Salem Political Snark

Payroll tax debacle could hurt progressives on City Council

It looks likely that the effort to gather 4,000 signatures of Salem registered voters in order to force a referendum vote on the employee payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 vote is going to succeed.

A Salem Reporter story says that Let Salem Vote has already gotten 4,000 signatures and is seeking 6,000 since some signatures will be invalid.

Throughout Salem, in front of grocery stores and at popular events, people with clipboards have been collecting signatures in an attempt to bring the issue of a Salem payroll tax to a public vote.

As of Tuesday morning, July 25, the campaign has gathered over 4,000 unverified signatures, according to Oregon Business and Industry, the group leading the effort. The group needs to submit at least 3,986 qualified signatures for registered voters within the city of Salem to get the issue on the ballot in November.

The signatures have not yet been validated, and the group is seeking at least 6,000 total signatures to account for errors, before the submission deadline to the City Recorder on August 9, who would then review the sheets and file it with the County Elections Division.

I donated $60 to Let Salem Vote because, well, I believe in letting Salem citizens vote on a significant new tax that will cost the average Salem worker earning $62,000 about $500 a year.

Assuming that the referendum petition gets the required number of signatures, the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council are going to have a tough decision to make: should they give up on the idea of the payroll tax, or campaign to pass the tax in the November election?

This reminds me of a similar dilemma faced by the folks at City Hall when their scheme to install parking meters downtown ran into a whirlwind of opposition that led to a referendum petition getting 9,000 signatures, if I recall correctly, much more than were needed to put a ban on parking meters on the ballot for the next election.

The City Council decided to toss the parking meter idea in a political trashcan rather than risk an embarrassing election defeat. I think the current City Council would be well advised to do the same with the payroll tax notion.

Their big mistake was to ignore the pleas of the vast majority of those who testified about the payroll tax to put it up for a vote of the people. If that had happened, the City of Salem could have made cogent arguments for the tax and had a decent chance of it passing this November.

Now, though, the imperious attitude of the five progressives on the City Council who voted for the tax -- we know best, so we don't want to put this on the ballot -- has ticked off a broad swath of the Salem electorate, conservatives and liberals alike, as this tweet pointed out. (Councilor Nordyke was the only progressive who had the good sense to vote against approving the tax without a vote of the people.)

I'm unsure which will be worse for Mayor Hoy and the other four progressives who approved the payroll tax: having the tax approved by voters this November or turned down.

Either way, there's going to be a lot of anger directed at "tax and spend" liberals on the City Council, which is one reason why, as a progressive myself, I favor the council withdrawing the payroll tax idea and keeping it as an option for a future election.

The Salem-Keizer Proletariat substack has an interesting article in this regard: "Far-right PAC uses Salem worker tax to launch grift." 

A collection of business and political groups appear to have a good chance at gathering the required signatures to send a recently passed payroll tax to Salem voters for their approval.

And while the petition effort is being led by Oregon Business and Industry (OBI), a significant portion of the signature gathering appears to be driven by far-right stalwart, Marion Polk First - an organization with a political action committee (PAC) that funnels campaign resources to some of the most extreme right-wing candidates and causes in Oregon.

...In fact, Marion Polk First made their motivations clear the very next day after the Salem City Council passed the working class tax. Their participation in this petition effort isn’t really about giving the people a voice, it’s about exacting political retribution on City Councilors that they are ideologically opposed to.

Nonetheless, the decidedly left-leaning Salem-Keizer Proletariat writer urged people to sign the payroll tax petition, since he believes citizens should be able to vote on it. Which points to the poor decision-making skills of the five progressives on the City Council who approved the tax.

They should have realized that a big new tax on everyone who works in Salem, whether or not they live here, was going to be highly controversial. It shouldn't have been a surprise to the Tax Without a Vote five that a petition drive to put this on the November ballot would both happen and likely be successful.

Now a November vote isn't going to be solely on the merits of the payroll tax and what the money would be used for, since the tax is tied in with the irritation of citizens of all political persuasions over the five City Council progressives claiming that they know best and no vote of the people was called for.

Except, it now appears that there will be a vote. Whether this will result in a threat to the current 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council remains to be seen. It certainly won't make Salem voters look more positively on those five progressive members who approved the tax.

