Salem Political Snark

Cable news, stop talking about Trump's stupid tweets!

I've got MSNBC and CNN prominently displayed on my VW's satellite radio -- along with a couple of music stations, Classic Rock and Chill.

I'm a news junkie. Especially political news. 

But today I listened to a lot more music than usual, because almost every time I tuned in to MSNBC or CNN they were jabbering on about Trump's morning tweet fest about "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski.

Sure, the tweets were tasteless, crude, and sexist. Which isn't exactly new news when it comes to Donald J. Trump. Yet MSNBC, CNN, and other news outlets rose to Trump's bait in Pavlovian fashion, chewing over the tweets as if they were something actually worth talking about. 

Which, they aren't. 

The tweets are only interesting insofar as they provide an outward manifestation of the inner workings of our president's mind. Since we've had plenty of insights into Trump's dark, twisted, egomaniacal psyche, I really don't need in-depth coverage of these two tweets, which should be ignored rather than amplified.

OK, I admit that I'm giving them attention through this blog post. But I'm doing this because I want news outlets to stop talking about Trump's tweets.

They must require only a minute or two of his time. What Trump gets for that minimum expenditure of time and energy is hours of discussion on MSNBC, CNN, and other cable news channels (I refuse to watch FOX, which likely covered his Mika tweets also). 

Why does this matter? 

Because every minute spent talking about a stupid Trump tweet is a minute some news outlet isn't talking about real news. Such as, the Senate plan to kick 22 million people off of health insurance and decimate Medicaid, which would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Oh, but Trump said some nasty stuff about Mika Brzezinski, so let's talk about that instead!

No, let's not. This Pete Buttigieg tweet explains why.

 

Twenty-nine years ago, Oregon showed how health care planning should be done

Many years ago, twenty-nine of them, I was the lead staff person for an Oregon Health Priorities for the 1990s project. In 1988 it culminated in a Citizen's Health Care Parliament organized by Oregon Health Decisions, which is still in existence (I was the first executive director of Oregon Health Decisions). 

In May 2009 I wrote a blog post just before the Affordable Care Act became law that focused on a paper I wrote for the Citizens Health Care Parliament, "Quality of Life in Allocating Health Care Resources." In the post I said:

Like most Americans, I'm hoping that a viable national health care plan is going to emerge from Congress and the Obama administration soon -- looks like it could be this year. Whatever that plan looks like, it is going to have to deal with quality of life and resource allocation issues.

I'm proud that Oregon helped lead the way in finding solutions to our health care problems. And pleased that I was able to contribute to that effort.

Well, I still am.

But this week the GOP-controlled Senate came very close to dismantling the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). Even though a Senate vote has been put off for a few weeks, there's still a good chance that Republicans will do the wrong thing and take our country several big steps backward, health-care-wise. 

So I figured this would be another good time to dust off the PDF file I made of "Quality of Life in Allocating Health Care Resources" to remind myself, and others, of what real health planning looks like. 

Because whatever Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his cronies have been doing behind closed doors in crafting their super-shitty "repeal and replace" Obamacare bill, it sure isn't any sort of rational, fair, compassionate, reasoned effort to improve the United States health care system.

What Oregon did back in the 1980s was far superior. We involved ordinary citizens in setting health care priorities and discussing difficult bioethical issues. We openly tackled thorny topics like health care rationing and death with dignity. 

When I re-read what I wrote in 1988, I was reminded of a couple of things: (1) our country hasn't made a heck of a lot of progress in coming to a consensus on the questions Oregon's Citizen Health Care Parliament debated 29 years ago, and (2) Oregon was on the right track back then, especially compared to the disastrous debacle of current GOP "repeal and replace" efforts -- which go against every principle of good health planning.

Here's a few pages from the document that struck me as particularly relevant to what's going on in Washington, D.C. today. First, the title page. 

Next, three short pages about setting health care priorities. 

Lastly, the Acknowledgements page -- to show how much support there was for the Oregon Health Priorities for the 1990s project. Which ends with my name, something I remain proud of, notwithstanding how little progress our nation has made in coming to grips with the perennial health care issues we debated almost 30 years ago, and continue to grapple with today.

(When telling someone about my professional past, I like to say, "I used to be one of the top health planners in Oregon back in the 80's; obviously I did a terrific job, since now our health care system is functioning perfectly!" The irony is so obvious, I can say this with a straight face and still get my humorous message across.)

West Salem NA Third Bridge vote was conducted shamefully

I'm giving the West Salem Neighborhood Association a big dose of Salem Political Snark for the shameful way a June 19 vote to support the Salem River Crossing (a.k.a. Third Bridge or Billion Dollar Boondoggle) was conducted.

