Salem Political Snark

Mayor and city staff try to keep Salem from having protected bike lanes

Given how pleasurable and safe it is for all ages to ride a bicycle on protected bike lanes, rather than dangerous white lines painted on the side of busy streets, it was irritating to watch a video of last night's City Council meeting and see Mayor Bennett, along with city staff, do their best to shoot down the popular proposal put forward by Salem Bike Vision. 

One way among several to create a protected bike lane

Councilor Virginia Stapleton handled the falsehoods with more patience and calm than I would have been capable of. Stapleton is taking the lead in championing the protected bike lane proposal on the City Council, though it seems clear that the idea also is supported by other councilors.

Yesterday I wrote about the upcoming council meeting in "Tell the Salem City Council you want protected bike lanes." I noted that Salem Bike Vision had sent out an email saying that the project list for a $300 million bond measure to be voted on in November was expected to be finalized at the meeting.

But the $15 million budget to build a network of protected bike lanes in Salem hadn't been added to the project list yet.

Councilor Stapleton came to the council meeting with a motion to do just that. She said that she'd spent a lot of time on the phone last week talking with constituents and others about how to find a way to pare down road/bridge construction projects planned for the bond so 5% of the $300 million bond could be used to build protected bike lanes. 

Or if not $15 million, I believe Stapleton said $10 million could be acceptable. Everything seemed normal up to this point of the protected bike lane discussion. Then things got disturbingly weird. 

Several councilors said they hadn't seen Stapleton's motion prior to the meeting. She said this was a surprise to her, since she'd given the motion and supporting documents to the City Attorney, Dan Atchison, figuring that he would share the motion with councilors and staff.

That didn't happen -- the first sign that City of Salem staff were doing their best to make sure money for protected bike lanes didn't make it into the bond measure.

Another sign came when Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director who has never showed any real commitment to improving Salem's bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, jumped in and began spreading some highly annoying B.S.

In the course of talking about the need for center turn lanes on certain streets -- somehow that subject got mixed into the discussion of protected bike lanes -- Fernandez said unconvincingly he was a strong supporter of Salem's Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of which the transportation sector contributes the most in Salem.

Echoing the absurd argument used by proponents of a Third Bridge across the Willamette, Fernandez said that idling vehicles waiting a while to turn left increase carbon emissions, so building more roads with left turn lanes is a Green thing to do.

Like I said, total bullshit.

If Fernandez had wanted to demonstrate how committed he is to combatting global warming, all he had to do was say, "I'm in favor of protected bike lanes, since the more people get around town by bicycle or on foot, the closer we'll come to meeting the goals of the Climate Action Plan. I'll work with Councilor Stapleton on finding a way to fund the Salem Bike Vision project by reducing the road construction budget in the bond measure."

But he didn't say that. Neither did Mayor Bennett, who appeared astoundingly clueless about the process being used to come up with a list of bond measure projects.

After Stapleton made her motion to add protected bike lanes to the bond measure, which was seconded by Councilor Andersen (an avid cyclist), Bennett criticized Stapleton for her motion, telling her that he couldn't understand why she was trying to change the bond measure projects "at 8 pm" of the council meeting.

Councilor Stapleton replied that she had been bringing up the Salem Bike Vision proposal at every opportunity during previous council meetings devoted to the bond measure, yet kept being told that wasn't the right time yet. Stapleton said it was her understanding following the council work session the previous week, that the projects for the bond measure could be finalized at this May 23 council meeting.

Stapleton was right. Bennett was wrong. Here's a screenshot of part of the memo from the acting City Manager regarding the work session. 

"As early as May 23, 2022, Council may adjust the package..." Exactly what Stapleton tried to do, until she got so much unjustified resistance from Mayor Bennett, combined with the failure of City Attorney Atchison to forward her motion to the City Council prior to the meeting, Stapleton decided to table her motion, which can be voted on the next council meeting.

Discussion then turned to the public opinion research mentioned in the Next Steps above. This led to more evidence that city staff are trying to prevent Salem residents from enjoying protected bike lanes, even though the authority to decide what projects are included in the bond measure is in the hands of the City Council.

Councilor Stapleton asked Courtney Knox Busch, a City of Salem staff person working on the public opinion research, to describe the question being asked about protected bike lanes. Busch said that she didn't have the exact language before her, but it said something about how people would feel about the bond measure if a change was made to add the protected bike lane project.

Councilor Chris Hoy, who was recently elected Mayor (takes office in 2023), immediately realized how loaded that question would be. After all, Busch and Bennett had just taken pains to emphasize to Stapleton that there was time for her to try to get the Salem Bike Vision proposal added to the project list, since the bond measure didn't need to be finalized until August 8.

