Salem Political Snark

Mayor Bennett either ignorant or deceptive about Third Bridge planning

Last Monday's Salem City Council meeting was a poor start for newly-elected Mayor Chuck Bennett.

After Councilor Tom Andersen asked some good questions of City staff about how the design of the proposed Salem River Crossing (a.k.a. the Billion Dollar Boondoggle) could affect a West Salem agenda item, Bennett spoke up, telling Andersen that there wasn't a design for the bridge. 

Which is wrong. Of course there is. Mayor Bennett didn't speak the truth. Have a look: 

Here's what the No 3rd Bridge folks said in a Facebook post about Bennett's falsehood.

MAYOR BENNETT PRACTICES "POST-TRUTH POLITICS"
Hey it worked for Donald Trump so why not for Mayor Bennett. In this video clip from Monday night's Council meeting the Mayor makes a patently false statement: "There is no design for a bridge in place right now."

What?

What did the Council vote to add to the Salem Transportation System plan in December 5th. Was that not a design for a 3rd Bridge?

'Design' is defined as "a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of a thing to be executed." We have that in spades. We have spent 11 years and over $7 million in consulting costs to design a 3rd Bridge. There are thousands of pages of reports that have described the design and its various impacts in tremendous detail.

Here, for example, are some quotes from the "Land Use Technical Report" that speak to the design of the 3rd Bridge:

"As was the case for the DEIS, the No Build Alternative and the preferred alternative were DESIGNED assuming that the future (year 2040) peak-hour traffic volumes across the river would be 8 percent less than those forecasted with the SKATS MPO 2040 traffic model.

The DESIGN team included treatments that would discourage traffic on Hickory Street because it is a local neighborhood street now. The DESIGN focuses east-west traffic on Pine Street.

Additional mitigation measures beyond those elements included as part of the DESIGN of the preferred alternative could be integrated into the design of the project at an advanced level of engineering."

At the very end of the video Councilor Nanke throws in a little post-truth politics of his own when he refers to the official funding plan for the 3rd Bridge that includes new tolls taxes and fees as a "worst case scenario." It is not. It's the funding plan.

Are we going to hold our local politicians accountable for not telling the truth or are we going to let them get away with it?

I say, hold them accountable!

We've already got a president-elect Trump who lies constantly. The last thing Salem needs is a Mayor who views truth as optional, and facts as irrelevant.

Last night I emailed Mayor Bennett, asking him if he had a comment on the No 3rd Bridge post. So far Bennett hasn't responded to me. Here's my message.

Chuck/Mayor Bennett, would you like to comment on the No 3rd Bridge Facebook post put up tonight?

https://www.facebook.com/no3rdbridge/videos/1250983611659042/

The post says you are engaging in “post-truth politics” because at yesterday’s City Council meeting you said there is no design for the Salem River Crossing.

I’m planning to write a blog post about this, so wanted to give you a chance to comment on what the No 3rd Bridge folks are saying. In my, view they’re right, since seemingly there definitely is a bridge design.

Further, this design is the basis of the federal Environmental Impact Statement. How would it be possible to determine how the bridge would impact the environment, if there wasn’t a specific design showing where the bridge would be located, how it would be constructed, and such? 

An abstraction, “a new bridge,” doesn’t have a measurable impact, because the bridge could be three inches wide. Or three hundred feet wide. Thus I’m virtually certain that the EIS requires a specific design, specific funding sources, and so on. This is what No 3rd Bridge is saying, and they’ve been deeply involved in this issue for a long time.

I look forward to your response. Did you misspeak, and now wish to correct yourself? Or do you truly believe there is no design for the Salem River Crossing?

    — Brian

Without a reply from Mayor Bennett, it isn't possible to know why he wrongly claimed there is no bridge design. The most likely explanations are:

(1) Bennett is woefully ignorant of the Salem River Crossing planning process. 
(2) Bennett is trying to deceive citizens about how the bridge has been designed, and the negative impacts it would have.

Whichever is true, this is a disturbing debut for Salem's new mayor. Ignorant or deceptive are both bad choices when the topic is the most expensive public works project in this town's history.

I have a feeling that Bennett acted as cranky as he did because he is feeling the heat as the Salem River Crossing project heads into deep troubled waters. 

An appeal of the City of Salem's expansion of the urban growth boundary to accommodate the Salem River Crossing has been filed by local citizens opposed to the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for bridge. This would be bad enough for backers of the bridge, like Bennett, but the State Department of Land Conservation and Development also has filed a lawsuit against the City of Salem.

It isn't a good legal sign when the agency responsible for enforcing Oregon's land use laws is telling the Land Use Board of Appeals, City officials in Salem screwed up.

And it isn't a good political sign when Salem's Mayor starts out his two-year term of office by saying something demonstrably false in defense of a billion dollar bridge that would be a disaster for this town if it ever came to be built.

Swearing-in of three new Salem city councilors notable for what wasn't said

Tonight there was a packed house in the City Council chambers for the swearing-in of newly elected Mayor Chuck Bennett and four city councilors: Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, and Brad Nanke. 

Bennett and Nanke were already on the City Council (Bennett moved to Mayor from his Ward 1 seat now held by Kaser). So the big turnout mostly was due to progressives wanting to celebrate the election of Kaser, Cook, and Ausec. 

The three of them join fellow progressive Tom Andersen to form a much-needed counterweight to the conservative majority that has dominated the City Council for quite a while. Now the tide has turned to a 4-4 progressive/conservative split, with one seat vacant.

(I'm putting Mayor Bennett in the conservative camp, because that's the way he's been voting on important issues such as the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, otherwise known as the Third Bridge/Salem River Crossing.)

So as I watched the smiles, laughter, good cheer, and platitudes fill the Council chambers during the speechifying and thank you's, I kept thinking about what wasn't being said, yet was on the minds of everybody with a sense of how the political winds are shifting in Salem.

Before Ward 6 councilor Daniel Benjamin resigned last November, which spurred an intense discussion of racism and bigotry in this town, it was felt that the next two years would be marked by a 5-4 conservative majority on the City Council (again, putting Bennett in the conservative camp, where he certainly seems to belong). 

Progressives were looking forward to 2018 as their opportunity to vote out Bennett, Benjamin, Jim Lewis, and Steve McCoid. Taking any of those seats would tilt the balance of power in a left-leaning direction. 

Now, though, all eyes are on a special March 14 election to fill the Ward 6 seat. Today the Statesman Journal reported that four candidates have filed for that city council position: Jonathan Crow, Greg Peterson, Christopher Hoy and Timothy Perkins.

I don't know anything about Crow and Perkins.

Peterson has a Facebook page promoting his candidacy. From what I've heard, he is the Chamber of Commerce candidate in the election. Which in my opinion is exactly what Ward 6 doesn't need. Daniel Benjamin was a Chamber pick; he turned out to be a bad city councilor.

Interestingly, Peterson is a buddy of Benjamin, as reported by KATU in "Close friend runs for seat of former city councilor who resigned amid racial controversy." 

After former Salem City Councilor Daniel Benjamin stepped down amid a racially charged controversy in November, the city announced plans for a special election to fill his seat on March 14.

Now Greg Peterson, a businessman who says he considers Benjamin like family, is running to replace him.

