Salem Political Snark

It'll be Hoy vs. Hoy in 2024 Salem Mayor race. Marvelous!

Since politics isn't always played fairly, occasionally I'll hear of a candidate who enters a race because they have the last name of a popular politician of the opposite party and want to fool voters into casting a ballot for them.                                                                                             Julie Hoy and Chris Hoy

But here in Salem, Oregon, a not-so-sleepy city of about 180,000 people, we're going to have a race for Mayor in 2024 that features two Hoys: Chris Hoy, the progressive incumbent, and Julie Hoy, the conservative challenger.

It would have been cool if Julie and Chris were related, but they're not. However, they're "related" in this sense. In 2022 Julie won Chris' Ward 6 City Council seat after Chris first ran for Mayor, which I theorized in a blog post sounded like the last name political dirty trick noted above.

Julie Hoy and Stacey Vieyra-Braendle are the candidates seeking to fill Chris Hoy's seat. I could be completely wrong about this, but it seems strange that an unrelated Hoy just happens to hope to replace Chris Hoy. 

This is the sort of thing Republicans would do. So I'll indulge my conspiracy theory mind and theorize that Julie Hoy leans conservative. I know nothing about Vieyra-Braendle. If she turns out to be conservative, I wouldn't be all that surprised, but for now I'm guessing she's the more liberal candidate.

I learned about the Hoy vs. Hoy matchup in a Salem Reporter story, "Julie Hoy will challenge Chris Hoy as Salem's Mayor."

Salem City Councilor Julie Hoy announced Tuesday that she will run for mayor in 2024 against incumbent Chris Hoy, setting up a competition between two city leaders who share the same last name but are often at odds over city spending and public safety. 

Councilor Hoy said she chose to run because she believes Salem is in crisis.

“I see things differently, maybe because I’m a business owner and a mom, but I feel a tremendous amount of need for public safety and a sense of security that I believe is missing,” she said. “And that will be hard for me to do anything about from a minority position on council.”

She represents ward 6, in east Salem, which Chris Hoy represented before being elected mayor in 2022. The two are not related.

Julie Hoy said that the payroll tax was a major reason she chose to run, and where she showed she is consistent in her messaging and decisions when she felt the city was not giving voters enough information about plans.

She was one of four councilors who voted in July against imposing a tax without sending it to voters, and tried unsuccessfully to repeal the tax ahead of the November election after voters referred the measure to the ballot.

Voters rejected the tax decisively, with 82% opposed.

Chris Hoy was a strong supporter of the payroll tax. So it will be interesting to see whether voters hold that against him, given that the tax was favored by only 18% of the electorate.

That may partly depend on how Mayor Hoy, the City Manager, and the City Council approach another try at convincing voters to approve more money for the City of Salem.

Another Salem Reporter story that included news (seriously consider subscribing, if you haven't already) about the formation of a revenue task force indicates that city officials are acting more wisely this time around. One reason the payroll tax suffered such a massive defeat was that those officials had an annoying attitude of We know best, so we're not going to put the tax up for a vote of the people.

That backfired big time when opponents of the payroll tax had little problem gathering enough signatures on a petition that required the tax be on the November 2023 ballot. But the Salem Reporter story shows that city officials appear to have learned some things from that 82% opposed debacle.

The council met on Oct. 25 to discuss forming the [revenue] task force, and directed staff to prioritize community engagement and a wide range of perspectives.

Consultant group Moss Adams will manage the task force, and will collaborate with city staff and the council to identify revenue options and the pros, cons and risks of them. The group prepared a scope of work plan that outlines the next several months. 

Moss Adams’ fees will cost the city $120,000, and city staff do not have the capacity to facilitate the task force without the consultants, Eggleston said.

City staff also recommend working with community engagement consultants Parachute Strategies, who would cost $55,000 and polling from DHM that would cost $45,000.

Community engagement will include eight focus groups, one per council district, community surveys and three town halls, according to Moss Adams.

If all that goes well, and enough of it happens before the May 2024 election for Mayor, Chris Hoy will have an easier time with his campaign, since by and large, his progressive views are more in tune with those of Salem voters than the conservative stances of Julie Hoy.

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.

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. 

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.