The pro-bridge Salem Bridge Solutions group is giddy with delight at how the vote to have the West Salem Neighborhood Association (WSNA) go on record as supporting the Salem River Crossing turned out: 302 in favor, 49 opposed, 3 abstaining.
[Note this is a correction. Previously I reported a vote on an amendment to the final motion, not the final motion.]

They're also super-proud that apparently this was by far the largest number of people to attend a neighborhood association meeting in Salem history. 

Well, since the Third Bridge agenda item was handled decidedly unfairly, it isn't surprising that Salem Bridge Solutions was able to pack the room with their supporters. 

Here's the disturbing facts about how last Monday's vote came to be. I've assembled these from public documents and an exchange of emails with WSNA officers.

First, as I wrote in "West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on Third Bridge won't mean much," the WSNA bylaws contain this statement:

In cases where it becomes necessary to make a decision on an issue not published on the agenda, and the decision must be made before the next scheduled General Membership meeting, any statement of that decision should be accompanied with a disclaimer that reads, "The West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on this decision was made only by those in attendance on [meeting date] without prior public agenda notification.”

This makes sense.

There's a big difference between (1) a decision/vote that occurs after members of WSNA (people who live in, work in, or own property in West Salem) have been notified in advance that the decision/vote will be on the meeting agenda, and (2) a decision/vote that occurs without advance public notification (and, in this case, when a special interest group packs the meeting).

What happened on June 19 clearly was a case of (2). There was no advance mention on the WSNA June 19 meeting agenda that a vote to support or oppose the Salem River Crossing would happen.

Here's the agenda:
Download West-salem-agenda-2017-06-19

The closest agenda item is under New Business: "Neighborhood Workgroup -- Update/Revise/Align West Salem Neighborhood Plan starting with Traffic & Transportation." 

But obviously this doesn't mention the Salem River Crossing, nor a vote to support/oppose the Third Bridge.

No one reading the advance agenda would suspect that this important vote was going to happen. So if someone was interested in the bridge issue and perused the advance agenda to see if it was going to be discussed, they'd think "Nope, so no reason for me to attend the meeting."

Now, the minutes of the previous WSNA meeting on June 5 do contain a mention about Salem Bridge Solutions requesting a vote on the Salem River Crossing. Problem is, this wasn't part of the June 19 agenda, and there is no mention in the June 5 minutes that the WSNA board agreed to this request.
Download West-salem-minutes-2017-06-05

So how the heck did the Third Bridge vote happen at the June 19 meeting when it wasn't on the advance agenda, and how did 302 Third Bridge supporters show up at this meeting to take part in a vote that wasn't on the advance agenda?

Can you guess? Sneaky machinations. 

Well, not super-sneaky, because two posts on the Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook page laid out what happened. The screenshot below of a Friday, June 16 post is the first mention that a Third Bridge vote will happen at the Monday, June 19 meeting. Remember: there was no mention of a vote in the advance June 19 meeting agenda.

So on June 16 the West Salem Neighborhood Association put up the Facebook post above saying that "to avoid confusion and clarify to all in the community, at our meeting during the 'Neighborhood Workgroup' conversation there will be a motion and vote regarding supporting the Salem River Crossing."

OK, this proves that the advance agenda lacked any mention of a vote being taken, since the WSNA leaders felt it was necessary to state (on the Friday before the Monday meeting) that a vote "regarding supporting the Salem River Crossing" would be taken during an advance agenda item that didn't include any mention of the bridge.

How did this "Friday surprise" come about? Again, a Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook post provides the answer.

Chad Bock noticed that the June 19 WSNA agenda didn't have any mention of a vote on the Third Bridge. He expresses his concern on the Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook page.

No problem, says the Salem Bridge Solutions spokesperson. 

"We have been on it and met with the co-chairs [of WSNA] this morning. It is in the meeting minutes and Evan Sorce sent an email after we met with them to the  person who does the agenda to add it as a separate item."

So a private meeting was held on Friday between Salem Bridge Solutions leaders and the WSNA co-chairs. This resulted in a commitment by the co-chairs to add a vote on the Third Bridge to the agenda. But contrary to what Salem Bridge Solutions said, there was no mention in previous meeting minutes that a vote would happen on June 19.

And the published advance agenda did not include any mention of the vote, as Chad Bock had pointed out. Bock went on to say:

"I think it's time to be very transparent and share about what was discussed with the WSNA Co-Chairs prior to the overwhelming vote in favor of a bridge? That way rumors do not get out and people will always support causes like ours that are on the up and up."

