Salem Political Snark

Outspent 52 to 1, the No on Measure 24-420 campaign is feeling fine

If you like political underdogs, you should love the Salem Can Do Better campaign I'm leading against the second-try $62 million police facility bond, Measure 24-420 on the May ballot.

I just checked. The YES campaign being run by Friends of Salem Police has raised $114,750. The Salem Can Do Better NO campaign has raised $2,200. 

That's a 52 to 1 difference. 

Which doesn't bother me at all. Last year's first-try $82 million police facility bond measure was turned down by voters in the November election even though Salem Can Do Better also was outspent by a lot, about 30 to 1 if I recall correctly. 

I'm doing what can be done with the limited resources that we have. 

In addition to the Salem Can Do Better web site, Facebook page, and Voter's Pamphlet arguments, yesterday I finished a web page that shows how Salem can get a 2 for 1 deal by saying NO to Measure 24-420. 

If the cost of the overly expensive Salem police facility is reduced to the price per square foot that a new Beaverton police facility is costing, the 26% reduction saves $14.6 million -- which is almost exactly the $15.3 million cost of making the Library earthquake-safe and making other needed repairs/renovations to the Library.

Citizens urged City officials to include that $15.3 million for the Library in a May police facility bond measure, but this option was rejected by the City Council on a 4-4 tie vote.

So now voters have a chance to do what should have been done before: a NO vote on Measure 24-420 will make it possible to reduce the excessive cost of the police facility, which means Salem can have both a new police facility AND an earthquake-safe Library for just a bit more than the $61.8 million taxpayers are being asked to fork out for just a police facility now.

Here's the new web page. Take a look at how a better YES can result from a NO. 

Yesterday I also had a half-hour interview with Ken Adams that will be shown on his City Beat show on CCTV. Ken just gave me the airtimes on Channel 21. In the interview I described the reasons to vote NO on Measure 24-420, and we talked about other subjects relating to the police facility bond. 

4/28/2017 at 5:30 PM
4/29/2017 at 12:30 PM
5/1/2017 at 9:00 AM
5/3/2017 at 5:30 PM
5/5/2017 at 9:00 PM
5/8/2017 at 10:00 AM
5/9/2017 at 8:00 AM
5/10/2017 at 5:00 PM
5/11/2017 at 1:00 PM
5/13/2017 at 7:00 PM

The interview should be available on You Tube fairly soon. When it is, I'll share it on social media for the benefit of those who don't get CCTV, or want to view the interview at a time of their choosing.

I got my May election ballot today.

People will be voting by mail or drop-off between now and election day, Tuesday, May 16. Naturally I have no idea how the vote on Measure 24-420 will go, or how any other vote will go. Hopefully citizens will do their best to educate themselves about the candidates and issues, then cast an informed vote.

My goal is to help with this informing: to present arguments for voting NO on the $61.8 million police facility bond measure, just as proponents of the measure are presenting YES arguments. 

Democracy in action.

When I speak to a group about Measure 24-420, I like to say that every election -- whether for a candidate or for an issue -- benefits from having two sides presented to voters. Sure, sometimes a candidate for some office is unopposed, and sometimes an issue doesn't have an active opposing (or supporting) campaign.

Usually though, democracy benefits from a vigorous debate/discussion about the pros and cons of voting this way or that way. There always are decent reasons to vote YES or NO, FOR or AGAINST. 

I'm presenting the arguments to vote NO on Measure 24-420. The other side is presenting arguments to vote YES. Whatever happens on May 16, it will be a more informed vote this way. 

I feel really good about that, regardless of how the vote turns out.

Some City of Salem officials want to toll our bridges. No one else does.

Dirty little secrets deserve to be broadcast to the world when this is in the public interest.  At last night's City Council meeting I was pleased to play a part in revealing something that the folks at City Hall have been trying to hide as best they could:

The main source of projected funding for the $430 million Third Bridge (or Salem River Crossing) is tolls -- $175 million worth, generated by a $1.50 each way charge to cross both the new bridge and the two existing bridges. 

Here's the proof: a chart from the official Salem River Crossing Project "Funding Strategy" dated March 6, 2015.

As reported in yesterday's blog post, "Salem City Council votes 5-4 against Third Bridge," an Intergovernmental Agreement that required the City of Salem to include tolling (also known as congestion pricing) in the Third Bridge funding strategy was rejected. 

The main reason this happened was that moving forward with an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge is a really bad idea. You can see Councilors Cara Kaser and Tom Andersen giving some reasons why in a You Tube video I made.

But craziness associated with the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) -- including its requirement to move ahead with dreams of tolling bridge users who currently cross for free -- certainly played a part in the City Council saying NO to the IGA.

It seems pretty damn clear that the IGA was a product of backroom dealmaking and political machinations. The state Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD, was all set to be part of a legal appeal of the City of Salem's 2016 decision to enlarge the urban growth boundary so the gigantic Third Bridge would be inside it. 

This decision occurred at a December 5 City Council meeting a month before newly-elected progressive councilors Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec would take office. I talked about the shenanigans in "Third Bridge sadly staggers on in pathetic City Council meeting." 

I saw downcast eyes and morose expressions from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Five.

City Manager Steve Powers also didn't look very happy, perhaps because I suspect he agrees with much, if not all, of what Councilor Tom Andersen said in his animated six minute explanation of why he was voting NO on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed to accommodate the Salem River Crossing bridgeheads. 

Below you'll find a video of Andersen's remarks. I urge you to watch it. This was a great example of the proverbial speaking truth to power.  

I especially liked his oh-so-true observation that the City Council was rushing to get a vote on the UGB expansion before the end of the year because three newly elected city councilors who are against the Third Bridge, and said so in their campaigns, will take office in 2017.

