Salem Political Snark

Cycleshare program will show how difficult it is to bike in Salem

It's great that a bicycle sharing program, Capitol City Cycleshare, is set to begin around late January to mid-February.

Aside from giving people in Salem an easy and inexpensive way to cycle, another benefit is that the program will show how difficult it is to ride a bicycle in most parts of our town. 

An email message I got from Evan Osborne, who is leading the Cycleshare effort, says that seven stations are planned, with money currently available for six stations. 

Hello Cycleshare Sponsors and Advocates,

I am happy to announce all legal teams are in consensus with a formal agreement giving permission for our cycleshare program to operate within Salem's public properties! This agreement has been put on the agenda to be approved by the City Council, November 13th. Once approved, we will be moving forward with station installs. Our vendor has made a tentative 60-day install commitment. This means we are looking at a late January to mid-February launch!

 

Currently, we have six of the planned seven stations accounted for financially. If you know of other organizations and/or individuals who may want to align with our efforts in growing the program, please send them our way!

 

Thank you for your continued advocacy and support. 

 

Kind Regards,

Evan

The Cycleshare web site shows the location of four stations. A Statesman Journal story says these will be at: Salem's Riverfront Carousel, the Union Street Railroad Bridge, Courthouse's West Salem location and the Downtown Transit Center.

This makes sense, since it is the only part of Salem with access to safe, pleasant, easy-to-ride multiuse trails at Minto-Brown Island Park, Riverfront Park, and Wallace Marine Park. 

But that leaves almost all of Salem as almost entirely lacking places to ride a bicycle that, at best, are denoted by painted lines on a busy road filled with vehicles whizzing by a few feet (or even a few inches) away.

In a post today, "What should we expect from a Public Bikes Program," the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger did his usual excellent job writing about transportation and land use issues in this town.

After noting the usage of bike share programs in Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis -- 1 to 3 trips per day per bicycle --  came these observations about Salem's program, which will start with 30 bikes from the ridesharing company Zagster:

So if we expect something more like one trip per day per bike, that's 30 new bike trips each day.

That might be a nice amenity for tourism marketing and cachet, but that's not a meaningful difference in downtown transportation.

So, you know, start small, hope for success, and build off of that. But we should be clear this is a perk or amenity, not a difference-maker for mobility.

It's an ornament.

It's also not clear that there will be much riding outside of the Wallace-Riverfront-Minto Park system. To be sure, that the Union and Minto Bridges connect them all is a great boon! But that's recreating, not commuting or utility cycling.

You might remember the piece from a couple of years ago about an attempt to bike downtown. There will be a station at the transit mall, but how will users ride?

From the piece:

I'll confess that our tour was a combination of cycling and walking. This mom errs on the side of caution when it comes to bicycling with kids. I'm very thankful for the new bike lanes recently created in downtown Salem, but when the map took us on busy streets where bikes and cars travel together, we walked our bikes on the sidewalk. [italics added]

One of the probable consequences of having a public bike system downtown without also adjusting the streets, especially for east-west travel, is that we will have more sidewalk biking.

Certainly there will be more path riding in the park system.

Altogether, what I see is a city that likes the idea of being able to say it has a bikeshare system, as a kind of symbol of hip culture, but not a city that's really very passionate yet about making it easy to bike and ensuring that riders have the right infrastructure, especially downtown where the stations are clustered.

Right on. 

Earlier this month I noted in a blog post that the 2018 City of Salem Community Report had only one mention of bicycling, and that was in a section about LED street lamps. 

I searched the report for every mention of "bicycle." There was exactly one. Here it is. LED lamps provide good lighting for bicycles, along with cars and pedestrians. Whoopee.

Of course, that assumes it is safe and easy to read a bicycle in Salem, which it isn't. The absence of any mention of bike paths or dedicated multiuse paths shows how autocentric City of Salem policies are. We're way behind other cities in Oregon in this regard.

Hopefully Capitol City Cycleshare will help spur a redirection of resources away from hugely expensive road projects to much more cost-effective protected paths for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, scooter riders, and other alternative ways of getting around town.

When people sign up for the Cycleshare program and start riding the bikes, they're going to find that it's neither easy nor safe to cycle in Salem in most places outside of the "tri-park" area where the first stations will be located.

Complaining to City officials and city councilors to do something about this will be in order.

City Club debate on Measure 105 shows wisdom of voting "No"

I've already voted NO on Measure 105, which would overturn Oregon's successful sanctuary state law that prevents law enforcement agencies from using state resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is federal immigration law.

Nothing I heard at today's Salem City Club debate on Measure 105 made me question in the slightest how I voted. 


The debate was between Cynthia Kendoll (on the left) and Andrea Williams (on the right). Kendoll is president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Williams is executive director of CAUSA, Oregon's statewide immigration rights organization.

