Salem Political Snark

Here's my testimony supporting the Salem Human Rights Commission

This afternoon I submitted advance testimony to the City Council in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission's rejection of the plan to use a building owned by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church as a temporary home for the Salem Public Library.

Yeah, I'm wordy.

But I wanted to cover the arguments in favor of finding another location for a temporary library that wouldn't cause members of the LGBTQ communities in our town to stop going to the library for the 18 months or so it will take for renovations to the library building at the Civic Center to be completed.

I think I make a lot of sense.

But since I'm me, that's to be expected. My favorite part of the testimony didn't come from me. It came from three people who left some passionate reasons for why they signed the "Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!" petition I started five days ago. 

I shared those reasons, which wonderfully reflected the Human Rights Commission statement in opposition to leasing the church-owned building. Here's what went off to the City of Salem today. (The formatting is a bit screwed-up due to copy and pasting from my email message.)
-----------------------------------------

TO: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Testimony for July 22 City Council meeting

Here’s advance testimony for the Library Relocation agenda item that I’ve been told by City staff will be discussed, and possibly acted on, at the July 22 City Council meeting. 

(1) Submission of 227 petition signatures in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission. Last Friday, five days ago, I started a petition on the Care2 platform, “Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!” The petition reads:

City officials want to temporarily house the Salem Public Library in a building owned by a church that rejects gay marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The Salem Human Rights Commission has taken a stand against this bad plan. 

 

Support the Commission and send a message to the City Council in support of LGBTQ rights by signing this petition. There are alternative places to temporarily house the library while renovations are made. On July 22, the City Council likely will discuss this issue.

 

The Human Rights Commission statement said:

 

"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 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.”

Here’s a PDF file prepared by Care2 of the petition as it stands now, Wednesday afternoon. I’ll submit updated results at the July 22 City Council meeting. 

 

Download FIrst 227 stand-up-for-lgbtq-rights-in-salem_071719-2

 

City Recorder, please print out the 11 pages of the petition's PDF file as part of my advance testimony. It contains many comments submitted by signers that explain why they support this petition that often are quite moving,

 

Here’s three of the comments from petition signers who live in Salem. They echo the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission.

"If the Salem Alliance Church wants to be against same sex marriage then so be it. However, our tax dollars should not go to this church. The city would be funding their anti LGBTQ views. NO, NO, NO to this location being the temporary home of the Salem Library. Why should my tax dollars go to an organization who believes my marriage is wrong and immoral??? My family will stop using the library if the city insists on housing the library on the property of this homophobic organization."

 

"The discriminatory practices of Salem Alliance Church and harmful, derogatory beliefs held by the pastor directly affect the lives of myself and my loved ones in negative ways. While I support the missions of Broadway on a broader spectrum, I do not want to support city money going towards the Salem Alliance Church."

 

"The city should not house any public and publicly funded operations in private holdings, especially ecclesiastical holdings, even temporarily. The particular church in question, while doing many things that do serve the community at large, is anti LGBTQ+ in it's practices. Housing the library in a building owned by a church that gives to the community with one hand while actively preaching against the equality of specific members of that community will make those members of the community hesitate to use library services for the duration of the situation. There are many large, empty buildings in Salem, surely one can be found for a reasonable price that doesn't belong to a discriminatory entity."

I want to note that one of the petition signers is Jim Scheppke, an avid supporter of the library who worked hard to pass the bond measure that is funding the renovation of the Salem Public Library. He was director of the Library for the State of Oregon for 20 years. Here’s Scheppke’s comment:

"Our library has enough problems as it is. It doesn't need to alienate a significant portion of our community (and for good reason). Take the time to find another site for the temporary library."

Since the petition was shared on social media, signers are from a wide variety of places. However, 157 of the first 227 signers have a Salem or Keizer address, with many more being from nearby areas such as Silverton, Albany, Turner, and such.

 

(2) Human Rights Commission statement. Though members of the City Council and other City officials likely have read the statement of the Salem Human Rights Commission, I wanted to be sure that it is entered into the record. Here it is, in both PDF and print form.

Download HRC statement on the Library relocation

 

Salem Human Rights Commission statement concerning the potential lease of property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary relocation of the Salem Public Library.

 

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 purpose of the Commission is to promote harmonious relations within the city, examine sources of tension, practices of discrimination and act of prejudice in the city, and make recommendations concerning solutions to specific problems of prejudice or discrimination. The Commission will continue to be available for reports of discrimination in the community.

 

The Commission fully understands and supports freedom of religion and expression for all people, including faith based organizations. One of the Commission’s roles is to actively assist persons who experience discrimination based upon religion.

This commitment to freedom of religion, however, does not allow for the Commission to be in support of this business transaction. It is offensive to some members of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.

The Commission strongly supports and appreciates the mission and programing of the Salem Public Library. The Library plays a critical role in providing a welcoming and supportive environment for all members of the community, particularly members of the community that are vulnerable, our youth, and those of limited means. 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.

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. In the event that the City must use this location, the Commission recommends that the City Council publicly proclaim the City’s support and adherence to the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code, particularly as applied to the LGBTQ community, and urge all of the city’s residents to support and encourage a city free of discriminatory barriers. Further, the City should affirm that the City, particularly the Library, is open and welcoming to all members of the Community, and that the City is committed to ensuring that the Library will remain so during its relocation. The Commission and the LGBTQ Task Force is committed to working with  the Salem Public Library to develop options to make the Library’s temporary space accessible, welcoming and inclusive to all.

Approved by the Human Rights Commission July 2, 2019

______________________________________ Danielle Meyer, Chair,

on behalf of the Human Rights Commission 

(3) My testimony regarding the Human Rights Commission statement. It is important to note that the clear preference of the Commission is for City officials to find another location for a temporary library other than the church-owned Capital Press building, even if that alternative costs more and is less efficient in terms of library operations.

 

The key reason for this stand by the Human Rights Commission is that members of the LGBTQ communities will not be comfortable accessing the church-owned space, and some will avoid going to the library altogether during the 18 months or so the temporary space will be used.

 

I’ve heard arguments that the City of Salem contracts with other religious organizations, so why not the Salem Alliance Church? Well, the Salem Public Library is unique among social services provided by the City of Salem. It is intended to be a welcoming place for everyone in the community. Repeat, everyone. 