Salem mayor and city councilors explain position on allowing payroll tax vote

The Salem Reporter (which I consider a subscription bargain for local news) had a great idea: ask Mayor Hoy and the other eight members of the City Council why they voted the way they did on the employee-paid payroll tax that ended up being approved on a contentious 5-4 vote this month.

Journalist Abbey McDonald did a great job with "Salem councilors explain their votes for and against the payroll tax."

I was particular interested in a question about why the City Council members either supported or opposed having Salem citizens vote on the payroll tax in the November election, since I was disappointed in the decision not to allow such a vote.

Now it looks likely that there will be a vote anyway.

Let Salem Vote, an effort backed by the Oregon Business & Industry organization, is working to get 4,000 signatures from registered voters in Salem that would be enough to place a referendum regarding the payroll tax on the November ballot, or apparently the May 2024 ballot if enough signatures aren't obtained by August 9.

Below I've shared the responses on the voting question from Mayor Hoy and six of the eight city councilors. Councilor Deanna Gwyn didn't respond to the survey and Councilor Trevor Phillips didn't address the specific questions. I've put "opposed" in red and "supported" in green to make it more obvious what the position of each member of the City Council was on the voting issue.

It's interesting that Mayor Hoy and Councilor Stapleton both said that the difficulty of organizing a campaign in support of a payroll tax measure was a central reason why they didn't favor letting Salem citizens vote on it.

This may turn out to be a bad decision, since it seems probable that a vote on the payroll tax is going to occur anyway through the referendum process. But the difference is that now lots of people are upset with the City Council ignoring the overwhelming majority of those who testified on the payroll tax who urged that the tax be voted on by Salem residents.

So it seems to me that Hoy and Stapleton made a mistake in thinking that it would be easier to implement the payroll tax without a vote of the people.

Actually, it's looking like that task is going to be harder after the decision to approve the tax by the City Council -- since that stirred up opposition to the council action that probably will carry over into opposing the payroll tax itself if the referendum ends up being successful.

Mayor Chris Hoy:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“I have information about the state of the budget, demand for service and the urgency of the matter that the average voter does not have. I believe this tax is in the best interest of the community.

Passing a tax measure at the ballot box would require a costly campaign that would take a tremendous amount of time and money. Having just run the bond campaign, I believe the prospects of raising that amount of money and finding councilors willing to spend the time necessary to run a campaign would be virtually impossible.” 

Councilor Virginia Stapleton:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Many don’t know this, but the City cannot help run campaigns, they cannot pay for them or offer any other support other than information. It would be up to the nine of us on Council to do the heavy lift. We would need to raise anywhere between $30-100k (the more the better), design the campaign, run the education and outreach and in the end secure the vote. Most of us have fulltime jobs, family obligations and our continuing work on Council. … I am also concerned that we would have a campaign in opposition to the measure and most opposition efforts are very well funded making them hard to compete against. In the end, I knew that although it was the unpopular thing to do, it was the right one considering all the obstacles.   

Councilor Linda Nishioka:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“American democracy is founded on the principle of representative government, where elected officials, such as members of Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, are chosen by the people to make decisions for the benefit of their constituents and community. One of their key responsibilities is deciding on taxes, as they can create, modify, and implement tax laws that align with the interests and needs of the community.

My elected officials decided on most of the taxes I pay and have paid.”

Councilor Micky Varney:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Expediency and urgency—in short, the gravity of the situation and the additional delay in that would have occurred had we waited 4 more months. With a delay, we would have been forced to start making cuts to programs. Slashing $13.9 million of community services which support park maintenance, our libraries, Center 50+, city-wide recreation programs would be devastating. Reductions to the permitting and planning department would further slow development and building of housing inventory. Trimming an additional $2 million from police and fire would increase risks to health, life and property. We’ve observed, from the ongoing Covid recovery period, how long it takes to get people hired and get the wheels turning again.  Reinstating programs down the road at some point will be slow and will be more expensive as well.”

Councilor Jose Gonzales:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

"This is one of those issues most of them will personally feel."

Councilor Julie Hoy:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Because it was the right thing to do.”

