Salem Political Snark

Controversy erupts over Leung missing out on City Council committees

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

Jackie Leung

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

     -- Brian

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

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

Chuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

Costco approval was bad decision by Salem City Council

Today the Statesman Journal published an excellent opinion piece by Lora Meisner and Bill Dalton about the City Council's approval of Costco's relocation to a Kuebler Boulevard location adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

As you can read below, Meisner and Dalton argue that City of Salem staff and city councilors, with the exception of Jackie Leung, failed to stand up for the broad public interest -- siding instead with PacTrust (owner of the property) and Costco (the main tenant on the property).

Meisner and Dalton are very familiar with this issue, including the decision by LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) that the City Council had to take into account before issuing their approval of the Costco relocation to the PacTrust property. So I trust what they say in their opinion piece.

All I'd add is this. 

I heartily agree with them that the City Council is way too deferential and unquestioning of city staff. Over and over, I've observed that even when citizens present solid evidence that what city staff are saying is either untrue, or not the whole truth, city councilors typically side with the staff.

It's hard to figure out why this happens. My best guess is that because city councilors are unpaid volunteers with no staff of their own, they are heavily dependent on City of Salem employees. 

So it's sort of like a hostage situation where staff are the ones in control, and the city councilors figure that if they want to get out (politically) alive, they need to cooperate with their captors. Otherwise city staff can make things difficult for a councilor who wants to get something done that requires the willing support of staff.

That said, when the City Council fails to exercise the limited power that it has, city staff become emboldened and push harder for their own point of view. Thus weakness begets more weakness. 

I'm hoping that when newly elected members of the City Council are sworn into office next January this situation will change. It isn't healthy when our local elected city councilors, who are the go-between their constituents and City of Salem staff, kowtow to staff as they did with the Costco relocation.

Here's the opinion piece.

PacTrust's Costco a 'wholesale' disruption

On Sept. 28, the Salem City Council voted 6-to-1 (thank you, Councilor Jackie Leung for her courage and support) to approve PacTrust’s application to build Costco on its site on Kuebler Blvd. The “we-had-no-choice” plea councilors used to justify their decision, prompt this follow-up.

Having been involved with this PacTrust proposal since 2018, we feel an obligation to inform Salem residents that the city staff, city attorney and ultimately the majority of city councilors did not have taxpaying resident’s "backs" regarding this development. In fact, to us it is obvious that the city failed its citizens at every turn:

• • Failure by city staff and attorney to formalize the conditions noted  ("Neighborhood-friendly shopping center," "No Big Box store," "No gas station"…) when rezoning was approved in 2007
  • Failure to include traffic as a major concern in the testimony submitted by the city to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
  • Failure by the city to express "preservation of the grove of trees" (especially the mature heritage white oaks) as another major issue related to the PacTrust site plan
  • City Council and staff failure to engage with PacTrust/Costco (ca. 2019/2020) in any meaningful effort to identify a potential win-win site plan, one that might have addressed the multitude of concerns residents identified during public meetings, council hearings and written input.

And, ultimately, the mayor and councilors — except Leung — chose to ignore the "openings" offered by LUBA (and subsequently the Oregon State Court of Appeals) for the city to further address the traffic and tree issues. Here are three more ways the city failed us:

• • Affirmed and accepted the city staff’s endorsement of the woefully inadequate and outdated traffic data submitted by PacTrust
  • Used the developer’s own written arguments in rejecting other site plan alternatives; 
  • Basically quoted the testimony written by PacTrust as the basis of the “findings” it formally adopted in approving the Costco-development proposal.

So what can be done now?  With regard to the PacTrust/Costco development, maybe not much.

However, as Salem moves forward, consider these three things:

1. 1. Council needs to formally incorporate all the protective conditions and restrictions — including those offered by developers — in re-zoning and development-related actions   
   2.  City staff needs to make the safety and quality of life — neighborhoods and its residents — its top priority, rather than merely taking every step possible to facilitate development.
   3.  Our publicly elected city councilors need to "ride herd" on city staff to ensure developers adhere to all city rules, regulations, guidelines and codes.

We feel saddened and frustrated that — whether because of (largely baseless) threats of legal action by a developer, and/or sheer exhaustion — our city council took the easy road.

The results: A poorly-planned development with an oversized neighborhood-unfriendly commercial center and fuel depot with massive future traffic jams will be shouldered by our south Salem residents and neighborhoods, ultimately at the expense of all of Salem and its taxpayers.

