Salem Political Snark

Why the City of Salem shouldn't give taxpayer money to a church that discriminates

In 2019 the most disturbing decision of the Salem City Council was to go along with a poorly thought-out plan by city officials to temporarily house the public library in a building owned by an organization that denies LGBTQ rights, the Salem Alliance Church. 

In case you missed out on reading my blog posts about this unethical travesty, type "Salem Alliance Church" in the Google search box in the right sidebar to find what I've written on this subject. For example...

Disturbing wrongness of last Monday's Salem City Council meeting
Salem's city officials say "screw you" to supporters of LGBTQ rights

Scott Rick, the librarian at South Salem High School, drew attention to how the Salem Alliance Church discriminates against gueer people in December 2018, when he wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the Statesman Journal. You can read it in my post, Two reports of how Broadway Coffee House/Commons discriminates against LGBT people. 

(The Salem Alliance Church runs the Broadway Commons and Broadway Coffee House.)

One year later, Rick has an excellent opinion piece published in the December 29, 2019 issue of the Statesman Journal, Salem taxpayer money shouldn't go to organization that denies basic human rights. Here's some excerpts from the piece.

When people suggest that President Trump’s statements and policies are racist or homophobic, he vehemently denies it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The same thing happens when you ask Salem Alliance Church officials about their discriminatory policies toward the queer community.

Church leaders insist, for example, that their refusal to marry same-gender couples is not discriminatory. They seem to believe that by couching discrimination within religious freedom it can no longer be considered discrimination.

By this logic, the church would also be justified in refusing to marry a mixed-race couple.

...The Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination (to which Salem Alliance belongs) refers to homosexuality as “detestable” based on Leviticus. Church leaders at Salem Alliance preach against homosexuality and gay marriage.

By sending this message of intolerance into our community they are directly contributing to the self-harm that is so prevalent in the queer community. Queer people are made to feel that there is something wrong with them, that they are detestable and detested, resulting in suicide rates much higher than for the general population. Fortunately, Salem Alliance rejects some parts of Leviticus, such as 25:44-46 which endorses slavery.

...church leaders have repeatedly refused to answer the simple question “would the Broadway Commons hire an openly queer applicant?”

The Broadway Commons also refuses to issue an equal opportunity employer statement. They believe that religious freedom grants them the right to refuse to hire any applicant that does not conform to their standard of “appropriate” sexual orientation.

...Many community members do not feel comfortable using facilities owned by a church that spreads intolerance in our community. For this reason, public and private organizations are encouraged to refrain from renting and using facilities owned by the Salem Alliance Church.

Taxpayer money should not be flowing to an organization that so blatantly denies basic human rights to cherished members of our community. Celebrate diversity.

I'm a big admirer of libraries. But I agree with Rick that those who support LGBTQ rights shouldn't use the Salem Public Library when portions of the collection are moved to a building leased from the Salem Alliance Church, which will open on February 18. 

With so many suitable buildings available in Salem, there was no good reason to house a temporary library in the church-owned building. City officials simply thought that the controversy over paying an organization that discriminates against LGBTQ people would blow over.

Hopefully that won't happen. I won't set foot in any building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, because I support LGBTQ rights. Others, I'm confident, will feel the same way.

Warren was wrong about the Buttigieg wine cave event

Watching last Thursday's Democratic presidential debate, I was irritated by Elizabeth Warren's attack on Pete Buttigieg for having a fundraiser in a wine cave that featured a $900 bottle of wine.

It drives me crazy when Democrats expect absolute purity from their candidates, since Republicans, by contrast, tend to be pragmatists who do whatever it takes to win an election.

Buttigieg made this point after Warren attacked him, correctly pointing out that if Warren -- who is a millionaire herself -- donated $2,800 to his campaign, he certainly wouldn't be expected to do her bidding from that point on. He'd just be thankful for the contribution.

Further, today I was told a friend I had coffee with that the $900 bottle of wine is a fiction. Some Googling confirmed that what Warren said wasn't true.

First, there's an opinion piece in the Washington Post: "About Pete Buttigieg's wine cave dinner? I was there." Here's part of what an attendee said.

Of the roughly 50 folks in attendance, plenty were people of means, and certainly all of us who were able to go to an event like that should consider ourselves lucky. (For the record, I am neither a billionaire nor a millionaire. Oh, how I wish.)

But the whole experience fell well short of proving Warren’s suggestion that “billionaires in wine caves" will “pick the next president.” Nor is it an example of “corruption” — a word some Democratic candidates use far too casually to describe political and policy opponents in either their or the other party. Let’s save that term for folks who plainly belong in a jail cell and those who’ve taken up residence in one already.

