Salem Political Snark

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Given the ever-changing cost  of inflation, housing, and gas, the moment you quote a number it becomes out of date.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.

Salem, and the nation, needs more social capital

My wife and I had a pleasant, albeit low-key, Thanksgiving.

Laurel's apple pie tasted great. The Trader Joe's meatless roast turned out fine once I realized that because I forgot to put the frozen roast in the refrigerator a full 24 hours before it went into the oven, that's why it was mushy. After another 15 minutes of cooking, the roast was perfect.

Not so perfect was the news I woke up to on Friday. A new Covid variant was freaking out the world, including me.

The world reacted with alarm on Friday to the highly mutated new coronavirus variant discovered in southern Africa, as the United States, the European Union and nations across the globe imposed new travel restrictions, financial markets swooned and visions of finally emerging from the pandemic started to dim.

Just two days after the world learned of the variant, the World Health Organization officially labeled it a “variant of concern,” its most serious category — the first since the Delta variant, which emerged a year ago. The designation means that the variant has mutations that might make it more contagious or more virulent, or make vaccines and other preventive measures less effective — though none of those effects has yet been established.

Yeah, the financial markets sure did swoon. Actually, plummet is a better word to describe the carnage. The Dow dropped 2.5%, 905 points. The NASDQ and S&P 500 declined 2.2% and 2.3%. Investors were spooked by the prospect of renewed Covid-caused economic disruption.

It'll take a few days before scientists can figure out whether the new variant, Omicron (15th letter of the Greek alphabet, though it sounds like a supervillain), is more dangerous than the Delta variant we've been dealing with.

Hopefully it isn't. Or at least not much more so, due either to increased transmissibility and/or greater virulence.

Regardless, what worries me the most isn't that scientists and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Moderna won't be able to come up with sound advice to deal with Omicron, along with updated vaccines to combat its spread, but that the United States is too politically fractured to handle another Covid wave.

We're the only advanced country where public health measures like wearing a mask and getting vaccinated have been politicized.

Because of the inexcusable malevolence of Trump, Fox News, and Republican leaders, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily as a result. We've known what needed to be done to combat the pandemic. Once vaccines were developed, we've had the tools to prevent Covid.

But what we've lacked is the social capital needed to transform what could be into a vibrant what is reality. 

A story in the October 2021 issue of Scientific American, "Social Resilience," contains a definition of social capital: the ability to solve problems and thrive by forming mutually trusting, engaged relationships and networks.

The focus of this story is on the ability of people in Black communities to work together for the common good even though those communities often are disadvantaged in other respects. 

In fact, Mattis and other Black researchers have found that even in the most resource-poor neighborhoods, high levels of social capital not only exist but are used as a means to buffer the community against systematic oppression. In a world racked by a pandemic and climate disasters this form of social consciousness, they say, should be celebrated and deeply studied.

I learned in the story that the first use of the term social capital was in 1916, "when L.J. Hanifan, a progressive serving as West Virginia's state supervisor of rural schools, used it to argue for community involvement in schools."

The individual is helpless socially, if left entirely to himself. If he may come into contact with his neighbor... there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the entire community.

Here in Salem, as in most places in the United States, we suffer from an excess of individualism. The story quotes Traci Blackmon, a Missouri pastor.

In the Black community we have to take care of ourselves... Black people, in my opinion, and all nonwhite people have this sense of community embedded in our DNA out of necessity that says we have to share what we have in order for everybody to be okay.

Yet here in Salem, lots of well-off people, mostly Republicans, refuse to wear a mask in indoor public spaces because they reject the notion that everybody has an obligation to help protect other people from coming down with Covid-19.

That sort of selfishness is the opposite of the altruistic social capital on display in Black and other nonwhite communities -- which are less materially well-off, but more advanced morally.

It'd be great if the next Mayor of Salem (Chuck Bennett isn't running again) could make it their mission to foster more of a sense of community in our city. Bennett and City Manager Steve Powers have been almost completely silent about the need for everyone to do their part to combat Covid.