Excellent point. Especially since it sure seems that the way a vote on the Third Bridge got on the June 19 WSNA agenda wasn't on the up and up.

The co-chairs told Salem Bridge Solutions a vote would happen in a private get-together three days before the meeting. I've asked the leaders of the No 3rd Bridge group if they were notified by WSNA that a vote to support/oppose the Salem River Crossing was going to happen on June 19.

No, they weren't notified. So the Big Debate on whether to build a billion dollar bridge was set up by WSNA so only the group supporting the bridge was invited to take part. Which is freaking ridiculous. And shameful.

How is it possible that the WSNA leadership thought it was ethical and right to make a private deal with Salem Bridge Solutions to add a vote on the bridge to the June 19 agenda without also inviting the group opposing the bridge to take part in the vote? I have no idea, even though I served as the secretary for our neighborhood organization for 24 years. 

Our board would never conduct a membership vote on an important issue without plenty of notice to all of our members, which naturally would include people on both sides of the issue. We never would make a backroom private deal with one group to have a vote at a meeting where the published agenda didn't include any mention of that vote.

Lastly, according to the draft minutes of the June 19 meeting, here's what happened at the beginning of it.

Wow. One of the founders of Salem Bridge Solutions gets to make a motion to amend the agenda to add a vote that the WSNA official position be to support the Salem River Crossing.

The end result was no big surprise: as mentioned above supporters of the bridge vastly outnumbered opponents of the bridge. After all, Salem Bridge Solutions had lobbied the WSNA co-chairs to add this vote to the agenda in a private get-together a few days before the June 19 meeting. And WSNA didn't invite anyone from No 3rd Bridge, the group opposing the bridge, to take part in the debate and vote. 

It's clear that the WSNA leadership screwed up.

They didn't have the vote on the advance agenda for the meeting, and only publicized it via a single post on the WSNA Facebook page on June 16, three days before the meeting, after making a private deal with representatives of Salem Bridge Solutions.

Nonetheless, the WSNA officials I communicated with told me that even if someone who was at the June 19 meeting makes a motion at the next meeting to require that the disclaimer mentioned above about the vote be included in the minutes, as required by the WSNA bylaws, the WSNA board may not agree to do what their bylaws require them to do.

Simply put, this stinks.

Of favoritism. Of backroom deal-making. Of failure to conduct the WSNA meeting in an open fair manner. 

Some people probably will think that I'm making too big of a deal out of all this. Is it worth a 1500 word blog post?

It damn sure is! I'll let the Washington Post slogan explain why.

People expect political shenanigans to take place in Washington D.C., state capitols, and city council meetings. Unfortunate, but this is the world we live in.

Neighborhood associations, though, should be a refuge from the political B.S. that permeates our society. At the most intimate local level, people should be able to treat each other with openness, respect, honesty, and fairness. We can disagree, but we don't have to be disagreeable.

This is why what happened on June 19 at the WSNA bothers me so much.

An important vote was taken on the Third Bridge even though it wasn't on the public advance agenda. The vote was added to the agenda only after bridge supporters met privately with the WSNA co-chairs. And after I brought this to the attention of WSNA officials, the reaction I'm getting is denial of the facts.

Hopefully they will change their minds. At the very least, the minutes of the June 19 meeting need to reflect what the WSNA bylaws require: this language in the section related to the bridge vote.

"The West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on this decision was made only by those in attendance on July 19 without prior public agenda notification.”

If this doesn't happen, democracy will have died a little bit, in darkness.

West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on Third Bridge won't mean much

The astroturf (fake grass roots) Salem Bridge Solutions group is super-excited about tonight's West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. 

They think there will be a vote at the neighborhood association meeting to support building the Billion Dollar Boondoggle known as the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge.

And also to build Marine Drive, which would connect with the as yet unpaid-for bridge -- should Salem-area residents decide they want to pay a $1.50 toll each way to cross the unneeded bridge, along with an increase in the local gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and property taxes.

Well, Salem Bridge Solutions should tone down their excitement, since their supposed most important meeting of their campaign comes with a big problem.

On the agenda there's no mention of a vote on the Third Bridge. In fact, there's not even a mention of the Salem River Crossing/Third Bridge at all. Have a look. 
Download West-salem-agenda-2017-06-19


So even though both the pro-bridge (Salem Bridge Solutions) and anti-bridge (No 3rd Bridge) groups are urging their supporters to come to the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting tonight and vote for or against the bridge (only people who reside in West Salem or own a business there can vote), the end result will be tainted by this subject not being on the agenda.

I've been told that the bylaws of the Neighborhood Association require a disclaimer if there's a vote on something that wasn't publicized ahead of time via the agenda.