Warren’s most damaging suggestion doesn’t really stand up if you check it out. She suggested in the debate that we were drinking $900 bottles of wine. Perhaps no one will care, but out of respect for pesky facts, allow me to report: That didn’t really happen, either. The wine, a 2016 cabernet, is the host couple’s signature bottle and it was very good. But it is available online for $185 per bottle — far more than I’ve ever paid in my life for a bottle of wine, but not unusual for wine collector enthusiasts. (I know a few; I wish I knew more.) Checking the price point isn’t hard to do.

Speaking of price, my bet is that you probably want to know: How much did it cost for me to go?

To attend the dinner, donors were asked to “max out” — to contribute the maximum allowed by law to a primary candidate. I made my first contribution to Mayor Pete back in May at a San Francisco fundraiser that was attended by close to 1,000 people. I’ve made additional contributions since, including buying a bumper sticker from his campaign shop. (It’s not every day in America that a gay man has a realistic chance of becoming president, so yes, my partner and I probably qualify as enthusiastic.) All of these contributions count toward the individual limit of $2,800.

So, exactly how much more did it cost to attend that infamous wine cave dinner? In my case, the answer is $11.

So where did the fictitious fable of a $900 bottle of wine come from? Here's part of a Slate story, "'Wine cave' attendee defends event as Warren says she learned from fundraising mistakes."

The owners of the “wine cave”—Craig and Kathryn Hall, who own the Hall Rutherford winery—also came to Buttigieg’s defense and say the fundraiser was misrepresented. “It seems someone’s intentionally trying to create a different image than the reality. And that’s unfortunate,” Craig Hall said. He also said that even though they do sell a bottle for around $900, it is extra large and equivalent to about four standard-size bottles. The winery’s most expensive wine costs around $350, and that’s not what they served at the fundraiser.

Thus the $900 bottle of wine wasn't served at the fundraiser, and even if it had been, the cost per normal bottle of wine would have been $225 -- since the $900 bottle is about as large as four usual bottles. That's a lot for a bottle of wine, but not a crazy amount (that said, I buy Trader Joe's $3.99 organic red wine, and it tastes fine to me).

I've donated to the Warren campaign, and still like her a lot. But this episode bothers me, since it shows that Ms. "I have a plan for that" is still prone to making factual mistakes that belie her reputation as someone who can be trusted to not act like a typical lying politician.

I'm about to send $100 off to the Buttigieg campaign. He's my wife's favorite candidate, and Mayor Pete is looking better to me after his recent debate performance. I definitely agree with this Buttigieg statement.

“We need to defeat Donald Trump,” he said, noting that Trump’s reelection campaign has already accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. “We shouldn’t try to do it with one hand tied behind our back.”

Cara Kaser won't seek reelection to her Ward 1 City Council seat

Big breaking local political news today from the Salem Reporter's Troy Brynelson: "Kaser won't seek second term on Salem City Council."

Citing major changes with both her family and her career, Councilor Cara Kaser told Salem Reporter on Saturday morning she won’t seek a second term as one of the city’s nine policymakers. Her term expires Dec. 31, 2020.

“Serving my community these past three years as a city councilor has been both one of the most important duties I have ever taken on and one of the most important honors I have ever been afforded,” she said. “Additionally, it is one of the most demanding and rewarding volunteer positions I have ever encountered.”

Her decision means there will be at least three new councilors elected next year. Brad Nanke, 60, won’t seek re-election after nearly two decades representing southeast Salem. Meanwhile, Vanessa Nordyke represents southwest Salem on an interim basis after Sally Cook resigned in September.

Prospective councilors have until March 10 to collect signatures and file to run for office. The primary is slated for May 19.

...Kaser plans to endorse Virginia Stapleton to replace her. Kaser said Stapleton would help steer the city on issues related to homelessness, fixing sidewalks, planning for a third bridge and planning for climate change.

I suspect that Kaser's decision not to seek a second term will encourage the Chamber of Commerce and others who detest the current 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council to put more effort and money into the races for the three open positions.

(Though Nordyke is currently a council member, she was appointed by the council after Cook resigned, so she hasn't been elected yet.)

Some Googling revealed that Virginia Stapleton, who Kaser is endorsing to replace her, is a member of the Budget Committee for the Salem-Keizer School District. Otherwise, I don't know anything about her background. Almost certainly she shares Kaser's views on key local policies.

Kaser, along with Cook and Nanke, deserve a lot of thanks for their service on the City Council -- especially since the Mayor and eight councilors aren't paid for the large amount of time they put in.

While this would be controversial, it's past time for the council to seriously consider budgeting money for a monthly stipend that would enable more people to run for Mayor or a council seat. Last year Councilor Tom Andersen proposed this, as noted in another Salem Reporter story, "Councilor proposes paying Salem's elected officials monthly stipend."

