Salem Political Snark

Gatti brothers fined $2,000 for tree destruction, but they should pay more

Today, after filing a public records request, I learned how much Daniel and Richard Gatti are being fined for destroying four street trees after failing to get a permit, as required by a City of Salem ordinance: $2,000, $500 per tree. Here's the PDF file I got.
Download 20-132 Enforcement Order-Notice Redacted_Redacted

One of the mangled Gatti street trees

However, here's part of what I said in my first blog post about the tree destruction, "Gatti brothers trash street trees. City of Salem needs to  fine them, big-time."

Wow. Richard Gatti knew he shouldn't trim street trees on public property without getting approval from the city. He didn't use a licensed tree service. He didn't tell the contractor what to do.

If this behavior doesn't end up with Gatti paying a big fine from the City of Salem, then city officials should give up any claim to being dedicated to protecting Salem's trees. 

This sort of needless tree destruction has been going on for many years. It has to stop.

Making people who trash street trees pay for the full cost of replacing the trees with comparable ones of the same size would send a message that the City of Salem is serious about protecting public property in the form of valuable street trees.

I've seen an estimate on Facebook by a certified arborist that the value of the trees Gatti destroyed could be over $75,000. So there's no way Gatti should get off with a $2,000 fine per tree -- though even that would be more than the zero fine that the city spokeswoman said would be levied. 

Now, I thought the $2,000 fine was for each tree removed, but apparently the maximum fine for unpermitted tree removals is $2,000, no matter how many trees were destroyed. See:

There's a key question that remains to be answered. SRC 86.105(c) says this about restoring damaged trees. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.

Costs of restoration. Persons violating this chapter, or a permit issued hereunder, shall be responsible for restoring damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director that provides for repair of any environmental or property damage and restoration of the site. Costs of restoration shall be not less than those determined equal to the monetary value of the regulated trees removed in violation of this chapter, or permit issued hereunder, as set forth in an appraisal acceptable to the Director and based upon applicable administrative rules. Each removal of a regulated tree in violation of this chapter shall result in a separate civil fine in addition to costs of restoration.

So it appears that an appraisal of the value of the trees that were destroyed by the Gatti brothers needs to be conducted. Then the Gatti's have to pay at least the amount of that appraisal -- which seemingly could amount to tens of thousands of dollars, given the size of the trees that were destroyed.

Yet as shown below, the Restoration Agreement discussed in a letter that went to the Gatti brothers doesn't mention the appraisal. Hopefully this was just an oversight, because otherwise the Restoration Agreement would be in violation of SRC 86.105(c).

As it stands, the Restoration Agreement seems to allow for the possibility that Daniel and Richard Gatti could replant much smaller trees, which obviously would take many years to grow to the size of the trees that were illegally destroyed. This shouldn't be allowed. 

UPDATE: The Statesman Journal has a story on the fine, "Gatti fined $2,000 for illegal tree trimming." (headline of print edition) These quotes from Richard Gatti make him sound unrepentant and insensitive to the plight of homeless people.

Gatti said that, though he doesn't think the trees were harmed, he is willing to replace them. But he said he's "livid" that the city fined him. He plans to appeal the fine. 

"Apparently, being a taxpayer and homeowner, property owner, making an effort to keep the property in great condition, having made a mistake, the city now wants to punish me by citing and fining me," Gatti said. "I find that a double standard and outrageous."

 "When I drive into the city I see campers on the right-of-ways, destroying the ground, leaving their trash, their needles, their feces all in the right-of-way, not one of whom has been or is being cited or fined," Gatti said.

"I see their priority," he said of city officials. "Their priority is those who contribute nothing to this city. The ones who make it a better place to live are the ones they want to drive out of here and punish."

You'd think that Gatti would know that courts have ruled that homeless people can't be banned from sleeping outside if there aren't enough shelter beds to house them, and that the City of Salem has banned homeless camping throughout the city.

Youth fighting for climate change action should inspire Oregon politicians

My 12-year-old granddaughter, Evelyn, did the right thing in sending me an "OK Boomer" hoodie for Christmas.

While at first I took it as a putdown of my baby boomer generation, upon further reflection I see it as a totally justified putdown of my generation.

About the same time as the arrival of the hoodie, TIME magazine's Person of the Year issue arrived. It featured Greta Thunberg on the cover, with the words "The Power of Youth."

Since, that issue has been sitting in my pile of Things to Blog About One Day. That day has come, in part because next Monday, February 3, the Oregon legislature convenes in a short even-numbered year session.

A revised cap-and-trade bill that would reduce greenhouse gas pollution in the state will be introduced and, hopefully, passed. Republicans are threatening a walkout to deny the quorum that is needed for the legislature to function, but this would be unpopular with voters who like to see elected officials perform the job they're supposed to do.

The following excerpts from the TIME cover story about Thunberg probably wouldn't change the minds of climate change deniers. However, I was moved by them. My generation truly has let young people down when it comes to protecting our one and only planet for human habitation.

Pass the cap-and-trade bill, Oregon legislators. Listen to what the youth of the world are saying...