"In cases where it becomes necessary to make a decision on an issue not published on the agenda, and the decision must be made before the next scheduled General Membership meeting, any statement of that decision should be accompanied with a disclaimer that reads, "The West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on this decision was made only by those in attendance on [meeting date] without prior public agenda notification.”

Reportedly several pushy people from Salem Bridge Solutions demanded that there be a vote on the Third Bridge after the June 19 meeting agenda was prepared by the West Salem Neighborhood Association Executive Committee and published on the web. 

Sounds like an unwise move, since now the vote will be largely meaningless.

If West Salem residents and business owners don't have any advance notice that the pros and cons of the Third Bridge will be discussed and voted on at tonight's meeting, obviously this takes away BIG TIME from the credibility of a bridge vote. 

So regardless which way the vote goes, it will have to be accompanied by the above-mentioned disclaimer:

"The West Salem Neighborhood Association vote on this decision was made only by those in attendance on June 19, 2017 without prior public agenda notification.”

Which is screwy, undemocratic, and messed-up.

Typical for the Salem Bridge Solutions folks, who aren't exactly covering themselves with glory given their propensity to lie and ghoulishly use a death to promote their special interest agenda. 

Statesman Journal outrage: New subscribers charged half of what loyal subscribers pay

If you're a loyal Statesman Journal subscriber like I am -- I've subscribed since 1977 -- here's some disturbing news for you: us existing subscribers are being charged double what new subscribers are paying. 

I consider this not only a rip-off, but an insult to those of us who have stuck with our local Gannett newspaper as it has steadily declined in quality, reporters, and, yes, subscribers. 

Back in March I got upset about receiving a notice that my Monday-Sunday (7 day) home delivery subscription was being increased from $36 to $41 per month.

As I said in "Salem Statesman Journal seems to be scamming subscribers," what concerned me even more than the rate increase was the $22/month new Monday-Sunday subscribers were paying after an introductory offer of $11/month for three months (now six months, as shown above).

WTF?!

I've been a Statesman Journal subscriber for 40 freaking years, and my loyalty to the newspaper is "rewarded" by charging me double what a new subscriber is paying?! 

I couldn't believe this was true, or if it was true, that it was ethical, so I filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice.

After an exchange of correspondence with a Gannett/USA Today executive who got my complaint,  Barbara Smith (VP Customer Service), it turns out that the Statesman Journal regular rate for Monday-Sunday new subscribers is indeed $22/month, even though the posted Monday-Sunday rate on the second page of the print newspaper is $46/month.

(I'm not sure why I'm paying $41/month. Maybe my "reward" for being a 40 year subscriber is paying $19 a month more than a new subscriber rather than $24 a month more.)

Here's the last correspondence I got from Smith where she responds to questions I asked her. In her letter she confirms that $22/month is the regular Monday-Sunday rate for new subscribers, while $46/month is the regular rate for existing subscribers.
Download Barbara Smith letter 6-2-17

This is like a bar charging its regular customers double what somebody who walks in off the street and orders a drink for the first time pays.

My experience is that businesses usually reward customer loyalty with discounts. But the Statesman Journal, and the Gannett Corporation which owns the newspaper, has decided to screw over long-time subscribers by giving new subscribers a much lower regular subscription rate.

At first I couldn't believe that the Statesman Journal had two regular Monday-Sunday home delivery subscription rates: one for current subscribers ($46/month) and one for new subscribers ($22/month). 

But after Gannett executive Barbara Smith confirmed this was the case, my next thought was, "Hey, how can us loyal long-time subscribers get that $22/month rate?" I figured I knew the answer. So today I sent this message to the email address shown on the "subscription" section of the Statesman Journal web site.

I got this response.

So it sure seems like any Statesman Journal Monday-Sunday home delivery subscriber who currently is paying the $46/month regular rate could get the $22/month rate if they cancel their subscription for 30 days, then re-subscribe as a new customer. 

Since they'd be paying $24/month less, that's a $288 annual savings. Pretty good deal. All you have to do is cancel your subscription for 30 days and either not read the Statesman Journal for a month, or buy papers on the street.

Look, I realize that newspapers are in deep financial trouble. Gannett's newspaper earnings are dropping, as reported in "Gannett earnings forecast a bleak 2017 for newspaper companies." I want the Statesman Journal to survive.

But it's damn irritating to learn that us long-time subscribers are being screwed over on our subscription rates.

If the Statesman Journal can make money on the $22/month Monday-Sunday subscription being offered to new customers, the paper should give this rate to its current subscribers also. Making us pay double the regular rate that new subscribers are paying is an insult to our loyalty.