Many other Oregon cities pay elected officials a stipend, but not Salem. Councilor Tom Andersen believes that could be a problem.

Andersen last week filed a motion to give eight councilors and the mayor a monthly stipend as demands grow for Salem’s elected officials. The amounts and how they would be paid are up for discussion, but the motion does suggest councilors should not be paid more than $2,000 per month, and the mayor $2,500 per month.

...“The only people you have on council are either retired, independently wealthy, working for government agencies … or people who are self-employed, like myself,” said Andersen, noting government agencies offer flexible hours.

Andersen, a self-employed employment lawyer, said the city is hampered in getting a more representative council.

Jojo Rabbit, impeachment, and Trump's authoritarianism

Let me make this clear. The United States isn't following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany. So when I speak of the danger of Donald Trump's authoritarianism, I'm not equating him with Hitler, though he does have Hitler'ish tendencies.

However, this doesn't make Trump any less of a risk to our nation's democratic institutions and the Constitution.

So his impeachment needs to be viewed from the broadest possible perspective, not just Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and then obstruct Congress in its 100% legitimate impeachment inquiry.

That's bad enough, of course. Much worse, though, is how what Trump and his cronies did in the Ukraine scandal points to an authoritarian mindset that strikes at the heart of what the patriots who founded the United States feared might happen.

A return of King George in the guise of an American president.

The king can do no wrong, supposedly. But a president of the United States can be held to account for seriously bad behavior through impeachment. Which happened today, thankfully.

However, no Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. Even worse, I watched the House debate off and on this afternoon, and didn't hear a single cogent defense of Trump's abuse of power, the first article of impeachment.

Meaning, zero GOP members said that it was OK for a president to ask a foreign power to investigate his political rival prior to an election. 

Yet there is zero doubt that Trump did this.

The notes of the second phone call between him and the Ukrainian president show that this happened, and Trump himself has admitted that he asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son -- going so far as to double down and ask that China do the same thing.

So it's clear that virtually all Republicans in Congress, and also most Republicans in the country, have decided that they will go along with whatever crazy stunt Trump decides to pull off, regardless of whether Trump's actions are ethical, legal, or in the nation's interest.

Which gets me to the movie, Jojo Rabbit. Here's the Rotten Tomatoes synopsis.

Writer director Taika Waititi (THOR: RAGNAROK, HUNT FOR THE WILDERPEOPLE), brings his signature style of humor and pathos to his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, a World War II satire that follows a lonely German boy (Roman Griffin Davis as Jojo) whose world view is turned upside down when he discovers his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a young Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. Aided only by his idiotic imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi), Jojo must confront his blind nationalism.

My wife and I saw it at Salem Cinema last Saturday night. Without giving away any of the plot, since it's a great movie that everyone should see, I can simply say that 10-year-old Jojo ends up displaying much more courage, wisdom, and open-mindedness than any Republican member of the House of Representatives.

That's scary, because Jojo starts off as an extremely avid fan of Hitler and Nazi propaganda. Yet Jojo eventually is able to set some of his prejudices aside and see Jews as human beings, not as the cartoonish evil characters Hitler portrayed them as.

Another disturbing aspect of Jojo Rabbit was the newsreel footage from Nazi Germany that's shown early on in the movie. What we're watching is authoritarianism writ large -- massive crowds cheering Hitler in lockstep, resonating with his message of, in so many words, "Make Germany Great Again."

Donald Trump loves dictators. He adores Russia's Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Trump shows no interest in fostering democracy in the world, nor in protecting the free press essential in a democratic society.

After the House voted to impeach Trump today, I heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi answer questions from reporters as I was driving home from my Tai Chi class.

It seemed evident that she is open to not sending over the impeachment decision to the Senate until Mitch McConnell agrees to a fair trial in the Senate that includes fact witnesses such as Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton, plus documents that Trump is hiding, almost certainly because they are incriminating.

This strikes me as a really good idea.

So good, I'm hoping Congressional Democrats will agree to simply sit on the impeachment resolution without sending it to the Senate if McConnell and Co. persist in their plan to have a very brief show trial that acquits Trump after a week or so.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe argues for this in an opinion piece, "Don't let Mitch McConnell conduct a Potemkin impeachment trial." Excerpt:

Consider the case of a prosecutor armed with a grand jury indictment who learns that the fix is in and that the jury poised to consider the case is about to violate its oath to do impartial justice. In that situation, the prosecutor is under no affirmative legal obligation to go forward until the problem is cured and a fair trial possible.

So, too, the House, whose historical role is to prosecute articles of impeachment in the Senate after exercising its “sole” power to impeach, is under no affirmative constitutional obligation to do so instantly. That is especially true when the majority leader has made clear that he is, for all practical purposes, a member of the defense team.

