Salem Political Snark

Here's the Salem City Council candidates to vote for in May 2020

I've got my favorite City Council candidates. And I'm not shy about urging you to vote for them in the May 19, 2020 election. Today I made this online "lawn sign," leaving aside the fact there are no lawns in cyberspace.

I also updated my Salem Can Do Better web page to reflect the newest thing people can do to improve our town: VOTE for Stapleton, Phillips, Oakes-Miller, and Nordyke. 

Check out the web page by clicking on the image below if you're not convinced, as I am, that these are the best candidates. On it I've got videos of each of them being interviewed for a CCTV profile, along with links to their campaign web sites.

Special interest money propels Reid Sund campaign to record contributions

Reid Sund is running against Vanessa Nordyke for the Ward 7 Salem City Council seat. His campaign apparently has set a record for contributions to a city council candidate: $46,847.

But there's a lot of room for debate about whether this record deserves applause or boos, since $18,000 has come from special interest PACs: $10,500 from the Oregon Association of Realtor's PAC and $7,500 from the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, which is the political arm of the Marion-Polk Homebuilder's Association.

After all, PACs (Political Action Committees) carefully choose which politicians they support financially. In my opinion, it isn't so much that they think they can buy the politician's votes, but that they believe certain politicians will be more likely to support their favored policies if they are elected.

So it isn't surprising that home builders and realtors associations are backing the conservative candidates in not only the Ward 7 race but in two other races also, since revisions to the Salem Comprehensive Plan are coming down the pike (Our Salem) and those special interests are worried that the days of unlimited and unfettered suburban sprawl in Salem may be coming to an end.

Which hopefully it will be, since what Salem needs is improvements in the quality of life of its residents, not more money going into the pockets of the already rich and powerful.

Vanessa Nordyke, Sund's opponent, certainly isn't anti-growth.

But as a member of the City Council's current 6-3 progressive majority, Nordyke favors smart growth, not dumb growth. Meaning, in part, wiser mixed use development rather than vast expanses of single-family homes where it is next to impossible to get to a grocery story or restaurant on foot or by bicycle.

"Complete neighborhoods" is the buzzword being used in the Our Salem project to describe neighborhoods where it is easy to access food, drink, recreation, and other services without having to get in your car and drive a considerable distance.

But this appealing vision for Salem must be threatening to the home builders and realtors PACs, because they have contributed exactly zero dollars to the campaigns of the four progressives running for City Council in the May 2020 election: Virginia Stapleton, Vanessa Nordyke, Trevor Phillips, and Hollie Oakes-Miller.

Here's how I came to learn that the Reid Sund campaign has broken the record for contributions to a City Council candidate. Yesterday a journalist for the Salem Reporter, Saphara Harrell, emailed me asking if I knew what the largest amount raised in a council election was, since she was struck by how much Sund's campaign had raised.

I didn't know this, but I suggested to Harrell that she contact Jim Scheppke, a retired librarian who is active in Salem politics. Scheppke jumped on the question and did some impressive overnight research, looking at City Council campaigns from 2012 to 2020.

Here's his overall summary:

Since Scheppke had sent detailed information for each candidate to me and Harrell, I was able to total up the contributions from realtors, homebuilders, and the Salem Chamber of Commerce versus labor unions for the eight people running for City Council this year.

Overall, here's the contribution total for the 2020 City Council election so far.

Realtor/Homebuilder/Chamber of Commerce PACs: $33,500
Labor unions: $2,011

This huge difference is important because often people claim that special interest money dominates at both ends of the political spectrum. But here in Salem, at least, 94% of the easily identifiable special interest contributions are going to the conservative candidates.

Here's the breakdown by City Council race, abbreviated as PACs and Unions.

Ward 1
Jan Kailuweit: PACs -- $3,000  Unions -- 0
Virgina Stapleton PACs -- 0  Unions -- $194

Ward 3
Brad Nanke: PACs -- $12,500  Unions -- 0
Trevor Phillips: PACs -- 0  Unions -- $149

Ward 5
Jose Gonzalez: PACs -- 0  Unions -- 0
Hollie Oakes-Miller: PACs -- 0  Unions -- 0

Ward 7
Reid Sund: PACs -- $18,000  Unions -- 0
Vanessa Nordyke: PACs -- 0  Unions -- $1,669

Crazy talk from Reid Sund and Jan Kailuweit about climate change

Two conservative Salem City Council candidates in the upcoming May 19 election have decidedly crazy ideas about idling cars and climate change. 