So the vote tonight was a last gasp attempt by the Chamber of Commerce-backed councilors -- Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis, Bednarz -- to kiss up to the Powers That Be in this town. They used special interest money to get elected, and they paid back those special interests with their "yes" votes for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

Warren Bednarz was a lame duck city councilor at the time, having been defeated by Sally Cook. So once 2016 rolled around, the division of power on the City Council changed to a 4-4 split between conservatives (Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis) and progressives (Andersen, Kaser, Cook, Ausec). 

This makes the DLCD's decision to drop the agency's appeal of the UGB expansion after City staff agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding between DLCD and the City of Salem really perplexing. And strongly smelling of backroom politics.

Unless DLCD officials are completely clueless, they must have known that the chances of the Salem City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement that flowed from the Memorandum of Understanding was dicey when the conservative/progressive split was 4-4, and highly unlikely after Chris Hoy was elected in the March special election to fill Daniel Benjamin's Ward 6 seat. 

Yet the Intergovernmental Agreement rejected last night says: "The Department [DLCD], withdrew its appeal of the [UGB] decision in good faith and in reliance on City's promise to execute this Agreement, and perform its obligations in good faith thereunder."

Well, cities don't make promises. City officials do.

Somebody high-up at City Hall -- Mayor Bennett? City Manager Powers? Public Works Director Fernandez? All of the above?-- promised DLCD that the Intergovernmental Agreement requiring, among other things, tolling to be part of the Third Bridge funding strategy, would be approved by the City Council.

In other words, DLCD got scammed, either knowingly or cluelessly.

The agency dropped its appeal of the UGB expansion merely on a promise by City of Salem officials that the Intergovernmental Agreement would be approved and executed -- which, of course, it won't be after last night's 5-4 rejection by the City Council.

Even more bizarre (and lending credence to my political machinations theory), the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) basically would have required the City of Salem to do things it already is doing. This was made clear by the discussion last night. 
Download Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement

Here's another thing we learned last night: the language requiring congestion pricing/tolling in the IGA was put in at the request of City of Salem officials. Public Works Director Peter Fernandez said this, as you can see in the video below.

Yet as I noted in several blog posts (see here and here), City officials repeatedly denied tolling of the Third Bridge was being considered at the same time Fernandez and other City staff were working with DLCD on finalizing language in the Intergovernmental Agreement that would require the City of Salem to include tolling as a bridge funding source.

In other words, to put it bluntly, City officials were deceiving citizens about their plans for tolling because they knew this would be very unpopular. 

I called them out on this last night in my 3-minute testimony, which became about 5 minutes after Councilor Nanke asked me a question. Have a look.

The online Statesman Journal story about last night's rejection of the Third Bridge Intergovernmental Agreement has some content that didn't make it into the print version. Like, quotes of me!

Before councilors rejected the intergovernmental agreement, Salem-area resident Brian Hines said a vote for the memo of understanding was a vote to move forward with tolling the new and old bridges. (The vote Monday was on an intergovernmental agreement, not a memo of understanding.)

The city of Salem has repeatedly said that tolling was not being considered, Hines claimed. He said the memo of understanding contradicts that, adding that if councilors thought tolling was popular, they should approve the agreement and see how their reelection campaigns go.

"I don't think anyone in the city of Salem is in favor of tolling," Councilor Nanke said in response.

If you don't toll, you can't pay for the bridge, but if you do, people won't use it, Hines argued. 

Great logic, in my utterly personal opinion. The way I see it, tolling Salem's bridges has some serious drawbacks, even though tolling does make sense in certain situations. 

Like, when people have various ways of getting from here to there, most of which don't involve tolls.

In Salem, though, there are only three ways to get across the river currently: two vehicle bridges and a pedestrian/bike bridge. As noted in my video testimony, tolling a Third Bridge almost certainly (maybe absolutely certainly) would require tolling the two existing bridges.

This would be a burden on people without a lot of disposable income. Tolling is regressive: low-income drivers pay the same amount as high-income drivers. 

And when there are few viable options to cross the Willamette without paying a toll, this seems like an inequitable way of financing a bridge -- especially an unnecessary bridge, since there's plenty of evidence that rush-hour congestion can be reduced in Salem without spending $430 million on a new Third Bridge.

Salem City Council votes 5-4 against Third Bridge

Elections matter. Beginning in 2014, five (of nine) Salem city councilors have been elected after vowing to oppose the Third Bridge, also known as the Salem River Crossing. 

Or, as I like to call it, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. 

The Statesman Journal has some good reporting on tonight's 5-4 vote to reject an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Land Conservation and Development that would have helped move the Third Bridge forward.

Check out Jonathan Bach's story, "Salem councilors reject third bridge agreement with state department."

Opponents of a third Salem traffic bridge over the Willamette claimed a victory Monday as a majority of city councilors rejected an agreement with the state on the so-called Salem River Crossing project.

The denial Monday evening represented a shift in tone in City Hall toward the project to build another bridge between Marion County and West Salem, with some elected officials sworn in this year taking a less favorable stance on it than the council that approved a land-use decision last year to help pave the way for a new bridge.

First-year councilor Cara Kaser introduced the motion Monday evening to deny an agreement between Salem and the state Department of Land Conservation and Development.

The intergovernmental agreement emerged as a condition of the state department’s backing down from its intent to appeal last year’s land-use decision with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.

When the motion came to a vote, Kaser found backing from councilors Matt Ausec, Sally Cook, Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy.

Councilors Jim Lewis, Steve McCoid, Brad Nanke and Mayor Chuck Bennett voted against her motion.

To understand the wisdom of how the five City Council progressives voted, watch a video I made from the CCTV recording of the meeting that shows Cara Kaser and Tom Andersen explaining why they oppose the Third Bridge.