More than anything else, at this point Trump wants to have the Senate declare that he is innocent of the impeachment charges so he can trumpet that during his 2020 re-election campaign.

Denying him this victory would be both good politics and good for democracy, as it would show that Democrats are holding firm on Congress taking impeachment seriously. Trump has mocked democratic norms from the day he was elected. He's acted like a wanna-be authoritarian. He has said that the president can do whatever he (or she) wants.

Sure, part of me would love to see Elizabeth Warren, say, be elected president next year, and then be able to do whatever she wants in accord with the "Trump doctrine." But the wiser side of me understands that no president, Democrat or Republican, should be able to act badly without consequences.

One of which is impeachment. That's why today was a great day for American democracy.

Indivisible scorecard ranks Elizabeth Warren #1

Great idea, Indivisible folks.

You've fashioned a clear, easy to understand, transparent scorecard for the Democratic presidential contenders that rates them on three criteria:

Policy Platform: Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed to enacting bold, popular, progressive policies across a range of areas, including immigration, climate, economic justice, health care, and other critical policy areas.

Day-One Democracy Agenda: None of the policy reforms we want to see in 2021 are possible without a democracy that responds to the people. Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed first and foremost to ambitious reforms to save our democracy.

Building Grassroots Power: Indivisibles know that national change won’t come from any one leader - it will take a movement. Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed to building grassroots power, as demonstrated by their fundraising, campaign strategy and management, support for other progressive candidates, and their engagement with Indivisible groups.

Who comes out on top? Elizabeth Warren.

 

I like Warren a lot, so I was pleased to see this result. However, my wife favors Buttigieg, and I can understand why she does. Buttigieg strikes us as the most compelling speaker, since what he says seems to come from the heart, not from canned campaign lines.

However, along with most progressives I look upon the Democratic presidential candidates through the lens of who could stand on a debate stage with Trump and kick his butt (metaphorically... though I'd enjoy seeing a literal butt-kicking).

To me, Warren would fare best going toe-to-toe with Trump. She's composed, fearless, and has an in-depth understanding of every topic that might come up.

Of course, it could be argued that the candidates who do worse on the Indivisible scorecard would fare better in the general election, since their moderation would appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

I can resonate with that argument, since more than anything else, I want a Democratic candidate who will win, even if their policy positions aren't perfectly progressive.

On days that my psyche is in that frame of mind, I look upon Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar with considerable fondness. They'd stand a good chance of doing well in the mid-west "rust belt" states that are key to winning the 2020 election.

Indivisible has a good rejoinder to my a moderate would be best theory, though. This is a screenshot from their Rubric document.

 

Sleaze warning: Reid Sund hires Chuck Adams in Ward 7 race

Watch out, residents of south Salem's Ward 7.

A tsunami of sleaze could be coming your way as the City Council race between Vanessa Nordyke and Reid Sund heats up between now and the May 2020 primary election.

Chuck Adams

I say this because Sund's campaign finance reporting indicates that Chuck Adams' firm, New Media Northwest, is working for the Friends of Reid Sund committee.

As you can see in this screenshot, there's a cozy (and rather incestuous) relationship between New Media Northwest and Friends of Reid Sund. In the sample of transactions below, New Media Northwest made $1,135 worth of cash and in-kind contributions to the Sund campaign. Then the Sund campaign paid $1,300 to New Media Northwest.

Chuck Adams works almost entirely for conservative/Republican candidates (I said "almost" because while I didn't recognize any liberal/Democratic names among the 51 successful first-time candidates on the home page of the New Media web site, it's possible Adams has worked for a Dem.)

Adams came to my attention in 2010, when I wrote a piece for Blue Oregon, "GOP flack Chuck Adams sleazes up Marion County charter change campaign." Excerpt:

The Salem Chamber of Commerce is leading the opposition to the Measure. This is to be expected, given the extreme pro-development and anti-environment leanings of two current commissioners, Sam Brentano and Patti Milne. The Measure is threatening to those in the Marion County power structure, because it would make the commissioners more accountable to ordinary citizens rather than special interests.

Even so, I've been wondering why the "No on 24-292" campaign has been so especially sleazy. Opponents have been way over the top with their untruths and fabrications. Today I learned the likely reason: Chuck Adams is the consultant supporting the Salem Chamber of Commerce's political action committee.

Adams is a long-time strategist for right-wing causes who fell on hard times back in 2007 when he was booted by the Republican leadership. He's been involved in some nasty "Swiftboating" campaigns, and has been called a "hit man," "pit bull," and "flack."

I can believe it, given the nasty deceptions in a letter opposing the Measure from Walt Beglau, the Marion County District Attorney, that arrived in voters' mailboxes last Saturday, May 1.

