Salem Political Snark

Here's my five takeaways from the ghastly Biden-Trump debate

There isn't anything good to say about how Donald Trump acted in the first 2020 presidential debate last night. So if you're a Trump fan who is in deep denial about what a horrible person your Dear Leader is, prepare to be faced with some uncomfortable truths about the debate.

Here's five takeaways regarding the debate. I've backed up my opinions with views from knowledgeable political observers.

(1) This was the worst presidential debate ever, because of Trump. Being a progressive who strongly favors Biden, my biggest pre-debate fear was that Trump would do the smart thing for him politically and act presidential for 95 minutes.

After all, currently Five Thirty Eight gives Biden a 78% chance of winning the election. Trump needed to do something to shake the race up. Instead, he dug himself into a worse political position by acting like a complete asshole, which isn't how you attract undecided voters or peel away Biden's advantage among women voters.

The TV critic for the Washington Post thought the debate was one of the worst moments in television history. 

Tuesday night’s debate between President Trump and Joe Biden was a low point for television, for politics, for America — 95 minutes of proof that the nation has slipped into irredeemable darkness.

It was some of the worst TV that the country should ever have to see; years from now, I expect to see it ranked alongside terrorist attacks, space shuttle explosions and erroneous Oscar announcements. The blame for this goes to the president, who I’m sure believes he did a wonderful job, but who, in fact, debased the medium that made him.

One candidate, Biden, came prepared to debate; the president came with only the intent to disrupt the event, impervious to any attempt by an often helpless moderator, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace, to conduct an actual discourse. Trump’s lone asset (besides a bronzer glow-up to a bizarre shade of crayon that isn’t yet included in the box) was the energy and ferocity with which he interrupted Biden’s attempts to answer.

Trump delivered a constant, unhinged and fulsome pelting of dubious examples, strange retorts, immature insults and outright lies.

(2) Jake Tapper had the best pithy description of the debate. The post-debate analysis on CNN was scathing. Dana Bash said it was a "shitshow," because of Trump's despicable behavior. Not long after, Jake Tapper said:

“That was a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck," Tapper told viewers. "That was the worst debate I have ever seen, in fact it wasn't even a debate. It was a disgrace."

(3) Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacy was his worst of many bad moments. Debate moderator Chris Wallace teed up what should have an easy question for Biden and Trump to answer about whether they condemn white supremacy. But Trump refused to do this. 

That led Van Jones to speak passionately on CNN. Here's a tweet from him.

(4) The debate was a national embarrassment. Once in a while I see videos of altercations, fights, basically, taking place between members of parliament in a foreign country -- such as Iraq. But last night's debate was much more of a national embarrassment. 

The rest of the world saw the President of the United States acting like a two year old. He bullied. He failed to keep to the debate rules he'd agreed to. He talked over Biden. He called Biden names. He lied. 

And he did all this not a few times but almost non-stop. Yes, Biden made a couple of intemperate remarks. However, Biden only did this after Trump had exhibited intolerable childish behavior on the debate stage. 

I'm pretty sure that I've watched every presidential debate during the last fifty years. (Yeah, I'm old.) As others have noted in stories about last night's debate, there was a huge controversy over one of the Bush's looking at his watch during a debate, and Al Gore emitting an audible sigh. In the old days, that's what passed for inappropriate debate behavior.

Trump went so far beyond those standards, he broke new ground in how to act like a complete jerk in a debate. Most of the rest of the world already laughs at the United States for having a clown as president. Now they have even more reason to feel superior toward us. A Politico story says:

Sure, it is easy to make fun of civics-class pieties about how the election ultimately belongs to the voters, and how America as the oldest democracy serves as an example to the world. But aren’t those maxims supposed to be at least kind of true?

It is hard to imagine how the evening could have been more disrespectful to voters, or a more embarrassing glimpse into the state of American political culture at moment when the country’s reputation in the world is already under severe challenge. Cumulatively this made the debate simply uncomfortable, like accidentally opening the office supply closet and seeing a naked colleague—just avert your gaze and walk away.

(5) Trump's lies about voter fraud were especially disturbing in his torrent of falsehoods. Lie after lie spewed from Trump's mouth during the debate. It's hard to pick the worst lie, since they all were disgusting.

However, his lies about voter fraud rose to the top for me, in part because they seem designed to establish an erroneous foundation for federal courts and state legislatures to step in and override the will of the people by declaring victory for Trump in states where he actually lost to Biden. 

Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post analysis of Trump's lies about voter fraud.  (They call it disinformation; I prefer lies.)

Chris Wallace made clear in advance of Tuesday night’s first 2020 presidential debate that his role, by the rules, wasn’t to be a fact-checker. That disappointed President Trump’s critics, especially after Wallace so deftly and brutally fact-checked Trump in an interview two months ago.

Nowhere was such a moderator more sorely needed than when voter fraud came up.

Trump unleashed a barrage of false, unproven and sometimes unintelligible claims about mail-in voting. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden disputed some of them in broad terms, but there was otherwise no indication for the casual viewer that Trump was inventing and exaggerating the true threat of voter fraud come Nov. 3.

Let’s run through some of Trump’s claims, vs. what the actual record shows.