Lora Meisner is a civic activist who has been involved in flooding and development issues in south Salem. You may reach her [email protected]. Bill Dalton is civic activist and advocate. You may be reached [sic] at [email protected]. Both authors were appellants who originally challenged the PacTrust development.

There's shameful silence in Salem about COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which can't be separated from economics. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salem Climate Action Plan is going in wrong direction

Very disappointing. But not surprising.

City of Salem staff have a long history of ignoring what the City Council and citizens want, instead substituting their own bad ideas for good ones.

So here we go again...

The City Council wants a Salem Climate Action Plan to specify how we're doing to do our part in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions that are literally cooking our planet. Recently these goals were approved by the council.

By 2035, Salem’s greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced to 50% of the citywide greenhouse gas emissions for the baseline year of 2016, and by 2050, Salem should be carbon neutral.

OK. One would think that the Climate Action Plan process would be focused on how these goals are to be achieved.

But whoever the proverbial "One" is, they will be shocked to find that so far, what's being talked about is how Salem should deal with the nasty effects of climate change, not how the city's carbon footprint can be reduced.

I don't know who is responsible for this fiasco, but the Climate Action Plan needs to get back on track as soon as possible. It's astounding that the current "envisioning" exercise is for people to say how Salem can be resilient by 2050, not how Salem can be carbon neutral by 2050.

Here's my decidedly caustic envisioning submission that I posted a little while ago.

Now, you might be wondering whether those in charge of the Climate Action Plan process are just making a brief detour down the road of resiliency before they head back on the freeway of Salem becoming carbon neutral by 2050.

No, the description of the entire project clearly shows that the focus is adapting to climate change, not on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here's how that description starts out. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis. 

We live in a changing climate as evidenced by floods, drought and unprecedented fires across the State. The actions that we take together can help reduce the severity of impacts. The City of Salem is starting a process to develop a plan for addressing and adapting to climate change. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) will outline the strategies and actions Salem can take to create a thriving, resilient community for decades to come. Our hope is that residents from across Salem will share their input on this site throughout the development of the CAP to help co-create a product that is equitable and inclusive of a diverse range of perspectives. 

That last sentence is especially disturbing.

It reeks of allowing global warming deniers, of whom there are many in Salem, including but not limited to Chamber of Commerce types, to have an equal seat at the Climate Action Plan table with those who acknowledge the solid science of a world warming because of human-caused greenhouse gas pollution.

My suspicion is that City of Salem staff are zeroed in on resiliency because they don't want to deal with the political fallout that will inevitably accompany a strong Climate Action Plan actually aimed at markedly reducing Salem's carbon footprint. That will require large changes in our city's transportation and land use policies, among other areas.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has a similar attitude toward the misguided approach of the Climate Action Plan.

The City's finally published the slide deck for the November 18th Climate Task Force Workshop.

There is nothing on it about decarbonizing or carbon pollution. Nothing about the fossil fuel sources of our pollution and reducing our use of them.

Instead, it's all about a vision for Making Salem More Wonderful. Or something. It's like it's shaped by a kind of denialism, "Climate change is happening, but we just aren't sure humans are causing it. It's probably just another natural cycle."

And if you believe that, then the frame of "resiliency" might be a very reasonable one. 

But making this frame primary is also a page from the merchants of doubt approach to denying our climate emergency.

If we don't decarbonize, there will be much less to save in any kind of vision.

And if we don't decarbonize, our efforts for resilience will just be digging a moat, raising the drawbridge, and closing the gate, preserving our pretty back yard at the expense of the commons and other public areas.

Urge the Salem City Council to adopt strong greenhouse gas reduction goals

Want to do your part to preserve our one and only planet Earth for human habitation? Of course you do.

Good news is, it'll just take a few minutes for you to have that warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with doing the right thing -- for those of us alive today, and for generations to come. 

Next Monday, October 12, the Salem City Council will vote on a motion by Councilor Tom Andersen that sets strong greenhouse gas reduction goals for the Climate Action Plan being worked on this year and 2021. 

The short and simple motion says: 

I move that the City Council adopt the following goals as part of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP):

•  By 2035, Salem’s greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced to 50% of the citywide greenhouse gas emissions for the baseline year of 2016, and

•  By 2050, Salem should be carbon neutral.

Beautiful! This brings Salem in line with other Oregon cities that have established greenhouse gas reduction goals, as described in background information on Andersen's motion: Portland, Corvallis, Eugene, Bend, Milwaukie, Ashland. 