Here's a photo of some of the No 3rd Bridge folks who wore t-shirts to the City  Council meeting expressing that sentiment. Jim Scheppke, the group's leader, is on the top left.

 

Oregon marijuana policies discussed at Salem City Club

Last Friday I enjoyed hearing Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick and Sara Batterby, CEO of HiFi Farms and a founding chair of Women Grow, update a Salem City Club audience about what's happening with marijuana in this state. 

West Salem Cannabis had a display set up in an adjoining room. Unfortunately they couldn't give out any free samples, nor sell anything outside of their store. I hugely enjoyed seeing fellow semi-staid City Club members browsing the cannabis offerings and talking about pot with the friendly West Salem Cannabis employees.

Yes, Oregon, along with other legal weed states, has come a long way. Burdick started out by reminding us of our state's pioneering efforts to bring reasonableness to marijuana policies.

In 1973 the state legislature decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. In 1997 Republicans tried to recriminalize it, but this was turned down by voters. In 1998 Oregonians voted to approve medical marijuana. In 2014 Measure 91 passed, making recreational marijuana legal. In 2015 the Oregon legislature passed a package of bills to refine Measure 91 and put light regulation on the medical marijuana system. Now, in 2017, the legislature is working to strengthen regulation on medical-only growers.

Burdick said that while the medical marijuana system is popular -- 75,000 card holders in 2016 -- too much of the pot is being diverted to the black market. Since Jeff Sessions, President Trump's Attorney General, hates cannabis, Burdick told us that the goal is make Oregon's "seed to sale" tracking program so effective, this state will be the last place the feds would want to crack down on.

As is well-known, banking is a big problem for marijuana businesses. Many/most retail stores have to deal in cash, which makes paying their employees and taxes to the Department of Revenue a lot tougher than it needs to be. Efforts are underway in Congress to fix this. 

In 2016 marijuana tax receipts totaled $60 million, much higher than expected. So cannabis is becoming a major economic force in Oregon.

Sara Batterby then took over the podium and gave an entertaining talk (in a pleasing British accent) about Oregon marijuana from a business perspective. 

She extolled Oregon, saying what is going on here is "really phenomenal." Batterby praised the collaboration between legislators, regulators, and cannabis businesses in this state. According to her we grow and sell some of the highest quality cannabis in the world. 

Yay us! 

(Legal weed certainly has enriched my life; in fact, I'd call it a near-necessity following Trump's election to keep my psyche from exploding in frustration, irritation, and exasperation over what's happening nationally.)

If my scribbled notes are correct, Batterby said that Oregon's marijuana industry has created 12,500 jobs -- double that if ancillary jobs are included. She formed a women's networking group (a Women Grow chapter) when she came to Oregon that started with 100 women and is now up to 325. 

Forty-four percent of Oregon cannabis companies are headed by women, which makes this sector one of the most diverse gender-wise in the world's economy. Batterby said she also hires quite a few veterans with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), which is helped a lot by cannabis consumption.

Batterby and Burdick talked quite a bit about the black market in both their remarks and a following Q & A session. 

Legal marijuana businesses can't compete with the black market on price, in part because illegal growers/sellers don't pay taxes. Thus higher taxes lead to lower legal sales and less tax revenue.

It was estimated that $300 million is lost via "diversion sales." When asked about the difference in price on the black market, we were told that the legal wholesale price is about $5/gram, and $6 to $12 at the retail level. The black market price is about 25% less.

When the subject of CBD (the mostly non-psychoactive component of cannabis) came up, Batterby said that THC (the psycho-active component) is a potentiator of CBD. So CBD and THC play nicely together and, in her view, the whole plant is the best use. 

Regarding how cannabis is consumed, old-timers are used to smoking marijuana. (I can testify to this, having gone to college in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1960's.) But now the largest market is in vaporizers, tinctures, edibles, topicals. 

It was great to hear these two women talk so knowledgeably about the Oregon marijuana scene. This Salem City Club presentation reinforced my long-standing belief that I couldn't live in any other state. 

Legal pot. Legal right-to-die. Beautiful scenery. I don't have to fill my car's gas tank. Liberal-leaning. Public beaches up and down the coast. Mostly strongly environmental (though this legislative session is turning out to be a disappointment).

Now Oregon needs to erase more of the distinctions between alcohol and cannabis consumption. It seems crazy that people can drink in bars and restaurants, but can't legally consume marijuana in public. This doesn't make sense. For one thing, I'd much rather have mildly-stoned people driving around than mildly-drunk people. 

New Salem Main Street Association debuts with questions and concerns

As reported by the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog, a new downtown group has been formed -- the Salem Main Street Association. 

On Thursday the 20th, the nascent Salem "Main Street" project is going to have something of an Open House at the Ike Box.

I'm planning to attend the get-together at the IKE Box because I heartily agree with the bottom-line sentiment on the group's flyer: Here's to a vibrant downtown.

However, I and others have questions and concerns about this latest attempt to form an organization that should represent the varied interests of downtown visitors, residents, businesses, and property owners. Hopefully these issues will be addressed at the kick-off event next Thursday:

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

[UPDATE]  I've gotten a copy of the Corporation Division filing for the Salem Main Street Alliance (or Salem Downtown Alliance). It answers some of the questions posed below. See:
Download SOS - Corporation - Business Entity Filing Records - 125296491

The Association was incorporated as a public benefit 501(c)(3) corporation on September 23, 2016. John Hawkins is the registered agent. The Salem Main Street Alliance will not have members, so the board of directors won't be elected by downtown residents, businesses, or property owners. This could be problematic, since I've heard that typically downtown associations are 501(c)(6) organizations which have members. 

The seven incorporators were: Jim Vu, Hazel Patton, Curtis Fisher, T.J. Sullivan, Caren Ann Jackson, Gayle Caldarazzo-Doty, and John Hawkins. 

