Salem Political Snark

In 300 words, Katyal makes a great argument for Trump's impeachment

Today I started reading Neal Katyal's compelling little book, Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump.

Katyal has personally argued thirty-nine Supreme Court cases. He's a law professor at Georgetown University. He's taught an impeachment course there twenty times.

And he's an excellent writer. Below is how his book starts out. In a bit less than 300 words, Katyal nails the case for impeaching Trump. The rest of the book is icing on the impeachment cake.

So if you're in favor of impeachment and someone questions why this makes sense, say you'd like to read them a brief argument by a noted impeachment expert.

Once I read the following, I was hooked on Katyal's book. Not that I needed much convincing about the need for impeachment. I just loved how clearly and succinctly Katyal laid out the case for impeaching Trump. Enjoy...

Imagine if it had worked.

Imagine if our president had leveraged his role as commander in chief to convince a foreign power to open an investigation into his political opponent.

Imagine if the president's rival lost the primary because news broke that he was under investigation.

Imagine if that meant the president faced a weaker candidate in November 2020 -- and won reelection as a result.

Imagine if our president owed his victory to a foreign power and we never found out.

Imagine how much leverage the leaders of that country would have on our foreign policy decisions.

Imagine how easily they could blackmail our commander in chief.

Imagine what our president would do next, knowing he could subvert our democracy without paying a price.

Now, imagine if, eventually, we did find out. But it was too late -- because he had already won.

Imagine if our president abused the power vested in him to win -- and we knew it.

Imagine what that would do to our faith in elections, to our trust in government, to our belief that we live in a democracy.

If President Trump's efforts to coerce Ukraine into interfering with our democracy had stayed a secret until the 2020 election -- if a brave whistleblower hadn't risked his career, and his safety, to speak out -- we would have fundamentally, perhaps irrevocably, lost faith in the legitimacy of our republic.

This is why we have no choice but to impeach and remove President Trump: because he wielded the powers of the presidency to serve himself instead of the people he represents; because he was willing to undermine our democracy to help his prospects of reelection; and because he has stated repeatedly and unapologetically, that he would do it again.

Salem City Council's "sit-lie" decision seems well-balanced

Democracy in action.

At last night's City Council meeting there was spirited debate about a proposed ordinance aimed at reducing perceived problems caused by homeless people, the most controversial part being a ban on sitting or lying on a sidewalk during daytime hours. 

I watched much of the meeting via a CCTV feed. Citizens testifying against the ordinance far outnumbered those in favor of it, who mostly were from the downtown business community and Chamber of Commerce.

Both sides had reasonable points to make. Homeless people do cause problems, both in downtown Salem and elsewhere. But the sit-lie portion of the proposed ordinance (which had the strong support of the police department) was open to criticism for both constitutional and compassion reasons.

When the City Council started debate on this issue following the public testimony, Councilor Chris Hoy proposed several amendments to the ordinance.

The voting and discussion was rather hard to follow, even for members of the City Council, who had to ask questions about what was being voted on, and what its effect would be. The first amendment, to remove the sit-lie part of the ordinance, was approved on a 5-4 vote.

Interestingly, Councilor Hoy voted against the amendment, as did Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilors Jim Lewis and Brad Nanke. Councilors Andersen, Leung, Nordyke, Kaser, and Ausec provided the five votes that eliminated the sit-lie provision. 

In the end, a stripped-down version of the ordinance was approved on a 8-1 vote that includes a ban on homeless shelters on public property (tents, cardboard structures, etc.) and a ban on leaving belongings unattended for a period of time (24 hours, I believe).

This seems like a reasonable compromise, though I'm sure it won't please many people, including some downtown business owners. Councilor Andersen shared a good summary of last night's proceedings in a Facebook post. See below.

I agree with Andersen that shelters and unattended property are especially bothersome. When I see a homeless person sitting/lying on a bench or a sidewalk, I see a human being who deserves care and compassion.

But a fully enclosed sidewalk shelter, such as one that sits near the corner of Court and Commercial streets, strikes me as an ugly incursion onto public property that shouldn't be allowed. And won't be, if the City Council passes the ordinance after a second reading in December. 

Seemingly there should be places on private property where homeless people can be allowed to put up shelters, as is being done on the Arches property just north of downtown. Hopefully affordable housing eventually can be found for homeless people, which naturally is far superior to living in a tent or other temporary shelter. 