So let the City Council know that you support Agenda Item 5.b, Motion from Councilor Tom Andersen regarding adopting goals as part of the City’s Climate Action Plan. Email: [email protected]

This makes great good sense for one key reason: there is no scientific debate about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a lot, as quickly as possible, if humanity is to avoid suffering the worst impacts of global warming. 

Which includes the drought afflicting Oregon that exacerbated the recent devastating wildfires. 

Thus there is no reason to waste time in the Climate Action Plan process discussing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By setting forth the goals in Andersen's motion now, city officials and the public at large can focus on how to bring about the necessary reductions in carbon pollution. 

Public input isn't needed on why those reductions are needed. That question was settled many years ago. The scientific community agrees that global warming is happening, humans are causing it via steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and actions need to be taken to reduce those emissions.

Anyone who doubts this is a climate change denier. There are plenty of them in Salem, as elsewhere in the country. They're entitled to their misguided opinion, but the facts of climate change are unaffected by attempts to discount the scientific consensus of global warming as "fake news." 

Because it isn't. 

"Our Salem" plan needs a top-priority: reducing greenhouse gases

If you care about how livable Salem is, check out a recently-released draft report from the City of Salem, Our Salem Vision. There's a lot to like in that vision, but also a lot not to like. So let city officials know what you think of the report.

Even though the document says that the next step in the Comprehensive Planning process is public comment on the draft, I didn't see any indication in the report about how comments are to be submitted. A City of Salem Facebook post about Our Salem Vision also lacks any mention of how citizen feedback is to be provided.

So send comments to the project manager, Eunice Kim ([email protected]) and the City Council ([email protected]).

It's a nice-looking report. Good graphics and a readable format. Of course, the important thing is what the report says, not its appearance. And here there are grounds for criticism.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has an excellent critique of Our Salem Vision. Here's an excerpt from his post, "Our Salem Vison and Draft Plan Relies Too Much on Arterial Conversion to Mixed-Use."

In order to "protect" existing single detached housing and "neighborhood character," the vision offered by Our Salem in the new draft plan concentrates too much on already busy arterial streets and does not do enough to leverage our system of smaller, minor arterials and collector streets.

The main place this is visible, seemingly the project's "one big idea," is in the way the project team took a "mixed use paint brush" to the major corridors of Commercial Street and Lancaster Drive and changed the color on the existing zoning outlines. This is not by itself a bad move, but because it is an isolated move, it looks like warehousing new projects on streets that are already busy, unpleasant, and polluted.

An important missing ingredient, then, is a boulevard conversion for Commercial and Lancaster. The proposed change from commercial to mixed-use zoning needs to be accompanied by a stroad-to-boulevard conversion in the streets. Otherwise they will still be oversized for autoist primacy and still very zoomy. Boulevard conversions also add medians for street trees and improve tree canopy. They prioritize local travel on the margins at calm speed and give through-travel the center.

Is Mixed Use by itself going to help with this?

I heartily agree. South Commercial and Lancaster Drive are unappealing monuments to an era in Salem's development when the car was king and global warming wasn't an issue. 

Just as Confederate monuments are being removed because they no longer fit with the tenor of our times, so should Commercial and Liberty, perhaps along with some other major streets in Salem, be markedly renovated -- fewer lanes, dedicated bike paths, trees planted, additional pedestrian crossings, and other changes.

In short, made into boulevards. 

Why would residential mixed use areas on these streets be attractive to people when Commercial and Liberty are so unfriendly to anyone not driving a vehicle? As the Breakfast on Bikes blogger said, simply slapping a new zoning designation on the streets doesn't change their character.

My own critique of Our Salem Vision is more over-arching.

Yet it fits in with the above criticism that the draft report doesn't go far enough in calling for changes in Salem's urban landscape that promise to bring major improvements to our city, not simply tinkering around the edges of what already exists.

Currently Our Salem Vision tries to be all things to all people. There's a lengthy list of goals in a number of areas. Economy and jobs. Natural resources. Parks. Transportation. Housing. And such. 

The report contains a lot of laudable objectives. Each section sounds good. It'd be nice if everything called for in the report came to pass. But here's the thing: life involves choices between alternatives. Life demands that this be given a higher priority than that. Everybody with a to-do list, which includes just about every person, knows this.

What is most important? What needs to be done first? What is most central? Unless those questions are answered, either a home chore to-do list or a city planning document is going to suffer from a lack of attention to urgent priorities.

Here's an example of what I mean. 

My wife and I live outside the Salem city limits. We know that at some point likely we'll have to move into town when our 10 non-easy-care acres get to be too much for us. So we have a realtor who sends us listings of houses that might match up with what we're looking for. We've visited some of these houses.