Reid Sund (Ward 7) and Jan Kailuweit (Ward 1) are claiming that building a 3rd Bridge across the Willamette would be a big contributor to lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Salem. Yes, they say, it is one of the best solutions we have in our “tool kit” for fighting climate change.

In this regard they have a lot in common with Donald Trump. They make stuff up that has no basis in fact and then they repeat it over and over.

Bizarrely, Sund and Kailuweit claim that because at rush hour, which now is basically non-existent given the many people working from home or out of work, there can be cars waiting to cross Salem's two bridges, those idling engines create more greenhouse gas pollution than would be produced by the construction of a billion dollar (with financing costs) 3rd Bridge.

Before showing how wrong they are, here's how Sund and Kailuweit are making that flimsy argument. This Your Vote Counts CCTV video starts at the point Sund is asked about the Climate Action Plan being undertaken by the City of Salem.

Reid says that he wished the plan to build a 3rd Bridge had been able to move forward. He adds that the bridge would have had an impact on carbon emissions. Here's the crazy part: he thinks that stalled cars have a major negative impact on Salem's environmental quality, more so than the carbon footprint of an additional massive bridge across the Willamette. 

Likewise, Kailuweit also claims that building another bridge would decrease carbon emissions, rather than increase them.

So let's do a fact check on Reid Sund and Jan Kailuweit. They're running to be on the City Council of Oregon's capital. That's an important job, albeit an unpaid one. Voters should expect that council candidates know what they're talking about on important issues facing Salem.

Well, in this case Sund and Kailuweit are flat-out wrong. 

There is absolutely no evidence that building the 3rd Bridge would reduce carbon emissions, more so than not building the bridge. The reality is that there was never an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) process. City officials reported this to the City Council in a staff report.

The closest thing we do have to this kind of assessment is what was done by the Salem River Crossing consultants CH2M in their “Energy Technical Report Addendum."

Because of the phenomenon known as “induced demand,” CH2M concluded that building the 3rd Bridge would put more cars and trucks on the road resulting in a 16.1% increase in “operational energy consumption” in 2040. If more fossil fuel is consumed there will be more carbon dioxide emissions.

So even leaving aside the carbon footprint of a massive bridge construction project, “induced demand” creates more carbon dioxide than fewer idling cars and trucks by a significant amount. That’s the evidence we have. Sund and Kailuweit either didn’t bother to research this or they are choosing to ignore it. The idling car claim is totally bogus.

Keep this in mind if you live in Ward 7 or Ward 1. Do you want a city councilor who makes decisions based on facts rather than their personal political biases? If so, vote for Vanessa Nordyke in Ward 7 and Virginia Stapleton in Ward 1.

Survey shows Oregonians strongly support stay at home orders

Facts matter. And it's a fact that a recent DHM Research survey found that 82% of Oregonians support Governor Brown's Stay Home, Save Lives orders. Here's the graphic from the first survey release.

You can read about the findings in this DHM Research PDF file.
Download COVID Survey--Annotated--March 2020

Below is an excerpt from the report about the overwhelming support for stay at home orders, and how this undercuts the claim of right-wing activists that people want Oregon opened up for business as soon as possible.

Oregonians overwhelmingly support the state’s stay at home orders.

82% of Oregonians support the state’s stay at home orders, including a whopping 60% who “strongly” support them. Support is wide and deep.

It cuts across geography, political party, and among those most financially harmed by the lockdowns. By area, the orders are supported by 84% in the Portland metro, 85% in the Willamette Valley and 75% in the rest of the state.

By party, the orders are supported by 95% of Democrats, 72% of Republicans, and 77% of NAV/others. And 83% of those with a job or income loss also support the orders.

Protests advocating against stay at home orders have popped up nationally and in Oregon. This data gives insight into how representative, or not, they are.

The protests have a definite partisan make up, with Republicans and supporters of President Trump clearly visible. And recently, President Trump seemed to be encouraging the protests with a Tweet saying that some states should be “liberated.”

