Salem Political Snark

Salem Weekly needs to survive. But how should it change?

The most recent issue of Salem Weekly asks a self-reflective question on the cover: "Can Salem Weekly and Other Alt-Weeklies Survive the Tides of Change?"

I'd include a link to this cover story, but more than a week after the November 23 bi-weekly issue hit the streets, as of this writing the Salem Weekly web site still hasn't been updated to include content from that issue.

Which points to the problem facing Salem Weekly: A.P. Walther, the publisher, is marvelously dedicated to keeping the paper afloat, but along with many other alternative papers around the country, the Salem Weekly ship is understaffed and taking on water, as the cover story says:

Our own local alt-weekly, The Salem Weekly, like all print alt-weeklies these days, faces its own challenges to stay alive and well in the rapidly changing world of print journalism. As it continues its mission to reflect the full spectrum and diversity of Salem's voices in stories offering critical analysis and diverse opinions -- especially of those who are under-represented -- will our paper need to change with the times in order to keep its mission intact?

Almost certainly Salem Weekly will need to change.

Since a Salem Weekly paper box is on the Court Street sidewalk just outside the studio where I have a Tai Chi class on Wednesday afternoon, the usual distribution day, I've observed that the paper has had to postpone publication several times recently. This can't be good, since likely some advertisers would have time-sensitive ads in the paper.

I don't have any firm ideas about how Salem Weekly not only could make it through the rough times besetting virtually all print media these days, but actually thrive as our town's independent journalistic voice. 

Along with many others, I just feel it is imperative that this happens.

The Statesman Journal is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Salem with the steady letting-go of staff, notably including the most senior and experienced journalists (who, not coincidentally, also commanded the highest salaries). Often there are only a couple of genuine local stories in our daily newspaper, the rest of the paper being filled with regional wire stories and USA Today sections.

Salem Weekly's cover story addresses a core question: go fully digital or stick with a print edition?

The concerns over the switch from print to digital news begs the question: can digital "newspapers" continue to be the local voice of the people and stay close to the ground on issues that affect the lives of its readers? Or will online news, where geography doesn't matter, lose their local focus?

...Can alt-weeklies survive in our new age of technological Twitter and Instagram, Facebook and Craig's List and a fast-paced culture with shorter attention spans and multiple choices? Or will the news boxes on the street, the stack of free newspapers on coffee house counters and our access to what's actually going on in town disappear? 

Can print news survive?

My view is, probably not. There's a large amount of extra cost involved in printing and distributing paper copies of a publication. That money likely would be better spent on reporters, advertising staff, and other employees of alternative papers like Salem Weekly. 

Look, as a baby boomer for more than 60 years I'm used to reading newspapers whose pages I can hold in my hands.

But I happily pay $15 a month, or thereabouts, to both the New York Times and Washington Post so I can read those newspapers online. The Times has such a well-designed website, it seems easier to read the digital edition than the paper edition -- especially since I'm mostly interested in the Politics and Opinion sections.

It would be great if Salem Weekly could have both a strong print edition and online presence. However, if the choice is between a faltering print edition and a weak online version, versus a vibrant digital Salem Weekly, I'd take the latter. 

I had a look at the Minneapolis alternative paper, City Pages. Its website is clean and attractive. The Advertising page has an interesting comparison of the paper's print readers and online viewers.

The paper's print readership is older and has a lower household income than the online viewers. Salem is a much different town that Minneapolis, of course, but I suspect the same would hold true here. The trick, of course, is getting people to pay for an online Salem Weekly, or at least making the digital version profitable through advertising.

Like I said, I don't have any magic bullets in my mind that could slay the forces working against Salem Weekly's survival as a print newspaper. Salem seemingly is a tougher town for an alternative paper to thrive in than, say, Portland or Eugene. 

My personal vision for Salem Weekly, such as it is, tends toward it becoming in part an online clearinghouse or hub for the many progressive/ liberal/ activist/ alternative groups, causes, organizations and such in our town.