Invariably, there will be one thing, or sometimes several things. that make us say "no way" even though the house fits with what we want in other regards. We have a hierarchy of needs/wants for a house. If a house is good in every regard but our top priorities, we tell the realtor that we'll keep looking.

Now, obviously setting priorities between various goals is a lot tougher when Our Salem Vision has to reflect what several hundred thousand people want. Maybe that's why there was no attempt to do this in the planning process for Our Salem. 

But it needs to be done now, or Our Salem Vision won't be the effective document that it sets out to be. When you try to be all things to all people, you end up not being genuinely yourself. My view is that the top priorities flow naturally from this graphic shown early on in the draft document.

The reddish areas where Salem isn't meeting targets, is falling behind other similar cities in our area, and is moving in the wrong direction, relate to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from travel, tree canopy, bicycle and pedestrian use, and walk and transit friendliness.

So the top priority seems clear. 

The Salem City Council has to make a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the highest goal. Since transportation is the main driver of increased carbon pollution, a major change in how our city looks upon streets, mass transit, bike lanes, and such needs to happen. 

Other goals need to fit in with that top-priority vision.

For example, Neighborhood Hubs are properly emphasized in Our Salem Vision. And we shouldn't have just eleven of them, as the report calls for. Many more. Every neighborhood should have restaurants, taverns, shops, and other local businesses within easy walking and cycling distance. 

That will reduce the need to drive cars. That will enhance connections between people. That will expand the economy. Many good things will flow from making a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the over-arching goal for Salem. 

Global warming has markedly increased the wildfire danger in Oregon, as elsewhere. Likely it is responsible for the drought plaguing our state. And global warming poses an existential threat to humanity in general. 

How can reducing greenhouse gas emissions not be the top priority for Salem? This needs to be stated explicitly by the City Council.

Otherwise, those who favor increased vehicular travel and building new roads will be able to point to other goals in the Our Salem document and say, "These things are mentioned along with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, so they deserve to be treated as equally important."

Mark Wigg draws attention to plight of homeless in Wallace Marine Park

Salem citizen activist Mark Wigg doesn't mince words. Here's his advance prepared remarks that closely reflect part of what he said in public testimony at last night's City Council meeting. 

Below I'll share my thoughts about what Wigg says.

Mayor Bennett,

I ask you, Steve Powers and Peter Fernandez to resign because your criminally negligent policies and actions may have led to the rape and murder of at least a dozen women in Wallace Marine Park.

When you forced the homeless to leave downtown Salem, you told them that they could camp at Wallace Marine Park and Cascade Gateway Park. You were aware that the homeless downtown included violent felons and psychotic men. You concentrated these people in the two parks.

In addition to the men you sent to Wallace, you sent women and girls. You told them the only place for them to camp was in these parks. So you took rabbits and tossed them in a cage with wolves. Is there anyone who couldn’t predict the outcome?

Imagine a young woman that was evicted from her apartment or is fleeing domestic violence. She grabs a few things that are precious to her, a sleeping bag, a tent and a few clothes. She goes to Wallace Marine Park because that is where you told her to camp. She gets there and sets up her tent.

That night or maybe the next, she wakes when a man cuts open her tent and sits on her while she is in her sleeping bag. She can’t move her arms or legs, she is helpless. Think of the terror and hopelessness she feels as clothes are stuffed in her mouth to stop her cries for help.

A few minutes later, she is dead. The murderer drags her to the river’s edge in her sleeping bag, tosses a few rocks in the bag and ties it up. Dragging the bag to knee deep water, the murderer lets it sink and drift downstream.

I have seen the torn tents with the precious personal effects left behind. The sleeping bag and girls are gone. We may never know their names. Their things will be washed away in the next high water or piled with the other trash that is occasionally picked up at the camps.

You didn’t have to be so cruel, but it was so much easier than doing the right thing.

I hope tonight when you are about to fall asleep that you will imagine the terror and pain you caused and are causing. I hope you feel enough shame to resign so more competent and compassionate leaders can take your place.

It's great that Wigg drew attention to the plight of homeless people who are camping in the two Salem parks. I haven't spent time in downtown lately, but I believe the homeless population there has been markedly reduced. So for most people they're out of mind if not visible.

And women must have a tougher time living in the parks than men do. The scenario Wigg describes of being raped in a tent likely occurs, and maybe even is common.

The notion that women have been killed and their bodies dumped in the river is much less believable. Seemingly there would be talk of missing homeless people, since the women must have friends and relatives who would wonder why they haven't been seen for a long time.