Here's Councilor Andersen's Facebook report. I've added some paragraph breaks to make it easier to read.

SIT/LIE BAN -NO, CAMPING BAN -YES
Last night the City council, in a long meeting, wrestled with the proposed sit/lie/camping/exclusion/abandoned property ordinance. Very powerful testimony from everyone, on all sides, who spoke.

There was an amendment put forth which removed the downtown ban from the ordinance, which I supported, consistent with my views (see below). The amendment passed on a 5-4 vote. Those voting to remove the ban were Councilors Kaser, Nordyke, Leung, Ausec and I. The other four councilors (Mayor, Hoy, Lewis, and Nanke) voted to retain the ban.

We then voted on another amendment, to ban camping city wide (previously there had not been a ban on camping in the city limits). That ban passed unanimously.

Then, we did not expand the downtown area exclusionary ban. (There already is a procedure to ban from downtown folks who, while in the downtown area, break other laws already on the books.) Finally, we voted on the remaining parts of the ordinance – a city wide camping ban and a provision about what to do with abandoned property downtown [if abandoned for 24 hours, property would be stored for a period of time – 30 days (I think) with notice provision, then destroyed].

All along I have said we need to balance the need for a vibrant downtown and the needs and concerns of those who live, work, shop and own businesses there with the needs of and concern for those whose unfortunate life circumstances have brought them to the downtown are. This is a difficult balance and I believe we achieved the best possible result last night.

I have always felt that one of the main problems is a visual one, tents, shopping carts and the like in the downtown area. This is understandable from both sides – if all your worldly possessions could be fit into one or two shopping carts, you would never want them out of your sight; with the result being visual “pollution” downtown, with attendant issues.

However, the sit/lie ordinance may not pass legal muster and would most likely not be effective. Instead it would just suck up limited city resources which could be better used (downtown toilets, storage areas and the like). Now we can move forward together to continue to improve the life of downtown and the lives of all who live in Salem.

Supporters of Trump need to be treated as co-creators of his unethical world

Having watched a good share of the two weeks of televised open hearings in the House impeachment inquiry, I'm well-qualified to draw some reasoned conclusions about our national politics.

(1) Trump is the worst president in our nation's history. Not just recent history. Our entire history. 
(2) Trump doesn't care about what's best for our country. He only cares about what's best for himself.
(3) Congressional Republicans have sold out their ethical values in exchange for Trump not tweeting bad stuff about them.
(4) Anyone who still supports Trump is guilty of aiding and abetting his unethical behavior.

To me, that fourth point is the most disturbing.

I expect Trump and his Washington D.C. cronies to act like the self-serving jerks that they are. What surprises me is how relatively steady his support has been, even as Trump's personal and policy failings have become more apparent.

A Washington Post story this month contained charts of Trump's approval rating over time among all adults, Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

The story says:

Overall, Trump’s approval hasn’t changed all that much on our polling since he’s been president. He has never been above 42 percent approval and never under 36 percent. Right now, he’s at 38 percent approval, on the lower side of things.

Well, Trump's approval should be on the lower side of things.

Extremely solid evidence shows that our country's Liar-in-Chief used his position to bolster his re-election chances by seeking the involvement of a foreign power in a made-up investigation of a chief opponent, Joe Biden, holding vital military assistance to Ukraine hostage for 55 days until a whistle-blower revealed Trump's sordid scheme.

Here's Trump's approval rating among Republicans.

Yes, it's good to see that now only about 75% of Republicans approve of Trump, down from almost 90% at previous points in his presidency. It's just hard to understand how three out of four Republicans can approve of someone who puts his own personal interest above the national interest.

And equally bad is Trump's incessant and willful lying. We've never had a president with such a disregard for the truth. When Trump is caught in a lie, he feels no shame. Instead, he doubles down, repeating the lie.

Today Trump spouted at least 18 false claims in a 53 minute Fox & Friends interview. Probably more, since CNN says they are still fact-checking what he said. Here's a few examples.

CrowdStrike

Trump said that Democrats gave a computer server that was hacked in 2016 to "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian."

Facts First: The cybersecurity company that investigated the hack, CrowdStrike, is a publicly traded American company co-founded by Dmitri Alperovitch, an American citizen who was born in Russia, not Ukraine. Regardless, such firms do not typically take possession of physical servers to conduct their analysis.

 

Asked if he is sure the Democrats gave the server to Ukraine, Trump did not cite any specific evidence. He said, "That's what the word is."