“We’re different," Peterson, who is African-American, told KATU on Monday. "We have different views on life. But I’ve never felt anything negative from him as far as race.”

Peterson, who was born and raised in Compton, California, said Benjamin was the first person he met when he moved to Salem in 1991.

“His mom and dad are my daughter’s godparents," said Peterson. “His sister is my sister, his niece is my niece. His dog and cat was my dog and cat. We’re just like one family.”

Well, it'll be interesting to see if Peterson will be able to make his close friendship with Benjamin into an asset in the Ward 6 race. The KATU story quotes Peterson as saying that Benjamin "never displayed anything to me ever that seemed to be racist or hateful."

Many people in Salem, though, would argue with that assessment of Benjamin. [Update: I've included several KATU TV stories about the Daniel Benjamin uproar.]

Progressive Salem is endorsing Christopher Hoy (above), who also has a Facebook page. Hoy is Chief Deputy for the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. His bio on the Sheriff's Office "Leadership Team" page says that Hoy has a bachelor's degree from Willamette University in Political Science, so he brings an interesting background to the Ward 6 race.

I'll end with some lighter moments I captured at the swearing-in ceremony. 

I used my iPhone to record videos of each newly-elected person's "thank you" remarks after being sworn in. Ward 7 city councilor Sally Cook wins the prize for Most Entertaining, largely due to her expressive youngest daughter being both thrilled and reluctant to be photographed with her mom, dad, and Governor Brown. 

All the seats in the City Council chamber were filled by the time I got there, so I had to stand by the after-swearing-in snack table. I was struck by the juxtaposition of a carrot cake cautiously labeled "No Nuts" and a tasty-looking bowl of the sometimes dangerous food a few inches away.

Ward 1 City Councilor Cara Kaser walked by and posed for a photo. I got her laughing by saying, "Congratulations! You now can look forward to four years of no pay and countless hours of boring meetings."

Bagpipes!

I always find them funny, because my Uncle Jack played them and he was a notorious jokester. Also, cows would moo when he bagpiped away. He tried to get me to learn how to play, sending me a chanter (mini-bagpipe) when I was young, but my musical ineptness prevented me from becoming a bagpiper.

To which my wife and neighbors likely would say, 'Thank god." 

Lastly, at one point newly-departed Mayor Anna Peterson used one of her favorite descriptions of Salem during her term in office: Collaboration Capital. Someone I know who was standing behind me said, "Time to barf." 

He was right. Ex-Mayor Peterson presided over a hugely uncollaborative City Hall administration. Her guiding principle was "my way or the highway." There were few attempts to genuinely involve citizens in policy decisions before they  were decided upon. 

So, yeah, the time to barf comment was apt. Like I said in 2015, "Salem Mayor Anna Peterson unduly proud of her 'collaboration capital.'"

Salem Business Journal publishes my urban renewal "crony capitalism" story

"If you can write an Urban Renewal story by tomorrow noon, I will run it in the January Business Journal."

This was the good news part of a reply I received from Bruce Taylor, publisher of the Salem Business Journal, after asking him via email if he was interested in a story about problems with the City of Salem's urban renewal agency. 

I was pleased to get Bruce's positive response.

The bad news part was, I read his message about five hours after he sent it, having been totally absorbed until about 8:30 pm in watching the mesmerizing men's basketball game between Oregon and UCLA last Wednesday (Oregon beat #2 UCLA on a last second 3-point shot by Dillon Brooks).

By that time of night I was seriously under-caffeinated, so that left me the next morning to write the story. Coffee cup and I made the deadline, with about ten minutes to spare. Here's the result.
Download Salem Business Journal story  (PDF file)

Most of the story is about the "crony capitalism," as I like to call it, associated with a $749,000 Urban Renewal Agency grant bestowed by the City Council (acting as the URA board) to Park Front LLC for an office building T.J. Sullivan is constructing on the old Boise Cascade property.

As noted in several previous blog posts (see here, here, and here),  construction of the Park Front building was announced in March 2016 -- with no mention that this development was contingent on receiving a taxpayer subsidy via urban renewal funds.

Further, the reasons given by City of Salem staff for approving the grant make no sense, as I discuss in the Salem Business Journal story.

(I'll share it below, for easier reading by those who don't want to peruse the PDF file above or the online January SBJ issue.)

A few days ago, the Statesman Journal ran a story, "Incoming Salem mayor Chuck Bennett: 3 takeaways." One of the takeaways mentioned the Park Front project. And, me!

The push for downtown development: Bennett is a proponent of building up downtown Salem. This shouldn't come as a surprise, given he's been the downtown councilor for almost a decade.

The old Boise Cascade property is getting an update with office space and apartments. Forty apartments are set to fill the corner of Front and Court streets NE near Riverfront Park, bolstering housing made available already by the South Block complex along the southern downtown skyline.

The city this year approved $749,000 in urban renewal funds for the Park Front project at the Boise Cascade site and $740,000 for the 40 apartments along the river to PDQ Investments.

Bennett hasn't signaled he'll cut back urban renewal spending.

"I plan to continue the same kind of work I've done in the past, which is using our urban renewal funds," he said. "One of our top goals was having people moving downtown, so we'll continue to use urban renewal funds for that purpose."

Local blogger Brian Hines has called the granting of those funds to Park Front, a group including former councilor TJ Sullivan, "crony capitalism." Bennett pushed back against that criticism, saying, "This is a grant made available to meet a variety of changing circumstances as you develop at an old industrial site."

Well, let's look at the misleading statements by Mayor-elect Bennett in Jonathan Bach's story.

(1) The Park Front building doesn't include any housing or retail space. So the goal of "having people moving downtown" doesn't apply to the $749,000 Park Front grant. This is just an office building.

(2) The Urban Renewal Agency blew a chance to make an "opportunity purchase" that could have brought much-needed affordable housing to the north riverfront area. I talk about this at the beginning of my story. Bennett is well aware of this screw-up, but so far he has ignored it. So this shows the shallowness of his commitment to using urban renewal money to bring in more downtown residents.

(3) There really weren't any "changing circumstances" at the Park Front site. T.J. Sullivan testified that the main reason he needs a $749,000 urban renewal grant is that Pioneer Trust Bank won't approve a construction loan unless he has more equity in the project. 

A secondary reason, according to Sullivan's grant application, is that he's encountered cost increases. Well, so have lots of developers as the economy has strengthened in recent years. It's important to keep this in mind:

Mountain West Investment knew what it was doing when it bought the industrial property from Boise Cascade. Marquis Companies knew what it was doing when it bought part of the property from Mountain West for a rehab center. And Park Front LLC knew what it was doing when it bought a portion of the Marquis acreage for an office building.

Well, let's make it, each of these companies should have known what they were doing.

If Park Front LLC encountered unexpected problems with the property it bought from Marquis, that should be Park Front's problem, not a problem for Salem taxpayers. 

This is why I continue to call the $749,000 grant crony capitalism. It is basically a bail-out of a poorly-planned office building project that couldn't get a construction loan from Pioneer Trust Bank. There is essentially zero public benefit being gained from this bestowal of public funds upon a private developer.