Sixteen deliciously snarky tweets about Trump's tax returns

Today the New York Times released a blockbuster story about Trump's failure to pay federal taxes for 11 of the 18 years that the newspaper was able to examine his tax returns for. In 2017 his tax bill was just $750. (Related NYT stories are here, here, and here.)

And Trump's businesses have lost a lot of money, demolishing his oft-repeated claim that he's an amazing businessman. It appears that his most successful "business" was appearing on the reality TV show, The Apprentice. Trump is personally responsible for $421 million in loans that are mostly coming due in four years.

Naturally Twitter has been aflame with marvelous tweets about the revelations based on tax returns that the New York Times was able to examine in a totally legal fashion. Here's sixteen good ones that popped up in my Twitter feed.

"Good news, bad news" story offers solace to those distressed about Trump

If there's one thing we can be sure about, it's that there's nothing to be sure about. The world is unpredictable, at least the world of human events. (Physics and chemistry, along with other areas of science, are wonderfully predictable.)

Small happenings can lead to large changes. 

To offer a personal example, near the end of my senior year at San Jose State College back in 1970, I was unsure about what I was going to do with my next-to-worthless, job wise, B.A. in psychology. Applying for a post office job was running through my head.

Then, as I was leaving the college cafeteria one day, I overheard a conversation between two guys. One of them said:

"No, man, you don't need to get a Ph.D. after your bachelors in psychology. Get a masters in social work degree. It just takes two years and there's jobs available after you graduate."

Until then I knew next to nothing about social work. But I liked what I'd heard. I went to the library (no Googling in those days) and looked for schools of social work on the West Coast. Turned out there was one at Portland State University.

Oregon, sweet! I thought instantly. I'd never been to Oregon. However, it had a reputation as a promised land for us hippies mired in the crowded Bay Area. 

So I applied to the PSU School of Social Work, was accepted, graduated in 1973, and have worked/lived in Oregon ever since. All because of a brief overheard cafeteria conversation.

Today Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat occupied by the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This is appalling to progressives like me for many reasons. Here's two.

The hypocrisy of Republicans rushing to get Barrett confirmed before election day even though votes are already being cast, when the same Republicans said in 2016 that it wouldn't be possible to have hearings on an Obama Supreme Court pick because voters should decide who gets to choose a new justice when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year.

The high risk of Barrett voting with other conservatives on the Supreme Court to do away with the Affordable Care Act even though the case to be heard by the court soon after election day is legally flawed -- along with the equally high risk of the court allowing states to ban abortion outright, rolling back LGBTQ rights (possibly including gay marriage), and, horror of horrors, potentially issuing a ruling after November 3 that overturns state election laws, thereby giving Trump an undeserved four more years in office.

Any or all of these things would be really bad news. And yet... I can't help thinking of the Zen, or Taoist, "good news, bad news" story. 

The theme of the story is that it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether an event is good or bad, welcome or unwelcome, just by looking at the event itself. There's no way of knowing how that event will lead to other happenings that change the impact of the original happening.

Here's how the story starts off, which will give you the favor of it.

One day in late summer, a farmer was working in his field with his old sick horse. The farmer felt compassion for the horse and desired to lift its burden. So he let his horse loose to go to the mountains and live out the rest of its life.

Soon after, neighbors from the nearby village visited, offering their condolences and said, “What a shame. Now your only horse is gone. How unfortunate you are! You must be very sad. How will you live, work the land, and prosper?” The farmer replied: “Who could say? We shall see.”

Two days later the old horse came back rejuvenated after meandering in the mountainside while eating the wild grasses. Returning with him were twelve new and healthy horses which followed the old horse into the corral.

Word got out in the village of the farmer’s good fortune and it wasn’t long before people stopped by to congratulate him on his good luck. “How fortunate you are!” they exclaimed. You must be very happy!” The farmer softly said, “Who could say? We shall see.”

Now, there's no doubt that the past four years of Trump have been bad news for the majority of Americans who didn't vote for him. Of course, for avid Republicans, almost all of whom have joined the Cult of Trump, those years have been delightful, and they want four more.

But nothing lasts forever. Not bad. Not good.

As the saying goes, "The darkest hour is just before the dawn." That might not be literally true, yet it fits with the familiar Taoist yin-yang symbol. Within good, there is some bad. Within bad, there is some good. At the furthest extent of good, bad starts to make an appearance. At the furthest extent of bad, good starts to make an appearance.

Problem is, there is no way to know the timing of these swings, what will bring them about, or how long each tick of the good-bad pendulum will last. So all we can do is work as hard as we can to make the world a better place -- knowing that events beyond our control may either enhance our efforts or cause them to fail.

I've heard it frequently said, "The death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg couldn't have come at a worst time." In one sense that is true. In one sense it isn't, if we take to heart the words of the farmer in the story, Who could say? We shall see.

We will see. Not imagine. Not worry about. Not be fearful about. See. 

For example, Trump is talking about not accepting the result of the election if he loses. OK. That's talk. We shall see. Trump said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better. Hasn't happened. Nothing to see there. Trump said he'd build the wall and Mexico would pay for it. Hasn't happened. Nothing to see there. Trump said he'd denuclearize the Korean peninsula. Hasn't happened. Nothing to see there.

Yet when Trump says he won't accept the result of the election, lots of progressives are freaking out, wondering if the military will help him stay in office. For now that's just talk, and Trump talks about all kinds of stuff that never happens. Again, we shall see. 

