Salem Political Snark

City Council candidate Reid Sund is too right-wing for Ward 7

Residents of Ward 7 in south Salem will have a clear choice in the May 2020 primary election, when they'll vote on who should be their city councilor following the resignation of Sally Cook. 

Vanessa Nordyke, a progressive like Cook, was appointed recently by the City Council to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the rest of Cook's term, which runs until December 31, 2020. She will be on the May 2020 ballot.

Reid Sund, a conservative, has announced that he also is running to be the Ward 7 councilor. 

Since Ward 7 went for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 50 to 36 margin in the 2016 presidential election, Sund is facing an uphill battle to win hearts and minds in this progressive-leaning part of town.

Here's some information gleaned from Sund's Facebook feed and other sources that shows how right-wing and voting-apathetic he is.

Sund doesn't vote regularly.
Since 2016, Reid Sund has only bothered to vote four times. He did not vote in the Ward 7 City Councilor race in May, 2016, the position he now wants to hold.

He did not bother to vote on Ballot Measure 101 in January 2018 that funded Medicaid expansion even though he worked at Salem Health. He did not bother to vote in the bond election to fund a seismic upgrade of the Salem Public Library. He did not bother to vote in the most recent Salem-Keizer School Board election.

He voted in these elections:

November 6, 2016 General Election (President, Congress, State)
May 6, 2017 District Election (School Board, Police Station Bond)
May 15, 2018 Primary Election (County Commissioner, School Bond)
November 6, 2018 General Election (Governor, State, County Commissioner, Measures)

He did not vote in these elections:

May 17, 2016 Primary Election (City Council, County Commissioner, Primary)
November 7, 2017 Special Election (Library Bond Measure)
January 23, 2018 Statewide Election (Assessment to Fund Health Care)
May 21, 2019 Special District Election (School Board)

Sund doesn't want Salem to reduce carbon poilution via a Climate Action Plan.

The context for the following Facebook post is that the City Budget Committee Sund served on debated funding for a Climate Action Plan (it ultimately was funded for $50,000 thanks to Councilor Tom Andersen).

There was never a suggestion that the funding be taken from the Salem Police Department, so Sund talked nonsense when he claimed the choice was between funding police or climate action. 

Sund favored the unsuccessful 2019 effort to recall Governor Kate Brown. The recall attempt was based on Brown's support of legislation that Republicans didn't like, not on any wrongdoing by Brown.


Sund supported the 2019 walkout of Republicans in the state Senate. The Republicans staged the walkout to block passage of legislation aimed at increasing clean energy jobs in Oregon, and reducing carbon pollution.

Sund was against more money for Oregon schools.

Sund supported the controversial relocation of Costco. The Costco development was opposed by the South Gateway Neighborhood Association and most members of the City Council.

On a lighter note... Reid Sund does take his Facebook middle name seriously. Or at least, seriously enough to wear a way-cool halfway-husked corn outfit. 

Good election night for Dems. Now, let's turn Salem more progressive.

Ah, the sweet smell of Democratic election victories has temporarily banished the stench of Trump's disastrous presidency from my political nostrils.

It looks like Kentucky has chosen a Democrat, Andy Beshear, to be the next Governor. Yes, Kentucky, where Trump won by 30 points in 2016, and where Trump campaigned last night for the Republican incumbent, Matt Bevin.

Sweet! 

Of course, I'm confident Trump will claim that if he hadn't supported Bevin, the race wouldn't have been as close as it was, with Beshear on top by about 5,000 votes. But no matter how Republicans spin the Kentucky outcome, it's still a notable win for Democrats.

I'm also thrilled that for the first time in 26 years, Democrats control Virginia -- Governor plus majorities in both the state House and Senate. So says this Washington Post graphic.

What's cool is that Democrats pulled off control of the Virginia state legislature with district maps drawn by Republicans in 2011. Now that Dems control redistricting, they will be able to do the map drawing after the 2020 census. Which should turn Virginia even more blue.

On the down side, Mississippi looks like it will elect a Republican governor. But that is just a minor blemish on some really encouraging news for Democrats. The swing of suburbs into the Democratic camp that was evident in the 2018 midterms seems to have continued into 2019.

Now us progressives have to keep the momentum going into 2020.

Locally, it isn't too early to start focusing on the prospect of progressives at least maintaining their 6-3 majority on the Salem City Council, and hopefully increasing it.

Trevor Phillips, an Emergency Room physician, has announced that he is running for the Ward 3 council seat currently occupied by a conservative, Brad Nanke, who isn't running again. Give his Facebook page a "like" so you can stay informed on the progress of the Phillips campaign. 

Here's why he is running.

Vanessa Nordyke is the progressive choice in the Ward 7 race.

She recently was chosen by the City Council to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the rest of Sally Cook's term, which ends on December 31, 2020. In the May 2020 election Nordyke will face a conservative opponent, so we need to work to make sure Nordyke is able to serve Salem for a full four-year term.

Check out her web site. Nordyke's background is hugely impressive. 

Vanessa Nordyke is a third-generation Salem lawyer and a Senior Assistant Attorney General at the Oregon Department of Justice.

Vanessa’s dedication to Salem goes back to her teens, with work on issues like homelessness, veterans, mental health and more. Vanessa has served on a quartet of City of Salem boards: the City of Salem Youth Advisory Commission, Social Services Advisory Board, Community Police Review Board, and the Citizen Budget Committee. She co-founded the Marion County Veterans Treatment Court. She co-captained a mock trial team of Latinx students through the Salem-Keizer Coalition for Equality.

In 2018, Vanessa made history as the youngest ever-elected President of the Oregon State Bar, a unified bar of approximately 19,000 lawyers and judges statewide. As President, Vanessa spearheaded a statewide mental health initiative for the Oregon legal community. Her passion for destigmatizing mental illness led Vanessa to develop and conduct mental health trainings all over the state. After completing her OSB presidency, Vanessa resumed her focus on Salem by joining the YMCA Board of Directors and KMUZ Community Radio’s Advisory Council.