On November 1, 2016 an amendment was filed to change the name of the organization to the Salem Main Street Association.
Download Change of name

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

(1) Secrecy. For several months I've been hearing talk about the formation of the Salem Main Street Association, but it's been difficult to learn much about it. When I Google the group's name, all that comes up are references to a Main Street group in Salem, Massachusetts. So as noted below, somehow the Salem Main Street Association has managed to organize itself and attempt to suck up start-up funds from the City of Salem with very little or no public involvement.

(2) Use of Parking Budget funds. In February 2017 minutes of the Downtown Advisory Board (DAB) show that representatives of the Salem Main Street Association asked for $50,000 in Parking Budget funds to start up their organization. The DAB voted to not increase the allocated $32,150 for "contracted services," but the minutes don't say whether DAB intends to support the Association. Though minutes of the March and April DAB meetings aren't available, the agendas for those meetings don't show any action on the Salem Main Street Association request.

(3) "Manage funds related to the economic vitality of downtown Salem." The flyer above lists this as one of the things the Salem Main Street Association does. I'll be interested to learn what funds are going to be managed, since so far there is no sign of public funds being approved for the Association by the City of Salem. If this were to happen, seemingly it would have to occur through an open competitive contracting process. After all, this is a newly-formed private group with no history, and there already are other private organizations doing promotion work in downtown Salem.

(4) Current board members/leadership.  The flyer says we'll be able to meet the Board of Directors at the kick-off Salem Main Street Association public reveal on Thursday. I've heard that Mayor Chuck Bennett is a board member, and might even be chairing the Association. If true, this raises "political" questions.

Bennett has been an advocate for installing parking meters downtown. While a city councilor he also was instrumental in dissolving a previous downtown association and allowing the City Manager at the time, Linda Norris, to take over control of downtown Economic Improvement District funds. (See here and here.) Given this history, some skepticism about the current motives of Mayor Bennett is warranted.

More generally, it doesn't seem wise to have any City of Salem officials on the Salem Main Street Association board. The Association should stand up for the interests of downtown, not the interests of the City of Salem (a main one being, more revenue!). Sometimes a downtown association has to oppose unwise policies of City officials. If some of those officials are on the association board, this creates a decided conflict of interest.

(5) Future leadership. Since formation of the Salem Main Street Association occurred in almost total secrecy, obviously the current board of directors was hand-picked by a few organizers. If the Association truly wants to be an "advocate for downtown businesses, property owners, and residents" as the flyer says, it is going to have to be a lot more open, transparent, inclusive, and democratic from this point forward.

Will a new board be elected by proverbial downtown "stakeholders"? Shouldn't downtown businesses, property owners, and residents get to vote on the people who will represent them via the Salem Main Street Association? 

Look, I'm cautiously optimistic about this new group. Downtown Salem needs a broad-based association. (Which, by the way, should include people like me who frequently visit downtown and are patrons of businesses there; without us, the Historic District would be a ghost town.)

It's just that the recent history of Salem downtown associations has been marked by a lot of political game-playing by City of Salem officials, both elected and appointed.

If this new Salem Main Street Association becomes just one more special interest group, rather than a genuinely inclusive organization that works to bring people who care about downtown together rather than drive them apart, there's no way it can succeed. 

So I look forward to seeing how next Thursday's IKE Box meeting goes.

Hopefully those who got the Salem Main Street Association started will explain how a much broader collection of people concerned about downtown now will be brought in to guide the future course of the Association. 

For example, one of the first discussion topics should be the current excessive "autoism" of downtown. This was a central theme of the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog post. I loved this graphic and accompanying commentary, which points to the importance of streetscaping downtown Salem.

(The graphic shows how four traffic lanes can become two lanes, opening up valuable real estate for economically productive activity.)

The Main Street concept has great utility, but in order for it to accomplish anything of magnitude, it requires modifying our attachments to autoism.

Without that, it will be more cosmetic than structural and enduring.

"Don't be so negative" is the wrong thing to say to a citizen activist

I'm a proud citizen activist. Like many other progressives in this town, I do my best to -- no big surprise -- bring about progress in Salem. 

This takes optimism, positivity, a conviction that people working together can overcome obstacles to change. Every day I have fresh ideas about what needs to be done to make Salem a better place: more livable, vibrant, equitable, environmentally responsible.

Given my buoyant attitude toward citizen activism, it surprises me when I hear someone say, "Brian, you shouldn't be so negative." 

And it isn't just me. My colleagues in Salem Community Vision sometimes are tarnished with the Don't be so negative brush. Which also doesn't make sense, given how positive they also are about changing Salem for the better.

Here's what I think is going on. 

Conservatives don't like change. That's why "conserve" is part of the name of their political philosophy while "progress" is part of the name of my political philosophy. So conservatives often view opposition to keeping things the same as negativity. 

For example, I and many others oppose the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Salem River Crossing, a.k.a. the Third Bridge. With good reason we call it the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. Sure, this sounds negative. But our motivation actually is positive.

We want Salem to have a strong downtown. We want taxpayer money to be spent wisely on Salem projects. We want people to be able to bike and walk all over town on safe multi-use paths. We want Salem to do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so global warming doesn't threaten human civilization. 

Stopping the Third Bridge, a continuation of Salem's excessive bowing at the altar of hydraulic autoism, will help a lot to achieve these positive goals. 

Likewise, I've opposed both the first-try and second-try police facility bond measures because I and others believe that Salem can do better than either the old $82 million plan voters rejected last November or the current $62 million plan on the May 2017 ballot.

If you see somebody headed in the wrong direction, it isn't negative to tell them "This is a better way to go." Yet for some reason conservatives like to accuse progressives like me of being negative when all we're doing is urging Salem to take a better path.