To learn more reasons why, read on. Here's my Salem Business Journal story.

Officials at the City of Salem appear to have forgotten that the Organization Chart on the City’s web site shows “Salem Residents” in the top position.

I say this because investigations into two urban renewal projects have revealed disturbing missteps outside of the public interest by the Urban Renewal Agency, which is overseen by the Salem City Council acting as the URA Board.

One misstep was the City missing a valuable opportunity in 2015 to purchase a 3.88 acre property, with about 600 linear feet of frontage on the Willamette River, located at 901 Front St. NE in Salem.

This property, reportedly one of only four river frontage parcels identified within the Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Area, was special: flat and immediately developable once a warehouse/industrial use building was removed.

Unfortunately, the property has been purchased and is undergoing development by a private developer from Portland.

So there’s a lost opportunity for urban renewal funds to spur construction of needed affordable housing, along with associated social and commercial services that could have been integrated into the development.

Those in the know about this missed urban renewal “opportunity purchase” lay the blame on the City of Salem Economic Development Department (EDD) and Urban Development Department (UDD). Both departments failed to focus on the availability of the 901 Front St. NE site.

The property could, and should, have been purchased by the Urban Renewal Agency at a low price, enabling it to be developed for affordable housing and associated purposes.

My understanding is that the property had been identified, and the money to purchase it was already in the urban renewal budget, as of July 1, 2015.

The second Urban Renewal Agency misstep was awarding a $749,000 grant to Park Front LLC for construction of an office building on the old Boise Cascade property.

What’s most bothersome about this grant, which I consider to be crony capitalism, is that the City of Salem web site says the aim of urban renewal is “to spur redevelopment where it might not otherwise occur without public investment.”

Yet the Park Front building clearly was planned to be developed without public investment.

In March 2016 a Statesman Journal story said, “Construction for the $8.5 million building will begin on a portion of the North Block parcel of the Boise site in summer 2016 and be finished by May 2017, said TJ Sullivan, a co-owner of Huggins Insurance.”

No mention was made of construction being contingent on receiving an urban renewal grant. Yet in late November 2016 Sullivan applied for a $749,000 grant from the FY 2016-17 Riverfront-Downtown Urban Renewal Opportunity Purchases Budget allocation.

Yes, the $749,000 to subsidize construction of a new office building was coming from the same Opportunity Purchases budget that failed to be utilized to buy the prime 3.88 acres of riverfront property.

Rather confusingly, Urban Development Department director Retherford explained the Park Front LLC funding in this fashion: “The Opportunity Purchase is not itself a grant, but we are using funding that had been budgeted for an Agency opportunity purchase in order to fund exceptions to our regular grant program.”

So after missing the opportunity to spend about a million dollars to buy the 3.88 acres for affordable housing or a similar purpose in the public interest, now the Urban Renewal Agency is funding “exceptions” to the usual grant program.

Which means, instead of getting $300,000 to help pay for the Park Front office building that was announced as going to be constructed without urban renewal funds, on December 12, 2016 the Urban Renewal Agency Board (again, the City Council by another name) voted 5-1 to give $749,000 to Park Front LLC — with the extra $449,000 coming from the “exception” made possible by a failure to use Opportunity Purchases funds for their intended purpose.

At the December 12 Urban Renewal Agency board meeting, T.J. Sullivan testified that he needs the $749,000 grant because he won't be able to get a full construction loan from Pioneer Trust Bank without that additional equity.

Sullivan said that Pioneer Trust was concerned about the appraisal, debt to cash flow level, and occupancy percentage of his four-story project. He admitted that he could go ahead with a smaller building without the $749,000 grant, but wanted the “full meal deal,” so to speak.

Well, for most businesspeople that's a problem they'd have to deal with on their own. Find more equity/investors. Work harder at recruiting tenants. Reduce the cost of construction. 

But in Salem, urban renewal money isn't always being used for the main intended purpose: spurring private development that wouldn't have occurred without the leverage of public funds. Rather, Sullivan got a gift from the City of Salem that helps him construct a building that he said definitely was going to be built eight months before he applied for the urban renewal grant.

Basically, this is a public bail-out of a poorly-planned private project. Which is a good definition of crony capitalism. 

I’ve sent a message to City officials that says, in part:

“I am requesting that Mayor Peterson, City Manager Powers, Urban Development Director Retherford, and the city councilors who voted for (or against) the grant describe in a simple, clear, truthful, transparent fashion the reasons why this is (or isn’t) an appropriate use of Urban Renewal money, This should be done before a check is written to the Park Front developers to assure that the public fully understands why their City officials are spending $749,000 of taxpayer money in this fashion.”

An Urban Renewal Agency staff report contains seven criteria that the Park Front project supposedly meets. I told City officials that I disagree with the report. Here’s the criteria and my reasons for rejecting the assumption that the Park Front application complies with them.

Removal of blight. Developers of the old Boise Cascade property have already received a tax deferral for the South Block apartments and a separate $749,000 urban renewal grant for the Marquis rehabilitation center. This area is no longer blighted. The apartments are a success. The Park Front building is to be built on property bought from Marquis. Public funds have helped to de-blight the area. No further use of urban renewal funds is justified.

Leverage of Public Funds with Private investment. Construction of the Park Front building was announced in March 2016. As noted before, at that time there was no mention by Sullivan, or anyone else involved with the project, that construction was contingent on receiving urban renewal funds. 

So there is no leveraging of public funds with private investment. The private investment was committed to many months before Sullivan requested the $749,000 grant to enable him to construct a larger building than Pioneer Trust Bank was willing to give him a loan for.

Increased Property Value and Tax Increment. Again, increased property value was going to happen without taxpayer money. There is no evidence that the $749,000 will generate property taxes in excess of that amount over, say, the next 20 years, especially given that Sullivan has said that a smaller building could be constructed without the urban renewal grant. 

Connectivity between Riverfront Park and Downtown. I am not aware that this project will do anything to improve that connectivity. True, tenants of the Park Front building will be able to walk to Riverfront Park. But since no retail space or residential housing is planned for the building, there will be very little reason for anyone to visit Park Front unless they have business to undertake with a tenant of the building.

Job Creation. As noted before, construction of the building was announced months before the urban renewal grant was requested. Several floors of the building already have committed tenants. No evidence has been provided that a $749,000 grant will lead to any additional jobs. 

Streetscape Enhancements. Very few people will get a close-up view of the landscaping planned for the Park Front building. It will be built in what amounts to a downtown “island,” since few people will want, or need, to cross busy Front Street to reach the building. Landscaping is a code requirement, so it is an automatic streetscape enhancement when completed.

Downtown Vibrancy. Park Front is an office building with no retail space or residential housing in an area of downtown that is difficult to get to. Park Front will contribute very little to downtown vibrancy.

Thus it is disturbing that Salem’s Urban Renewal Agency is throwing $749,000 worth of taxpayer money at Park Front LLC, which is constructing a new office building with very few public benefits, after missing a terrific opportunity purchase of the 3.88 acre riverfront property that ended up being bought by a Portland developer for $1,025,000.

That property could have been used for affordable housing, a much better use of urban renewal funds.

Hopefully, the three newly-elected members of the city council will join with other City of Salem officials in taking a close look at how the Urban Renewal Agency is being managed.