Vanessa is a proud graduate of South Salem High School, Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and University of Oregon School of Law. She is the recipient of Oregon DOJ's Excellence in Justice Award, the Marion County Bar Association’s Government Lawyer of the Year, Outstanding Mentor Award from Willamette University College of Law, and the University of Oregon School of Law’s Outstanding Young Alumnus Award.

Vanessa is a proud dogmom and loves karaoke, traveling, cooking, and the great outdoors.

City Manager Steve Powers spouts more falsehoods, which I easily demolished

The more I communicate with City Manager Steve Powers about the truth of what happened with the highly controversial selection of a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church to serve as a temporary public library (the church denies basic LGBTQ rights), the more Powers comes across as sort of a Donald Trump wanna-be.

Meaning, Powers keeps doubling down on his false statements, even when I present indisputable facts that contradict what Powers is saying.

This should bother the Mayor, City Council, and other citizens. A lot. 

Why? Because the City Manager is the top non-elected official for the City of Salem. As I said in a previous post, it's a big deal when the City Manager and other city staff can't be trusted to speak the truth. And pretty clearly, they can't. At least, not always.

After I wrote a blog post called "City Manager Steve Powers makes false statements about temporary library location," I got an email from Powers that contained more false statements. You can read what Powers said below. First, though, I'm sharing my reply to Powers that I sent to him on October 30.

I haven't gotten a reply yet, so I'm assuming that Powers doesn't have any facts to back up his false assertions.

Though I'm winning this Truth Battle, I don't take any pleasure in my victory. I'd much rather have our local public officials (1) tell the truth, and (2) be able to back up their statements when people like me call them out on a falsehood.

We already have a president who lies incessantly. I'm not saying that City Manager Powers is in the same league as Donald Trump, but Powers does seem very unwilling to admit when he's wrong -- which isn't a good quality for a public official.

Here's my response to Powers, which, again, has been unchallenged so far.

Steve, I’ve reviewed 1,245 pages of public records related to this issue. And...

I’ve listened to recordings of most of three Library Renovation council subcommittee meetings. i’ve spoken three times with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. I’ve gotten answers from Norm Wright to questions about how City officials assessed Liberty Plaza. I’ve heard from Jim Scheppke, the State Librarian for 20 years, on how he judged the suitability of Liberty Plaza for a temporary library.

But maybe you are in possession of facts that haven’t been made public. So send me the documentation if you consider that any of the following facts in my possession are wrong.

(1) City officials never prepared a total budget showing how the $957,000 total relocation budget would be spent — meaning with breakdowns between lease costs, temporary improvements, moving costs, and such. This wasn’t done for Capital Press and it wasn’t done for Liberty Plaza. Thus there is no documentation showing that the cost of leasing Liberty Plaza would have exceeded the $957,000 budget.

(2) City officials were aware that the Human Rights Commission had called for another location other than Capital Press be chosen, even if the alternative location cost more and wasn’t as operationally efficient.

(3) City officials, notably library director Sara Strahl, said they were looking forward to not spending all of the relocation budget so the unspent money could be used for other library needs. Thus these officials were largely focused on cost, not the valid concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission about many supporters of LGBTQ rights not being willing to use the library if it was housed in space leased by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church.

(4) City officials didn’t prepare an estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.

(5) City officials knew that Liberty Plaza and Capital Press received equal ratings on the four criteria used to assess the suitability of possible locations for a temporary library.

(6) City officials never engaged in serious discussions with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. Because this didn’t happen, City officials failed to learn what I did from a phone conversation with Randazzo. Namely, that the owner of Liberty Plaza was willing to negotiate the lease cost per square foot, and a flexible amount of space was available on other floors that didn’t require leasing of the entire first and second floors, as City staff wrongly assumed in a cost estimate for Liberty Plaza.

(7) City officials never asked the Library Advisory Board to express an opinion about which location should be used for a temporary library, as appears to be required by a city ordinance.

(8) The relocation of the library will not happen until February of next year, based on what I’ve been told by someone who learned this from a Library Advisory Board member. So there was plenty of time for temporary improvements to be made to Liberty Plaza. To repeat, though, no estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza ever was prepared, so there is no way to know how long making the improvements would have taken, since City officials never documented what improvements needed to be made.

I look forward to hearing from you if you can document that any of the eight facts I’ve listed above are wrong.

This is a productive discussion, because getting at the truth of the search for a temporary library means a lot to supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem. This morning I heard from someone who was deeply grateful that I got the public records and have been reporting on what actually happened, in contrast to how City officials “spun” what happened.

       — Brian
***************************

Here's what City Manager Powers sent to me, also on October 30. I've added some commentary in red that is based on the facts shared above in my response to Powers.

 

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

Mr. Hines,

I am writing to correct your assertion that I have made false statements.  In response to your repeated statements of opinion, please consider: 

(1) As cited by you in your Oct. 22 post, the total cost per SF for Liberty Plaza is 40% higher than Capital Press.

Yes. So? As noted above, the Human Rights Commission said that a location other than the church-owned Capital Press building should be chosen even if it cost more. The question isn't whether Liberty Plaza cost more than Capital Press, but whether it was a feasible alternative location, which it sure seemed to be.

(2) You compare the total lease cost between buildings by assuming the exact same amount of space leased in each. You base this on after-the-fact communication with the leasing agent that additional flexible space was available above or below the main floor.

If City of Salem staff had picked up the phone and talked with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, as I did, they could have easily had a "before the fact" communication. Instead, those staff made a rush to judgement that the church-owned building should serve as a temporary library without bothering to take a close look at Liberty Plaza and likely other locations.

(3) While technically possible, making modifications to carve out that extra space would have added to the cost and time necessary to prepare the building for library use.

As I said above, City staff never came up with a list of the temporary improvements that would need to be made to Liberty Plaza, nor did they prepare an estimate of the cost of these improvements. The Capital Press building also needed temporary improvements that were estimated to cost $264,704. That's a big expense, and the improvements will take time to construct, so why was it OK to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare the church-owned building for library use, but not OK to do the same for Liberty Plaza?

(4) You suggest that the owners could have been made responsible for those improvement costs.  The owners of Liberty Plaza communicated their intent to sell the building. While willing to work with the City,  it was evident that the owners, or any building owner, would be unlikely to pay for substantial tenant improvement renovations, especially since the City was interested in only a short-term lease.