Until then, be confident, be strong, vote as early as possible, and never lose hope. There always will be good times and bad times. Wisdom lies in knowing that neither lasts forever.

Ginsberg's death may spur an outpouring of votes for Biden and other Democrats. Or, maybe not. Right now we can't tell what the effect of Ginsberg dying will be. But we shall see.

Upcoming Oregon election discussed by three expert political observers

Ah, the bliss... for a political junkie like me.

At noon today I got to watch Jim Moore, Bill Lunch, and Jeff Mapes speak for an hour about the upcoming November election, focusing on Oregon. They were the kickoff for a series of Salem City Club programs on the election. The Salem Reporter sponsored today's program.

Naturally the programs are going to be held via Zoom, not in-person. I like the usual meetings at the Willamette Heritage Center, but it was nice to not have to drive there. Sitting down at my laptop and logging in to Zoom suits me just fine for now. Here's some key things the speakers said.

Jim Moore. Moore started out with a line about how last year he talked about the Independent Party not doing much of anything. And now they are still not doing anything. That was the last time the Independent Party was mentioned by anyone.

The Democrats could lose their supermajority in the House and Senate, but almost certainly not their majorities. In one of the statewide races, for Secretary of State, Democrat Shemia Fagan has much more money than her Republican opponent, Kim Thatcher. Moore expects Fagan to win, along with incumbent Treasurer Tobias Read and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. 

Currently Democrats enjoy a 18 to 12 majority in the state Senate. One of the two competitive Senate races is in the Salem area, Republican Denyc Boles versus Democrat Deb Patterson. Boles was appointed to the seat after the death of Jackie Winters. 

Democrats have a two point registration edge in Senate District 10, but Boles is the incumbent, albeit unelected. She took part in this year's walkout of Republicans from the legislature, so that could hurt her among those who believe legislators should do their job rather than go on paid vacations during legislative sessions.

The other competitive Senate race is in the south Coast to fill Democrat Arnie Roblan's seat. 

In the Oregon House, Democrats have a 38-22 advantage. Moore noted that 38 is a "weird ceiling" that no party has been able to surpass in what I assume is the history of the Oregon legislature.

There are five competitive House races, three currently held by Democrats and two by Republicans. One of those is local, between incumbent Democrat Paul Evans and Republican Selma Pierce. 

Bill Lunch. Lunch spoke about Oregon congressional races, along with some national races. Jeff Merkley will have no problem beating his Republican challenger, whose name I hadn't heard of, have forgotten, and don't feel like Googling. 

Democrat Peter DeFazio probably will win re-election to his House seat over Republican Alek Skarlatos, one of the men who helped stop a terrorist attack on a European train in 2015. Lunch suspects that Skarlatos is being groomed by the Republican Party to stage a more serious bid for this seat after DeFazio retires. 

Just over the Columbia River in Washington state, Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler is in a rematch against Democrat Carolyn Long. Long could win, but national prognosticators call this a Likely-R race.

Democrats need a net gain of three seats to take control of the Senate if Biden wins, four if he doesn't -- since the Vice-President breaks tie votes. Lunch said that the Arizona race between Mark Kelly and Republican Martha McSally looks like it will go to Kelly. In Colorado there's another probable Democrat pick-up, with Hickenlooper favored over Gardner. 

Jeff Mapes. Mapes spoke about the four Oregon ballot measures being voted on in November. That's a small number compared to previous elections, since the covid crisis made it difficult to collect signatures. 

Measure 108 would increase the cigarette tax by $2 a pack and institute a vaping tax.

It's interesting that the tobacco industry isn't involved with the measure. Mapes thought this could be due to the industry spending $90 million in California in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a similar measure. Fewer people are smoking, and the tax would help fund health care. So it looks like Measure 108 will have little organized opposition. 

Measure 110 would decriminalize drugs like meth, heroin, and cocaine. Offenders would get a non-criminal citation that could be waived if they intend to enter a treatment program. Thus the use of drugs would become a medical problem, not a legal problem. Oregon would be the first state to do this if Measure 110 passes. 

The national Drug Policy Alliance sees this a test case for them. Opposition to Measure 110 is less well funded than the support for it. 

Mapes didn't mention the psilocybin ballot measure, so I asked about it in the Q&A part of the program. However, I said it was Measure 108 rather than Measure 109, which led to Mapes talking about Measure 107 -- a confusing turn of events.

Since I was focused on trying to figure all this out, I didn't pay as much attention as I should have to what Mapes said about Measure 107, a campaign finance measure referred to voters by the legislature. Basically it allows limits on campaign finances, which now have few limits due to Oregon Supreme Court rulings about free speech, I recall.

Later someone else asked Mapes about Measure 109, the psilocybin measure. He said that if Measure 110 passes, psilocybin would be decriminalized along with other drugs. But this is different from legalizing the use of psilocybin in mental health treatment, so I urge a Yes vote on both Measures 109 and 110, along with the two other measures.

Another questioner asked if the speakers thought the generals would force Trump to leave office, since he is indicating that he won't do this willingly. Moore jumped in with an answer. On January 20, if Biden wins he will become president. At that point the military can't take orders from Trump. 

In addition, Moore said that presidential elections in this country take place across fifty states. We don't have a national election. So there is a limit on what federal courts can do to affect the election. He feels that Trump is talking the way he does to fire up his base. So we shouldn't panic about this, just be concerned. 