Williams' expression as Kendoll was speaking mirrored how I felt about Kendoll's exceedingly weak argument for voting Yes on Measure 105. Basically, Kendoll said that laws have to be followed; immigrants who are here illegally are breaking the law; so Oregon law enforcement agencies should help federal ICE agents find them so they can be deported.

On the other hand, Williams pointed out sound reasons to vote No. 

She talked about examples of racial profiling that occurred in Oregon prior to the passage of our sanctuary state law. Williams also said that without that law, undocumented immigrants would be wary of contacting the police or testifying in an investigation. 

There was some back-and-forth about whether undocumented immigrants commit more or fewer crimes than the general population. Studies show that "fewer" is the correct answer. (See here and here.)

So Kendoll was wrong when she tried to argue that Measure 105 would make Oregonians safer. She vainly tired to claim that undocumented immigrants engage in more lawbreaking than documented immigrants.

But as a City Club member pointed out in the course of asking a question, it makes sense that people who can't get a drivers license (for example), yet need to drive to get to work, will have more "driving without a license" citations than those who can get a license. 

In other words, illegality most often is a case of this country's broken immigration laws, which don't allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.

Not surprisingly, I felt that a question I asked of Cynthia Kendoll was brilliant.

It came to me while I was staring at a slide that was left on a screen for most of the debate to summarize the core difference between voting yes or no on Measure 105. I began to wonder about substituting a different word in the bottom line for "immigration."

Like, "marijuana." So this is how my question went to Kendoll, as best I can recall:

Along with others in the audience, I'm a federal lawbreaker, since I use marijuana, and it's illegal under federal law. So I'm wondering if you'd be in favor of local and state law enforcement agencies here in Oregon working with federal agents to arrest people who are using marijuana -- even though it is legal in this state. Conservatives like you usually are in favor of state's rights. But since you favor using state resources to enforce federal immigration law, are you in favor of also using state resources to enforce the federal marijuana law?

Kendoll's answer was so lame, and so unresponsive to my question, I can barely remember what it was. It had something to do with federal immigration law catching criminals, I think. But every marijuana user in Oregon also is a criminal in the eye of federal law enforcement, so this response made little or no sense.

This just shows the hypocrisy of conservatives. They're all for states rights when it comes to gerrymandering, restricting the right to vote, and limiting access to abortions, but on immigration policy and sanctuary state laws, they're all in for federal control. 

Bottom line: vote NO on Measure 105.

 

Eight large white oaks to be killed for a new Costco store in Salem

What's the value of eight lives? Is it greater or less than the desire of Costco to build a new Salem store on the graves of the deceased?

I'm talking about the lives of large white oaks, not humans. But those are important questions to tree-loving people like me, which includes many of the neighbors who live near the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center where the Salem Costco is planned to be relocated.

Here's a photo of a beautiful white oak in our yard. I wanted to show it before discussing the rather dry details of what Costco is proposing to do with the property, and what City of Salem officials recently approved. 

My wife and I love this tree. We've been told it's about 250 years old. It was here long before us, and we hope that it will be here long after we're gone. The tree is about 43 inches in diameter, best I can tell.

For tree-lovers like us, a white oak means a lot. I sit on our deck and look at it (yes, I even talk to it) when I'm feeling down. The fact that it has stood there for centuries, lasting through all kinds of storms, helps make me feel that whatever I'm going through, I too can endure -- just for not nearly as many years as the tree.

Here's a image from architect Geoffrey James that shows the proposed site plan for the new Costco store.

I found it in the October 23 Land Use Decision documents posted on the City of Salem web site. James added the language under the black line, since he favors saving the significant white oaks by having the Costco store built in a different location on the property.

Those little green dots in the footprint of the proposed store represent "significant" white oaks, meaning oaks greater than 24 inches in diameter. Note that there are five Pros listed for this site plan, and only one Con: "All oak trees removed."

Four little words. But they say a lot.

Costco and the City of Salem view "All oak trees removed" as the price of allowing commercial development to occur next to a residential neighborhood. Neighbors, not surprisingly, see those words much differently.

Above is a portion of a letter submitted to City officials by an attorney hired by neighbors who oppose the current Costco development plan. The letter correctly says that removal of significant Oregon White Oaks for a commercial development is allowed only when the removal is "necessary." 

So what does "necessary" mean in this context?

Given the dictionary definition of this word, seemingly it means required, unavoidable, inescapable, compulsory. But the image above, again with language added by Geoffrey James, shows an alternative site plan prepared by the Costco consultant that preserves all of the white oaks. 

Several other alternative site plans, which I haven't shown, would also preserve all or some of the white oaks. Here's a PDF file of testimony submitted by James in opposition to the "kill all the Oaks" Costco site plan. It shows all of the alternative plans submitted by the Costco consultant.
Download COSTCO OAKS PROTECTION

Thus it sure seems that destruction of the eight significant white oaks wasn't "necessary" for Costco to do; it just was what Costco "desired" to do. And so far City officials have gone along with that desire.

This isn't the end of the Costco development tale.

