Salem Political Snark

City Manager gives poor excuse for permitless Proud Boys rally

Ten days after the May 1 gun rally at Riverfront Park where gun-toting Proud Boys threatened citizens and journalists with expulsion from the park, city officials keep changing their story about why a permit wasn't required for the rally.

As I said in "Typogate" adds a twist to Proud Boys rally, at first City Councilor Tom Andersen was told that a typo on the city web site caused a page to say that May 1 was the date permits would be required for events in city parks, since a missing "3" would have made the date May 31.

But I pointed out in that blog post that on March 27 the web page had changed from saying "Due to COVID-19, parks and other City facilities are not available for reservation" to "Due to COVID-19, parks and other city facilities are not available for reservation through April 30, 2021. Reservations are being accepted for outdoor events in parks occurring May 1, 2021 or after."

So that did away with the typo excuse, since in addition to saying that reservations were required as of May 1, the page said that the open use/no reservation period ended April 30. Hard to see how someone could accidentally type "April 30" when they meant "May 30."

At yesterday's City Council meeting, Councilor Andersen asked City Manager Steve Powers to discuss the confusion over whether the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally should have been required to have a permit.

I made a transcript of the Andersen-Powers exchange from a video. Here's the transcript. The video follows. I consider Powers's explanation to be weak, bordering on unbelievable, for reasons I'll explain below.

City Councilor Tom Andersen: I want to ask a question, and then I’ll have some comments afterwards, probably a little bit of both. 

Director Fernandez specifically referred to the incident that happened on May 1. And I can’t speak for Councilor Nordyke, but that may have something to do with the genesis of her motion.

There’s been some confusion in the community about the date that permits were to be reinstituted.

There was a city web site page that said permits needed to be applied for and would issue on May 1 and after. But I have been told by city staff that permits would take place on May 31 and after.

And that’s created a whole lot of confusion around the May 1 event because there are people who say look at the city web site. It says you’ve got to have permits on May 1.

And there wasn’t a permit for the circus that happened there on May 1. I’d like City Manager Powers, if you would, to respond and then I’ll have some other comments.

City Manager Steve Powers: There never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day. That web page, that section of the web page that’s been referred to, it was incorrect and frankly also poorly worded before it was corrected.

But in my update reports to you, available publicly, information that staff would share with people inquiring, to respond to an earlier question, yes, we are getting inquiries, people requesting dates to reserve, and in those conversations with staff and with individuals, it was always no earlier than May 31.

Now I do want to emphasize, no earlier than May 31. Part of the review was certainly based upon feedback from councilors regarding we need to look at resuming permits.

It was also based frankly on the Iron Man being interested in Salem, a significant boost to our community. And it was based upon at that time what seemed to be a positive, in a good way, trend with the disease.

That was before Polk and Marion slipped back into extreme risk, which fortunately we’re now back into high risk. This is still very much a moving target, and I think the key will be that Covid compliance, those safety plans for public events, that will be critical for anyone that is reserving our parks or a portion of a park for a public event.

Andersen: Thank you Mr. City Manager. This just points out to me how unfortunate this was, because staff was operating under the assumption that permits wouldn’t happen until May 31 and beyond, but the web site said May 1. 

And there are people in the community rightfully concerned about no permit for what happened on May 1, even though the web site said that.

This is the video I used to make the transcript.

This is my critique of what City Manager Powers said. I'll phrase my criticisms in the form of questions that I'll email to Powers for his response.

(1) You claim there never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day, May 31. Yet according to the Internet Archive Way Back Machine, on March 27, 2021 the City of Salem "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page changed to say that the open use period would end on April 30, with reservations required as of May 1.

Web pages don't change by themselves. Someone edited the page.

I'm assuming this someone received an order to change the page from a supervisor or higher-up. Who issued that order? Knowing this person's name will go a long way toward learning whether there truly was an intention for permits to start before May 31.

(2) You claim that the web page was poorly worded before it was corrected. Comparing the current page and the page as it was from March 27 to April 30, the wording is almost exactly the same aside from the different dates. 