Lastly, a question was asked about coverage of third party candidates, such as those from the Green Party. Mapes answered from a media perspective. His view is that if a third party candidate will have an effect on a race, then it makes sense for the candidate to get media coverage.

Mountain West Investment Corporation gives $125,000 to conservative Salem PAC

Back in March I wrote about how the Chamber of Commerce appeared to be trying to hide a $25,000 contribution from Mountain West Investment Corporation, whose president is Larry Tokarski. 

(See Salem Chamber of Commerce apparently trying to hide $25,000 in PAC money.)

Now Mountain West Investment Corporation is making campaign contributions in an indirect way by funneling five times as much money through a different political action committee.

On August 26th, Mountain West Investment Corporation gave $125,000 to the Jobs PAC.

Just two days prior, the Jobs PAC gave $2,500 to Republican Danielle Bethell’s campaign for Marion County Commissioner. On the same day, the Jobs PAC gave $10,000 to Republican Raquel Moore-Green’s campaign for the Legislature and on September 4 they gave $15,000 to Republican Denyc Boles' campaign for the Legislature.

Here's a screenshot of part of the most recent Secretary of State's transaction report for the Jobs PAC. I indicated the Mountain West Investment Corporation contribution in red. 

As I noted in a May post, Hit piece on Trevor Phillips gets facts horribly wrong, the Jobs PAC is run by the Public Affairs Counsel firm in Salem. The treasurer of the Jobs PAC is James L. Wilson, who heads up that lobbying firm.

 

Public Affairs Counsel lobbies for Salem Health which is where Denyc Boles works as a lobbyist. Yes, the same Denyc Boles who received a $15,000 campaign contribution from the Jobs PAC.

 

Hopefully soon campaign finance reform laws will be in place that prevent these sorts of large corporate contributions from being laundered through political action committees like the Jobs PAC.

Let's act in defense of Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died yesterday. Today, and tomorrow, and for as long as it takes, us progressives need to do what Ginsburg would want -- act to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court seat that she held with great distinction since 1993.

Action relieves anxiety. 

When I heard about Ginsburg's death I was deeply troubled. I knew that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell would try to get her replacement confirmed by the Senate as soon as possible. 

Maybe before election day, November 3. Surely before Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021.

Just because McConnell said in 2016 that Merrick Garland, Obama's Supreme Court nomination after Scalia died, couldn't even have a hearing in a presidential election year, there's no way McConnell wouldn't move full speed ahead on a Trump nominee to fill the Ginsburg vacancy. 

I've spent last night and today perusing the thoughts of knowledgeable political observers about what can be done to stop, or ameliorate, the travesty of Trump being able to get two illegitimate Supreme Court nominees confirmed. Well, three if we count the Kavanaugh nomination.

Here's my conclusions.

(1) Working to elect Joe Biden and a Democratic Senate majority is Job #1. So long as Republicans control the White House and Senate, Democratic options are extremely limited. The best that could be hoped for is delaying the confirmation of the Trump nominee. 

So this morning I donated to an Act Blue campaign that splits contributions between Biden and Democratic Senate candidates. There are several Act Blue campaigns that do this.

(2) Congressional Democrats need to stop McConnell from confirming a Trump nominee prior to Inauguration Day. This would require Nancy Pelosi to play hardball, something I hope she will do.

One idea, though, that is too hardball'ish is the House voting to impeach Bill Barr, the Attorney General, and/or Donald Trump. Yes, impeachment proceedings must be taken up by the Senate before anything else. But this move wouldn't be popular. It could jeopardize Job #1 above, electing Biden and a Democratic Senate.

I haven't seen this idea discussed much, but I like it. A continuing resolution to fund the government has to occur before September 30. Pelosi should demand that the Senate not start hearings on a Trump Supreme Court nominee until after January 20. Most Americans apparently would support this. So it has a fairly low political risk.

(3) An alternative to the above idea would be to demand that hearings not start until after Election Day. This would be better than nothing, but not as good as hearings starting after Inauguration Day. In either case, the Supreme Court would have only eight members in the crucial post-election period when lawsuits regarding the presidential election might find their way to the Court.

A nightmare scenario would be if the Biden-Trump race comes down to a single swing state where Biden has a lead and Republicans contest a bunch of mail-in ballots, or whatever. If a conservative federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Republicans, a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court would allow the lower court ruling to stand. 

But if Trump; was able to get his nominee confirmed rapidly, the nightmare scenario would still hold, since almost certainly the Supreme Court would vote 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump, depending on how Justice Roberts voted on the case.

(4) If Biden wins and the Senate turns Democratic, appealing options exist. This is the dream scenario, even if the Senate confirms a Trump nominee before Inauguration Day. Democrats are talking hardball in this regard. 

This is allowed by the Constitution. Adding four seats would give Democratic nominees seven seats on a 13-member Supreme Court. An alternative would be adding two seats, or any other number that a Democratic Senate and House would be willing to go along with.

Of course, Biden would also have to buy off on the plan, which hopefully he would.

Another idea being floated is to make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. into states, thereby likely adding four Democratic Senators. That might be needed if a Democratic majority in the Senate next year isn't large enough to pass a Supreme Court expansion bill.