Neighbors might appeal the City's decision to approve the current design of the project. (I'd certainly contribute to a Save the Oaks fundraising campaign that pays for legal fees.) And the City Council might have the final say on the current proposal that removes the eight significant white oaks.

It's good that both the Salem Reporter and Statesman Journal have published stories on this subject. But I don't think either Troy Brynelson or Jonathan Bach covered the proposed removal of the white oaks in sufficient detail. The Statesman Journal story said:

The city pegged 17 conditions onto its decision, released Tuesday.

Among them: there must be bicycle parking for every one of the proposed buildings; at least 16 Oregon White Oaks have to be part of the shopping center's landscape design; a driveway on 27th Avenue SE should be transformed into a single-lane roundabout; and a stop sign should go in on the new driveway approach for Boone Road SE.

It's true that two white oaks have to be planted for every oak removed. So that probably is how the figure of "at least 16 Oregon White Oaks" was derived. But the new oaks only have to be two inches across, while the eight significant oaks are at least 24 inches in diameter. And hugely bigger and more attractive, of course.

This is what the Salem Reporter story said about the trees:

In a 34-page document outlining its decision, the city said the project must meet at least 17 conditions. The conditions tell PacTrust Realty Group, the Portland firm proposing the project, to include pedestrian pathways, more landscaping, bumper guards in the parking lot, bicycle parking and more.

One condition asks that at least 16 Oregon white oaks are "incorporated into the landscape design for the shopping center." Neighbors had worried construction would chop down existing Oregon white oaks, which Salem city code deems "significant."

Today I emailed Brynelson and told him that I thought he needed to revise the story, since the significant white oaks were slated for removal, showing that the worries of the neighbors were justified. To his credit, Brynelson phoned me this afternoon, and we had a good talk about his story.

He defended the current wording as being technically correct. I agreed, but said that when I first read his story I got the impression that the existing white oaks were going to be part of the landscape design. In fact, I said as much in some Facebook posts that contained a link to the Salem Reporter story.

In my view, it would have been better to add a sentence after the second paragraph: "In fact, the proposal approved by City officials does allow the removal of eight significant white oaks that are at least 24 inches in diameter, with the 16 replacement trees only being required to be 2 inches in diameter."

Brynelson indicated that he may write another story that focuses on how Salem has treated its Oregon White Oaks, which sounds like a great idea. I'm enjoying the Salem Reporter, so don't mistake my quibble with part of the Costco story for a serious criticism of how the journalists there are doing. 

Lastly, the City of Salem has a history of treating large, beautiful, healthy trees badly. Whenever I write about trees, I like to share a link to my 2014 tell-all report about how City officials wrongly cut down five gorgeous downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it. See:

"Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."

Here's what Trump didn't say about the pipe bombs

I'm going to channel my inner Stephen Colbert for a moment.

Today seven pipe bombs were discovered to have been sent to six people: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, John Brennan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Maxine Waters. Holder was supposed to get a bomb, but it was misaddressed, so it was sent to a fake return address belonging to Schultz.

Because these were all people that Donald Trump has insulted, sometimes viciously, and Trump has called journalists the "enemy of the people" -- Brennan's bomb was sent to CNN, where he works as an analyst -- along with calling Democrats "evil," it was great that Trump apologized at a campaign rally for his incendiary insults, vowing to moderate his tone so as not to add fuel to the fire that led to someone making and sending the bombs.

No... just kidding. Of course Trump didn't do this.

This is the sort of shtick that Colbert frequently engages in -- leading his audience to think that Trump has done something reasonable and presidential for once, then revealing that what he actually did was something quite different. 

One would think that so long as Trump was going to appear at a campaign-type rally in Wisconsin tonight, he'd use that event to bring the nation together after the Democrats, and Democratic sympathizers (that's how I'd characterize Brennan, CIA Director under Obama) were targeted by the pipe bombs.

After all, earlier in the day Trump had said, “We have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America.”

Somebody else must have written that line for him, because soon after Trump was blaming the media for those threats of political violence, even though Trump bears the most responsibility for inciting violence against those he disagrees with. 

MOSINEE, Wis. — President Trump blamed the media and others for incivility after a string of homemade bombs were sent to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, former president Barack Obama and others, even as he refrained from acknowledging his own inflammatory rhetoric at a rally here Wednesday evening.

...“The media also has a responsibility to set a civil tone and to stop the endless hostility and constant negative — and oftentimes, false — attacks and stories,” Trump said.

In an apparent swipe at Democrats, Trump denounced those who “carelessly compare political opponents to historical villains” and who “mob people in public places or destroy public property.”

The president, who has frequently used nicknames such as “Lyin’ Ted” or “Crooked Hillary” to mock his rivals, called for those in the political arena to “stop treating their opponents as morally defective.”

Every day, it becomes more clear that an egotistical asshole occupies the White House. I really can't think of one good thing to say about Donald Trump. 