The progressive city councilors have been more vocal, but none of them have the sort of soapbox that the Mayor could command. 

Naturally there always will be vehement political disagreements among Salem citizens. But we should be able to come together for important common purposes like fighting a new Covid variant, should Omicron prove to be a marked danger. 

Increasing Salem's social capital should be viewed as important as making sure our city has adequate financial capital. Black communities have a lot to teach us in this regard, as the Scientific American story made clear.

Sustaining Democracy book fizzles out on how to do it

I loved Robert Talisse's Sustaining Democracy book. Until I read the final chapter.

Then I felt the same letdown as when I put in many hours watching a TV series that promises to eventually tie together compelling plot threads in a satisfying fashion, only to find that the final episode falls flat.

But this doesn't take away from the brilliance of Talisse's analysis of what typically goes wrong in a democracy. It has a certain Marxist feel, since he persuasively argues that a democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction.

In brief, his argument is that democracies want citizens to be actively engaged in politics.

Ideally they're able to balance democracy's twin goals of (1) viewing all citizens, political friends and foes alike, as having an equal right to participate in the democracy, and (2) pursuing justice.

Problem is, these goals tend to diverge.

The more avidly people engage in fighting hard for justice, the more they come to see their political opponents as standing in the way. This leads to an attitude of, If something has to go, viewing the opposition as equals or achieving justice, let's dump the equality thing.

So, we get partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, intense efforts to not only win elections but to ensure that our opponents never have a chance to get back in power and undo the justice that we hope to achieve.

Talisse goes into much more detail, of course, along with discussing how belief polarization makes the situation even worse. He defines this as "the phenomenon by which interactions among like-minded people tend to result in each person adopting more radical versions of their shared views."

Taken to an extreme, this makes allies into enemies.

I've encountered this on Facebook groups frequented by fellow progressives. To offer an example, I support the Black Lives Matter movement. However, I decry the protests in Portland where businesses were vandalized.

That seems like a reasonable view. My political tribe should be able to accept differences of opinion about protest tactics, since we agree on the overarching goal of police reform. But I've been attacked as a fake progressive because I don't share the most extreme left-wing view.

Tallisse describes that dynamic in a sophisticated fashion.

Isn't it ironic? The democrat's dilemma arises in cases where it seems to us that treating our opponents as our equals impedes justice. Yet this very stance winds up undermining our political objectives.

To see how this works, let's rehearse a familiar line of reasoning: We see the opposition as advocating policies that are out of step with what justice demands, and this leads us to conclude that sustaining democratic relations with them only gives them an undeserved political advantage.

It then strikes us that by suspending democracy with them, we improve the chances of achieving justice. Hence, our zeal for justice occasions the democrat's dilemma. It supplies a compelling rationale for the claim that we should indeed suspend democratic relations with out opponents.

But this reasoning is flawed. The very same zeal for justice that motivates us to suspend democracy with our foes also heightens our exposure to belief polarization, which leads us to overstate our opponent's vices and to inflate our reasons for regarding them as divested from democracy.

Moreover, we have seen that once we have disengaged from our opposition, belief polarization works to dismantle our capacity to recognize good-faith disagreement among our allies. Our political coalitions thus devolve, which also damages the prospects for achieving justice as we see it.

Passages like that caused me to rapidly read his book. I found his take on democracy and politics to be right-on. As befits a philosophy professor whose focus is research on democratic theory, Talisse writes about the perils of how we're going about democracy in a gripping fashion.

Often I felt like I was reading a thriller novel. The suspense was building. The book was convincing me that our democracy faces serious problems that go way beyond the current Democrat - Republican, Biden - Trump freakouts. 

I could hardly wait to read the final chapter on how democracy can be sustained in the face of those threats. 

Sadly, I felt letdown.

In the end, Talisse sounded too much like an armchair philosophy professor and too little like a practical saving-democracy warrior. I was hoping for ideas that could actually be implemented, ideally with support of both major political parties.