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

"The people expect to vote on payroll taxes. Passing the payroll tax without taking it to the voters was a huge breach of trust. Based on the fact that we took three bond measures to a vote in recent history, and we were on the brink of taking this payroll tax to the voters in 2020, the voters reasonably expected to be asked for their vote on this tax.” 

Here's how the the payroll tax would be used, according to a Salem Reporter story. Police, fire, and homeless services uses only add up to $24.9 million of the $27.9 million total per year, so the remaining $3 million is for administration of the tax.

The tax is expected to bring in $27.9 million per year. City officials say that would pay for sustaining and expanding staffing and services at the police department, fire department, emergency and medical services, code enforcement and services for unsheltered people, including the navigation center and micro shelters.

The police department will get nearly half, at $10.5 million a year, according to an April staff report. Of that, $7 million would go to sustain current operations, $1.5 million to fund and expand the homeless outreach team, and add an additional $2 million to hire 13 officers for a community policing program focused downtown. More on what that means here.

Homeless services, including the navigation center and three micro shelters, would get $7.9 million according to the staff report. Those programs are currently being funded with state grants and federal Covid relief money. The city otherwise does not have money in place to keep those services running beyond 2025. Read more here.

The fire department would get the next largest chunk at $6.5 million, according to the staff report. Of that, $4.2 million would go to maintain current services, and $2.3 million would pay for an additional 12 employees. Without additional funding, the department will not be able to operate two planned new fire stations to be built starting in 2028. More on that here.

Let Salem Vote seeking signatures for referendum petition on payroll tax

I believe in the value of voting. Most people do.

That's why so many were upset when the Salem City Council approved an employee payroll tax on everyone who works in Salem, resident or not, without putting it on the November ballot, as virtually everybody who testified about the tax urged.


Predictably, given the intense widespread outrage over this action, a group was formed to challenge the council's decision. Let Salem Vote has filed a petition for a referendum that would put the payroll tax on the November ballot -- where it should have been from the start.

Here's how Let Salem Vote describes their effort.

Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) has launched an effort to refer the city of Salem’s recently adopted payroll tax to voters.  

On July 10, the Salem City Council voted 5-4 to adopt a nearly 1% payroll tax despite overwhelming opposition during public comment. The new tax will be a significant burden for employees, exacerbating the effects of steadily rising inflation and providing an incentive to seek work outside of Salem or stop coming to Salem for portions of work as they otherwise might have. For employers, the tax will create a significant compliance burden, especially for those with employees who work on the road, at various job sites, or on hybrid schedules.  

“OBI is headquartered in Salem, and we care deeply about this community. We have no problem with Salem or any other city asking voters to support levies for important local services. However, this proposal is vague, the tax is high, the administrative burden is significant, and there is little assurance as to how funds will be spent. At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote,” said Angela Wilhelms, OBI’s president and CEO. 

Preston Mann, OBI’s director of political affairs and a Salem resident, filed the petition on July 14. The city approved OBI’s petition that same day. Approximately 4,000 valid signatures from Salem voters are due Aug. 9 to refer this to the November 2023 ballot. To account for possible errors and ensure success, OBI aims to submit 6,000 signatures. Time is of the essence. 

Visit www.LetSalemVote.com to find out how to sign a petition, circulate a petition among neighbors and friends, or contribute to the campaign.

Mayor Chris Hoy and the other four members of the City Council who voted to pass the payroll tax without referring it to voters may regret their decision. 

Note the third paragraph in the Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) press release. Even though OBI will say that the petition just is for Salem residents to be able to vote on the payroll tax, that's language to attract as many signers as possible as quickly as possible.

It seems clear that OBI, likely along with other business organizations, is opposed to an additional tax on employees to be collected by Salem businesses and would like to have voters reject the payroll tax. The statement "At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote" indicates that there's a maximum: not only voting, but voting against the tax.

Worse for the City Council, if this does get on the ballot, opposition to the tax is going to be widespread. As OBI says, "For the average Salem resident earning $62,192 annually, the new tax will cost over $500 every year!" (Minor quibble: that statement should have said "average Salem employee," since the tax falls on everyone who works in Salem even if they live elsewhere.)