He lies incessantly. He cozies up to dictators and disrespects our allies. He exhibits zero compassion. He is acting more and more like an authoritarian. He has no sense of decency. He takes pride in breaking every norm of how a president should behave.

Dana Milbank gets it right in a Washington Post column he wrote today.

What hath Trump wrought?

...Trump recently maligned all the targets of Wednesday’s attack. Thirty-six hours earlier, Trump fired up yet more “Lock her up!” and “CNN sucks!” chants. He roiled the crowd to boo “low IQ” Waters. Trump spread false conspiracy theories that Soros funded the migrant caravan and anti-Brett M. Kavanaugh protesters. After Holder said “when they go low, we kick them,” Trump threatened: “He’d better be careful what he’s wishing for.” Trump called Brennan “a total lowlife” and a “very bad guy” who “disgraced the country.”

...But one public figure’s rhetoric has been more violent than all others, and he has the biggest megaphone.

He encouraged supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters and offered to pay attackers’ legal bills. He expressed his wish to punch a heckler in the face. He urged police not to “be too nice” to suspects. He shared a doctored video of himself attacking CNN in a wrestling match. He suggested supporters could use guns to stop Clinton judicial nominees and fantasized about Clinton’s security detail being taken away.

Most recently, Trump hesitated to criticize Saudi Arabia for Saudi operatives’ killing of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi as the president keeps up his attacks on journalists as enemies of the people.

I'll tell you who the biggest enemy of the people actually is: Donald Trump. I can't wait for 2020 to come, so we, the people, can dump Trump. 

Here's my 2018 midterms endorsements: every Democrat on the ballot, plus Measure 102

Since I have a blog called Salem Political Snark, it's dawned on me that I should be making endorsements for both local and statewide races, plus Oregon ballot measures. 

This doesn't mean anybody will pay attention to what I say, but us bloggers don't do what we do because we believe we're influential. We just can't help ourselves, being addicted to putting what's going on inside our head into words on a computer screen, then onto the Internet where others can eavesdrop on the state of our psyche.

So here's how I'm feeling two weeks before the midterm election on November 6.

Short version: Vote for every Democrat on the ballot. Plus, vote "yes" on Measure 102 and "no" on the other measures. Regarding other choices on the ballot, like judges, use your best, um, judgement.

Long version: So why am I being so incredibly tribalistic in urging people to vote for every Democrat over every Republican and third-party candidate? 

Because this is no ordinary election. Donald Trump is no ordinary president. And the G.O.P. that Trump unquestionably has become the leader of is no ordinary political party.

We're living in dangerous times. Our country is on the brink of succumbing to authoritarianism. If you doubt this, read "How Democracies Die." Or at least my blog post about the book.

In that post I noted that the authors of How Democracies Die advised against engaging in hardball tactics against Trump, based on their familiarity with what has worked in other countries facing similar threats against democratic institutions. (Note the small "d.")

But voting for Democrats isn't at all a hardball tactic. It's simply the best way for the United States to begin digging its way out of the messy, smelly, unpleasant hole Trump and his Republican cronies have gotten us into.

Everybody has their own favorite description of the crap that lies in this hole.

Mine is lying, disrespect for the truth, trashing reality. To me this is the biggest danger Trumpism poses to the United States, and to the entire world. Without a core concern for shared facts, both societal and scientific, politics has no foundation for wise decision-making, bipartisan or otherwise.

Driving home today, I heard investigative journalist Carl Bernstein talk about Trump on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time. Bernstein said that all presidents lie. Nixon lied. Clinton lied. George W. Bush lied. Obama lied. Occasionally. 

Trump, though, is an almost non-stop liar. Bernstein said this has been Trump's modus operandi throughout his business career, and he's stepped up his lying after becoming president. We've never had a president with such little regard for the truth.

Or a president so uncaring, so lacking in compassion, so egotistical. (At least in modern times.) 

Few Republicans are willing to stand up against Trump's constant assaults on our shared reality. This is why it is so important to elect Democrats this November. No Republican can be counted on to serve as a counter-weight to Trump.

And for sure this includes Oregon's Republican candidate for Governor, Knute Buehler. So vote for Kate Brown. On health care, climate change, women's rights, and so much else, Brown will continue to be on the side of ordinary Oregonians, not special interests.

Every Republican running for office, both locally and statewide, had to be approved in a primary by members of their party who are avidly pro-Trump. Thus there's no way any Republican on the ballot can be trusted to do what's right for Oregonians, since they're committed to doing what Trump wants.

Today Senator Kamala Harris gave a talk in Iowa where she said, "This is the moment in time that is requiring us to fight for the best of who we are... We are better than this."

Yes, we are. We're way better than Donald Trump and his lying ways. So let's send a message in the form of a Big Blue Wave on November 6.

 

Oregon is #1 in ease of voting. I show why.

Oregonians are appropriately proud of our beautiful, prosperous, progressive state. Now we have another reason to feel superior: Oregon is the easiest place to vote among all 50 states.