Good and bad of Mayor Hoy's 2023 State of the City address

A few days ago Salem Mayor Chris Hoy gave his first State of the City address at the Salem Convention Center. You can read what he had to say by clicking on the "continuation" link at the end of this blog post.

Hoy's talk was well-written and informative. I came away impressed by the rundown on what has been accomplished in Salem. 

The homelessness section made me think that maybe, just maybe, we're finally making a dent in the number of people without a place of their own to call home. The micro shelters are helping with this. The Navigation Center to be opened in a few months sounds like a terrific addition to our homeless services.

I noticed in the section of the speech below that Mayor Hoy failed to mention that a big reason why the homeless person wasn't arrested for methamphetamine use is Measure 110, which decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illegal drugs like meth.

I'm a supporter of Measure 110, so I wanted to point out that it facilitates addicts asking for help, since now they don't have to worry about jail time. Hoy said: 

In fact, an officer recently contacted an individual living on the streets who was an admitted methamphetamine addict. He told the officer he was ready for help. The officer knew it was critical to get the person into help right then. Through his contacts with local service providers, they were collectively able to get him into substance abuse treatment. Previous approaches would have resulted in the individuals arrest, but now he is getting the intervention he needs that will hopefully help him break the cycle of addiction. 

Mayor Hoy says that paid on-street parking in the downtown area is inevitable. Well, maybe. I just hope that before the City Council approves downtown parking meters, doing away with the current 3-hour free on-street parking, there's a genuine attempt to gauge public opinion on this.

City officials shouldn't assume that the people pushing for parking meters, which I suspect includes the Salem Main Street Association, truly represent a broad cross-section of downtown visitors, business owners, and residents.

Given that I strongly suspect the push to bring back commercial passenger air service to the Salem airport is doomed to fail like previous attempts have, the laudatory mention of this effort by Mayor Hoy may not age well when looked at in a few years.

Since air travel is one of the biggest ways individuals contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions, it's perplexing that Hoy, who strongly supported the Salem Climate Action Plan, is so positive about bringing commercial passenger air travel to the Salem airport.

My biggest problem with Mayor Hoy's talk was his unabashed support for adding 70 new officers to the Salem Police Department and 111 new firefighters to the Salem Fire Department. Those departments already suck up the majority of general fund tax dollars, about 60% to my understanding.

Crime rates in Salem are stable. Salem has about the same number of police officers per 1,000 population as other Oregon cities our size. So adding 70 new officers seems wildly out of place.

Fires are a small proportion of calls to the Fire Department, since it mostly is a "Medical Department." It's crazy that giant fire engines are used to respond to medical calls, that all of those engines need to be replaced at considerable cost, and that there's an effort to add 111 new firefighters to the Salem Fire Department without first looking at ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the department.

Mayor Hoy began his talk by saying "It's a time of fresh ideas." OK, then let's explore fresh ideas for the Police and Fire Departments that don't involve massive tax increases to pay for many more officers and firefighters who, apparently, would be doing the same un-fresh things.

You can read Mayor Hoy's talk below.

Community Improvement Bond discussed at Salem City Club

In next Tuesday's election Salem voters will decide the fate of the $300 million Community Improvement Bond. Last Friday the City Club had an informational program about the bond featuring new Mayor Chris Hoy and Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Hoffert.

It was more interesting than I thought it would be. But then, my life is pretty routine, so I have a low bar when it comes to what I find interesting.

Quite a few City of Salem staff were there, including the recently appointed City Manager Keith Stahley. But they couldn't advocate for the bond, leaving that up to Hoy, Hoffert, and a slide presentation. I don't live in the city limits, so can't vote on the bond. My attitude is that it deserves a half-hearted "yes" vote.

The bond measure is heavily tilted toward street improvements. Sidewalks also, but streets get the bulk of the $157 million in that category.

There's something for everybody, more or less, in the bond measure. Which means that it won't be transformative, as would be the case if Salem went all out toward becoming a Green city with markedly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, Hoffert said that not everybody got everything they wanted, but no group said we weren't listened to. OK, probably politically wise, though by no means daring. 

I got to ask the first question from the audience. It went like this: "Since medical calls account for the vast majority of Fire Department calls [75% or so] rather than fires, why are large engines sent out on medical calls, leading to wear and tear on them, rather than using right-sized vehicles for medical calls?"