Citizen activism necessarily is a blend of preventing bad things from happening while encouraging good things to happen. Of course, reasonable people are going to disagree on what constitutes "bad" and "good." This is the nature of politics: one side views a proposal as marvelous, another side views it as horrible.

I've rarely, if ever, heard a progressive complain about conservatives being too negative.

What we don't like are conservative policies, not conservative negativity. We progressives recognize that there are two sides to every political question. Just because people disagree doesn't mean one side is negative and the other is positive. As noted above, every "Stop!" implies a concomitant "Go!" 

Stopping what you believe shouldn't happen opens the door to what you believe should happen. 

So let's stop saying to citizen activists, "Don't be so negative."

I've never met a negative citizen activist. Every person I know in Salem who is working for change -- whether progressive or conservative -- has a positive vision in mind of what this town can become. 

Just because someone disagrees with your vision doesn't mean they are negative, since they're positive about their vision. Positive and negative are like yin and yang, complementary qualities that blend into each other, not diametric opposites.

SB 1024 is a rural residential nightmare which won't produce more affordable housing

In every Oregon legislative session there are some land use bills introduced which make me think, "How the heck did this turkey legislation get hatched?"

Case in point for 2017 is SB 1024, which I've heard is supposed to address the affordable housing crisis. Except, it doesn't. Not at all. 

After reading the short bill, I'm convinced (along with many others) that SB 1024 is just the latest attempt to undermine Oregon's highly successful land use system. 

It would double the number of dwellings allowed on rural residential lots and prohibit county regulators from preventing someone who already has a home on rural residential property from building another one on the same lot. 

As I said in testimony I just submitted to the Senate Committee on Human Services, where SB 1024 inexplicably landed even though it really is a land use bill, this is crazy. You can read my testimony below.

There's a work session on SB 1024 next Monday, April 17. If you also feel that this bill is a very bad idea, submit testimony to the Senate Committee on Human Services ASAP: [email protected]

Dear Senator Gelser and members of the committee:

 

I’m a constituent of Senator Boquist who lives in a Rural Residential area in south Salem, Spring Lake Estates. Until recently I served as the secretary of our neighborhood association for about 24 years, so I’m very familiar with the land use issues in our area. These include living in a groundwater limited area where Marion County regulations have required a 5-acre minimum for a single house so that existing wells don’t run dry.

 

SB 1024 is totally perplexing to me. After reading the bill, it certainly seems like it would allow double the number of homes in our 96-lot rural residential subdivision without any ability for Marion County or any other land use body to restrict this additional development. 

 

This is crazy. It goes against longstanding land use policies. It takes away the land use protections that my wife and I, along with other property owners in Spring Lake Estates, assumed would continue to be enforced. We live in a rural residential area because we enjoy the rural lifestyle on our home on five acres. 

 

We never expected that our neighbors would be able to build a second home on their property as SB 1024 would allow — and again, without any ability of Marion County to regulate this overbuilding that could threaten our well by doubling the use of water on surrounding lots.

 

I’ve heard that SB 1024 supposedly addresses the need for affordable housing, but I see absolutely no indication that it would do this. Consider these points:

 

(1) The bill has no size limit for the additional so-called “Accessory Dwelling Unit” that could be built on a rural residential lot. So SB 1024 obviously isn’t aimed at encouraging “granny flats,” tiny houses, or other sorts of dwellings normally associated with the notion of ADU’s in urban areas. SB 1024 simply allows two dwellings on a rural residential lot intended for one house.

 

(2) There is no indication that the ADU’s on rural residential land would be affordable. Rather, as noted above they could be as expensive, or even more expensive, than the house currently on the lot. For example, though we wouldn’t want to do this, my wife and I could build a $500,000 house on a portion of our five acres, then sell it to someone for that amount. There is no requirement that the ADU be rental property, which people usually think ADU’s would be.

 

(3) Our rural residential neighborhood is about five miles from the Salem city limits. Obviously there is no mass transit out here. If you don’t have a car, you can’t get anywhere. Shopping is even farther than five miles away. Even if an ADU built in our area was “affordable,” the extra cost of living out in the country, along with the necessity of getting everywhere by car, would make living here impractical for most low-income people. So SB 1024 does nothing, or next to nothing, to help resolve the affordable housing problems in urban areas.

 

(4) Reading this bill, the only reason it seems to have been submitted is to undermine Oregon’s successful land use system. Having led the fight against a Measure 37 subdivision planned for high-value farmland just north of our neighborhood — which threatened our ground and surface water (wells and springs that feed a community lake) — I can assure you that liberals and conservatives alike in Spring Lake Estates value Oregon’s land use system. So this attempt to undermine it via a nonsensical attempt to make SB 1024 about “affordable housing” would, I’m confident, be opposed by most of our neighbors, regardless of their political leaning.

 

Bottom line: SB 1040 is a very bad idea. It needs to be sent to an early legislative grave. I can’t think of any good easons for members of your committee to support it, and many reasons for you to oppose it.

 

Sincerely,

Brian Hines

Who's the strangest Salem City Councilor? I rank them.

Being the founder of Strange Up Salem -- which has morphed from a regular column in Salem Weekly to a popular Facebook page -- I figure nobody in this town is more qualified than me to take on an awesomely important task:

Rank the nine members of the Salem City Council, the Mayor and eight councilors, in order of their strangeness. 

Today is a propitious moment to do this. Yesterday Chris Hoy joined the Salem City Council, having been elected in a special Ward 6 election to fill the seat left vacant since Daniel Benjamin's resignation last fall.

So now that there's a full slate of city council members, the time has come to decide who earns the honor: Strangest of Them All

In order to string out the suspense, and also provide some philosophical justification for my ranking, I'll begin with some observations about strangeness from a highly credible source I have great trust in.

