Salem Political Snark

City Council still confused about Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District

Last night the City Council decided to take another month to consider its reconsideration of a Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District that appears to have support mainly from the developers who would pocket money supplied by lot owners in south Salem. 

A hearing was supposed to clear up questions about the Reimbursement District, but it seemed that as many questions were raised as answered. So after lengthy discussion, Mayor Chuck Bennett moved to hold open the hearing until the April 23 City Council meeting. That motion was passed unanimously by nine rather confused councilors.

In case you've missed the twists and turns of this issue -- and if you only read the Statesman Journal, you've missed out completely, because our local newspaper no longer covers most local news, including news about the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District -- here's my blog posts about this subject, listed from oldest to newest..

City Council poised to make public pay for improvements, not Larry Tokarski
Why did Larry Tokarski start, then stop, construction of Lone Oak Road?
Larry Tokarski leaves the public with a $7.5 million development bill
Neighborhood association asks City Council to reconsider Lone Oak Road decision
Salem City Council reconsiders making public pay for Lone Oak Road improvements
Is Larry Tokarski the developer of Creekside?
Salem Weekly delves into messy history of Creekside development
Statesman Journal reporter criticizes Salem Weekly for story his paper didn't cover
City staff ignore neighborhood association questions about Creekside development

The hearing last night featured quite a few complaints from people who would have to pay thousands of dollars to the Reimbursement District when a house was built on their lot, even if they'd rarely, if ever, use an extension of Lone Oak Road.

They questioned why owners of lots quite far from Lone Oak Road would have to pay up, while current residents of the Creekside neighborhood wouldn't have to pay anything.

In my three-minute testimony, I argued that there didn't appear to be a need for a Reimbursement District. You can either listen to what I said via the You Tube video below, or read my remarks in a continuation to this post. 

Several city councilors said they'd be submitting questions to City staff that they'd like answers to when the Reimbursement District is discussed again at the April 23 City Council meeting.

Here's a key question that I hope gets asked and answered: Is the Creekside developer required to build a bridge over Jory Creek and an extension of Lone Oak Road, or is constructing these improvements the responsibility of the City of Salem?

I recall that City staff said last night that if the Creekside developer plats Phase 14, the bridge and road would have to be built as a condition of moving ahead with the development of that phase. However, the staff report for the Reimbursement District reconsideration hearing only speaks of the Creekside developer being required to construct Lone Oak Road.

The Creekside developer is required to construct Lone Oak Road between Muirfield Avenue and Augusta Drive as a condition of the next sub-phase of Creekside’s Phase 14 development. However, the timing of construction is at the developer’s discretion, not the City’s. Therefore, this condition to construct Lone Oak Road is also being imposed on other developments in the area since the street is needed to serve these other properties.

There also was considerable talk about a 2015 Memorandum of Understanding that called for the City of Salem to build the bridge and possibly also the road (the MOU language isn't crystal clear on this point), with the Creekside developer seemingly only being responsible for dedicating the right of way for the northern extension of Lone Oak Road. 
Download Attachment 7 - Creekside MOU 052715

The MOU calls for the City of Salem to include $750,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2016 through 2020 to build the bridge. But the plan for the Reimbursement District assumes that the bridge will cost $5,6 million. So there's close to a $5 million discrepancy between what City officials thought the Jory Creek crossing would cost in 2015, and what it now is estimated to cost,

This is a major screw-up which was cause for concern at previous City Council hearings. Last night it was learned who was responsible for the $5 million mistake: Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director. He said that he failed to get a cost estimate from the City engineering staff, choosing instead to rely on a cost estimate by the Creekside developer. 

Here's a video I made of Fernandez' admission that he was the one who screwed-up.

This $5 million mistake by Fernandez is important for reasons beyond the high dollar figure. Here's why:

(1) Peter Fernandez had numerous opportunities to come clean about why the cost of the Jory Creek crossing mushroomed from less than a million dollars to almost six million dollars. But he only revealed his failure to get a cost estimate from his engineers under close questioning from Councilor Tom Andersen last night. This calls into question Fernandez' credibility on other issues, and is a valid reason to wonder why he should continue to serve as Public Works Director.

(2) It was acknowledged yesterday that given the $5.6 million cost of a bridge over Jory Creek, there is little likelihood that the Creekside developer will ever choose to build the bridge. So this eliminates a major rationale for the Reimbursement District, which already obviously is on shaky ground given the fact that after approving it, the City Council voted to reconsider that decision, and now has decided to spend a month considering the reconsideration before the April 23 Council meeting.

(3) To elaborate on the above, it makes little sense for the City of Salem to include money to build the bridge in a future Streets & Bridges bond measure, then pay back some of that money via funds raised through the Reimbursement District. If this happened, money provided by all property tax payers in Salem would be reimbursed by assessments placed on several hundred lots in the south Salem area that are part of the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District. Those lot owners would be justifiably irked by this.

(4) Their irritation would be justified for several reasons, one of them being that City staff said that the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District is by far the largest district of that kind in Salem. In other words, and as already noted, lot owners who are far away from Lone Oak Road are being asked to pay for bridge/road improvements. The fact that the City of Salem would be the entity being reimbursed by those lot owners for bridge construction makes the Reimbursement District even more unfair.