 

The Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council spent considerable time at its June meeting discussing the fact of the Salem Alliance Church being opposed to LGBTQ rights, and how this would impact use of the library if the Capital Press building was leased as a temporary library location.

 

I heard it said on the audio recording of the meeting (written minutes aren’t available) that the situation is akin to why some people refuse to shop at Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby, or such. It isn’t that these places aren’t welcoming to everybody, since they embrace anybody with cash to spend. 

 

Rather, people have objections to certain practices followed by these organizations, including how they treat their employees, their effect on other businesses, their commitment to social justice/equity (or lack thereof), and so on. The same applies if the City of Salem were to use the church-owned building as a temporary library.

 

What bothers many people, including me, is that the Salem Alliance Church considers LGBTQ people to be second-class citizens. Perhaps this sounds overly harsh. I disagree. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is practiced by a religious organization or anyone else.

 

If a corporation made it known that they oppose same-sex marriage and consider same-sex sex to be a sin, wouldn’t people who support LGBTQ rights be justified in boycotting that corporation? Why should bigotry founded in a controversial interpretation of the Old Testament be exempt from such outrage? 

 

At the June meeting of the Library Renovation Committee meeting, city councilor Jim Lewis had a “love it or leave it” attitude toward those who oppose the City of Salem paying the Salem Alliance Church for a lease on the Capital Press building. Lewis said:

"This is a business transaction. The church has a right to work within its rules. Our job here is to find the best facility for the library. And if that means someone won't go to it, so be it."

That led someone else to respond:

"I disagree. We have an obligation to make sure we have a space that is open and welcoming to the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't go there [to the church-owned building]. I'm just saying we have a [Human Rights] Commission. We have a process. If there are things we can do to help mitigate those concerns, I think we should do them."

So City staff went to meetings of both the LGBTQ Human Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission and the Commission itself. They explained how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be, given that it would be run by City of Salem employees.

 

Then they got the response back from the Human Rights Commission expressed in the statement above.

 

"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."

 

So given that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Human Rights Commission how it felt about use of the church-owned building for a temporary library, and the Commission basically said find another place, even if it costs more and is less efficient, the burden now is on City officials to prove that no other building in Salem exists that has 16,000 square feet or so of available space. 

(That’s the size of the Capital Press building.)

The City Council is faced with a difficult decision. Three options appear open to the Council, none of them ideal.

 

A. Select a location for the temporary library that doesn’t carry with it the baggage of the property being owned by an organization opposed to LGBTQ rights. This is the preference of the Human Rights Commission, which I agree with.

 

B. Enter into a lease with the Salem Alliance Church to use the Capital Press building as a temporary library. This will lead many in the LGBTQ communities to avoid going to the library, and will send a signal that the City of Salem doesn’t fully endorse LGBTQ rights.

 

C. Require citizens to use the West Salem branch of the library while renovations are being made to the library’s main Civic Center building. This would be better than no library at all for 18 months.

 

I hope you choose option A above. 

 

Sincerely, Brian Hines

 

 

Salem's LGBTQ communities need your help

I get it. It's summer. The living is mostly easy. There's so many causes -- political, social, cultural -- that demand your attention. But please give some serious thought to spending a few minutes to help some people close to home: Salem's LGBTQ communities.

Here's the issue they need your help with.

The Salem Public Library has to be relocated while renovations are made to the library building at the Civic Center. City officials favor using the old Capital Press building adjacent to the Broadway Commons as a temporary library.

Problem is, the Capital Press building is owned by the Salem Alliance Church, as is the Broadway Commons. The church isn't LGBTQ friendly.

Now, if you're either already familiar with this issue, or don't need further convincing to support the LGBTQ communities in Salem who oppose leasing of the church-owned property for a temporary public library, I urge you to do one or more of these things as soon as possible -- since the City Council will be discussing this issue, and likely acting on it, at the Monday, July 22 council meeting.

(1) Sign the “Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!” petition that will be submitted to the City Council.

(2) Submit advance testimony for the July 22 City Council meeting to [email protected] with a "cc" to [email protected]  Include your full name and address. Express support for the Human Rights Commission position that a different location than the church-owned building should be found for a temporary library, even if that location is more costly and less efficient in terms of operations. Note that alternative locations have been identified by City staff.

 

(3) Testify in person during the three-minute public comment period at the Monday, July 22 City Council meeting, 6 pm at the council chambers in City Hall (555 Liberty St. SE). Sign up before the meeting, indicating which agenda item you’re testifying on. Read your testimony if desired, but often testimony has more of an impact if it's spoken while looking at the council members and comes from the heart, as well as the head. 

 

OK, with this important citizen activism request out of the way, we return to the subject of this blog post: why Salem's LGBTQ communities need the help described in 1-3 above.

 

The Salem Alliance Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, even though this has been legal everywhere in the United States since 2015. The church also considers same-sex sex to be a sin. Last December I wrote about this in "Salem Alliance Church pastor talks about sin of same-sex sex."

 

Another post, "Two reports of how Broadway Coffee House/Commons discriminates against LBGT people," described how neighbors of the Broadway Commons were boycotting it because of the church's discriminatory attitudes.

 

I also shared a letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal calling for a boycott. So it wasn't surprising that the Salem Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to reject the plan to use the church-owned building for a temporary library, even if an alternative location costs more and is less efficient in terms of operations.

 

And that vote occurred after City officials met with both the LGBTQ Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission itself. Thus the decision to oppose using the Capital Press building during the library's relocation period (18 months or so) was well-informed, given that those officials hoped to convince the Human Rights Commission to support use of the church-owned building.

 

Here's excerpts from the full Human Rights Commission statement:

"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 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."

There are indeed other properties available to serve as a temporary library. I'm confident of this because I've listened to audio recordings of several meetings of the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council, including the most recent meeting in June.

One of the facts I discussed in "Three facts about the controversy over Salem library moving to church property" was Seemingly there are alternatives to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church.  Two days ago I asked City officials to let me know if they disagreed with any of the facts in that post. I've heard nothing back.

City officials don't see much wrong with using the church-owned building because the church isn't going to be running the temporary library. However, this quote in a Salem Reporter story, "Plan to move Salem library to church-owned property stirs discrimination concerns," captures why the Human Rights Commission opposes this plan.