So all is not lost, fellow anxious progressives. Again, the key thing is that Biden wins on November 3 and a Democratic majority is elected to the Senate. If those things happen, another Trump nominee on the Supreme Court won't matter a whole lot, given the options to address the size of the Court.

"Our Salem" plan needs a top-priority: reducing greenhouse gases

If you care about how livable Salem is, check out a recently-released draft report from the City of Salem, Our Salem Vision. There's a lot to like in that vision, but also a lot not to like. So let city officials know what you think of the report.

Even though the document says that the next step in the Comprehensive Planning process is public comment on the draft, I didn't see any indication in the report about how comments are to be submitted. A City of Salem Facebook post about Our Salem Vision also lacks any mention of how citizen feedback is to be provided.

So send comments to the project manager, Eunice Kim ([email protected]) and the City Council ([email protected]).

It's a nice-looking report. Good graphics and a readable format. Of course, the important thing is what the report says, not its appearance. And here there are grounds for criticism.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has an excellent critique of Our Salem Vision. Here's an excerpt from his post, "Our Salem Vison and Draft Plan Relies Too Much on Arterial Conversion to Mixed-Use."

In order to "protect" existing single detached housing and "neighborhood character," the vision offered by Our Salem in the new draft plan concentrates too much on already busy arterial streets and does not do enough to leverage our system of smaller, minor arterials and collector streets.

The main place this is visible, seemingly the project's "one big idea," is in the way the project team took a "mixed use paint brush" to the major corridors of Commercial Street and Lancaster Drive and changed the color on the existing zoning outlines. This is not by itself a bad move, but because it is an isolated move, it looks like warehousing new projects on streets that are already busy, unpleasant, and polluted.

An important missing ingredient, then, is a boulevard conversion for Commercial and Lancaster. The proposed change from commercial to mixed-use zoning needs to be accompanied by a stroad-to-boulevard conversion in the streets. Otherwise they will still be oversized for autoist primacy and still very zoomy. Boulevard conversions also add medians for street trees and improve tree canopy. They prioritize local travel on the margins at calm speed and give through-travel the center.

Is Mixed Use by itself going to help with this?

I heartily agree. South Commercial and Lancaster Drive are unappealing monuments to an era in Salem's development when the car was king and global warming wasn't an issue. 

Just as Confederate monuments are being removed because they no longer fit with the tenor of our times, so should Commercial and Liberty, perhaps along with some other major streets in Salem, be markedly renovated -- fewer lanes, dedicated bike paths, trees planted, additional pedestrian crossings, and other changes.

In short, made into boulevards. 

Why would residential mixed use areas on these streets be attractive to people when Commercial and Liberty are so unfriendly to anyone not driving a vehicle? As the Breakfast on Bikes blogger said, simply slapping a new zoning designation on the streets doesn't change their character.

My own critique of Our Salem Vision is more over-arching.

Yet it fits in with the above criticism that the draft report doesn't go far enough in calling for changes in Salem's urban landscape that promise to bring major improvements to our city, not simply tinkering around the edges of what already exists.

Currently Our Salem Vision tries to be all things to all people. There's a lengthy list of goals in a number of areas. Economy and jobs. Natural resources. Parks. Transportation. Housing. And such. 

The report contains a lot of laudable objectives. Each section sounds good. It'd be nice if everything called for in the report came to pass. But here's the thing: life involves choices between alternatives. Life demands that this be given a higher priority than that. Everybody with a to-do list, which includes just about every person, knows this.

What is most important? What needs to be done first? What is most central? Unless those questions are answered, either a home chore to-do list or a city planning document is going to suffer from a lack of attention to urgent priorities.

Here's an example of what I mean. 

My wife and I live outside the Salem city limits. We know that at some point likely we'll have to move into town when our 10 non-easy-care acres get to be too much for us. So we have a realtor who sends us listings of houses that might match up with what we're looking for. We've visited some of these houses.

Invariably, there will be one thing, or sometimes several things. that make us say "no way" even though the house fits with what we want in other regards. We have a hierarchy of needs/wants for a house. If a house is good in every regard but our top priorities, we tell the realtor that we'll keep looking.

Now, obviously setting priorities between various goals is a lot tougher when Our Salem Vision has to reflect what several hundred thousand people want. Maybe that's why there was no attempt to do this in the planning process for Our Salem. 

But it needs to be done now, or Our Salem Vision won't be the effective document that it sets out to be. When you try to be all things to all people, you end up not being genuinely yourself. My view is that the top priorities flow naturally from this graphic shown early on in the draft document.

The reddish areas where Salem isn't meeting targets, is falling behind other similar cities in our area, and is moving in the wrong direction, relate to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from travel, tree canopy, bicycle and pedestrian use, and walk and transit friendliness.

So the top priority seems clear. 

The Salem City Council has to make a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the highest goal. Since transportation is the main driver of increased carbon pollution, a major change in how our city looks upon streets, mass transit, bike lanes, and such needs to happen. 

Other goals need to fit in with that top-priority vision.

For example, Neighborhood Hubs are properly emphasized in Our Salem Vision. And we shouldn't have just eleven of them, as the report calls for. Many more. Every neighborhood should have restaurants, taverns, shops, and other local businesses within easy walking and cycling distance. 

That will reduce the need to drive cars. That will enhance connections between people. That will expand the economy. Many good things will flow from making a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the over-arching goal for Salem. 