Instead, I got an inward-looking, contemplative, sit-back-and-ponder suggestion for how democracy can be sustained.

I have laid out a two-step proposal. First, we can manage belief polarization within ourselves by establishing practices and habits that keep us mindful of the vulnerability of our political views to reasonable criticism. This calls us to seek out and engage with ideas of our reasonable critics.

...Second, we must supplement our public political engagement with occasions of political reflection by creating forms of distance from the fray of partisan politics. We must make space for political reflection, imagination, and self-examination.

OK. Nothing wrong with those ideas. But they seem totally inadequate to fix our ailing democracy.

The hordes are attacking the castle of our democracy with flaming balls of tar and volleys of arrows. I just can't see how looking inward is sufficient to prevent the potential destruction of what we need to protect with all our might.

I mean, here we are with Trumpist Republicans (meaning, a clear majority of one of our two major political parties) wrongly believing that the free and fair 2020 presidential election actually was fixed and crooked, and that Trump actually beat Biden.

Now those Trumpists are busily constructing what amounts to a catapult-like scheme designed to lob dangerous projectiles into the 2022 and 2024 elections that's a serious threat to our democracy.

There's no way only but a few Republicans are going to engage in the sort of inward-looking political exercises Talisse views as the best bet to sustain democracy. The GOP is going all out to win elections at any cost, even if that cost is anti-democratic.

So Talisse has written the right book at the wrong time. While its analysis of the problem is great, its advice as to how to deal with democracy's problems in the United States isn't in tune with what really is going on.

In fact, Talisse comes close to admitting this when he states repeatedly in his book that there's no obligation to play nice with people who refuse to abide by democratic norms, civil behavior, and reasonableness. 

Hopefully at some point in the future Talisse's final chapter will make sense for a kinder and gentler American democracy. At present, it would be a disaster for citizens to do anything other than fight the Trumpist attempt to subvert our democracy with passionate vigor -- not inward-looking contemplation.

Difficult-to-hear truths in "Sustaining Democracy" book

I guess it was good timing.

Just as the fight in Washington D.C. over the Build Back Better bill and related bipartisan infrastructure bill hit a crescendo the past few days, I started reading a book by Robert Talisse, "Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side."

I'd learned about the book by hearing an interview with Talisse on the POTUS channel on satellite radio. Even though it's a rather spendy Oxford University Press hardcover, I liked what Talisse was saying. (He's a philosophy professor specializing in democratic theory.)

The book is aimed at a general audience, thankfully. 

I've only read the first two chapters, but that's enough to give me a decent feel for Talisse's central points, a few of which I'll try to summarize.

Since I'm a political junkie, I resonated with his observation that democracy can be undermined by people who actively participate in politics. That seems contradictory, but Talisse writes:

Democracy can be threatened from within by citizens who are taking the enterprise of self-government seriously and acting roughly, as they should. In a nutshell, some of democracy's ills are caused by citizens' sincere and earnest political activity. More democratic participation can't cure those ills. 

How can this be? Well, a basic problem is the democrat's dilemma, keeping in mind that Talisse is speaking about those who participate in a democracy, not big "D" Democrats.

That's the term I use to capture the tension between the moral requirement to recognize the equality of political opponents and the moral directive to pursue and promote political justice.

Hmmmm. Equality of political opponents.

As a proud progressive, initially those words rubbed me the wrong way. Why should I view Trumpists who wrongly consider that the 2020 election was stolen to be the equal of those of us in the reality-based community?

But as I read on into the book, I realized that Talisse is correct: democracy demands that those of us who participate in it view our opponents as equal.

As is commonly observed, in a democracy the government must treat its people as political equals, as properly citizens rather than merely its subjects. It is somewhat less frequently noted, however, that this requirement applies among citizens as well. 

As democratic citizens, we are required to recognize our fellow citizens as our political equals. They're to be regarded as equal partners in the collective project of self-government. Among other things, their equality means they do not merely get an equal say in political decision-making, but are entitled to one. 