And aside from the obvious pocketbook concern, many people don't like that most of the $28 million a year to be raised by the payroll tax would go to hiring new police and fire employees, along with City of Salem staff needed to oversee the new tax.

There's scant evidence that the Police and Fire Departments are understaffed, or that efficiencies can't be found in these departments -- which already consume most of the City of Salem general fund dollars -- that would make the payroll tax unnecessary.

Yes, the plan also is for the tax to fund some homeless services. That's a good thing. But shoving more money at the Police and Fire Departments isn't wise, at least not without a lot more examination of how these departments could operate more efficiently and effectively.

I urge you to sign the petition if you're a Salem registered voter. Just click here. 

Avelo Airlines coming to Salem airport. Hopefully it will stay.

Big news today for fans of commercial air service returning to the Salem airport: Avelo Airlines was revealed as the mystery company that the City of Salem has been negotiating with -- which included using $2.4 million in taxpayer dollars to get the airport ready for the airline.

Avelo is advertising Salem as the newest addition to the cities they serve. However, initially Avelo will only offer twice-weekly flights to Las Vegas and Burbank in southern California, as described in a Salem Reporter story.

Flights would begin Oct. 5 to Las Vegas, with twice-weekly flights on Thursdays and Sundays, according to a Thursday news release from Avelo. Flights to Los Angeles, landing at Hollywood Burbank Airport, would initially be on Fridays and Mondays beginning Oct. 6, before shifting to Thursdays and Sundays Nov. 2.

I'm going to try to be optimistic about this latest attempt to bring commercial air service back to Salem, though the cynicism I expressed in my January 2023 post, "City Council approves $2.4 million for airport in dumb move," is lurking not far beneath the surface of my optimism. 

For a Statesman Journal story about Avelo coming to town points out what happened after United Airlines stopped offering flights to Salem in 1980.

Previous plans to connect Salem to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in 2005 failed to come to fruition.

For just more than a year from 2007 to 2008, Delta offered twice-daily flights between Salem and Salt Lake City. Archives said the service was dropped because of the price of oil and the impending recession.

SeaPort Airlines' commuter air service briefly had regular stops in Salem, but ended service after just three months in 2011.

But maybe the time is right for what the Statesman Journal story calls an "ultra-low-cost" airline to succeed in Salem. Of course, as this review of the airline says, the cost of an Avelo flight rises quite a bit if you want to take a decent-sized carry-on bag with you or you want to check luggage ($40 to $50 per bag or piece of luggage).

I also found two detailed reviews by people who described their Avelo flight. See here and here. The first reviewer summarized their experience in pros and cons.

Pros and cons of Avelo Airlines

The best way to summarize whether or not Avelo Airlines is good or not is to list out all of the pros and cons. Then, (hopefully) that will help you decide for yourself whether or not they are worth flying.

Pros

• • I don’t know how they do it, but it’s really easy to score some insanely cheap fares on Avelo Airlines. How I managed to pay just $59 for my ticket (which included the “extra legroom” upgrade and all taxes and fees) is beyond me.
  • The extra legroom seat is just as roomy as domestic first class on any other US airline. I can’t say that I’m not tempted to add Avelo to my best domestic first class list…
  • Although the food they serve isn’t substantial, it’s better than nothing. Spirit Airlines won’t even give you a complimentary cup of tap water, so this is a pretty big deal.

Cons

• • Given the fact that Avelo Airlines is still in its infancy stage, expect a higher amount of delays and other issues as they work to perfect the system.
  • Their limited flight network can be frustrating if you’re on a tight schedule and you really need to be somewhere at a very specific time. In other words, there aren’t as many flight options compared to other airlines.

Shame on City Council for approving payroll tax by ignoring citizen input

Last night five of the six progressives on the Salem City Council approved a payroll tax that everyone who works in Salem has to pay, even if they don't live in Salem.

It was a shameful decision. And I've chosen to use that word, shameful, because Mayor Chris Hoy, one of those who voted for the payroll tax, got irked at Councilor Gwyn when she said to her fellow councilors, "Shame on you, shame on you." (Thanks to Salem-Keizer Proletariat for reporting that comment in an informative post about the meeting.)