Another nail in the coffin of the Reimbursement District is the fact noted by City staff last night that two subdivisions planned for the area south of Sahalee Drive include about 120 lots (outlined in purple and orange above). The developers of these subdivisions (one 10 acres, the other 20 acres) are responsible for building the southern extension of Lone Oak Road to Rees Hill Road.

Bizarrely, last night City staff said that since the Reimbursement District assessment per lot would be about $10,000, the $1.2 million raised (120 times $10,000) just about equals the cost of building the southern extension of Lone Oak Road. So the City of Salem would collect $1.2 million from the developers, then reimburse the developers for the $1.2 million they'd just paid to the Reimbursement District.

Um, here's another idea: ditch the idea of the Reimbursement District and simply have the two developers build the southern extension of Lone Oak Road for $1.2 million, sharing the cost between them. 

Bottom line: the Lone Oak Road reimbursement district is a solution in search of a problem. Read my testimony below for why this is the case.

City staff ignore neighborhood association questions about Creekside development

Stonewalling. Obfuscating. Ignoring.

There's numerous ways to describe how City of Salem staff are failing to respond to questions from the South Gateway Neighborhood Association (SGNA) about why the Creekside developer hasn't been required to build an extension of Lone Oak Road, the cost of which would be borne by the public if a Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District gets a go-ahead from the City Council next Monday.

The neighborhood association is justifiably irritated at how they've been treated by City staff. Here's an excerpt from a letter submitted by SGNA as advance testimony for the March 26 hearing on the Reimbursement District.
Download March 26 City Council Meeting - SGNA Testimony & Attachments

I've circled in red the unanswered question that I'm most interested in.

When "public servants" willfully ignore questions that, if answered, likely would put them in a bad light, this strikes at the heart of the trust that should exist between government employees and the citizens whom they ostensibly serve. 

Look, everybody makes mistakes. These can be forgiven when a mistake is honestly acknowledged, and sincere efforts are made to prevent the error from happening again.

But City of Salem staff are choosing a different approach: ignore tough questions about how the development of the Creekside neighborhood was handled in an apparent hope that throwing up a smokescreen of verbiage will make concerned citizens forget that their queries were ignored.

I hope the Mayor and other members of the City Council will keep asking the following two simple questions of City staff until they get believable answers. 

What we know is that in 2007 the Creekside developer built a box culvert over Jory Creek and started construction of the northern extension of Lone Oak Road. There are photos of this work in a City of Salem staff report.
Download CITY OF SALEM - File #: 17-341

Here's an excerpt from the report.

In 2007, the Creekside developer initiated construction of the missing segment of Lone Oak Road. Construction plans were prepared by a private engineering consultant and permits were issued by the City. A box culvert was installed over Jory Creek and some preliminary earth grading along the alignment of Lone Oak Road was completed. Work on the project was halted by the developer and no additional work has occurred since 2007. At present, there is no timetable for constructing the bridge and remaining sections of Lone Oak Road SE.

Question 1: Why did the developer halt work on the Lone Oak Road improvements? Permits to construct the missing segment of Lone Oak Road were issued by the City of Salem. So there wasn't any disagreement about the work to be done, given the permits. The work just was stopped by the developer.

Question 2: Why did City officials allow the developer to walk away from completing the Lone Oak Road improvements? Again, the Creekside developer obviously believed they were required to build a bridge and road, or the 2007 work wouldn't have been started. There should be some documentation of an agreement to allow the developer to stop work on the Lone Oak Road improvements, unless the agreement was verbal, which would be bothersome. Yet City staff haven't been able or willing to provide those documents.

Bottom line: there seems to be some sort of cover-up regarding the Creekside developer's failure to complete the Lone Oak Road improvements that were started in 2007. I'm usually loathe to use that word, cover-up, but it seems fitting in this case.

The spin being put forward by City of Salem staff just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The staff report for the reconsideration of a  Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District on the March 26 City Council meeting agenda is in a question and answer format, with the questions having been posed by the South Gateway Neighborhood Association. One Q & A says:

Q5: Why did the estimated cost of the bridge crossing Jory Creek increase so greatly?

A5:  The difference of estimated cost is based on a difference of opinion between City staff and the developer’s engineer as to what will be required by the state and federal permitting agencies for the crossing of Jory Creek. The developer’s engineer proposed a long culvert with deep fills, which is less expensive but has greater environmental impact. City staff proposes a bridge structure, which is more expensive but has a lower environmental impact.

But this answer doesn't make sense, since as noted above, permits were issued by the City of Salem for the bridge and road work initiated by the Creekside developer in 2007. So at that time there wasn't any "difference of opinion" between City staff and the developer's engineer, since City staff approved the developer's plan for the Lone Oak Road improvements. 

And it's incorrect for City staff to say in the answer to Question 5 that the developer's engineer "proposed" a long culvert with deep fills, because this is what was actually built by the developer after getting permits from the City of Salem. Here's the proof:

I realize that Salem's city councilors are unpaid and don't have staff of their own, which makes them dependent on City of Salem employees. However, they still can ask tough questions of City staff and not put up with refusals to answer cogent questions. 

If City staff can't answer the two questions I posed, which reflect questions asked by the South Gateway Neighborhood Association, there shouldn't be a vote on the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District proposal.