 

The accuracy of the whistleblower

Trump said that the whistleblower complaint about his July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "bore no relationship to my call."

Facts First: The whistleblower's account of the call has largely been proven accurate.

In fact, the rough transcript released by Trump himself showed that the whistleblower's three primary allegations about the call were correct or very close to correct.

 

Marie Yovanovitch and Trump's photo

Trump claimed about Yovanovitch: "This ambassador that everybody says is so wonderful, she wouldn't hang my picture in the embassy. ... She's in charge of the embassy. She wouldn't hang it. It took like a year and a half, or two years, for her to get the picture up."

Facts First: There is no evidence that Yovanovitch refused to hang Trump's photo. It took the Trump administration more than nine months after his inauguration to distribute an official photo of Trump to government buildings such as embassies, CNBC reported in 2017. More than seven months into the term, the White House told The Washington Post that Trump had not yet sat for the photo.

 

A State Department official who has recently served in Kiev said Yovanovitch never sought to prevent Trump's photo from being put up at the embassy. The official said the photo did not arrive until late 2017.

 

Obama's aid to Ukraine

Trump said President Barack Obama sent only "pillows and sheets" in aid to Ukraine, adding, "He wouldn't send anything else."

Facts First: Obama did refuse to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, but he didn't send mere pillows and sheets; he sent counter-mortar radars, drones, armored Humvees and night vision devices, among other things.

 

Who is paying for Trump's tariffs on China

Trump blamed "the media" for trying to convince people that Americans are paying for Trump's tariffs on China.

Facts First: A bevy of economic studies have found that Americans are bearing the overwhelming majority of the tariff costs, and Americans make the actual tariff payments.

 

Thus it is impossible to believe anything that comes out of Trump's mouth, unless it is backed up by solid facts, which usually it isn't. This puts the United States in a horrible position, both domestically and in our foreign affairs. When the President can't be trusted, negotiations and agreements become very difficult.

Yet three out of four Republicans aren't bothered enough by Trump's failure to abide by minimal standards of ethical behavior to say they disapprove of him.

Locally, this needs to be kept in mind when voting in city and state elections next year. Salem will be electing a mayor and four city councilors. Candidates for those offices should be asked, "Do you approve of Donald Trump?" In my opinion, any candidate who says "Yes" or refuses to answer the question doesn't deserve your vote.

Today Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent wrote a piece called, "Trump's GOP defenders cannot be shamed. It's time to try this instead." This is his instead. 

It’s time to drop the posture that Trump’s defenders can be shamed into accepting what has been unearthed, or that they can be shamed into arguing from a baseline of shared democratic values, or into arguing over how to interpret a comprehensive set of shared facts.

Instead, let’s rhetorically treat Trump’s defenders as his criminal accomplices. Not just as “enablers” of Trump’s corruption but as active participants in it.

Once this is accepted, it becomes obvious why they can’t be “won over,” because they are actively engaged in keeping the corruption in question from getting fully uncovered, in the belief that they, too, benefit from it, and that they, too, lose out if it’s exposed.

...Rather, the point is we need a much more fundamental change in our underlying treatment of the moment. We need to approach it from the premise that Trump’s defenders are not “gettable” because they are accomplices in the whole scheme -- and forthrightly describe what’s happening in kind.

Sargent appeared to be speaking mainly about Trump's defenders in Congress, but his point also applies to every person in the country who continues to support the unethical swamp of the Trump presidency.

Here's how Democrats and independents view Trump. Most disapprove of him, which is some good news that hopefully will translate into Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Oregon's urban-rural divide explained by political scientist

So, why is there such a tension between people in rural Oregon and urban Oregon?

We saw this divide in action earlier in 2019, when Republicans in the state Senate walked out in protest of a climate change bill, supported by loggers driving their trucks in circles around the Capitol building, horns blaring.

Today a political scientist from Western Oregon University, Mark Henkels, offered up some explanations of what's going on here in the course of his presentation at a Salem City Club meeting, It's Complicated: The Politics of Oregon's Rural-Urban Divide.

Mark Henkels

Early on in his talk, Henkels defined "urban" and "rural" as applied to Oregon counties. He considers that our state has six urban counties: Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Multnomah, and Washington. The rest of the state is rural.

He said that because Salem is the second or third largest city in Oregon, that argues for Marion County being urban. Deschutes County includes Bend, so arguably it is semi-urban, but not enough to make his urban cut.

