Salem Political Snark

Salem City Club looked at ranked choice voting, which is on November ballot

Last Friday ranked choice voting was discussed at a Salem City Club program that featured Shannon Grimes from the Sightline Institute in Seattle, where she focuses on electoral reforms in Washington and Oregon. 

This November Oregonians will vote on Measure 117. If approved, the measure puts ranked choice voting into effect on January 1, 2028. Measure 117 was referred to voters by the 2024 state legislature, where it was passed on a party line vote, aside from one Republican who voted with the Democrats.

So what is ranked choice voting? Here's an explanation that reflects what I heard Grimes say. 

Measure 117 requires that ranked choice voting be used for partisan primaries and general elections to federal and state offices, including the president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries.

For some reason, the Oregon legislature exempted itself from being subject to ranked choice voting. Cities, towns, and other local governments can use ranked choice voting if they desire.

Currently Benton County, which includes Corvallis, uses ranked choice voting in local elections. In the upcoming November election, Portland voters will use ranked choice voting to elect a mayor, auditor, and three councilors to represent their district. Nationally about 50 places use ranked choice voting. 

Grimes said that 80-90% of people say ranked choice voting is easy and they like it. Voters perceive campaigns as less negative, since candidates have to appeal to more than their most avid backers given that ranked choice voting moves from whoever gets the most votes (which could be as low as 20% in a race with many candidates) to whoever gets the support of a majority of voters (since as shown in the example above, votes for the lowest ranked candidate are allocated to other candidates until someone gets at least 50% + one vote).

Grimes added that underrepresented candidates (such of people of color) tend to run and win more under a ranked choice voting system as they don't have to worry about being a spoiler candidate. That probably explains why the endorsers on the Yes on 117 web site include many organizations representing the underrepresented, along with progressive, environmental, and civic groups like the League of Women Voters.

TIME magazine offers a few examples of how ranked choice voting likely would have affected the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections.

The most notorious example of this [spoiler effect] is the 2000 presidential election, when nearly 3 million mostly left-leaning voters cast their ballots for third-party candidate Ralph Nader. If ranked-choice voting had been in place at the time, Democrat Al Gore may have prevailed in the key state of Florida, where neither Gore nor Republican George W. Bush won a majority of the vote, says Don Saari, author of Decisions and Elections.

(Florida was the center of a vote-counting scandal, and Bush’s narrow win there ensured his ascension to the White House, despite losing the popular vote nationwide.)

“Gore was the second-place choice of many of Ralph Nader’s supporters, particularly in the states of Florida and New Hampshire, where Bush narrowly won,” says Saari. “A goal of Nader’s Green Party was to reach a certain percentage of the total vote, which is a reason why many Nader voters did not want to vote for their second-ranked Gore.”

...Because it helps eliminate vote-splitting, a ranked-choice voting system can have the effect of encouraging more third-party and centrist candidates, advocates say. Michael Bloomberg, a centrist, third-party candidate, considered running in the 2016 presidential election but decided not to upon concluding that he might split the Democratic vote with Clinton, increasing the chances of Trump’s victory. (Trump, of course, still won the election, though he lost the popular vote to Clinton.)

Again, the 2016 election offers a good hypothetical example. If a ranked-choice voting system had been in place in Michigan, then Clinton, not Trump, may have won that state. Because neither candidate received a majority of the Michigan vote, ranked-choice voting would have come into play. And if we can assume that most Stein voters would have chosen Clinton as their second choice, the former Secretary of State would have won, according to Saari. Trump won Michigan by 10,700; Stein received more than 51,000 votes.

Though these examples are of how ranked choice voting could have benefitted Democratic candidates, and Alaska is considering doing away with ranked choice voting after it led to a loss by Sarah Palin in a special election to fill a seat in the House of Representatives, which ended up being won by a Democrat, an avid local Democrat, Aileen Kaye, sent me some reasons to oppose Measure 117 after I'd asked her to do this, knowing from a question she asked at the City Club program that she isn't a fan. 

Why I will vote “No” on M. 117, Ranked Choice Voting

1. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  As an active member of the Oregon and Marion County Democratic Party, I am very grateful that we Dems hold all the statewide offices, including the governorship, the Oregon House, and the Oregon Senate.  The Marion County Democratic Central Committee voted last week to oppose this measure.  There is no good reason to change Oregon’s election system. 

2. Legislative leadership was paid BIG bucks to vote for this.  They took the money and voted for it; but they omitted themselves from having to be elected via Ranked Choice Voting!  And no one can find out the names of the contributors to the PAC’s who lobbied hard for this!  I think the push and the money is NOT from Oregonians.  

3. Having gone door-to-door for the past many elections, I will tell you most voters pay little attention to government/elections.  They also do not like voting for people they know nothing of.  To have several choices for an office will result in many voters throwing up their hands and not voting for anyone for that office.

4. It will be very expensive!  There is no mention of this and there is no info on from where the funding would come. 

5. Election workers are already very stressed due to the MAGA election-denying culture.  This will this add to the stress because there is no way we will get election results the night of the election due to Ranked Choice Voting.

Lastly, if you want to experience ranked choice voting with dessert preferences, scroll down to Example #3 on this Ballotpedia article. I was shocked that people are rating ice cream above cake, which obviously is the best dessert. (Cake did make it to the third round, where it was knocked out in favor of chocolate and ice cream, the winner.)

Salem's "news desert" makes it tough for the city to pass a tax increase

In reading a Salem Reporter story about the effort of city officials to get voter approval of a property tax increase in order to deal with a $8 million - $13 million gap between revenues and expenses, I was struck by the several mentions of communicating with the public about this problem.

Here's some excerpts from "City Council discusses possible next steps to address budgetary shortfalls" by Joe Siess.

Salem city councilors appear ready to put a measure before voters next May to raise property taxes to avoid sweeping cuts to city programs.

But councilors made clear during a work session on Monday, Aug. 19, that they want a clear signal the community would back such increased taxation before they seek formal approval.

The majority of the council gave City Manager Keith Stahley the green light to plan for polling likely voters on what city services they would be willing to pay for and how much they would be willing to pay.