That said, hopefully Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, and the city councilors will take seriously the basic message Wigg gave them last night. Salem's homeless women are having a tough time in the camps set up in the two parks. This situation shouldn't last much longer, especially with bad weather and winter being close at hand.

Photo of Wallace Marine Park in April 2020 StreetRoots story

Last night the City Council approved money for security services at Marion Square Park and Wallace Marine Park through fiscal year 2021. That covers the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

It would be horrible if homeless people are still living in the parks through the end of June next year. Sure, it is better to have some security services, rather than no security at all. Much better still would be for those homeless people to have options other than camping out at Salem parks.

Here's what was approved.

Parks Security Services
Fund 101, General Fund, Non Departmental
From: Non Departmental, Contingency, 101-60961000-61110, $312,000
To: Non Departmental, Materials and Services, 101-60961000-52670, $312,000

During FY 2020 the City Council approved funding for security services at Marion Square Park. The services were expanded to include Wallace Marine Park and provide two personnel from 8:00am until 12:00am. The City Manager has directed that this service continue into FY 2021 and funding was not included in the FY 2021 budget. This action provides funding for this service through the end of FY 2021.

This is a video of yesterday's City Council meeting that starts when Mark Wigg presents his testimony. Watch the video, and you'll see Wigg also describe how he may have prevented a wildfire at Wallace Marine Park through some cookies.

City Manager is OK with a developer illegally removing trees

I'm no fan of Donald Trump's re-election campaign themes, but I do believe in law and order -- along with almost every other American.

Unfortunately, the City Manager for the City of Salem, Steve Powers, has said that he is OK with the Public Works Director (Peter Fernandez) bestowing a tree removal permit on a developer (Thomas Kay) 105 days after the trees were cut down without a permit.

Michael Slater, a strong advocate for trees in Salem, sent the following letter to Powers. Slater shared the letter on Facebook. You'll see that he made some strong arguments about why granting a tree removal permit after the developer illegally removed them is bad public policy.

This seems obvious, of course. But keep reading and you'll see that the City Manager disagreed with Slater. Here's Michael Slater's message.

MY LETTER TO STEVE POWERS ON ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS IN WREN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

Dear Mr. Powers, I am writing [to] express my frustration, once again, that the Public Works Director has failed to protect Salem’s street trees. The latest incident, as you know, is Director Fernandez’s ratification of the unlawful removal of five street trees by the developer of the Wren Heights subdevelopment.

Director Fernandez’s decision to award a street tree removal permit after the developer cut down the trees is bad public policy.

First, it rewards illegal conduct. The developer was required to obtain a street tree permit before removing any trees. This requirement was spelled out in the decision approving the developer’s land use application. And, it was not certain that the developer’s application would have been approved had he respected the process.

Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent for the future. Director Fernandez’s action has signaled to the developer community that it is okay to ask for forgiveness rather than go through the process of seeking approval. It is also an affront to all of the developers who follow the rules.

Finally, Director Fernandez’s decision is contrary to recent decisions by SPRAB [Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board] and the City Council, both of which have taken action to expand protection of Salem’s street trees.

This incident follows just a few months on the revelation that the Public Works Department had not been enforcing the City’s street tree ordinance related to pruning or removing a tree without a permit.

During the Council session in which this issue was discussed, Director Fernandez made a statement to the effect that Public Works staff simply didn’t believe the Council understood its own ordinance and, rather than going back to Council, simply choose to not enforce it. This is, to say the least, a rather extraordinary sentiment for a City department director to hold.

This pattern of activity undermines the public’s trust in Director Fernandez’s ability to supervise the city’s street trees in good faith.

Of course, it may be that Director Fernandez does not have the time to give much attention to street trees in light of the fact that his portfolio includes not only the traditional scope of public works, but also drinking water, sewers, stormwater, transportation, parks, and street trees.

I ask that you relieve Director Fernandez of his responsibilities for Salem’s street trees and assign them to the City’s Urban Forester. I would also ask that you seek Council approval for the creation of an Urban Forest Commission with authority to both recommend tree policy to Council and make decisions on individual permit applications.

Finally, I ask that you begin the process of reviewing whether the public is best served by a public works department with such a broad scope or whether we would be better served by returning to a model where City parks and street trees are managed by a separate parks department.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yesterday Slater shared the response he got from City Manager Steve Powers. Amazingly, Powers considers that issuing a tree removal permit more than three months after a developer ignored a requirement to get a permit and cut them down illegally is "appropriate."