Salem citizens shouldn't be asked to foot the bill for completing the unbuilt northern section of Lone Oak Road until it is clear why the Creekside developer was allowed to stop construction of the bridge and road after beginning this work in 2007. Again, the questions are:

Why did the developer halt work on the Lone Oak Road improvements?
Why did City officials allow the developer to walk away from completing the Lone Oak Road improvements?  

Statesman Journal reporter criticizes Salem Weekly for story his paper didn't cover

I've got no problem with reporters dishing dirt on stories from another news outlet. But it sure seems that if they do this, their own coverage of the issue -- or in the case of the Statesman Journal, non-coverage -- becomes open to critiquing. 

Yesterday Statesman Journal reporter Jonathan Bach tweeted about a follow-up story regarding the Creekside development and Lone Oak Road in our town's alternative paper, Salem Weekly.

Gordon Friedman, who used to be a Statesman Journal reporter and now works for the Oregonian, chimed in with a comment on Bach's tweet, as did another person.

Here's my problems with Bach, Friedman, and Ms. Matzo Ball Soup.

First, the Statesman Journal has engaged in exactly zero coverage of an important issue that has consumed a lot of City Council time and is a big concern of the South Gateway Neighborhood Association that represents the Creekside area, along with other south Salem residents.

Namely, who is responsible for leaving a bridge over Jory Creek and an extension of Lone Oak Road uncompleted, and should a Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District be established that shifts the cost of these projects from the Creekside developer to the public?

Salem Weekly has run four stories about this, including a front page opinion piece that I wrote.

So a reporter from a "glass house" newspaper that is doing a spectacularly lousy job covering local news, including City Hall goings-on, shouldn't be throwing stones at an alternative paper that is printing stories the Statesman Journal is ignoring.

Second, Helen Caswell, who wrote the Salem Weekly piece Bach tweeted about, is indeed a journalist. And for that matter, so am I in a very real way. We both write factual, carefully researched pieces, Caswell for Salem Weekly, me for the blogs that I've posted to regularly since 2003 (I also had a two-year stint as a columnist for Salem Weekly).

I don't know what Friedman is referring to when he tweeted, "Lol at all of this. Totally sums up everything that is wrong with the Salem Weekly."

Salem Weekly, along with me, got a letter from an attorney representing Creekside developer Larry Tokarski after the paper published my opinion piece. Caswell's follow-up story addressed several issues raised by the attorney, James Vick. She reviewed a bunch of documents relating to the Creekside development and spoke with City of Salem staff, along with Tokarski's attorney, I believe.

Which gets me to...

Third, if Jonathan Bach had been covering the Creekside/Lone Oak Road story with anywhere near the diligence Caswell and I have, he would have known that this mess (that's the way the Mayor and city councilors describe it) is a highly complex tangled web of voluminous documents, failed commitments, and a notable lack of straight talk from all concerned -- City of Salem staff and people involved with the Creekside development.

Caswell's story, "Opinion run by Salem Weekly is both sound and problematic," reflected this confusion. She basically found that I correctly identified Tokarski as the Creekside developer, though I didn't highlight several legal entities led by Tokarski that carried out the many phases of the Creekside development. 

Tokarski's attorney seemed to claim that the reason construction by the Creekside developer of a bridge over Jory Creek and the northern extension of Lone Oak Road was started in 2007, then stopped, was because of what amounted to a "change order" that markedly increased the cost of the bridge owing to environmental requirements. 

But Caswell notes:

Although Mr. Vick asserted to Salem Weekly that costs shot up because City staff chose at some point to require a more robust bridge or a bridge with a different design or function, this is something we haven’t seen documentation on.

So it's no wonder Caswell couldn't come to firm conclusions about some aspects of the letter from Mr. Vick, Tokarksi's attorney. Even though there are hundreds, and likely thousands, of document pages relating to the Creekside development, somehow supposedly there isn't anything relating to the start/stop 2007 work on the bridge and road.

Like I said, this whole Lone Oak Road issue is a mess.

And who is casting light on it? Well, it sure isn't the Statesman Journal, nor the Oregonian. Below is what a Google search of "Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District" turns up in the top five results. A Salem Weekly story. A City of Salem document. Two of my blog posts. A post from the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog.

Nothing from the Statesman Journal, which used to be called our "paper of record." Now, it's Salem Weekly and bloggers who are writing about local issues that the Statesman Journal isn't covering. So let's ease up on criticism of the work others are doing in your stead, Statesman Journal reporters. 

 

What if Salem was like this...

Today I had an stimulating conversation about Salem, including political goings-on, with a person who had some appealingly fresh ideas about what needs to change in our city to make it a better place to live for everybody -- not just the already well-off.

Our talk got me to thinking about what Salem would be like if... where what follows the "if" is an outcome unconstrained by what exists today, because that would pretty much guarantee more of the same.

Here's a sampling of what my mind came up with. 

What if Salem...

-- Had a City Council that truly reflected the diversity of our population, which would notably include at least one Latino councilor, and ideally several. Plus, four or five women on the nine-member Council, not just two, as is the case now.

-- Was a town where you could easily get anywhere in the city limits at almost any time without a car, because mass transit and safe bike paths had become a priority over hugely expensive street "improvements" that didn't merit that name.