...Stahley on Monday also suggested auditing city finances and a deeper look at the city’s financial forecast. Those would provide transparency for citizens and ensure they have a firm understanding of the city’s budgetary shortfalls, he said.  

...Stahley told Salem Reporter after the meeting his perception is that while councilors support a tax levy going to voters next May, there is also tension about it in the sense that the city hopes to ensure the community both understands the problem and supports a possible solution. 

Councilors agreed engaging the community and adequately communicating the city’s budget situation will be a key element moving forward.

...The city council largely agreed that it will take more time to gain community trust, especially after the payroll tax failure [in November 2023].

....City Councilor Jose Gonzalez said he believes nothing can be done about the budget situation if the council fails to gain public support and understanding. 

So city officials are talking a lot about engaging the public, but aside from a poll of several hundred citizens in a city with about 178,000 people, there wasn't any mention of how those officials are going to communicate with the public.

This isn't easy in Salem. Unlike Portland, Eugene, Medford, and Bend, we don't have any television stations. Our "local" TV news comes from occasional stories on the Portland stations.

Newspaper-wise, our daily paper is the Statesman Journal. I couldn't find any current circulation figures for the Statesman Journal, but it's clear that the readership is way down in recent years. In December 2019 I wrote a blog post, "Statesman Journal print circulation is down 36% in last two years." 

It's interesting that while Eugene and Salem have roughly equal populations, the Eugene Register-Guard had a 2019 print circulation that was almost exactly double that of the Salem Statesman Journal. And the Eugene paper had a much lower decline in circulation, 23.9% for the two years vs. Salem's 35.7%.

I was curious to see where the Statesman Journal ranked among the 200 daily newspapers. I looked through the searchable database and found that 6 newspapers had an equal two year circulation decline of 35.7%; 62 newspapers had a larger circulation decline; and 132 newspapers had a smaller circulation decline.

So the Statesman Journal was in the bottom third, approximately. Meaning, about two-thirds of the 200 newspapers had a smaller two-year print circulation decline than the Statesman Journal.

The 2019 Statesman Journal print circulation was 14,494. It's likely considerably lower now. Many people have a digital subscription, but I'm pretty sure there's no public information about the number of digital subscriptions.

The online-only Salem Reporter does a better job of covering City of Salem news than the Statesman Journal does. Again, there's no public information about how many digital subscriptions the Salem Reporter has.

So it's tough to reach the residents of Salem. It's no exaggeration to say that we live in a "news desert." A journalism school offered this definition:

We define a news desert as: a community, either rural or urban, with limited access to the sort of credible and comprehensive news and information that feeds democracy at the grassroots level.

...Many newspapers have become ghosts of their former selves, both in terms of the quality and quantity of their editorial content and the reach of their readership.

That's certainly the case with the Statesman Journal. There's very little local news. There's no editorial page, so no letters to the editor, no opinion pieces. The Salem Reporter also doesn't have an editorial section, though it does a decent job with local news.

Thus city officials face a tough task in communicating with voters about the need for raising more revenue and why a property tax increase is the best way to do this. That would be a difficult job under any circumstances. It's considerably more difficult in a "news desert" city like Salem.

Citizen activism prevents additional Salem Library cuts. For now.

It's great when elected officials do the right thing, even when they're forced into it by citizen activism.

But most of the credit for the city's budget committee voting yesterday to prevent additional cuts to the Salem Public Library by using money from the hotel tax goes to Jim Scheppke and Lois Stark, fervent advocates for the library who did a great job organizing citizens to press for No More Cuts.

Without Scheppke and Stark doing what they did, almost surely the West Salem branch would have been closed, with staff and hours at the main library severely curtailed from the already diminished level.

But public pressure spurred Mayor Chris Hoy, who is in a tough race for reelection against Councilor Julie Hoy (no relation), to dig around in the City of Salem spare change container and find $1.2 million that could be used for the library as a temporary stopgap measure, not a permanent funding source.

Not without controversy, though, as these excerpts from a Salem Reporter story, "Budget committee votes to fund Salem's library following outpouring of community support," point out.

Salem will keep its remaining librarians this year after the city’s budget committee unanimously voted Wednesday to use money from the city’s hotel tax to fend off proposed cuts.

The vote came after over an hour of public testimony from library employees and a diverse group of supporters that included a state senator, educators, parents and one elementary school student. More than 75 people submitted written testimony opposing cuts.

...The money the city will now use to pay library operating costs was savings sitting in a city account intended to support tourism and cultural facilities. The money comes from a tax levied on hotel stays within city limits.

That fund had $4.2 million at the start of the budget year, which Chief Financial Officer Josh Eggleston said was intended to support ongoing programs in the future.

...City Attorney Dan Atchison said during the meeting that he evaluated Hoy’s original proposal to fund the library and believes it is consistent with state law and the city charter. The tax is required to be used for specific purposes, including improvements to, or operation of, major tourist attractions or cultural facilities and activities that promote tourism.

“It is my determination that the Salem library meets both definitions of a cultural facility, as well as a tourism facility under state law,” he said.

He said he anticipates there will be further discussions with the Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, which has objected to the use of the funds to the library. In a statement, they said that any money raised through increases in the tax rate since 2003 must be allocated 70% to tourism promotion or facilities. Thirty percent can be used however the local government sees fit.

Association President Jason Brandt, in a Thursday phone interview with Salem Reporter, said that the associate is still assessing the situation and use of funds.

“Unless a library has a substantial purpose of supporting tourism, then it doesn’t count as a tourism-related facility,” he said. The unrestricted portion of the tax funds can be used on city functions like libraries, police, fire and streets.

Brandt said the association plans to take action, as it has against other Oregon cities, if it determines the funds haven’t followed those rules. 

It does seem to be a stretch to claim that the Salem Public Library is a tourist attraction. Or a cultural facility visitors to Salem would seek out. However, 30% of $4.2 million, the amount in the hotel tax fund, is $1.26 million.

Since $1.2 million would be used for the library, if the 30% unrestricted use is applied to the $4.2 million, the City of Salem could be on solid legal ground.