I asked this because $26 million is in the bond to replace all of the Fire Department's engines, which have reached the end of their useful life. The response from a department employee (didn't get his name) was what I'd heard before. 

They send out large fire trucks to medical calls because it isn't known what sort of call the truck will have to go to next. So by having a truck at a medical call, maybe it will be able to get to a vehicle accident or whatever quicker than if the truck was back at the station. I found this response logically unsatisfying, since it seems just as likely that a fire truck at the station could get to a fire more rapidly than a truck occupied with a medical call.

Someone else asked if the department had looked into electric engines. Answer: yes, but electric fire engines are very early in the electric vehicle process.

The slide above shows that if the bond passes, the $300 million will be spent from 2023 to 2032. So don't expect to see instant change. For example, new dog parks (a subject close to the heart of my canine-loving wife) won't begin to happen until 2026. 

After the meeting I asked city staff when paving the decrepit parking lot at the Minto Brown dog park would happen. The pleasing answer was early on, since paving is straightforward and simple.

I also asked City Manager Stahley how bond interest forecasts were estimated, since bonds will be issued about every three years for a portion of the $300 million. He pointed me to a financial guy at the meeting, who told me that basically they assume a mid-range interest on the bonds. Not too high, not too low, somewhere in the historical middle.

Lastly, this slide shows how the City of Salem is able to keep the amount Salem citizens pay for bond measures constant, even with the new $300 million bond. 

Vote for these progressive candidates in the May election

I like progress. That's why I'm a progressive.

And why I'm recommending that you vote for these candidates in the May election that likely will determine who becomes the next Salem mayor and wins the even-numbered Salem City Council seats.

(If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, plus one more vote, they win outright in the May election, which is a primary for partisan Democrat/Republican races, but usually is the deciding election in local nonpartisan races.)

For more detail, here's a recommendation I saw today from a progressive group that includes some additional races. They leave out the Ward 2 race because Linda Nishioka is running unopposed. I agree with their recommendations.

Lastly, I favor Andrea Salinas in the Democratic primary for the 6th Congressional District seat, and Tina Kotek in the Democratic primary for Governor.

I'm undecided in the Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District seat. I'm not wild about Kurt Schrader, but I think he has a better chance than Jamie McLeod-Skinner of keeping this seat Democratic in the November general election, which could be crucial if control of the House comes down to just a few races.

Disappointing: Hoy versus Griggs in City Club debate

Since I like debates, and the Salem City Club called today's program a debate between the two candidates for Mayor, Chris Hoy and Chane Griggs, after I settled into my chair for the noon Zoom meeting, I was looking forward to some argumentative fireworks.

Instead, what transpired was more like a sparkler that fizzled a bit now and then, but mostly just gave off some smoke without any real heat. Or to mix my metaphors, Griggs and Hoy acted like two fighters who were so concerned about not getting knocked out, they neglected to throw any genuine punches.

Part of the problem was the mostly softball questions asked by the City Club moderator. Based on my sometimes legible notes, they included:

-- How do you see your role as Salem Mayor? Answers were predictable. Like, engage different communities. Treat people with respect. Nothing to debate here.

-- Your top three priorities? Both said homelessness. Griggs said public safety. Hoy said getting through the pandemic. Nothing much to debate here.

-- Most important factors in choosing new City Manager? Unsurprisingly, Griggs and Hoy want a City Manager who listens well, has the capacity to lead the City of Salem, fosters trust. Nothing to debate here.

-- Do you support the Salem Climate Action Plan? Hoy absolutely supports it. Griggs is very supportive of it. Nothing to debate here.

-- Any dramatic new priorities for the city? No, at least not by my definition of "dramatic." They both want to pass a new bond measure in November. If you view that as dramatic, you would have liked the debate more than I did. Nothing to debate here.

-- Thoughts about the bond measure? Unshockingly, Griggs wants to keep the public safe and combat homelessness. Hoy wants to build roads, like Marine Drive in West Salem, improve parks, add branch libraries, and construct affordable housing. A few differences, but nothing much to debate here.

Questions from the audience were a bit more interesting. Probably the entire debate should have focused on audience questions, since the ones the City Club came up with were pretty lame. 