I never suggested the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to pay for the temporary improvements. What I said is the truth: the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to negotiate the cost of leasing space for a temporary library, but City staff never engaged in those negotiations.

(5) Another factor to consider is schedule. The amount of work required (regardless of the cost) would have been difficult to complete in time to get space ready and complete the move from the Main Library. The risk of delaying bond project construction is a significant factor and was another point in favor of Capital Press. Capital Press required much less work to get ready.

To repeat, City staff never produced a list of needed temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza, nor a budget for those improvements, so obviously they had no idea how long it would take to make the improvements. Further, like I said above, apparently the new date for having the library in a temporary location is February 2020, so there was plenty of time to make temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.

(6) Even if the City were able to create the same amount of space as Capital Press with an equal amount of improvement cost within the required schedule, the cost would still be 40% more. Even in this very best case, the added cost comes to about $164,000.  There are many other expenses in the temporary relocation besides the lease. There is not room in the temporary relocation budget for an additional $164,000.

As noted above, City staff never prepared a total budget for all of the costs associated with a temporary library location. All that existed was a total budget of $957,000. So City staff couldn't know whether there was room in the budget for an extra $164,000, since nothing in the documents I received via my public records request backs up this assertion. 

Steve Powers
City Manager
City of Salem|Mayor/City Manager’s Office

Steve Powers

City Manager Steve Powers makes false statements about temporary library location

Well, I've got to give Salem City Manager Steve Powers high marks for one thing: consistency. Meaning, he consistently spouts falsehoods.

Steve Powers

After he and his staff misled the City Council and other citizens about the church-owned Capital Press building being the only feasible location for a temporary public library, I got an email message from Powers that contained more false statements about this debacle.

Because we here at the world headquarters of Salem Political Snark value truth-telling, and consider that not being able to trust City of Salem staff is a big deal, I'm calling out Steve Powers on his continued commitment to spreading falsehoods about this controversial issue.

Look, I spent $844.85 on a public records request that resulted in City officials sending me 1,245 pages of documents related to the selection of a location for a temporary library. I know for a fact that City Manager Powers isn't telling the truth. 

Read on for the proof. My truthful responses to what Powers says are in red.

Mr. Hines,

Thank you for your continued interest in the temporary location for the Salem Public Library.

Hey, you're welcome. My interest is going to continue until you and other City officials stop spreading untruths about this issue.

Please be assured that city staff are committed to providing complete and accurate information to City Council and the public.

Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm not at all assured that city staff are committed to this.

Bond proceeds can only be spent on the retrofit and improvements to the Salem Library building. This restriction limits the funding available for the relocation and temporary location.

Untrue. Somehow the City of Salem finds money for other pet projects that go over budget, like the new Police Station. There were other sources of money than the general fund for the relocation budget, as noted before. Here's what Jim Scheppke, the former State Librarian, had to say about this.

"As for cost, it might have cost more to lease Liberty Plaza, but if I were the library director I would have immediately thought of both the Library Foundation and the Library Advisory Board, both of which control pretty substantial funds. I think one or both of them could have stepped up to cover the increased costs. It appears they weren’t even asked. What are they there for if not to assist with things like this?"

Liberty Plaza would have taken most, if not all, the money reserved for everything that goes into the library move.

There's no evidence of this in the public records I've obtained. City officials never seriously negotiated with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, who was open to lowering the cost of a lease. City officials also never estimated the cost of temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza.

And they didn't discuss with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent available options for adding about 3,000 square feet to the first floor space to make the total equivalent to the Capital Press space. Instead they wrongly assumed the entire second floor would have to be leased as well. So there's no way City of Salem staff can say that Liberty Plaza would have taken the entire $957,000 budgeted for a temporary library.  

The almost $1 million budgeted for relocation must cover the cost of moving and storage, lease and tenant Improvements, space design, IT infrastructure, and all the pieces that go into setting up a vital, full-access library.  

OK, so why didn't City officials allow the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, who I've talked with three times, to respond to a RFP (request for proposals) along with representatives of other buildings that could serve as a temporary library? Again, there is zero documentation in the public records I got that the costs and benefits of leasing Liberty Plaza were ever seriously examined.

City Council, especially the seismic subcommittee, was informed about the challenges the City was having with locations and why cost was the major factor in the Broadway site building ending up as the one real option.  

Wow. This statement is a slap in the fact to the LGBTQ community in Salem.

After listening to a pitch from City officials about how wonderful it would be to have a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church serve as a temporary library, the Human Rights Commission unanimously approved a statement saying that because the church rejects LGBTQ rights, another location should be found even if it costs more and is less operationally efficient.

So City Manager Powers is admitting that city staff paid no attention to the Human Rights Commission, even though it is a City of Salem agency.

Also, the subcommittee had laid out criteria for what they wanted in a temporary location.

True. What Steve Powers fails to mention is that Capital Press and Liberty Plaza were rated equally highly on those criteria, 21 points each. Another potential location received an even higher mark, 22. Yet only the church-owned building got serious attention from city staff. I know, because I have the public records that prove this.

Locations and site criteria were discussed in public and at recorded meetings with audio anyone can access. 

No written minutes were made of the subcommittee meetings. Audio recordings were difficult to find and access. I listened to three of the audio recordings, each of which was over an hour long, because I cared a lot about this issue. I don't recall any genuine public discussions. As noted before, City officials failed to consult the Library Advisory Board about where a temporary library should be located, even though this appears to be required by a city ordinance. 

The space chosen met most of the criteria for the temporary library location. City staff continued vetting alternate locations up to the day of the City Council vote on the lease; nothing better was found.

Most of the criteria? Again, the Capital Press building was viewed as equal to Liberty Plaza on the criteria, and was rated lower than another location. No RFP was issued for a temporary library lease.

Instead, city staff assessed possible locations in a decidedly unorganized fashion. There was no documentation of the pros and cons of certain highly-ranked sites, such as Liberty Plaza, so there's no evidence that Capital Press actually was the best location. 

The Library and the City Human Rights Commission are working together to ensure the temporary location will be welcoming and inclusive to all.