Help save the Salem Public Library from ruinous budget cuts

"Help. They're threatening me with grievous harm. I need my friends to defend me, because I can't do it myself."

That's what the Salem Public Library would be saying, if it could speak. Since it can't, we library lovers have to do the speaking for the library. 

The threat is real. City officials are planning to markedly slash the library budget again, after already making deep cuts in staffing, hours, and services. 

NO MORE CUTS. That's the message from Jim Scheppke, retired State Librarian, and Lois Stark, a member of the Library Advisory Board, as you can read below. I've copied in an email they sent me and other supporters of the Salem Public Library.

Please take a few minutes and do one or more of their action items. If enough people stand up for the library, there's a good chance city officials and the City Council will rethink the very bad idea of inflicting additional ruinous budget cuts on the Salem Public Library.

***************************************

Dear Friends:

I am writing to you on behalf of myself and Lois Stark to ask for your help to prevent devastating cuts to our public library. As you may know I was privileged to serve as the State Librarian of Oregon for two decades. Lois Stark was a member of our Library Advisory Board serving several years as Chair.

 

Here’s the situation. Next Wednesday, April 17th, our City Manager will present his recommendation for the FY 2025 City budget. We have learned that his recommendation for the library will be something that has come to be known as “Option 1.” Here is what Option 1 would do beginning July 1st:

• Completely close the West Salem Branch Library after 67 years of operation.
• Layoff eight library employees in addition to the 7.35 positions eliminated last February. Several bilingual staff who were “last hired” would lose their jobs.
• Reduce the operating hours of the main library from 38 to 25-30 per week (3 or 4 days).
• Reduce library programs, including reading programs for children.
• Other unspecified cutbacks to library collections and services.

If Option 1 is approved by the Citizen Budget Committee, Salem will have by far the worst public library services in the state and the worst public library services of any capital city in the country. There are 16 public libraries in Oregon with operating hours between 25 and 30, but their average service area population  is 3,009! Our library serves about 180,000 Salem residents as well as another 39,000 Keizer residents and  many more out-of-city residents with borrowing privileges. 

 

Imagine the working conditions for the skeleton crew of library staff when tens of thousands of library users are attempting to use the library on the few days the library is open? It’s unimaginable. There has probably never been another public library in the US that has attempted to serve a population of over 200,000 with a library open 3-4 days a week.

 

But we can stop this from happening.

 

What it will take is an outpouring of support for our library from everyone who cares. Our message: NO MORE CUTS. Our library services have suffered enough. Even today our two libraries are only open half the hours they were open two decades ago (48 compared to 96). Enough is enough. NO MORE CUTS.

 

Here is what you can do:

• Send written testimony to the Citizen Budget Committee for their meeting on April 17th. Address your email to <[email protected]>.
• Send an email to your City Councilor. All the Councilors are on the Citizen Budget Committee.
• Attend the Budget Committee meeting on Wednesday, April 17th. We will be rallying outside the Council Chambers beginning at 5:30. The meeting starts at 6.
• Sign-up for public comment at the Budget Committee meeting. Make your voice heard!

As some of you know, Salem Public Library used to be one of the best public libraries in Oregon. Now it is among the worst. And Option 1 would make it MUCH WORSE. We can’t let it happen without putting up a fight — a fight for our library workers and for our library services.

 

Please, please help Lois and me prevent this devastation of our library services. So much is at stake. Forward this to others who might help.

 

Thanks for listening!
Jim Scheppke and Lois Stark

Resounding defeat of payroll tax should spur City officials to explore fresh ideas

In elections, usually even the most unqualified and unknown candidate gets 30 to 40% of the vote.

So when the payroll tax got a "Yes" from only 18% of Salem voters in yesterday's election, they weren't just sending a message. They were screaming it from the rooftops. Both in the Marion County part of Salem and the Polk County part in west Salem (where just 16% said "Yes").

With the election over, and the certainty that remaining ballots to be counted won't appreciably change the outcome, we enter the what now? phase. 

A Salem Reporter story about the payroll tax defeat indicates that at the moment, City officials seem to be repeating the same ideas and policies that led up to the defeat. 

The city is planning to convene a revenue task force to seek additional options for bringing in money for city services. The city’s last revenue task force met in 2018, and their recommendations included adding the operations fee to utility bills and implementing a payroll tax.

...Without the $27 million a year estimated from the payroll tax, the city plans to cut spending on services to preserve its financial reserves. Their baseline proposal for cuts over the next five years, which councilors will continue to discuss, includes pulling funding from homeless shelters, closing the West Salem Branch of the library, reducing park maintenance, cutting specialized police teams and closing a fire station.

...“We just can’t make cuts as drastic as will be necessary without the revenue, so we’ve got to come up with a new plan,” [Mayor] Hoy said, adding that nothing is off the table when it comes to revenue options, including a payroll tax in a different form. He said the city council is going to take lessons from this election before making a new decision.

I heartily agree with Mayor Hoy that the city council should learn lessons from the election. However, I'd like city officials to be as expansive as possible in that exercise.

The most important thing they can do is shine a spotlight not on voters or on opponents of the payroll tax, but on themselves. Salem's Angry Owl had this to say in two tweets (I refuse to call it an X post, even though Twitter and Tweets are no more).

Great questions.

Was it City Manager Stahley who recommended the payroll tax? Was it someone else in the City Manager's office? Whoever it was, that person (or people) needs some urgent reeducation about how to deal with a City of Salem budget problem. Because the payroll tax proposal was a debacle that calls to mind the famous SNAFU acronym.

Situation normal: all fucked up. 

Now, depending on someone's point of view toward City Council goings on, there's room for debate about the extent to which the fuck up on the payroll tax reflects the normal situation at City Hall.My perspective is that it's quite common, which is why I'm advocating for a No More Business As Usual approach to the what now? question.

I say this because it's going to be temping for city staff, the mayor, and city council to take a technocratic approach where what's talked about is different revenue sources and different budget cuts, ignoring the elephant in the room that is the way city government typically functions.