No big surprise: currently rural Oregon is more Republican than urban Oregon.

But back in 1988, that wasn't the case. Democrats even had a slight edge over Republicans in rural areas, 47% to 41%. (Henkels did mention that many of the Dems were Reagan voters who hadn't changed their registration.) And in urban areas Democrats and Republicans each had 44%.

Much had changed by 2018.

Rural Oregon was only 27% Democratic, a drop of twenty points, while Republican registration declined by only eight points to 33%, with non-affiliated voters jumping markedly from 13% to 33%. In urban areas, Democrats had come to vastly outnumber Republicans, 41% to 21%, with non-affiliated voters rising to 31% of the electorate.

Henkels considers that economic trends explain much of the political changes. 

Rural Oregon still tilts toward agricultural and industrial sectors, while urban Oregon has become largely post-industrial. Meaning, services, high-tech, medical, and education sectors. Post-industrial workers are more diverse. They move around a lot. They go where the jobs are.

By contrast, traditionally a family farm often was worked by succeeding generations, and a child might follow a parent in working at the same industrial plant. 

Agriculture and industry tend to foster social stability, traditional values, and a desire to preserve the existing economy. Henkels called this cluster "material" values, which doesn't really mean materialistic or non-spiritual. Rather, I took that term to mean a connection to what already exists, a conservative clinging to the things that have worked in the past.

Urban areas in Oregon tend to embrace post-materialist values.

Quality of life is as important, if not more so, than how much money someone makes. Protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are valued goals. This slide shows how drastically rural Oregon and urban Oregon differ in this regard.

A whopping 59% of the Portland metro area holds post-materialist values, while all urban areas are at 46% and rural areas only 17%. Looking at political leaning rather than geography, 49% of liberals are post-materialist, while moderates are at 33% and conservatives at 18%.

While this is my take, not that of Henkels, it seems to me that it's totally wrong to say that rural conservatives are "values voters." Actually, urban liberals hold equally strong values, just different ones. It means as much to a Portland progressive that Oregon does more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it means to an Eastern Oregon conservative that logging jobs be protected.

Along that line, this slide shows that more lumber is being produced with fewer mills, and hence fewer workers. Henkels said this mirrors trends in other American industries, with automation and production in foreign countries leading to industrial job losses in this country.

So Henkels noted there isn't an easy answer to the question, "What is it like to be a true Oregonian?" People with widely divergent values or political leanings can say with equal fervor, "I'm an Oregonian. This is the way it should be."

One reason the urban-rural divide has become so extreme is that political beliefs in general have become more extreme. The slide above shows the distribution of Democrats and Republicans on a scale of political values. The vertical lines show the median value on the scale, so the closer the two lines are, the more closely Democrats and Republicans agree.  

The gap has widened markedly since 2004.

Exacerbating this tribalism, Henkels said that politics has become nationalized, with candidates in local elections taking on national party positions to a greater extent than before. And increasingly people get their news and opinions from different media outlets, Fox News vs. MSNBC being one example. He also noted that in many rural parts of Oregon, conservative talk radio from national sources is ubiquitous, whereas urban areas have more choices.

On the plus side, near the end of his talk Henkels said that Oregonians share a lot of values. We value good education and quality health care. We agree about environmental protections in some areas, such as preserving salmon runs. We value aging services, an area that Oregon has been a pioneer in.

The suburbs and growing cities like Bend could become the new middle ground. A more complex economy in rural areas likely would narrow the values gap between urban and rural Oregon.

In the Q&A period, Henkels talked some about Oregon's land use system. Rural people often blame urban growth boundaries and other aspects of our land use laws for the problems facing the agricultural and industrial sectors. However, he noted that the area outside Sacramento looks very different from the area outside Salem, even though both are state capitals.

Oregon has considerably more protections for agricultural land, which is why we have farmland so close to urban areas, rather than sprawling subdivisions. So farmers should be thankful for our land use system, though naturally there's room for improvement in it.

Homelessness is a problem that's too big for Salem to solve

Yesterday I attended a Progressive Salem meeting that featured remarks by two highly qualified City Council candidates, Vanessa Nordyke and Trevor Phillips. (Nordyke has been appointed to the council to fill a vacancy, and is seeking a full term in the May 2020 election.) 