Democracy demands that we acknowledge that entitlement.

This is tough to do, but it has to be done. It doesn't mean that storming the Capitol in an attempt to overturn Biden's victory has to be tolerated. When our opponents go too far in their political protesting, they have to be brought back in line. 

Furthermore, democracy never requires us to simply acquiesce in or accede to the views of our opposition; recognizing their equality is consistent with abhorring their political views.

So somehow we have to maintain our commitment to social justice, while accepting that our political opponents -- who may have a very different view of what that justice consists of -- are equally entitled to participate in our democracy. 

In other words, we have to strenuously resist the temptation to demonize our political opponents, as much as we may feel this is deserved. 

In a democracy, however, even though citizens are called upon to take responsibility for their government by standing up for justice as they see it, they must also recognize the political equality of those who would enact injustice. Such is the oddly conflicted moral stance that constitutes a central virtue of the democratic citizen.

Salem Police Department survey has problems, like the department

The Salem Police Department wants people to take a survey about the strategic plan being developed to guide how the department operates in coming years.

I completed the survey today. And I could have completed it over and over, for as long as I wanted, because the survey allows people to respond more than once to it.

This alone makes the value of the survey dubious. 

Letting people fill out the survey multiple times makes it vulnerable to vote manipulation by vested interests -- either pro-police or anti-police -- who want to skew the results in their favored direction. 

The survey was designed using Microsoft Office. I'm a Mac user, but it was easy for me to Google "microsoft office survey multiple" and find instructions about either allowing or disallowing multiple responses.

So this is one major problem with the survey. Those responding already were going to be people especially interested in the police department. Letting them fill out the survey as many times as they want makes the results even more questionable.

Another problem is that the survey is decidedly bureaucratic. The questions don't relate to the lived experience most people have with Salem police. It's sole focus is on dry descriptions of goals and objectives, which isn't what most people care about. 

Here's a screenshot of one question, which includes my response to it.

I used to design questionnaires and surveys back in my days as a health services planner/researcher. I got to be pretty good at it. This police department survey strikes me as poorly designed. It uses management language of goals and objectives even though as noted above, this isn't how ordinary people think about policing.

Further, this particular question is way too broad to provide useful feedback.

I said this objective was very important to me because how unsheltered (homeless) people are treated by police is very important to me. Otherwise, I don't think police should be much involved in traffic safety, since red light cameras and other automated means of detecting violations are more cost-effective.

As you can see from my response to the question, I also think police shouldn't respond to calls involving a mental health crisis or any other issue that could be handled better by non-police personnel. 

Today the Statesman Journal had a story about the survey, "Salem police chief wants input to improve the department, community trust." Unfortunately, Police Chief Trevor Womack comes across as already knowing what he wants the survey to show -- a need for more police officers.

The plan is being developed based on anindependent audit conducted earlier this year, community and staff input and the chief's philosophy. Womack said he emphasizes making "data-driven decisions," balanced with "community trust-building."

The results of the audit, approved by the Salem City Council and released in March, recommended hiring more officers to adequately address homelessness and mental health calls, and to better engage with youth and diverse populations.

Womack, who was sworn in as police chief in December, said the survey results weren't surprising as many of the department's shortcomings in community policing are due to lack of staffing. 

Well, hopefully the Salem City Council will base police department staffing decisions on the sort of "data-driven" approach Chief Womack claims he wants to use.

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke spoke clearly in a recent Facebook post about the need for a crisis team to be staffed by non-police officers. This Cahoots-style program could markedly reduce the call volume handled by the police department based on data from Eugene.

Another problem is that the Statesman Journal story repeats a claim that the Salem Police Department is seriously understaffed compared to other similarly-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest. I'm assuming that the reporter got these numbers from the police department, which appear to be wrong.

The department currently has 190 sworn officers for a population of 169,580 — about 1.1 officers per 1,000 people. In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people. 

Jim Scheppke, a retired state library director who knows how to research questions like this, sent me his response to the Statesman Journal reporter who wrote today's story about the police survey.