Global warming has markedly increased the wildfire danger in Oregon, as elsewhere. Likely it is responsible for the drought plaguing our state. And global warming poses an existential threat to humanity in general. 

How can reducing greenhouse gas emissions not be the top priority for Salem? This needs to be stated explicitly by the City Council.

Otherwise, those who favor increased vehicular travel and building new roads will be able to point to other goals in the Our Salem document and say, "These things are mentioned along with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, so they deserve to be treated as equally important."

Mark Wigg draws attention to plight of homeless in Wallace Marine Park

Salem citizen activist Mark Wigg doesn't mince words. Here's his advance prepared remarks that closely reflect part of what he said in public testimony at last night's City Council meeting. 

Below I'll share my thoughts about what Wigg says.

Mayor Bennett,

I ask you, Steve Powers and Peter Fernandez to resign because your criminally negligent policies and actions may have led to the rape and murder of at least a dozen women in Wallace Marine Park.

When you forced the homeless to leave downtown Salem, you told them that they could camp at Wallace Marine Park and Cascade Gateway Park. You were aware that the homeless downtown included violent felons and psychotic men. You concentrated these people in the two parks.

In addition to the men you sent to Wallace, you sent women and girls. You told them the only place for them to camp was in these parks. So you took rabbits and tossed them in a cage with wolves. Is there anyone who couldn’t predict the outcome?

Imagine a young woman that was evicted from her apartment or is fleeing domestic violence. She grabs a few things that are precious to her, a sleeping bag, a tent and a few clothes. She goes to Wallace Marine Park because that is where you told her to camp. She gets there and sets up her tent.

That night or maybe the next, she wakes when a man cuts open her tent and sits on her while she is in her sleeping bag. She can’t move her arms or legs, she is helpless. Think of the terror and hopelessness she feels as clothes are stuffed in her mouth to stop her cries for help.

A few minutes later, she is dead. The murderer drags her to the river’s edge in her sleeping bag, tosses a few rocks in the bag and ties it up. Dragging the bag to knee deep water, the murderer lets it sink and drift downstream.

I have seen the torn tents with the precious personal effects left behind. The sleeping bag and girls are gone. We may never know their names. Their things will be washed away in the next high water or piled with the other trash that is occasionally picked up at the camps.

You didn’t have to be so cruel, but it was so much easier than doing the right thing.

I hope tonight when you are about to fall asleep that you will imagine the terror and pain you caused and are causing. I hope you feel enough shame to resign so more competent and compassionate leaders can take your place.

It's great that Wigg drew attention to the plight of homeless people who are camping in the two Salem parks. I haven't spent time in downtown lately, but I believe the homeless population there has been markedly reduced. So for most people they're out of mind if not visible.

And women must have a tougher time living in the parks than men do. The scenario Wigg describes of being raped in a tent likely occurs, and maybe even is common.

The notion that women have been killed and their bodies dumped in the river is much less believable. Seemingly there would be talk of missing homeless people, since the women must have friends and relatives who would wonder why they haven't been seen for a long time.

That said, hopefully Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, and the city councilors will take seriously the basic message Wigg gave them last night. Salem's homeless women are having a tough time in the camps set up in the two parks. This situation shouldn't last much longer, especially with bad weather and winter being close at hand.

Photo of Wallace Marine Park in April 2020 StreetRoots story

Last night the City Council approved money for security services at Marion Square Park and Wallace Marine Park through fiscal year 2021. That covers the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

It would be horrible if homeless people are still living in the parks through the end of June next year. Sure, it is better to have some security services, rather than no security at all. Much better still would be for those homeless people to have options other than camping out at Salem parks.

Here's what was approved.

Parks Security Services
Fund 101, General Fund, Non Departmental
From: Non Departmental, Contingency, 101-60961000-61110, $312,000
To: Non Departmental, Materials and Services, 101-60961000-52670, $312,000

During FY 2020 the City Council approved funding for security services at Marion Square Park. The services were expanded to include Wallace Marine Park and provide two personnel from 8:00am until 12:00am. The City Manager has directed that this service continue into FY 2021 and funding was not included in the FY 2021 budget. This action provides funding for this service through the end of FY 2021.

This is a video of yesterday's City Council meeting that starts when Mark Wigg presents his testimony. Watch the video, and you'll see Wigg also describe how he may have prevented a wildfire at Wallace Marine Park through some cookies.

As forests burn, Salem parks board OK's cutting trees without a permit

It was quite a juxtaposition last night.

While wildfires burn forests across Oregon, I watched the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB) say "no problem" to a developer cutting down two large White Oak trees without a permit, after which Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, granted an after-the-fact tree removal permit 105 days after those trees, and three others, were removed.

This was a horrible decision for reasons I'll describe below. The only good news is that the vote to deny an appeal by the Southwest Association of Neighbors (SWAN)  of the after-the-fact permit being issued was close, 5 to 3.

The three members of the SPRAB board who did the right thing were Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris. The five SPRAB members who said cutting down trees in a public right of way without a permit is OK were Alan Alexander, Woody Dukes, Dylan McDowell, Paul Rice, and David Fridenmaker.

There was a lot of discussion about the merits of the SWAN appeal. Here's what bothered me about the final 5-3 vote to deny the appeal, which you can read here.