Me.  

I mused about the positive meaning of strange in a 2016 post, "The good side of 'strange,' as in... Strange Up Salem."

I'm still strangeing away on a Strange Up Salem Facebook page. (Give it a like! I love likes!) 

Yesterday someone left a visitor post that simply said, No, let's not.

That shocked me. How could anyone be opposed to strangeness? It's obviously so wonderful! But then I realized that I'd never paid much attention to what "strange" meant. I just felt it was a really good thing. 

Because I've always been attracted to the positive connotations of strangeness. Which, after some Googling of "strange definition," were found to include:

not before known, heard, or seen
exciting wonder or awe
different from what is usual, normal, or expected
out of the ordinary

So, yeah!, I sure do want to Strange Up Salem. Let's make Oregon's capital city a fresh discovery, inspiring wonder, better than expected, way more than ordinary. 

Defining strange, though, is much different from the experience of strange. A definition is conceptual; an experience is, obviously, experiential. 

Everybody is different. One person can look upon something and find it appealingly strange. Another person can see the same thing and feel repelled by its strangeness. After all, "strange" also connotes:

not comfortable or at ease
alien, foreign
causing puzzlement, perplexing
not relaxed

But maybe these supposedly negative aspects of strangeness aren't so different from the positive aspects. After all, who wants to be always comfortable, surrounded by the familiar, cushioned by certainty, relaxed and at ease?

Strange often feels like a jolt. A waking-up. A shock. A shove. 

We're propelled out of a habitual way of experiencing the world. Yes, this can be disconcerting. Also, exhilarating. Or at least, a pleasurable break from a sojourn in the ordinary.

Now, I realize that this isn't exactly a precise dictionary definition of strangeness. (Nor, for sure, the Urban Dictionary take on "strange," which gets us into sexual territory.)

But it's damn well good enough to provide the basis for my Strangeness Ranking of the nine Salem City Council members. Which is necessarily subjective, flowing as it does from the downspout of my ever-so-personal mind. 

I'll give a few brief reasons for my rankings. However, strangeness is decidedly intuitive, impressionistic, non-rational, holistic. I've been to many City Council meetings. I've interacted with the councilors in various settings. I know quite a bit about them. 

Yet in the end, and that moment is close at hand (yes, I'm going to come up with my Strangeness Ranking on the spot after I finish writing this paragraph), a person's strangeness is grasped more as an ineffable Yes, Yes, Yes quality than as a calculated assessment of various characteristics.

[Note: the photos are official ones from the City of Salem website. Except for Chris Hoy's, which I grabbed from his Facebook candidacy page.]

9 -- Matt Ausec is the LEAST strange city councilor (Ward 5)

Sorry, Matt. I like you a lot, but my strangeness detector just gives off a few slight tinkles when I'm around you. Like all of us, I'm confident you have hidden depths of Strange. Let them roar more loudly and you'll move up the ranking ladder.

8 -- Next comes not-very-strange Steve McCoid (Ward 4)

"Edgy" isn't a defining quality of strangeness (in fact, nothing is). But pushing the envelope of normality is a good thing in the World of Strange, and Steve strikes me as being pretty much in the Normal sweet spot.

7 -- Brad Nanke is a bit stranger, but still in the bottom three (Ward 3)

Brad is competent, earnest, dedicated. Good qualities, but not strange qualities. He leans Libertarian, which gets him some political strangeness points. I sense some positive weirdness in Brad, but it's too well hidden to get him more than a #7 ranking.

6 -- Jim Lewis almost makes it out of the bottom strangeness half, but not quite (Ward 8)

I find Jim's demeanor pleasantly strange. And his mind works in some strange ways at City Council meetings. I was tempted to give him a higher Strangeness Ranking, but #6 seems right for him. 

5 -- In the middle of the rankings, the Goldilocks position, Chuck Bennett (Mayor)

As befits the City of Salem's top elected official who has both liberal and conservative leanings, Chuck occupies the #5 pivot point between the four least strange and four most strange City Council members. Sometimes he seems entirely normal to me; sometimes he seems out-there (in a good way).

4 -- Getting to the upper rankings, looks deceive in Sally Cook's strangeness case (Ward 7)

Sally is a sweet-looking woman with some spiciness under the surface. I recall a phone conversation with her when she surprised me with the sort of music she loves. Can't remember exactly, but I think it was hard-core rap. Regardless, beneath her gentle Mom surface, Sally has some Strange bubbling inside.

3 -- Newcomer Chris Hoy brings some needed strange to the City Council

I'm suspecting (and hoping) that Chris's strangeness quotient is even higher than I give him credit for in his #3 ranking. I find Chris very open and transparent, so whatever hidden Strange lurks within him probably is going to be on display as he settles into his city councilor role. 

2 -- Cara Kaser earns the silver medal of Strange, and is a contender for gold (Ward 1)

Cara usually appears quite calm, cool, and collected. Yet when she speaks, it becomes clear there's a passionate fire burning inside. I sense there is more strangeness lurking within Cara than she generally chooses to reveal in public. So it was easy to give her the #2 spot. 

1 -- the STRANGEST city councilor is... Tom Andersen

When I first met Tom I immediately thought, "This guy is different!" And not just because he favors bow ties and always rides his bike to City Council meetings. Tom has a certain crazed intensity that both appeals to me and shakes me up in a positive fashion. Best of all, his strangeness seems entirely normal to him. Unfeigned, unforced Strange is the best kind.

So congratulations, Tom. You're #1.

For now. The good news is, the Salem City Council has some up and coming contenders for your top strangeness spot.