Daniel Rollings, president of the Salem chapter of PFLAG, a national organization that advocates for LGBTQ rights, said the plan is still tantamount to partnering with a hate group.

“I am completely opposed to the city partnering with any organization, regardless of what it is, that actively discriminates against anyone,” he said. “The city should not put out bids to work with the (Ku Klux Klan) nor should they work with anti-LGBTQ organizations that actively discriminate against the LGBTQ community.”

If you find what Rollings said to be unduly provocative, here's how I see the situation.

Imagine an alternative reality. Most people are gay, attracted to the same sex. But there's a minority who are heterosexual. One of the largest churches in Salem wants to lease a building to the City of Salem for a temporary library. It's well known that the church will only marry LGBTQ individuals. And it considers sex between people of the opposite sex to be a sin.

If you're heterosexual, wanting to marry a woman if you're a man, or a man if you're a woman, would you feel comfortable using a library in a building owned by a church that denies your right to marry? And not only that. Whether you're married or not, the church says that you shouldn't be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, because that would be a sin.

How would you feel about taxpayer money being used to lease space in a building that opposes what you consider to be fundamental human rights: the right to marry whoever you love, and the right to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex?

Speaking as a heterosexual man, I wouldn't like that at all.

Which is why I'm supporting the Human Rights Commission, because I understand why members of Salem's LGBTQ communities don't want the City of Salem to lease space from a church that denies their basic human rights.

Three facts about the controversy over Salem library moving to church property

We love facts here at the Salem Political Snark blog. We also adore opinions, which should be based on facts as much as possible.

So here's some facts about the controversial proposal of City officials to temporarily house the public library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, along with my opinions about those facts. Note: I'm going to send this blog post to officials at the City of Salem so they can check my facts.

First, though, I invite you to sign a petition I started last Friday in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission, which opposes the library using the church-owned building while renovations are occurring, given the church's opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that same-sex sex is a sin.

Click here to view my "Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!" petition. 

The following facts are based on the most recent meeting of the Library Renovation Council Subcommittee. I listened to the portion of the audio file of the June 18, 2019 meeting dealing with the relocation of the library, since apparently there are no written minutes of the meeting. (The Meeting Notes just consisted of the audio file.)

I jotted down quotes as I listened. The quotes from meeting participants (see above) shared in this post shouldn't be taken as a perfect transcript of what they said, but are accurate enough for blog post purposes. The discussion of finding a site to temporarily house the library was lengthy.

It often was difficult to know who was speaking. So if I'm confident about who said something, I'll identify them in a quote. Otherwise, I'll leave the quote unidentified. Here's the three facts that stood out for me.

(1) Seemingly there are alternatives to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church. At the subcommittee's April meeting, three locations were mentioned as leading candidates to temporarily house the library: the church-owned Capital Press building, Liberty Plaza, and the Vick Building. 

Some Googling shows that large spaces in Liberty Plaza no longer are available. But plenty of space in the Vick Building is still shown as available to be leased, 24,000 square feet on the first and second floors. I believe the library is only looking for around 15,000 square feet. The Capital Press building is 16,000 square feet.

And there was talk at the June meeting about a location that I believe was termed "Pringle Warehouse." It could be this listing, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I didn't hear anyone say the Capital Press building was the only option for the library. It just was viewed by City staff as the best option.

Library staff and others toured the Vick Building, but felt the Capital Press building was preferable. One reason is cost, since it was said repeatedly that if the lease (likely 18 months) cost less than was budgeted, the savings could be used for other library needs. This tells me that the City of Salem probably could afford to lease a different building, if this was necessary.

UPDATE: Today, July 17, I called the company that had the Vick Building up for sale or lease. I was told that a contract on the Vick Building has been signed, and it will be purchased within the next few months. So that option is gone for a temporary library.

(2) The Library Renovation Subcommittee was divided on the Capital Press building. Much of the discussion at the meeting centered around pushback from the community if the City of Salem leased space for the library from a church that is viewed as anti-LGBTQ rights, given its stance on same-sex marriage and same-sex sex. Here's some quotes:

"I think we're going to be dinged for it [using the church building], and I don't like it. I don't like giving money to a church that is discriminatory, and doesn't follow the law."

"My concern is that there are community groups that will not meet at that space [Broadway Commons, also owned by the church]. And if I can extrapolate, they would not meet at the library, if we were to be there [Capital Press building]. So that's a concern for me, and I'm just concerned we're going to limit the people who are going to come to the library for the next two years."

Now, my impression is that when the person quoted above said the church doesn't follow the law, this referred to the fact that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States. However, the Salem Alliance Church doesn't believe in same-sex marriage.

Others at the meeting argued that it is legal for a church to deny its members the right to be married by the church, which is correct. However, this didn't sway those who felt that the City of Salem shouldn't house the public library in a building owned by a group opposed to LGBTQ rights.

Near the end of the meeting, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez (whose voice I recognized) said in regard to leasing the church-owned building, "We're just going to have to hold our nose." Meaning, ignore something unpleasant. And in regard to going to the Human Rights Commission, Fernandez said, "We're just looking for some discussion and ultimately some cover."

Turns out, not only did the Human Rights Commission not give City officials any cover when it comes to leasing the Capital Press building, it actively opposed doing this.

(3) Most agreed that the Human Rights Commission should weigh-in on the LGBTQ rights issue. Given the back and forth between the Library Renovation Subcommittee members regarding the appropriateness of temporarily housing the library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, there was general agreement that the Human Rights Commission should be asked how it feels about this.

What I found interesting is how optimistic most of the committee members were about getting the Human Rights Commission stamp of approval to lease the Capital Press building from the church. The plan was for several City of Salem staff members to first meet with the Commission's LGBTQ Rights Task Force, then with the Human Rights Commission itself.

The idea was to stress how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be to the LGBTQ community, even though the Salem Alliance Church was opposed to the fundamental rights of same-sex marriage and the ability to engage in same-sex sex without being termed a "sinner."

Of course, that idea came to a screeching halt when the Human Rights Commission ended up voting unanimously to oppose using the church-owned property as a temporary library. 