(1) This establishes a disturbing precedent. Glenn Davis, a Public Works Department employee, said that it is common for electrical, plumbing, and other permits to be issued after someone has started work without a permit. That was surprising news, but in those cases unsatisfactory work can be reversed.

Davis said that the City of Salem has never issued a tree removal permit after the trees already had been cut down. Thus the bad SPRAB decision sets a disturbing precedent: developers now know that they can cut protected trees first, and get a permit later.

In this case, Thomas Kay was the developer who failed to follow the rules and got a permit anyway. From now on, other developers may do the same. It's crazy that a majority of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members thought this was a good thing.

(2) The appeal process was blatantly unfair. In my experience, appeals of a decision by a government body give equal time to the person(s) making the appeal and those who made the decision being appealed. But last night Glenn Davis and Thomas Cupani, a City of Salem attorney, got way more time than Ted Burney, who argued the SWAN case in favor of the appeal.

For a long time I thought Cupani was an attorney for the developer, Thomas Kay, since he kept defending the tree removals without a permit. Eventually I realized that he was an attorney with the City of Salem. Since the Public Works Department is part of the City of Salem, this meant that the developer's representative and the two city staff were on the same legal side.

Somehow it didn't seem strange to the SPRAB members that they were hearing from the defendants of the appeal hugely more than from those who supported the appeal -- Burney and several residents of the Salem Heights Avenue neighborhood where the trees were cut down without a permit.

(3) A central basis for the appeal was ignored. In the dystopian 1984 novel by George Orwell, it was said "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Discussion at the meeting I watched last night didn't rise to quite that level of absurdity, but it was close.

One oft-heard argument basically was The trees were cut down without a permit, so it makes sense to issue an after-the-fact permit to remove the trees, since they already have been cut down. The more sensible counter-argument was, How can you issue a tree removal permit for trees that don't exist?

A SPRAB member who voted in favor of the appeal noted that this is akin to someone adding money to a parking meter after it has expired. That won't stop you from getting a ticket if the violation was discovered by a meter patrol person. However, the SPRAB board was fine with granting a tree removal permit to a developer after the trees had been cut down illegally.

(4) Reasonable alternatives existed to removing the trees. With the time he was given (again, much less than what those supporting issuance of the after-the-fact permit got) Ted Burney did an excellent job explaining why reasonable alternatives existed to cutting down the two White Oaks and another tree on public property.

If the developer had applied for a permit before the trees were removed, those alternatives could have been considered by City of Salem staff. Burney described how a slight change in the alignment of street improvements would have left room for the White Oaks to remain.

Sure, perhaps that would have been impractical. But it might have worked. We'll never know. Burney quoted from a city ordinance that says reasonable alternatives must be explored before street trees are removed. City staff claimed that previous land use decisions ruled out any alternative other than cutting the trees down.

However, it seems indisputable that the land use process and the tree removal permit process are separate legal entities. The SWAN neighborhood association and others who wanted to save the trees should have had a chance to argue their case before the trees were cut down, not afterward. 

(5) A Public Works inspector watched the trees being cut down without a permit. A final disturbing fact that came out last night was brought up by the developer's representative. He said that a Public Works inspector was on the site as the trees were cut down and didn't say a thing as they were removed without a permit.

Glenn Davis made a feeble attempt to excuse this by saying that inspectors are looking for other things, like whether erosion control measures are being carried out. 

So apparently staff sent out by the Public Works Department to inspect what's going on at a construction site don't care whether a permit has been issued for the work. I find this hard to believe. Seemingly the most important thing an inspector should do is determine whether what's been done is legal.

But not at the City of Salem.

Lastly, here's some comments on a post regarding the SPRAB vote on the Salem Tree Advocates Facebook page. I heartily agree with them. I've corrected a few typos.

I think that SPRAB's majority decision to go along with the Public Works Director decision to retroactively approve a tree removal permit without any expression of disapproval really disqualifies it from any role as a public advocate or watchdog for our trees. SPRAB is clearly too captive to staff to think outside of the framework that they're provided with. Thanks to members Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris, who hopefully represent SPRAB's future. And thanks, too, to Counselor Vanessa Nordyke, for advancing the idea of an urban forest commission.

The city is no longer worthy of the Tree City designation. I am disappointed they have betrayed our trust.

This sends a huge message to developers to just cut down trees at will and ask Peter [Fernandez] after the fact for forgiveness. At minimum there should have been a huge fine.

Developers already realize they can get away with virtually anything while operating in the kingdom of Peter Fernandez. The developer in this case, Thomas Kay, did virtually the same thing several years ago in my West Salem neighborhood. In that case, his permit required him to save a number of trees in a beautiful Doug Fir grove. The first thing he did was to cut them down!!

Although his name was never uttered, throughout last night's hearing there was continual reference to "The Director" who, in the context of Salem government, is synonymous with "The Dictator". Salem's counterpart to Attorney General Barr, Thomas Cupani, twisted and otherwise made a mockery of Salem Ordinances. So long as Peter Fernandez continues his roughshod rule over Salem's City government our "Tree City" certification should be suspended, as noted above. While Micki Varney and two other members of SPRAB, Tony and Keith, bravely sought to follow our ordinances, rules and regulation, the other 5 members cowardly crumbled when confronted by Fernandez' thuggish henchmen.