A professor in the Political Science Department at Northern Illinois University was the lead author of the study, described in "New study scrutinizes time and effort it takes to vote in each state."

Here's the characteristics that make for easy voting:

Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998, when we became the first state to conduct all elections by mail. We have automatic voter registration via drivers license info, thanks to a bill signed by Governor Kate Brown in 2016. Ballots arrive in the mail about three weeks before election day, which gives plenty of time to vote.

All we need to do is sign the ballot and mail it back so it's received by 8 pm on election day (or drop it in a ballot box, many of which are drive-up). Oregon has online voter registration. People convicted of a felony can't vote while they're in jail, but their voting rights are restored upon their release.

On the down side, voter registration has to occur 21 days before an election in order to be able to vote in that election. 

So all in all, Oregon deserves its #1 ease of voting ranking. I've lived in Oregon since 1971, so I've experienced both the agony of driving to a voting location and standing in line to cast a ballot, and the ecstasy of voting at home.

Which I'm pleased to show.

My ballot for the November 6, 2018 election arrived in the mail a few days ago. Tonight I sat at our kitchen counter, coffee and pen at the ready, and filled in the ballot.

I couldn't find the Marion County Voter's Pamphlet that came in the mail, so I perused the online version to decide on some local judge races. That task completed, I put the ballot in an envelope, signed the back of the envelope, and affixed a stamp.

Done!

Every state should vote by mail. This week there was early voting in Georgia. Reportedly it took two hours to cast a ballot. That's crazy. No one should have to put up with that. Too many states treat voters badly, making it way too difficult to vote.

Currently only Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have 100% vote by mail. But there's hope: a graphic in the ease of voting study shows how states shifted between 1996 and 2016. Oregon used to rank #27. Now we're #1. 

Voters just need to elect state politicians who vow to expand and protect voting rights. Of course, in many states where it's difficult to vote, that's tough to do.

Still, this Oregonian's advice is: Wait in lines. Put up with bad voting laws. Then vote out those who are standing in the way of reforms. Believe me, it's worth the time and trouble to make voting easy for everybody. 

Never lose your anger at Jamal Khashoggi's murder

I've become obsessed with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi Arabia hit squad, and the Trump administration's despicable attempt to absolve Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of that country (who goes by MBS, which I translate at Murdering Big Shit) of a horrendous crime.

Since Khashoggi's death, many times a day I check my iPhone or laptop to see what new information about his murder has come to light. I'm pleased with my anger. I don't want to lose it. And I hope that lots of Americans express their own anger in the upcoming mid-term election by voting for Democrats -- which means, against Trump.

Today I saw that someone on Twitter said that now we can add "aiding and abetting a murderer" to the long list of Trump's misdeeds. 

This isn't far from the truth. In fact, at the moment it seems to be absolutely true. The Washington Post reported this today:

The Trump administration and the Saudi royal family are searching for a mutually agreeable explanation for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — one that will avoid implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is among the president’s closest foreign allies, according to analysts and officials in multiple countries.

But it will be difficult for the young ruler to escape scrutiny, as mounting evidence points not only to the Saudi government’s knowledge of Khashoggi’s fate, but also to a connection by Mohammed to his disappearance.

"Searching for a mutually acceptable explanation" for Khashoggi's death -- WOW.

The truth doesn't matter to Trump, or his lapdog Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who was all smiles when he met with MDS yesterday in Saudi Arabia. They're leaving it up to Saudi leaders to investigate Khashoggi's murder in the Saudi consulate, which is akin to O.J. Simpson's search for the "real killer."

All Simpson had to do was look in the mirror. Ditto with Mohammed bin Salman.

Khashoggi is shown on video walking into the Saudi embassy. He never came out.  Today Turkish officials spoke about what happened to Khashoggi, as reported by the New York Times.

Saudi agents were waiting when Jamal Khashoggi walked into their country’s consulate in Istanbul two weeks ago. Mr. Khashoggi was dead within minutes, beheaded, dismembered, his fingers severed, and within two hours the killers were gone, according to details from audio recordings described by a senior Turkish official on Wednesday.

...The new leaks, which were also splashed in lurid detail across a pro-government newspaper, came a day after Mr. Pompeo and the Trump administration had appeared to accept at face value the promises of the Saudi rulers to conduct their own investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance — regardless of Turkish assertions that senior figures in the royal court had ordered his killing.

As the Saudis and the Americans tried to put the crisis behind them, the brutality described in the leaks served as a reminder of why Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance has triggered an international backlash more severe than countless mass killings or rights violations.

"His fingers severed." We don't know whether Khashoggi was alive or dead when this happened. 

Regardless, let's never forget the courage of this brave journalist, who was a permanent American resident who wrote a column for the Washington Post. And again, let's never forget our anger at MDS and Trump, both of whom are complicit in Khashoggi's murder.

Trump loves to call journalists the "enemy of the people." That's music to the ears of authoritarians like MDS.