Ms. Barreda: I would like to request a correction to your article today about the Salem Police Department. This statement is inaccurate or at best misleading:

"In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people.”

And the general impression given by your article that the Salem Police Department is understaffed is just not true when you consider the entire staff and not just the sworn officers.

Attached is a spreadsheet with some tables that were derived from the latest data for 2019 collected by the FBI. There is a URL at the bottom of each table where you can go to verify the data if you wish.

The first table shows staffing for all Oregon cities with populations greater than 30,000. It is sorted by total employees per 1,000. It shows that only one other Oregon city had more police department employees per 1,000 than Salem did! It is true that many of these cities had more officers per 1,000 than Salem did, but Salem’s number is comparable to similar cities like Eugene and Corvallis and it is not that far off the average.

Another table widens the scope to cities between 100,000 and 200,000 in the Pacific Northwest. Again Salem has the second highest number of total employees per 1,000. The average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.21, not 1.6 as reported in your story, though I realize this is 2019 data and not 2018 data.

Another table widens the scope further to include cities up to 300,000 in the Pacific Northwest and again the average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.28. Here Salem has the third highest number of total employees per 1,000.

The last table is from 2018, with cities in the Pacific Northwest between 100,000 and 300,000. It shows the average number of officers to be 1.29 per 1,000.

The number you reported in your article may have included other cities, but I don’t see how an average of 1.6 officers per 1,000 could be accurate. 

My spreadsheet also includes two smaller tables side by side that compare staffing at the SPD and that at our public library. While the SPD has the highest total staffing per 1,000 of these cities in Oregon, our library has by far the lowest! 

The reality is that the Salem Police Department, while having a slightly lower than average number of officers per 1,000 in the Pacific Northwest (1.1 compared to 1.2 or 1.3), it has among the highest number of total staff per 1,000. Your readers should know this and not be left with the false impression that the Salem Police Department is understaffed.

 

Best, Jim

If Chief Womack or one of his staff was the source for the seemingly erroneous figure of 1.6 officers per 1000 population in cities comparable in size to Salem, Womack needs to explain where he got that figure, since it doesn't match up with the statistics cited by Jim Scheppke.

Homelessness is the top concern of Salem residents

Recently the City of Salem released the results of its 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey, which is conducted annually by contacting a random sample of about 400 residents.
Download City of Salem 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey - September 2021

Not surprisingly, city officials put a positive spin on the results in their Salem Connection email blurb.

Ah, note the mention of "core City services." It's true that most people, 70%, are satisfied with city services. But that's a big drop from the 86% satisfaction in 2020. Since Covid was with us in both years, the pandemic doesn't seem to be the reason for the decline in satisfaction.

Something else is. The report's authors note that satisfaction also is down in other Oregon cities and Oregon as a whole, but we don't know if there are special circumstances in Salem causing dissatisfaction.

That decline was across all city services (the water/sewer/stormwater plus 2 is within the 5% survey margin of error).

Thus it appears that Salem residents have become more cranky in general with how things are going in Salem. And a large percentage blame the City of Salem in whole or in part. The question asked was, "All in all, would you say things in Salem are headed in the right direction, or are things off on the wrong track?"

Almost two thirds, 65%, say "wrong track," up from just 41% in 2020. Those saying "right track" dropped from 38% in 2020 to 23% in 2021. 

The survey didn't ask whether citizens specifically blame, or credit, the City Council, Mayor, or City Manager Steve Powers and other city officials for the direction Salem is headed.

Regardless, 91% say that whichever track Salem is on, this is either mainly or partially because of actions the City of Salem has taken. This is close to the 90% who said this in 2020, the big difference being an increase in those who say "mainly because of actions the City has taken" -- up from 22% in 2020 to 34% in 2021.

Even more striking is that of the 65% who consider that Salem is on the wrong track, 40% percent say this is mainly the City's fault.

This means 26% of Salem residents think Salem is on the wrong track and actions of City officials are the main reason (.65 x .40). Only a small percentage overall, 7%, absolve the City, saying that the direction Salem is going is mainly because of circumstances outside the City's control.