The common thread is outrage over a central injustice: young people know they are inheriting a world that will not work nearly as well as it did for the aging adults who have been running it.

"It's so important to realize that we are challenging the systems we are in, and that is being led by young people," says Beth Irving, 17, who came from Wales to demonstrate for sweeping changes outside the U.N. summit.

Thunberg is not aligned with any of these non-climate youth movements, but her abrupt rise to prominence comes at a moment when young people across the globe are awakening to anger at being cut a raw deal.

The existential issue of climate puts everyone at risk, but the younger you are, the greater the stakes. 

The scale of addressing climate change -- the systematic transformation of economic, social, and political systems -- animates young progressives already keen to remake the world.

Karin Watson, 22, who came to the climate summit as part of a delegation from Amnesty International Chile, describes a tumultuous, interconnected and youth-led "social explosion" worldwide.

She cannot disentangle her own advocacy for higher wages from women's rights and climate: "This social crisis is also an ecological crisis -- it's related," she says. "In the end, it's intersectional: the most vulnerable communities are the most vulnerable to climate change."

In the U.S., Jaclyn Corin, 19, one of the original organizers of the March for Our Lives anti-gun violence movement, framed the challenges at stake.

"We can't let these problems continue on for future generations to take care of," she says. "Adults didn't take care of these problems, so we have to take care of them, and not be like older generations in their complacency."

Me, Brian Hines, a member of an older generation, trying not to look too complacent

Oregonians will punish GOP legislators if they walk out again

I'm already irked again at Republicans in the state legislature, because they're indicating that another walkout could happen in the upcoming short legislative session over a bill to reduce carbon pollution in Oregon and stem global warming.

The leader of the Senate Republicans has said a walkout is possible, as has the leader of the House Republicans. 

The GOP leader in the Oregon Senate says there could be another walkout by Republicans over legislation aimed at stemming global warming.

Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., told reporters Wednesday that a bill being prepared by Democrats in the Legislature, which they control, is similar to one that was introduced in 2019.

...Senate Republicans left the state in the 2019 legislative session in order to prevent a vote on the controversial climate change proposal. A measure to curb carbon emissions is once again at the top of Democrats’ priority list, and Republicans have signaled that another walk out is not off the table.

Newly elected House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said a walkout is a “breakdown of the process,” but she didn’t rule it out as an option to block the climate change bill.

Republican legislators need to carry out the job they were elected to do: legislate.

That means voting on bills that come before the legislature. If Republicans want to defeat bills they don't like, and pass bills they do like, they should work harder to win elections, not throw a temper-tantrum and walk out when they fail to get their way.

Fortunately, most Oregonians feel like I do, according to a Willamette Week story, "Poll Results Suggest Oregonians Favor Political Consequences for Republican Walkout Tactics."

A new poll, paid for by a group of the state's public-sector unions, suggests voters are supportive of political consequences for senators who stage a walkout, like the one that blocked last year's carbon-cap bill.

"Fully 63% of these voters say they are less likely to vote for an incumbent senator who participated in the walkouts—and more than two in five (42%) say they are 'much less likely' to do so," according to a memo provided to WW on the poll by FM3, which sampled 750 likely November voters.

...The polling suggests a further walkout might cause trouble for Republicans in swing districts—and provide an incentive not to opt for the tactic this session.

Joe Baessler, associate director of AFSCME Council 75, says the poll, paid for by the public-employee union-backed group Our Oregon, showed similar results in those two Senate districts—those held by state Sens. Tim Knopp (R-Bend) and Denyc Boles (R-Salem)—where Democrats are looking to upset Republican incumbents.

OK, that's great news. As is reporting by OPB that union leaders plan to file an initiative that could result in legislators being kicked out of office if they have too many unexcused absences. 

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Democratic legislative leaders have played down the idea of trying to amend the Constitution to prevent future walkouts of the kind staged by Republicans during last year’s legislative session. 

But a top labor leader says public employee unions are planning to file a proposed ballot initiative that would threaten legislators who walk out with being tossed from office.

Joe Baessler, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said polling conducted by the unions show that “voters really seem to like the idea that if you don’t show up to work, you lose your job.”

The proposed constitutional amendment, Baessler said, would oust legislators who have at least 10 unexcused absences in a year.

Excellent idea. 

I was deeply disappointed last year when Democrats let the Republicans who walked out, not once but twice, get away with zero negative consequences. No state troopers sent to bring them back. No fines. No nothing. 

If a child misbehaves and their parents don't do anything, that makes it more likely that the child will do the same thing again. Ditto for a dog that misbehaves.

So it's entirely predictable that Republicans are talking about another walkout next month, since in 2019 they were rewarded with killing the climate change bill, plus bills dealing with gun control and mandatory vaccinations that the clueless Democrats killed as an incentive to get the Republicans to stop their first walkout.

Hopefully the poll results and the proposed ballot initiative will show Republicans in the state legislature that voters are tired of their walk-out antics, and some serious consequences will befall the GOP if they stage another paid vacation to Idaho while the legislature is in session.

It sure would be nice not to see another Wanted Poster for Republicans failing to do their jobs.