Homelessness came up in both audience Q&A's and the initial remarks. What struck me loud and clear is a simple fact that shouldn't be overlooked even though it is obvious:

Homelessness is a complex problem that will require action at all levels of government, plus the private sector and nonprofit organizations, to find viable solutions.

Sure, the City of Salem needs to do its part. A controversial sit-lie ordinance apparently will be discussed by the City Council on November 25. A Salem Reporter story describes the basics of the ordinance.

The Sidewalk and Public Space Ordinance — known informally as “sit-lie” — is effectively a handful of proposed laws bundled together.

The ordinance would ban sitting or lying on sidewalks and other public rights-of-way from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. It would also ban leaving personal property unattended on public property during those same hours. And it would ban tents and other structures from sidewalks at all hours.

Salem police would have to warn violators on first offense and could write a ticket for a second offense.

If those crimes occur within one of Salem’s crime prevention districts — also known as “exclusion zones” — a person could be banned from that area. A person who ignores the ban could be arrested for trespassing.

Salem has two such exclusion zones: north Salem and downtown. Numerous crimes can lead to a ban in those areas, from violent crimes to a minor violating curfew.

Though the proposed sit-lie ordinance is getting a lot of attention from both advocates for homeless people and businesses affected by the homeless, obviously it would have little or no effect on the key homelessness issue: lack of homes for those who need one.

The City of Salem doesn't have enough money to maintain current services and programs, much less solve our local homelessness problem. Yet we have to do what we can, while realizing that action at the county, state, and federal level also has to occur. The situation is similar to that of global warming, albeit with a human face.

Meaning, Salem needs to adopt a Climate Action Plan that lays out ways our city can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Yet global warming is such a vast problem, every city, every state, and every country on Earth has to do its best to deal with the problem.

Ditto for homelessness. 

What's strange about homelessness, though, is how the problem of people lacking homes is so severe at a time when an economic expansion is 11 years old and unemployment is very low. Thus it seems that income inequality and a lack of government resources are more to blame for rising homelessness than a lack of jobs.

As was noted at yesterday's meeting, many people are employed at low-paying jobs that leave them extremely vulnerable if something like bills for a car repair or medical expenses hit their pocketbook. 

Exacerbating the homeless problem in Salem is the presence of a state hospital and penitentiary. The United States' mental health and prison policies leave a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. We don't treat people as well as we should when they enter a mental hospital or prison, and when they leave, those people don't receive necessary support.

So many end up on the street.

What to do, then? Well, it seems to me that our country needs a major change in direction on many fronts: health care, social services, environmental policies, minimum wage, immigration -- to name a few. The Trump administration isn't to blame for all of the ills in the United States, but it has made many problems worse, rather than better.

Thus one of the most important things advocates for the homeless need to do is work for progressive change at every level: local, state, national. Yes, conservatives have a role to play in combatting homelessness, just as they do in other problem areas. 

But the private sector and market-based approaches aren't going to cut it when it comes to putting people in homes who now are living on the street. Government action is key, just as it is in the realm of health care and environmental protections. The United States doesn't lack the money needed to address homelessness. Our country lacks the political will.

Which only elections can address.

Somehow we've got to break the gridlock that's preventing the United States from becoming a genuinely caring, compassionate democracy. Oregon is better off than many states, since progressives control the Governor's office and both houses of the legislature. 

Even here, though, good intentions are more plentiful than concrete action. It's time to say No more talk! when it comes to dealing with serious problems, homelessness being one of them. If Democrats control the White House and Congress after the 2020 election, this will be great news for people lacking a home.

However, the gap between bemoaning a problem and doing something about it will remain unless we, the people, demand more and better from our elected officials. The Salem City Council needs to do its part. Real change, though, has to happen at the national level to make a serious dent in homelessness.

Does anyone fail to believe that a President Biden, or a President Warren, or a President Sanders would do more to help the homeless than a President Trump? Well, some people do, but they're wrong.

City Council candidate Reid Sund is too right-wing for Ward 7

Residents of Ward 7 in south Salem will have a clear choice in the May 2020 primary election, when they'll vote on who should be their city councilor following the resignation of Sally Cook. 

Vanessa Nordyke, a progressive like Cook, was appointed recently by the City Council to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the rest of Cook's term, which runs until December 31, 2020. She will be on the May 2020 ballot.

Reid Sund, a conservative, has announced that he also is running to be the Ward 7 councilor. 

Since Ward 7 went for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 50 to 36 margin in the 2016 presidential election, Sund is facing an uphill battle to win hearts and minds in this progressive-leaning part of town.