Every morning I'd love to be able to click my way to a Salem Weekly website that is up to date on what's happening in Salem politically, culturally, entertainment-wise, and otherwise. I'd enjoy finding links to interesting blog posts, Facebook postings, Twitter tweets,  newspaper stories, and other local online offerings -- saving me the time of digging these out myself through my own web browsing.

But this is just me. If Salem Weekly is to survive and thrive, it will need to figure out what a good share of the Salem citizenry wants from an alternative paper. I'm confident it wants something. I'm just unsure what that thing is. 

 

Cancel your Statesman Journal subscription for 30 days to save $500 a year

I've subscribed to the Statesman Journal for 40 years. Today I cancelled my subscription (for 30 days), because this will save me $510 in 2018 -- following the outrageous Monday-Sunday home delivery rate increase from $44 to $59.01 that takes effect December 1.

(What's up with that one cent?)

That's a 34% increase, which is on top of a 14% increase last March.

In June I wrote a pissed-off blog post, "Statesman Journal outrage: new subscribers charged half of what loyal subscribers pay." Now the situation is even worse. New subscribers are being charged a bit over a third of what us long-time subscribers are paying.

New subscribers are still getting the same sweet deal: $11 a month for Monday-Sunday home delivery for the first six months, then $22 a month after that. 

So I decided to stop being a ripped-off old subscriber and switch to being a new subscriber. Here's how I will save $510 next year on our Statesman Journal subscription.

I cancelled via chat after being told I'd have to unsubscribe for 30 days before being able to get the new subscriber rate of $11 for the first six months, and $22 a month after that. So I figure we'll save $510.12 in 2018, compared to paying the ridiculously high rate of $59.01 a month that would have started on December 1.



I don't want the Statesman Journal to go out of business. I don't want any newspaper to go out of business.

But I can't tolerate being ripped off by Barbara Smith, VP Customer Service for Gannett/USA Today, who sent the notice that our subscription is going to cost that weirdly precise $59.01 come December 1.

I'll probably buy a paper at a convenience store for 30 days, then happily sign up in January as a new customer who will start off by paying $11 a month rather that $59.01 a month.

I couldn't resist commenting on a woman's praise of Salem

Yesterday the Statesman Journal published a "Your Turn" piece by Emily Skelding that began as a post on her This Is Just to Say blog, and ended being titled either "Salem a fabulous place to raise family" (print edition) or "Salem transplant proud of her new hometown; wants community to stop apologizing" (online edition). 

I liked Skelding's praise of Salem. I also can't resist commenting on it. 

First off, notwithstanding the online title the Statesman Journal gave to her piece, Skelding's blog post says that she grew up in Salem, then lived in other places before returning here. 

I must add a caveat to this tirade: I had the unlikely and strange experience of a happy childhood. And that childhood was in Salem. And so, maybe I like Salem more than other folks I grew up with here. I understand needing to get away and see the world or needing to escape the painful ruts of childhood. Place and experience weave together.

This could indeed influence how she currently looks at Salem. Most of us have fond memories of where we grew up. I sure do. Anyway, here's my decidedly personal reaction, in red, to what Skelding had to say about Salem in her Statesman Journal essay. 

Salem, please stop apologizing. Calm your insecurities. You are a fabulous place to live.

No disagreement from me on this.

Your landscape surprises me every day, a natural beauty who needs no make-up.

Well, parts of Salem are beautiful while some are ugly. Lancaster Drive and South Commercial are soul-crushing streets, filled with tacky strip malls and garish signs, monuments to our culture's primacy of the automobile over people.

While the tourists are directed to our wineries and historic sites, it is the air that catches my attention: crisp and fresh, earthy and leafy.

OK. I've never thought of Salem air this way, but Skelding could have a more sensitive nose than mine. The global-warming exacerbated forest fires last summer made Salem's air smoky and unhealthy, but mostly she's right about our air quality.

Your big open spaces dot the city: parks and farms and hills too steep to build on. You beg me to climb out of my minivan and slip on my rubber boots to tromp around, discovering the trees while my dogs run freely and I help my girls add thistles, pine cones, and chestnuts to their collection.