 

Gatti brothers trash street trees. City of Salem needs to fine them, big-time.

Salem is a town that claims to care about trees. Yes, it's true that most people who live here are tree lovers. Unfortunately, there's a lengthy history of businesses and developers who treat trees really badly with few, if any, consequences. 

Photo I took today of one of the mangled trees

Today's Statesman Journal has a story, "Illegal trimming destroys street trees at Gatti property, famous for holiday light display." There's plenty in the story by Tracy Loew that's infuriating. Like...

In an interview, Richard Gatti said he hired a contractor to do general work around the properties, and asked him to tidy up the trees, which were blocking the sidewalk as well as views of the lights.

...Unfortunately, Gatti didn’t notify the city, get a permit, hire a licensed tree service, or specify exactly what should be done.

“Do I know that we’re not supposed to be trimming their trees without approval? I suppose I knew that, but I thought, well, I was doing mine,” Gatti said. “It cost me quite a bit of money. I wasn’t wanting to put the burden on the city.”

...Tree topping, also called heading or tipping, is the removal of a majority of a tree’s branches. It’s one of the worst things one can do to a tree, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry.

...Salem code states that trimming or removing a city-owned tree without a permit can bring a fine of up to $2,000 per occurrence, plus the cost of the trees.

In this case, the city will not fine the Gattis, but will require them to remove the topped trees and replace them, city spokeswoman Kathy Ursprung said.

UPDATE: Today, January 27, I got an email from Ursprung that said: "I was misquoted in the Statesman Journal regarding this case. I don’t have all the details at this point, but Mr. Gatti is expected to be fined."

Wow. Richard Gatti knew he shouldn't trim street trees on public property without getting approval from the city. He didn't use a licensed tree service. He didn't tell the contractor what to do.

If this behavior doesn't end up with Gatti paying a big fine from the City of Salem, then city officials should give up any claim to being dedicated to protecting Salem's trees. 

This sort of needless tree destruction has been going on for many years. It has to stop.

Making people who trash street trees pay for the full cost of replacing the trees with comparable ones of the same size would send a message that the City of Salem is serious about protecting public property in the form of valuable street trees.

I've seen an estimate on Facebook by a certified arborist that the value of the trees Gatti destroyed could be over $75,000. So there's no way Gatti should get off with a $2,000 fine per tree -- though even that would be more than the zero fine that the city spokeswoman said would be levied. 

Here's links to some of the blog posts I've written previously about the crappy way Salem treats its trees. I look forward to not having to write any more.

Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings
Truth Bomb #3: City of Salem kills trees for no good reason
More beautiful trees in downtown Salem cut down for no good reason
Black Walnut deaths point to more Salem tree dysfunction

Another photo I took of the mangled Gatti street trees 

A view of Salem's problems from wide angle of inequality and corporatism

Watching the Salem City Council discuss homeless solutions last Tuesday night made me feel like I was looking through a magnifying glass. The problems were real. The ideas about how to help homeless people were tiny.

Now, there's nothing wrong with small steps, like allowing a women's homeless shelter to add nine beds to their current 10 bed capacity, or considering allowing the homeless to camp in industrial parts of town.

But equally valuable, if not more so, is looking at Salem's problems through a wide-angle mental lens that sees homelessness, environmental degradation, lack of affordable housing, urban sprawl, and other issues as manifestations of a systemic societal failure.

This is the goal of a book by Russ and Dave Beaton, long-time Salem residents, that I've read the first part of. Russ brought some copies to a group that we're both members of, and I eagerly forked out $10 to get one at a bargain price (The Economics of Hope sells for $17.95 on Amazon.)

I'm liking the book a lot.

Russ is a retired emeritus professor of economics at Willamette University. Dave, his brother, has worked in both state and federal government, with a special interest in the impacts of information technology on the workplace and society.

They've written an approachable book for those of us who don't know much about economics, yet want to understand why things are so screwed up locally, nationally, and internationally. 

There's a lot of moving parts to this question.

But the core thesis of The Economics of Hope is that inequality is tied tightly to climate change and other assaults on our planet's environmental well-being. And corporatism -- a mindset that elevates the values of corporations far above what is desirable -- lurks at the heart of what ails us.

Here's some passages from the book that speak to this. And it isn't just large multinational corporations that are the problem. It's also a Chamber of Commerce mentality that views money and jobs as more important than quality of life and sustainable living. (boldfacing is in original).

In summary, the reality of the [corporate] model looks very much like the medieval structure of Feudalism, except the currency of the Realm is not eternal salvation, but money -- pure and simple. The reward is not sitting at the right hand of God, but a villa in the South of France. 

A spot in Heaven for repentant souls is replaced by the lure of owning a 200-foot yacht, or perhaps, to shamelessly mix metaphors, the ability to soar with the gods in the corporate jet.

...Special attention must be afforded the phrase Corporate Sponsorship. From softball teams to local symphonies, corporate sponsorship is eagerly sought. Presumably, we cannot afford such enrichment opportunities without such philanthropic largesse.