CITY MANAGER RESPONDS TO MY LETTER ON STREET TREE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Slater, thank you for the letter regarding the street tree removal along Salem Heights Road. I believe staff’s actions, culminating in Mr. Fernandez issuing a tree removal permit, were appropriate considering SRC [Salem Revised Code], the specific property, and the circumstances. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will determine if the permit was correct.

I disagree that there is a pattern of staff disregard for trees. Through site plan review and development conditions, the City is proactive in ensuring SRC is followed. When violations occur, action is taken. We have learned from the past, and have improved the timeliness of enforcement.

I appreciate your wish for parks and natural spaces to receive more attention. I disagree that a way of increasing attention is by creating a parks department. As you know, Salem’s resources are stretched. Needs exceed available resources. Resources that are available should, whenever possible, go into direct services and not additional organizational layers and costs.

Steve Powers

On the bright side, it's good to see that City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke wants to do something about Public Works Director Peter Fernandez going light on those who illegally remove or damage trees in Salem.

This is a message Councilor Nordyke shared on Facebook.

It’s time to increase public oversight over City government. Here are three things I’m working on, with more to come.

First, at an upcoming City Council meeting on climate/environmental matters, I will propose the creation of an Urban Forest Commission in response to community concerns about the Public Works Department’s handling of tree issues.

Second, I’m exploring ways to create more public oversight and input into proposed development, to help us identify and objectively examine the concerns that neighbors frequently bring to City Council.

Third, as you all know, I spearheaded the performance audit of the Salem Police Department. This audit will include a public advisory group to oversee it. I tapped a professional auditor to serve on the public advisory group, in order to enhance the group’s watchdog capacity.

These plans all have one thing in common: public oversight.

We need more transparency and accountability in our city, and I cannot do this alone.

I hear and understand the frustrations about the way that government responds to challenging and unprecedented times. Tensions are high around the country, and too many are being asked to do more with less. We all must rise to the occasion.

We must recognize that social distancing and face mask rules are in place for everyone’s safety. Our schools, businesses, workers, nursing homes, parents, students, and so many others are counting on each of us to do our part to keep our COVID numbers down. So, please, wear a dang mask.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your concerns with me and demanding better.

This is how democracy works.

This is how we get better.

There’s more to come. Stay tuned!

City official issues tree removal permit 105 days after they were cut down

Peter Fernandez, the City of Salem Public Works Director, is still doing outrageous tree stuff -- seven years after public records that I got proved that Fernandez made an unethical backroom deal with a bank president to have five beautiful, large, healthy downtown trees removed for no good reason.

The newest Fernandez outrage is well-documented in an appeal by the Southwest Association of Neighbors (SWAN) of a tree removal permit that was issued on June 25, with an effective date of June 28, even though the five trees were cut down on April 15.
Download Salem Heights Tree Removal Permit Appeal Final 7-26-20

Wow. Even though Peter Fernandez is a crappy Public Works Director, he does apparently have a superpower: the ability to go back in time and grant a permit for something that was already illegally done.

Here's photos from the SWAN appeal that show what Fernandez and the developer who removed the trees (I'm assuming this was Thomas Kay) have wrought. 

This photo shows a view of Salem Heights Avenue before the trees were removed.

This photo shows Salem Heights Avenue after the trees were removed without a permit. Or, as Peter Fernandez would call it, a "street improvement."

And this photo shows the required neighborhood notice of a tree removal permit application. The notice had to be posted on a utility pole because the trees had already been cut down. Or, as Peter Fernandez would call it, "a delicious irony."

Now, you may have picked up some subtle, or not-so-subtle, clues in this blog post that I'm not a fan of Peter Fernandez.

Which is absolutely correct! I'll give some additional reasons for my attitude after I share a few excerpts from the SWAN appeal that show how distastefully Fernandez acted. I've boldfaced some especially pertinent parts.

(Note: Fernandez is only referred to as the "Director" in the appeal.)

Among the reasons for this appeal is the trees listed for potential removal - two significant white oak trees, two locust trees and a Douglas Fir tree - have already been cut down and removed prior to issuance of a permit for removal in violation of City Code contained within SRC Chapter 86. We believe the Director’s conclusion that there was no “reasonable alternative” was in error. We believe there were, or may have been reasonable alternatives.

City staff has confirmed with us that the trees were removed on April 15 in violation of the Code because the order granting the removal was not issued until June 25 with an effective date of July 28, 105 calendar days after they were cut down.

We believe the City Tree Code should be enforced in a way that protects the city’s trees. Granting a permit after trees have been cut, as in this case, sends a message the Code enforcement is lax. We intend to show that the cutting of trees along the 500 block of Salem Heights Avenue violated City Code.