They know that under Trump's failed leadership, the United States no longer has any moral standing in the w0rld. All Trump cares about is money and power. He's said that even if MBS murdered Khashoggi, American arms sales to Saudi Arabia must move forward.

A few Republicans are criticizing Trump's attempt to excuse Khashoggi's death and dismemberment. But only a few. Trump gets away with this crap because his supporters are willing to put up with horrible stuff, so long as they get tax cuts for the rich and conservative judges.

This is why voting for Democrats honors Jamal Khashoggi. So long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, there can't be effective oversight of Trump's horrific behavior. 

Yes, a lot of what Trump does is ridiculous. But turning a blind eye to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi isn't funny in the slightest. For me, it is one of the worst things Trump has done since he became president, and believe me, he has done a lot of bad things in the past two years.

Khashoggi went into the Saudi consulate to get a divorce document so he could get married the next day. The Crown Prince must have ordered his murder, since so many of the hit squad were closely linked to MBS, and they arrived and departed from Istanbul on Saudi jets.

Plus, Saudi Arabia is tightly controlled by the Royal Family, so the notion of "rogue agents" Trump is trying to peddle makes no sense.

Tomorrow the Washington Post is publishing Khashoggi's final column, written shortly before he was murdered. It's titled "What the Arab world needs most is free expression." Here's some excerpts from the online version:

My dear friend, the prominent Saudi writer Saleh al-Shehi, wrote one of the most famous columns ever published in the Saudi press. He unfortunately is now serving an unwarranted five-year prison sentence for supposed comments contrary to the Saudi establishment.

The Egyptian government’s seizure of the entire print run of a newspaper, al-Masry al Youm, did not enrage or provoke a reaction from colleagues. These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.

As a result, Arab governments have been given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate. There was a time when journalists believed the Internet would liberate information from the censorship and control associated with print media.

But these governments, whose very existence relies on the control of information, have aggressively blocked the Internet. They have also arrested local reporters and pressured advertisers to harm the revenue of specific publications.

Brave words like these led to Khashoggi's murder by cowardly Saudi leaders, almost certainly led by Mohammed bin Salman. There's no good that has come from Khashoggi's death.

However, many more people now are going to read his columns. Hopefully one day we will be able to look back and view his murder as a turning point that led to much-needed reforms in Saudi Arabia and other repressive Muslim nations.

Danny Jaffer shows why Oregon, and Salem, needs to elect Democrats

Vote for Democrats in the November 2018 election. I was convinced of this before our doorbell rang a couple of hours ago, but I'm even more convinced after chatting with Danny Jaffer, who is running to represent Oregon House District 23.

My wife, Laurel, has been hand writing postcards urging our neighbors out here in rural south Salem to vote for Jaffer. So I'd heard his name, and knew he was running against Republican Mike Nearman. That was it, though.

Talking with Jaffer about his background and why he thinks he can win left me with a really good feeling.

Here's one side of the flyer he left with me. Note that Jaffer is a 20 year Navy veteran. He served in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, and the Global War on Terrorism. 

What's not to like, House District 23 voters? Put more positively, I really liked Jaffer's statement about Oregon Forward on his campaign web site.

Oregon Forward is a movement built on the idea that Oregonians can and should work together to create a healthier, cleaner, and more prosperous community for everyone. Oregon Forward is also a rejection of the dirty politics of fear and intolerance which serve only the interests of deep-pocketed special interests, not you and me.

Whether you’re conservative, liberal, or just fed up with politics altogether, the Oregon Forward campaign seeks to make your voice and your interest the focal point of everything we do. A vote for Danny Jaffer is a vote to strip the power of extreme special interests and return power to everyday Oregonians, where it belongs.

Nicely said. 

I think just about everybody agrees that the tone of today's national politics is disgusting. I'm a political junkie, but it's getter harder and harder for me to listen to the news when I'm driving around. I get fed up with the constant bickering, backbiting, and blather -- to name a few "B's" that come to mind.

Jaffer struck me as a nice straightforward guy. He must have made lots of house calls in the past weeks and months, but while talking to him I didn't feel that anything he said was canned or scripted. 

By contrast, consider this excerpt from a Statesman Journal story about the Jaffer-Nearman race (there's also a Libertarian candidate). It followed numerous quotes from Jaffer, including his observation that Nearman doesn't champion issues important to his community.

Nearman did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. After being contacted by the Statesman Journal, Nearman hung up his phone and did not answer subsequent calls and emails. 

Wow. No wonder Mike Nearman hasn't done much for the people in House District 23. Nearman doesn't want to talk about the issues that voters care about, not even to a Statesman Journal reporter who wants to give him a newspaper soapbox.

Maybe Nearman, like Donald Trump, considers journalists "enemies of the people." A letter to the editor in the Corvallis Gazette-Times raised this possibility. 

As the midterm elections approach, I asked myself: "Who is Rep. Mike Nearman and who does he really represent?"