With an admitted generous dash of cynicism, it could be added: "For sure, we can't afford them, since you have already looted from the community any economic surplus that would allow us to pay for such amenities on our own. Give it back...!"

...It will be argued in response that corporate sponsorship in local communities is normally sought from local business interests, and not from national corporations. This is certainly true, and leads to an important reminder.

It is the mindset we are talking about, and not just the presence of some transnational institution itself.

Local business people -- as well they should be in many cases -- are normally seen as community leaders and benefactors. This promotes a "chamber of commerce" mentality which assumes economic prosperity to be the primary value in a community, and from which springs all other features that the community might cherish.

Once that assumption is met, diversity of interests and choices is encouraged, since business is enthroned as the dominant institution that provides all meaning in life. Corporate "sponsorship" has done its job as a small but effective down payment toward a cultural mindset. 

Without further prompting, locals are playing their part, and the corporatist paradigm has won out.

Below I've taken what Russ and Dave Beaton have said above and related the "corporate mindset" and "corporate sponsorship" notions to some specific local issues. Obviously these are my notions, not theirs, but I think there's some common ground in how we see things.

-- The City Council is putting an employee-paid payroll tax on the May 2020 ballot, not an employer-paid tax. And the money, if the measure passes, isn't going to homelessness, parks, libraries, or such. It would be spent on public safety, the police and fire departments that already have by far the largest share of the City's general fund budget.

-- Urban Renewal funds in the millions of dollars are handed out freely to businesses and developers, even when there is no urban area that really needs renewing. But it took a lot of effort to pry loose $50,000 from the City of Salem to fund the beginning stage of a Climate Action Plan that is needed for the small little goal of preserving the earth for human habitation.

-- Businesses and developers in Salem wrongly cut down or wreck street trees that belong to everybody without consequences, or at least no major consequences, while ordinary citizens are held to stricter standards. There are lots of examples of this that I've written about over the years. Here's a very recent example and one from 2013.

-- Likewise, massive road projects are funded as a matter of course, since they are in tune with a chamber of commerce mentality. Meanwhile, those who advocate for making Salem a city where people can walk and bike safely and easily have to struggle to get a single Neighborhood Greenway built, whose cost is a fraction of a single road-widening.

-- When businesses complained about the homeless disrupting downtown commerce, City officials jumped into action to push a ban on homeless camping throughout Salem. However, when local experts on homelessness pointed out the obvious -- that the ban did nothing to reduce the number of homeless people, just change where they congregate -- the City Council appeared confused and unsure what to do. Once again, making money is being taken more seriously than acting humanely.

I'll give the Beatons the last word. Here's another passage from their chapter "What is Corporatism?"

Understand, in no way are we suggesting that corporatism represents some insidious, regimented, sinister force; a pernicious organization with chapters, board members, a secret handshake, and that meets monthly in some five-star hotel on the outskirts of Houston or Dubai.

What we are saying is that powerful corporations, working through their network of relationships to other institutions -- especially government and the media -- have effectively found ways to consolidate, expand, and solidify their power and influence over many important aspects of American life.

The wealthy are definitely in control. It is vital to understand the many permeating effects of this expansion of power if ways are to be found to devise a comfortable and viable local alternative.

A final all-important reminder: The tangible effects, pro and con, of corporations on our lives have been hashed and rehashed, and this will no doubt continue. That is not the main point. The main point is that it has tended to give you, the average American, a mindset compatible with (and inadvertently supportive of) Global Corporatism -- manifested even in your local actions.

Leading you through introspection to examine that mindset or world view is our main purpose in this chapter. 

This is a necessary first step on the part of regular thinking citizens if we are to undertake effective local actions to make our communities more safe, sustainable, prosperous, and personally satisfying. The task will be difficult, but we see it as a fundamentally optimistic endeavor: it represents the path to the best possible future we can expect.

Salem City Club sparks outrage with one-sided garbage burner program

It hurts when an organization you like screws up, then offers up a weak explanation for why the screw-up happened.

That's why I'm so disappointed with the Salem City Club, which has decided to only have Marion County representatives speak at a February 21 program about the Covanta garbage burner in Brooks -- a decision that has outraged environmentalists who urged the City Club to also have someone speak about the downsides of the garbage burner.

Which are many, as this excerpt from an Oregon League of Conservation Voters post says.

When you think of clean energy, what do you think of? If you’re like most people, you think of wind turbines on a gusty hill, or solar panels on a sunny rooftop. If you’re like Covanta — one of the biggest waste-incineration plants in Oregon — you think of burning trash.

But waste incineration is by no means clean energy. Burning trash contributes heavily to air pollution, and to climate change. In fact, on many levels, it’s far worse than fossil fuels. Covanta’s waste incineration plant adds nitrogen oxides, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and heavy metals into the air, putting nearby communities at risk of severe asthma attacks, birth defects, strokes, and respiratory problems. That’s anything but clean.

Last week I was included in email exchanges between environmentalists from the local chapter of 350.org and City Club members in charge of the garbage burner program. My sympathies then, as now, are with the environmentalists.