What did you mean by "poorly worded"? Also, who is responsible for the content of the "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page? Obviously this could be the same person I asked the name for in question (1) above.

(3) In your response to Councilor Andersen you seemed to say that city staff responded to inquiries about park reservations by saying the date permits were needed was May 31. Since the city web page said May 1 for over a month, March 27 - April 30, it's hard to believe that no one ever said something like, "I saw on your web site that reservations are needed after May 1."

Are you claiming that no City of Salem employee noticed that the web site said the open use period ended April 30 for the month-plus that language was on the page in question? 

(4) Since the supposed May 1 error was on the city web site from March 27 to April 30, who made the decision to change the web page to say "May 31" on the day before the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally?

Hopefully you can understand how suspicious this looks, since social media posts about the upcoming rally were noting the lack of a permit for the rally, given that the city web site was saying that a permit was needed for park events on May 1 and after.

Then, after the May 1 date had been on the city web page for over a month, the date suddenly changes the day before the rally. Knowing who authorized the change to May 31 will help citizens understand why this was done on April 30.

(5) In your response to Councilor Andersen you imply that citizens shouldn't trust what they find on the City of Salem web site, but rather rely on statements you make at City Council meetings. Do you actually believe this? 

I ask because few people watch City Council meetings, and even fewer accurately remember what happens at them. By contrast, hugely more people use the City of Salem web site to learn city policies and obtain other useful information. 

Yet you made no apology for the web site saying something different from what you reportedly were stating in public meetings. 

In fact, your response made it seem as if the web site saying May 1 was something that happened through a random quantum fluctuation or something -- an accident that no one should have taken seriously, since they should listen to what the City Manager says, not what the City of Salem web site states.

Derek Chauvin conviction just small step toward police reform

I'm glad that I was in my car, listening to CNN, when the judge read the jury verdict in the Derek Chauvin case.

As I heard the judge say "guilty of second degree murder," "guilty of third degree murder," "guilty of manslaughter," my right arm made the same happy motion upward as the arms of the women below.

But right next to this Washington Post headline story was a disturbing story of a police killing of a 16 year old girl in Columbus, Ohio, "Ohio police fatally shoot teen girl just before Chauvin verdict: 'This stuff just never ends.'"

This happened about the same time as the Chauvin verdict was being read.

Paula Bryant told 10TV that her daughter was 16 years old, “a very loving, peaceful little girl.” Hazel Bryant, who identified herself as the victim’s aunt, told the Columbus Dispatch that her niece got into a fight with another person at her foster home on Legion Lane. Bryant said the victim had a knife but had dropped it before an officer shot her multiple times.

There's something horribly, terribly, shockingly, inexcusably wrong with policing in the United States. Too many police officers are incompetent cowards who shouldn't have a badge, nor a gun.

A 16 year old girl who has dropped a knife shouldn't be killed after being shot four times. More: a 16 year old girl who hasn't dropped a knife shouldn't be shot by police.

If a police officer can't handle a 16 year old girl with a knife, especially if she has dropped it, that officer should never have been allowed to join the force And he or she deserves to be charged with manslaughter, and maybe even murder, as Derek Chauvin was.

The whole approach of policing has to change in this country. So let's do this in Salem.

Police Chief Womack needs to institute an iron-clad policy that use of force is the last resort when dealing with citizens, not the first resort. Deescalation has to be Job #1 for every Salem police officer. If force is used, it had damn well better be completely justified, or the officer who applies that force should be severely disciplined.

We have to do away with the idea that police officers are special people.

Actually, they are ordinary people who carry a gun and can arrest others. We also have to stop viewing police work as especially dangerous. It isn't, being the 22nd most dangerous profession. 

How dangerous is it to be a police officer? Working as a police officer is about 4.1 times as dangerous compared with the average job nationwide, based upon the workplace fatality rate. Police officers have a workplace fatality rate similar to maintenance workers, construction workers, and heavy vehicle mechanics.

Being a crossing guard is much more dangerous, ranking #12.

So the next time you encounter a crossing guard, say "Thank you for your service." Say that much more loudly than you'd tell a police officer the same thing, because a crossing guard is putting their life on the line to a considerably greater extent.