Here's some information gleaned from Sund's Facebook feed and other sources that shows how right-wing and voting-apathetic he is.

Sund doesn't vote regularly.
Since 2016, Reid Sund has only bothered to vote four times. He did not vote in the Ward 7 City Councilor race in May, 2016, the position he now wants to hold.

He did not bother to vote on Ballot Measure 101 in January 2018 that funded Medicaid expansion even though he worked at Salem Health. He did not bother to vote in the bond election to fund a seismic upgrade of the Salem Public Library. He did not bother to vote in the most recent Salem-Keizer School Board election.

He voted in these elections:

November 6, 2016 General Election (President, Congress, State)
May 6, 2017 District Election (School Board, Police Station Bond)
May 15, 2018 Primary Election (County Commissioner, School Bond)
November 6, 2018 General Election (Governor, State, County Commissioner, Measures)

He did not vote in these elections:

May 17, 2016 Primary Election (City Council, County Commissioner, Primary)
November 7, 2017 Special Election (Library Bond Measure)
January 23, 2018 Statewide Election (Assessment to Fund Health Care)
May 21, 2019 Special District Election (School Board)

Sund doesn't want Salem to reduce carbon poilution via a Climate Action Plan.

The context for the following Facebook post is that the City Budget Committee Sund served on debated funding for a Climate Action Plan (it ultimately was funded for $50,000 thanks to Councilor Tom Andersen).

There was never a suggestion that the funding be taken from the Salem Police Department, so Sund talked nonsense when he claimed the choice was between funding police or climate action. 

Sund favored the unsuccessful 2019 effort to recall Governor Kate Brown. The recall attempt was based on Brown's support of legislation that Republicans didn't like, not on any wrongdoing by Brown.


Sund supported the 2019 walkout of Republicans in the state Senate. The Republicans staged the walkout to block passage of legislation aimed at increasing clean energy jobs in Oregon, and reducing carbon pollution.

Sund was against more money for Oregon schools.

Sund supported the controversial relocation of Costco. The Costco development was opposed by the South Gateway Neighborhood Association and most members of the City Council.

On a lighter note... Reid Sund does take his Facebook middle name seriously. Or at least, seriously enough to wear a way-cool halfway-husked corn outfit. 

Good election night for Dems. Now, let's turn Salem more progressive.

Ah, the sweet smell of Democratic election victories has temporarily banished the stench of Trump's disastrous presidency from my political nostrils.

It looks like Kentucky has chosen a Democrat, Andy Beshear, to be the next Governor. Yes, Kentucky, where Trump won by 30 points in 2016, and where Trump campaigned last night for the Republican incumbent, Matt Bevin.

Sweet! 

Of course, I'm confident Trump will claim that if he hadn't supported Bevin, the race wouldn't have been as close as it was, with Beshear on top by about 5,000 votes. But no matter how Republicans spin the Kentucky outcome, it's still a notable win for Democrats.

I'm also thrilled that for the first time in 26 years, Democrats control Virginia -- Governor plus majorities in both the state House and Senate. So says this Washington Post graphic.

What's cool is that Democrats pulled off control of the Virginia state legislature with district maps drawn by Republicans in 2011. Now that Dems control redistricting, they will be able to do the map drawing after the 2020 census. Which should turn Virginia even more blue.

On the down side, Mississippi looks like it will elect a Republican governor. But that is just a minor blemish on some really encouraging news for Democrats. The swing of suburbs into the Democratic camp that was evident in the 2018 midterms seems to have continued into 2019.

Now us progressives have to keep the momentum going into 2020.

Locally, it isn't too early to start focusing on the prospect of progressives at least maintaining their 6-3 majority on the Salem City Council, and hopefully increasing it.

Trevor Phillips, an Emergency Room physician, has announced that he is running for the Ward 3 council seat currently occupied by a conservative, Brad Nanke, who isn't running again. Give his Facebook page a "like" so you can stay informed on the progress of the Phillips campaign. 

Here's why he is running.

Vanessa Nordyke is the progressive choice in the Ward 7 race.

She recently was chosen by the City Council to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the rest of Sally Cook's term, which ends on December 31, 2020. In the May 2020 election Nordyke will face a conservative opponent, so we need to work to make sure Nordyke is able to serve Salem for a full four-year term.

Check out her web site. Nordyke's background is hugely impressive. 