Listening to the audio recording of the meeting, it seems to me that the subcommittee didn't understand that just because a church has the legal right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, this doesn't mean that the City of Salem should funnel public funds into the Salem Alliance Church bank account, and force citizens who care about LGBTQ rights and also want to use the library to make a tough ethical decision during the renovation period.

I was able to make out the distinctive voice of Councilor Jim Lewis. Here's part of what he had to say:

"This is a business transaction. The church has a right to work within its rules. Our job here is to find the best facility for the library. And if that means someone won't go to it, so be it."

That led another committee member to say:

"I disagree. We have an obligation to make sure we have a space that is open and welcoming to the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't go there [to the church-owned building]. I'm just saying we have a [Human Rights] Commission. We have a process. If there are things we can do to help mitigate those concerns, I think we should do them."

Well, the Human Rights Commission statement on this issue ended up saying this:

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.

So given that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Human Rights Commission how it felt about use of the church-owned building for a temporary library, and the Commission basically said find another place, even if it costs more and is less efficient, the burden now is on City officials to prove that no other building in Salem is available.

Given that City staff clearly want to use the Capital Press building, I'm worried that the staff report going to the City Council won't honestly and accurately present the other options for housing the library. This needs to happen so the Council can assess the pros and cons of leasing space from a church that is anti-LGBTQ rights.

It seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to pick a different location for a temporary library. Indications are that this issue will be discussed, and possibly voted on, at the Monday, June 22 meeting of the Salem City Council.

I'll end by observing that our one and only daily print newspaper, the Statesman Journal, so far has failed to run a story about the Human Rights Commission opposing use of the church-owned building for a temporary library. I emailed two reporters at the Statesman Journal who cover city government, suggesting a story, but never got a reply.

Pleasingly, the online-only Salem Reporter did run a story, "Plan to move Salem library to church-owned property stirs discrimination concerns."

Human Rights Commission stand on library relocation rests on secular faith

I'm a proud atheist. But for 35 years I was religious, having been an active member of an Indian organization led by a guru considered to be God in human form.

So I understand how powerful religious faith can be. I also know that secular forms of faith are equally powerful and deserve just as much respect. 

In fact, more so, as I'll explain below.

This is why I admire the stand of Salem's Human Rights Commission, which recently unanimously voted to oppose the City of Salem paying the Salem Alliance Church for use of a church-owned building to temporarily house the public library while renovations are being made.

The church considers that same-sex marriage and same-sex sex are sins.

Not surprisingly, the Salem Alliance Church doesn't base this anti-LGBTQ attitude on anything but the Bible. Which is a circular argument, since as I noted in a post on my churchless blog, the church uses the same illogic that is common to every religion.

What we believe is true because the holy scripture or holy person we believe in says it is true.

But here's the important thing. Religious faith has nothing to do with the practice of being faithful to some cause, moral standard, or divine entity. Martin Hägglund discusses this in his marvelous book, "This Life: Secular Life and Spiritual Freedom."

Religious faith takes the object of faith to be a god -- or some other form of infinite being -- that is independent of our practice of faith. Our spiritual cause is treated as though it were a being that commands and has power over us without being dependent on us.

In other words, the Biblical God worshipped by the Salem Alliance Church isn't affected in any way by how LGBTQ people are treated. That God (which I consider to be imaginary, along with all other gods) isn't lessened or enhanced if same-sex marriage is legal, as it is in the entire United States now.

Thus whenever we humans take a stand on some moral or ethical issue, our secular faith is at stake -- not religious faith. I quoted Hägglund in my post, "What sustains us is caring in time, not detachment in eternity."

Secular faith is committed to persons and projects that may be lost: to make them live on for the future. Far from being resigned to death, a secular faith seeks to postpone death and improve the conditions of life. As we will see, living on should not be conflated with eternity.

The commitment to living on does not express an aspiration to live forever but to live longer and to live better, not to overcome death but to extend the duration and improve the quality of a form of life.

...To have secular faith is to acknowledge that the object of our faith is dependent on the practice of faith. I call it secular faith, since the object of devotion does not exist independently of those who believe in its importance and who keep it alive through their fidelity.

The Salem Human Rights Commission was practicing secular faith when it issued the statement calling for the City of Salem to find another location for a temporary library, even if it cost more or was less convenient than the church-owned building, because, as the Commission said in its statesment:

It is offensive to some members of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.

...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.

Hopefully city officials and the Salem City Council will realize that people take secular forms of faith just as seriously as religious forms of faith.

I say this because when I listened to an audio recording of the April meeting of the City Council's Library Renovation Subcommittee, I was struck by how much of the tenor of the discussion over where to temporarily house the library centered around cost and convenience, not the ethics of using public funds to pay a church that, to put it bluntly, views LGBTQ people as second-class citizens.

Earth to City officials: It isn't always about money!

The Human Rights Commission has said that even if it costs more to lease a different building, this should be done, because it is the right thing to do.

That's secular faith -- having the courage to stand up for a cause, and at-risk people, even when this is inconvenient, bothersome, and expensive in monetary terms. After all, what's the point of saving money if a value that makes life worth living is frittered away?

I'll end with another quote from Martin Hägglund's book.

The commitment to mutual social freedom as an end in itself -- as a spiritual cause that commands us to act -- is our secular achievement and not due to any religious revelation.

Freedom as an end in itself is not promoted by any of the world's religions or by any of its founding figures. Neither Jesus nor Buddha or Muhammad has anything to say about freedom as an end in itself. This is not an accident but consistent with their teachings.

What ultimately matters from a religious perspective is not freedom, but salvation; what ultimately matters is not to lead a life but to be saved from being alive.

City Council should stop library from discarding books needlessly

The Big Weed is up for discussion at next Monday's City Council meeting (July 8, 6 pm). Unfortunately, this agenda item isn't about a garden horror or a massive marijuana plant. 

It concerns the needless removal of books from the Salem Public Library. 

Jim Scheppke, who spent 20 years as the State Librarian for Oregon before he retired, is aghast at how Salem's library has been allowed to deteriorate.

He's amassed a lot of convincing arguments, backed up by solid data, in hopes that even though the library's ill-considered book removal policy is shown as only an information item for the City Council, councilors will act to stop the Big Weed.