We need police. But we don't need the kind of policing that we have now. 

As noted in a recent blog post, the Salem police department budget should be cut by several million dollars to pay for a crisis response team that would handle a fifth or so of current calls that a police officer is sent out on. And that team would do a better job.

There also is little or no need for Salem police to be making routine traffic stops. A Washington Post opinion piece makes the case for this in "Traffic enforcement is broken in the U.S. Here's how we can fix it." This is one idea.

First, we can take much of traffic enforcement out of the hands of police. Some places are shifting traffic enforcement to unarmed traffic safety experts. Relatedly, we can make better use of transportation design and technology. There are legitimate concerns about where red-light and speed cameras are placed, but I’ve never seen one pepper-spray a motorist or show a strange proclivity for targeting Black drivers when it was light enough to see skin color. This shift would reserve police stops for immediate threats — such as drunken driving — that arguably require a police response.

What Salem and our nation as a whole needs is a smaller, better trained, and more professional police force. The focus should be on public safety, not on policing. Policing is only one way to ensure public safety, and arguably not the most important way.

The Salem City Council can help bring about this shift by closely scrutinizing the police department budget instead of assuming that, of course, it needs to be raised every year.

Actually, there are good reasons to markedly reduce the police budget, with that money being reallocated to better ways of fostering public safety.

Police budget should be cut to pay for crisis response team

City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke is pushing for Salem to have a crisis response team similar to the CAHOOTS program that has been successfully used in Eugene since 1989. 

Here's a description of CAHOOTS, courtesy of the White Bird Clinic.

31 years ago the City of Eugene, Oregon developed an innovative community-based public safety system to provide mental health first response for crises involving mental illness, homelessness, and addiction. White Bird Clinic launched CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) as a community policing initiative in 1989.

The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field.

The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques.

CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.

In 2017, the most recent year shown on the White Bird Clinic web page, CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department's call volume. Yes, 17%. 

That's a big savings, given the much lower cost of CAHOOTS staff compared to police officers. This chart shows that in 2017 CAHOOTS diversions saved the Eugene Police Department $12 million, with the department budget being $51.3 million in that year.

Steve Powers, the City Manager for the City of Salem, is proposing a $50.5 million budget for the police department in FY 2022 -- almost exactly what the Eugene Police Department budget was in 2017.

Eugene is about the same size as Salem. The CAHOOTS budget is about $2.1 million a year.

So it sure seems like one way to pay for a CAHOOTS-style crisis response team here would be to take a couple of million dollars from the Salem Police Department budget. 

Even if the initial savings from a Salem crisis response team was only 1/6 of the savings Eugene had in 2017, a Salem CAHOOTS costing $2 million a year would pay for itself.

Unfortunately, so far City Manager Powers isn't putting any money in his proposed budget for a local CAHOOTS. So says a Salem Reporter story, "Salem residents call for a crisis response team in city budget."

As Salem begins putting together its budget, city residents have a clear request: fund a crisis response team.

City leaders have previously voiced support for a local program modeled after Eugene’s CAHOOTS, where a crisis worker and EMT respond to low-level 911 calls for people having mental health crises, rather than police. But there’s no funding for such a program in the draft city budget City Manager Steve Powers presented Wednesday to the city council.

During Wednesday’s Budget Committee Meeting, a couple people testified in support over Zoom, and another 81 wrote in favor of allocating money toward such a program in public testimony. One man even wrote a poem.

However, the City Council has the final say on the City of Salem budget. Hopefully money for a local CAHOOTS program will be in the budget for the next fiscal year.

Since the program would markedly reduce the number of calls Salem police officers would need to respond to, it makes sense to fund a crisis response team out of the Salem Police Department budget.

This is the sort of reimagining police work that needs to happen if police departments are to regain the community trust that's been diminished recently. 

Few CAHOOTS calls require an armed police officer. Less than 1% in Eugene (150 out of 24,000, or 0.6%).

Trained mental health workers are going to handle suicidal people and others in crisis much better than police officers. So not only will a Salem CAHOOTS save millions of dollars, it will improve the quality of service to people in distress.

 

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.