However, the views of the protestors are a distinctly minority view, not only of Oregonians generally, but Republicans specifically.

As noted above, 72% of Republicans support the stay at home order. However, that does leave 28% of Republicans who oppose the orders (as do 20% of NAV/other voters) which is a sufficient number to organize protests.

I've heard that a protest is planned at the Capitol building in early May. After searching Facebook for mentions of "reopen Oregon," I found several groups espousing this goal. But I didn't find any mention of a protest here in Salem.

The Open Oregon Facebook group has many posts about the stay at home orders. Scrolling through them, this image caught my eye.

I found this offensive for several reasons:

(1) My daughter has been furloughed from her job because of the COVID-19 crisis. For 13 years she was the sales manager for a small designer eyewear company in Orange County. They've gotten a federal small business loan, so she might be back in work in May, probably at a reduced salary. 

Losing her job disrupted her family immensely. But she supports California's stay at home order because she knows that money is much less important than staying alive. So in no way would she equate a COVID-19 speed bump that slows her career with someone dying from the virus.

(2) I'm 71. My wife is 70. She has asthma. Thus both of us are in a high-risk category because of age, with my wife also having an underlying medical condition that could increase her risk if she got the virus. We have been staying home as much as possible. We wear a mask and gloves when we go grocery shopping or to the pharmacy.

Young people may think that people our age are fine with dying because we've lived 70-some years. News flash: when you get to be 70, that age doesn't seem all that old. Now we want to live to be 80. And 80 year olds want to live to be 90. So long as life is worth living, life is precious. 

So please, protesters who want to open up Oregon immediately, exercise your compassion. Think about your parent or grandparent who will be put at greater risk. Imagine how you would feel if you knew that getting the coronavirus from someone not wearing a mask and standing too close to you could cause your death.

Wouldn't it be worth it to save your life by extending the Stay Home, Save Lives orders until public health experts say it is time to relax them? Would you be willing to die so a restaurant or bar could open up a few weeks early?

I doubt it. So don't inflict the risk of premature death onto other people. Forget protesting the stay at home orders. Remember to wash your hands often, wear a mask when you go out in public, and stay six feet away from other people.

Salem, be wary of Citizens for a Livable Community

A few days ago I wrote "Fascinating facts about contributions to Salem City Council candidates."

The compilation of contributions that I shared had Citizens for a Livable Community as a major donor to each of the conservative candidates: Jan Kailuweit, Brad Nanke, Jose Gonzalez, and Reid Sund.

That got me to wondering, "What the heck is Citizens for a Livable Community?"

I'd never heard of the group before. So who are those citizens with such a concern for making our community livable? And why are they only contributing to conservative candidates?

Well, the answers to those questions point to why Oregon has a ways to go before its campaign finance system is truly transparent.

The person who sent me the compilation of contributions told me that ORESTAR, the state's campaign finance web site, used to show a listing for a Citizens for a Livable Community PAC that had the same address as New Media Northwest, the political consulting firm run by Chuck Adams.

But when I went to look for that listing, I couldn't find it. So it appears that this PAC was dissolved.

However, some Googling turned up a link to a similarly-named organization, Citizens for Livable Communities. And the Corporation Division listing showed that indeed, the registered agent is Chuck Adams.

I'm assuming that Citizens for a Livable Community is connected with the similarly-named Citizens for Livable Communities web site, which has a Donate page.

The site is vague about what, exactly, it does with donations. A Who We Are section says, "Citizens for Livable Communities (CLC) is an organization dedicated to improving the local economy, creating jobs, and enhancing the livability of the Mid-Willamette Valley."

OK, that sounds good. But the reality is that the registered agent for Citizens for a Livable Community, Chuck Adams, is the owner of New Media Northwest, a public affairs and political consulting firm based here in Salem.

New Media Northwest apparently has been hired by each of the four conservative candidates running for the Salem City Council who, as noted above, are Jan Kailuweit, Brad Nanke, Jose Gonzalez, and Reid Sund.

Now, what's weird is that not only are conservative city council candidates paying New Media Northwest/Chuck Adams for political consulting services, in one case (Jose Gonzalez) New Media Northwest also is one of the largest contributors ($850). Also, Citizens for a Livable Community has contributed in-kind services to each of the campaigns.