Scheppke's report, "Why the Big Weed must end," has been submitted as advance testimony for the City Council meeting. As a lover of books, I found a chart in the report to be deeply disturbing. Here's a screenshot that includes commentary by Scheppke.

Wow. A quarter of the book collection has been lost in the past six years, with every year showing a decline.

Hopefully this long-term decimation of the Salem Public Library's book collection will get more attention from city councilors than a flawed one-month analysis of book removals and additions for May 2019 that's part of a staff report for the upcoming meeting.

This analysis was performed by library staff after it was requested by the City Council in April of this year. So to my mind it's meaningless. Scheppke and other critics of the Big Weed have been hammering library administrators for discarding books without good reason.

So rather than ask library staff to defend prior discarding of books, the City Council gave them advance notice that the next month's book removal effort would be scrutinized. Not surprisingly, for the month of May things looked more or less OK. Here's how Scheppke described this in an email to supporters of ending the Big Weed.

The so-called “tracking study” done in May is being used to try to show that the Council has nothing to worry about if they give the green light. Of course the whole thing was rigged to put the situation in the best light. 

As this chart from the agenda packet shows, in May 592 adult non-fiction books were added and 499 were removed “through review.” Another 77 were weeded for condition (“snags”), for a net gain of 16 books.

 

Trouble is this was a totally atypical month, because we know that in the past six years our adult book collection has not grown. It has been reduced by 24%. In each of the past six years an average of 10% of the collection has been removed, the result being that we now have one of the smallest book collections per capita of any library in the state.

 

Our collection of only 1.6 books per capita is far below the state average of about 2 books per capita.

 

The May tracking study was “lipstick on a pig.” It is an attempt to fool the Salem City Council to look the other way so that thousands more books can be removed from our library, as happened last fall.

I'm bothered not only by this current example of City of Salem staff doing the lipstick on a pig thing, but how this has been a frequent way of operating by city officials during the tenure of City Manager Steve Powers. Meaning, citizen concerns often are not directly addressed. Instead, bureaucratic double-talk is used to defend otherwise indefensible city policies. 

In this case, Scheppke and others have systematically documented how the Salem Public Library has failed to follow generally accepted guidelines for discarding books. Yet neither the City Librarian, Sarah Strahl, nor her acquiescent Library Advisory Board have presented cogent arguments against Scheppke, et.al.

Instead, they just say they should be allowed to keep on with their Big Weed, facts be damned. Which isn't how any government official should behave, especially a librarian who supposedly is dedicated to facts, reason, and open discussion.

There's still time to submit testimony to the City Council urging that the Salem Public Library stop discarding books for no good reason. Email your thoughts to [email protected] and reference Agenda Item 6.b

Here's another excerpt from Scheppke's tell-all report:

The Big Picture

 

In closing I want to step back from the Big Weed and make note of the fact that most Salem elected officials and library users do not realize how substandard our library has become. It's not just the adult book collection that has suffered a "death by 1,000 cuts" over several decades.

 

When I moved to Oregon with my librarian wife in 1986, the Salem Public Library, under the outstanding leadership of George Happ, was regarded as one of the best public libraries in Oregon. The library was known as an innovator.

 

It was the first to have an auditorium (and even today only one other public library, Beaverton City Library, has one). It was the first library to have an interactive space for children, the Discovery Room, which still draws children to the library today. There was a time with our library even offered low cost dial-up Internet service to make the Internet available to more citizens. How far we have fallen from those glory days.

 

The Oregon Public Library Report Card compares the 29 largest libraries in Oregon (those serving over 25,000 population) on 14 different key metrics that assess library quality and library performance. For each metric a grade is awarded based on how the library falls within a quintile ranking of the 29 libraries.

 

As shown in the comparison of the top eight libraries in the state, the Salem Public Library scores no better than a D or an F on 9 of the 14 metrics, worse than any other major library. Its best score is a B for Children's Program  Attendance Per Capita. But all the other scores range from mediocre to poor.

 

What drives most of the poor scores for our library is the metric Total Library Expenditures Per Capita where our library scores an F, with expenditures of only $28.52 per capita. Our library ranks third from the bottom of all 29 libraries serving over 25,000 population. Even the Jackson County Library, which has struggled for funding in the past decade with the dramatic decline in county timber receipts, manages to spend about $10 more per capita than our library.

 

And the top funded library, Multnomah County Library spends over three times the amount per capita as our library. Eugene spends more than twice as much.

 

It should be clear that our library will stay at the bottom of the heap as the worst major library in Oregon unless some way is found to improve library funding. The Big Weed just rubs salt into the wound. To me it's madness to set out to discard thousands of books when our library's ability to replace them and to grow our collection appears to be nonexistent at this time.

City Manager Powers lying about Climate Action Plan

Infuriating.

That's the least profane word I can come up with to describe how Steve Powers, Salem's City Manager, is acting toward a Climate Action Plan that is one of the City Council's priorities, yet Powers is doing his best to kill.

Steve Powers

In a staff report for Monday's City Council meeting, where the budget for the next fiscal year will be discussed, Powers describes the Climate Action Plan in a way that shows he is either astoundingly clueless about what it is, or he is deliberately lying.
Download City of Salem Budget Supplemental Report

Given what follows, lying seems by far the most likely.

Here's what Powers said in a section about three amendments proposed at a Budget Committee hearing that received support, but not enough votes to be included in the budget proposal.

This is completely and utterly false. It's the sort of falsehood that would be par for the course for our incessantly-lying President, but which is shockingly shameful when it comes from a supposedly professional city manager of Oregon's capital city.

A May 17 Salem Reporter story, "Salem councilors favoring new revenue for climate action plan," accurately describes what a Climate Action Plan consists of.

A climate action plan would more closely study Salem’s carbon emissions, waste management and planning policies, and set goals to curb carbon emissions for decades to come.

City Manager Powers must know what a Climate Action Plan is, since this has been discussed by city councilors and others for several years, being part of the Strategic Plan for the City of Salem that was adopted in October 2017. Here it is, on page 20: 

So not only is Steve Powers failing to act in accord with the Strategic Plan that's supposed to point the way for City of Salem actions, it sure seems like he is knowingly trying to mislead citizens about what a Climate Action Plan is.

