it did absolutely nothing, it was purely for show. It basically just reinforced procedures and laws and ordinances that already are on the books and have been f0r years.

So what it really did, I think it did a lot of damage last night. It further drove a wedge into the Salem community. It did damage. When you have special interests that coming in here who are not really interested in the individual people. They can claim that they are, but they’re really not, because I think a lot more damage was done.

…Gator Gaynor: We woke up today, with for better or worse, the same Salem as it was last night.

Denise Nanke: Actually, I think, a little worse for the wear. Councilor Tom Andersen actually did damage last night.

…Gator Gaynor: First of all, I don’t agree with this resolution. I think it was not only a waste of Councilor Andersen’s time, it was a waste of the Council’s time, and it was a waste of everyone’s time, and even ours, because we’re having to respond to this.

…Denise Nanke: It clearly was a stunt

Gator Gaynor: Of course. But you can’t tell them that. Because as soon as you say that, the names start coming out. “Well, you don’t want to be inclusive?” We are inclusive.  As a matter of fact, Salem and the State of Oregon are already in defiance of federal immigration law. So your resolution did nothing. I’ve asked several people today, “Don’t chew my head off, I’m just asking the question, “What did last night’s resolution do?” And every single response I got was emotionally driven. “Well, you know, it really sets the record straight.” Well, it did jack nothing,.

…Denise Nanke; You know, you had kind of a mob mentality last night, the place was packed.