-- Had a Chamber of Commerce that acted as a moderating force between divisive political views, rather than a group that always tilted toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

-- Benefitted from a daily newspaper that covered local issues in a zealous in-depth fashion, keeping people informed about happenings in Salem they needed to know about, along with investigative reporting that wasn't afraid to criticize the rich and powerful in this town.

-- Was a place where minorities got the same respect from the Powers That Be as the white men who have run Salem for, well, forever, and continue to do so today.

-- Had leaders at the City of Salem (City Manager, Department heads) who regularly engaged in no-holds-barred Q & A and discussion sessions with members of the public who could ask them tough questions and expect answers with zero bureaucratic bullshit attached.

-- Never had a governmental committee, task force, work group, or such, that didn't include several members who had direct personal experience with the problem being studied (unlike, say, the current Downtown Homelessness Solutions Task Force which, I'm pretty sure, doesn't have any members who are actually homeless).

-- Had a full-time, well-paid, Truth & Transparency Ombudsperson employed by the City of Salem whose sole job was to ensure that both verbal and written communications by City staff were clear, accurate, and written in language that anyone could understand.

-- Was an outpost for PolitiFact, or a similar fact-checking group, that kept local politicians and other civic leaders on their truth-telling toes, because otherwise they'd be held to account for the lies/falsehoods they told.

-- Had an ongoing outreach program to people in Salem who are marginalized, don't have much of a voice, and feel estranged from local government that gives them a regular "soapbox" at City Council meetings where they get to talk about their unresolved problems and get straight answers about why nothing is being done about them.

--  Became known as the Oregon town with the most innovative, creative approaches to civic problems.

Hey, I can dream.

Salem Weekly delves into messy history of Creekside development

After I wrote an opinion piece for Salem Weekly, "Larry Tokarski leaves the public with a $7.5 million development bill," an attorney representing Tokarski, James Vick, sent a letter to me and the Salem Weekly publisher taking issue with the piece.

In the current issue of Salem Weekly there's a story by Helen Caswell that delves into a couple of questions reflected in Vick's letter:

(1) Is it correct to call Larry Tokarski the Creekside developer?
(2) Was the City of Salem responsible for raising the cost of constructing a bridge over Jory Creek and an extension of Lone Oak Road?

Regarding the first question, here's part of what the story says:

In the first question of who was the developer of the property, the bulk of the documented evidence we could find, beginning with a 1991 letter to the City of Salem from Mr. Tokarski through a 2016 LUBA (Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals) decision document (LUBA No 2016-025) through the transcripts of City Council meetings this spring, indicates that the primary, commonly-understood “developer” is indisputably Mr. Tokarski. This includes his 1991 relationship (as General Partner) with Hawaii Ventures Northwest when he first initiated discussion with the City about stages of development.

This fits with my understanding.

Yes, the story also notes that several legal entities were set up as part of the Creekside development process, but Tokarski signed most of the documents I've been able to review as the General Partner, Managing Partner, or a similar title showing he was a "controlling member" of those entities (in the words of a 2016 Land Use Board of Appeals opinion regarding Creekside). 

The second question wasn't addressed in my story, so I was interested in what Caswell's piece had to say about that issue. In short, not a whole lot that was definitive, which points to the complex, messy, confusing history of who was responsible for building the bridge/Lone Oak Road, and why the cost of the bridge supposedly escalated. 

Caswell writes:

Although Mr. Vick asserted to Salem Weekly that costs shot up because City staff chose at some point to require a more robust bridge or a bridge with a different design or function, this is something we haven’t seen documentation on.

There is still no agreed-on bridge plan and no means of funding for it.

What is undeniable from City Council testimony by citizens, from the frustration of local homeowners in the Creekside HOA and from the letter from James Vick is that nearly every actor in the development feels a sense of injustice about either how this matter is understood or how the costs have been assigned.

That's an accurate portrayal of the situation. However, it seems really strange that so far no one representing the City of Salem or the Creekside developer has been able to answer questions regarding the cost of the unbuilt bridge and northern section of Lone Oak Road. 

The Salem Weekly story has a photo of a culvert that was built over Jory Creek in 2007 by the Creekside developer. In a blog post I shared other photos of the partially completed bridge and road work that were in a City of Salem staff report.

Here's what I don't understand.

Caswell's story indicates that neither the City of Salem nor Tokarski's attorney was able to come up with documents that support the “bridge got way more expensive” explanation for why work was started on the bridge/road, then stopped and never re-started. 

It sure seems that if the Creekside developer started work on a bridge/road project that had certain specifications expecting to cost a certain amount, there would be both documentation of the original construction plan and also documentation of a “change order” requiring a different sort of work and associated cost. And one would think that there also would be documentation of permission being granted to the Creekside developer to stop work on the revised bridge/road project.

 

So it's possible there were some verbal agreements between the Creekside developer and City of Salem staff, given that Caswell was unable to find documentation of any required increase in the cost of the bridge/road project after work on this started in 2007.

 

UPDATE:  The Salem Weekly story says that "it is possible that the developer was not fully aware of federal, state, and city permit requirements protecting riparian habitat which might mandate more expensive building methods (retaining walls and a bridge rather than a long culvert with large fills) than perhaps he initially anticipated." However, a PUD 03-1 document approved by the City of Salem in May 2003 includes this language, circled in red, which appears to show that the Creekside developer should have been aware of the need to consider environmental requirements. 