I didn't attend the meeting, nor did I watch it online. I'm thankful that I didn't, since the 6 pm meeting ended around 11 pm, which is a ridiculously long time to expect citizens to put in to see their local elected officials in action. 

Rachel Alexander of the Salem Reporter attended the meeting, though, tweeting about it throughout the evening. Here's an example.

Alexander also has written a story about the decision, aptly titled "Salem councilors vote to tax worker paychecks after citizens overwhelmingly ask them not to."

The Salem City Council voted narrowly Monday night to tax the paychecks of Salem workers after listening to over two hours of public testimony overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal.

Councilors voted 5-4 to implement a tax that would have the average person who works in Salem pay about $500 per year to close a city budget deficit. The additional money would pay for existing police officers and firefighters and adding more of both and keep homeless sheltering services open after the federal and state money currently paying for them runs out next year.

The vote took place after 11 p.m., near the end of an at-times heated meeting where citizens spoke emotionally about the impact a new tax would have on their budgets, and councilors at times sniped at each other during deliberations.

“My earning power is decreasing rapidly. I’m very concerned that if this tax is passed I will not be able to afford housing,” said Margaret May, a Salem resident and state employee. She called approving the tax without sending it to voters “cowardly and shameful.”

A crowd filled the council chamber at the start of the 6 p.m. meeting but their numbers dwindled into the night as audience members looked on, at times snorting or applauding as councilors spoke about their intended votes. 

Councilor Julie Hoy led an unsuccessful effort to refer the tax to voters at the next general election.

The five councilors who voted for the payroll tax were Mayor Chris Hoy, Virginia Stapleton, Linda Nishioka, Trevor Phillips, and Micki Varney. The four councilors who voted against the payroll tax, after a motion to refer the tax to voters failed, were Julie Hoy, Deanna Gwyn, Vanessa Nordyke, and Jose Gonzalez.

The Portland Oregonian has republished the Salem Reporter story, which will help show much of Oregon that the Salem City Council is dedicated to ignoring citizen input in favor of going along with a money-raising scheme put forward by City of Salem staff, as a tweet from Angry Owl stated.

That last comment is right-on. The City of Salem does indeed work for the City of Salem bureaucracy, not the public. But the five city councilors who voted for the payroll tax, all progressives, failed to ask tough questions before they mindlessly decided to tax the average worker $500 a year.

Like, why should the Police and Fire Departments be lavished with $17 million of the $28 million to be raised each year by the payroll tax when those departments already suck up the vast majority of the city's general fund budget?

And, if the payroll tax is such a great idea, why not ask Salem voters to approve it at the November election? 

I came across a comment by Clifford Eiffler-Rodriguez on a Facebook post that was so close to how I feel about last night's outrageously bad decision, I'm including it below.

The funding mechanism for the tax is a mess. And puts undue economic pressure on workers and businesses based in Salem. It's an economic fail whale.

 

I live here, I work elsewhere. I won't pay the tax and that's fucked up. A big loss for the city. It's a poorly realized funding mechanism and needs greater scrutiny and revision.

 

Funding is only part of the question. The lack of accountability in pursuing this budget question with voters is another.

 

Our government is growing and increasingly complex. While there are means for the public to take part, like the budget committee and these public hearings, there is a steep burden to be politically active and engaged for many members of the community at large. We are fortunate to have so many people who take their time to help shape our city.

 

Belittling the public for not having "the facts" means you'd rather gatekeep then educate folks on the need. It's very callous to follow the example of the council and cut people out of the process.

 

But you can't ignore PEOPLE DID SHOW UP. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT. What was overwhelmingly asked was that this tax was referred to voters. The prevailing side cited a vote of 13-5 in the budget committee.

 

Last night the circle got a little wider. And only 15% of people currently support the tax as it is now enacted. A cascade of community members, leaders, and other affected communities engaged in the process and were summarily ignored.

 

Others shared how they collaborated with the council in crafting or mulling alternatives and are now having their work tossed aside.

 

When these officials are elected, they do take an oath to be champions of this city. Leaders in the community. What you are seeing is a LACK of leadership. They didn't want to do the work to include the public of whom they are asking more of.

 

That is shameful of the Mayor. Shameful of the councilors who approved it.