Now, hopefully Reid Sund will tell Adams that he wants to run a clean campaign against Vanessa Nordyke. But the fact that the Sund campaign is working with New Media Northwest, which is based in Salem, is a disturbing sign that Sund is prepared to go low when Nordyke goes high. 

If this happens, I think the tactic could backfire against Sund.

People are fed up with the never-ending rancor and divisiveness in Washington, D.C. and don't want to see this at the local level here in Salem. It's fine that Sund is a conservative and Nordyke is a progressive. This should make for an engaging battle of ideas and policy positions that Ward 7 voters would appreciate.

However, Chuck Adams has a lengthy history of stretching the truth beyond acceptable political bounds. Here's some excerpts from stories in the Portland Oregonian that indicate how Adams has slung mud at opponents of candidates he's been hired to work for. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.

SELECTED ARTICLE EXCERPTS ABOUT CHUCK ADAMS FROM THE OREGONIAN

EDITORIAL - Mud that will stick to Oregon's shoes
October 31, 2006
SUMMARY: A dirty, disgusting race in east Multnomah County will leave lingering stains on the state and its Legislature

That's not just mud supporters of Republican Karen Minnis and Democrat Rob Brading are flinging around east Multnomah County. It's poison.

It's the very stuff that makes voters thoroughly sick of politics and politicians. It's the toxic substance that lawmakers have tracked into the Oregon Capitol and the United States Congress, leading to sweeping paralysis in both places.

Now this poison is billowing out of House District 49. The first blast was a flier produced by Minnis' longtime political hatchet man, Chuck Adams, claiming Brading has "a history of supporting pornography" because, as a library board member, he opposed placing filters on library computers. Then Adams produced a mailer accusing Brading of "unethical and immoral" behavior --wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- when Brading, who is heterosexual, briefly served as an executive director of a gay-rights group 16 years ago.

-------------------------

EDITORIAL - An expensive race, and a cheap shot
August 31, 2006
SUMMARY: A flier saying Rob Brading has a "history" of pornography is ugly, and Karen Minnis should tell her allies to halt it

Mud is hard to throw. It sticks to your hands, flies off in unexpected directions and even, sometimes, winds up splattering the last person you'd want to dirty. Like, say, House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village.

Minnis has found flecks of dirt sticking to her campaign ever since her longtime political consultant, Chuck Adams, and others began hurling gobs of mud at Rob Brading, her Democratic opponent in the Nov. 7 election. Minnis' supporters have produced a nasty campaign flier that features a photograph of Brading under the headline, "This man is responsible for children viewing Internet porn in our county library." It claims Brading has a "history of supporting pornography."

In fact, that "history" amounts to nothing more than serving on the 15-member Multnomah County Library Advisory Board and joining in the board's opposition to filters to block access to sex-related Web sites on library computers --even those routinely available to children.

-------------------------

Oregon Legislature Oregon's next election might be decided by a man you've never met
July 26, 2005
SUMMARY: GOP strategist Chuck Adams has quietly become a key player with a refuse-to-lose attitude that's won him fans and critics

...Some Republicans frown on Adams' approach, however, saying it is divisive and focuses too much on personal attacks. "The politics of personal attack are his specialty," says Rob Patridge, a former three-session House Republican from Medford who has known Adams since 1989.

Sen. Joanne Verger, D-Coos Bay, agrees. She has run for office every two years since 1990, but she says last year's campaign by Republican opponent Al Pearn was the dirtiest she's ever seen. She says the person described in Pearn's campaign, which Adams worked on, "had no similarity to me or my record."

Verger, who narrowly won, says her favorite example was a Pearn flier that claimed she had voted for $24 billion worth of tax increases. Adams says the number was an honest mistake. The flier was supposed to say $2.4 billion, but a decimal point was mistakenly left out, and the campaign acknowledged the error in a news release.

-------------------------

CROSSFIRE OF COMPLAINTS HITS TOP GOP CONSULTANT June 9, 2000

...Adams has run afoul of elections law before. In 1995, he pleaded guilty to failing to properly verify signatures on initiative petitions he submitted, a felony for which he was fined $1,000 and given two years' probation.

Adams also is at the center of a complaint lodged with the Elections Division involving the rancorous race for Salem mayor between incumbent Mike Swaim, who won the nonpartisan election, and challenger Glenn Wheeler.

Adams produced a controversial ad attacking Swaim, a lawyer, for representing a convicted murderer on appeal. The ad was paid for by Gordon Miller, a Salem dentist who is active in Republican politics, and was listed on campaign finance disclosure reports as part of an "independent expenditure" campaign against Swaim.