 

Hopefully more information will be forthcoming before the City Council hearing on March 26 regarding a reconsideration of the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District proposal that was passed by the Council on a 7-2 vote, but which drew valid concerns from the South Gateway Neighborhood Association.

 

Caswell's story ends with a couple of paragraphs that made me think Right on! when I read them. 

While saying that, as far as we can tell, Mr. Hines opinion is largely accurate, Salem Weekly acknowledges that this issue is more complex than the story we printed by him stated. It is also perhaps more nuanced than anyone lacking specialized knowledge or training could explain fully and fairly, especially in any way that is readable for the general public.

Salem Weekly remains open to further documentation on this matter that might be presented by any interested party.

This brings to mind something that I remember from my stint as a Research Associate in the Oregon Health Sciences University Department of Family Practice after I graduated from the Portland State University School of Social Work way back when.

Because part of my job involved patient satisfaction research, I got to sit in on seminars where Family Practice faculty taught the residents in the program (recent M.D.s getting specialized training),

A psychiatrist on the faculty was fond of telling the residents, "Explain things to your patients so your grandmother could understand what you're saying,"

OK, this is mildly sexist, so let's make it "grandmother or grandfather."

Regardless, in my Salem Weekly opinion piece I noted that there was a general consensus at the City Council meeting where the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District was approved that the Creekside developer should have built the bridge over Jory Creek and the northern extension of Lone Oak Road.

Yet no clear "grandmother-friendly" explanations for why this failed to happen were brought forward.

City of Salem staff, in the person of Public Works Director Peter Fernandez, assured councilors that this development mess wouldn't happen again. Well, if no one can say why it happened with the Creekside development, how can anyone be sure that it won't happen again?

Steve Powers, the City Manager, should press hard on getting answers to questions such as why the Creekside developer started construction of the bridge/road, then stopped work before the Lone Oak Road work was completed. The goal wouldn't be so much to assign blame, as to learn from past mistakes so something like this doesn't reoccur.

Salem Bridge Solutions isn't trying to vote out anti-bridge city councilors

The Salem Bridge Solutions group is big on talking about building a half-billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette, but so far their actions are kind of puny. 

A Statesman Journal editorial, "Group urges community to complete city survey on traffic congestion," included some brave words from Salem Bridge Solutions. 

The SBS group's co-founders, Mike and Craig Evans, believe this survey, which runs through March 10, is a good way to capture every idea out there.

But make no mistake. This group of third-bridge supporters that dresses in lime-green T-shirts and plants pro-bridge signs in West Salem front lawns is determined that the Salem River Crossing bridge will get built.

And they're not willing to wait another dozen years for it.

This group is fighting with a grass-roots advocacy the city has not seen in recent memory, and we applaud their activism.

SBS members are not content with the current makeup of the Salem City Council, which is stacked against building a third bridge, and they are making it a priority to replace bridge opponents.

Well, if they want to change the makeup of the City Council, which currently consists of five members opposed to building a new bridge and four bridge supporters, they're going to need to defeat at least one of the city councilors opposed to a new bridge. 

But in the 2018 election cycle, Salem Bridge Solutions took a pass on finding someone to run against Councilors Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy, who are running unopposed. 

So I guess replacing bridge opponents really isn't a priority for Salem Bridge Solutions and the Evans brothers, or they'd be backing up their words with political action. They like to talk about how much Salem residents supposedly want a Third Bridge, but if this actually was the case, why didn't they find pro-bridge candidates to run against Andersen and Hoy?

(Maybe because the last five City Council races have been won by councilors who oppose a new bridge: Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.)

Salem Bridge Solutions is focusing on trying to hold the Ward 8 seat currently held by Jim Lewis, who is facing a strong challenge from Micki Varney. 

Varney, who is backed by Progressive Salem, isn't opposed to a Third Bridge. She just recognizes reality: since there is no final land use decision for the Salem River Crossing owing to an adverse legal decision that can't be rectified given the current composition of the City Council, the bridge's Environmental Impact Statement can't be finalized. 

Without the Environmental Impact Statement, the bridge can't be built. Also, without at least half a billion dollars the bridge can't be built, and there's no funding in sight for it from either the state or federal government. 

It's unfortunate that Salem Bridge Solutions isn't telling the truth about Micki Varney's position on a Third Bridge. Their Facebook page contains this falsehood from Mike Evans:

No, Micki Varney doesn't oppose the bridge. She is in favor of working on other ways to reduce rush hour congestion in the downtown area, because it's clear that a Third Bridge can't be built in the foreseeable future. 

A letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal, "Council candidate Varney not opposed to third bridge,"  correctly states Varney's position on a new bridge.

Fake news has leeched its way into the race for Ward 8 of the Salem City Council.

The fake news says candidate Micki Varney opposes building a third bridge.

Snopes would call this false because truth be told, Micki supports building a third bridge. She even supports the idea of fourth bridge should West Salem grow enough to need one.

The fake news is based on the fact that Micki recognizes it could be 10, or even 20 years, before a third bridge could be built, and she doesn’t want Salem residents to have to wait that long to solve congestion problems.