As Angry Owl said, the mayor and city council are volunteers. They have no staff of their own. They need to cram in their governmental duties along with their usual job, family life, and such. This makes them dependent on City of Salem staff for just about everything.

Those staff may be called public servants, but often they serve the bureaucracy to which they belong more than the public. The payroll tax brought this out clearly. With the strong resistance both to the tax itself and to it being imposed without a vote of the people, it should have been obvious that the payroll tax was almost certainly doomed.

Yet the reaction of city officials was along the lines of: The public doesn't understand the budget as clearly as we do, so we just need to explain things to them; then they'll come around to our way of seeing things, which obviously is the correct way.

There's a lot of arrogance and condescension in this perspective. That irritated people.

Rather than viewing criticism of the payroll tax and the initial choice to not refer it to voters (until they were forced to by a petition referendum) as an opportunity to rethink this revenue option, city officials and a 5-4 majority on the city council decided to go full steam ahead and damn the torpedo of it being voted down -- which it was, big time.

Now, I realize that the chance of city officials using the defeat of the payroll tax to rethink how they engage with the public and involve citizens in policy decisions is small, minuscule even. And maybe they're right. Perhaps some tweaks to the tax and a better marketing campaign is all that's needed.

I simply see a bigger problem here. This debacle has led to a marked decline in public trust toward city officials, the mayor, and city council. Restoring that trust should be Job #1, not appointing a new revenue committee to come up with other revenue options.

The City of Salem doesn't need to do everything differently. But any observer of City Hall knows that they need to do lots of things differently. The payroll tax just made that more obvious, because the need has always been there.

Watch the video of Salem Reporter's town hall meeting on the payroll tax

Everybody should applaud the Salem Reporter, our city's online alternative to the Statesman Journal, for holding a town hall on the proposed payroll tax at the Elsinore Theatre this evening.

For whether you oppose or favor the payroll tax, or don't have an opinion on it, it's great that a public debate on the tax happened prior to voters casting their ballot on it in the upcoming November election.

I didn't attend the town hall. But I've watched some of the You Tube video of it, which I'll share below. (The screenshot above is just to show the debaters, Oregon Business & Industry president Preston Mann, who opposes the tax, and Salem City Council president Virginia Stapleton, who favors it.) 

Both did a good job, from my viewing of part of their remarks. The Salem Reporter had a live blog of the town hall which provides a summary of what transpired. In case the live blog isn't accessible to those who don't subscribe to the Salem Reporter, here's what was said about the debaters' remarks.

6:15 p.m. – Salem City Council president Virginia Stapleton is leading the pro-tax campaign Save Salem.

Stapleton said the passing of Measure 5 in 1990 resulted in Salem property taxes being capped at $10 per 100,000 of assessed value. Seven years later, Measure 50 created a permanent tax rate. “These rates have been frozen in time ever since the 1997,” she said.

Stapleton said the cost of running the city is outpacing its revenue from property taxes. Salem officials have been slowly cutting services for over two decades and have had to “get creative” to find ways to boost revenue, she said.

That includes the city’s operations fee, which went to utility bills on July 1 and goes to emergency services, libraries, parks and other services. “But we can no longer continue to make cuts,” she said.

If the payroll tax fails, the city’s proposed budget cuts include closing the west Salem library, reducing hours and days at the main Salem Public Library, Stapleton said.

She also said the city would need to cut seven positions at the Salem Fire Department, five positions from the Salem Police Department, 13 positions across support services such as the city’s Human Resources, Information Technology and Legal departments, and seven positions from parks and maintenance crews.

“Salem is a wonderful town and it has amazing potential. The one glaring issue is the city’s general fund,” she said. “The payroll tax will stabilize that general fund and provide the city the ability to keep investing in our community and meeting the needs of our residents.”

6:30 p.m. – Oregon Business and Industry led the campaign to get the vote put on the ballot.

OBI President Preston Mann said his organizations sees dozens of tax measures come through the state Legislature. “I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a tax as complicated and convoluted as this one,” he said.

Mann said he finds the proposed tax troubling because most residents are not clear on when they enter or exit city limits.

He said as much as the city budget might be in a crisis, family budgets are as well. “I think we can’t forget that in this conversation. People are having a very difficult time paying the bills right now, and 500 to $1,000 per family, that’s a lot of money. And frankly, I don’t think people can afford that,” he said.

Mann said he rejects any implication that those opposing the tax don’t support homeless services, police or firefighters.

“Many of the 13,000 people that signed this petition, we simply disagree with this particular tax increase. This particular approach is complicated and cost too much and there has to be a better way,” he said.

Councilor Nordyke says city officials have lost public trust

Way to go, City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke.

Vanessa Nordyke and furry friend

Your responses to questions asked by the Salem Reporter about the payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 margin without a vote of the people are a great example of speaking truth to power.

The Salem Reporter sent questions to the four councilors who wanted Salem citizens to vote on the payroll tax. Only Vanessa Nordyke and Jose Gonzalez responded in time for publication. 

Here's two of the questions, along with Nordyke's responses. I've highlighted in red her comments about the City of Salem losing public trust.

If you believe some source of new revenue is needed, what would you propose and how much would that raise? 

Given the ever-changing cost  of inflation, housing, and gas, the moment you quote a number it becomes out of date. I can tell you one thing: I would not propose a payroll tax that bypasses the voters! I would’ve held listening sessions with the community and business leaders about how best to raise revenue rather than unilaterally passing a payroll tax. Unfortunately, people are so outraged by the payroll tax vote that anything the city says now is likely to fall on deaf ears. Trust has been broken. 

Do you believe councilors and city leaders have done enough to seek a regular source of state funding to compensate the city for losses from non-taxable state property in city limits? If not, what would you do differently?

Not even close. Most people have no idea that city leadership tried to get state funding. They missed opportunities to invite city councilors, local leaders and voters to join forces. The city could have rallied the people to write letters to legislators and sign up to testify at the Oregon Capitol. Residents could have called their legislators to take action. We could’ve come together as a community to make the ask, but that’s just not how the city does things.