Which in my view is, not well.

——————
Brian Hines is a Salem blogger and citizen activist.

Mayor-elect Bennett doesn't understand Third Bridge approval process

It's a big deal when Salem's Mayor-To-Be appears to be clueless about what needs to happen before a plan for the proposed $430 million Third Bridge across the Willamette can be approved by the Federal Highway Administration.

Chuck Bennett takes office in January 2017.

Hopefully he will educate himself in the next few months about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and what is required before a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement can be given a thumbs-up by the Federal Highway Administration.

Today the No 3rd Bridge folks put up a post called "The Mayor-elect does not understand the NEPA process."

Judging by his remarks on the radio a couple weeks back, our Mayor-elect does not understand what the Federal Highway Administration requires in order to approve a Final Environmental Impact Statement. According to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) the FHWA needs a detailed design plan, along with a credible financing plan.

The Mayor-elect thinks we can get the FHWA to approve the current half billion dollar plan that is funded about 40% with tolls on both the old and new bridges, and then change our mind and design a smaller bridge that doesn't require tolling. Wrong. You can't do that Mr. Mayor-elect. That would be a bait and switch. The NEPA does not allow that.

If you want a smaller bridge that is not funded with tolls you need to modify the plan now, including the funding plan, before you send it in to the FHWA. Or you can attempt the bait and switch approach, and see if you get caught. Those are your choices.

I listened to the two-minute interview with Bennett on KYKN radio. At about the 55 second mark, Mayor-elect Bennett said this:

As part of the Environmental Impact Statement, there had to be put together a plan that says if we get the OK, we could find a way to pay for this [Third Bridge]. Well, in a theoretical world, with a theoretical bridge, you could theoretically pay for it with tolls. The problem with that theoretical world is, that's not Salem, Oregon. And we're not going to build a bridge financed by tolls in Salem, Oregon.

Wow. 

It looks to me like Mayor-elect Bennett has just done a big favor to opponents of the Third Bridge by undermining the credibility of the Recommended Funding Strategy for the Salem River Crossing (official name of the Third Bridge). This financial plan is a requirement before the Federal Highway Administration will approve an Environmental Impact Statement.

Here it is (click to enlarge):

The biggest chunk of money to pay for the $430 million bridge is supposed to come from tolling the bridge, along with the two existing vehicular bridges -- $1.50 each way. This supposedly would raise $175 million. 

Now, I readily admit that I'm no expert in the arcane art of how the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) operates. But some Googling leads me to believe that the No 3rd Bridge folks are correct: Chuck Bennett doesn't understand how the approval process works. 

A "FHWA Financial Plan Guidance" document says that you can't just make stuff up about how a $430 million bridge is going to be paid for. If you want to get federal assistance, and the Third Bridge funding strategy is counting on $40 million from the feds, then:

The content of the Initial Financial Plan and each Annual Update should be certified as "accurate and reasonable to the best of my knowledge and belief" by the Chief Executive Officer of the Project Sponsor(s)... Acceptance and approval will be based upon a compliance review that will evaluate, among other items, the reasonableness of the cost estimates, the viability of the identified funding sources (including whether they are contained in the fiscally constrained State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and Long Range Plan), and the likelihood that the funding commitments will prove sufficient to complete the project as planned.

Well, when Salem's incoming Mayor is on record as saying "we're not going to build a bridge financed by tolls in Salem, Oregon," that sure seems to undercut the "viability of the identified funding sources."

At the beginning of the KYKN interview clip, Mayor-elect Bennett says about the Third Bridge:

Let's settle on a location and then at some point design a bridge that the residents of this community feel would serve their needs and they'd be willing to pay for.

The No 3rd Bridge post says this isn't possible. And I'm confident that's correct.

As I wrote about in "Why the unbuilt Third Bridge boondoggle is hurting Salem," Bob Cortright is helping opponents of the Third Bridge understand the approval process. Since Cortright spent 30 years working for Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development, where he was the Transportation Planning Coordinator, I trust his knowledge on this subject. 

So almost certainly Mayor-elect Bennett is wrong.

You can't settle on a plan for a $430 million bridge (known as the Preferred Alternative), submit an Environmental Impact Statement and funding strategy based on that plan, and later tell the Federal Highway Administration, "Hey, now we're going to do something very different; hope that's OK with you guys."

It won't be. Bait and Switch not only is fraudulent, often it is illegal. 

Bennett seems to think that a cute cheap little 2-lane bridge could be substituted for the half-billion-dollar Third Bridge if that's what Salem citizens "feel would serve their needs and they'd be willing to pay for." 

This isn't my understanding of how the federal approval process works.

First the bridge is designed. A credible funding plan is developed to go with the design. Then all that is sent in to the Federal Highway Administration for approval. Bennett seems to think the approval comes first, and the design plus funding plan can be... whatever.

Hopefully some City official can educate Mayor-elect Bennett about how the process really works.

Lastly, let's follow the money and get a pretty damn good clue about why Chuck Bennett is such a strong advocate for the Third Bridge. In his 2016 Mayoral campaign Bennett took $3,000 from the Chamber of Commerce Build Jobs PAC, $5,000 from the Oregon Realtors PAC, and $7,500 from the Marion/Polk Homebuilders Association. 

Another No 3rd Bridge post explains why Salem realtors and homebuilders are so hot for the Third Bridge. And why they're happy they've got a Mayor who will do his best to give them what they lust for.

WHY REALTORS ARE CHAMPIONS FOR THE 3RD BRIDGE
A number of realtors testified last Wednesday in favor of the 3rd Bridge. Here is a key paragraph (click to read) of their written testimony. And next to that is a map showing their true motivation.

Selling homes! Of course.

You can see from the map that one of the largest areas of undeveloped land zoned for single family homes (in yellow) is in the northwest corner of the city. Hundreds and hundreds of homes could be built and sold! And these folks will want to get in their cars and make a direct connection to I-5 without having to drive miles south to the Center Street bridge. That's why all of us are being asked to reach into our pockets for hundreds of millions to fund a better connection for these new homebuyers.

That is what the Realtors mean when they say "the 3rd Bridge is vital for the future economic growth in the area." That's what they mean by "regional mobility." It means speeding their new homebuyers to Keizer Station, the Woodburn Outlet Mall and to Portland. And because they contributed many thousands of dollars to certain City Councilors, they are likely to get the land use actions they want.

Mayor-elect Bennett provides good reasons to vote NO on police facility bond

Thank you, Mayor-elect and current City Councilor Chuck Bennett.

You may have thought that you were stating some reasons to vote "yes" on Measure 24-399, the $82 million police facility bond measure on Salem's November ballot, but actually you made a great pitch for a NO vote.

On August 24 Chuck Bennett appeared on a KYKN talk show hosted by Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke. Here's a 2-minute audio clip from the show where Bennett talks about the bond measure. 

https://soundcloud.com/user9482943/bennett-on-gator-8-24-16

Those of us who are opposed to the wasteful, poorly-thought-out police facility plan (check out the Salem Can Do Better web site and associated Facebook page) are thrilled that Bennett made such good arguments for voting NO on the bond measure. 