Vanessa Nordyke is a third-generation Salem lawyer and a Senior Assistant Attorney General at the Oregon Department of Justice.

Vanessa’s dedication to Salem goes back to her teens, with work on issues like homelessness, veterans, mental health and more. Vanessa has served on a quartet of City of Salem boards: the City of Salem Youth Advisory Commission, Social Services Advisory Board, Community Police Review Board, and the Citizen Budget Committee. She co-founded the Marion County Veterans Treatment Court. She co-captained a mock trial team of Latinx students through the Salem-Keizer Coalition for Equality.

In 2018, Vanessa made history as the youngest ever-elected President of the Oregon State Bar, a unified bar of approximately 19,000 lawyers and judges statewide. As President, Vanessa spearheaded a statewide mental health initiative for the Oregon legal community. Her passion for destigmatizing mental illness led Vanessa to develop and conduct mental health trainings all over the state. After completing her OSB presidency, Vanessa resumed her focus on Salem by joining the YMCA Board of Directors and KMUZ Community Radio’s Advisory Council.

Vanessa is a proud graduate of South Salem High School, Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and University of Oregon School of Law. She is the recipient of Oregon DOJ's Excellence in Justice Award, the Marion County Bar Association’s Government Lawyer of the Year, Outstanding Mentor Award from Willamette University College of Law, and the University of Oregon School of Law’s Outstanding Young Alumnus Award.

Vanessa is a proud dogmom and loves karaoke, traveling, cooking, and the great outdoors.

City Manager Steve Powers spouts more falsehoods, which I easily demolished

The more I communicate with City Manager Steve Powers about the truth of what happened with the highly controversial selection of a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church to serve as a temporary public library (the church denies basic LGBTQ rights), the more Powers comes across as sort of a Donald Trump wanna-be.

Meaning, Powers keeps doubling down on his false statements, even when I present indisputable facts that contradict what Powers is saying.

This should bother the Mayor, City Council, and other citizens. A lot. 

Why? Because the City Manager is the top non-elected official for the City of Salem. As I said in a previous post, it's a big deal when the City Manager and other city staff can't be trusted to speak the truth. And pretty clearly, they can't. At least, not always.

After I wrote a blog post called "City Manager Steve Powers makes false statements about temporary library location," I got an email from Powers that contained more false statements. You can read what Powers said below. First, though, I'm sharing my reply to Powers that I sent to him on October 30.

I haven't gotten a reply yet, so I'm assuming that Powers doesn't have any facts to back up his false assertions.

Though I'm winning this Truth Battle, I don't take any pleasure in my victory. I'd much rather have our local public officials (1) tell the truth, and (2) be able to back up their statements when people like me call them out on a falsehood.

We already have a president who lies incessantly. I'm not saying that City Manager Powers is in the same league as Donald Trump, but Powers does seem very unwilling to admit when he's wrong -- which isn't a good quality for a public official.

Here's my response to Powers, which, again, has been unchallenged so far.

Steve, I’ve reviewed 1,245 pages of public records related to this issue. And...

I’ve listened to recordings of most of three Library Renovation council subcommittee meetings. i’ve spoken three times with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. I’ve gotten answers from Norm Wright to questions about how City officials assessed Liberty Plaza. I’ve heard from Jim Scheppke, the State Librarian for 20 years, on how he judged the suitability of Liberty Plaza for a temporary library.

But maybe you are in possession of facts that haven’t been made public. So send me the documentation if you consider that any of the following facts in my possession are wrong.

(1) City officials never prepared a total budget showing how the $957,000 total relocation budget would be spent — meaning with breakdowns between lease costs, temporary improvements, moving costs, and such. This wasn’t done for Capital Press and it wasn’t done for Liberty Plaza. Thus there is no documentation showing that the cost of leasing Liberty Plaza would have exceeded the $957,000 budget.

(2) City officials were aware that the Human Rights Commission had called for another location other than Capital Press be chosen, even if the alternative location cost more and wasn’t as operationally efficient.

(3) City officials, notably library director Sara Strahl, said they were looking forward to not spending all of the relocation budget so the unspent money could be used for other library needs. Thus these officials were largely focused on cost, not the valid concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission about many supporters of LGBTQ rights not being willing to use the library if it was housed in space leased by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church.

(4) City officials didn’t prepare an estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.

(5) City officials knew that Liberty Plaza and Capital Press received equal ratings on the four criteria used to assess the suitability of possible locations for a temporary library.