So Micki has devised an eight-point, traffic-congestion reduction plan that would be affordable and achievable within the next four years.

Examples (from her plan) include: building Marine Drive to divert traffic from Wallace Road NW and adding an additional lane to the current bridges when they’re retrofitted to survive earthquakes.

Bottom line: Micki supports affordable short-term solutions to traffic congestion, and she’s cool with building a third bridge (and someday maybe even a fourth one).

Anyone who says Micki opposes building a third bridge is dishing out fake news.

Jesse Barton
Salem

Jackie Leung should get Progressive Salem support for her City Council campaign

I'm a proud member of Progressive Salem. It's great that the group has helped elect five progressives to the City Council, a majority. But here's some constructive criticism about how Progressive Salem decides who to endorse.

So far, Progressive Salem is sitting on its hands when it comes to the Ward 4 race in south Salem. This seems ridiculous, since the two candidates are...

Steve McCoid, the incumbent, who was narrowly elected in 2014 by about 200 votes. He defeated Scott Bassett, who was a Salem United candidate, which was a sort of precursor to Progressive Salem.

McCoid leans conservative. He favors building the Third Bridge, or Salem River Crossing, as evidenced by his being part of a four member City Council minority that voted in favor of an agreement that would have helped the project move forward. This puts him at odds with the five progressives on the council: Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.

To date McCoid's largest contribution for his 2018 re-election campaign is $2,500 from the Oregon Realtors Political Action Committee. 

Jackie Leung is challenging McCoid. She's a graduate of the Willamette University College of Law and University of Iowa School of Public Health. She's the Chair of the Micronesian Island Community organization. Her bio reads like a liberal dream candidate.

She works as a Community Organizer with the COFA Alliance National Network. In addition to serving as Chairperson of the Micronesian Islander Community, Ms. Leung is also a Community Health Worker Supervisor, focusing on meeting the community health needs of the Micronesian community.  Ms. Leung is an active member and supporter of the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon. She also is active in multiple organizations, including the Hunger-Free Leadership Institute, Developing Equity Leadership through Training and Action. Her legal and public health background provide her with valuable insight into health policy, advocacy, and legislation. 

So why isn't Progressive Salem supporting a liberal woman of color over a conservative white man?

After all, Progressive Salem is supporting another woman, Micki Varney, in her campaign against Ward 8 incumbent Jim Lewis. Lewis is described on the Progressive Salem web site as "a conservative Republican who draws the majority of his support from homebuilders, developers and realtors."

Well, Steve McCoid also is a conservative who draws the majority of his support from the same homebuilders, developers, and realtors, judging by the contributions to his 2018 campaign so far. 

Why, then, is Jackie Leung currently getting so little love from Progressive Salem? Here's some theories, along with my critique of each, based on what I've been able to surmise about the Progressive Salem endorsement process. 

(1) Progressive Salem only backs candidates they feel they can go all in for. Door to door canvassing is a big part of the Progressive Salem success story. This takes a bunch of volunteers plus organizing time. OK, maybe Progressive Salem can't run a full bore canvassing campaign for both Micki Varney and Jackie Leung. But this doesn't stop the group from simply endorsing Leung as the most progressive Ward 4 candidate and urging a vote for her. That costs nothing, yet gives Leung increased credibility as a liberal alternative to the conservative Steve McCoid.

(2) Jackie Leung announced her candidacy after Progressive Salem arrived at its political game plan for the 2018 City Council elections. Well, plans can be changed. Progressive Salem should remain flexible until after the deadline for filing for City Council seats, which occurred recently. Incumbent progressive councilors Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy don't have challengers, so this frees up time, money, and energy for the Ward 4 and 8 contests being waged by Jackie Leung and Micki Varney. Failing to back Leung makes no sense, since she clearly is the most progressive Ward 4 candidate.

(3) Progressive Salem wants to win so bad, they won't back potential losers. Hopefully this theory isn't true, even though I've heard fellow local political junkies suggest it. Hey, every candidate is a potential loser. Elections are unpredictable. Nationally, Democrats are showing their strength by running candidates (who often are women) in 2018 races that in previous years would have been ceded to Republicans. Progressive Salem should endorse every progressive candidate who steps up to run in a City Council race. Repeat, every candidate. If they win, great. If they lose, at least progressives tried. Ward 4 is a "purple" ward, about evenly divided between left- and right-leaning people. Clinton beat Trump by just 20 votes in Ward 4 in the 2016 presidential election.

(4) Steve McCoid is a tolerable city councilor, so progressives should work with him, not against him. This is the worst reason I've heard about why Progressive Salem isn't endorsing Jackie Leung. It drives me nuts when liberals aren't willing to be as committed as conservatives are to getting a hold of the reins of political power. Conservatives controlled the Salem City Council for many years because they went all out to elect right-wing candidates.

Now progressives have a narrow 5-4 majority on the council and I hear talk of "Let's just all get along; McCoid and other conservatives can be worked with." That's the sort of mentality that will bring an end to the current progressive majority. Sure, it's good to be collegial. But collegiality should end when election time comes around and there's a clear choice between a progressive and a conservative.