What a joke.

The Human Rights Commission statement said that some members of the LGBTQ community, along with people who support LGBTQ rights, won't use the temporary library because they don't feel comfortable with the City of Salem using taxpayer dollars to lease space from a church that considers LGBTQ people to be second-class citizens.

The Capital Press building can't be "welcoming and inclusive to all" for that reason. It doesn't matter what library staff do.

I hope this is helpful information for you. Thanks again for your interest in the City.

Actually, the information wasn't very helpful, being so inaccurate.

However, it was helpful in one regard: this message from Steve Powers provided good material for another blog post critical of how the City officials mismanaged the search for a temporary library location.

And there's more to come! I plan to discuss in an upcoming post the public records that showed a disturbing coziness between staff of the Salem Alliance Church and City officials.

Steve Powers
City Manager
City of Salem|Mayor/City Manager’s Office

Why not being able to trust City of Salem staff is a big deal

So what's the big deal about City of Salem staff misleading the City Council and citizens, as I wrote about yesterday in "City officials misled citizens about temporary library location"? That post started out this way:

The key thing I wanted to learn from a City of Salem public records request that ended up costing me $844.85 was whether City officials were telling the truth when they said this in a staff report for the July 22, 2019 City Council meeting.

"The former Capital Press building (Site) at 1400-1440 Broadway Street NE  (corner of Hood and Broadway) is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

"Best and only option." NOT TRUE. This is decidedly disturbing for those of us who value transparency and honesty in our public servants.

Well, this is a big deal not just because City officials wrongly claimed that the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church was the only option for a temporary library, even though the Salem Human Rights Commission urged those officials to find another location even if it cost more and was less operationally efficient, because the church denies fundamental LGBTQ rights, and many supporters of those rights said they wouldn't use the library while it was being leased from an organization that is gay-unfriendly.

Yes, people are entirely justified in being angry at how City of Salem staff selectively pushed forward facts that supported their desire to use the Capital Press building, while hiding facts that showed other locations were viable possibilities.

I learned the truth about the deception by City officials because (1) I followed this issue closely from the beginning; (2) I was willing to pay a lot of money for public records related to the search for a temporary library location; and (3) I had the time and inclination to ask questions of City staff and commercial realtors.

All that shouldn't be necessary. Our taxpayer-funded public servants should live up to their job description: serve the public! 

Which includes being straightforward, honest, and transparent about policy issues that come before the City Council. This is a must for several reasons, including the fact that Salem's Mayor and city councilors are volunteers with no staff of their own.

They rely on City of Salem staff reports to provide them with sound factual information needed to make wise votes on matters that come before the City Council. When City officials fail to do that, they're using their position of power and influence in a decidedly unseemly manner.

As noted in my first blog post about this issue, City staff knew that choosing the church-owned building for a temporary library was highly controversial. They knew that the Human Rights Commission had voted unanimously to approve a statement urging that another location be found. They knew that some members of the LGBTQ community wouldn't use the public library if it was housed in the church-owned building.

So the situation called for a staff report that openly addressed the controversy, shared factual data about the pros and cons of various locations that could serve as a temporary library, and laid out options for the City Council to discuss, debate, and ultimately vote on.

None of that happened. Instead, City of Salem staff issued a self-serving staff report that wrongly claimed the Capital Press building was the only option. Some people will choose to call this a falsehood. I call it a lie.

That matters, because the agenda for just about every City Council meeting contains staff reports.

Now that we know the staff report for the Capital Press lease failed to present cogent facts that were known to City officials, but were held back because those facts didn't support the option favored by City of Salem staff, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to trust future staff reports about other issues.

I realize that City officials have feelings, preferences, desires, wishes -- just as we all do.

I listened to audio recordings of the City Council's Library Renovation Subcommittee. Several times I heard Sarah Strahl, the library director, say that she really hoped not all of the funds in the $957,000 relocation budget would be spent, so the library could use the savings for other needs.

Fine. That sentiment could have been shared in a staff report. But that desire by Strahl and others shouldn't have driven the hiding of facts about alternatives to the Capital Press building, since the Human Rights Commission had said that another location should be selected even if it cost more.

I also heard Councilor Jim Lewis say that he didn't like Liberty Plaza because he believes people avoid parking garages. And I heard another person say at a subcommittee meeting that he didn't like another building on Broadway because it was so close to the Keizer city limits.

Also fine. Put those sentiments in a staff report too, if they were part of the reasons for not preferring one of the alternative locations for a temporary library. But don't play games with the City Council and citizenry.

City of Salem staff have the power to hide facts that don't fit with what they want to see happen. That's what happened in this case. It shouldn't happen again. In Washington D.C. we're seeing what occurs when government officials feel they have the right to do whatever they want to do.

Actually, they don't. Legally and ethically, public officials here in Salem, as elsewhere, should act as agents of the public interest. They need to submerge their personal desires in pursuit of a higher good.

I'll end by sharing a highly cogent message that I got from Jim Scheppke, who served as the State Librarian for 20 years and is an avid library supporter.

He believes Liberty Plaza was a fine alternative to the Capital Press building, and points out that City staff failed to get a recommendation from the Library Advisory Board regarding the location of a temporary library, as appears to be required by a city ordinance.

Here's what Scheppke said:

My overall assessment is that the Council Subcommittee and library management did a poor job of site selection.

 

I think the “Temporary Space Selection Criteria” scores are pretty damning. It sounds like they never really checked out “tenant improvements” for Liberty Plaza and the lower score was just a guess. I might have scored Liberty Plaza higher than Capital Press. I think it is a much better location with much better parking and would have attracted greater use than will be the case with the Capital Press location.

 

As for cost, it might have cost more to lease Liberty Plaza, but if I were the library director I would have immediately thought of both the Library Foundation and the Library Advisory Board, both of which control pretty substantial funds. I think one or both of them could have stepped up to cover the increased costs. It appears they weren’t even asked. What are they there for if not to assist with things like this?

 

Finally, the selection of the Capital Press building was not done in accordance with the Salem Revised Code:

 

 

The question of the “location of library facilities” was never taken to the LAB as the SRC requires. Whether through ignorance of the SRC requirements for the decision or willful disregard, the law was not followed.