Had the city done this, the response from lawmakers might’ve been quite different. Even if lawmakers still said no, the city and its residents would have emerged united in purpose, with a shared understanding of our budgetary reality. At that point, we could have met as a community to decide where we go from here. But the city didn’t use that path. Instead, the city unilaterally passed the payroll tax and refused to even continue the July 10 hearing to allow for more testimony.

When we include the public, we gain trust. When we exclude the public, we lose trust.

Instead of inviting the public into a transparent, meaningful, and inclusive discussion of our budgetary challenges, most residents felt blindsided by the payroll tax.

City government struggles with transparency. Outreach, transparency and community engagement are rock bottom on the city’s priority list. The city’s “we know best” mentality is exactly why people are outraged over the passage of the payroll tax without taking it to the voters.

I couldn't agree more. The payroll tax fiasco shows that city officials do indeed have a "we know best" mentality that fosters a mistrust of citizen involvement. Now the City of Salem faces an uphill battle in getting voters to approve the payroll tax in the November election.

As Nordyke repeatedly says above, it's tough to get citizens to trust city government when that government didn't trust the citizens enough to ask them to vote on the payroll tax. A business group had to gather about 13,000 signatures of Salem voters for a referendum petition to put the tax on the November ballot.

Now that's citizen involvement. 

Nordyke also made some excellent points about ways the City of Salem could be making the Police Department more efficient and effective, which could eliminate the need for the police funding included in the payroll tax proposal.

She's a strong advocate for a civilian-based mobile crisis unit similar to the highly successful CAHOOTS program in Eugene that has markedly reduced the number of 911 calls responded to by police officers.

In response to a Salem Reporter question, Nordyke said:

I agree with funding police as a general rule. But, I don’t agree that we should be paying police officers to form a homeless outreach team. The city could pay crisis workers to perform homeless outreach at a lower rate than police officer salaries.

...Despite my urging, the city considered but ultimately rejected including $300,000 for a mobile crisis unit (MCU) in the payroll tax. The payroll tax will raise over $27 million a year in additional revenue (if it is passed by the voters). Council discussed including $300,000 out of that $27 million to help fund an MCU. The final payroll tax voted upon by Council excluded the MCU funding. 

...An MCU is a 911-responsive unit of trained mental health workers and crisis workers who can respond to calls involving mental illness, substance abuse and homelessness. Mobile crisis units free up first responders and emergency rooms for higher acuity 911 calls. This payroll tax is being touted as a tax designed to address homelessness and public safety. Without an MCU, this tax fails to address a big chunk of our homelessness and public safety needs.

...This payroll tax prioritizes policing homelessness over ending homelessness. Policing homelessness doesn’t reduce homelessness, but it sure does cost a lot of taxpayer money.

I would use the last several annual surveys of City residents as a guide towards prioritizing what to keep and what to cut. Time and time again, those surveys told us to make addressing homelessness our top priority. The payroll tax doesn’t do that. People feel that the city isn’t listening to them.

There's a simple reason people feel that way. They're right. The city isn't listening to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Because it was the right thing to do.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blogger is irked at a Florida bill aimed at censoring bloggers

Well, if Florida state Senator Jason Brodeur, a Republican, wanted to get himself criticized by bloggers, his introduction of a bill that would take away the free speech rights of bloggers was a genius move.

But unfortunately, Brodeur has other motivations than social media masochism.

That seems clear, given that Florida governor Ron DeSantis hates the media because they call him on his right-wing authoritarian bullshit.

It's unclear whether Brodeur's bill has a chance of becoming law.

Regardless, it grabbed the attention of the New York Times editorial board, which published "Florida Is Trying to Take Away the American Right to Speak Freely" today. Here's how it starts out:

A homeowner gets angry at a county commission over a zoning dispute and writes a Facebook post accusing a local buildings official of being in the pocket of developers.

A right-wing broadcaster criticizing border policies accuses the secretary of homeland security of being a traitor.

A parent upset about the removal of a gay-themed book from library shelves goes to a school board meeting and calls the board chair a bigot and a homophobe.

All three are examples of Americans engaging in clamorous but perfectly legal speech about public figures that is broadly protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a case that dates back nearly 60 years, ruled that even if that speech might be damaging or include errors, it should generally be protected against claims of libel and slander.

All three would lose that protection — and be subject to ruinous defamation lawsuits — under a bill that is moving through the Florida House and is based on longstanding goals of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The bill represents a dangerous threat to free expression in the United States, not only for the news media, but for all Americans, whatever their political beliefs. There’s still time for Florida lawmakers to reject this crude pandering and ensure that their constituents retain the right to free speech.

“This isn’t just a press issue,” said Bobby Block, executive director of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation. “This is a death-to-public-discourse bill. Everyone, even conservatives, would have to second-guess themselves whenever they open their mouths to speak or sit in front of a keyboard.”

I don't make any money from blogging. My three blogs have never had any ads, and never will. Anyone can read what I write for free. In fact, I have to pay Typepad, my blogging service, an annual fee. So I lose money from blogging.

However, I have nothing against bloggers who get paid. After all, reporters get paid for their journalistic work, and blogging is a form of journalism -- just less formal and more opinionated than most other types.

The MaddowBlog on MSNBC describes the Florida bill.

“If a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register” with the appropriate office within five days of the post, the legislation says.

As NBC News’ report added, the measure defines “elected state officer” as “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature.”

Those who failed to comply could face thousands of dollars in state penalties.

If this approach sounds at all familiar, it might be because Vladimir Putin signed a similar measure — known as the “bloggers law” — in 2014, requiring online writers to register with the Russian government.

This bill is so horrible, and so obviously unconstitutional, that in normal times few people would take it seriously. But we don't live in normal times. 

Under Trump and his MAGA devotees, the Republican Party has dedicated itself to disparaging the media and promoting lies that, bizarrely, when the falsehoods are pointed out by reputable journalists, earns the epithet of "fake news," even though it's the lies that are truly fake news.

And the Supreme Court has shown that it is capable of taking away fundamental rights of Americans on a whim, as occurred when fifty years of women having the right to an abortion was trashed just because three Trump-appointed justices felt they wanted to do this and were part of a 6-3 majority.