Which, I've got to say, is wearing thin for this 40-year subscriber.

 

Third Bridge boondoggle gets another City Council setback

Good news for Salem: the massive waste of a billion dollars known as the Salem River Crossing (a.k.a. Third Bridge) encountered another roadblock at last night's City Council meeting. 

There was a public hearing on the FY 2017-18 budget, which included $3.6 million to do something with Marine Drive in West Salem, which currently is just a short street that blends with Harritt Drive south of Riverbend Road.

Two options were on the table.  The clearly legal something was to use the leftover money from the 2008 Streets and Bridges Bond to do what voters approved when they passed the bond measure: purchase the right of way for Marine Drive.

Here's a screenshot from a video Mark Wigg made -- "Marine Drive Bike Trail Proposal 2015" -- where he urges City officials to buy the right of way for Marine Drive (shown in blue), then allow volunteers to build a mostly unpaved bike/pedestrian path on the right of way that could be used until funds become available to actually construct Marine Drive. 

You can see that the basic purpose of Marine Drive would be to provide a safer and less congested parallel alternative to Wallace Road.

The decidedly less legal option was to use the $3.6 million earmarked for purchase of the Marine Drive right of way to construct a mere 1200 feet/three blocks of Marine Drive between Glen Creek Road and Cameo Street. 

Public Works Director Peter Fernandez claimed that it was legal to use the $3.6 million for road construction rather than purchase of the right of way, which was promised in the 2008 bond measure language. This claim was contested by Wigg, who I trust a heck of a lot more than Fernandez.

At any rate, last night's public hearing on the 2017-18 budget was used by the recently-formed Salem Bridge Solutions group to lobby for the Salem River Crossing.

Of course, nothing in the 2017-18 budget directly involved the Third Bridge, but this didn't stop a bunch of green t-shirt clad "Build It Now" devotees from using the Marine Drive budget item to urge adoption of the less legal option: building a three block portion of Marine Drive to show the City's commitment to the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

Which didn't happen, pleasingly. 

The City Council decided to postpone action on spending the $3.6 million, forming a work group to study the question, though more councilors seemed to favor purchase of the right of way rather than constructing 1200 feet of Marine Drive that would basically be an expensive road to nowhere. 

I've blogged before that the "Salem Bridge Solutions group laughably lacks facts." Proving my point, last night the SBS green shirts got Wiggs's proposal for a bike/pedestrian trail on the Marine Drive right of way laughably wrong. 

Geez, if they can't understand something this simple, how is anybody supposed to believe that they know what they're talking about when it comes to the highly complex $430 million Salem River Crossing project? (which will total about a billion bucks when financing costs are included)

Several city councilors and Mayor Bennett tried to correct the misinformation being spread by Salem Bridge Solutions.

In both written and oral testimony, somehow these bridge advocates had come to believe that the $3.6 million was going to be used to construct a bike path on the Marine Drive right of way rather than being used to purchase the right of way (or construct 1200 feet of Marine Drive).

This is the erroneous sample letter Salem Bridge Solutions urged its supporters to send to the City Council. Lots of them did, in advance written testimony. Only problem is, it isn't true that there was any plan to use the $3.6 million for a bike path. I've boldfaced the lie.

Dear Salem City Council,

As a Salem resident, I'm am asking you not to divert the funds passed in our 2008 bond measure from their intended purpose of building Marine Drive. The voters' pamphlet and supporting materials were very clear that this was one of the projects that the bond would spent on. Diverting these funds from the intended purpose, to create a bike path to nowhere, violates the promise the city made to the voters. This is a critical piece of the infrastructure we need to make our bridge possible in the near future. 

Please do what you promised the voters in 2008, and purchase the land for Marine Drive. Then use any leftover funds to begin construction of the road. This is the only way of relieving congestion as was the clear intent of the bond when we passed it. 

Sincerely,

Your Name and address

This pretty much demolishes any credibility citizens should give to Salem Bridge Solutions. Getting a small thing wrong is one thing. Getting a big thing wrong is a whole other thing. 

One of the Salem Bridge Solutions testifiers told Councilor Chris Hoy, "I was told $3.6 million would build a bike path." Well, that person was told wrong. Repeatedly, City officials said there was no plan to use the $3.6 million for anything other than either buying Marine Drive right of way or, if this turned out to be legal, constructing 1200 feet of Marine Drive. 

A bit of Googling would have led the Salem Bridge Solutions folks to my February 2016 blog post about Wiggs' plan for the Marine Drive bike path. But like I said, getting their facts straight isn't a big concern for the simplistic "Build It Now!" crusade this special interest group is waging.