(1) Salem's General Obligation bond tax levy rate will go up by 40% if the police facility bond passes. Wow. That's a lot. Forty percent! I'd thought it was "only" going to be 24%, from $1.01 per $1,000 of assessed value to $1.25.

But Bennett said that the levy rate is scheduled to go down in 2017-18 to .89 per $1,000, and the police facility bond would add .36 to that. So instead of paying .89 per $1,000, Salem property tax payers will be forking out $1.25 per $1,000 if the $82 million police facility bond passes, a 40% increase.

See: Download Police Facility levy analysis

Thus as the bottom half of the City of Salem financial analysis shows, someone with a home assessed at $200,000 would be paying 40% more for the General Obligation Bond Tax if the police facility bond is approved: $250 a year rather than $178, $72 more.

And the $72 isn't just for one year. It's for fifteen years. 

That adds up to $1,080 to pay for a way over-priced and over-sized police facility that is double the cost and size Salem's Mayor and Police Chief said was needed just a few years ago. (Before Chicago consultants came to town and "supersized" the 75,000 to 106,000 square foot recommendation of a local citizen committee all the way up to 148,000 square feet.)

(2) It makes no sense to only move the Police Department to an earthquake-safe building when City Hall, the place they're moving from, will collapse when the "Big One" hits. This is my favorite reason to vote NO on the police facility bond measure.

When the cost doubled to $82 million, this squeezed out the money in a previous Public Safety proposal that was going to make seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library, and build a lower-cost 75,000 square foot police facility -- which the Mayor and Police Chief had said would meet the police department's needs for the next 30 years, with room for growth.

Councilor Bennett spoke about how important it was to keep employees of the Salem Police Department safe. He didn't mention that moving the Department to a new police facility leaves visitors and staff at City Hall and the Library unsafe, including children enjoying Storytime at the Library.

Here's how the interview ended up:

Bennett: I don’t think there’s a person in Salem that won’t say our [Police] Department deserves to be as safe as they can possibly be. And I can just assure you that they are not in their current facility [at City Hall].

Nanke: Just the earthquake. You hear those subduction numbers, and it’s going to happen a little sooner than we thought.

Bennett: Absolutely.

Shameful. 

Chuck Bennett admits that a recently updated study of Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes here in the northwest found that these massive (up to 9.0) quakes happen more frequently than was previously thought. And when, not if, the next earthquake happens, the impact will be enormous. 

The death toll could reach as high as 10,000 from the combined earthquake and tsunami should the big one hit, some 85,000 buildings could be damaged and the rebuild costs could top $32 billion.

City of Salem officials, including Bennett, know that two engineering studies of the City Hall and Library showed that the buildings won't survive a Big One earthquake. Yet all Bennett cares about is keeping Police Department employees safe.

Yes, this is important. But equally important is keeping everybody at City Hall and the Library safe -- the goal of those, like me, who are opposed to the current wasteful $82 million police facility plan.

It gives the Police Department way more than even the Mayor and Police Chief originally wanted in a new building, while, as noted before, squeezing out money that previously was going to be used to protect the lives of employees and visitors at the Civic Center.

Salem can't afford a "first class" (Bennett's words) police facility that forces other needs in this town into third or fourth class territory. It is morally wrong to give the Police Department much more than it needs -- the "full meal deal" in the words of city councilor Steve McCoid -- while starving Salem's parks, transit system, library, help for the homeless, bike paths, and such.

Salem can do better. Vote NO on the police facility bond measure, 24-399. After it fails, citizens can work with City officials on a wiser plan, one that gives our Police Department what it needs, but not way more than what it needs. 

Follow the money: Creekside Golf Course "IrriGate" scandal

In Salem these days, as elsewhere in the U.S., corporate fat cats don't have to carry around bags of cash to surreptitiously hand over to compliant politicians when they want a favor done for them. 

No, our campaign finance systems have gotten so screwed up, rich political donors can do their "bought and paid for" thing right out in the open, pretty much. Their money buys access to politicians, greasing the skids for favorable votes that can't be directly connected to the cash they donated to a campaign fund.

Case in point: Salem's Creekside Golf Course water rate reduction brouhaha. (I'm stealing the term IrriGate for this scandal from a Facebook poster who noted that WaterGate was already taken.)

As noted in my post, "Crony capitalism on display in Creekside Golf Course water rate giveaway," the golf course owners wanted to get a break on their City of Salem water bill, threatening that otherwise Creekside would go out of business, supposedly eliminating 50 jobs.

The City's Water-Wastewater Task Force has obligingly gone along, recommending that Creekside get a $60,000 reduction in its irrigation costs by lowering the rate for all large irrigators in Salem. If this plan is approved by the full City Council in October, a $600,000 hole in the City's water budget will be made up by increasing rates on other customers.

Since, as I said, usually it isn't possible to make a direct connection between (1) a politician's action that favors a big donor to their campaign fund, and (2) the money that the "fat cat" contributed, I'll simply share a (1) and (2) involving IrriGate.

(1) Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett is on board with the Creekside Golf Course getting a water rate reduction.
Bennett, who currently is a city councilor, not taking office as Mayor until 2017, is a member of the Water-Wastewater Task Force.

A Statesman Journal story about the Creekside water rate reduction contains a quote from Mayor-elect Bennett:

Some members of the committee supported Creekside’s request, but balked at extending the deal to all irrigators, which pay the highest of the city’s eight rates.

“It’s not unusual to try to save or to create 50 jobs in this town forgiving taxes for years on end, for doing a whole variety of fiscal gymnastics to get them in,” said City Councilor Chuck Bennett, a committee member. “I’m not sure why in the case of a business like this we wouldn’t do the same kind of thing relative to this cost.”

(2) Larry Tokarski, one of the two owners of the Creekside Golf Course, is linked to a major contribution to Chuck Bennett's campaign fund. 
I wrote about this last May in "Chuck Bennett gets lots of love (and money) from homebuilder PACs." Here's excerpts from that post:

The Oregon Realtors Political Action Committee gave Bennett $5,000. That was topped only by the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, which gave Bennett $7,500. 

Hmmmm. I was surprised by the $7,500 contribution, because at first I naively thought that a group with "affordable housing" in its name was concerned with homelessness, low-income housing, and such.

And I wasn't aware that groups like this had $7,500 to throw at Mayor candidates -- especially Bennett, who isn't known as an avid advocate in this area. Thus my next step was to click on the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition name in the ORESTAR report.

I learned that the people associated with the committee share the address of the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties.

In fact, the treasurer of the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, Mike Erdmann, is the CEO of the Marion/Polk Homebuilders Association.

So that cleared up the mystery of the Affordable Housing Coalition. It is the political arm of the Marion/Polk Homebuilders Association.

Given all the concern about homelessness and affordable housing these days, I suspect the homebuilders folks thought Affordable Housing Coalition would sound better than Pave the Planet and Enrich Already Rich Builders PAC. 

Looking through the records of the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, I noticed a big $14,525 contribution to the Coalition from a similarly-named group, Oregonians for Affordable Housing. Also, that the Affordable Housing Coalition had given $5,000 to Salem City Councilor Warren Bednarz' re-election campaign against challenger Sally Cook.