Open letter to Downtown Salem Streetscape Committee

TO:   Kristin Retherford
        City of Salem Urban Development Director, and
        Chair, Downtown Salem Streetscape Committee

FROM: Brian Hines

RE: Thoughts about transforming downtown Salem through a Streetscape Project

Kristin, I'm super-enthused about what your Streetscape Committee is doing. Carole Smith, one of the members, has shared her synopsis of the committee's first meeting with me.

You've got a big job ahead of you, and I'm one of many people in Salem cheering you on who both love downtown as it is, while also realizing how much better it could be through transformative streetscaping. 

Because I've followed with great interest the initial streetscape efforts of Smith, Eric Kittleson, Susan Huston, Alan Costic and other people ever since I heard about their work a few years ago, I want to share some thoughts with the Streetscape Committee about how they should proceed with their own streetscape planning.

Feel free to share this message from the other members of the Committee. Or, if you like, I could bring copies to your next meeting, which I believe is 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 19, right?

How is as important as what. How the Streetscape Committee arrives at its recommendations is as important as what the Committee decides. We've seen this dynamic play out in other City of Salem projects.

For example, the recent Strategic Planning effort was appropriately criticized for paying too much attention to the opinions of "stakeholders" selected by City staff, and not enough attention to the views of the general public. My understanding is that now more outreach efforts are being directed to the latter, which is good.

The Streetscape Committee understandably is comprised of "stakeholders," broadly speaking. This is fine, so long as citizens interested in downtown, which includes a lot of people in this downtown-loving city, have plenty of opportunity to weigh in on alternative visions of what a Streetscape Project should consist of.

(More on the vision thing below.)

So I urge you to keep in mind that how the Committee arrives at its conclusions is just as important as what the final recommendations are. 

I and others have critiqued past City of Salem "outreach" efforts as being more akin to reaching out with a predetermined decision in hand and asking citizens to accept it, rather than what outreach should be: asking the Salem citizenry with an open mind, tell us what you want, what you prefer, what your ideas are. 

Alternative visions should be presented for citizen discussion. As you're aware, Carole Smith and her colleagues came up with an interesting transformative streetscape concept for downtown Salem several years ago.

Soon after I became involved in Salem Community Vision, Smith, Kittleson, and Huston shared drawings, plans, and such at a SCV meeting. I was instantly entralled, as reportedly many other people were after being exposed to this initial streetscape concept.

Salem Community Vision put a Streetscape page on its web site. I made a Downtown Salem Streetscape page with Adobe Spark that has gotten over 5,000 views, which shows the widespread interest in this subject. 

This concept has a lot of promise. However, it is just a start, one way to go among many.

Seemingly your Streetscape Committee isn't going to be developing detailed designs, as my understanding is that a Request for Proposals from consulting firms will be drafted by the Committee. I assume this requires figuring out the scope of the proposals.

Meaning, is the intent of the downtown streetscape project to (1) broadly transform downtown, (2) narrowly improve downtown, or (3) be somewhere in-between broadly transformative and narrowly improving?

Naturally the goals of any vision for downtown Salem -- broad or narrow -- can be achieved step-wise over time, not all at once. Still, it seems wise for the Streetscape Committee to engage citizens in a discussion of what sort of overarching vision is most appealing. 

Which gets me to my final point.

All downtown streets should be candidates for streetscaping. This was my theme in a blog post I wrote a few days ago, "First Wednesday photos show need to lose lanes on Liberty and Commercial." Excerpt:

I'm perplexed by Carole Smith's report that at the first meeting of the Streetscape Committee members were told by City officials that certain streets were off-limits for narrowing:

Front
Commercial
Liberty
Trade
Ferry
Center
Marion

I can understand why Front, Trade, Ferry, Center, and Marion streets couldn't lose lanes. They are used by people trying to get around or out of downtown. But why can't Liberty and Commercial streets lose some lanes in the Historic District? This question needs some serious discussion at the Streetscape Committee's next meetings.

Currently Liberty and Commercial are major contributors to the autocentric vibe of downtown.

They are freeway'ish streets, three and four lanes wide, in a Historic District that should be catering to pedestrians and cyclists (a vehicle has never, ever, bought something at a downtown business; only people do after they get out of a vehicle, if that's how they reach downtown).

Liberty and Commercial scream wordlessly, Rush through the Historic District, don't stop here; we are streets designed to get you somewhere else.

Actually, Liberty and Commercial in the downtown area aren't really streets. They are better termed "stroads," an ugly mix of a neighborhood street and a road that connects distinct places. Here's the Urban Dictionary definition:

Noun. Portmanteau of "street" and "road": it describes a street, er, road, built for high speed, but with multiple access points. Excessive width is a common feature. A common feature in suburbia, especially along commercial strips. Unsafe at any speed, their extreme width and straightness paradoxically induces speeding. Somewhat more neutral than synonymous traffic sewer.

Did you see what the traffic engineers want to do to our street? They're going to turn it into a total stroad!

Regarding traffic engineers, it doesn't make sense for the Streetscape Committee to pay much attention to them when it comes to streets like Liberty and Commercial that have been poorly designed by, one must assume, traffic engineers. 

By and large, the people who have created and maintained a problem usually aren't the best people to take the lead in fixing the problem. They have a vested interest in what has been, as lousy as it is, rather than what can be. 

I've lived in Salem for forty years, 1977-2017.

During this time I've had innumerable conversations with my fellow Salemians about how downtown is on the verge of becoming a truly vibrant, cool, people-magnet place to shop, visit, work, live, and play. I certainly recognize the improvements that have occurred, but we can't ignore the unfulfilled potential of the Historic District.

There's been lots of tinkering over the years.

What is so appealing about a Streetscape vision of the transformative variety is that this could lead to a marvelous remodeling, so to speak. Meaning, instead of merely sprucing up streets that need a major renovation to make them genuinely people-friendly, Salem can transform downtown into a shining showcase -- a model for cities around the nation.