For example, here's an ORESTAR screenshot of an in-kind contribution Reid Sund received from Citizens for a Livable Community/Chuck Adams: $500 worth of online and social media advertising.

Meanwhile, the Reid Sund campaign is paying New Media Northwest/Chuck Adams for various services, such as $2,540.99 for literature, brochures, printing, postage.

So it sure looks like Chuck Adams is getting donations via the Citizens for Livable Communities web site, then spending that money on in-kind contributions to city council campaigns that he is working for through New Media Northwest.

This is legal, because a business or charity can make in-kind contributions to political campaigns so long as those contributions are reported by the campaign.

But this shows the secretive tangled web of Oregon's campaign finance system. 

There's no indication on the Citizens for Livable Communities web site that the registered agent for Citizens for a Livable Community is Chuck Adams, a political consultant.

So when an in-kind contribution from this Public Benefit organization appears on a city council candidate's campaign finances report, it takes some digging to find out that the contribution is coming from the same Chuck Adams who is serving as a consultant to the campaign.

If you get a mailing from Citizens for a Livable Community, keep in mind that it is coming from Chuck Adams, who has a long history of engaging in rough campaign tactics. 

Fascinating facts about contributions to Salem City Council candidates

As we approach the May 19, 2020 Oregon primary election, where each of the four Salem City Council races likely will be decided (candidate with more than 50% wins outright), I'm pleased to present a detailed look at the campaign finances of those races as of yesterday, April 15.

Salem City Council: Kaser, Andersen, Nanke, Leung, Mayor Bennett, Ausec, Hoy, Nordyke, Lewis

The images below, which I converted from a spreadsheet, come from a fellow political junkie who compiled the information from campaign finance reports on the state ORESTAR system. There's a lot to digest in the images. Here's some observations on each City Council race.

Ward 1: Jan Kailuweit vs. Virginia Stapleton This seat is held by Cara Kaser, who decided not to seek re-election after one term in office. Kaser is a progressive who is backing like-minded Virginia Stapleton.

So far, Stapleton has raised considerably more money than Kailuweit. Her largest contribution came from Kaser's committee. Kailuweit is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the Homebuilder's PAC, plus other conservative groups. I couldn't find Citizens for a Livable Community on ORESTAR, but I suspect the money came from a similarly named group, Citizens for Livable Communities.

In 2016 Kailuweit lost by a large margin to Kaser. Since Ward 1 voters lean strongly progressive, likely Kailuweit will go down to defeat this time also. So I rate this race Strong Stapleton.

Ward 3: Brad Nanke vs. Trevor Phillips Nanke has been the Ward 3 councilor for almost 20 years. Last September Nanke said he wouldn't seek re-election, then he changed his mind shortly before the filing deadline. As I said in a March 10 post:

Trevor Phillips, Nanke's opponent in the Ward 3 race, shouldn't be shy about pointing out to voters that for six months Nanke showed no interest in running for another city council term. Then he did, under pressure. This doesn't show much commitment to representing the people who live in Ward 3. What it shows is commitment to whoever pressured him to run again.

We don't know who that was. However, Nanke works for the state and local home builders associations, and the Oregon Realtors Political Action Committee is his largest donor. 

Phillips is an Emergency Room doctor. With so much attention being paid to the coronavirus pandemic, that should give Phillips an extra edge with voters. And to date he has raised almost twice as much money as Nanke since October 1, 2019. Phillips is the largest contributor to his own campaign. With Nanke being the incumbent, albeit a semi-reluctant one, this probably will be a close and hard-fought race. I'm calling it a toss-up, with perhaps a slight edge to Phillips.

Ward 5: Jose Gonzales vs. Hollie Oakes-Miller. Matt Ausec, a progressive, decided not to run for re-election. For quite a while that seemed to give the seat to Gonzales, since no one else had filed to run. Then Oakes-Miller stepped up to be the progressive candidate. She teaches courses on climate change, and environmental science and resources at Portland Community College. Gonzales is a small business owner who has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Gonzales has out-raised Oakes-Miller by about 10 to 1, which isn't all that surprising given her late entry into the race. Politically this is an intriguing match-up. Oakes-Miller touts her work with Salem Democratic Socialists of America, while Gonzales' answers to a Chamber questionnaire indicate that he is distinctly anti-tax. A debate between them would be entertaining, but I doubt this will happen face to face. Maybe a Zoom debate?