Bottom line: there are many good reasons for Progressive Salem to endorse Jackie Leung for her Ward 4 campaign. Hopefully this will happen. It makes no sense for Progressive Salem to be neutral on the race between Leung and Steve McCoid. The group needs to endorse Jackie Leung, even if it doesn't feel it can help her with canvassing. 

Especially in 2018, the year of the woman candidate. 

City of Salem's downtown traffic congestion survey seems screwy

Look, I love surveys. Properly done, they're a great way to find out how people feel about some issue. But the City of Salem's survey about ideas to relieve downtown traffic congestion strikes me as a simplistic, poorly-thought-out effort.

(Paper version is here; online version can be found here.)

First, the survey is weirdly open-ended. It consists of a single question, with other queries being background information about the person taking the survey.

Well, it isn't a bad idea to ask people this open-ended question. But as I noted in a comment on a Statesman Journal editorial about the congestion survey, failing to ask people about how they feel about various ways that have been identified to improve downtown traffic flow seems like a missed opportunity.

The City of Salem's Congestion Survey is curious. Also, suspicious. It basically only asks one open-ended question, what's your idea for reducing downtown congestion?

I've never seen a similar survey by the City of Salem. Usually, as with the recent Riverfront Park and Streetscape surveys, citizens are asked their opinion about various discrete policy options.

In this case, it seems as if City officials wanted the single open-ended question to elicit cries of "Build another bridge!"

Already several ways to reduce congestion around the exsiting bridges have been suggested. For example, adding a lane to the current bridges and making the approaches flow better.

So why didn't the City survey lay out these options and ask people their view of them, along with an open-ended question? Instead, it's predictable that the Salem Bridge Solutions group will pack the survey results with "Build a third bridge!"

This really won't advance the cause of reducing congestion, since there is no money for a new bridge, there isn't majority political support for it on the City Council, and other ways of reducing congestion can be implemented much more quickly at a far lower cost.

Here's how the editorial, "Group urges community to complete survey on traffic congestion," which sounds like it was written by the Chamber of Commerce, starts off.

Salem is asking residents for ideas to reduce traffic congestion in downtown and West Salem, and the Salem Bridge Solutions group is hoping the community will tell it that a new bridge was needed a decade ago.

However, a new half-billion dollar bridge across the Willamette River isn't what the City of Salem's Congestion Relief Task Force is supposed to be considering. This fact was made clear in the staff report that preceded the City Council voting to form the task force., which I quoted from in "City Council plans to reduce traffic congestion without a Third Bridge."

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.

So the goal of the task force is to study traffic options independent of what happens with the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge. Yet given the fact that the only question on the congestion survey is entirely open-ended, the pro-bridge Salem Bridge Solutions group sees this as an opportunity for its members to write in "Build a new bridge!" 

Which is at odds with the information provided in the survey itself, which speaks of the task force coming up with near-term options to improve traffic flow in the downtown area.

I'm worried that after Salem Bridge Solutions supporters flood the survey results with "Build it now!" this will become a distraction from the actual purpose of the Congestion Relief Task Force -- to identify ways to improve traffic flow in the downtown area that don't involve the fantasy of constructing a Third Bridge.

The Statesman Journal editorial is remarkably off-base in several regards. 

First, it praises the grass-roots activism of the pro-bridge Salem Bridge Solutions group while ignoring the longstanding grass-roots activism of people opposed to a new bridge. In recent years five city councilors have been elected who oppose spending half a billion dollars on a Third Bridge that would mostly be paid for by tolls on both the new bridge and the two current bridges: Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.

So that's a pretty clear sign that people in Salem aren't enamored with building a new bridge. Another sign is the result of a scientific survey mentioned in the editorial which found that traffic congestion and roads were "less urgent concerns" that homelessness and affordable housing.

But the Statesman Journal editorial board appears to view facts as just irritants to be ignored. For the board said:

We disagree with those conclusions. All three issues are of paramount concern to residents and deserve the city's attention.

Hmmmm. A phone survey says that traffic congestion and roads aren't a big concern of Salem residents. But the editorial board somehow knows otherwise, saying homelessness, affordable housing, and traffic congestion are all of "paramount concern" to residents.

Well, there's no evidence of this, except in the half-billion-dollar bridge-loving minds of the Statesman Journal editorial board. And they're forgotten the cardinal rule of transportation planning.

 

Capitol Auto Group cancels sponsorship of Gator & Denise radio show

Let's give some love to the Capitol Auto Group for standing up to right-wing extremism and lies on a local radio show. If you want to thank the folks at Capitol Auto Group, a message can be sent via their web site's "Contact Us" page.

A post on the Salem Resists Facebook page reports that after the Capitol Auto Group was contacted about advertising on KYKN, where the Gator & Denise show had mocked survivors of the Florida high school shooting and wrongly called one of them a "crisis actor," Capitol Auto Group said they had pulled their sponsorship of that show and will review their association with KYKN when the current contract is concluded.

Don’t remember if it was this page or another one, but Brian Hines reported about the Gator & Denise show on kykn & the terrible things they said about the parkland survivors. The station’s webpage lists the station sponsors. I contacted Capitol Auto group because I bought my last car from them & had planned on buying my next one there. I let them know I would go elsewhere because of their support to kykn & the program.