City Manager is OK with a developer illegally removing trees

I'm no fan of Donald Trump's re-election campaign themes, but I do believe in law and order -- along with almost every other American.

Unfortunately, the City Manager for the City of Salem, Steve Powers, has said that he is OK with the Public Works Director (Peter Fernandez) bestowing a tree removal permit on a developer (Thomas Kay) 105 days after the trees were cut down without a permit.

Michael Slater, a strong advocate for trees in Salem, sent the following letter to Powers. Slater shared the letter on Facebook. You'll see that he made some strong arguments about why granting a tree removal permit after the developer illegally removed them is bad public policy.

This seems obvious, of course. But keep reading and you'll see that the City Manager disagreed with Slater. Here's Michael Slater's message.

MY LETTER TO STEVE POWERS ON ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS IN WREN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

Dear Mr. Powers, I am writing [to] express my frustration, once again, that the Public Works Director has failed to protect Salem’s street trees. The latest incident, as you know, is Director Fernandez’s ratification of the unlawful removal of five street trees by the developer of the Wren Heights subdevelopment.

Director Fernandez’s decision to award a street tree removal permit after the developer cut down the trees is bad public policy.

First, it rewards illegal conduct. The developer was required to obtain a street tree permit before removing any trees. This requirement was spelled out in the decision approving the developer’s land use application. And, it was not certain that the developer’s application would have been approved had he respected the process.

Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent for the future. Director Fernandez’s action has signaled to the developer community that it is okay to ask for forgiveness rather than go through the process of seeking approval. It is also an affront to all of the developers who follow the rules.

Finally, Director Fernandez’s decision is contrary to recent decisions by SPRAB [Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board] and the City Council, both of which have taken action to expand protection of Salem’s street trees.

This incident follows just a few months on the revelation that the Public Works Department had not been enforcing the City’s street tree ordinance related to pruning or removing a tree without a permit.

During the Council session in which this issue was discussed, Director Fernandez made a statement to the effect that Public Works staff simply didn’t believe the Council understood its own ordinance and, rather than going back to Council, simply choose to not enforce it. This is, to say the least, a rather extraordinary sentiment for a City department director to hold.

This pattern of activity undermines the public’s trust in Director Fernandez’s ability to supervise the city’s street trees in good faith.

Of course, it may be that Director Fernandez does not have the time to give much attention to street trees in light of the fact that his portfolio includes not only the traditional scope of public works, but also drinking water, sewers, stormwater, transportation, parks, and street trees.

I ask that you relieve Director Fernandez of his responsibilities for Salem’s street trees and assign them to the City’s Urban Forester. I would also ask that you seek Council approval for the creation of an Urban Forest Commission with authority to both recommend tree policy to Council and make decisions on individual permit applications.

Finally, I ask that you begin the process of reviewing whether the public is best served by a public works department with such a broad scope or whether we would be better served by returning to a model where City parks and street trees are managed by a separate parks department.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yesterday Slater shared the response he got from City Manager Steve Powers. Amazingly, Powers considers that issuing a tree removal permit more than three months after a developer ignored a requirement to get a permit and cut them down illegally is "appropriate."

CITY MANAGER RESPONDS TO MY LETTER ON STREET TREE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Slater, thank you for the letter regarding the street tree removal along Salem Heights Road. I believe staff’s actions, culminating in Mr. Fernandez issuing a tree removal permit, were appropriate considering SRC [Salem Revised Code], the specific property, and the circumstances. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will determine if the permit was correct.

I disagree that there is a pattern of staff disregard for trees. Through site plan review and development conditions, the City is proactive in ensuring SRC is followed. When violations occur, action is taken. We have learned from the past, and have improved the timeliness of enforcement.

I appreciate your wish for parks and natural spaces to receive more attention. I disagree that a way of increasing attention is by creating a parks department. As you know, Salem’s resources are stretched. Needs exceed available resources. Resources that are available should, whenever possible, go into direct services and not additional organizational layers and costs.

Steve Powers

On the bright side, it's good to see that City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke wants to do something about Public Works Director Peter Fernandez going light on those who illegally remove or damage trees in Salem.

This is a message Councilor Nordyke shared on Facebook.

It’s time to increase public oversight over City government. Here are three things I’m working on, with more to come.

First, at an upcoming City Council meeting on climate/environmental matters, I will propose the creation of an Urban Forest Commission in response to community concerns about the Public Works Department’s handling of tree issues.

Second, I’m exploring ways to create more public oversight and input into proposed development, to help us identify and objectively examine the concerns that neighbors frequently bring to City Council.

Third, as you all know, I spearheaded the performance audit of the Salem Police Department. This audit will include a public advisory group to oversee it. I tapped a professional auditor to serve on the public advisory group, in order to enhance the group’s watchdog capacity.

These plans all have one thing in common: public oversight.

We need more transparency and accountability in our city, and I cannot do this alone.

I hear and understand the frustrations about the way that government responds to challenging and unprecedented times. Tensions are high around the country, and too many are being asked to do more with less. We all must rise to the occasion.

We must recognize that social distancing and face mask rules are in place for everyone’s safety. Our schools, businesses, workers, nursing homes, parents, students, and so many others are counting on each of us to do our part to keep our COVID numbers down. So, please, wear a dang mask.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your concerns with me and demanding better.

This is how democracy works.

This is how we get better.

There’s more to come. Stay tuned!