This is a liberal-leaning ward, though Gonzales has to be favored to win. So I rate this as Lean Gonzales. That said, these days political surprises are common, and I suspect Oakes-Miller holds positions that are closer to those held by most Ward 5 voters than Gonzales' positions. If she were to win, it would be akin to A.O.C. (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) staging an unexpected upset of a moderate Democrat Congressman in the 2018 New York primary election.

Ward 7: Reid Sund vs. Vanessa Nordyke Sund is the finance director for Salem Health. He got into the race early, so last November I opined that he was too right-wing for Ward 7, which leans leftward. But he's out-raised Nordyke by a considerable amount, with large $7,500 contributions from the local homebuilders association and the Oregon Realtors Political Action Committee.

Nordyke was appointed to fill the Ward 7 seat following the resignation of Sally Cook after her husband died unexpectedly. She's an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice. Her progressive leaning is a better fit for Ward 7 and she has the advantage of incumbency. While Sund has gotten 51% of his contributions from business PACs, Nordyke has gotten nothing from them (but 9% from labor unions). 

I'm calling this race Strong Nordyke. She's an engaging speaker and campaigner, which will make her tough to beat.

Here's images of the campaign finance spreadsheets.

Salem tree outrage: city officials slumber while chain saws thunder

It's an open secret that the folks at City Hall don't care much about protecting Salem's street trees. I've documented this over the years in numerous blog posts, the most notable one being "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."

Two of the U.S. Bank trees prior to their needless destruction 

Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, was the city official who was most responsible in 2013 for the outrageous destruction of five healthy, beautiful, large downtown trees that weren't causing any problems. 

But so far as I know, Fernandez didn't face any consequences for engaging in a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president to have the trees cut down over the vociferous objection of many citizens and the city's own tree expert, along with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee.

And here we are in 2020, seven years later, with Peter Fernandez still failing to do his tree protection job. A story by Tracy Loew in today's Statesman Journal, "Salem hasn't enforced tree ordinance, costing taxpayers $107,220," tells the sorry tale.

Nine Salem property owners who have illegally trimmed or cut down city street trees over the past four years must pay $107,220 for their restoration, in addition to fines already imposed.

That includes $38,220 in restoration costs owed by lawyers Richard and Dan Gatti, who illegally topped six city-owned trees over the 2019 holiday season, essentially destroying them.

Salem public works director Peter Fernandez told the City Council he would order the retroactive restoration payments after councilors discovered he had not been enforcing a 2015 ordinance requiring them.

Fernandez said he thinks the penalties could pose a hardship for property owners.

“Appraisals for trees can run into the tens of thousands of dollars,” he said at a Feb. 10 council meeting. “We never represented to council that people would be hit up for that kind of money. So, we need to consider that.”

But some councilors said that’s not his decision to make.

“Ordinances should be enforced, period,” councilor Vanessa Nordyke said. “If people are violating ordinances and not being fined appropriately, I think that’s a concern,” she said.

Councilor Nordyke, you chose your words carefully. But I won't. It's a goddamn outrage. Not quite as outrageous as what Fernandez did in 2013, but right up there on the outrage scale.

Fernandez allowed valuable street trees to be killed by either malicious or clueless property owners without requiring that taxpayers be reimbursed for the full value of those trees, as required by a city ordinance. It's no wonder that Richard and Dan Gatti felt they could top several trees without getting a permit. 

City code prohibits anyone from trimming or removing city-owned trees without a permit. It provides for fines of up to $2,000 per occurrence, and requires offenders to also spend the assessed value of the trees on tree restoration.

The lack of enforcement came to light following public outcry over the city’s response to the Gatti tree topping.

...Richard Gatti said he knew he should have obtained a permit, but believed he was saving the city money by doing the work himself.

The city fined the Gattis $3,000, and ordered them to restore the trees, most likely by planting saplings. It’s unlikely that would cost as much as the trees’ assessed value of $38,220.

As should be obvious, I'm not a fan of Peter Fernandez. I'm baffled by how he continues on as Public Works Director despite his less-than-stellar record in that job. 