And there isn't any doubt that the $50,000 Powers wrongly says is for "tree planting" and other immediate actions actually is intended to be money to get a Climate Action Plan off the ground.

Here's another excerpt from the Salem Reporter story. Andersen refers to City Councilor Tom Andersen.

Andersen believes the city could at least start the work. He proposed the budget committee to give an extra $50,000 for a consultant to get started on a climate action plan.

It's really disturbing that City Manager Powers is acting in such a duplicitous fashion. This should make city councilors, and indeed everybody in Salem, wonder what else Powers is deceiving about. If he's willing to knowingly mischaracterize a Climate Action Plan, how can he be trusted about anything else he says?

This certainly shows that Powers doesn't care about global warming and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That alone makes him a poor fit for Salem, where people do care a lot about preserving the Earth for both ourselves and future generations.

Hopefully members of the City Council and other citizens will grill Powers about why he chose to lie about the Climate Action Plan in his supplemental report concerning the budget.

i say "lie," because it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Powers is clueless about what a Climate Action Plan consists of, given that it is part of the city's Strategic Plan.

NEXT DAY UPDATE: I got this email response from Steve Powers. Pretty lame. Powers ignores these facts: (1) He ignored the fact that Councilor Andersen and other members of the Budget Committee want $50,000 in the next fiscal year budget to begin work on a Climate Action Plan, and (2) He ignored the fact that he totally mischaracterized what that $50,000 was to be used for, instead substituting his own notion that planting trees is equivalent to beginning work on a Climate Action Plan, which obviously it isn't.

Brian,

Thank you for the email. 

The Salem Strategic Plan adopted in 2017 is a five-year plan to guide progress on City Council priorities.  Annual Policy Agendas flow from the Salem Strategic Plan. 

The 2019 Policy Agenda includes a greenhouse gas inventory.  The inventory has been completed.  The 2019 Policy Agenda does not include a climate action plan. 

Development of the 2020 Policy Agenda will begin later this year.

Steve Powers

[email protected]

503-588-6255
City Manager
City of Salem
Salem, Oregon

 

Salem's city officials ignore danger of global warming

Salem can be a deeply irritating place to live when a comparison to other cities in Oregon screams Salem sucks! 

A notable example is how Portland, Corvallis, Eugene, and other cities all have climate action plans aimed at reducing greenhouse gas polllution, while Salem doesn't.

Because of the leadership of the current progressive majority on the City Council, a draft greenhouse gas inventory for the Salem area has been developed, though. 

Recently Tracy Loew of the Statesman Journal wrote a great story, "Salem's per capita tailpipe emissions highest among biggest Oregon cities." (title of online version) Here's how it starts out:

Most carbon emissions released within Salem's city limits come from vehicle tailpipes, the city’s first greenhouse gas inventory found.

As the state capital, Salem draws 63% of its workers from elsewhere, the study states. And 86% of the people who work in Salem and live in the city commute by car — a higher percentage than in Oregon’s other largest cities.

As a result, Salem's per capita transportation emissions are nearly double those of Portland's, and significantly higher than Eugene's. 

The inventory, completed this month, is the first step for Salem to develop a possible climate action plan — a local plan for cutting carbon emissions to help stem climate change.

Salem is the only large city in Oregon without such a plan.

Portland, Oregon’s biggest city, was first in the nation to create a climate action plan, in 1993. Eugene, which is about the same size as Salem, approved its plan in in 2010.

Gresham, Bend, Beaverton and Medford have climate action plans. So do some small Oregon cities, including Ashland and Milwaukie.

The results of Salem's greenhouse gas inventory have been known for several months. Environmental activists and members of the City Council have been urging that Salem take the next step and fashion a Climate Action Plan.

Yet Steve Powers, the City Manager, didn't include any funding for a Climate Action Plan in the budget for the next fiscal year. A Salem Reporter story by Troy Brynelson, "Salem councilors favoring new revenue for climate action plan," contains some infuriating information.

Salem staff say there isn’t enough money or city planners for a full-scale climate action plan.

The Community Development Department, which would administer the program, currently has one long-range planner.

According to department director Norm Wright, that lone planner is currently in charge of work to update the city’s comprehensive plan called “Our Salem.” That planner also would help Salem change its codes if the Legislature approves statewide zoning changes.

Wright estimates a climate action plan would cost $120,000 to complete and require four full-time employees to administer.

“I think the big concern that we have is we are so committed right now to the current planning efforts we have currently underway that we cannot easily take on this project without a significant investment,” said Wright. “We would need a pretty significant investment that the budget isn’t quite capable of supporting.”

Wow. We have a really short-sighted and clueless bunch of bureaucrats at City Hall. 

For one thing, how could a Climate Action Plan take four full-time employees to administer it? Somehow the City of Salem is getting by with only one employee doing long-range planning for everything. It's hard to believe that overseeing a Climate Action Plan would take four times as many people.

And even if it does, isn't preserving Earth's ability to be habitable for humans more important than anything else?

It's astounding that we have a City Manager and director of the Department of Community Development who are so uncaring about the most important issue facing Salem, Oregon, America, and the world: rapidly rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gas pollution.

Hopefully the City Council will have more sense than Steve Powers, Norm Wright, and the members of the Budget Committee who failed to include any money for a Climate Action Plan.

The Statesman Journal story says, "The council has scheduled a public hearing on the budget on June 10 and will vote on it June 24."

If you agree that Salem needs to have a Climate Action Plan, email city officials and tell them this: [email protected]

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has a cogent take on the Statesman Journal story in "Yes, It's the Cars." Excerpts:

We have to make shorter trips and make fewer trips. We have to reduce the total miles traveled in addition to converting the auto fleet to electricity.

We will need to change our zoning and shift away from vast swaths of single-family housing, no matter how much "neighborhood character" we fear might be lost. But doing so will help with housing affordability. We will also need to make transit work much better. More people living near frequent service lines will help generate demand for even more frequent service.

...Yes, it's the cars, and we have to figure out ways to drive less. Once we are willing to talk for real about our overreliance on cars and drive-alone trips, problems with pollution, housing cost, congestion, road safety, and even city budgets and infrastructure costs start to look more solvable. But as long as we do not contemplate disturbing our autoist system, these problems remain intractable.