Um, we have a dog. The City of Salem says that only Minto-Brown, Orchard Heights Park, and Cascades Gateway Park have off-leash areas. Salem could use more. Compared to Portland, we suck at dog-friendliness. 

You have trees, all sorts, lining your streets and covering your hills. And what about the ingenious play structures around every turn? They remind me of Paris. My husband takes long bike rides. He marvels how quickly he can get to your outskirts, and be on the country roads, pedaling by sheep and goats and Christmas tree farms and fields cleared for the winter.

Salem does have lots of beautiful trees. City government also has had a nasty habit of treating trees badly. Hopefully this is mostly in the past. I'm not aware of ingenious play structures, but I don't have children of playground age. Maybe they do indeed exist. Regarding cycling, Salem doesn't have enough safe, family-friendly bike paths. Salem Bike Boulevard Advocates is trying to change this. As Skelding implies, Salem is fine if a cyclist is of the "fearless" variety, unafraid to ride on roads that give most people qualms. But the majority of people much prefer dedicated bike paths to riding on the street.

It reminds him of his time in Oxford, England, a city of about the same size. The ease of living in Salem cannot be understated.

Salem indeed is less stressful than larger cities. Our rush-hour traffic would bring a smile to those who live in the Los Angeles area.

You are practical, affordable and manageable, but not a suburb on the end of a freeway originating in the center of a metropolis.

Yes, our home values are much more reasonable than Portland's. And we do have a wonderful downtown that is steadily improving as a place to live, work, and play. However, City of Salem resources are still unduly devoted to promoting growth in the suburbs of far West Salem and far South Salem. We have too much sprawl and too little central-area improvements.

You are a community that stands on your own. Don’t be like Oakland and Baltimore, cowering in the shadow of your nearby, cool sibling cities. Envy does not become you. This isn’t a race to be the best, just settle into being you.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. We need to look upon the best of what "nearby, cool" Portland has to offer, while avoiding the worst of Portland. I've come up with the saying that Salem should be Portland without the problems. 

My father has always explained to me that Salem has a larger-than-average middle class - state workers and teachers and regular folk.

This appears to be true. We also have a lower per capita income than Portland, Eugene, Bend, Medford, and Corvallis. And there are marked income disparities by both geography and ethnicity.  North and East Salem are considerably poorer than West and South Salem; Whites and Asians have considerably more income than Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and American Indians.

You aren’t a rich, bratty snob looking for the best avocado toast in town. One of my daughter’s surprises when she moved here? The number of fundraisers the student organizations at South Salem High School host.

I'd never heard of avocado toast. Now I want some! Fundraisers do teach students some things. However, I'd rather see students doing less fundraising and more regular learning. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but back in my high school days we had very few fundraisers (perhaps because we didn't have many student organizations).

They work for their privilege to participate. All of the places I’ve lived other than Salem are becoming less diverse, both racially and socio-economically because of policies encouraging gentrification.

Gentrification certainly has both pluses and minuses. It could be argued that the above-mentioned income disparities in Salem are due in part to this town being viewed as a less desirable place to locate a business with well-paying jobs,  compared to Portland, Eugene, and other large cities in Oregon. But this does leave Salem more affordable, though housing costs are pricing many out of both the rental and purchase markets. So I worry about Salem not enjoying the benefits of gentrification (such as revitalization of our close-in neighborhoods) while still becoming less and less affordable for middle and lower class families.

Not you, Salem. You are becoming more diverse every year. This trend is likely to continue. Let’s make sure to make city policies that continue to support your diversity. 

Well, several years ago Salem was slightly more ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse than Portland. An updated 2017 report showed that Portland was slightly more diverse than Salem. So it's unclear if Salem is becoming more diverse. Having moved to Salem in 1977, my view is that this town is decidedly more accepting of diversity than it used to be, which perhaps is more important than small changes in how diverse Salem  is.

Finally, Salem, embrace your grime and call it grit. Appreciate your home-grown habits and call it culture.

Interesting idea. I just wonder if this is stretching the definitions of "grit" and "culture" too far. Maybe. Maybe not. I do like Skelding's provocative writing style. She makes me think.

A woman I saw at Costco who still does her bangs with a curling iron and mousse followed by Aquanet? She’s your emblem, not an embarrassment.

Nicely said. I just can't quite picture what the bangs look like from my clueless male perspective. 

Stop by Happy Curry and get a dozen samosas. Thrift at your safe and steady Value Village or Goodwill by the pound on Portland Road NE or the higher-end Assistance League Shop and know you’re getting a deal and recycling.

I like samosas. Shopping at thrift stores, not so much. But I know people who really enjoy finding good deals at them.

Instead of looking away as you drive by Magoos, stop by and raise a glass to yourself.

Not sure what to make of the Magoos mention. I find it appealingly bar-like, and yes, gritty. (From the outside; I don't think I've ever been inside.) Skelding's blog post put it this way: Be impressed that Magoos is still open, instead of looking away as you drive by.

Salem, I pick you. You surprise me and I love you for it.

Ditto. I love this photo that was shared by Travel Salem.

Ding, dong, the Third Bridge is dead

And so it came to pass that there was cause for much rejoicing at last night's City Council meeting, for the Wicked Third Bridge (of both East and West, since it would have connected these two sides of Salem) almost certainly was put to death.

Not by having a house dropped on it, or by being splashed with water, which would indeed be a perplexing way for a bridge to die, but by the City Council approving a motion to establish a committee that will examine ways to reduce traffic congestion around the two existing bridges without building a new Third Bridge.

Here's how I summed up the situation a few days ago in "City Council plans to reduce traffic congestion without a Third Bridge."

But if the traffic congestion Task Force is approved at the November 13 meeting, and almost certainly it will be, this will set in motion forces that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring the Third Bridge back to life anytime soon,

After all, if other ways to relieve rush hour congestion can be implemented more quickly and at a lower cost than a new bridge, why build the half-billion-dollar Salem River Crossing? And supporters of a Third Bridge won't be able to oppose the work of the Task Force, since their big complaint has been rush hour congestion.

They've been crying Build It Now! Well, the City Council is about to take steps to deal with rush hour congestion now. Just without building a new bridge.

But note that I said the death of the bridge was cause for much rejoicing, not that such actually took place.

As you can see in the You Tube video I made of Mayor Chuck Bennett's and Councilor Tom Andersen's remarks at the City Council meeting, neither was dancing with joy -- though Andersen comes closest to expressing his inner Munchkin. 

(Of course, Bennett has been a big supporter of building a new bridge, so I didn't expect him to be celebrating even though he made the motion to establish the Task Force.) 

Watching the City Council meeting on my laptop via the CCTV feed, I had the feeling that this was one of those times where a lot is not being said, even though many words were spoken.

My suspicion is that the Third Bridge supporters on the Council  still hold out hope that future elections will change the composition of the nine-member City Council (which now has five progressives, all opposed to a Third Bridge) and the bridge can get back on track, but they didn’t want to say this explicitly, while the Third Bridge opponents on the council were being careful to not gloat about the bridge being blocked to avoid bad feelings. 

Proving that the Salem Bridge Solutions' slogan of Build It Now! was a fantasy, Bennett said that after ten years of working on the development of an Environmental Impact Statement it remains controversial and unresolved. And even if the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was approved tomorrow, he went on to say, it would be ten more years before a bridge could be constructed.

Hence, the need to maximize the use of the current Marion and Center Street bridges.

The No 3rd Bridge folks noted in a Facebook post that Mayor Bennett appears to have embraced one of the alternatives to a new bridge in the draft EIS.

MAYOR BENNETT SUGGESTS CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE 2A
Alternative 2A in the Salem River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement has long been a favorite of many NO 3rd Bridge supporters. It was the only alternative that sought improvement of the existing Marion and Center Street Bridges instead of building a brand new one. It proposed adding three lanes to the two bridges at an estimated cost that was only about a third that of a new bridge. So we were pleased to hear Mayor Bennett make positive mention of it in his remarks tonight. We hope the new task force will dust off Alternative 2A and give it serious consideration.

In a comment on that post an image was shared that shows a plan for the new lanes.

But as Councilor Andersen implies in the video above, the congestion problem really isn't due to a lack of lanes on the existing bridges. A few years ago I asked an engineer working on this project if the problem was the approaches on either side of the river, not the bridges themselves, and he said that was indeed true. 

Bennett said that some previous studies concluded that the traffic flow on the existing bridges is maximized, while other studies have shown room for improvement. Andersen, though, rattled off the names of several studies that all pointed to traffic congestion being reduced by improving either the current bridges or the associated streets/approaches.

Regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement, approval of it is a must if the Salem River Crossing project is to move forward. But this can't happen, since the Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the City Council's approval of an Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed for construction of a new bridge, thereby negating the original approval.

I asked Bob Cortright, an expert in land use matters related to transportation and an opponent of the Third Bridge, if the Urban Growth Boundary expansion had to be accomplished before an Environmental Impact Statement could be approved. Yes, Cortright said, it does.

No, the EIS cannot be finalized without an approved UGB expansion and TSP [Transportation System Plan] amendment. ODOT has an adopted rule that describes how it will plan for projects in a manner that is consistent with state land use laws. In essence, the rule says that ODOT will not issue a final EIS until the local government has amended its comprehensive plan to allow the project to be constructed. In this case, that means that until the UGB is expanded and the 3rd Bridge is included as a "planned" transportation facility in the city's TSP,  ODOT may not move [to] finalize the EIS.   

 

Here's the chapter and verse:

731-015-0075
Coordination Procedures for Adopting Plans for Class 1 and 3 Projects

(1) The Department shall involve affected cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, state and federal agencies, special districts and other interested parties in the development of project plans. The Department shall include planning officials of the affected cities, counties and metropolitan planning organization on the project technical advisory committee.

(2) Goal compliance and plan compatibility shall be analyzed in conjunction with the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment. The environmental analysis shall identify and address relevant land use requirements in sufficient detail to support subsequent land use decisions necessary to authorize the project.

(3) Except as otherwise set forth in section (4) of this rule, the Department shall rely on affected cities and counties to make all plan amendments and zone changes necessary to achieve compliance with the statewide planning goals and compatibility with local comprehensive plans after completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment and before completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement or Revised Environmental Assessment. These shall include the adoption of general and specific plan provisions necessary to address applicable statewide planning goals.

So this is why I say the Third Bridge is dead.

It is legally blocked by the negation of the Urban Growth Boundary expansion. And given the current composition of the City Council, there is no way it can be unblocked.

And soon the City Council will be moving forward with ways to reduce rush hour congestion on the two current bridges. Once these are implemented and congestion is reduced, it will be very difficult to justify spending half a billion dollars or more on a new bridge that has no reason for being. 

This is great news for Salem. So let's all celebrate in our own ways. Me, I'll be singing Ding, dong, the wicked bridge is dead. (But only in the shower, for reasons that would be apparent to anyone who hears my tone-deaf voice.) 

City Council plans to reduce traffic congestion without a Third Bridge

The writing is on the wall as regards the eventual demise of the Salem River Crossing, a.k.a. Third Bridge.

Or rather, the writing is in the form of a motion to be made by Mayor Chuck Bennett at next Monday's City Council meeting to form a Council task force "to evaluate options for reducing traffic congestion and improving vehicular mobility around the Marion and Center Street bridges."
Download CITY OF SALEM - File #: 17-545

It seems clear that this is how the Third Bridge will begin to die after opponents were successful in getting the Land Use Board of Appeals to remand approval of an Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed for the bridge back to the City Council. In other words, that expansion was negated, and the City of Salem basically needs to start over.

Since five opponents of the Third Bridge now make up a majority on the nine-member City Council, planning for a new bridge is going nowhere fast. Hence, the staff report on Bennett's motion has some face-saving language that, nonetheless, essentially says the Salem River Crossing isn't going to die quickly with a bang, but slowly with a whimper.

Here's the "Summary and Background" section of the staff report.

Over the past decade, regional transportation experts, City staff, and the community have been considering options and alternatives related to a new Willamette River crossing. The process has been lengthy and controversial. When completed, the process will yield a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a new facility, not the facility itself. We understand that even with a Final EIS in place, it may take another decade or more to fund, design, and begin construction of a new bridge.

In the meantime, congestion and vehicular mobility continue to plague the downtown and inner west Salem areas around the existing bridges. There is a need to address vehicular mobility and traffic congestion immediately and independent of decisions related to the Willamette River crossing. If approved by Council, the charge of the Task Force will be to study the issues and develop a list of short-, medium-, and long-term projects and a funding strategy that-when implemented-will reduce traffic congestion and improve vehicular mobility.

While acknowledging the importance of improving non-vehicular modes of transportation-including pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit-and the possibility that other travel demand management measures-such as changed work hours-the work of this Task Force is to be directed primarily at identifying opportunities for improving vehicular mobility and ways to reduce vehicular congestion within the study area.

The Task Force, if authorized, will be a City Council committee. Member shall be appointed by the Mayor, pursuant to Section 22 of the Charter.

Politically, this seems like a smart move.

The five progressives on the City Council could have exercised their No Third Bridge muscle in a cruder fashion, such as by demanding that City staff put in no additional time on planning for a new bridge, nor should any City funds be spent on this.

But if the traffic congestion Task Force is approved at the November 13 meeting, and almost certainly it will be, this will set in motion forces that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring the Third Bridge back to life anytime soon,

After all, if other ways to relieve rush hour congestion can be implemented more quickly and at a lower cost than a new bridge, why build the half-billion-dollar Salem River Crossing? And supporters of a Third Bridge won't be able to oppose the work of the Task Force, since their big complaint has been rush hour congestion.

They've been crying Build It Now! Well, the City Council is about to take steps to deal with rush hour congestion now. Just without building a new bridge.

Another savvy move is in the proposed scope of work regarding public involvement with the Task Force.

Public involvement in this effort will be limited to attendance at the Task Force meetings. Robust public review and comment on recommended projects and funding will be expected when the recommendations are proposed for inclusion in infrastructure plans and the Capital Improvement Program.

Ordinarily I'd be bothered by the public not being able to comment or testify at Task Force meetings. But the "build it now" Salem Bridge Solutions group has acted like jerks at West Salem Neighborhood Association meetings, and they'd do the same at Task Force meetings if given the opportunity. 

So now they can just sit quietly and observe the Task Force meetings like everybody else can. If the Salem Bridge Solutions folks don't think the recommended projects are adequate to reduce congestion around the existing bridges, they can weigh in on this at a later date, as the proposed scope of work says.

There's a fairly detailed work plan in the document describing the Task Force. Or click on the PDF file below.
Download CITY OF SALEM - File #: 17-545 

Great November election for Democrats. What a difference a year makes.

I needed this -- resounding victories for Democrats in the races that mattered most in this off-year election. Let's count the ways my progressive spirit was lifted in these oft-depressing Trumpian times.

(1) Closest to home, the Salem Library Bond passed handily, 63-37 in the first big round of results. OK, this wasn't exactly a Dem victory, but the progressives on the Salem City Council were most in favor of making the Library earthquake-safe when the subject was discussed last year. And it's well recognized that reality has a liberal bias, so approving money for a place that deals in facts counts as a progressive win for me.

(2) Up north in Washington the state Senate has flipped back to Democratic control with the victory of Manka Dhinga. Now the whole Left Coast -- California, Oregon, Washington -- have Democrats in charge of the Governorship and the state legislature.

(3) It would have been devastating to Democrats if they hadn't won the Virginia Governor's race, but Ralph Northam won easily over Ed Gillespie. Northham's nine point margin of victory (54-45) was more than double the 3-4 point advantage polling averages were predicting. This was a kick-in-the-ass directed at Trump, which makes the Dem win especially pleasing.

(4) Even more surprising is how well Democrats did in the 100 seats up for grabs in the Virginia House of Delegates. Before tonight it seemed unthinkable that the Dems could gain the 17 seats needed to give them a majority. But Daily Kos is reporting that currently Dems have gained 16 seats, giving them at least a tie (50 seats) in the House of Delegates. Depending on how recounts go, they could still gain 17. See above. 

(5) This is truly astounding, the Virginia results, as shown in the "holy crap" Daily Kos reaction to a tweet. If true, and I have no reason to believe what Jessica Post said is false, the Democrats have flipped more seats in Virginia at any time since 1899. 

(6) It feels good to have the New Jersey Governor go back to the Dems again after all those years of Christie. This was expected, especially given Christie's 14% approval rating, but still satisfying. 

(7) Lastly, it was great to see that Maine voters approved a Medicaid expansion after their idiot Governor, Paul LePage, had vetoed bills to do just that five freaking times. I have no idea why LePage got elected (and re-elected, I believe). The Medicaid expansion was viewed as a referendum on Obamacare, so hopefully this will make some Republicans think twice about further dismantling of the Affordable Care Act.

"This is an exciting night in Maine, but also an exciting night for the country," said David Farmer, spokesman for pro-expansion Mainers For Health Care. "Voters have made it clear they want more health care, not less."

For supporters and opponents of "Obamacare," Maine's question took on the form of a referendum on one of the most important pieces of the Affordable Care Act. Votes to expand had a nearly 60 percent edge late Tuesday, with more than three-quarters of precincts reporting. 

Salem conservatives should do more actual conserving

I remember when conservatives used to actually believe in conserving things. Like money. And nature. My mother, an ardent Republican, was one of those old-time conservatives. 

She was frugal. She was an environmentalist before that word came into fashion. Remembering the Great Depression (she was born in 1912), my mother hated to waste anything. 

For a long time, "conservative" and "conservation" almost meant the same thing. A 2015 Think Progress piece talked about this in Republican Politicians are Betraying Their Party's Legacy of Conservation. 

“You’re worried about what man has done and is doing to this magical planet that God gave us, and I share your concern. What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves?” — President Ronald Reagan

When Ronald Reagan uttered those words, he was drawing on a conservative legacy of environmental protection — one that more Republicans appear to be embracing today. You wouldn’t realize it listening to the current crop of White House hopefuls, but some of the greatest conservationists ever to take the oath of office were Republicans.

Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park System. George H.W. Bush passed a cap-and-trade program to curtail acid rain. Richard Nixon arguably did more than almost any president of either party to safeguard our air, water and wildlife. Nixon formed the Council on Environmental Quality, created the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act. Both Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists rated him our greenest president ever.

So how do our local conservatives here in Salem stack up on the "conserve" front? Not very well, judging by the battle lines on the Third Bridge (or Salem River Crossing) front. 

This half-billion dollar bridge across the Willamette River (it would cost much more if financing costs are included) is avidly supported by the Salem Chamber of Commerce, a bastion of what passes for conservatism these political days.

The Third Bridge also is high on the wish list of the more conservative members of the Salem City Council: Mayor Chuck Bennett plus councilors Brad Nanke, Steve McCoid, and Jim Lewis. The five progressives on the Council oppose the bridge: Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Chris Hoy, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec.

Thus it is the so-called "conservatives" in this town who want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on the Salem River Crossing, since there are alternative ways of relieving rush hour congestion that cost far less than a shiny brand new bridge that would require a $1.50 each way toll to help pay for it -- plus increases in the local gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

And the Third Bridge would be harmful environmentally. It would intrude on the Willamette River Greenway and Wallace Marine Park, while adding to Salem's greenhouse gas emissions. 

Hmmmm. How is it that Salem conservatives are so loath to conserve money and natural resources, while it is the liberals who want to be unliberal with taxes/tolling that would need to be imposed on the citizenry to pay for the bridge? 

The answer seems to be that supporters of the Third Bridge tend to be big-spending conservatives, while opponents are frugal liberals -- of which I'm proud to be one.