 

The City might argue that because the LAB was represented on the Council Subcommittee by Lois Stark that this satisfied the requirements of SRC 18.050(d) but that is obviously a weak argument. The recommendation to lease Capital Press should have gone to the LAB for a vote and a recommendation to the City Council. This did not happen.

 

There is a long and impressive history of libraries standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libraries_and_the_LGBTQ_community

 

In Oregon, librarians were in the forefront of the battles against the Oregon Citizens Alliance. We led a march through downtown Portland to protest Measure 9 which would have forced a purge of books dealing with homosexuality from Oregon libraries. That was one of the proudest moments of my career. I marched with my family next to Michael Powell of Powell’s Books. We chanted “Rally for the Right to Read — No on 9, No on 9.” 

 

It was very common back then for people to demand that library books dealing with homosexuality be removed from libraries. This one was often challenged …

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy%27s_Roommate

 

One time a patron of the Deschutes Public Library did a catalog search on the subject of “homosexuality” and printed out the results (a hundred or so titles as I recall) and demanded of the County Commissioners that all the books be removed (it didn’t happen but it caused a big uproar).

 

As State Librarian I was often called upon by the media to defend the need for public libraries to have collections and services to serve the LGBTQ community (not what it was called back then).

 

So I am appalled that so little consideration was given to the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission in the rush to lease the Capital Press building. I still believe it was a decision that will do long-term damage to the Salem Public Library — a library that already has lots of problems and short-comings.

 

Jim

City officials misled citizens about temporary library location

The key thing I wanted to learn from a City of Salem public records request that ended up costing me $844.85 was whether City officials were telling the truth when they said this in a staff report for the July 22, 2019 City Council meeting.

The former Capital Press building (Site) at 1400-1440 Broadway Street NE  (corner of Hood and Broadway) is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria.

"Best and only option." NOT TRUE. This is decidedly disturbing for those of us who value transparency and honesty in our public servants.

I'll explain why I reached this conclusion after briefly describing why choosing the former Capital Press building for a temporary public library was so controversial. 

The Salem Public Library is being renovated following the passage of a bond measure in November 2017. For about 18 to 24 months, a temporary library location needed to be found that will house a much reduced collection.

Out of all the buildings in our city of over 170,000 people, City officials settled on the Capital Press building that is owned by the Salem Alliance Church and is part of the church's "campus" on Broadway street north of downtown.

This choice was vociferously opposed by the Salem Human Rights Commission and other supporters of LGBTQ rights, because the Salem Alliance Church is notoriously gay-unfriendly and reportedly discriminates against gay people.

The church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The lead pastor, Steve Fowler, has made clear how the Salem Alliance Church feels.

And you will never find in the scriptures any positive pictures of a same sex union. It just isn’t there... Any kind of sexual activity outside of a marriage with a male and a female, this is something we should not be engaged in... What God is saying is that if you’re engaged in same-sex sex, if you’re using a same-sex relationship in that way, you also need to run, you also need to book it.

So the Human Rights Commission understandably wasn't thrilled, to say the least, about taxpayer money being used to lease the church-owned Capital Press building for a temporary library. The Commission voted unanimously to approve a statement that called for another location to be chosen, if at all possible.

That statement said in part:

The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library. The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

...The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations.

Thus the main question I wanted to answer from the 1,245 pages of public records I got from the City of Salem was whether it really was true that the Capital Press building was the "only adequate property available for the Library relocation."

What I learned was what I'd already strongly suspected. City officials misled both the City Council and citizens in general about viable alternative locations for a temporary library. 

Even before I got the public records, I'd written a July 30 blog post, "Liberty Plaza is a viable alternative to a LGBTQ-unfriendly temporary library building." Excerpt: 

City officials claimed in a staff report that the church-owned building "is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

Almost certainly that statement is wrong, for reasons I'll describe below.

I don't blame the City Council for trusting the staff report. I blame Steve Powers, the City Manager, and Kristin Retherford, the Urban Development Director, for affixing their names to what sure seems to be a misleading staff report, at best, and a purposely deceptive staff report, at worst.

Given the facts that I'm sharing below, I stand by that view.

City officials were both misleading and purposely deceptive, because they didn't provide some highly pertinent information to the City Council and citizens about downtown's Liberty Plaza -- and possibly other buildings that could have served as a temporary library location.

Fact One. Liberty Plaza was rated by City staff as highly as Capital Press on the criteria used to assess potential sites for a temporary library.

Capital Press and Liberty Plaza each got 21 points on the four selection criteria: Tenant Improvements needed (TI), Operations Efficiency, Quality of Service, and Access.

Capital Press got an extra point for needing less Tenant Improvements. Liberty Plaza got an extra point for access, being right next to a city-owed parking garage with a covered walkway leading directly into the building. The two buildings tied on Operations Efficiency and Quality of Service.

Thus when the Human Rights Commission said that an alternative location to Capital Press should be found even if it was not as ideal in terms of operations, Liberty Plaza was equal to Capital Press in this regard. So that wasn't a reason for it not being chosen.

Fact Two. The lease cost for Liberty Plaza was higher than for Capital Press, but still within the relocation budget.

The library relocation budget was $957,000. This was to cover the cost of a lease, temporary improvements, and moving to the temporary location. Of course, City officials had some latitude to increase the budget as needed. 

As shown in the slide above, the Capital Press monthly lease cost per square foot was $1.37, while the Liberty Plaza cost was $1.92, 40% higher. However, the total cost shown in the slide is misleading, because the Capital Press building has only 16,560 square feet, while Liberty Plaza is shown as having 24,309 square feet.

When I listened to an audio recording of the May 2019 meeting of the City Council's Library Relocation Subcommittee (no written minutes exist), Councilor Chris Hoy expressed considerable concern that Capital Press was too small for a temporary library. He urged City staff to keep looking for other locations.

So it isn't true that City officials viewed the church-owned building as a "slam dunk" temporary library. In addition to worrying about the size of Capital Press, the Subcommittee spent considerable time fretting about the downside of housing Salem's public library in a building owned by a church that rejects LGBTQ rights. 