So my next question was, who the heck is Oregonians for Affordable Housing? The name sounded like a big-hearted liberal group dedicated to helping low-income people. Of course, the reality was way different.

Oregonians for Affordable Housing hangs out at an address next door to the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition.

Which turns out to be the address of the Oregon Home Builders Association. So all these cozy political action committee relationships got me making up lyrics to an updated sort of old Beatles song.

"I am Chuck Bennett, who am supported by the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, who am the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties, who am supported by Oregonians for Affordable Housing, who am the Oregon Home Builders Association, and we are all one... in Political Action Committee'ness; also, we are the walrus."

Oh, but wait, I'm not quite done, because I'd noticed that the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, a.k.a. the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties, had given $7,500 to the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Build Jobs PAC in October 2015.

Naturally I had to click on over to the Build Jobs PAC to see what was happening there. This caught my eye: a $5,000 contribution from Mountain West Investment (the Tokarski company which is building the South Block Apartments on the old Boise Cascade property, a beneficiary of generous tax breaks from the City of Salem). 

On the same day the $5,000 Mountain West contribution came in, April 12, the Build Jobs PAC donated the same amount to the three candidates endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce: Chuck Bennett, Mayor ($3,000); Jan Kailuweit, Ward 1 City Councilor ($1,000); Warren Bednarz, Ward 7 City Councilor ($1,000).

So, yeah, Chuck Bennett is tied into a weird and wacky complicated campaign finance world of homebuilding political action committees who are supporting Chamber of Commerce candidates. There's more, of course -- such as another $5,000 Mountain West contribution to the Build Jobs PAC -- but my brain couldn't handle any more digging into ORESTAR reports.

Complicated stuff. Which is how the "fat cat" class wants it. Make it difficult to connect the dots between (1) and (2), actions by elected officials and big contributions from wealthy political donors. 

As the saying goes, "I've reported, you decide."

(1) Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett is on record as supporting a big water rate reduction for the Creekside Golf Course. The Creekside Golf Course is owned by Larry Tokarski. (2) On the same day Tokarski's Mountain West Investment company gave $5,000 to the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Build Jobs PAC, three candidates endorsed by the Chamber got a total of $5,000. Chuck Bennett got $3,000 of that.

Those are the dots. Feel free to connect them, or not, as you like.

Crony capitalism on display in Creekside Golf Course water rate giveaway

There's so much wrong with the City of Salem's planned $600,000 reduction in water costs for all high-volume irrigators -- a roundabout way of saving the Creekside Golf Course $60,000 a year -- that it almost has a delicious rightness to it. 

Meaning, hopefully this travesty-in-the-making will wake up Salem's citizenry to what has been obvious to those who closely watch goings-on at City Hall.

Crony capitalism is alive and well in Salem, but it should be dead and gone. Here's how Wikipedia describes it:

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism. Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or businesspeople spills over into politics and government, or when self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Thanks to Statesman Journal reporter Tracy Loew, we know what sleazy machinations are going on in the City of Salem's little-known "Water-Wastewater Task Force." Two related August 14 stories tell the disturbing tale.

Here's excerpts from "Creekside Golf Course wins water rate cut"  (a somewhat misleading headline, because the rate cut still has to be approved by the Salem City Council at an October 10 meeting)

Salem’s residential water rates would rise an average of 65 cents per month next year to accommodate a rate decrease for irrigators under a plan approved Thursday by a city water advisory committee.

The deal was reached in response to a request from Creekside Golf Course, the city’s largest irrigator.

Creekside’s owners, developers Larry Tokarski and Terry Kelly, said that without a rate cut, the course would fold, taking about 50 jobs with it.

“The reality is here that if the water rates are not changed significantly, the course will close. That’s a fact,” golf club member Kent Hunsaker told the committee, which advises Public Works Director Peter Fernandez.

Some members of the committee supported Creekside’s request, but balked at extending the deal to all irrigators, which pay the highest of the city’s eight rates.

“It’s not unusual to try to save or to create 50 jobs in this town forgiving taxes for years on end, for doing a whole variety of fiscal gymnastics to get them in,” said City Councilor Chuck Bennett, a committee member. “I’m not sure why in the case of a business like this we wouldn’t do the same kind of thing relative to this cost.”

Wow. Let's do some disentangling of the messy B.S. being reported on here.

The Creekside Golf Course would get a comparatively measly $60,000 a year reduction in its water bill if this Crony Capitalism proposal is approved by the City Council. (See option #5 on page 3 of this staff analysis.)

Yet Creekside owners Larry Tokarski and Terry Kelly, along with their willing City Hall crony, Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett (currently a city councilor), want us to believe that saving $60,000 a year in its irrigation bill will make the difference between keeping the golf course open, and closing it down.

Do Tokarski, Kelly, and Bennett really think Salem citizens are that stupid? Or do they just hope that nobody is paying attention during these lazy days of August? Well, I guess it could be both.

Anyway, crony capitalism has worked well for Tokarski and his Mountain West Investment company before. That's how he got the City Council to give him big tax breaks for developing prime downtown riverfront property. (See my 2014 post, "New City of Salem 'corporate welfare' giveaway to Mountain West Investment.")

Tokarski and other corporate bigwigs in Salem know how to play compliant city officials like the special-interest orchestra that they are. 

Give me a freaking break.

Creekside Golf Course isn't going to go under, taking those 50 jobs with it, just because the City of Salem decides not to save the golf club $60,000 a year on its water bill. Golf is in decline in the United States. Many fewer people are playing golf. Younger people aren't taking up the sport. Lots of golf courses are closing every year. See here and here. Excerpt:

The owner of the course, a development firm named, aptly, Stuck in the Rough, intends to turn the acreage into a residential development, an option available to resorts in prime residential areas. "What else could you do with the place?" Gorski asks. "Golf just didn't work. We couldn't get the young families to come out."

Even before it was shuttered last fall, the Malibu Golf Club decided to cut down drastically on its exorbitant water bill. "They were only watering the tee boxes and the greens," says former club pro Gene Hori. "The good news was you could hit these monster drives, because the fairways were like asphalt and the ball would skip forever."

Well, Malibu must have a smarter City Council than Salem does. Because the recommended water rate reduction for the Creekside Golf Course and other large irrigators will go into effect unless a public outcry stops it. 

What makes the $60,000 a year giveaway to Creekside even more ridiculous is that on the same day the Water-Wastewater Task Force met to recommend the water rate reduction (August 11), several members of Tokarski's team were telling the South Gateway Neighborhood Association about a plan to turn the golf course into a planned development. 

Reporter Tracy Loew told this side of the crony capitalism tale in her "354 homes proposed for Creekside Golf Course property" story.

Salem’s troubled Creekside Golf Club has a new general manager with a plan for turning a profit.

“Every day there’s rumors about Creekside,” said Danny Moore, who replaced general manager Tom Whitaker a month ago. “I’m trying to convince everybody, hey, this place is going to make it.”

At the same time, the property’s owner – developer Larry Tokarski – is moving forward with a plan to turn the entire 18-hole championship course into single-family homes.

On May 27, Tokarski sent the city of Salem a pre-development application for a 156-acre, 354-unit planned development.