 

What we are doing now is not working. The strain is being felt by everyone. But to ask for more money to do more of the same, WHICH IS NOT WORKING, is infuriating and corrupt.

 

Many citizens took this council to task about the financial prioritizations of the various elements of the budget. These play a large part in triggering the need for additional tax revenues.

 

We have a council and City Manager who blithely carry water for two department heads [Police and Fire] , accepting the hyperbole sold by them as they fail to restructure to better meet our city's acute needs.

 

The city and its leadership are ignoring paths to financial responsibility in addition to finding the money to pay for SERVICES WE NEED.

 

When we include the wider community in the discussion, planning, and execution of this upcoming budget I am confident we can find the funding for the tools we need to serve our community more compassionately, efficiently, and be able to enjoy the transformation of this pretty little spot on a rock we all share.

 

These 5 took that power away from the community last night. They showed no leadership in that very act.

I'll end by saying that what struck me about last night was how much it reminded me of contentious City Council meetings when conservatives controlled the council. 

Back then, there would be lengthy meetings where the Mayor and other council members were taking some action to further the cause of a Third Bridge across the Willamette, which I liked to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

Lots of citizens would submit testimony against the Third Bridge, many testifying in person. But the City Council wasn't really listening to them, because their minds were made up ahead of time. So they'd try to look as interested as possible while clearly being disinterested in the public input.

Same thing happened last night, except now it was the progressive majority on the City Council who ignored the views of citizens and did what they were planning to do because city staff told them to do it.

Like the Facebook commenter said, that isn't leadership. It's the opposite of leadership. To my mind, shameful cowardice.

Biden is right to send cluster bombs to Ukraine

War is bad. Unless it is a just war. Then war is good.

Ukraine's war against Russia is a just war, since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and shows no sign of stopping that unprovoked aggression.

That's why I support President Biden's decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine. Cluster bombs have been banned by over 100 countries, but not by the United States or Russia. 

Russia has used them against civilians in Ukraine. Ukraine, on the other hand, only will use them against the Russian military. 

Today I heard a CNN interview with Wesley Clark, a retired U.S. Army general who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

He supported Ukraine getting cluster bombs, saying that this will shorten the war, not prolong it, since Russia will only stop fighting when the cost of its invasion is painful enough to cause Russia to engage in talks to end the war in a reasonable fashion, not on Russia's terms.

Clark said that Ukraine is running short of shells for its artillery and it will take about six months for the United States to replenish its rapidly diminishing stock of these shells. The cluster bombs will aid Ukraine in its current counter-offensive against the Russian forces.

A big problem with cluster bombs is that some of the bomblets that form the cluster don't explode upon impact, leaving them lying around on the ground where civilians, including children, might encounter them with disastrous consequences.

But I recall Clark saying that Russian cluster bombs have a 30% failure rate, while the bombs being sent to Ukraine by the United States have a much lower failure rate, around 1%. Nonetheless, after the war ends, there will have to be an effort to clear Ukraine of unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs.

An important thing to keep in mind by those opposed to cluster bombs is that Ukraine is using them to defend its own territory, and protect its people, while Russian is using them as part of its invasion of Ukraine.

So the moral high ground clearly is on Ukraine's side. 

Realizing this, Clark said that he feels President Biden is wrong to demand that NATO admit Ukraine only after its war with Russia is over. Clark considers that NATO should proclaim that in 2024 Ukraine will become part of NATO unless Russia withdraws its forces from Ukraine.

This would provide a powerful reason for Russia to stop its aggression against Ukraine, while Biden's position that Ukraine can't become part of NATO until the war ends gives Russia a strong reason to keep on fighting.

Time for Salem to ban fireworks, sale and use

Yesterday the City of Salem banned the use of fireworks, as did two fire districts adjoining Salem. Now the City Council should implement a permanent ban on the sale and use of fireworks.

The reasons given for yesterday's ban only scratch the surface of what's wrong with fireworks. Sure, high temperatures, low humidity, and wind gusts make setting off fireworks especially dangerous in terms of starting fires.

But those conditions are the new normal for early July in this era of rapidly accelerating global warming. Yesterday, Tuesday July 4, was the hottest day on record for our planet. The average worldwide temperature broke the record set just the day before. And not just by a little, by three tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. 