After searching the Democrat-Herald's website for "Mike Nearman," I found just three brief listings, one announcing his plan to run for re-election this year, and two others about the same meeting he planned to attend.

I also read in the Salem paper that Mike Nearman refused to conduct an interview and hung up the phone on the reporter.

This is the opposite behavior we need from our Oregon state House representative from the 23rd District. We need absolute transparency and effective communication practices such as using and respecting the media. The media are not the enemy of the people. This, combined with his voting to eliminate school lunches and against net neutrality, smacks of someone in the pocket of special interests.

Look, I'm not saying that Democrats are politically perfect. But I do strongly believe that Democrats are more likely to stand up for the interests of the general public than Republicans, since the GOP typically tilts toward special interests such as giant corporations.

I'm familiar with the saying, "All politics is local." However, that used to be way more true than it is today. Donald Trump views the upcoming mid-term elections as a referendum about himself. He wants one-party rule, the Republican party, which he is the leader of.

Democrats like Danny Jaffer see things differently. They want the people to rule, not a party, nor one Supreme Leader. That's why I'm voting for Democrats on November 6. I encourage everybody to do the same.

City of Salem Community Report has pluses and minuses

First off, it's great that City officials have released a 2018 report on how the City of Salem is making progress on goals in the recently adopted Strategic Plan. 
Download 2018-annual-community-report

The report is nicely designed, attractive and clear. It's easy to read. And it reassures citizens that the folks at City Hall have some clear direction in regards to how Salem needs to change for the better.

I've only given the report a quick read, but wanted to share my first impressions of the 2018 Annual Community Report.

The high-level goals in the Strategic Plan strike me as pleasantly vacuous. They're written in bland bureaucratese. It's hard to argue with them. It's also hard to find much meaning in them. To me, a goal should both indicate a path taken, as well as reflect a path not taken.

Just about every city in the country could have this Vision, Mission, and Values. There's nothing here that makes me go, "Wow! It's great that Salem is choosing this unique way forward!" Plus, the grammar of the Vision statement is pretty bad. How could the economy and environment not be open to all? Seems like "that is open to all" should have followed "A safe and livable capital city..."

And again, who wants an unsafe and unlivable capital city? Platitudes have their place, I guess, but they're also pretty much useless in any practical sense.

The obligatory photo of the Mayor and eight city councilors followed the Accessibility value statement (shown above) that Salem is "open and inclusive." OK, but the people who currently lead City Hall are all white, and seven out of nine are male. Next year newly elected councilor Jackie Leung will replace Steve McCoid, so that will bring a bit more inclusivity to the City Council.

It's nice to show this breakdown in the report. What it shows is that most money spent by the City of Salem goes to the police and fire departments and utilities/transportation (transportation meaning roads, almost entirely). Is this what citizens want? Maybe. But if efficiencies are desired in how public dollars are spent, obviously these are the areas to look at first.

People love the Salem Public Library and City parks, by and large. Affordable housing and homeless services, not nearly as much. Not surprising. It just shows that whatever City officials are doing in these areas, more needs to be done. 

A shorter way of describing this section would have been "Things are falling apart and we don't have money to fix them, much less give citizens additional good stuff that they want. So taxpayers are going to need to fork out more money."

I searched the report for every mention of "bicycle." There was exactly one. Here it is. LED lamps provide good lighting for bicycles, along with cars and pedestrians. Whoopee.

Of course, that assumes it is safe and easy to read a bicycle in Salem, which it isn't. The absence of any mention of bike paths or dedicated multiuse paths shows how autocentric City of Salem policies are. We're way behind other cities in Oregon in this regard.

Regarding biking in Salem, it makes no sense to lump walking and biking together. It's easy to walk on a sidewalk in Salem. At least, in areas that have sidewalks. But it isn't easy to bike, unless you're a young fearless Spandex-clad rider willing and able to mix it up with cars on a "bike lane" that consists of just a painted line on a busy street.

Today the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger wrote a post about how Salem is falling farther behind other cities when it comes to bicycling. Excerpt:

Bicycling Magazine today published their list of the top 50 cities for bicycling, and Salem fell off of it.

Salem has declined steadily in the ratings over the last decade:

19th in 2010

22nd in 2012

38th in 2014

47th in 2016

Portland has declined also, to sit at #5, and Eugene climbed from #18 to sit at #7.

...In any case, Salem's previous spots in the top 50 were probably overstated, but the trend is on point: Relative to other cities, Salem is falling behind and only weakly dedicated to improving riding conditions. New facilities like the Minto Bridge and Geer Park are great, but they are not fully connected into a comprehensive system of bike transport.

Just getting the Winter-Maple Greenway completed is a slog, and there is no plan yet for a successor, second Greenway. The Union Street bikeway/greenway/whateverway remains fragmentary; while its funding is in place, construction and completion is a few years off. Salem also did not renew their LAB Bicycle-Friendly Community rating.

On discrete projects some cheerleading is plausible, but overall the system is not keeping pace.

Lastly, these figures show a basic yin and yang of living in Salem. It costs less to buy a house here, compared to other Oregon cities. Yay! But people in Salem have a median household income that's 15% below the state average. Boo!  

Salem Comprehensive Plan needs simple vision, not complex platitudes

I'm sort of ashamed to admit it, but once upon a time I was a professional planner. I was an executive service manager with the State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA) back in the 70s and 80s. 

Looking back, what I'm not proud of is how I and other SHPDA staff elevated technical criteria over human values without giving much thought to why we did this.

I bring this up because I'm worried that the City of Salem effort to update the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan will make the same mistake: expect citizens to conform to the values of professional planners, rather than the other way around. 

Yes, it's important to have measurable indicators as part of a planning process. But these should flow out of an overall vision that's founded in what people value in life, which for sure isn't quantitative criteria like, in health planning, the number of CT scanning machines per 1,000 population within a certain geographic area.

Which is the sort of criteria planners love.

When it'd come time to approve or deny a hospital's application for a new CT scanner, us SHPDA staff would receive heartfelt letters from people who, say, had to drive a hundred or more miles in eastern Oregon in bad weather when a doctor ordered a CT scan for some serious medical condition.

How much weight did those letters play in our decision? Zero, basically. We health planners had developed numeric criteria that had been rubber-stamped by a compliant advisory council. How patients felt about access to a CT scanner was irrelevant.

Now, I don't know much about the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan update process. No one does, at this point, other than City of Salem staff. The process already has come in for some well-deserved criticism, as described in a blog post I wrote a couple of weeks ago, and a Salem Reporter story, "Residents challenge early plans for Salem's future."

Here's my main concern.

Planners typically are addicted to the familiar notion of Goals, Objectives, Actions, and such. But there's a simpler way to look at this, which I remember from my two years in Portland State University's Systems Science Ph.D. program (I completed the coursework, but then dropped out after I got my health planning job in Salem).

"Why?" and "How?" are the only questions that need to be asked. Why is an upper-level question. How explains what's needed to attain the Why. Why's and How's alternate as needed for a particular situation. 

For example, why does Salem exist? This is a top-level question that I've never heard asked, much less adequately answered. It, or a question very much like it, should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Here's some answers that I think ordinary people would offer up:

To help people who live here be happy 
To be an economic center with good jobs
To preserve Oregon farm and forest land by limiting urban sprawl

There are many other possible answers, of course. My point is just that unless simple high-level vision questions are asked and answered first, a planning process is prone to veer off into bureaucratic objective/criteria setting that isn't grounded in fundamental human values.

Last week I has a pleasant conversation with Mark Wigg, who I believe used to be a transportation planner, and now is an ardent advocate for dedicated bike paths and multi-use trails in Salem. Wigg shared with me his ideas for additional paths/trails in various parts of Salem, which he hopes will be included in the Comprehensive Plan update.

In 2016 I wrote a blog post in which I shared a video of Wigg's testimony at a City Council meeting where he talked about his vision for a multi-use trail from Salemtowne to downtown. I loved how Wigg described his goal as "create beauty and spread joy."

Beautiful! This is the sort of language that ordinary people relate to. (Note: naturally professional planners can act like ordinary people when they're not planning.)

This is part of the current Salem Comprehensive Plan map. I didn't include the legend, but I can tell you that none of the colored areas, or uncolored areas, represent locations that "create beauty and spread joy." 

In fact, as someone who has lived in the Salem area for 41 years, I can confidently say that many areas in this town seem deliberately planned to do exactly the opposite -- create ugliness and spread unhappiness. 

Now, I'm not saying that the ultimate goal of the updated Salem Comprehensive Plan is to create beauty and spread joy. I'm just suggesting that the high-level vision of the Comprehensive Plan should include "Why?" statements that are similarly simple and reflect an aspiration that most people want Salem to strive for.

To offer up one example: I grew up in a time and place (small foothills town in central California during the 1950s and 60s) when children could ride their bikes just about everywhere they needed to go. Now, I'm bemused by lines of cars at elementary schools filled with parents waiting to pick up students.

It sure seems like a goal of the Salem Comprehensive Plan should say something like, "People of all ages should be able to ride a bicycle safely and without fear everywhere in Salem." Currently painted bike path lines on busy streets are mostly what Salem offers.

This is nowhere near good enough, in my view. And I'm pretty sure a good share of people in Salem, a majority, likely, agree with me. Yet Salem's transportation budget continues to be slanted heavily in the direction of what has been called "hydraulic autoism." 

Meaning, a mechanical, habitual bias toward making vehicles move as quickly as possible, even if this is unsafe, unwise, and at odds with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to preserve our planet's habitability for humans.

If the Salem Comprehensive Plan doesn't have a high-level goal about the need to lessen our city's reliance on fossil fuels, that plan won't be worth the paper it is printed on.