It's an important position. It will become even more important as city officials and the City Council complete work on a Climate Action Plan for reducing Salem's greenhouse gas emissions.

Fernandez clearly is enamored of big expensive road improvement projects. His record on making it easier to ride a bike or walk in Salem is pitiful. So the screw-ups by Fernandez when it comes to protecting trees are a warning that when it comes to protecting the environment, he hasn't demonstrated his competency in that area either.

Kudos, though, to Michael Slater and others involved with his Salem Tree Advocates group.

Slater was instrumental in bringing attention to the failure of city officials to enforce the requirement that anyone who destroys a street tree without a permit has to pay the full value of the tree. This was a great example of citizen activism holding the City of Salem to account for a bureaucratic failure.

Trump will have to pry Oregon's stay-home order out of my cold, dead hands

Today President Trump's authoritarianism reached a peak when he said at the White House coronavirus briefing that his authority is total. This was in reference to his supposed ability to order states to relax their stay-at-home and physical distancing orders.

“The president of the United States calls the shots,” he said at his evening news briefing. “They can’t do anything without the approval of the president of the United States.”

Asked what provisions of the Constitution gave him the power to override the states if they wanted to remain closed, he said, “Numerous provisions,” without naming any. “When somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.”

Well, I'm eager to learn how all the conservatives who champion states rights will react to this extremely dubious interpretation of the constitution, which gives a lot of power to states, including when it comes to public health. 

Twenty years ago Charlton Heston warned of government overreach when he said at a NRA (National Rifle Association) speech:

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands.'"

Mr. President, that's exactly how I feel about your absurd attempt to determine how Oregon should respond to the coronavirus crisis. Our governor, Kate Brown, has issued an executive Stay Home, Save Lives order. It's working well, and it needs to remain in place until, according to Brown, Oregon has ten days without a COVID-19 death.

There's no way that I, along with most other Oregonians, would patronize a business that chooses to ignore the governor's order if it is more restrictive than whatever plan for reopening our state's economy Trump comes up with. So Trump needs to understand that most Americans trust our local leaders a heck of a lot more than the would-be dictator who currently inhabits the White House.

It's beyond absurd that while Trump has been saying for weeks that it is up to each state to determine how it will deal with the coronavirus pandemic, which has led to stay-at-home orders in most states, Trump now is claiming that he has the sole authority to rescind or alter those orders even though he had nothing to do with putting them in place.

My wife and I live in a rural area about five miles from the Salem city limits. That isn't far geographically, but it is a light year politically from the mostly liberal capital city of Oregon. 

We regularly are treated to the sound of loud gunshots as some of our mostly conservative neighbors do some target practicing. They aren't shy about saying that they want to be ready when either social breakdown occurs as a result of the coronavirus crisis and urban hordes descend upon us country folk, or when the black helicopters arrive from the United Nations or a Democratic president to take away their guns.

But it turns out that the biggest threat to our freedom is coming from a Republican president who wrongly believes that the president can do whatever they want. 

Imagine what would happen if somehow, against all odds, Trump was to succeed in getting the Supreme Court to agree that, as Trump argued today, the president's authority is total. Meaning, there are no curbs on it. None. Zilch. Nada. This would mean that a President Biden could do whatever he wanted to combat global warming, reduce gun deaths, or deal with any other emergency that was declared from the Oval Office.

I can guarantee that Fox News would have a total freak-out, along with other right-wing organizations and leaders. So that's why I'm intensely interested in how conservatives are going to respond to Trump's assertion that there are no limits on what a president can do. 

Sure, Trump has been acting as if this was the case -- ignoring subpoenas from Congress, bashing reporters who dare to ask probing questions, and in so many other ways trashing the norms of how a president should behave in a constitutional democracy. Today, though, Trump explicitly stated that he can do whatever he wants. 

And when a reporter asked Vice President Pence if he agreed that this was the case, Pence stood in front of the microphone and said the powers of the presidency are “unquestionably plenary”. In other words, absolute. 

This should scare all Americans, liberal, conservative, everybody. A bit of good news is that a story in the Washington Examiner, a conservative newspaper, took issue with Trump's bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

Contrary to what President Trump seems to think, he does not have the authority to dictate when and how individual states reopen as the threat posed by the coronavirus diminishes. Nor should he want it.