Here’s their response. “We at Capitol were made aware of the situation and have taken steps to address it. First we met with the radio station in question after hearing of the broadcast. Our sponsorship of the show in which the broadcast occurred has been cancelled. In addition, when our current contract is concluded we will closely review our association with KYKN.”

Yes, I did indeed report on the terrible things Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke said about the Parkland survivors in "Gator & Denise hate radio show mocks Florida shooting survivors."

Gaynor and Nanke would be odious enough if they simply promulgated extreme right-wing views. What makes them truly obnoxious is their habitual spreading of lies that anyone with an Internet connection and a minute or two to spare could easily detect. 

But they don't take the time to do that, because truth doesn't matter to Gator & Denise.

In the clip from Tuesday's show they parroted a conspiracy theory that one of the Parkland students is a "crisis actor" who goes around the country getting on TV to spout his liberal views in a ghoulish fashion, to quote Denise Nanke. 

This, of course, is completely false. David Hogg is a genuine Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student. A CBS-Los Angeles story explains how unethical right-wingers conjured up the false "crisis actor" propaganda. 

The fact that a major KYKN advertiser would revoke its sponsorship of the Gator & Denise show indicates how student activism following the seventeen shooting deaths at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school by someone wielding an AR-15 assault rifle has changed the tone of the gun control debate in this country.

(Here's a list of all of the KYKN advertisers/sponsors.)

Pleasingly, there's now much less tolerance for extremism that doesn't recognize the urgent need for action on mass shootings that keep on happening in these gun-crazy United States. Numerous corporations have cut their ties with the NRA, which so far is stonewalling efforts to prevent the next mass shooting.

Ordinarily I'm not wild about boycotts and demands that businesses stop advertising on certain media outlets. But exceptions like this one are important when there's a consistent pattern of someone going way over the top on negative hate speech. Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke don't merely engage in conservative talk. Their tone is often mocking, insulting, and degrading.

For example, they ranted about the Salem City Council passing an inclusive city resolution in much the same way they mocked student activists who survived the Parkland mass shooting. 

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

So it's good that KYKN advertisers are feeling some heat for sponsoring the Gator & Denise show. Everybody makes factual mistakes from time to time. That really isn't the issue here, though Gaynor and Nanke shouldn't have uncritically accepted the "crisis actor" conspiracy theory.

More importantly, they've demonstrated a pattern of engaging in what I like to call "hate radio" talk. Sure, this is common among extreme conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, who also is carried by KYKN, has made a career out of crude insults. But we shouldn't let Salem become another bastion of hate radio speech. 

Capitol Auto Group has done the right thing. Over many years my wife and I have bought or leased six cars from them (a couple of Toyota Priuses and Highlanders, plus a couple of Chevy Volts). Now we'll feel even better about being Capitol Auto Group customers.

Mayor Chuck Bennett wasn't on the Gator & Denise show this past Wednesday, which is the usual day he's on the show.

I don't know whether this is a sign that Bennett is rethinking the wisdom of being a regular on the show, or if there was some other reason for his absence. But hopefully he and other members of the City Council will seriously consider saying NO to being on the Gator & Denise show.

Micki Varney is a great candidate for the West Salem city council seat

If you live in Ward 8, which is most of West Salem, I hope you'll vote for Micki Varney in the May election. I've heard Varney speak several times, and it's obvious that she'll make a great Salem city councilor. 

Here's a photo of Varney at a fundraiser for her campaign that I attended last night. I'm the gray-haired guy who has a blue jacket on the back of his seat.

A close-up from her web site reflects some of Varney's appealing attributes: openness, honesty, intelligence, good humor. She's a salmon biologist who wants to use her scientific approach to figure out what's best for her constituents in West Salem, and Salem in general.

This is so refreshing. 

There's way too much political polarization at all levels of government. It was music to my ears to hear Varney talk about studying all sides of an issue, gathering solid data to inform policy-making, and listening to what people who live in Ward 8 want and need.

She comes across as wonderfully authentic.

Unlike many politicians, when Varney speaks I don't get the sense that she's trying to impress anybody, or trying to come across as someone who knows more than they really do. She expresses herself clearly and concisely, then pauses to hear what others think about what she said.

Here's her background, as summarized on her web site.

Micki Varney is a salmon biologist who wants to bring her sharp, analytical mind to finding smart solutions for Salem.

She has had experience as a city councilor in the town of Dayton, Washington, before she moved to Salem in 2010 to take a job with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In Salem she has been active in the local chapter of the American Association of University Women, serving a term as President. She also has been a leader in her union, SEIU Local 503, where she serves as the Chief Steward for ODFW.

In her job Micki currently assesses the performance of Oregon’s salmon hatcheries and recommends changes to save endangered wild salmon runs.

Micki is an avid angler and sportswoman. She loves West Salem and is dedicated to making it the best it can be for children, families, and seniors.

It's great that in a year when more women are running for office than ever before, Salem has a chance to elect a highly qualified woman to the City Council to join Cara Kaser and Sally Cook, who currently are the only women on the nine-member council. 

Her positions sound right-on.

Give her Facebook page a "like" if you want to keep up with Micki Varney's campaign, which is being fueled by a large group of enthusiastic volunteers. She's running a genuine grass-roots effort with lots of of door-knocking and face-to-face contact.