Check out "Why the unbuilt Third Bridge boondoggle is hurting Salem."

I talked about how the Salemtowne to Downtown multiuse path along the Marine Drive right of way would be built by volunteers. And as Councilor Tom Andersen said last night, obviously the path would go away when the $30 million or so needed to construct Marine Drive becomes available -- since the plan for Marine Drive includes a multiuse path and bike paths.

Here's the above-mentioned video Mark Wigg made to promote the temporary Marine Drive bike path. Hopefully his great idea will come to pass, and the bad idea of a Third Bridge will pass away.

So, who's in charge at the City of Salem?

I'm starting to hear people wonder why goings-on at the City of Salem haven't changed more this year, given that four newly-elected city councilors joined Tom Andersen to form a 5-4 progressive majority on the City Council.

Well, this is sort of similar to asking why Republicans haven't been able to get much of their legislative agenda passed even though they control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Politics is complicated. So are bureaucracies. 

But at the national level, the reins of power are easier to discern.

Here in Salem, all one has to do is look at a City of Salem organizational chart to understand that our Council-Manager form of city government diffuses power so broadly (also, confusingly), it's tough to tell who is really in charge. (Click the chart to enlarge.)

We see that the general notion is Salem residents are at the top of the organizational pecking order, because they elect the Mayor and City Councilors -- who then select a City Manager who is responsible for hiring other city staff and administering the various city departments.

This is a "weak Mayor " form of municipal government. Mayor Bennett is unpaid and doesn't have any administrative responsibilities, unlike the case in larger cities (such as Portland) with a "strong Mayor" system of governance. 

So as a City of Salem web page says, "While the City Council and Mayor set laws, policies and goals for the City of Salem, the City Manager and City Departments implement them."

Thus there's a considerable inertia that has to be overcome before citizens start seeing tangible signs of changed policies. For example, Salem residents have elected five city councilors who oppose a third bridge across the Willamette, which I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

They've had one chance to vote on an issue affecting the third bridge, a.k.a. Salem River Crossing.

That 5-4 vote rejected a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement that would have helped the bridge project move forward. But it didn't kill the project, which is still stumbling onward due to previous actions by a City Council with a conservative new-bridge-loving majority.

The eight city councilors (the Mayor also has a vote on the city council) aren't paid either. Nor do they have staff to help them. And weirdly, there's some sort of rule that if a councilor requests information from City staff that would take more than an hour (I think it is) to provide, that request has to be approved by the City Manager.

Given that the current unpaid Mayor and city councilors all have "real" jobs, the current set-up makes it tough for those elected officials to exercise much control over the full-time paid employees of the City of Salem. Plus, the City Manager, Steve Powers, was chosen by a previous Mayor and City Council.

Bob Wells, a City Manager who retired in 2012, was asked what the most difficult part of his job was. His answer:

I think most city managers would say that managing the politics is the most difficult part of the job.

When I was in my twenties I worked in the city manager’s office for three years. Bob Moore was the city manager and he was one of the most ethical, visionary city managers I ever observed. But I watched the toll the politics took on him and I made up my mind that I would never be a city manager.  Obviously I changed my mind but I went into the job fully understanding the challenges.

I can only guess what Wells meant by "managing the politics."

This is clear, though: a City Manager serves at the pleasure of the City Council. So they have to keep the members of the Council happy, while also trying to do what they think is best for Salem, and dealing with outside pressures from special interest groups such as the Chamber of Commerce.

Not an easy job. 

In public, City Manager Powers comes across as quite diffident. Meaning, he doesn't speak passionately about policy issues or engage in "rah-rah" talk that could energize the citizenry. So even though Salem has a strong City Manager form of government, so far Powers hasn't lived up to his last name -- using his position as a firm lever of power to change Salem for the better.

This might be partly because Powers is negotiating the transition from a strongly conservative-dominated City Council to a mildly progressive-dominated City Council. If progressive replacements for Mayor Bennett and several city councilors up for re-election in 2018 occur (we can only hope!), Powers might begin to act more assertively to make policy changes in line with the progressive choices of Salem voters.

Here's another peculiarity of Salem that makes it difficult for strong leaders to emerge at City Hall.

Unlike Portland and Eugene, Salem doesn't have any local TV stations. And our newspaper, the Statesman Journal, is pretty much useless when it comes to reporting on city politics.

Thus every day I can learn a lot more about what is happening at the Portland City Hall than the Salem City Hall, because I'm able to see Mayor Wheeler and Portland city councilors being interviewed on TV news, and read about their policy positions in the Oregonian.

I'd like to see more city officials here in Salem -- whether elected or paid staff -- step forward and express themselves clearly and passionately.

Sure, it's more difficult to do this when there isn't the media "soapbox" other cities our size usually have. But unless Salem's citizens see their leaders speaking out about important issues, the general feeling of apathy and "who cares?" in this town is going to persist more than it would otherwise.

Bottom line for me: I don't know who is in charge at the City of Salem. Much of the time it seems that nobody is. Or everybody is, which amounts to pretty much the same thing. 

We have a weak Mayor and strong City Manager form of government, yet our Mayor is heard from more than the City Manager (and even then, not much). When City Manager Powers came to town, he said "I'm here to help Salem become the best city in the United States."

Well, we're a long way from that goal.

To accomplish it, there's going to have to be some strong progressive leadership at City Hall. So far such isn't much in evidence. We can only hope that things will change as the remaining conservatives on the City Council are kicked out of office, and creative, forward-thinking people take their place.

Salem Bridge Solutions group laughably lacks facts

The Powers That Be in Salem who love wasting taxpayer money on special interest projects have set up a new lobbying group for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle known as the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge.

After browsing through the Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook page and web site, it seems clear that their main rationale for wanting to foist $1.50 each-way tolls on citizens, plus increases in the local gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and property taxes, can be summed up as...

We want a new bridge! Badly. Waaaaahhhhh! We're going to cry and fuss until we get one!

By contrast, the No 3rd Bridge folks are committed to an old-fashioned mature idea: facts matter.

Their Facebook page is filled with posts that link to information demolishing the ridiculous idea that building a $430 million new bridge (billion dollars, or thereabout, with financing costs) is the most cost-effective way to solve problems with the two current vehicular bridges.

Note: two. You can count them in the photo above. The third bridge on the left is the Union Street pedestrian bridge, though it can be used for emergency vehicles.

But Salem Bridge Solutions apparently doesn't realize that the Marion and Center Street bridges are separate, because their misleading propaganda talks about Salem only having one bridge across the Willamette.

This false statement is on their home page. I've boldfaced the "alternative facts." (Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway would be so proud of these guys.)

Currently, the entire Salem region depends on a single bridge crossing the Willamette River in the downtown area. As Salem has expanded and grown in population, the dependence on a single bridge to connect the whole of Polk and Marion Counties is becoming increasingly costly, inconvenient and problematic. Salem Bridge Solutions is a grassroots political group that believes another bridge connecting Polk County and Marion County should be a priority for the region.

With some relatively low-cost bridgehead modifications, I've been told that the current two vehicular bridges could have lanes (or even the entire bridge) going in the opposite direction in an emergency, or perhaps even regularly at rush hour times.

Also, adding a lane to each of the two existing bridges would be much cheaper than building a new billion dollar bridge that likely would have only one lane in each direction -- which is Mayor Bennett's favorite bridge design.

Here's something else that leapt out at me when I perused the Build It Now petition on the Salem Bridge Solutions web site.  The petition claims that local bridge commuters spend 172 hours a year stuck in traffic. Which would be more than double what Los Angeles area commuters waste in traffic annually: 78 hours according to CNBC, 81 hours according to CNN.

My daughter and her family have lived in or near Los Angeles for quite a few years. Since I regularly experience LA traffic when my wife and I visit them, I find it difficult to believe that the congestion problem across Salem's two bridges is more than twice as bad as what LA commuters put up with. 

And since the Salem Bridge Solutions group doesn't believe in using facts to support their "We want a bridge, now!" cry-baby argument, there's no way to check how the questionable 172 hours a year figure for Salem was arrived at.

My guess is... by guessing.

Bottom line: don't be taken in by the fact-free B.S. being spread by Salem Bridge Solutions. Salem doesn't need a third vehicular bridge across the Willamette.

That Billion Dollar Boondoggle is planned to be build on a wide floodplain subject to liquefaction when the next Big One earthquake hits. A much more cost-effective alternative is to seismically retrofit the two current bridges, improve their on- and off-connections, and possibly add a lane to each existing bridge.

A few days ago No 3rd Bridge aptly compared Trump's Border Wall and Salem Bridge Solutions. 

WHAT DO "SALEM BRIDGE SOLUTIONS" AND TRUMP WALL ENTHUSIASTS HAVE IN COMMON?
There is a new Chamber of Commerce-funded "astroturf" (fake grassroots) group called Salem Bridge Solutions that is making a lot of noise lately. We think that they have a lot in common with people who support our President's crazy border wall idea. What do you think?

Climate Action Plan an absolute must for Salem City Council

Yesterday Donald Trump made a great argument for the Salem Climate Action Plan that was a major focus of last night's City of Salem Strategic Plan open house at the Broadway Commons.