CNN — This week saw the hottest global temperature ever recorded, according to data from two climate tracking agencies.

On Monday, the average global temperature reached 17.01 degrees Celsius (62.62 Fahrenheit), the highest in the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s data, which goes back to 1979. On Tuesday, it climbed even further, reaching 17.18 degrees Celsius. The previous record of 16.92 degrees Celsius was set in August 2016.

The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service on Wednesday also tweeted that Monday’s global temperature was a record in its data set.

Experts warn that the record could be broken several more times this year. Robert Rohde, lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, said in a Twitter post on Tuesday that the world “may well see a few even warmer days over the next 6 weeks.”

I give credit to Salem's new City Manager, Keith Stahley, for banning fireworks this year, something the previous City Manager, Steve Powers, refused to do in 2021 when July 4 also was marked by drought and high heat. Now it's time to make the ban permanent. 

On July 4, 2021 I marked the occasion by writing a blog post about how bad fireworks are.

In brief, they start fires; they cause trauma to pets; they scare wildlife; they create highly toxic gases and pollutants that poison the air, the water and the soil; and one more that I neglected to include in the post: they harm veterans with PTSD and others who are triggered by loud explosions. 

Here's some recent fireworks-related comments from a popular Facebook page dealing with issues concerning the Salem City Council.

We've said before that the escalating illegal fireworks issue would lead to a total ban of all fireworks because for years now they've just thumbed their noses at complaints about no enforcement of illegal fireworks laws. To the point where it's ongoing for months at all hours. The 3rd was horrifically loud. Last night even SPD was talking about dangerous "massive explosions." City of Salem needs to start confiscating and ticketing. It's ridiculous.
--------------------
I completely agree. For all intents and purposes, Salem has allowed illegal fireworks to become legal, through years of lack of enforcement. A ban on legal fireworks today, while laudable, has done nothing to curb the bombs and other illegal projectiles from going off this afternoon.
--------------------
Last year the Salem Police Chief said that SPD would not be enforcing fireworks ordinances. This year the Fire Marshall issued a ban on all but organized (eg the City of Salem fireworks at the Fairgrounds) displays and then immediately went on to say don't report those who are illegally setting-off fireworks! The result of these bizaar actions of Salem's officialdom is just what we would suspect: fireworks use has gone off the scale! In my Wesst Salem neighborhood there are this evening constant explosions of very large fireworks.
--------------------
We spent part of last night with the dog in his thunder vest and a sedative, but it took him a while to calm down. This am I was out before 10 picking berries and sure enough, a loud boom which set off the dog and irritated the hell out of me. Frankly, I don't care why the damn things get banned, but this nonsense needs to end. I have come to dislike this holiday when it should just be a nice time to have a summer BBQ without sounding like we are in a war zone.
--------------------
We had two solid hours of a neighbor launching illegal fireworks from an illegal mortar launcher last night. There is no longer any fear of consequences…it’s right out in the open.
--------------------
I have always loved fireworks, but watching how my pets cower with the booms, and hearing of the fright faced by small children and individuals with PTSD, and seeing the danger they pose to vegetation, wildlife, and structures, makes me now want them banned. We don’t need personal fireworks or even public displays. Let’s ban them in Salem. Please!
--------------------
It sounded like a major battle going on across the street in the church parking lot. Plus it was a major clean up for the day care workers this morning.

It's crazy that the City of Salem allows the sale of fireworks at lots of stands set up all around town, and apparently has zero enforcement against illegal fireworks, then issues a ban on setting off fireworks on the very day of July 4, which means hardly anyone knows about the ban, and even if they did know, they've already bought their fireworks so are going to set them off anyway -- especially since there are no consequences for doing this.

Many cities in Oregon have banned fireworks. Salem should join them. Back in 2021 this was the list that I reported on in my blog post. 

These are the Oregon cities and counties that have banned fireworks: Portland (and bans sales), Multnomah County (and bans sales), Milwaukie (and bans sales), Tigard, Tualatin, Gresham, West Linn, Hood River, The Dalles, Newberg, unincorporated Clackamas County, Bend. Most of these places, like Salem, are in northwest Oregon. They have almost exactly the same weather and fire risk level.