This assertion — that only Trump can decide the question of reopening — is obviously wrong, as anyone remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the principles of federalism understands. Only the individual governors can decide when their states will begin to reopen, and only they can determine what that process will look like.

...Whatever plan Trump does roll out must be specific, and it must be respectful of the states. He cannot rule by fiat, and a pandemic does not change that.

These Salem City Council candidates deserve your vote

Yes, the coronavirus crisis is consuming our attention.
That's understandable.

But don't forget something important.
Next month, May, there's an election for four City Council seats.

And it's clear to me who you should vote for.
The candidates who will move Salem forward to a brighter future.

I'll have more to say about them as the May 19 election nears.
For now, keep these names in mind.

Because they're the most progressive candidates.
Which is what Salem sorely needs in this trying time.

Progress. 

Click on a name to visit the candidate's web site.

Virginia Stapleton (Ward 1)

Trevor Phillips (Ward 3)

Hollie Oakes-Miller (Ward 5)

Vanessa Nordyke (Ward 7)

Minto Brown dog park should be open during COVID-19 crisis

Woof, woof. That's the sound of our dog agreeing with the title of this blog post. For some unknown reason, parks in Salem are open, but the Minto Brown off-leash dog park is closed.

I took this photo today at the entrance to the parking lot that serves the dog park. My wife and I, along with Mooka, our dog, were disappointed to see this barricade and sign saying "This Area is Closed Until Further Notice." 

But it wasn't a total surprise, since I'd read this letter to the editor in the Sunday Statesman Journal.

Closure of dog park disappointing

I was stunned recently when we went to the dog park at Minto-Brown Island Park and found it barricaded.

This has been one of the few activities where we have been able to get exercise and have social interaction while maintaining social distance.

I think it is counterproductive to eliminate healthy opportunities that represent less danger than going to the store. And anyone who doesn’t see this as essential doesn’t own a dog.

John Huff
Salem

I totally agree with Huff. Especially since right next to the barricade and closed sign was this contradictory notice.

OK, but that already was being done by visitors to the dog park, as far as my wife and I could tell based on our visits to the dog park before it was closed. So again, what's the reason for closing it?

If you agree that the dog park should be open, tell this to City Manager Steve Powers, members of the City Council (including Mayor Bennett), and other city officials by sending a message to them: [email protected]

Grocery shoppers are touching items that other people may have touched, yet grocery stores are open. Sure, at the dog park dogs run up to strangers and often they get patted. But it's difficult for me to understand how this is a greater risk than touching a can of beans that someone else may have handled.

A few weeks ago the Washington Post had a story, "How to pet dogs during the coronavirus pandemic." Basic message: don't worry very much about it.

Given the unknowns about the disease, experts recommend that people infected with the coronavirus stay away from pets, as they should from people. So the most conservative approach would be to refrain from touching others’ dogs, because its owner could be asymptomatic.

But based on available evidence, there’s little reason to avoid petting, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. (If practicing social distancing, make sure the owner is on the other end of a leash at least six feet long.)

“We’re not overly concerned about people contracting covid-19 through contact with dogs and cats,” said Gail Golab, the AVMA’s chief veterinary officer.

Environmental contamination via surfaces appears to be a secondary route of transmission, and “the virus survives best on smooth surfaces, such as countertops and doorknobs,” Golab said. “Porous materials, such as pet fur, tend to absorb and trap pathogens, making it harder to contract them through touch.”

We only encountered a few people during our late afternoon visit to the dog park, which usually is a popular place on a sunny Sunday. I did ask the couple on the right side of the photo above, who were throwing a ball for their dog, whether they thought the dog park should be open rather than closed.

"Absolutely," the man said. He told me that exercising dogs is OK under Gov. Brown's "Stay Home, Save Lives" order, so he didn't understand why the City of Salem has closed the Minto Brown dog park. 

There certainly was no problem with maintaining a 6 foot distance between unrelated people at the dog park, because the place was almost deserted. However, the rest of Minto Brown park was busy. When we took our dog for a walk on some paved trails, we passed many other people with their leashed dogs. 

And on the paved trails there isn't a whole lot of room between people going in different directions. So it makes no sense to allow people to walk their dogs on a narrow trail, but forbid them to use the dog park with much more available open space between people and their pets.