Again, the Human Rights Commission called for another location to be chosen even if it cost more and was less ideal operationally. We've already seen that Liberty Plaza was viewed by City officials as being equal to Capital Press in terms of operations.

Let's take a closer look at cost.

Fact Three. City officials failed to disclose the true cost of leasing space at Liberty Plaza. I know this, because I engaged in an exchange of emails with Norman Wright, the Community Development Director for the City of Salem.

I'd seen from the public records I got that Wright was involved in selecting a temporary library location, so I asked him why Liberty Plaza was excluded from consideration, since the public records didn't contain any reason for this, other than a pithy "Expensive and didn't meet the criteria."

Well, Liberty Plaza did meet the criteria, as noted above. So that part of the pithy explanation was false. That got me to wondering how expensive Liberty Plaza actually was.

It turns out that City officials significantly overstated the cost of Liberty Plaza in the slide above, because they assumed that the entire second floor of Liberty Plaza would need to be leased in order to have a suitably sized temporary library.

But as shown in the screenshot below, in addition to 13,309 square feet on the first floor, Liberty Plaza had spaces available in the basement, second floor, and third floor. I have no idea why City officials wrongly claimed that the entire second floor would need to be leased, but this wasn't true.

I know this, because I talked by phone with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo.

He told me that there was flexible space available on the second floor, so another 3,000 square feet or so could have been added to the 13,309 square feet on the first floor, which would have approximated the 16,560 square feet in the Capital Press building.

Assuming the same square footage had been leased at Liberty Plaza, the monthly lease cost would have been $31,795, or $572,310 for an 18-month lease. Recall that the total temporary library budget was $957,000. It sure seems that Liberty Plaza was feasible, cost-wise. (City officials never estimated the cost of temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza.)

Yet Randazzo told me that City officials didn't speak with him in a serious fashion about Liberty Plaza. He was eager to work with them. Concerns about the non-functioning escalator could have been addressed. The lease cost was up for negotiation. Restrooms shouldn't have been a concern.

Which gets me to...

Fact Four. No formal Request for Proposals (RFP) was made by the City of Salem. Randazzo told me that based on his extensive experience in commercial real estate, he was surprised that City officials failed to issue a RFP for temporary library space here in Salem. 

Instead, the public records I got showed a rather haphazard approach to locating and assessing possible locations. City staff would hear about this or that possibility, then discuss who should be involved in scouting it out. 

Not very professional, for sure. 

It was clear that Liberty Plaza was one of the top three locations considered by City officials for a temporary library. Randazzo said that after coming up with several viable options for leased space, typically a government agency would make a final request to the prime candidates who responded to a RFP.

Agency staff would talk to each of them another time and ask for a re-bid. However, that never happened with Liberty Plaza. It seems that an informal "rush to judgement," as the saying goes, was made by a small number of City officials who favored the church-owned Capital Press building.

This calls into question the exceedingly brief assessments of alternative locations shown in the image above.

City officials knew how controversial the Capital Press building was, since a neighborhood boycott of the Broadway Commons had been publicized given the discriminatory attitude of the Salem Alliance Church toward LGBTQ people.

Yet there was no systematic approach to assessing locations for a temporary library. There's very little information in the 1,245 pages of documents I got from my public records request about why certain locations were favored over others.

Again, this reflects the puzzling absence of a RFP for leased space to house a temporary library. 

We've seen that when City officials dismissed Liberty Plaza in the slide above with "Expensive and didn't meet the criteria," this was a false statement. Which is a polite way of saying, a lie. Liberty Plaza did meet the criteria, and the cost of leasing space at Liberty Plaza appeared to fall within the library relocation budget.

So the many people in Salem and elsewhere who supported the Human Rights Commission call for a location to be selected other than the Capital Press building, even if that alternative site cost more and wasn't as operationally efficient, have good reason to be upset at how City officials mismanaged the search for a place to house a temporary public library.

They didn't inform the City Council, nor the public, that the church-owned building wasn't the only viable location. Instead, City of Salem staff misled people by wrongly claiming that no alternative to Capital Press existed.

My strong suspicion, which borders on a certainty, is that this was done because the Human Rights Commission statement contained these two sentences, as previously shared above.

Locating the Library at the proposed site will result in a Library that some members of the community, not only the LGBTQ, will not be willing to visit, and will negatively impact the Library’s mission.

The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

It's deeply irritating that City officials told the Human Rights Commission that the church-owned Capital Press building was the "only adequate property available for the Library relocation." This was a falsehood, a lie.

I've shown how those officials deceived the City Council and concerned citizens by both failing to present information on alternatives such as Liberty Plaza, and by failing to conduct an in-depth professional assessment of alternative sites.

There's more to say about this issue, and I'll address other topics in future blog posts.

What's highly concerning to me is how City of Salem staff failed to present pertinent facts to the public, choosing instead to put out a misleading staff report on the Capital Press building that claimed the church-owned building was the only feasible location for a temporary library, ignoring the significant drawback of housing a public library in a building owned by an organization that denies fundamental LGBTQ rights.

Since City officials put out falsehoods in this case, how much can they be trusted on other issues? I'll address that question in my next blog post.

Place your City Council bets on Sally Cook's replacement

OK, so far as I know there's no betting odds on who will be chosen to replace Sally Cook on the Salem City Council. 

But it's still entertaining to make predictions.

Twelve people applied to be appointed to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the remainder of Cook's term, which ends on December 31, 2020. One person dropped out, which left eleven.

According to a City of Salem staff report, on October 10 the Board and Commission Appointments Committee met to discuss the applicants. They chose three to be interviewed at a special meeting of the City Council on October 21, a week from today.

Then the council will vote on who becomes the Ward 7 councilor, which will obviously give that person an advantage if they choose to run for a full term in the May 2020 primary election that usually determines City Council elections.

(If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, they win outright, making the "primary" the final election.)

Here's my take on the three finalists, ordering them in terms of their likelihood to be chosen by the current eight-member City Council.

Reid Sund -- 10% chance. Sund has several things working against him, so likely I'm being generous in giving him 1 in 10 odds of being appointed to Cook's seat. 