So currently there is nothing to be changed in the bond measure, since it hasn't been approved by the City Council yet. Hoy correctly said that the survey question should say something like, "How would you feel if the bond measure includes protected bike lanes."

Busch waffled around in her response to Hoy, offering up a rather lame statement that the survey research company being paid to do the public opinion research knows that they're doing. She assured Hoy and the rest of the council that this wasn't a "push poll" intended to get a certain answer.

OK, but it sure looks to me like Mayor Bennett and City of Salem staff are doing what they can to kill the popular protected bike lanes proposal. Hard to say why. My suspicion is that they've heavily bought into traditional road projects and don't want $10-15 million going to bicycle infrastructure.

City staff kept saying they don't want the bond measure to be controversial. Well, here's some news for them. If you keep on playing games with Councilor Stapleton and other advocates for protected bike lanes, you're going to end up with a controversial bond measure. 

Stapleton smartly asked Busch to bring a tally of the public comments in favor of various bond measure projects to the next council meeting. Stapleton said she suspects protected bike lanes is one of the most popular projects, if not the most popular. 

I think she's right. There's a lot of people in Salem who want be able to get around on a bicycle without risking life and limb. Ignore them, and you're diminishing the chance of the bond measure passing.

Wife of Salem's Mayor makes anti-Muslim remarks

Chuck Bennett is the Mayor of Salem, Oregon. Cherie is his wife. Below is a You Tube video of a portion of a video someone sent me of a slide presentation by the Bennetts about their trip to London.

One of the slides 

In this part of the video Cherie Bennett speaks disparagingly of Muslims after noting the location of London terrorist attacks. I made a transcript of what she said.

Given the nature of the terror attacks, it was truly shocking to see huge ads on buses promoting Muslim organizations and issues, calling for support of Muslim charities. "For the love of Allah, support Islamic relief." TV ads featured Arabic writing. The number of women in head scarves and burkas had doubled from what we saw just two years earlier. Muslim presence was pervasive. At the same time, there were admonitions everywhere, in signs and announcements, to say something if you see something. The cognitive dissonance was unnerving. 

It took me a while to decide whether what Cherie Bennett said was newsworthy. Or, blog post worthy. Obviously I decided that it was, for several reasons.

First, after the 9/11 attacks President George W. Bush made a point of saying that the United States wasn't at war with Muslims, but with Islamic terrorists. He correctly told the American people that most Muslims are peace-loving.

So to have Cherie Bennett basically lump together ordinary Muslims and Islamic terrorists is as disturbing now as it was back in 2001. 

Also, in early 2017 the City Council declared that Salem is an Inclusive City. That resolution said, in part:

Whereas, Inclusion and integration of all residents of Salem is a vital concern for the general welfare of Salem in all respects;

Whereas, Discrimination based on national origin, race, ethnicity, or religion or perceived national origin is a chronic aspect of life for immigrant and refugee populations of Oregon;

Whereas, Chronic discrimination leads to community disengagement, diminished opportunities for integration, increased stigmatization, greater incidents of health morbidity;

In the video above you can hear Mayor Bennett speaking right after his wife finishes her anti-Muslim remarks. He doesn't correct her, or say that her views about Muslims don't reflect his own. Maybe because he agrees with her. Maybe because he didn't see a need to comment on her remarks.

Regardless, the Mayor of Salem isn't on duty only when at City Hall. As a city leader, people look to the Mayor to embody the values of the City of Salem. Cherie Bennett's remarks are at odds with those values.

Look, I understand that what Cherie Bennett said is in the mainstream of conservative politics in these Trumpist days. Her remarks would be applause lines in right-wing circles. But Salem is a liberal-leaning town. Our City Council passed an Inclusive City resolution.

Which met with some criticism from Mayor Bennett and other conservative council members, as I noted in a February 2017 blog post. 

The conservative councilors, including Mayor Bennett, mostly used their discussion time to emphasize that an Inclusive City designation just reiterated current City of Salem and State of Oregon policies about immigration issues. True, but they failed to appreciate how much the resolution meant to people-at-risk in these Trumpian times.

...The conservative city councilors -- Mayor Bennett, Brad Nanke, Jim Lewis, Steve McCoid -- pretty clearly were boxed-in by the overwhelming citizen support for Salem becoming an Inclusive City. As noted above, mostly their comments were along the lines of "This doesn't change existing City policies, but I'll vote for it anyway." 