So what is the main concern of Salem residents? Homelessness, by a big margin. The detailed result is more interesting than the summary discussed in the report.

You can see that concern about homelessness has steadily increased from 7% in 2016 to 58% in 2021. Of course, people have different reasons for this concern. Some feel compassion for the plight of homeless people. Others focus on the ugliness of homeless camps and their effect on surrounding neighborhoods, including crime.

Whatever the reason, homelessness is by far the first thing that people in Salem think about when asked what issue is most important for the City of Salem to do something about.

Covid is the #2 concern at 8%. After that no concern was the first mention of more than 4%, though if you add together "roads, potholes, infrastructure," "traffic congestion," and "additional bridge," it could be argued that roads are on the mind of 5% of the population.

But "additional bridge" got only 1%, four people out of 400. This shows that the frenzy over the Third Bridge has virtually disappeared after the City Council voted to kill the project several years ago.

Likewise, "police reform" got exactly zero mentions, following 3% in 2020 when Black Lives Matter protests were in full swing. This goes a long way toward explaining why the City Council's efforts at police reform have been decidedly minimal. It's a big concern to a small number of people, but is the top concern of very few, maybe none.

Of course, it would be nice to know the top three concerns, say, of those who took part in the survey. Still, it appears that in next year's races for City Council and Mayor, candidates would be wise to focus on homelessness and income equality/poverty.

And obviously even if few people (1%) mention "environment" as their top concern, this doesn't mean the City of Salem should downplay the Climate Action Plan currently being developed. Some issues demand attention because of their evident importance, no matter how many people have it as a #1 concern.

The same could be said for all of the issues below, really. Each has passionate advocates. That's what politics and community involvement is all about -- allowing everybody to speak out about what concerns them, then sorting out which issues deserve the most attention.

Planned Parenthood doesn't want counter-protests or protests at its health centers

Here in Salem, the so-called "The Church at Planned Parenthood - Salem OR" has been holding anti-abortion protests (which they call services) at the Planned Parenthood health center on Wolverine Street NE. 

I said so-called because Awakening Ministries is the group behind The Church at Planned Parenthood -- which basically is a national group that local churches can become a franchise of.

I'm an atheist who supports a woman's right to choose an abortion. So I strongly oppose what The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP) is trying to accomplish through its services/protests. 

However, that group has a right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, counter-protesters showed up at a TCAPP service where Proud Boys were present. Predictably, fights broke out between the Proud Boys and counter-protesters. 

I've been arguing on Facebook that counter-protesters should stay away from any gathering featuring the Proud Boys.

The Proud Boys enjoy fighting with liberal counter-protesters or antifa. So it makes no sense for counter-protesters to give the Proud Boys what they want by arming themselves with paint ball guns, baseball bats, spears, and other weapons also used by the Proud Boys. 

By and large I'm against counter-protests in general. Protesting should be positive. If a Salem group wants to protest anti-abortion laws in other states, great. Organize a protest. But don't give The Church at Planned Parenthood more publicity and exposure by counter-protesting.

This happens to be what Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette, the region that includes Salem's clinic, wants: no counter-protests. In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't even want any supportive protests at their health centers. See:

So hopefully people in Salem who want to support Planned Parenthood will do as Planned Parenthood asks and not engage in any additional protests or counter-protests at the local health center. 

It's bad enough when people using the health center have to make their way past a protest. It's worse when there's a battle going on between protesters and counter-protesters. 

Salem City Manager Steve Powers spoke about this in a memo that was shared on Facebook today. Powers said: 

The TCAPP group typically does not block sidewalks and remains peaceful. No reports have been received of persons being unable to access services at Planned Parenthood. Various groups have peacefully protested or gathered without permits near Planned Parenthood for years without the need for Salem Police involvement. The protests have escalated when large numbers of people join in support or to counter protest. The demonstrations become problematic when persons intent on harm join the crowd.