We believe city residents deserve the opportunity to offer reasonable alternatives during the permit application process. This was denied in particular to the removal of the white oaks. The Director has concluded, without explanation in the order, that there was no reasonable alternative to cutting the trees. Our appeal will show the possibility that a reasonable alternative existed before the trees were removed.

This cutting and removal of trees on city-owned right of way prior to issuance of a tree removal permit is an egregious breach of current law and an affront to the citizens of Salem - a “tree” city. Cutting and removal of the trees in question prior to issuance of a tree removal permit is also an extreme breach of due process afforded by the tree removal permit application process.

It is ironic that the effort of city staff to comply with posting of the tree removal order and appeal process as required by the Code to be posted “where the tree or trees are located” had to be posted to a utility pole ​after​ the trees were reduced to stumpage. Again, this cutting was done prior to the issuance of a removal permit or posting of the required notice of removal.

If this was the only time Peter Fernandez abused the power of his position as Public Works Director, a single lapse in judgment could be forgiven. But it definitely isn't. Here's a couple of other examples, the second occurring only yesterday, though the first is more significant.

Earlier this month I described how Fernandez misled the City Council regarding the purchase of property in West Salem. See: "Salem City Council bamboozled by staff on Taybin Road property purchase."

I spent hundreds of dollars on a public records request that proved the actual reason Fernandez wanted to buy this property was for Marine Drive right-of-way in an area that the council had declared off-limits for a right-of-way acquisition. So Fernandez and other Public Works officials concocted a stormwater reason for the purchase that allowed them to use a different pot of money for it.

Then, last night the City Council voted to overturn Fernandez's recommendation for a right-turn lane that was planned to be part of a road diet at Broadway and Pine. I'd written about this in "Salem City Hall, where staff always are right and concerned citizens wrong."

As I said in that post, Fernandez believes that traffic will steadily increase in Salem, necessitating ever more road construction, even though the City of Salem's own Strategic Plan calls for greenhouse gas reductions in our city, and transportation is the largest source of carbon pollution.

Fortunately, a majority of the City Council (Mayor Bennett and Councilors Lewis and Nanke being the minority) didn't buy the anti-environment B.S. that Fernandez was trying to sell at yesterday's council meeting. Councilors Tom Andersen, Vanessa Nordyke, and Chris Hoy were especially persuasive in their arguments against the carcentric philosophy that the right-turn lane represented.

After all, Andersen and Hoy are ardent cyclists. They spoke of how unnerving it is to have a bike lane be squeezed between a right-turn lane and a traffic lane, since vehicles can be on both sides of the person riding a bicycle. But Fernandez was concerned about traffic being able to move along as swiftly as possible.

Which shows that Peter Fernandez is wildly out of touch with the citizenry when it comes to protecting trees and the environment. And that makes him a very poor choice for Salem's Public Works Director.

NEXT DAY UPDATE: Someone just sent me a copy of an email from City Manager Steve Powers regarding this issue, plus a readable photo of the Notice of Hearing shown in a photo above. Here's what I said to Powers in an email a little while ago:
-----------------------------

Mr. Powers, since I wrote about the Salem Heights Avenue tree removal issue yesterday, someone just sent me your email denial that a permit was issued retroactively allowing the removal of five trees. You said, in part:

The developer prematurely removed trees from the Salem Heights Road right-of-way.  Staff has not decided to retroactively issue a permit for the removal of the trees.

However, I also got a photo of the Notice of Public Hearing that was attached to the utility pole in the neighborhood, which I didn’t have a clear image of until now. That notice says that the purpose of the hearing is to review the Public Works Director’s decision to approve a tree removal permit.

 

So please explain the discrepancy between what you have emailed to city councilors, and possibly also others, and what the Notice of Public Hearing says. I’m attaching the photo that I got, along with an enlarged screenshot of the portion I just quoted. Logically, either the Notice of Public Hearing was wrong, or your email was wrong. Which was it?

 

UPDATE TO UPDATE: I got this reply from Steve Powers. I thanked him for the correction to his earlier email, but told him both the developer and Peter Fernandez need to be held accountable for their failure to act in accord with the City Tree Code. Fernandez' malfeasance is especially outrageous, since he is responsible for enforcing the City Tree Code.

Mr. Hines,

Thank you for the question. Staff determined a permit was needed regardless of the timing of the tree removal.  The Public Works Director approved the developer’s  tree removal permit based on criteria in SRC 86.090(a)(8). In my earlier email I stated that no permit had been issued.  I regret the error in my earlier email.