City Council stops "Big Weed" book removal at library. For now.

Well, a few days ago the title of my blog post was a bit off.

I said "Final skirmish at hand in Salem Library 'Battle of the Books.'" But at last night's City Council meeting, a motion proposed by Councilor Chris Hoy passed unanimously.

It puts the so-called Big Weed book removal effort on hold until the end of June, most likely. Here's how the leader of the Big Weed opposition, Jim Scheppke, put it in an email he sent out today.

Dear Library Supporters:

Last night the City Council voted not to resume the Big Weed for a couple months at least. I want to thank all of you who attended the meeting, who testified and who submitted written testimony. I think we made a good showing.

 

Councilor Hoy led the effort to continue to have the Council look at the issues surrounding the Collection Development Policy. Near the end of the meeting he made this motion:

 

"I move there will be no actual removal of adult non-fiction books for any reason other than condition until the Council reviews the May tracking report along with any recommendations of staff or the LAB.” [Library Advisory Board]

 

The “tracking report” refers to a report that the LAB has requested of all the books removed in May. According to the staff report “the report will include the percentage of items withdrawn for condition versus lack of use and provide examples that communicate full consideration of collection development decisions made by librarians for items withdrawn, retained and repaired.”

 

As I understand Councilor Hoy’s motion, adult non-fiction books won’t actually be withdrawn in May, but still may be tagged somehow for withdrawal in the future.

 

Later in the discussion Councilor How clarified his motion by saying this:

 

"We’re saying don’t actually discard the books while we are doing the work that the Library Advisory Board asked them to do. My goal would be to get detailed information on the factors that went into the decision to remove a book from the library so we have that next level of detail that we don’t have currently so we can make a thorough review of the policy and how it is being implemented.”

 

So what will happen next is the staff will do the “tracking” in May and report on that to the LAB in June. The LAB will then make a recommendation to Council about what should happen next.

 

The LAB seems totally committed to continuing the Big Weed so I am not optimistic that they will have a different recommendation for the Council in June. We will need to plan to go back to the Council when they take this up again. I am guessing that will be on June 24th, if you would like to mark your calendar.

 

The entire Council meeting can be viewed on YouTube:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFe5-e1fVa4&list=PLSUQ1gg6M78VKOuquIugWwZJ2MERL1ul8&index=4

 

If you just want to watch the action at the end of the meeting, that begins at about the 3:08 mark (use the slider to go there).

 

I hope you will all hang in there and not waver from our efforts to stop the Big Weed.

 

Please email me directly if you have questions about this.

Jim

On his Save Our Books at Salem Public Library Facebook page, Scheppke also shared a short video of remarks Hoy made at the council meeting. This was the description of the video:

Thanks to Councilor Chris Hoy for his leadership last night to put off resumption of the Big Weed for a least a couple of months. We hope he will continue to excercise leadership to reach a compromise that would bring together what he sees as the "two visions" for the future of the library.

One vision involves mass book removal, as was happening last fall, to create what library management and the Library Advisory Board see as a "dynamic" popular materials library.

Our vision is not the opposite of that, despite how it has been mischaracterized.

We want a dynamic popular materials library too, but we also want what is stated in the Collection Development Policy: "a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs." This cannot be achieved if the Big Weed resumes.

Why can't both "visions" be brought together? Maybe Councilor Hoy can work on that.

Troy Brynelson wrote a Salem Reporter story, scooping the Statesman Journal, which hasn't so far. Check out "Salem library review to return to Salem City Council this summer." Excerpts:

A dispute over Salem Public Library’s review of some of its books, which some feared would lead to a purge, could be resolved this summer.

Salem City Council on Monday directed library staff to continue only removing adult non-fiction titles that are in poor condition, retaining the rest, until at least June. Library staff will start work on a new report in May showing how the staff decide to keep, mend or discard books.

The new report would then go before the citizen-led Library Advisory Board and back to Salem City Council.

...After the motion passed, Jim Scheppke, a former director of the State Library of Oregon and a vocal opponent of the review, told Salem Reporter the motion was a “partial victory” because the review remains paused.

Three members of the advisory board, however, said they did not understand why the issue is going back to the board. In February, the board voted unanimously to recommend staff resume the review.

“We already made a recommendation,” said Lois Stark, board member. “Now they’re asking us to make another recommendation and I don’t understand.”

Hmmmm. Likely I'll have more to say about Stark's comment in another post.

Briefly, the Library Advisory Board, like almost all volunteer boards, appears to have been captured by full-time staff. Meaning, the LAB isn't capable of thinking independently, because they're used to doing the bidding of library staff.

I realize this might sound overly critical, but it's how I see the situation.

The same thing tends to happen with the City Council, a volunteer "board" dependent on City of Salem staff. Staff typically want to keep on doing what they've been doing, because they're comfortable doing it.

Yet obviously there is much more general knowledge and expertise among the citizenry in our city of about 170,000, than there is in City of Salem staff.

So while it makes sense for volunteer boards to lean on staff for direction in many cases, the Library Advisory Board should keep an open mind when well-informed citizens present views that differ from those of staff.

OK, I wasn't all that brief. I do have more to say on this subject, though. Another time...

Empty shelves at Salem Public Library after book removals

Final skirmish at hand in Salem Library "Battle of the Books"

Back in November 2018 Jim Scheppke issued a battle cry to book lovers: the decimation of the Salem Public Library's print collection must be met with fierce resistance.

See here, here, and here for my blog post reports about the first stages of the war against Library Director Sarah Strahl's efforts to implement what later became known as the Big Weed.

Since, I've followed the exploits of Scheppke and his band of outraged library users with much admiration.

They've been both relentless and reasonable in their efforts to understand why Strahl and her compliant Library Advisory Board feel it's OK to markedly reduce the number of  books -- which, according to Scheppke's seemingly solid research, already is quite a bit less than what a city of Salem's size should have in its library.

My impression is that Strahl and Co. have been unwilling to engage with critics of her book retention policies in any substantive manner. This seems decidedly at odds with how a supposedly fact-based librarian should operate.

Next Monday, April 22, the City Council will be discussing the library's Collection Development Policy, a more genteel term for the Big Weed.

No, wait... I misspoke.