I didn't hear much compassion and emotion in their words, in contrast to how Andersen, Kaser, and Sally Cook spoke about the resolution (the fourth progressive city councilor, Matt Ausec, didn't say much, as is his style).

Lastly, recently The Seattle Times had a story about a prosecutor in Washington whose wife made racist remarks. While what Cherie Bennett said wasn't nearly as bad, this shows that a wife's views can affect the reputation of her husband who holds a public office.

Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell has officially apologized and attempted to distance himself from his wife’s racist rants on social media, but defense attorneys, experts in legal ethics and civil libertarians think his office and reputation are damaged, maybe beyond repair.

Lesley Haskell, 57, has found herself in the eye of a hurricane-force storm of controversy after the Inlander alternative newspaper in Spokane published a story on Jan. 27 excerpting a string of posts on the conservative social media site Gab.com in which she freely used slurs referring to Blacks, Jews, Latinos and other ethnic groups — defending those statements as “free speech.” She had declared herself a “proud white nationalist” and held up the Ku Klux Klan as a beacon of “white culture.”

...In a private memorandum shared with attorneys in his office and obtained by The Seattle Times, Haskell said, “I very much love my wife and want her to freely express herself; however, at times, we do not share or express the same thoughts.”

William S. Bailey, a professor from practice at the University of Washington Law School, notes that while Haskell’s statement appears “thoughtful, honest and sincere,” it does little to lift the taint of his wife’s words.

“This is a very interesting situation, somewhat unprecedented,” said Bailey. “There is no question that, at a minimum, this creates a fundamental appearance of fairness issue.

“I do know that if I was a member of a minority group, his wife’s comments would be transferred to Mr. Haskell, notwithstanding his comments to the contrary,” he said. “There is just too much bad history to ignore.

“There is no doubt in my mind that if Larry Haskell was a judge and this information about his wife came out, he would have to recuse himself from any case if asked to do so by an attorney for a party,” Bailey said.

Mayor Bennett accused of Climate Action Plan shenanigans

It's rare that I get to use "shenanigans," since that's an old-fashioned word. But it came to mind when I read what Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett is being accused of by our local 350.org affiliate, 350 Salem OR.

As you can read below, it does seem like Mayor Bennett is engaged in a devious, underhanded trick -- trying to undermine the Salem Climate Action Plan so NW Natural can continue polluting the atmosphere with dangerous greenhouse gases.

I've got more to say after the 350 Salem OR news release.

--------------------------------------------------

January 26, 2022
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact: 
Phil Carver, Co-Coordinator (503) 562-9878 [email protected]

350 Salem OR Calls on Mayor Bennett to Stop
Blocking Approval of the Climate Action Plan

Salem, Oregon – 350 Salem OR calls on Mayor Chuck Bennett to allow the City Council to consider the draft Salem Climate Action Plan. 350 Salem OR has learned that instead of allowing the City Council to approve or reject the draft Salem Climate Action Plan, the Mayor has directed the City Manager to recommend non-objectionable strategies from the plan to the Council for consideration in February.

Without Council approval, the draft plan won’t have official status in future City discussions. Also, Council needs to reevaluate the plan every few years to assess progress on the Council’s emission reduction goals. The draft plan is far more than just a list of short-term suggestions.

A report to City Council at their meeting on December 6th stated that “the final draft CAP will come to Council for consideration after the beginning of 2022”, but no action has been scheduled.

The final draft of the Salem Climate Action Plan, released in November, was the result of a year of work by a 42-person Task Force appointed by the Mayor. The Task Force was led by the Verdis Group consultants who were paid approximately $170,000 for their work on the plan.

350 Salem believes that the holdup is due to objections from Northwest Natural against elements of the plan that would reduce or eliminate the use of natural gas (fossil methane) in new developments. Houses built now will stand for 100 years and lock in decades of methane and carbon dioxide pollution. The greenhouse gas inventory completed in 2019 as part of the Climate Action Plan process showed that “stationary emissions,” (mostly from natural gas) comprised 16% of total emissions in Salem.

“We object to Mayor Bennett holding up final approval of the Salem Climate Action Plan because of objections from the fossil fuel industry,” said 350 Salem OR Co-Coordinator Phil Carver. “Northwest Natural has no right to veto Salem’s plan so that they can forever contribute to the climate-related harms that we are already experiencing in Salem.”

350 Salem OR began advocating for Salem to have a Climate Action Plan five years ago. Salem is the only major city in Oregon that does not already have an adopted Climate Action Plan.

Prof. Janet Lorenzen, an environmental sociologist at Willamette University explains, “I spent months volunteering my time on the Salem Climate Action Plan Task Force, we worked hard to prioritize both climate and equity, and now the Mayor seems to be caving to special interests who have a business model of unlimited growth and pollution. Residents on the side of clean air, climate resiliency, and racial justice don’t even get a hearing.”

“The Mayor’s approach will never get us to the Council’s adopted goal of cutting our emissions in half by 2035, just 13 short years away,” said Phil Carver. “He should consider his legacy in his last year in office. We ask: Will he stand on the side of the fossil fuel industry or on the side of our children and grandchildren?”

350 Salem OR is the local affiliate of international climate action organization 350.org. The mission of 350 Salem OR is to build an inclusive grassroots movement that targets keeping fossil fuels in the ground, advocates for a just transition to a renewable energy economy, and supports community-based resilience in response to the climate crisis. “350” refers to the safe level of carbon dioxide (ppm) in the air, a level that the world passed in 1988. Today the level is 417 ppm, the highest level in the last 3 million years.

###

--------------------------------------------------

Note that the Climate Action Plan doesn't call for a ban on the current use of natural gas in Salem, just new hookups. That seems entirely reasonable. Natural gas is mostly methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Don't be fooled by the appealing term natural. Methane is a fossil fuel, just like oil and coal. But people prefer "natural gas" to "methane," even though they basically mean the same thing. 

So it might just be luck that gas came to be seen as “natural.” Some 76 percent of Americans view natural gas favorably, substantially more than for oil (51 percent) or coal (39 percent). While conventional wisdom once held that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” to a renewable-powered future, some now argue burning existing gas reserves would lock in dangerous levels of carbon dioxide emissions and endanger international goals to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. That’s not to mention the health effects of burning natural gas: Gas stoves, for instance, pollute homes and increase the risk of respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.

Take it as a sign that natural doesn’t necessarily mean “good for you,” no matter how nice it sounds. Americans love “natural” potato chips, but they’re still just deep-fried potatoes.

Hopefully Mayor Bennett's attempt to undermine the impact of the Climate Action Plan is limited to himself, and doesn't reflect a broader "revolt" among City of Salem staff.

Regardless, the City Council should make sure that the Climate Action Plan is officially approved at an upcoming city council meeting to ensure that the plan doesn't become a document that sits on a shelf and fails to achieve the goal of Salem doing its part to preserve the habitability of our planet for both ourselves and future generations. 

Unwise: Salem Mayor wants 60 more police officers

Of all the things that Salem needs, 60 more police officers should be way down on the priority list.

But I've been told that this is what Mayor Chuck Bennett is calling for, apparently during a recent City Council work session about the 2022 Policy Agenda.

Adding 60 officers to the force is a big deal that needs to be justified with extremely solid data and reasoning, not just because the Mayor or Chief Womack likes the idea. 

Here's a thoughtful analysis of this seemingly unwise notion that someone sent to me.

I would like to suggest that you snark on Mayor Bennett for his ridiculous support for hiring 60 more Salem Police Department officers when Salem already employs more police department employees than any other major city (over 100,000) in Oregon. Here is a spreadsheet with the latest data for 2020 from the FBI that was just released about a month ago:

Download 2020 FBI Data on Police Dept. Staffing

We do have fewer officers than other cities at 1.07 per 1,000, but that is really pretty close to the average of 1.17. If we hired 60 more that would shoot up to 1.42 which would put us at the top in that category, and far above the average.

We are not experiencing a “crime wave” in Salem (as the Mayor implied) as may be the case in other cities like Portland. We have had six murders so far this year which is about average. Here is a spreadsheet that shows some crime data through September, compared to the same period last year.

Download SPD Crime Offenses

“Crimes against persons” (mostly assaults — homeless people?) is up 30%, but property crimes are down 33% and “crimes against society” like drug offenses, DUI, and traffic violations are down 51% (thanks largely to Measure 110).

Overall, I would say the Salem Police Department workload is going down. Not up.

In Mayor Bennett’s remarks he compares the Salem Police Department to the police department in Dayton, Ohio for some strange reason. He says that they have 500 officers compared to our 200 and they are a smaller city.

I looked it up and in 2019 Dayton reported 363 officers to the FBI, not 500, so the Mayor is wrong. Their population in 2019 in the FBI data is 140,427, so the Mayor was right about that.

But I also see in 2020 FBI data that their violent crime rate is more than twice that of Salem! They reported 1,366 violent crime incidents to the FBI for 2020 vs. only 623 for Salem. So they need more cops.

This shows that crime does not correlate with population as people like to assume. Salem’s crime was significantly higher 20 years ago (true of nearly all cities) when our population was much lower. So the fact that our population is growing does not necessarily mean we need more police.

Finally, the Mayor stated that we need more police to achieve “Vision Zero” traffic fatalities which Councilor Stapleton had brought up before the Mayor’s remarks. That’s bogus.

Twentieth-century traffic enforcement with police cars staking out and chasing violators in cities has been thoroughly discredited. Some cities are starting to move away from this altogether:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/cities-consider-taking-police-out-of-traffic-stops/600912/

Twenty-first-century traffic enforcement can be handled more cheaply and effectively with speed cameras and red light cameras. And Vision Zero is mostly about redesigning streets for lower speeds, not hiring more police. Portland has a long list of Vision Zero strategies that they are pursuing and none of them involve more police.

https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/making-streets-safe?fbclid=IwAR2o17ygmPC_RyXp4gAEE8borH4Rx4fu8qf6bNDDR4PE4FDSp-5WWIUVq9A

Hiring 60 more officers would probably require adding at least a couple million more to the $52 million Salem Police Department budget, already about 1/3 of the entire General Fund.

The City Council needs to consider the “opportunity cost” of doing this — continued underfunding of our parks, library, city planning, code enforcement, etc. I have come to the conclusion that our new Police Chief may be a pretty brazen empire builder — much more so than his predecessor.

He already has a Cadillac police department and he wants more.

2022 Salem City Council and Mayor races get interesting

Even though we're still six months away from the May 2022 election that typically decides City Council and Mayor races (50 percent + 1 vote and you win outright, even though the election is a "primary"), things are already getting really interesting. 

The Statesman Journal has a story that describes the current state of affairs: "Salem City Council set for a shake-up in 2022. Here's who's in and who's out so far."

Tom Andersen, the Ward 2 city councilor, isn't running for re-election. He was the first progressive elected to the City Council and serves as the unofficial leader of the now six-person progressive majority on the nine-person council (eight city councilors plus the Mayor).

The Statesman Journal story says:

Councilor Tom Andersen, of Ward 2 in south-central Salem, said he will not seek re-election and will instead run as a Democrat in the primary for the newly redistricted House District 19 in the Oregon Legislature. 

The seat is currently occupied by Republican Rep. Raquel Moore-Green.

House District 19 has been a stronghold of Republicans for more than two decades, but recent districting efforts have moved the more conservative areas of Turner, Aumsville and neighbors east of Salem outside city limits into other districts. 

According to the new legislative maps, House District 19 is now comprised of neighbors in Andersen's Ward 2, South Salem and southeast Salem. 

It'll be interesting to see who files to fill Andersen's shoes. (Which should be of the bicycle variety, since Andersen is an avid cyclist.) Ward 2 leans decidedly leftward, so this City Council seat should remain progressive.

In Ward 4, Casey Kopcho has filed to run. Jackie Leung, the Ward 4 city councilor, hasn't indicated whether she intends to seek re-election. I wouldn't be surprised if Leung doesn't seek another term. She's a progressive who doesn't strike me as being all that enthused about City Council goings-on, though I could be wrong about this.

And this statement in the Statesman Journal story sort of implies that Kopcho could be Leung's hand-picked successor, since it isn't the sort of thing someone planning to run against Leung would say.

Kopcho said he aligns with many of Leung's positions and wants to bring more accountability along with a focus on homelessness, housing availability and economic recovery to the council. 

Jim Lewis, the Ward 8 city councilor, won't be running again for his West Salem seat. He's a conservative, so this would be an appealing pick-up for progressives. Micki Varney ran against Lewis in 2018 and would be a strong contender if she enters the Ward 8 race.

I suspect that Chris Hoy, a progressive, will seek re-election to his Ward 6 City Council seat. But as always is the case in politics, what's suspected often turns out otherwise.

Chuck Bennett isn't seeking another term as Mayor. He's a moderate, by and large, so a good fit for a position that is elected citywide (obviously). Salem tilts leftward, yet has a substantial number of conservative voters.

It's great that Hollie Oakes-Miller has filed to run for Mayor. She came close to beating Jose Gozalez in their 2020 Ward 5 City Council race. For some reason the progressive Salem "establishment" didn't get behind Oakes-Miller, though I did. Yet with minimal funding she did very well against Gonzalez, who is fairly conservative.

Oakes-Miller, like Bernie Sanders, doesn't shy away from using socialist to describe herself. If the Chamber of Commerce backs a conservative candidate for Mayor, debates between this person and Oakes-Miller will be hugely entertaining.

Proud Boys return to Salem, threatening reporters again

Well, that didn't take long.

Just six days after the Salem Police Department did absolutely nothing to prevent the Proud Boys extremist militia group from threatening a journalist and other citizens observing a gun rally in a public park, today a couple of Proud Boys banned media from taking photos or video in front of a public building in downtown Salem.

And why wouldn't they?

The Salem Police Department and other city officials have coddled the Proud Boys, seemingly because they're afraid of these armed right-wingers. The Proud Boys now know that Salem is a place these white supremacists are welcome in.

Here's some of the tweets journalist Tim Gruver shared about an anti-mask protest the two Proud Boys attended. If this depresses you, scroll further down for some Gruver tweets about a left-wing protest today against Salem Police Department inaction and racism in our city.

(His "no one escorted out" tweet refers to the Proud Boys forcing some people to leave the gun rights rally in Riverfront Park, even though the rally had no permit and was in a public place.)

On the plus side...

Controversy erupts over Leung missing out on City Council committees

Mayor Bennett's initial decision to assign Councilor Jackie Leung to only one Salem City Council committee (as an alternate, moreover) struck many people as a big deal about something, whereas I've come to see it as much ado about almost nothing.

Jackie Leung

I learned about what I'm tempted to call CommitteeGate (just gave in to that temptation) after reading several Facebook posts about this on a private progressive Facebook group.

Some city councilors got as many as five, six, or seven committee assignments. My first reaction was that it did seem strange that Leung got such little committee love from the Mayor.

Could this be due to the fact that on some issues she has gone against the prevailing City Council view, including the positions of fellow progressives?

That was one possibility, though it seemed unlikely to me. Sure, that's something Donald Trump would do, but Mayor Bennett is no Trump, thankfully. 

Meaning, Bennett is a politician, along with the other members of the City Council.

However, stiffing a member on committee assignments because he disagreed with her on certain issues seemed most unlikely to me. Bennett isn't adverse to playing hardball, yet this would have been mudball -- too obvious and dirty.

Numerous comments on the Facebook posts accused Mayor Bennett of racism and sexism for not assigning a woman of color to City Council committees. 

This struck me as being both over-the-top and unbelievable. Sure, racism and sexism are very much present in Salem, which includes City Hall. 

Sometimes, though, unfortunate things happen to women of color which have nothing to do with them being a woman, or a person of color.

So jumping to a conspiracy theory just because the initial 2021 Salem City Council Committee Assignments gave Councilor Leung only one alternate slot struck me as unjustified. 

Yesterday I decided to simply ask Mayor Bennett about this via an email.

Chuck, could you explain why at first you didn’t assign Councilor Leung to any City Council committees? That got quite a bit of attention on Facebook, and I was among those who thought this seemed decidedly strange. 

It’s good that after Councilor Andersen raised this issue Leung now is on three committees, if I recall correctly. But it would be good to hear from you why Leung was shut out of any committees on the first go-round.  

 

     -- Brian

This is the response I got on Monday night, following yesterday's City Council meeting.

Hi Brian, Jackie didn’t contact me about committee assignments and had asked last year not to be on one because of time. Last week I sent out the proposed assignments to councilors seeking reaction and heard nothing back til this morning. Over the past couple of months all of the other councilors contacted me about their interest in certain committees. So, I just assumed she was fine with not adding to her load. I was wrong. Tom called and offered two of his assignments and I put in one of mine. She’s on Rules, City Manager Evaluation, Finance and Water/Waste water.  

Chuck

That sounded eminently believable to me. Others might disagree, but in general I lean toward accepting what someone says unless there is good reason to think otherwise. 

It seems like there was a failure to communicate, as the saying goes. Apparently Councilor Leung didn't make her 2021 committee wishes known in a timely fashion, so Mayor Bennett assumed she didn't want to be on any, as was true in 2020.

Sure, Bennett could have made more of an effort to confirm this, just as Leung could have made more of an effort to respond to the Mayor's proposed committee assignments.

Sometimes mistakes are just that. Well, usually mistakes are just mistakes. However, in the realm of politics, even local politics, there is a tendency to read more into a mishap than is actually there.

I've been guilty of that. Most of us have. We want to categorize actions, and people, into good and bad categories -- whereas much or most of the time this is making a morality play out of a simple screw-up.

Anyway, Councilor Leung now is on four committees, albeit as an alternate for two of them.

There's shameful silence in Salem about COVID-19

Ever since the pandemic reached Salem last spring, there's been little communication from Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, the three Marion County commissioners, and other elected officials (such as the eight city councilors) about the need to follow Governor Brown's public health orders.