(1) Soon after Cook announced she was resigning following her husband's untimely death, Sund announced he would run for the Ward 7 seat. This probably hurts rather than helps his chance of being appointed on October 21, since he has already said he plans to be on the ballot in May 2020.

(2) Sund appears to be the most conservative of the three finalists. Given the City Council's 5-3 progressive/conservative split at the moment, with Cook's seat vacant, he doesn't seem to be the person the progressives will want to replace Cook, who is a progressive.

(3) He's a man. I've got nothing against men, being one myself, but with only two women on the Council at the moment, choosing a man to replace Cook would be problematic.

(4) He didn't put a whole lot of effort into his application for the appointment. His answer to question #8 about the most important issues facing Salem was weak.

Bonnie Heitsch -- 40% chance. Heitsch is a woman. She's about to retire from being an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice, where she represented the Department of Transportation for 20 years. The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger liked what she said in her application about getting around in Salem.

Indeed, Heitsch had some appealing ideas.

Providing transportation alternatives including improved transit and improving walking connections and reconsideration of some land use patterns. I am pleased to see that Salem Transit has restored Saturday and evening bus service with the enactment of the payroll tax. But additional planning actions may be able to support options to walk and bike to essential services and destinations. School children should be able to walk safely to their neighborhood school and parks. And selfishly, as a soon to be Senior citizen, my car may not always be an option for me and I would like to develop the transportation support for me and others for our future.

Vanessa Nordyke -- 50% chance. I've met Nordyke several times and have heard her speak. She's impressive: intelligent, compassionate, well-informed, with lots of volunteer experience. I'd give her higher odds than 50%, but I'm trying to compensate for the fact that Nordyke is my favorite candidate.

Also an attorney with the Department of Justice, she's proficient in Spanish, which is a decided plus. Her application checks off some progressive priorities and includes an intriguing question about telecommuting.

How can we incentivize renewable energy, green spaces, tree canopy, walkable neighborhoods and affordable housing while still being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars? Are we incentivizing employers to allow one-day-a-week telecommuting...to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions?

So my bet is that Nordyke will be appointed on October 21. However, it wouldn't be a big shock if Heitsch gets the nod, as she also seems to be well-qualified to serve on the City Council.

Vanessa Nordyke

Salem River Crossing project officially dead, says ODOT

OK, this is akin to beating a dead horse twice, since I'd previously noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration had issued a "No Build" Record of Decision. 

But today ODOT sent out a news release that deserves to be commemorated, given the excellent news that it contains. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle that would have saddled Salem with vastly increased transportation costs with no real benefit for downtown rush hour congestion is officially dead.

The Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, was a terrible idea that took a long time to die. But thanks to steadfast opposition by citizens, and a wise Salem City Council, we can now say goodbye to a project that consumed lots of money, time, and effort for no good reason.

Hopefully City of Salem officials will learn something from this debacle: this is the 21st century, not 1950. Global warming is real. Building unneeded roads and bridges always has been a bad idea. Now it is a horrible idea that can't be tolerated if our planet is to remain fit for human habitation.

Here's the text of the news release.

SALEM— The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have published a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the NO Build Alternative on the Salem River Crossing Project. This final step officially ends this effort to construct a 3^rd bridge over the Willamette River in Salem.

The FEIS and ROD are available at https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=17317.

• • Copies of the document will also be available for review at the following locations:
  • Salem Public Works Department
  • Salem Library
  • Keizer Community Development Department
  • Polk County Community Development Department
  • Marion County Public Works Department
  • Independence Library
  • ODOT Region 2 Headquarters

ODOT and FHWA selected the No Build alternative because the Salem City Council chose to not respond to a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of their 2016 land use actions in support of the project. Without the City addressing the LUBA remand, the project team could not complete the Final EIS for the preferred alternative.

Earlier this year, in a Salem City Council work session, 6 of the 9 council members opposed responding to the LUBA appeal.   This decision had the net effect of reversing the 2016 land use actions and withdrawing City support for advancing the FEIS with a build recommendation.

The project officially started in 2006 after the City of Salem and other regional partners approached ODOT and FHWA with a request to begin the environment process to build a 3^rd bridge. The partners comprised of the cities of Salem, Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, the Salem Area Mass Transit District and ODOT.

In 2014, the partners endorsed the “Salem Alternative,” which Salem City Council had recommended as the preferred alternative. The necessary land use approvals were granted by the partners and the Salem City Council adopted its final ordinance. However, project opponents appealed the City’s land use approvals to LUBA. LUBA considered the issues appealed and remanded the City’s previously approved land use actions back to the City to address.

Without the city addressing the technical issues required by LUBA, ODOT and FHWA could not publish the FEIS for the identified preferred alternative. The only option was to file the No Build Alternative thereby ending this effort to build a 3^rd bridge.

City Council shake-up: Sally Cook and Brad Nanke aren't running again

Today brought some interesting, though not hugely surprising, local political news. The Salem Reporter broke the story that Sally Cook has decided to resign her Ward 7 City Council seat following the death of her husband, Jason.

Sally Cook plans to resign her seat on Salem City Council soon, she informed City Manager Steve Powers on Thursday.

The 39-year-old councilor said the sudden death of her husband three months ago and reality of being a single mother of two led to her decision.

“I need to be able to spend time with my family. It really is a large commitment, being a city councilor,” she told Salem Reporter. “I love the work. I am interested in doing more, but right now my family needs me more.”

With election season’s official start Thursday, Cook’s resignation adds another wrinkle to Salem City Council. The council will appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of her term, which expires Dec. 31, 2020.

Jason was only 42. I got to know him through our participation in self-defense classes at Pacific Martial Arts. It was a shock for me and my fellow classmates to hear of his untimely death. My heart goes out to Sally, who is a wonderfully kind and caring woman. 

Given the current makeup of the City Council, six progressives and three conservatives, seemingly Cook's appointed replacement will be a progressive like her.

I'd guess that this person will be chosen with an eye toward them running for the Ward 7 seat in the May 2020 primary election (if a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary, they become the city councilor, which usually happens). But political guesses often turn out to be wrong.

Also today, the Statesman Journal has a story about Brad Nanke, the Ward 3 councilor, deciding not to run again after 19 years on the City Council. 