For after failing to have the Oregon legislature approve a bill in 2019 that would grant Renewable Energy Credits to Covanta, there's another effort underway in the upcoming 2020 short legislative session to pass a similar bill.

Here's a message that Andy Harris sent to state Representative Brian Clem on this subject.

January 11, 2020

Dear Brian [Rep. Clem],

 

I have known you for many years through Salem City Club and have valued and supported your positions on most legislative issues, in particular on climate and health. However, in my opinion your support of renewable energy credits for Covanta Marion is an unfortunate mistake. I would encourage you to stand up to political pressures from Marion Co. Commissioners, Senate President Courtney, and industry apologists.

 

Much has changed since Covanta Marion was first approved and constructed in the mid-80s. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) have become more of a known threat to the heating of our planet. We now know that the incinerator, which burns plastics, medical waste and municipal trash, is the state’s 19th largest industrial producer of GHGs. We also know that when waste is burned, nearly all of the carbon is immediately emitted into the atmosphere as a Greenhouse Gas (GHG).  

 

Incinerators accelerate the release of GHGs and speed up the process of global heating, whereas landfills slow the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. At a modern landfill, such as Coffin Butte, about three quarters (74% - 81%) of the GHGs remain sequestered indefinitely, especially the carbon sequestered in plastics. Landfill technology has further improved so that about half of the methane released at Coffin Butte is captured and used as an energy source.  

 

The term renewable energy credits [RECs] refers to naturally renewing resources.  RECs are intended to encourage the development of clean, new sources of energy, like solar and wind power, not for energy from burning dirty garbage and medical waste.

 

Covanta Marion not only releases GHGs into the atmosphere, it spews heavy metals and toxic chemicals into the air we breathe. The toxic emissions that go out the stack are dispersed over the countryside, waterways, towns and schools, where they can harm human health and wildlife. The heavy metals include lead and cadmium from the burning of paper and cardboard.

 

Ingestion of these compounds by children causes learning disabilities, lowered IQ, hyperactivity and attention deficit.  Other heavy metals emitted by Covanta Marion include zinc, mercury, copper, and nickel. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has named the incinerator one of its top priorities for reducing toxic air pollution.

 

Moreover, incineration of solid waste at Covanta incinerator creates new compounds like dioxins, the active ingredients in Agent Orange and the most toxic chemicals on the planet, other than radioactive isotopes. Dioxins are formed when organic material (like wood and paper) are heated and cooled in the presence of chloride products (like PVCs from medical waste plastics).

 

Dioxins also are created and released by the burning of wood products treated with creosote and other chemical preservatives, and by the burning of materials impregnated with flame retardants. Dioxins are carcinogenic, cause birth defects, are powerful endocrine disrupters, suppress the immune system, and decrease fertility.

 

Incineration does not make solid waste magically disappear. One quarter of all the trash burned remains as residual bottom ash and fly ash, a toxic brew of heavy metals and chemicals that must then be trucked [to] a landfill, an additional trip that emits more diesel exhaust into our communities.

 

Covanta Marion incinerator would have us believe that they need renewable energy credits to remain in business, despite the fact that they have been profitable since 1987 without RECs. The intent of any legislation should be to award RECs to encourage new, innovative, clean energy sources, rather than to subsidize the burning of toxic municipal and medical waste. After 33 years of operation, it is time to close down this old, polluting incinerator for the health of our planet and the health of our people. 

 

Thank you for your careful consideration. 

 

Sincerely yours,

Andy Harris, MD

Board of Directors

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

 

So Marion County, which handles the Covanta contract and is overseen by an all-Republican Board of Commissioners who, so far as I know, are all global warming deniers (Sam Brentano definitely is), gets to use the February 21 City Club program to present a one-sided view of how wonderful the Covanta garbage burner is, and why renewable energy credits should be bestowed on the Covanta corporation.

This makes no sense to me, especially since February 21 is right in the middle of the February 3 - March 7 legislative session.

By not allowing an environmentalist like Andy Harris to be able to refute the claims of the Marion County representatives who will have the podium all to themselves, the Salem City Club has chosen to align itself with one-side of the Covanta garbage burner debate -- which happens to be the side that has the least scientific credibility, in my view.

Yet here's a screenshot of the February 21 City Club program description:

Wow. There's so much wrong with this. "Differing scientific opinion" is how global warming deniers rationalize their refusal to acknowledge the scientific consensus around climate change. 

I don't believe there is a valid scientific case to be made in favor of allowing the Covanta garbage burner to continue spewing pollutants.

Yet the City Club is only allowing Marion County representatives to speak on February 21, where, according to the program, the representatives will explain why continued support of the garbage burner is justified, along with Covanta's effort to get renewable energy credits.

Why isn't the City Club presenting both sides of what it calls "differing scientific opinion"? As a long-time City Club member, this bothers me. A lot. 

Tonight I did get a message from someone who was tasked with trying to explain to us skeptics why the City Club is handling the garbage burner program the way it is. Below is the message, which I don't find very persuasive.

I deeply doubt that the Marion County representatives are going to present the scientific case against the Covanta garbage burner, or will limit their talk to being an "information session only."