“We’ve developed a plan here that represents construction of lots on what is the golf course on those areas we believe can be redeveloped to single family residences,” Mark Grenz, president of Multi/Tech Engineering, told the South Gateway Neighborhood Association on Thursday night.

Tokarski did not attend the meeting, but sent his lawyer, Allen Sorem, and Grenz to talk to the group.

The city encourages developers to meet with neighbors during the application process, Sorem said.

But the 60 or so who turned out were furious, at one point refusing to let the pair make their presentation.

Last April, the neighboring Creekside Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against the golf club’s owners – Tokarski and developer Terry Kelly – saying they have a contractual obligation to keep the course open.

So it seems obvious that Tokarski is using the threat of closing the golf course, and of building 354 houses on the fairways/greens, to pressure the City of Salem into reducing Creekside's water bill. 

But the end of Loew's story shows how skeptical City officials and citizens in general should be of the $60,000 crony capitalism rate reduction (which turns into a $600,000 rate increase for non-irrigators after all is said and done).

“We’re a month or more out before we have enough information to finalize our [housing development] application and get it ready to go,” Grenz said.

In the meantime Moore, the club’s general manager, said he is working on increasing the club’s revenue, including booking events through 2017, while cutting down payroll.

“I’m showing two smart businessmen, hey, this can work out,” Moore said. “They’re smart men and they’re going to make their own decision.”

Outrageous. 

The Creekside Golf Course already is laying people off, at the same time Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett and other gullible city officials are claiming that the paltry $60,000 a year rate reduction for Creekside will save 50 jobs.

And golf course manager Moore makes clear in his final quote that Tokarski and Kelly, the Creekside owners, haven't made a commitment to keep the golf course open. They could get their $60,000 a year water rate reduction, benefit from it for a few years, and then close the course -- making it into a housing development. 

Like I said, Salem citizens/voters need to wake up and smell the City Hall crony capitalism that is taking money out of the pockets of this town's version of our 99% and making the 1% like Tokarski and Kelly even more rich and powerful.

Day 1 of Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett's "put up or shut up" challenge

Time for some summer fun: I'm challenging Salem Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett (currently a city councilor) to "put up or shut up." 

Namely, either put up demonstrable evidence that I and other members of Salem Community Vision have been distorting facts about the $82 million City of Salem police facility proposal that will be voted on via a bond measure this November, or shut up about our supposed false statements. 

Today Bennett forced this challenge when he left this comment on a Salem Community Vision Facebook post about Bennett's own statements about the police facility:

Unfortunately for the truth of all this, not one of the people below has ever talked with me about the police facility. But then, the truth plays so little part in any of the discussions about the real need Salem has to provide adequate, safe space for Salem's police officers now and into the future. I'm looking forward to a real debate over this issue over the next couple of months. Our police officers and our community deserves better than ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

Damn, man, those are fighting words, Mayor-elect Bennett. So let's get it on.

Show us what you've got in your ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments Proof Basket. I'm an open-minded, fact-loving, science-admiring guy. I'm totally open to being convinced by you that I and other members of Salem Community Vision are guilty of making seriously misleading or outright false statements.

But you can't just say stuff, Mayor-elect Bennett. You've got to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. Let's see evidence of those ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

I wrote the 2016 Salem Community Vision position paper on the police facility, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It." This contains key facts and arguments about why the current $82 million plan being pushed by Bennett and other members of the City Council is deeply flawed.

Last February the report was sent to City officials, including Bennett. No one has challenged the accuracy of facts or arguments in the report. So again, Mayor-elect Bennett, put up or shut up. Even though you've had five months to bring up any problems with the report, I still want to know if us Salem Community Vision folks got something wrong. 

I've also put up a Salem Can Do Better web page that urges people to vote "NO" on the $82 million police facility bond, and gives five reasons why (plus a bonus reason). Mayor-elect Bennett, please look over this web page also and let me know if there are any false statements in it.

Since Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett is a lobbyist, I'm sure he knows the difference between (1) facts, and (2) opinions based on facts. 

My challenge to Bennett doesn't really involve opinions. It involves facts. Naturally people are going to have different opinions about the wisdom of building a 148,000 square foot, $82 million police facility. That's a big building that costs a lot of money.

Rather, I'm bothered by Chuck Bennett's assertion that opponents of the $82 million police facility plan are purposely screwing around with the facts. "False statistics" are 1/3 of Bennett's assertion that people like me are engaging in ad hominem potshots, false statistics and specious arguments.

But I'm also baffled by Mayor-elect Bennett's ad hominem potshots and specious arguments charges. So let's see if Bennett can come up with specific examples of those also. 

The countdown starts: today is Day 1 of Chuck Bennett's Put Up or Shut Up challenge.

I'll report on how he responds, when I get a response. Like I said, if Bennett is right, I'll be pleased to learn what I and other critics of the City's $82 million police facility plan have gotten wrong. 

(Since I've been married for 44 years, if I hadn't learned long ago how to be pleased with being proven wrong, I'd be an unhappy husband.)

Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett wants to ban "negativity" about Salem

Jokes can have a serious side. So when I heard Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett laughing about the need to pass a law to ban negativity about Salem, I didn't think this was very funny. 

Bennett, who currently is the Ward 1 City Councilor, was being interviewed by KYKN talk show hosts Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke. (She is the wife of Ward 3 City Councilor Brad Nanke.) Someone sent me this audio clip.

Naysayers Should Move

I've made a transcript of the last part of the interview, which followed a discussion of how absolutely wonderful downtown Salem is.

It's pretty clear that Bennett, Gaynor, and Nanke viewed anyone who thinks the downtown area could be improved in some way obviously is a naysaying boo-bird who should keep their mouth shut. 

Then Mayor-elect Bennett launched into a criticism of citizen activists in this town who dare to raise questions about the wisdom of current policies being pushed by City officials like himself.

Lack of safe bike paths... unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge... supersized over-priced police facility -- people need to keep their damn mouths shut about this stuff and just do what City officials and the Chamber of Commerce tell them to do!

After Gaynor and Nanke chimed in about people needing to leave Salem if they believe other cities like Eugene or Portland are doing better than we are in some regard, Bennett laughingly agreed with them that a law should be passed to ban negativity in this town.

Which, again, I don't find funny, because citizen involvement in City Hall goings-on already is pathetic.

The current right-wing Mayor and City Council majority favor a top-down approach to governing. The only time they reach out to the public is when they want people to grab on to whatever poorly thought-out scheme they're currently pushing.

So what you'll read below is a discouraging preview of what the Bennett Administration will be like in 2017, when Chuck Bennett takes over as Mayor -- being the hand-picked successor of current Mayor Anna Peterson and her Chamber of Commerce allies.

I've color-coded the words of the interview participants. Chuck Bennett is in red. Gator Gaynor is in green. Denise Nanke is in purple. I couldn't understand a few words, but omitting them didn't affect the meaning of what follows.

BENNETT:   And there are, as you pointed out, a small group who will say something negative about just about anything, if they can identify what it is.

You know what’s interesting? It’s the same people, all the time, who talk about this, about their police station, bike paths, they want to talk about a Third Bridge.

But they can’t talk positively about any aspect of their community. And you kind of get to the point of… what’s the problem here? You know, is it your problem, or is it this entire and really wonderful community?