Yes, some City of Salem press releases have been issued. Yes, city councilors have used Facebook to urge physical distancing, mask wearing, and such. However, this mainly happened early this year.

So by and large -- and especially now, when daily COVID cases and deaths have reached new highs in Oregon -- the silence from our local leaders has been deafening.

There's so much that Bennett, Powers, the county commissioners, local state legislators, and city councilors could be doing, but aren't. 

For example, why haven't politicians and city officials across the political spectrum gotten together to issue a joint statement that urges people and businesses to strictly follow the new guidelines put forward by Governor Brown and the Oregon Health Authority to slow the rapid spread of the coronavirus? 

That statement would be front page news in the Statesman Journal and Salem Reporter (OK, the latter doesn't have a front page, being online only). It would show that public health efforts have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with sound science.

Which can't be separated from economics. 

The reason Salem health clubs are closed and indoor dining at restaurants isn't allowed is because previous efforts to control COVID-19 weren't followed long enough and strictly enough. Half-hearted measures lead to a diminished economy. 

"Opening up" is crazy when the virus is everywhere in the community. 

Yet Trump has made that his mantra for purely political reasons. Sadly, many millions of Americans believed him when he claimed that this country had turned the corner on the pandemic.

Well, Trump was right in one sense. Fall and winter have turned the corner onto the most deaths, cases, and hospitalizations since the pandemic hit our shores. This is the sad result here in Oregon, as reported today by the Oregon Health Authority.

This isn't the time for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else to stay silent. Anyone with an ability to reach people needs to speak up about the need to do what's advised above: minimize close contact with others, keep gatherings small, wear a face covering, and wash hands frequently.

Other countries have done much better than the United States at fighting the coronavirus.

Those nations have more of a communal sense of "we're all in this together," while Trump and too many other Republican politicians have made mask wearing and public health orders into a left vs. right thing -- whereas actually it is a medical science vs. ignorance thing.

That's why I believe it would be really helpful for Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, all eight city councilors (six progressives and two conservatives), all three Republican county commissioners, and other elected officials in this area to come together as one to urge everybody to comply with public health orders until the coming vaccines make it possible to relax our fight against COVID-19.

Sure, likely some of these people would refuse to sign on to a joint COVID statement because they're afraid of incurring the wrath of constituents who don't believe that the coronavirus is a real thing, and/or that governments have any business telling people what to do.

To which I'd reply: wrong and wrong.  The coronavirus is indeed a real thing, and governments do indeed have a right to protect the health of the community by issuing public health orders.

The good news is, sometime in 2021 almost everyone who wants a vaccine will have been able to get one. Until then, we need to save lives by uniting together to do what needs to be done to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Too many people have gotten overly complacent about the pandemic. They need a wake-up call. Our local leaders need to do some blaring of horns.

Salem's city officials need to WAKE UP about COVID-19 danger

I'll be blunt and red flag colorful.

People are going to die if Salem's Mayor, City Manager, and City Councilors don't freaking WAKE UP about the danger COVID-19 poses to everybody in our city, but especially to those who are over 60 and those with underlying medical conditions.

With St. Patrick's Day coming up, those city officials need to be screaming from the rooftops of social media, Statesman Journal, Salem Reporter, local radio stations, and Portland TV stations that Salem residents need to stay out of bars, restaurants, and other crowded gathering places until the COVID-19 outbreak has stabilized.

Which will be a while. 

Poltico has a good story about the danger we face because of COVID-19 indifference among young people, and, I'm sure, some older people.

The nation’s top infectious diseases expert has a stern warning to young people: Don’t get complacent about statistics showing that serious coronavirus cases and fatalities are skewed toward the elderly and those with underlying health issues.

“You are not immune or safe from getting seriously ill,” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked if younger Americans should be concerned about contracting the virus, which Fauci has repeatedly said is more lethal than the average flu.

...Fauci said it was critical for young people to understand that they can be a carrier for the virus and spread it without showing symptoms or feeling ill themselves.

“Even though you don't get seriously ill, you could bring it to a person who would bring it to a person that would bring it to your grandfather, your grandmother, or your elderly relative,” he argued. “That's why everybody's got to take this seriously, even the young.”

...“I would like to see a dramatic diminution of the personal interaction that we see in restaurants and in bars,” he said. “Whatever it takes to do that, that's what I would like to see.”

Well, Salem's Mayor, City Manager, and City Councilors could get off their asses and start the above-mentioned screaming from the rooftops about not congregating in crowded places like bars and restaurants where you can't stay at least six feet from other people.