Both Griggs and Hoy are in favor of more low-barrier shelters for the homeless, and otherwise agreed on the obvious: the homeless need homes. Nothing to debate here.

When an audience member asked, "What are your thoughts about the Third Bridge?," I perked up, desperately hoping for some disagreement between Griggs and Hoy. There was, but not very much.

Griggs said it was unfortunate that the Third Bridge proposal was rejected by the City Council, but she isn't saying the bridge was in the right location.  Hoy gave some good reasons why the Third Bridge was rejected: flyover ramps, displaced homes/businesses, tax burden on Salem residents, tolls. But he said "we do need to look at other options, such as another location for a Third Bridge." 

Neither Hoy nor Griggs are in favor of making a payment to neighbors of managed homeless sites. Nothing to debate here.

A question was asked about developer-oriented planning. Griggs said that city code determines whether a development proposal can be approved. Unless the code is changed, such as by adding more protections for trees, there's no liberty to make any other decision. Hoy said Griggs was 100% correct. Nothing to debate here.

Regarding the Covanta garbage burner, Hoy said that the legislature wrote a law that leaves Salem garbage collection 100% up to the Marion County Commission. The city has no choice in the matter. After Griggs said this means that the Mayor needs a good relationship with the county commissioners, which she has, Hoy chimed in that he also has a good relationship with them. Nothing to debate here.

When asked how they would meet the needs of the Latinx community, 1 in 4 Salem residents, not surprisingly both Griggs and Hoy touted their ability to work with them. Nothing to debate here.

Since there was so much agreement between Hoy and Griggs, each must have decided that they didn't want to appear aggressive toward the other candidate. But the downside of this strategy is that voters were left with few reasons to prefer one candidate over the other.

Which means I have to fill that void.

I'm a strong supporter of Chris Hoy. With Hoy, I'm confident that what you see is what you get. He's a moderate progressive, which describes me also. Hoy strikes me as being relatively low on the political scheming scale.

(All politicians are schemers to some extent, as are all human beings, really -- including toddlers, something I remember well from my child-rearing days.)

Chane Griggs, on the other hand, strikes me as a moderate conservative who has a high probability of tilting decidedly rightward if she were to be elected Mayor, which I hope doesn't happen. Clearly she's smart, polished, and adept at saying the right things to stand a chance of becoming Mayor of a liberal-leaning city.

However, she's the candidate of the Powers That Be in Salem. Chamber of Commerce. Realtors. Developers. Those who profit from unfettered development regardless of how it affects the livability and quality of life in Salem.

A friend who watched the City Club debate told me that Hoy is the "shovel ready" candidate. Meaning, he's had experience on the City Council and a temporary appointment to the state legislature. Hoy can start working to build a better Salem on his first day in office.

Griggs, though is much more of a question mark. Her answers today to City Club questions seemed more calculated than Hoy's. She appeared determined to look like a common sense conservative who shared most of the values of liberals.

Which I have difficulty believing. I suspect Griggs would do a "bait and switch" not long after she became Mayor, revealing that the moderate Chane Griggs on display at today's City Club debate actually was a mask hiding a Chane Griggs who is considerably more right-wing.

Cindy Condon, City Club moderator (top left), Chane Griggs (top right), Chris Hoy (bottom)

 

Hollie Oakes-Miller suspends her campaign for Mayor of Salem

This afternoon I got an email from Hollie Oakes-Miller.

Family, Friends, and Comrades,

I am sad to announce that we are suspending the campaign for Mayor of Salem and I will be taking some time to rest, reflect, and refocus.

I am deeply grateful for all of your support through this campaign!! Thank you!  

~Hollie  

I'm not sure if "suspending" means Oakes-Miller is withdrawing from the Mayor race, or if she's just taking a break from campaigning.

UPDATE: Just got this message from someone who's usually knowledgeable about local political happenings. 

"Just FYI, I have it on good authority that Hollie came up three signatures short of turning in the required number of valid signatures and failed to make the ballot for that reason. She will not be on the ballot."

Regardless, she had a Facebook page, a web site, and a pleasingly oak'y campaign image.

Today some friends and I were discussing how the race for Mayor might turn out with three candidates: Chane Griggs, Chris Hoy, and Hollie Oakes-Miller.

I theorized that Oakes-Miller, a founding member of Salem Democratic Socialists of America, likely would get around 10-15% of the vote, though this would have been hard to predict, since "democratic socialist" is really appealing to younger voters and quite a few others, while a danger sign to older voters and those wary of far-left politics.

A Mayor candidate would need to get 50% of the vote in the May primary, plus at least one more vote, to avoid a runoff in the November election. Assuming 10-15% for Oakes-Miller, that would have meant that if Griggs or Hoy got 50%, the other would get 35-40% of the vote.

Possible, but sort of unlikely given that Griggs and Hoy are both strong candidates. Griggs, because she's the Salem Establishment/Chamber of Commerce candidate; Hoy, because he's served on the City Council and has a law enforcement background. 

However, if Oakes-Miller has dropped out of the Mayor race, this makes it virtually certain that either Griggs or Hoy will get over 50% of the May primary vote -- assuming Oakes-Miller doesn't remain on the ballot.

If she merely fails to campaign, yet remains a candidate, I suspect she'd still get 10-15% of the vote, requiring a runoff between Griggs and Hoy.

By the way, to burnish my Democratic Socialist credentials, I supported Hollie Oakes-Miller in her 2020 Ward 5 City Council race against Jose Gonzales, a conservative candidate. Oakes-Miller lost narrowly, despite being outspent by a lot.

I'm confident that if Progressive Salem and the progressives on the City Council had given Oakes-Miller some backing, she would have beaten Gonzales. Instead, they either sat this race out, or supported Gonzales -- for reasons that still escape me.

Chris Hoy wants to be Salem's mayor. Here's how he became a city councilor.

Today KMUZ broke the news that Ward 6 city councilor Chris Hoy will run for Salem Mayor next year. His announcement is at the end of the 20-minute interview.

Hoy joins two women who have already announced their candidacy: Chane Griggs, who appears to be to the right of Hoy politically, and Hollie Oakes-Miller, who definitely is to the left of Hoy politically. 

So Hoy occupies a sort of Goldilocks sweet spot in the mayor's race. He'll be criticized by some as being too conservative and by others as being too liberal. Which isn't a bad place to be in, given Salem's moderately leftward tilt.

(Salem went for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.)

Since quite a few people have moved to Salem after Hoy became a city councilor in 2017, I thought it'd be good to recap how this happened. Plus, many voters don't pay much attention to local politics, including, sadly, this blog.

Daniel Benjamin held the Ward 6 city council seat until he resigned in November 2016 following his Facebook sharing of a video showing Black Lives Matter protesters being rammed by cars. That led to an amazing city council meeting in Loucks Auditorium where two hours of public testimony, including three minutes from me, called for an end to racism and bigotry.

A special election to fill Benjamin's seat was held in March 2017. It attracted a lot of interest, since at the time there were only four progressives on the city council. If a progressive won in the special election, that would give them a majority on the nine-member body. 

Which was a big deal, since the city council conservatives were determined to keep the Salem River Crossing project, a.k.a. Third Bridge, alive in the face of considerable community opposition. 

Hoy won easily in a four-person race, getting 56% of the vote in early results, as I wrote about in "How will Chris Hoy's victory affect the Salem City Council?"

It was a happy night for Salem progressives yesterday. Chris Hoy won the special election for the Ward 6 City Council seat left vacant by Daniel Benjamin's resignation last year.

Hoy's large margin of victory over the other candidates -- including Greggery Peterson, the "establishment" pick endorsed by current Mayor Chuck Bennett and previous Mayor Anna Peterson -- was aided by the enthusiastic support of volunteers from Progressive Salem, who put in a lot of time canvassing for Hoy.

Hoy then ran unopposed for a full four-year term in the May 2018 primary election, not surprisingly getting 100% of the 1,469 ballots case in the race -- not counting 15 write-in votes.

In the KMUZ interview, Hoy was asked if he had any ideas about who would be running to succeed him as the Ward 6 city councilor. He said that he'd heard of several people who are thinking of running and there should be some great candidates for the position. 

Hoy also noted that while the interview was his first public announcement that he was running for mayor, this was "the worst kept secret in Salem." Which explains why people already were vying to fill Hoy's seat prior to his announcement. 

The Salem Reporter has a story about Hoy entering the mayor's race.