(6) City officials never engaged in serious discussions with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. Because this didn’t happen, City officials failed to learn what I did from a phone conversation with Randazzo. Namely, that the owner of Liberty Plaza was willing to negotiate the lease cost per square foot, and a flexible amount of space was available on other floors that didn’t require leasing of the entire first and second floors, as City staff wrongly assumed in a cost estimate for Liberty Plaza.

(7) City officials never asked the Library Advisory Board to express an opinion about which location should be used for a temporary library, as appears to be required by a city ordinance.

(8) The relocation of the library will not happen until February of next year, based on what I’ve been told by someone who learned this from a Library Advisory Board member. So there was plenty of time for temporary improvements to be made to Liberty Plaza. To repeat, though, no estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza ever was prepared, so there is no way to know how long making the improvements would have taken, since City officials never documented what improvements needed to be made.

I look forward to hearing from you if you can document that any of the eight facts I’ve listed above are wrong.

This is a productive discussion, because getting at the truth of the search for a temporary library means a lot to supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem. This morning I heard from someone who was deeply grateful that I got the public records and have been reporting on what actually happened, in contrast to how City officials “spun” what happened.

       — Brian
***************************

Here's what City Manager Powers sent to me, also on October 30. I've added some commentary in red that is based on the facts shared above in my response to Powers.

 

***************************

Mr. Hines,

I am writing to correct your assertion that I have made false statements.  In response to your repeated statements of opinion, please consider: 

(1) As cited by you in your Oct. 22 post, the total cost per SF for Liberty Plaza is 40% higher than Capital Press.

Yes. So? As noted above, the Human Rights Commission said that a location other than the church-owned Capital Press building should be chosen even if it cost more. The question isn't whether Liberty Plaza cost more than Capital Press, but whether it was a feasible alternative location, which it sure seemed to be.

(2) You compare the total lease cost between buildings by assuming the exact same amount of space leased in each. You base this on after-the-fact communication with the leasing agent that additional flexible space was available above or below the main floor.

If City of Salem staff had picked up the phone and talked with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, as I did, they could have easily had a "before the fact" communication. Instead, those staff made a rush to judgement that the church-owned building should serve as a temporary library without bothering to take a close look at Liberty Plaza and likely other locations.

(3) While technically possible, making modifications to carve out that extra space would have added to the cost and time necessary to prepare the building for library use.

As I said above, City staff never came up with a list of the temporary improvements that would need to be made to Liberty Plaza, nor did they prepare an estimate of the cost of these improvements. The Capital Press building also needed temporary improvements that were estimated to cost $264,704. That's a big expense, and the improvements will take time to construct, so why was it OK to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare the church-owned building for library use, but not OK to do the same for Liberty Plaza?

(4) You suggest that the owners could have been made responsible for those improvement costs.  The owners of Liberty Plaza communicated their intent to sell the building. While willing to work with the City,  it was evident that the owners, or any building owner, would be unlikely to pay for substantial tenant improvement renovations, especially since the City was interested in only a short-term lease.

I never suggested the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to pay for the temporary improvements. What I said is the truth: the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to negotiate the cost of leasing space for a temporary library, but City staff never engaged in those negotiations.

(5) Another factor to consider is schedule. The amount of work required (regardless of the cost) would have been difficult to complete in time to get space ready and complete the move from the Main Library. The risk of delaying bond project construction is a significant factor and was another point in favor of Capital Press. Capital Press required much less work to get ready.

To repeat, City staff never produced a list of needed temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza, nor a budget for those improvements, so obviously they had no idea how long it would take to make the improvements. Further, like I said above, apparently the new date for having the library in a temporary location is February 2020, so there was plenty of time to make temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.

(6) Even if the City were able to create the same amount of space as Capital Press with an equal amount of improvement cost within the required schedule, the cost would still be 40% more. Even in this very best case, the added cost comes to about $164,000.  There are many other expenses in the temporary relocation besides the lease. There is not room in the temporary relocation budget for an additional $164,000.

As noted above, City staff never prepared a total budget for all of the costs associated with a temporary library location. All that existed was a total budget of $957,000. So City staff couldn't know whether there was room in the budget for an extra $164,000, since nothing in the documents I received via my public records request backs up this assertion. 

Steve Powers
City Manager
City of Salem|Mayor/City Manager’s Office

Steve Powers