State law forbids coordination between someone who produces an independent ad and the candidate the ad is designed to help. But Adams also was Wheeler's campaign manager. In a complaint filed with the Elections Division, Vern Golay of Salem contends the independently produced ad violated state elections law because of Adams' dual role in the campaign: producer of the independent ad and Wheeler's campaign manager.

Fred Neal, state elections manager, said his division is investigating the claim. Swaim, who was angered by the ad Adams produced, said political consultants are too anonymous and should be held accountable for their work. "Adams ought to be appropriately spotlighted as the creator of this sort of gutter politics," he said."

-------------------------

POLITICAL MACHINE HUMS BEHIND LEGISLATIVE RACES
November 1, 1998
Summary: Paid professionals, party leaders, lobbyists and rich contributors almost invisibly coordinate the resources and direction of the most competitive campaigns

If you live in a town with a hard-fought Oregon legislative race, there's a good chance the campaign fliers jamming your mailbox came from one of the desks of two people you've never heard of -- Chuck Adams or Mark Wiener.

Neither are on Tuesday's ballot, but as two of the top mail consultants in this year's legislative campaigns, they could have more effect on what voters decide than the candidates do. It's their job to get your attention.

...Adams also produced a mailer for Gianella and Rep. Jane Lokan, R-Milwaukie, that featured what looked like a young black gang member pointing a pistol at the reader over the headline: "Welcome to the neighborhood." Adams insisted he didn't think about race when he chose the image from a national photo archive to vividly illustrate the issue of juvenile crime. But after critics, particularly African Americans, objected and said it unfairly stereotyped, Adams conceded that he might have made a mistake.

Adams and Wiener say that although voters might profess to dislike hard-hitting attacks, they respond to them.

"It's almost never just about what a person stands for," Adams said. "It's always about a mix. The point of that is that negative information is powerful. . . . People thrive on negativity."

Yin and Yang homeless proposals: car camping and Hillcrest purchase

Homelessness is too big a problem in both Salem and elsewhere for one-dimensional solutions. It's going to take a wide variety of ideas, both tried-and-true and out-of-the-box, to make a dent in Salem's homeless population.

So congrats to City Councilor Chris Hoy for a small "yin" proposal that would set up an organized location on private property for people who sleep in their cars. 

A Salem Reporter story, "Salem official eyes organized camping for people who live in vehicles," describes Hoy's idea.

As city of Salem staff hunt for a place where homeless residents may legally set up tents, staff may also soon look for a place for cars, too.

Councilor Chris Hoy on Monday plans to ask staff to report back on how Salem can organize a place to camp for people who live in their vehicles. A draft of Hoy’s motion can be viewed online.

“Currently, many Salem residents experiencing homelessness live out of their cars or recreational vehicles,” the motion said. “There are few legal options for these residents to locate and maintain their vehicle for any period of time.”

Camping in cars also may impact neighborhoods and businesses, the motion said, with litter and the “unintended use of right-of-way as living space.”

The motion is another attempt in recent weeks by Salem officials to designate a place for homeless residents to spend the night.

Making it easier for homeless people to live out of their cars or RVs isn't a big step forward, but it's better than doing nothing.

On the other hand, Gene Pfeifer and Fay DeMeyer have a very yang'ish Big Idea: purchase the 45-acre Hillcrest property in south Salem and fashion it into a place where as many as 800 homeless people could live and receive workplace training.

So says a lengthy Statesman Journal story about the proposal.

It's great to see some creative thinking about how to deal with Salem's homeless problem. Sure, turning the Hillcrest property into what Pfeifer and DeMeyer are calling Hope Crest (nice name) faces long odds. But it sure would be nice if Hope Crest became a reality.

Here's some excerpts from the Statesman Journal story.

Gene Pfeifer sees an opportunity to save taxpayer money and put vacant public buildings back into use. Fay DeMeyer sees a chance to build a community where up to 800 homeless people are not just housed and fed but trained to reenter the workforce.

The pair — a local developer and a psychology instructor — are leading the charge to launch a residential program for the homeless at the shuttered Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility campus in southeast Salem.

It's unlike anything ever tried in Salem. And while the approach has been used elsewhere in the country, so far it's receiving a lukewarm reception here.

They call it Hope Crest, a play on the name of the youth facility closed in 2017. The 45-acre property, about 5 miles from downtown, includes 17 buildings on a hilltop surrounded by a perimeter fence.

...Two potential buyers backed out after their offers were accepted by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services because the property didn't meet their development needs.

Pfeifer and DeMeyer made their move after the latest contract was terminated.

They established the Hope Crest Foundation, outlined their plan and introduced it to people with clout (business leaders and elected officials) and expertise (advocates and agencies who serve the homeless).

The foundation made an initial offer of $2.1 million for the property Nov. 15 and has since revised it at least twice to $2.7 million — just so it would be taken seriously. Members heard one of the previously accepted offers was $2.1 million, Pfeifer said.