GAYNOR: I have a not-so-secret campaign, Chuck, to get all of these people to move to the cities they so desire us to be like.

NANKE: Exactly. Portland, Eugene… move, off you go.

GAYNOR: I mean, if you want us to be like that, why don’t you just go to the source?

NANKE: Why would you want to live every day in just angst and agita, that you live in this city. If it’s so horrible, then move. Move to Eugene!

BENNETT: I think sometimes it’s a habit, of just kind of being negative. That’s all it is.

GAYNOR: Well, they need to stop it, Chuck.

BENNETT: Well, they should.

GAYNOR: Pass a law. 

BENNETT: Yeah, I’ll pass a law. I’ll pass a law to “stop it.”

NANKE: Ban the negativity.

GAYNOR: And there you have it. Chuck Bennett, Salem city councilor for Ward 1 and Mayor-elect.

Well, thankfully the First Amendment and Oregon's Constitution protects free speech. Oregon has even broader free speech protections than at the federal level. 

I get it that Bennett, Gaynor, and Nanke were joking around. However, I've heard Mayor-elect Bennett say similar things in other settings. He is thin-skinned, wrongly viewing constructive criticism as destructive complaining. 

What's strange, of course, is that Chuck Bennett is so negative about negativity. If everything is perfect here in Salem, then aren't this town's citizen activists also part of that marvelous harmony?

But if everything isn't perfect, then what gives Mayor-elect Bennett the right to shut down calls from people who have ideas to make things better?

Smith and Bennett letters to editor have "ships passing in night" feel

Both candidates in the recent race for Salem Mayor -- winner Chuck Bennett and loser Carole Smith -- had letters in the Statesman Journal this week, a day apart.

Not too much should be made of them. But also, not too little. So I'll try to strike a middle ground in my profoundly wise Salem Political Snark analysis of what the letters mean for this town. 

Serious, yet not too serious. 

My basic reaction is that the letters from Smith and Bennett had sort of a "ships that pass in the night" feel to them. Given that the mayoral candidates ran on very different platforms, this isn't terribly surprising.

But I hold out hope that goings-on at City Hall can be less divisive and more collaborative, less closed and more open.

If such is to happen during the Mayor Bennett era that begins in 2017, the differences evident in the Smith and Bennett letters will have to be addressed, since they represent divergent political attitudes and constituencies in Salem. 

Here's the May 30 Carole Smith letter:

Smith: Election is over; let’s work together for a bright future

The election of mayor is over and Chuck Bennett has won. I encourage my supporters to join me in congratulating Chuck and pledge to work together. When Chuck and I arrived early for our Statesman Journal endorsement interview, I asked Chuck, “Wouldn’t it be fun if we could be co-mayors?” He agreed.

Now we go forward to work to build a better, more livable city for all our citizens. There will be opportunities to attract new, family-wage jobs to our community and lift many out of poverty. There will be opportunities to deal with homelessness and give people hope and help to regain what they have lost.

Bennett and city council give us hope we will see Downtown Urban Renewal funds used to create a downtown that will impress company CEOs looking to expand in, or move their companies to, Salem. Businesses want to locate in a city where they feel their employees will want to be.

So, here we are — an election behind us, and a new future ahead of us. I encourage all citizens to work together with our new mayor and city councilors to make our future bright and our city more livable.

Carole Smith
Salem

A central Smith campaign issue was more citizen participation in City of Salem policy-making. Since she is a citizen, the call for her and Bennett to work together on Salem's livability makes sense. 

Back in 2010, when City Councilor Bennett unsuccessfully ran for Mayor, a post on his "Chuck Bennett for Mayor" Facebook page about his return from a vacation has a positive glad you're back; don't leave us again comment from Carole Smith. Kind of poignant, since they've clearly grown apart during the past six years.

It's encouraging that Smith's letter starts off with the “Wouldn’t it be fun if we could be co-mayors?” anecdote. Question is, how sincere was Bennett's agreement? I can imagine a subtly sarcastic, "Oh, yeah, super fun" response that belies the outward words. 

Or, perhaps Bennett responded as a candidate who wants to appear willing to collaborate with Smith after the election, but really isn't interested in this. 

Issue-wise, Smith mentioned family wage jobs, homelessness, and downtown vitalization through Urban Renewal funds. Let's see what issues appeared in Chuck Bennett's letter.

Bennett grateful for opportunity to serve as Salem mayor

Thank you for the opportunity and challenge to serve as Salem’s next mayor.

The work ahead for our community is exciting and will require a willingness to work together on issues as diverse as economic development and jobs, homelessness, building a new police station, repairing streets and sidewalks and completing the study of another bridge across the Willamette River. And the list goes on.

None of this will occur without extensive, sometimes intense, public discussion and debate. Part of my job will be to lead the discussions and encourage both civility and progress on these and other issues we face.

I intend to conduct the office of mayor in a spirit of openness and willingness to listen to diverse opinions. I also plan to work closely with the City Council to make decisions that need to be made.

Salem is blessed with a spirit of volunteerism second to none. We also are served by a professional, dedicated city staff that provides outstanding management, public safety and a myriad of other services that make our community work so well. It is an honor to be part of this team and to serve our community.

Chuck Bennett
Salem

Hey, the ships came together on a few things! Jobs and homelessness.

In addition, Bennett mentioned building a new police station, repairing streets and sidewalks, and moving forward with the required Third Bridge EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Here Bennett and Smith take markedly different courses.

It will be interesting to see if Councilor Bennett supports the City's ill-considered current plan to build a $70-80 million over-priced and over-sized police facility on the old O'Brien auto dealership site just north of downtown. Smith is a proponent of a $50 million alternative: $30 million for the police facility, $20 million to make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe, which was part of the City's "public safety" proposal until the size and price of the police facility doubled after out-of-town consultants were hired.

Bennett's responses to questions posted by the Salem Chamber of Commerce before he got their endorsement implies that he favors the $70-80 million plan. Bennett also expressed support for an unneeded billion-dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette, which must have been music to Chamber ears. Smith opposes the bridge. 

I've heard Bennett say that he supports the downtown "streetscape" plan alluded to by Smith, which would transform the Historic District into a much more walkable and bikeable area, thereby attracting more visitors, residents, and businesses. This is from his campaign web site:

Downtown vitality depends in part on keeping the character of the core with appropriate redevelopment of historic buildings; more housing opportunities; an entertainment district; better traffic pattern with a two-way grid, and improved streetscape to encourage more pedestrian and bicycle use there. The city has a role in all these elements.

So as I said in a post about Salem becoming a true Collaboration Capital, hopefully Bennett will make use of Smith's downtown knowledge that she's gained from thirty years of being a business owner and resident there. Smith worked with some other people on a Historic District streetscape plan that was met with a yawn by folks at City Hall during the Mayor Peterson reign.

Bennett said in his letter that he wants "extensive, sometimes intense, public discussion and debate."

Great. Bring it on in 2017, soon-to-be Mayor Bennett.

I'd love to see you and Carole Smith engage each other, along with the entire Salem citizenry, in that sort of energetic public discussion/debate about what sort of city we want Salem to become.