Steve Powers

City Manager
City of Salem

Salem City Hall, where staff always are right and concerned citizens wrong

We here at the world headquarters of Salem Political Snark, which just happens to be Salem, Oregon, absolutely love well-reasoned factual blog posts with a healthy dose of snark.

Especially when those posts haven't been written by us. (Well, me, though there's always me, myself, and I, the unholy trinity.)

So here's a big snarky thumbs-up to the always-interesting Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger for including these lines in a post today, "City Council, August 24 - Nonsense on Broadway at Pine."

This is a real problem at the City. They have trouble admitting they are wrong. It sure seems like they dig in on every issue, every time.

Sure thing, City of Salem. You bet. We know you always tell the truth.

The nonsense being talked about is the stubborn determination of the Public Works Department to always assume that traffic volumes in Salem will increase forever and ever, thereby needing constant expensive road improvements at the expense of the environment, greenhouse gas emissions, and the safety of pedestrians/cyclists.

Thus the well-informed advice of Gary Obery, an expert on walking and biking safety at the Oregon Department of Transportation, that a right-turn lane isn't needed in a Broadway widening project is discounted because, as noted above, City of Salem staff think they always are right and concerned citizens wrong.

The Breakfast on Bikes blog post goes into considerable detail about why the staff report for Monday's City Council meeting is misguided. Here's the overarching right-on concern.

We'll zoom out a little and start with climate. The slow-moving train wreck that is our approach to climate is going to dwarf our problem with traffic violence. If our forthcoming Climate Action Plan is to be effective, it will have to influence, even determine, traffic planning. Currently we plan our roads as if there was no emergency on climate.

Two weeks ago Council tabled the matter of widening Broadway Street NW at Pine Street. The Oberys, Angela and Gary, had raised questions and Council wanted more information.

On the project the City published a Supplemental Report with an enumerated list of responses to the objections and concerns. One of the primary justifications for the turn lane is that we are planning for more driving.

But this is not at all where we need to be. Though there are problems with ODOT's "Every Mile Counts" program, even ODOT is beginning to see that we have to reduce driving. They dodge a little and say we need to "reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita," and of course what is necessary is a total reduction of VMT, not merely a per person reduction. The sum matters more than the rate here. But VMT reduction is on the table now at ODOT.

The City also needs to start talking about VMT reduction. We have to stop planning for more driving, and need to start planning for less driving. We will never hit our climate goals if our planning continues to assume as axiomatic that "traffic volumes are expected to grow."

A new turn lane goes in the wrong direction.

It sure does. And the insistence of City of Salem staff that a new turn lane is needed also shows how muddled things are at City Hall, where the City Manager, Steve Powers, has failed to do what his job title demands that he do -- manage his employees in accord with high-level goals set forth in the 2017 Strategic Plan.

Like...

Instead, Powers sits back in his City Manager easy chair and lets Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, carry on with the out-dated rule-of-thumb that Fernandez has been inflicting on Salem for many years: speeding traffic along as rapidly as possible takes precedence over reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So city staff can't take Gary Obery's expert opinion about the new turn lane seriously, because this would be a crack in the wall of the Public Works Department always being right about everything -- even when their wrongness is on full display, since a new turn lane is at odds with the City's own Strategic Plan.

The basic problem is that the people who should be in charge of things at City Hall aren't, while those who shouldn't be in charge are. 

Salem has a City Council with a 6-3 progressive majority. However, Salem has a strong City Manager/weak City Council system. Currently we're suffering through a weak City Manager, Steve Powers, who excels at bean-counting but not at making clear to his staff what beans most deserve to be planted and fertilized.

This leaves the bureaucracy free to do what bureaucrats do best: the same thing, over and over.

No matter that the Earth is warming dangerously. No matter that we humans have ten years, at most, to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. No matter that the initial greenhouse gas inventory for Salem showed that the transportation sector is the largest contributor to our carbon pollution.

Fernandez and Co. have always used now-outdated traffic planning rules, and they will keep on using them until the Earth goes up in flames unless a higher-up says, "Stop! We're doing things differently now. The internal combustion engine no longer is Salem's priority. The well-being of our people is."

In the absence of a City Manager capable and competent enough to lead Salem forward into the 21 century, rather than backward into the previous century, the City Council needs to serve as a check on the bureaucracy. So far, the council hasn't shown much interest in doing this.

The upcoming council meeting on August 24 will be a test of whether City of Salem staff get to continue to ignore the well-informed views of concerned citizens. Because sometimes a turn lane on Broadway is way more important than it seems, being a window into the desired future of Salem.