Thus I think the Salem City Club is making a big mistake by not allowing both sides to speak on February 21, and will end up regretting having chosen to give Marion County free rein to praise the highly polluting garbage burner. The City Club person said:

We have thought of this impending program long and hard, and have conceived of it from the start as hearing Marion County's position on this controversial issue.

 

We understand that there are very strongly held alternative beliefs, and during the program we will both make that clear and insist that the Marion County representative also does that. But we felt at the time, and continue to feel, that the technological and financial implications of the whole issue are complicated enough to merit an information session solely. 

 

Personally, I am coming to the position that a pro/con session (call it a debate or not...) might well be unsatisfactory to everyone and serve to confuse the issue. This is not consistent with the purposes of the City Club, as I hope you will agree.

 

The County, furthermore, is the public sector entity that is ultimately responsible for the decision, (whether we like that or not) and they control the budgetary and licensing implications for all of us.

   

Further, however, I agree with you that they are ultimately responsible for taking into account in their decision the environmental health of their constituents -- possibly a more important consideration than the financial.  (I personally would intend to bring that issue up immediately in the question and answer period.)

 

Also, personally, I think the issue of green energy credits for such an operation is somewhere between a real stretch and a farce. And I realize that issue will be before the Legislature as we speak. 

 

However, I tend to discount any argument that the timing, therefore, is unfortunate. I'm not sure there's any relationship that we should worry about. We are not speaking in our program to support or not for that bill -- it wasn't an issue when we first had contact with Marion County last fall about doing this program. 

   

I hope you attend and listen carefully to the program. Your thoughts, then and now, are welcome.

 

Well, just City Club members are allowed to ask questions. Others only get to ask a question if no City Club members have raised their hand to do so.

 

Further, it is emphasized that questions should be just that, not statements. So it will be very difficult for members of the audience to refute what the Marion County representatives say in the brief period allowed for questions.

Great idea to deal with Salem's homeless problem

A few days ago Susannn Kaltwasser asked an excellent question on a Facebook page where Salem City Council issues are discussed. 

Kaltwasser is correct. An October 2019 survey of Salem residents found that after being asked an open-ended question, 41% said that homelessness and poverty were their top concerns. Crime and drugs were mentioned by only 4%. Here's a screenshot from the survey report,

So it's perplexing that City officials want all of a proposed employee-paid payroll tax that will be on the May 2020 ballot to go to public safety. Here's a information sheet about the payroll tax and operations fee (already passed by the City Council). 
Download City Revenue Fact Sheet

Judging by the citizen survey, putting that estimated $9.1 million a year into efforts to reduce the number of homeless people in Salem is a much higher priority than adding to the police and fire departments budget.

Thus Jim Scheppke had a great idea in a comment he left in response to Kaltwasser's question. (The payroll tax also is being called the "Commuter Tax," since it would raise money from the estimated 60,000 people who work in Salem but live elsewhere. It also would be paid by people who live and work in Salem, naturally.)

This idea should be seriously considered by the City Council.

I'm not sure when the deadline is for filing measures to appear on the May 19, 2020 primary ballot, but likely there is time to amend the measure that currently calls for all of the payroll tax money to be dedicated to public safety.

If you agree that helping the homeless is a better use for $9.1 million a year raised by the employee-paid payroll tax than adding police officers and fire department personnel that don't appear to be urgently needed, send an email to the Salem City Council telling them this: [email protected]

Homelessness is a lot like climate change. Local action isn't nearly enough.

Watching how city staff and the City Council are trying to deal with Salem's homeless problem reminds me of a 60 Minutes story I saw recently about Venice's flooding problem.

The periodic floods of Venice have become more threatening and more frequent. This past November, a sudden storm surge overwhelmed nearly 90% of the city. Climate scientists say what happened that night exactly two months ago in Venice is a warning to the world of what's to come – and not just in Venice.

Climate change is raising sea levels. Venice is being inundated with water to a greater extent than ever before. Giant gates that can be closed to keep the ocean out of Venice are under construction, but they were only designed to be used sparingly. Now, they'd have to be used often, because of the effect of climate change, which they weren't engineered to do.

The 60 Minutes piece showed people in Venice dealing with the flooding with pumps, buckets, raised walkways. All they can do is try to lessen the impact of the rising waters, not deal with the core problem: rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gases all over our planet.

Likewise, people in Salem are trying to deal with our city's homeless problem the best they can. Most recently, according to stories in the Salem Reporter, the City Council is considering allowing car camping in designated places and turning the city-owned Pringle Hall into a homeless shelter.

Yet these actions, as necessary as they are, are akin to pumping out water from a flooded Venice building, which has zero effect on global carbon dioxide levels. They do nothing to deal with the root causes of people living on the streets. 

Some residents of Venice have decided to move from their beautiful city, which I was able to spend a few days in back in 1968. But it really isn't possible to turn our backs on the homeless crisis, unless we're willing to turn our backs on fellow human beings who need our help.

Yesterday I walked along downtown's Court Street around 6 pm after my Tai Chi class was over. For the first time in a long time I didn't see any homeless people. Probably they had moved to the covered areas around the Nordstrom Mall and Rite-Aid, following a ban on homeless camps.