Malls have lost their allure. Major stores are in trouble as online shopping becomes more popular. A Washington Post story says: 

The shakeout among retailers has been building for years and is now arriving in full force.

The retrenchment comes as shoppers move online and begin to embrace smaller, niche merchants. As a result, many major chains find themselves victims of a problem of their own making, having elbowed their way into so many locations that the United States has more retail square footage per capita than any other nation. To use the industry vernacular, they are simply “overstored.”

"Smaller niche merchants." This is a core appeal of downtown Salem.

Bridgeport Village

I think about this every time I visit hugely-popular Bridgeport Village in Tigard, which basically is a fake downtown. Highly walkable. Limited street parking, and this only on the edges of the carless shopping area. (I usually have to leave my car in the parking structure and walk the equivalent of a few blocks, which is no problem, because Bridgeport Village is so charming.)

Here in Salem we have a real downtown, not a fake one.

All we need to do is transform it into the sort of place that Bridgeport Village and other cutting-edge developments have realized is what people increasingly want: a return to walking around outside to visit appealing shops.

Imagine what Bridgeport Village would be like with speeding cars zipping through the middle of the shopping area on three- and four-lane streets.

This imaginative exercise takes us a long way toward understanding why streetscaping downtown Salem is so important if the Historic District is going to achieve its potential as a vibrant retail and residential market.

UPDATE: This comment from Not Even Wrong definitely deserves to be highlighted. 

"Imagine what Bridgeport Village would be like with speeding cars zipping through the middle of the shopping area on three- and four-lane streets."

It would be Keizer Station.

So true! Keizer Station reminds me of a saying: "No one's life is ever completely wasted. They can always serve as a horrible example for others." This is the reason for being of Keizer Station, providing a great example of how a shopping center shouldn't be designed.

New police facility doesn't fit with City of Salem "North Downtown Plan"

Here's another reason to vote against Measure 24-420, the second-try $62 million police facility bond measure on the May 2017 ballot:

Building a police facility in the north downtown area (on the old DeLon/O'Brien auto dealership site) goes against longstanding plans for how this area should be developed.

Salem Can Do Better lays out four other good reasons to vote NO, but this is a fairly fresh idea that just came to light for me. 

I've heard criticisms of putting a large 115,000 square foot tax-exempt police facility on a prime piece of downtown land. But until someone mailed me several documents that explain why this is a bad idea, I wasn't informed enough to seriously question the wisdom of choosing the north downtown site.

Here's PDF files of what I got. My anonymous correspondent highlighted portions of the documents in dark yellow. I added some highlighting in lighter yellow. So you can scan through the documents and just read the "good parts" if you like. 

Download New City of Salem Police Facility Issues
Download City of Salem North Downtown Plan

(The North Downtown Plan document only contains selected pages from the full report. )

I've also uploaded the files to Scribd, for those who prefer to look at the documents that way.

https://www.scribd.com/document/344175748/New-City-of-Salem-Police-Facility-Issues

https://www.scribd.com/document/344175923/City-of-Salem-North-Downtown-Plan

Here's an excerpt from what my correspondent said about the $62 million second-try police facility plan:

A new Police Facility is clearly needed by the City of Salem, but it needs to be accomplished in the most cost effective manner to minimize the financial impact (increased taxes) on the citizens and businesses in the Community.

...The Delon parcel is the only remaining large block of property remaining for expansion of Commercial/Retail development in downtown Salem.

The Delon parcel is designated as an Urban Renewal area so funds are available to encourage the development of more private sector jobs and subsequent property tax revenue for the city. Use of Urban Renewal funds to build a Government building or its associated infrastructure is not the appropriate use of these funds.

Development of this property by the private sector will generate many ongoing private sector jobs and an estimated $500,000 to $750,000 in new annual property tax revenue. When used for a Police Facility the property is taken off the tax rolls forever with no growth of new private sector jobs and the corresponding tax revenue.

And here's some excerpts from the City of Salem North Downtown Plan that was approved in 2000. As you can read below, the plan calls for tax-paying commercial and residential development that is much different than the tax-exempt police facility that now is planned for the 3+ acre site.

The downtown core area, as a major employment center, represents a source of potential North Downtown area residents that want to live near their workplace. The North Downtown area represents an opportunity to provide housing in central Salem that will support core area shops, restaurants, and businesses.

At the same time, the area also represents a potential expansion area for the downtown given that the core area is constrained by the Civic Center to the south, the Capitol Mall to the east, and the Willamette River to the west.

...The overall character of the North Downtown area is expected to change significantly over time. The vision for the area is a series of mixed-use districts offering a variety of employment, retail, and residential uses, including a range of low, medium, and high density housing. 

...Redevelopment of the area will be driven by private investment as a result of growth in the region and rising property values.

...Approximately 18 acres of land in the middle of the North Downtown area is held in two ownerships, DeLon and Larmer. These properties provide opportunities for commercial (office and retail) development as well as high density housing uses.

The site is in a critical area as a transition area between the Broadway District, the North Core Area, and the Riverfront District. Mill Creek is an amenity and can serve as a pedestrian linkage between the riverfront and the Capitol Mall.

Yet if the $62 million police facility bond measure is approved in the May election, a large portion of the North Core area will become a 115,000 square foot tax-exempt public building with large parking areas that features, obviously, no commercial, retail, or residential uses. 

I can see why the person who wrote to me is so opposed to putting a police facility on the old O'Brien Auto Group site. The City of Salem planned for this to be a mixed-use area with retail shops and a variety of residential options that would blend nicely with the core of downtown.

So if Measure 24-420 is rejected by voters, as I'm urging that it should be, one reason to vote NO is to provide an opportunity for citizens and City officials to reconsider the wisdom of building a new police facility on the proposed North Downtown site.