Read the entire New York Times opinion piece to learn how bad the Florida bill is. It does more than just require paid bloggers to register with the state. 

The bill goes much further than this attempt to hobble the press. It makes it clear that the new defamation rules would also apply to any single “utterance on the internet,” which could mean a tweet or a Facebook post written by anyone, or “any one presentation to an audience,” which could include statements made at school board hearings and other public meetings.

In a direct attack on a key aspect of free expression, it says that whenever someone is accused of discriminating against others on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, that accusation is automatically considered enough to sue for defamation.

Any person accused of bigotry based on sexual orientation or gender identity could file a defamation lawsuit and be virtually guaranteed of winning by saying the discrimination was based on personal religious or scientific beliefs. The penalty for calling someone a bigot would be a minimum of $35,000.

Read why people want Salem to have protected bike lanes

Ten days ago I started a petition in support of the Salem Bike Vision proposal to spend $10 million of an upcoming $300 million community improvement bond on building a network of protected bike lanes.

Please sign the petition, if you haven't already.

So far 228 people have signed the petition. Over half, 130 people, left comments explaining why they support the protected bike lanes proposal. 

I've copied in those comments below, which total 3,876 words. Yes, that's a lot.

But the people who wrote those words spoke well, and sometimes eloquently, about how protected bike lanes are a big improvement over either no lanes at all or white lines painted on the edge of busy streets, which are a poor substitute for much safer protected bike lanes.

If you want to know why protected bike lanes are needed in Salem, here's the answers from 126 people.

I ride regularly in Salem, and soon will hope my daughter can do the same. There are parts of Salem that are unsafe to ride a bike in because of traffic. This is needed.

With gas prices skyrocketing I’ve seen more people walking and riding their bikes then ever before. I am considering buying an electric bike and kid trailer to take to the grocery store instead of driving because of the costs of gas. Of prices of gas aren’t going to go down any time soon, if they are going to continue to reach for the sky, you will see more bicyclists on the road. There will be an uptick with car/bicycle crashes unless better bicycle paths are in place. There are many many roads in Salem that do not offer a bicycle path at all, and many more roads that have poorly maintained bike paths full of gravel and litter.

Biking is better for the environment, climate change, land use policy, & personal health so it should be prioritized to make it safe and therefore more accessible. It is irresponsible not to encourage biking & make it as safe as possible.

With Salem's bike infrastructure as it stands, most trips either require a car or put you in the middle of car traffic. Protected bike lanes would allow me to ride my bike for most errands, and would allow my children to ride to the park or the library

This is important because we need to do everything we can to stop human caused climate change, make it easier for all people to move around Salem and make Salem a great place.

We are a single-car family and I rely on my bike to get from work to home (vice versa). I live in south Salem and getting to Lancaster could be easier if just a couple roads were safely connected. The fear of being hit by a car is real and lack of safe routes increases to that risk. Furthermore, providing low income families alternative and safe options to transport themselves to/from work would help put additional funds back into their pockets, and reduce the strain on government support systems.

Paint is not protection. Try something new.

To safely commute , to ride for fun with family and friends, for quality of life

Protected bike lanes appeal to so many more people than regular bike lanes. Imagine riding a bike in comfort, separated from cars, with your kids, with your grandmother who is wearing high heels, collecting miles of smiles. That's what I see when Salem gets protected bike lanes.

I want to be able to bike to reduce my carbon footprint, but don't feel safe on the roads.

Biking should be accessible to all of Salem, not just rich neighborhoods.

Safer commute to work and school (8-year old), protect the environment

A safe network for biking is important for me and my family with little kids to reach school, work, the library, parks, and businesses downtown. We balance life with two school-age kids with one car. A safe network of separated bike lanes to reach all major parts of the city would open more opportunities for us to patronize business and access services in the city. It also would make it easier for us to do our part to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in the city we love! For example, my 8-year-old son currently bikes with me on the buffered bike lanes on Church/High, but we need to hop off and walk on State Street to go to Isaac’s coffee, The Book Bin, Dolce Mama’s, Fork Forty, and Riverfront/Minto Island parks. We walk because it isn’t safe to ride east/west through downtown with kids. And this is only because we can safely access the Church/High buffered bike lanes. If we lived further from downtown, it wouldn’t be possible to reach those businesses/parks. Please support Salem Bike Vision’s plan for better transportation in Salem!

To protect and promote safe and efficient transportation.

I would ride my bike more often if there were a protected network of bike lanes throughout the city. Motorized vehicles should not be the only option to get downtown!

To promote cycling safety and to reduce our city’s carbon foot print.

This is SO long overdue!!!

Being in a low-income household, a safe bike lane ensures I can get around town more freely and more importantly safely.

I would use them frequently!

As an active cyclist in my younger years, I never felt safe cycling on narrow bike lanes, separated from semis by just a painted line. We need safety and separation of bikes from vehicles.

I'm a lifelong bicycle rider that has been struck by vehicles three different times. I don't feel safe riding on Salem's narrow streets, but would forgo most car travel if safe bike lanes were implemented.

Our children deserve protection

As a long time bicycle commuter, I can say from experience that riding in Salem is scary. Despite meticulously following traffic laws, I've been struck by cars twice, and nearly hit on multiple other occasions. I've had drivers curse me out and run me off the road just for legally using a lane. I'd love for my kids to be able to develop some autonomy by riding around by themselves, to the park or the library, but with the current state of the roads in Salem, it just isn't safe. Protected bike lanes would go a long way toward making this town more livable.

I’m a cyclist

Cleaner air, healthier planet is good for people and other living things.

We need healthier ways to commute that are safe and away from cars. Sharing the road is too dangerous.

I would like to see bike lanes to be able to bike through the downtown, as opposed to having to go "around the downtown crowded streets." As is current, a downtown lane does not have room for a car a bicycle at the same time. The bicycle rider will be the one to get squeezed or hit by the car.

Because My sister and her husband loves riding bikes in Salem and I want to keep them safe from cars.