I have to be honest. It was more pleasant to not see homeless people and their belongings. That part of downtown seemed like it had returned to normal, at least for that one night.

But as I sipped a latte at Starbucks, I knew that Salem's homeless were still out there, having to cope with cold nights, physical and mental problems, the anxiety of not knowing when they'd be asked to move on by building security or police officers. It was as if I'd chanced upon a dry St. Mark's Square in Venice which, soon enough, would be flooded again.

Just as with climate change, dealing with homelessness requires action both locally and globally. A lack of affordable housing and extreme income inequality seem to be the main causes of homelessness, just as rising carbon dioxide levels are the prime cause of global warming.

So we can't expect much progress to be made on Salem's homeless problem until things change at the state and, especially, national level. Keep this in mind when you vote in the May primary election and November general election. 

It's an undeniable fact that Republicans in Oregon and elsewhere don't support actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions anywhere near to the extent that Democrats do. Republicans also aren't nearly as committed as Democrats are to increasing the supply of affordable housing and reducing income inequality.

Thus if you claim to care about helping the homeless, and think that all people in Salem need to do is open more shelter beds and give homeless people a safer place to sleep outside, think again.

If you aren't voting for Democrats or progressive independents in local, state, and national elections, you're acting like someone who believes that dumping water out of a flooded Venice building is saving that city from rising sea levels. Yes, dealing with the effects of global warming is necessary, just as dealing with the effects of a lack of affordable housing and income inequality is.

But until citizens in this country elect politicians who are willing and ready to address the root causes of homelessness, Salem and all other cities in the United States will be trying to deal with a rising tide that can't be stopped without drastic action.

Which hopefully, will come to pass after the 2020 election gives us a Democratic president and Congress.

Salem City Club discusses employee-paid payroll tax

Nobody likes paying taxes. (Well, almost nobody.) But everybody likes the services taxes provide. (Well, almost everybody.) That's the perpetual dilemma facing government at all levels, federal, state, local.

Robert (Bob) Barron

Today's Salem City Club program on the City of Salem's financial situation featured Bob Barron, who became the city's Chief Financial Officer last June -- a new position created by a reorganization at City Hall that did away with the assistant City Manager, leaving the CFO in charge of financial goings-on.

Barron has an impressive background, as evidenced by his bio above. He came across as a straight-shooter who will tell it like it is, budget-wise, which is exactly what the City of Salem needs from its Chief Financial Officer, because in some other regards city officials have been prone to shade the truth on policy matters.

And Barron gets bonus points for looking the part of a CFO. Plus he and his family have a Goldendoodle, which has to be one of the coolest breed names I've ever seen. (My wife and I have a Husky mix... boring name, by comparison.)

Don't subtract points for Barron living in Keizer. After his talk he told me that was necessary because they haven't sold their home in Connecticut yet, and they couldn't find a suitable place to live in Salem that accepted dogs.

Barron had an interesting observation about his ten years-plus working for FedEx. He said that at FedEx 10% of time was spent getting data, and 90% was spent analyzing the data. But his experience in the public sector was the reverse: 90% of time goes to obtaining information, leaving just 10% to make sense of it.

(He did add that the situation with the public sector is improving somewhat.)

Early on in his talk Barron noted a big difference between Connecticut and Oregon. Oregon limits annual property tax increases, while Connecticut doesn't. So in his previous jobs with Connecticut city governments, a gap between projected revenues and expenses could be met simply: raise the property tax rate.

Here in Salem, though, property taxes can only go up 3% a year, which often isn't enough to meet the demand for services. Which led to the slide below that shows the financial problems facing the City of Salem.

You can see in the top box, if you're able to read small print, that the City of Salem faces a $10.9 million operating deficit in FY 2020.  That's the difference between general fund revenues and expenses. It's reasonable to ask how the city got into this mess, but that's another subject, and it wasn't raised at today's City Club meeting.

The middle box contains a bit of good news. A couple of accounting items -- Unspent Contingency and Personnel Vacancies -- are estimated to bring the $10.9 million deficit down to a "mere" $5.8 million. 

Then, in the right of the bottom box, some magic happens, and the decrease in what amounts to reserve funds drops to just $2.3 million. From my scribbled notes, I'm pretty sure this is the result of the Operations Fee passed by the City Council last year. (See above.)

The fee won't be in effect for the full fiscal year, and a Statesman Journal story said that it would raise roughly $7.1 million in the first year. Since half of $7.1 million is about $3.5 million, and $5.8 million minus $3.5 million is $2.3 million, this shows that, almost certainly, the Operations Fee is the reason the FY 2020 deficit drops to $2.3 million.

An employee-paid payroll tax is the other way city officials hope to deal with the general fund deficit.

The City Council decided to refer this to voters in the May 2020 election. I suspect it will be a close call as to whether the payroll tax is approved. When the election grows closer I'll write more about the pros and cons of the payroll tax.