In one of the most shameful actions in his scandal-plagued presidency, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. 

His announcement gave no coherent reasons for doing this. Trump simply lied, as he always does. 

Yesterday, President Donald Trump gave a speech announcing that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

It is a remarkable address, in its own way, in that virtually every passage contains something false or misleading. The sheer density of bullshit is almost admirable, from a performance art perspective. Trump even managed to get in some howlers that had nothing to do with climate change. He started by citing an act of terrorism in Manila that wasn't terrorism. He said, “our tax bill is moving along in Congress,” but there’s no tax bill. And so forth.

A proper fact-check would run longer than the speech itself. To keep this quick, I’ve selected the top five deceptions.

Human-caused global warming is a scientific fact. There is essentially zero doubt about it.

Nothing in life, or science, is absolutely certain. But the evidence for human-caused global warming is so strong, only a fool or a deceitful manipulator of the truth would deny the need for humanity to act now to preserve the habitability of our planet. (Check out the highly persuasive graphics in this Bloomberg piece, "What's really warming the world?")

So with Trump deciding to have the United States join Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries that have rejected the Paris Climate Agreement, the responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country shifts from the federal level to states, cities, corporations/businesses, and non-governmental organizations.

Along with individuals, of course. But the global warming problem is so massive, collective action is a necessity.

Tracy Loew talked about this in a story in today's Statesman Journal, "Oregon moves forward on climate plans, with or without Trump." Embarrassingly,  our daily newspaper didn't quote a single person from this town, which shows how, once again, Salem lags behind more with-it cities. 

The Portland City Council voted Thursday to commit to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 – just hours after President Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

It’s just one of the actions cities and states across the country are taking as federal climate policy weakens under President Trump.

...Eugene created its plan to address climate change in 2010, focusing on reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use, and identifying ways to help the community adapt to climate change.

Salem, which vies with Eugene for the state’s second-largest city, does not have a climate plan. But Beaverton, Corvallis and Ashland all do.

This is one of my biggest gripes about Salem city government: the folks at City Hall are followers rather than leaders. We have a crappy mass transit system compared to other big cities in Oregon. We're the last major city to allow ride-sharing and "tiny houses." Our bike/pedestrian infrastructure sucks. And we're the only large city in the Willamette Valley to not have a Climate Action Plan.

Hopefully the enthusiasm for a Climate Action Plan shown at last night's Strategic Plan open house will spur the Mayor and City Councilors to adopt climate change mitigation as an additional long-range planning goal.

I got to the open house about halfway through the 6-8 pm drop-in time. These photos were taken around 7:30 pm.

People could write comments about existing Strategic Plan goals on sheets of paper stuck on the walls. This sheet was used to show support for a Salem Climate Action Plan. Forty-six people had added a checkmark supporting "New Goal - Climate Action Plan."

Nearby, a couple of trays were filled with tickets Strategic Plan open house attendees had been given to show their support for favored goals, and with feedback forms urging adoption of a Climate Action Plan.

Bottom line: This has to happen. 

Several times I've asked city leaders, both elected officials and people in the private sector, if they accept the science of human-caused global warming and the need to act to reduce carbon emissions. Progressives have responded affirmatively. Conservatives mostly have ignored the questions. 

This is telling. Global warming denial isn't limited to the Trump administration. Many people right here in Salem, including some of the folks who run City Hall, don't accept the science of climate change. 

Well, they need to get out of the way of a Salem Climate Action Plan. Anyone at the City of Salem who doesn't support adoption of a Climate Action Plan needs to understand that a clear majority of the Salem citizenry wants to have this town as environmentally-friendly as possible.

As noted above, this is especially important now that Trump has turned his back on the need to reduce carbon emissions. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement means that states and cities are now on the front-line of the War to Save Our Planet for Human Habitation.

This is no joke.

I'm one of many who view it as the most important thing government officials have to do. It's absurd to think of the environment as being just one of many goals that have to be juggled by the folks who run City Hall. Actually, it is the overarching goal that supports everything else we want for Salem. 

Without a habitable environment, economic growth is a fantasy. So is social equity, quality of life, sustainable development, and every other good thing we want. 

Ever the optimist, it's difficult for me to imagine Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, and Salem's eight city councilors blocking adoption of a Climate Action Plan as an additional goal for the Strategic Plan. I can't imagine that they'd fall prey to Trump's bullshit refusal to say whether he believes in the proven science of global warming. 

The Earth is warming rapidly. Humans are causing it. Future generations depend on us, right here and right now, acting to reduce carbon emissions. We have no other option. 

If you agree, email City officials and tell them: [email protected]