I bike everywhere, no vehicle because owning a vehicle is a thing of the past with a quality electric bike and self driving vehicles you can pay for a ride when needed. Also I have been hit by cars not paying attention and had to replace tires several times due to glass, also the side walks in Salem are so busted it's not even funny

Because people I love, ride bikes!

My husband has a rare blood cancer and daily bike riding is what saves him. It’s important to feel safe and comfortable out riding and protected. Thank you for this initiative

For future generations of Salemites

Biking is an essential way for everyone, especially lower income individuals to get around. Cater to them!

I'm a full time bike commuter in Salem

As someone who cycles down Sunnyview road as a commute and been hit three times, I'd like to not die for trying to save money on gas plz and thank you.

She was my Aunt’s close friend, no one should be hit riding their bike.

Because this could potentially save lives and I know others have gotten seriously injured or died from related accidents

I would love to be able to bike to work safely, with a clear designated bike lane on commercial, Liberty, 12th.

My husband was struck by a car while riding his bicycle in Salem this year. Thankfully he has recovered, but I fear for my family's safety when we bike, especially for that of my children.

People need alternative ways to get around. I just watched an incredible video on another country that had tree lined bike lanes and walking paths down the middle of their roads. It was amazing!

We need safe bike lanes for human and the environment.

Making sure that pedestrians have a safe place where they know they won’t get hit.

This would be great for families and to reduce our carbon footprint!

My best friend was killed on Cherry Ave in Keizer, I ride bikes as well and safety is essential

We need to ride bikes

As a country we need to get into the habit of exercising more and we all need to be able to do so safely. As more people choose to bike for more errands as well as for fun due to the high cost of gas, there will be more demand. Lets make it safe for all concerned in all our cities

I need to feel safer as a bike rider plus it will help Salem's livability

Bicycles are good for our community and safer biking means more biking and stronger communities.

For safety, health of our community and long term appeal for our city.

It will make it safer to bike in Salem.

I want to reduce pollution by giving people the safe opportunity to ride their bike.

I bike for exercise and transportation around town.

Our future generations depend on us decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels. This is one small step towards that.

Safety using public facilities

If bicycles are to be options for transportation, they need more protection than they have. Take a look at corners where bike lanes continue around a turn to the right -- the lane markings disappear completely. I've seen cars carefully pass a bike only to nearly wipe them out at the corner!

Bike friendly city streets are necessary with the current population growth of Salem.

Safe bike routes add value throughout our community. Please include bike infrastructure to our bond projects.

I bike often in Salem for the health of the planet and the health of my body through exercise. Unfortunately, this often times leaves me and my son in an extremely vulnerable position with the limited bike protection infrastructure in Salem. We need to protect the most vulnerable from distracted and uneducated drivers re: bike safety and laws.

Oregon should be a leader in cycling both nationally and world wide. IN Salem we can make this happen now with a relatively small investment and show others how it's done. It's important for our green goals, lifestyle, health, and equity of transportation.

I want my family to be safe riding bikes in Salem!

I am an active Salem bike commuter and would like to feel more safe when riding my bike around town. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to have a voice!

Safety, safety, safety

The original design of Salem's roads didn't consider walking or biking as a mode of transportation, and now is a good time to improve that design.

My husband has been hit by cars twice while riding his bike. We are looking for a place to live that has protected bike lanes. I hope Salem can be that place.

I’m A bicyclist and safety is always top of mind.

Visiting and passing through Salem on a bike is much more cumbersome than it should be. After visiting cities where quality of life is put above quality of car-life, I’m sure Salem is capable of a better vision that encourages pedestrian and cycling as a hand-in hand part of a quality city lifestyle..

I want and care about the safety of those who choose to ride bikes here in Salem OR.

Safe biking helps the environment and promotes community activity!

Salem needs more diversity in transportation and as an avid cyclist I’d love to have safer options as I ride. My business was downtown for years and riding to work was dicey once entering downtown and surrounding area due to no bike lanes. I feel more people would consider bike commuting it they felt safer. As an avid cyclist I also would just to live in a more bike friendly town.

As someone who commutes via protected bike lanes I can assure you the daily journey I make is far more safer & much less stressful. Protected bike infrastructure has proven to be a quality benefit to my neighborhood leading into major business districts. And with the soaring price of gas and high cost of parking, having a bike option helps a tight budget so you can free up funds to support local businesses. Build a protected bike lane in Salem, and I will happily come visit, test ride your routes, & support your local businesses. My friends and I love to visit cities and explore via a great bike route designs & culture.

Once I moved to Salem I essentially stopped riding my bike because of the lack of safe travel routes. I would love to see this become a priority here.

How better to manage the increasing flow of traffic than to add bike lanes that make people feel SAFE enough to even try commuting to work. Especially in this time of e-bikes becoming much more accessible. Also I have almost been hit three times on commercial st this year because people don’t look for cyclists. In all three instances, a protected bike lane would have removed the problem. Salem doesn’t provide good public transit options and gas prices have skyrocketed. Help us please! My downtown business (Resonance Yoga Collective) has built a spot for people to park their bikes inside our space and we provide incentives for people to bike to class. Time for the city to do its part too.

We need safer bike infrastructure.

I want to be able to safely ride to work.

My family rides bikes, and bike lanes are great safety features!

I have been an avid cyclist and often wished that I felt safer riding down town for chores,shopping etc. Safe cycling could lead to a large reduction in greenhouse gases

Safety matters and many of my friends Bicycle in Salem!!

I want to feel safe traveling across the city on my bike, and for my husband and 2 year old son to be safer when they go on my husbands cargo e-bike to my son’s daycare 3 miles from West to NE Salem.

Connect the patchwork of bike lanes…. Liberty from browning to commercial is needed urgently. Protect riders with protected lanes!

Salem's bike infrastructure needs to be good enough to support everyday bike commuters like me.

keeping bikers safe in the roads is very important and encourages biking as a mode of transportation creating more opportunities for a healthier lifestyle and a positive impact for our environment.

This is important to make the streets safer for bike transportation.

Would definitely be taking less car trips if there were more protected bike lanes around town! Commercial & liberty split near Panera especially needs to be made safer for bikes!

Bike safety and a sustainable city!