One fact that is either a pro or a con, depending on a person's perspective, is that an estimated 60,000 people who work in Salem and live somewhere else would pay the tax. But they won't be able to vote on the tax. So we can expect to hear a lot of talk about "no taxation without representation" from aggrieved commuters to Salem.

Bob Barron said that the tax is fair, because those 60,000 people use city services. However, the payroll tax, which is expected to raise about $9.1 million a year, would be dedicated to public safety: police, fire, compliance (not sure what that means), and traffic safety.

The flip side of that supposed fairness, of course, is that thousands of other people live in Salem, but work elsewhere. So even though they use city services, they wouldn't be subject to the payroll tax.

Councilor Tom Andersen spoke briefly after Barron's presentation. He defended the employee-paid payroll tax, though he said that he would have preferred that the City Council had approved it directly, rather than referring it to voters. 

Andersen said that from what he's heard so far, the argument against the payroll tax will be along the lines of... Government always wants more money and they do a bad job of spending what we give them; the new police facility has had massive construction cost overruns, so why should we throw more money at the City of Salem; and so on. (Can't remember a few other reasons Andersen gave).

I got to ask a question during the Q&A period. It went like this:

"The payroll tax is dedicated to public safety. Police and fire make up most of the general fund budget. Crime rates are going down. There are fewer fires now. So are you two confident that inefficiencies have been wrung out of the police and fire budgets, since likely there will be a spotlight on this issue in the run-up to the May vote on the payroll tax?"

Not surprisingly, the responses from Barron and Andersen were general and non-specific. I recall that Councilor Andersen related that the police chief had talked about burn-out among his officers, saying that it was difficult to find someone willing to put in overtime when this was needed.

There's going to be a City Club debate on the payroll tax in April, the month before the election, so I'm confident this and other issues related to the public safety budget will be discussed at that time. 

Not supporting Salem's Arta Potties was a dumb move by city officials

Back in 2015, providing artistically decorated Arta Potties (portable toilets) in downtown Salem was a brilliant idea of Rebecca Maitland Courtney and other women who wanted to give homeless people a place to go, rather than defecating and urinating in public places.

First Arta Potty (photo courtesy of the Arta Potties Facebook page)

But the folks at City Hall, including the Mayor and City Manager, never supported Arta Potties in any meaningful way, apparently figuring that putting them downtown would encourage the homeless to congregate in central Salem.

Well, guess what?

Five years later, there are more homeless people sleeping downtown than ever, and now City officials are having to clean the sidewalks in front of the Nordstrom mall and other locations because of human waste. Here's how the Salem Reporter story starts out.

The city of Salem plans to close and clean parts of downtown on Thursday and Friday where homeless residents have slept since a citywide camping ban started last month.

Cleanups will occur Thursday along Center Street, the city of Salem said in a press release Wednesday afternoon. On Friday, crews will clean parts of Liberty Street.

According to the city, people have complained it's hard to pass along the sidewalk and that the area has become unsanitary. Kristin Retherford, urban development director, said fecal matter, urine and syringes have all been found in the area.

In 2017 I sat down with Courtney and learned about her frustrations with how the City of Salem treated Arta Potties. I wrote about our conversation in "Arta Potties SOS! Why isn't Salem embracing public portable restrooms?"

Rebecca Maitland Courtney is frustrated with her home town. She has a right to be.

After coming up with the idea for Arta Potties, artistically-decorated portable toilets that serve both the homeless and ordinary people, she's finding that other cities are giving her a lot more love than Salem. 

I just spent an enjoyable hour talking with Courtney.

She's a caring, creative woman who can't understand why it is so difficult for people in Salem to come together and embrace a great idea: making restrooms a right for all in downtown, rather than a privilege for those who have the money needed to "buy" a place to urinate or defecate by frequenting a business with restrooms.

She told me, "People just don't want to look at homelessness. And they think that Arta Potties attract the homeless." Yet, she added, "They are already here."

Courtney's disappointing experience with placing Arta Potties in Salem echoes the Biblical adage, "No prophet is acceptable in her hometown." 

Last night Oregon City had a wonderful celebration to mark the placing of two Arta Potties after the city's Police Department reached out to Courtney and asked her to help them figure out where to put the portable restrooms and what art to place on them. 

Thus Salem had a chance to do something creative, artistic, and compassionate to help homeless people, then rejected Arta Potties, and now is trying to figure out how to clean up the urine and feces that wouldn't be on downtown sidewalks if portable toilets had been embraced by city officials years ago.

Here's part of what Rebecca Maitland Courtney shared with me today.

One Arta Potty remains in Salem at the Congregational Church. So many rumors..politics etc... I just wanted the world to know that they worked successfully in Salem for 3 years. It wasn't a bust. It worked! There was too little, too late from the city. I continue to consult [with] other cities.

Tim King, among others, has been reminding us of this City Hall screw-up via Facebook posts. King was an early advocate for Arta Potties and made a documentary that I'll share below, along with other videos about the Arta Potties project. Here's a screenshot of what King said.

This is a December 2015 KOIN News story about Arta Potties.

This is a song in praise of Arta Potties by a homeless man.

And this is Tim King's documentary about Arta Potties.