...Pfeifer and DeMeyer envision creating a safe community for the homeless, a place where people could have temporary housing and get all the services they need, including substance abuse and mental health treatment and education and job training.

Salem City Council allows homeless to camp on public property. But where?

At last night's City Council meeting a big change was made to the homeless ordinance that passed at the previous meeting, and required a "second reading" to become law.

Instead of banning camping on public property entirely, the council decided to allow homeless people to camp on approved city-owned property. Here's some excerpts from a Salem Reporter story by Troy Brynelson, "Salem bans open camping and now seeks a place to host it."

(Kudos to Brynelson for using "eighty-sixing" in his story. I haven't seen this term used in a long time, and I'm old.)

Tents and other dwellings will soon have to disappear from sidewalks and boulevards after the Salem City Council on Monday night banned camping on public property.

But city officials aren’t eighty-sixing campers altogether. The city is taking two weeks to designate a spot for them to camp.

Councilors Tom Andersen and Vanessa Nordyke orchestrated the idea, separately pitching that city staff needed to find public property for campers to move when the ban goes into effect on Monday, Dec. 16.

As a result, city employees are expected to report to the council next Monday and what city-owned property could be used as an impromptu campground. Andersen said without such a space, it’s unclear where the camping populace would go.

Well, it's also unclear where homeless campers are going to end up under the new policy. Maybe the City of Salem owns vacant property that would make a fine place for an organized homeless camp. I'm just clueless as to where that property might be.

Parks seemingly would be ruled out. So would right of ways adjacent to busy streets. A downtown homeless camp would be too controversial. But a camp far distant from social services wouldn't make sense either.

Nordyke and Andersen, along with the rest of the City Council, did seem to make a wise decision. A Statesman Journal story by Jonathan Bach, "Salem council may set aside city property as designated camping sites for the homeless," says:

People experiencing homelessness have a shrinking list of places to go as cold weather sets in. They have been barred from camping in city parks, spurned from private land and rousted from beneath public bridges.

City officials have attempted to connect the homeless with social services, but that doesn't change the fact that area shelters do not have the capacity to give everyone a place to rest at night. Advocates estimate the homeless population to be approximately 1,800 people strong at a given time within the urban growth boundary, while the area only has about 300 emergency shelter beds. Warming shelters opened recently to bolster that number temporarily.

It's one thing if a homeless person chooses to camp out because they prefer this to being in a shelter. However, it's another thing if there aren't enough shelter beds available for every person who wants one -- which appears to be the case currently.

Last Sunday's Sixty Minutes program had an interesting segment on Seattle's homeless population. You can watch it via the Sixty Minutes web site. It featured an interview with a homeless family who has been living in a tent in a camp on public property, very much like what Salem is planning.

A transcript says:

In the shadow of Interstate 5 in Seattle, on a vacant strip of public land, this is Tent City 3. There are about 50 people living here, without heat or running water.

Ethan Wood is celebrating his third birthday. He's lived in a tent for the past year and a half. 

His parents, Tricia and Josiah, told us Ethan has an enlarged heart and suffers from bouts of asthma and croup so severe, they've had to take him to the emergency room several times. Last winter, one of Seattle's coldest in recent memory, Ethan was sleeping in a tent, covered with blankets, sandwiched between his parents for warmth.

Anderson Cooper: Did you ever think, "Well, this is not the place, we should have our child"?

Josiah Wood: We don't want our son here. We don't want to be here. But as of right now, this is the safest place for us.

Tricia Wood: Absolutely. 

Josiah Wood: Because we know the people, we know the rules, and--

Tricia Wood: Our family gets to stay together.

Josiah Wood: And our family stays together.

This was an eye-opener for me. I hadn't realized that many homeless people have full-time jobs that pay considerably more than minimum wage.

Tricia Wood: I used to be one of those people that thought that if anyone was homeless they just needed to go get a job. That would solve their homeless problems.

Anderson Cooper: How would you answer that question now? Why can't they just get a job?

Tricia Wood: Oh my goodness. Maybe they have a job. 

Josiah Wood has a full-time job. He gets up before dawn and takes mass transit to work as a maintenance supervisor at the Hard Rock Café downtown. Though he makes $19.50 an hour, the rent for an average one-bedroom apartment in Seattle would eat up half his salary. He and Tricia say they've been saving up money so they can afford a security deposit and monthly rent.

Now, rents in Seattle must be a lot higher than rents in Salem. But there must be quite a few homeless people in Salem who also are working, yet can't afford a market-rate apartment.

It'd be great if our local journalists could do what Sixty Minutes did: interview homeless people who don't fit the stereotype of mentally ill, drug abuser, unable to work. Several others featured in the Sixty Minutes segment had full-time jobs, including a postal worker woman who lives in an old RV, and a man who worked at DEQ, I recall.