Salem City Councilor Brad Nanke will not seek reelection in 2020, planning to cap a nearly two-decade run representing southeast Salem after his term concludes.

Nanke, in his fifth term on the council, has more than a year left to influence policy: His current term ends Dec. 31, 2020.

"Five is enough," he told the Statesman Journal on Thursday.

...Nanke is regarded as a more conservative voice on the council. His wife was one member of the conservative talk radio duo that hosted "The Gator & Denise Show," which used to broadcast locally on KYKN.

Given Nanke's rightward political leaning, I'm not a fan of him in that regard. However, anyone who soldiers on as an unpaid city councilor for as long as Nanke has deserves a standing ovation, no matter what side of the aisle they favor (actually, there are no aisles for city councilors, since they sit on two edges of a box-shaped area).

Nanke's Ward 3 district went for Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a 48-41 margin, so this City Council seat appears to be a good chance for a progressive pick-up. Cook's Ward 7 seat went for Clinton by 50-36, so it also leans leftward.

Sure, the Mayor and City Council races are nominally non-partisan. But these days there is very little about politics that isn't partisan on some level, even though much of what the City Council does is nuts and bolts stuff involving keeping the machinery of city government working smoothly.

Recently I heard a city councilor say that about 80% of what they do is in that mostly non-controversial category, while about 20% has liberal/conservative overtones where the political heat is turned up higher. That seems about right to me.

Progressive Salem will be involved in the four City Council seats up for election in 2020. The other two seats are Cara Kaser's Ward 1 seat and Matt Ausec's Ward 5 seat. Kaser and Ausec are both progressives. 

It's always an open question to what extent a City Council candidate should focus on their general political leaning, versus talking about specific goals for Salem and their neighborhood. Of course, it's possible to do both -- something that makes sense to me, especially in 2020, a presidential election year.

Both progressives and conservatives are going to be fired up about the national election. Since Salem leans decidedly liberal, I'm hoping that the progressive City Council candidates will do a lot of talking about the positive things that their council majority has accomplished locally. 

After all, there's a lot to like about the Progressive Salem vision statement.

Political moderation has a place in Salem. So does extremism.

As the saying goes, there's a time and place for everything. Like, being a political moderate. Or, a political extremist. It doesn't make sense to always embrace one or the other. 

Sure, it sounds good to hear politicians say, "I want to work with those on the other side of the aisle." 

But sometimes those on the other end of the political spectrum aren't interested in compromise and moderation. Barack Obama found this out when Republicans in Congress opposed almost everything he put forward.

For example, a lot of time was wasted trying to get the GOP on board with the Affordable Care Act when all Republicans wanted to do was scuttle it. 

Frequently I hear people claim that local politics is different.

They believe that conservative and progressive elected officials  here in Salem can join hands and agree on policies that would be better than what those on the political right and left could come up with on their own. Well, maybe. I'm skeptical about this, though.

One reason is that I'm dubious our local Republicans and Democrats are markedly different from those inhabiting the halls of Congress or the corridors of the Oregon legislature. 

Here in Salem the Mayor and city councilors are nominally non-partisan, lacking a "D" or "R" after their name.

But almost always it's obvious where their political leaning lies. And it's well known that over the past few decades the Republican Party has veered rightward to a much greater degree than the Democratic Party has tilted leftward. 

The following graphics show the average ideology of the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress since World War II. In recent years, the Republican party has become far more conservative than the Democratic party has become liberal.

So meeting in the middle no longer results in genuine moderation, given that Republican positions have steadily become more extreme than Democratic positions. 

Another reason I'm wary of moderation, whether on the national, state, or local level, is that some issues cry out for urgent, all hands on deck, full bore action. 

Climate change and income inequality are two issues that demand thoughtful extremism. Our planet isn't going to remain habitable for humans without drastic immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Finding a middle ground on global warming means losing a fight that has to be won.

The City of Salem is embarking on a Climate Action Plan aimed at reducing our city's carbon pollution. That's great. However, not so great has been the resistance by Steve Powers, the City Manager, to doing what needs to be done in this area.

Often the inertia of City staff to implementing policy goals established by the City Council is irksome rather than dangerous. In the case of a Climate Action Plan, though, nothing short of 100% dedication to markedly lowering Salem's greenhouse gas emissions is acceptable.

This won't happen by tinkering around the edges of current policies. Urban sprawl, incessant road building, and excessive reliance on gas-powered vehicles have played a big role in getting Salem, Oregon, and the United States into the climate change mess we're in now.

Reversing our way out of that catastrophe, whose effects are becoming increasingly evident, won't happen by splitting the difference between the views of global warming realists and deniers. The deniers are on the wrong side of science and of humanity, whether they sit in Congress or the Salem City Council chambers.

Income inequality isn't as obvious a local issue. Here too, though, there are signs that City officials aren't taking the widening divide between the 1% and 99% (or 10% and 90%) as seriously as they should be. 

A payroll tax on employees and an operating fee paid via utility bills are in the works to deal with City of Salem budget deficits.

Both of these revenue streams would hit ordinary people more than the wealthy in Salem. For example, reportedly a single family home would pay an $8 a month operating fee, while Salem Hospital (along with other commercial properties) would pay $38.56 a month.

This seems decidedly unbalanced. No doubt the Chamber of Commerce is pleased with these proposals, but it's hard to see how they reduce income inequality in Salem, which surely is increasing here as rapidly as it is elsewhere in our country.

I could be wrong -- an ever-present possibility -- but I sense that people in Salem, as elsewhere in the United States, are hungry for Big Ideas that improve the lives of ordinary people. 

Modern Republicans, by and large, are silent in this area. Their focus is on further improving the lives of the rich and powerful. This is why many of the Democratic presidential candidates are garnering so much attention for their Big Ideas in the areas of the environment, health care, education, and so on.

I'm hoping that Salem will be fertile ground for our own Big Ideas, some of which are seedlings in the minds of our six progressive city councilors. Hopefully those ideas will grow into fertile reality. If they do, likely a look back will reveal that it wasn't moderation that brought them into being, but a passionate extremism.

On a lighter note...