It will promote riding bikes and reduce cars on the road. Better for the end and less traffic too

I commuted on bike for 3 years. Now my brother bike commutes

I work at the hospital and live in West Salem. The commute is only 4 miles and I would love to be able to ride my bike to and from work daily. But as it is right now, Wallace and Front St. are way too dangerous for cyclists and I am not comfortable riding to work. Having protected bike lanes would allow me to commute which is not only good for my own health but reduce my carbon footprint as well!

Liberty is extremely dangerous for bikes, especially during commuter hours. With the amount of new homes and apartments under construction in this area, we NEED a safe path for all the added traffic.

As a cyclist and a person who would like to use bicycles more for basic transportation I’d greatly appreciate feeling safer and more able to do so.

I would like to be abe to ride a bike in Salem without risking life and limbs!

Salem residents deserve a safe, accessible city and this proposal helps to achieve that.

Riding a bike in Salem should be safer and students should be able to safely bike to school.

Studies have shown that protected bike lanes exponentially increase safety (for both cyclists, pedestrians, and cars), retail traffic, and property values. I want to live in a community that values people and healthy lifestyles. I don\'t think that is too much to ask for. For more stats on protected bike lanes, be sure to take a look at People for Bikes data page at https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

Because I commute to work on my bike and riding my bike downtown is frightening. Would love to have better biking lanes downtown to make those on bikes feel safer.

I think it would be safer and more people would ride bikes, including me- age 13

Less than 5% of this $300 mil grant would contribute to lowering the city's carbon footprint as well as providing more safety for current bikers and encouraging reluctants to get on their bikes for transport to work and school as well as good healthy exercise.

Safe bike infrastructure helps to improve safe transportation options for many people who can't, or don't want to, drive around town for many daily tasks.

I envision Salem as a family-friendly bike town. I dream of any Salem resident feeling comfortable with the option of commuting around town, for work or play. For this to happen, we need not only more bike lanes, but protected ones. People need to feel safe on their bicycles.

To feel safe riding my bike instead of driving everywhere.

I would love to ride my bike around town to run errands and enjoy the city

Because people should be safe biking in Salem and right now it isn’t safe.

Bike friendly cities are better for the environment. I enjoy riding for exercise and would ride more places for errands and shopping if there were more protected bike lanes.

Public health reasons.

We need safe bike lanes for a less car dependent city.

Adding protected bike lanes throughout the city of Salem will make it safer for recreating families, offer a healthy and safe alternative to cars for commuters, and enhance the overall liveability of this beautiful community.

Bikes are the future of local transportation

This proposal will help save lives from motor vehicles and reduce our carbon emissions. It\'s an important first step towards our carbon goals and equity.

I've been injured rather badly from getting hit by a car from behind while riding on a roadside shoulder. Completely not my fault, but an Inattentive driver. Drivers speed and run red lights, and cut in front of you far too often in Salem. I would ride to work, go shopping, and ride for exercise if there were safe protected lanes for me on my bicycle. I now have a great fear of getting hit by a car. I was just visited Victoria BC. There is a city that shares the road with bikes and even has a well maintained bike trail called the Galloping Goose that allows one to ride without fear to many parts of the city and out to many sites outside the city. Salem should have a well connected infrastructure to get more people out of cars. We don\'t need a new bridge we need better ways to get around without being in or battling with 3-ton SUVs.

As gas prices remain high more people are likely switching to other forms of transportation like bikes. Also a good shift for climate change. More safer bike lanes would accommodate this shift.

I live downtown and would love to ride to work, but I feel unsafe

A protected bicycle network will provide a safer means to access opportunity for all Salem residents. This will reduce congestion and air pollution, increase physical and mental health and well-being, and create a more equitable transportation network for all road users. Salem has so much potential but we need to take this first bold step to really make bicycling feasible for everyone. This is an investment in our future.

I want the streets of Salem to feel safe so that everyone can use public thoroughfares regardless of their chosen mode of transportation.

Make our city more livable.

Safety, community, increasing alternative transportation Thorofare’s is important.

Economic vitality of the city. Positive health outcomes.

As a rider myself, I often stick to protected bike paths and lanes because of safety. Adding protected bike lanes will allow riders like myself access to more areas.

Safety

Because the drivers in Salem and in the PNW are super scary. I don’t ride my bike anywhere in town. I drove out of town and ride on trails because, no cars. Which means I also spend my money outside of Salem while driving to the safer bike trails

My family are in Salem. Creating lanes that a small child, elderly person or unconfident person can use easily is a key support to making cycling more inclusive.

I use a bike to go into town every weekday. Having safe bike lanes would be a real plus.

Because I wish for my children and I to have a safe place to bike.

I never biked downtown or back home without my heart in my mouth. And now I won’t risk it.

I prefer using my bike when running errands about town. Knowing that there would be protected lanes would give me a greater sense of security.

I ride my bike to meetings and shopping errands but safe routes to get places are limited .

I would use my ebike instead of my car to run local errands if the streets were safer. We need protected bike lanes. Painted lines are insufficient.

Making people feel safe to ride to work will encourage more people to get out of their cars, which will lead to reduced congestion, better health outcomes, better mental health outcomes, more satisfied citizens, and safer roads. In addition, most bicycle infrastructure gets used by other \"wheeled\" users, such as wheelchair and mobility scooter users, so this helps them be safer, too. Lastly, every city that has made the effort to become more \"bicycle friendly\" has shown that it brings a substantial positive economic impact along with it. EVERY ONE.

A life long cyclist and advocate for bike/ped and transit practical transportation options. 8 years a member on OBPAC - Oregon Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

To meet Salem's Climate Action Plan goal of net zero emissions by 2050 we need to get people out of their cars. There's no other way. This will help.

Alternative forms of transportation are critical to reduction in carbon emissions. In addition I want safe and equal access to our city streets for bikes.

Connected, protected, and direct bike lanes are needed if we are going to get folks comfortable riding their bikes and leaving their cars at home. To me, this is the number one thing we can do to fight climate change here locally.

I love to ride a bike. But not on Salem streets, because mostly it isn't safe.