The more we can recognize the diversity of homeless people and appreciate that they are just like the rest of us, apart from not having a home, the easier it will be for those worried about having a homeless camp near them to accept the camp as a temporary solution.

The Sixty Minutes piece did note that there's a time limit in Seattle on how long a camp can be in one place. Salem probably needs to have the same policy, to make the camp on public property more acceptable to near-by businesses and residences.

This is one of several makeshift encampments in Seattle that are allowed by the city. Decisions are made by camp residents, who are also required to do chores and take turns guarding the tents. But about every three months, all the residents in Tent City Three agree to pack up and move to a new location. It's an arrangement they make with the landowners who let them pitch their tents. No one wants a camp of homeless people in their neighborhood for very long.

When we visited Ethan and his parents in September, they had just packed up their tent near the highway and were setting up in a church pastor's backyard. It was the eighth time they've had to move in the past year and a half.

Statesman Journal print circulation is down 36% in last two years

Salem's daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal, is experiencing a big decline in print circulation: it's down 36% between June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2019, which is an annualized rate of decline of 20% for those two years.

Here's a screenshot from a searchable database of 200 newspapers that's included in a recent Boston Business Journal story, "Most Gannett papers are losing print circulation faster than average."

This shows the results of a search for Oregon newspapers.

It's interesting that while Eugene and Salem have roughly equal populations, the Eugene Register-Guard had a 2019 print circulation that was almost exactly double that of the Salem Statesman Journal. And the Eugene paper had a much lower decline in circulation, 23.9% for the two years vs. Salem's 35.7%.

I was curious to see where the Statesman Journal ranked among the 200 daily newspapers. I looked through the searchable database and found that 6 newspapers had an equal two year circulation decline of 35.7%; 62 newspapers had a larger circulation decline; and 132 newspapers had a smaller circulation decline.

So the Statesman Journal was in the bottom third, approximately. Meaning, about two-thirds of the 200 newspapers had a smaller two-year print circulation decline than the Statesman Journal.

This isn't good news for Statesman Journal subscribers who prefer to read a print newspaper rather than an online version, which includes my wife and I. 

The Boston Business Journal story says:

The AAM [Alliance for Audited Media] provided data on a total of 200 daily papers owned by Gannett and New Media that filed circulation data for both [t]he quarters ending in June 2017 and June 2019 (Gannett says it now owns 260 newspapers nationwide, but not all newspapers file circulation data with AAM). The total weekday circulation at those newspapers was 2.95 million as of this past June, down from 4.34 million as of two years earlier.

That represents an 18 percent annualized rate of decline — significantly faster than the 12 percent rate of decline at daily print papers nationwide cited by Pew.

As noted above, the Statesman Journal had a 20 percent annualized rate of circulation decline, which is much greater than the nationwide figure of 12 percent.

This probably also isn't good news for Statesman Journal staff, since the story notes:

The new Gannett is now under intense pressure from shareholders to fulfill its vow to cut $300 million in expenses, and it’s likely that it’ll turn to its most underperforming newspapers to do so. Gannett did not respond to a request for comment on its circulation trends.

Of course, digital-only subscribers are off-setting some of the decline in print circulation. However, the Boston Business Journal story says:

While some regional dailies — notably the Boston Globe — have been successful in adding new online subscribers, the Gannett and New Media publications lag far behind. As of June, Gannett said that its digital-only subscribers totaled 607,000 — less than a third of its print subscribers. At GateHouse, online subscribers make up less than 20 percent of its print circulation.

It seems to me that the Statesman Journal is on its way to becoming a digital-only newspaper with a smaller staff and advertising revenues. One notable indication of this is how the Statesman Journal is charging print subscribers.

Almost exactly two years ago, on November 27, 2017, I wrote "Cancel your Statesman Journal subscription for 30 days to save $500 a year." 

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

(What's up with that one cent?)

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

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

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

So, after paying $11/month for six months, then paying $22/month, here's what the Statesman Journal notified me that I'd be paying as of July 1, 2019: $48.

This is uncomfortably close to the $59.01 rate that I was going to pay at the "old subscriber" rate as of December 1, 2017. Thus new subscribers are being hit with very large increases in the print home delivery rate, which likely explains a big part of the 36% decline in print circulation in the past two years.

Plus, there's been a clear decline in the quality of the Statesman Journal.

Investigative reporting is basically non-existent. The Opinion section has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. There's only one sports reporter, I believe. And the online Salem Reporter is only $100 a year, while the Statesman Journal is charging me $576 a year for home delivery of the print edition.

I hope the Statesman Journal continues as a print newspaper. But it seems increasingly likely that it won't.