This is personal for me.

My wife, Laurel, and I are over 70, as are most of our friends. Laurel has asthma, so likely would suffer more if she was infected with COVID-19, or coronavirus. The more people there are wandering around Salem who have COVID-19, even if they aren't showing symptoms, the more likely the disease will spread rapidly.

The time to work to dramatically slow the spread is NOW. So where's the leadership at the City of Salem? Very difficult to see, as a good Salem Breakfast of Bikes post talks about today. 

This weekend has seemed like it might be a critical one for reducing the transmission of the coronavirus and the incidence of full-blown COVID-19. It has been dismaying to read accounts of St. Patrick's Day weekend revelry, of long brunch lines, and of crowded airports.

Locally, the City still likely deferred too much to the State guidelines, which have seemed tentative and behind the best information from Italy, Spain, and France, even Seattle, and did not recommend or even demand stronger measures. People in Europe are the proverbial "travelers from the future," begging and imploring for us to take stronger measures before it's too late. There is increasing evidence of asymptomatic transmission, and so without large-scale testing, we should be assuming that there are many more cases here than we know about.

At this point the problem is really about community capacity and slowing transmission, since it seems likely many, perhaps even most, of us will come to be infected over the next several months.

UPDATE: This tweet expresses my feelings exactly.

 

Salem's proposed sit-lie ordinance rests on a bunch of "can'ts"

Tomorrow there's a good chance the Salem City Council will approve a citywide sit-lie ordinance that prohibits sitting and lying on public sidewalks between the hours of 7 am to 9 pm, subject to certain exceptions. 

Aimed at homeless people, obviously, this is the most recent attempt to pass a sit-lie ordinance, which so far has failed to get a majority vote from the City Council.

Mayor Chuck Bennett

Mayor Bennett really wants to have it passed this time, as a recent Salem Reporter story made clear. Here's an excerpt from "Salem Mayor pushes for 'sit-lie' in the face of increasing uproar over homeless problem downtown."

Each day Mayor Chuck Bennett opens his electronic inbox to a half dozen emails from downtown shoppers and business owners upset about the homeless people residing on sidewalks.

Feeling compelled to act, Bennett is pushing for a ban on sitting or lying on sidewalks during the day to deal with the 50 or so people camping in front of Rite Aid on Northeast Liberty Street.

He said the campers have no incentive to move on, and a new city law, recommended by both Salem Police Chief Jerry Moore and City Manager Steve Powers, would provide that.

“There are places that people can go during the day,” Bennett said, citing city parks, the library and day rooms at The ARCHES Project and Union Gospel Mission.

I believe Councilor Tom Andersen is out of the country, so Bennett needs five of the eight other members of the City Council to vote "aye" on the sit-lie ordinance. A plausible scenario is that Bennett, Jim Lewis, Brad Nanke, Cara Kaser, and Chris Hoy provide those votes.

It's a difficult decision. I looked through the public comments received so far on this agenda item. Opinions seemed split fairly evenly between those who favor the sit-lie ordinance and those who oppose it.

The way I see it, the proposed ordinance is the result of a bunch of "can'ts" -- all of which have merit, but many of them are contradictory.

Homeless people can't be allowed to drive visitors away from downtown Salem businesses.
Homeless people can't be treated like second-class citizens. 
Homeless people can't be allowed to camp on public property. 
Homeless people can't be the scapegoats of societal income inequality.
Homeless people can't litter downtown with their belongings, trash, and excrement.
Homeless people can't be shunted from place to place at the whim of city officials.
Homeless people can't be refused a safe place to sleep.

Probably there are more can'ts that i haven't thought of, and I readily admit that these brief one-liners don't capture the breadth and complexity of Salem's homeless problem. 

I share them simply because I've got a lot of sympathy for everybody involved: the homeless; social service agencies; police; downtown businesses; visitors to downtown; city staff; the City Council; those who live and work downtown. 

Seemingly there is no way to please everybody. If the City Council passes the sit-lie ordinance tomorrow, lots of people will be upset. If the City Council rejects the sit-lie ordinance, lots of other people will be upset. 

I don't know what the City Council should do. If it decides to approve the sit-lie ordinance, seemingly the current ban on homeless camps should be lifted to some extent -- such as by allowing camping in Marion Square Park, as was suggested by several people who submitted testimony on the proposed ordinance.

Obviously the homeless need some place to go between 7 am and 9 pm. If the City of Salem doesn't offer that place, the sit-lie ordinance is going to lead to more unintended consequences, and nobody wants that to happen.