Actually the City Council agenda item doesn't say there will be a discussion of the highly controversial Collection Development Policy. Instead, members of the City Council are supposed to be treated to an informational report of what's been going on.

Entirely appropriately, Scheppke is calling out Norm Wright, the Community Development Director who oversees the library, for Wright's attempt to sideline the City Council's legal responsibility to determine how the library operates.

Today Scheppke sent out this email:

Dear Library Supporters:

I thought you might be interested in my correspondence with the head of the Community Development Department (the City Librarian’s boss). He earlier indicated to me that the resumption of the Big Weed would serve as a recommendation to the Council. By making it an “information only” item on the Council agenda, he is not following through on that commitment.

 

Jim

Hey, of course us Library Supporters are interested in the correspondence. 

On March 6, Scheppke wrote this to Wright:

Hi Norm:

I am sorry to hear that the motion passed by the LAB at their last meeting is being interpreted as sanctioning the resumption of the book removal project. In my opinion this is not consistent with the Salem Revised Code.

 

According to the Salem Revision Code the LAB can only make recommendations to Council on library policy matters. So when the LAB approved a motion to resume implementation of the Collection Development Policy, that must be interpreted as a recommendation to the Council according to SRC 18.050(a).

 

I believe proper course of action would be to take the recommendation of the LAB to the Council on April 8th for Council action to accept the recommendation or to do otherwise.

 

I hope you will reconsider this in light of my comments. I will be in town on April 8th and would look forward to speaking to the Council about this.

 

Thanks for sharing this information with me,

Jim

Also on March 6, Wright responded to Scheppke:

Sorry, I could have been more precise with my words. We are in agreement. The LAB motion was indeed to *recommend* resuming the implementation. I could have written that fully in my email instead of just writing "the LAB motion".

 

Council can certainly decide to accept it or provide a different policy direction. The report will be written for that very purpose.

Hope that helps. 

But today Scheppke said this:

Norm: I am sorry to see in the Council agenda for Monday night that what you told me below is not what is happening. The LAB recommendation is “information only.” This is wrong. The LAB Bylaws are clear:

 

 

I hope you will see that this mistake is corrected and that the LAB recommendation is moved to Action Items, where it rightfully belongs.

 

Jim

Hopefully this will occur at next Monday's City Council meeting. It's ridiculous that City staff are trying to get away with making this an Informational Report agenda item. 

There needs to be extensive discussion of what Scheppke learned about through public record requests made to the City of Salem: 3,334 books have been removed from the library so far, with many more to come if the Big Weed isn't stopped. A few days ago he emailed me this:

Brian:

Here is a list of 3,334 books that were removed from our library collection in the Big Weed, before it was suspended. I got this information in three separate public records requests.

Download Books Removed from SPL

 

The City Council will decide whether the Big Weed should be resumed or not next Monday night. The Library Advisory Board is recommending it be resumed. A number of us are going to testify. I am trying to get two former librarians who recently quit to testify, but they are still deciding. It’s not really in the nature of most librarians to do that (yes, the stereotype is mostly true).

 

The list I made shows the books that are recommended for any public library in the Wilson guide Public Library Core Collection: Nonfiction. There are quite a few of them. They are all gone now.

 

I think a lot of the books on the list were probably sold for $1.25 and less at the recent Friends book sale. If the Big Weed were to resume many, many thousands more would be removed, I’m sure. They were just getting started when the project was suspended.

 

You’ll see from the list that the poetry collection and the play collection got hit pretty hard. Philosophy too, though they did not have that much to begin with. Lots of books on atheism are gone. 

 

Some of the books, but not many, were duplicates so there is still one on the shelf. You can’t assume these were the last copies, and many are owned by other libraries in CCRLS.

Breakfast on Bikes blog concerned about HB 2974 being a Third Bridge workaround

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post, "Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme." Here's part of what I said about this bill  proposed by state Representative Paul Evans.

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

[Note: proposed amendments to HB 2974 add Benton County to the counties comprising the bridge district, remove the ODOT representative, and sunset the district in 2024 if a bridge district hasn't been formed by then.]

Now I've got some blogging company, since a post on the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog notes that HB 2974 is being looked at by the City Council's legislative committee. Here's what the post said:

On the Rep. Evans Bridge District idea, one item especially in the analysis might give us pause. It seems to suggest that it's not at all out of the question that the District might try to site a bridge in Salem again. 

It had seemed like the District was an attempt to gather support for something more like a bridge at Wheatland Ferry.But this note makes it look more like it might be a bad-faith end-run around City Council's decision on the SRC.

Between the problems of property tax compression, the fact that any new bridge will induce traffic and add to greenhouse gas emissions, and adding another layer of regional government or governmental entity - all these together suggest the Bridge District idea should be approached very cautiously and critically.

I've heard that Rep. Evans didn't like that some opponents of HB 2974 were worried that this was a backdoor way to get around the Salem City Council's decision to kill the Salem River Crossing project. 

But I agree with the Breakfast on Bikes blogger: it sure looks like a Third Bridge at the same location as that project proposed could be brought back to life by the Special Bridge District.

Hopefully HB 2974 won't move forward in the Oregon legislature. Most of those who testified at HB 2974's first, and so far only, hearing were opposed to the bill according to a Salem Reporter story. Excerpt:

The prospect of a new governing body empowered to build bridges drew more opposition than support at a public hearing on Monday.

House Bill 2974 would allow voters in Marion, Polk, Yamhill and Benton counties to create a special district to oversee bridge planning, maintenance and funding. Board members would be elected and any taxes would go before voters.

Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, pitched the idea mere days after Salem City Council in February effectively ended the Salem River Crossing, a long-proposed bridge across the Willamette River, by a 6-to-3 vote.

During an hour-long public hearing at the House Rules Committee, witnesses mostly opposed the idea over economic, environmental and logistical concerns.

Sid Friedman, a Yamhill County resident, said the district would only offer one solution when more are needed.

“We do have transportation issues, I think we all recognize that, but this bridge district would only be looking at one solution — a new bridge, or bridges — instead of taking a more comprehensive look and saying ‘Here’s what we truly need to address our transportation issues,’” he said.

Bob Cortright, a West Salem resident, said the proposal would add another transportation body to an area with no shortage of governing bodies, like the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation.