Salem Political Snark

City of Salem giving out parking tickets in a deserted downtown

Well, at least the City of Salem is heeding Trump's call for business as usual during the coronavirus crisis. Parking tickets are still being given out in the downtown area, even though spaces are plentiful now and visitors are few.

This evening downtown resident and property owner Carole Smith let me know about this dubious policy. Here's what Smith said, along with three photos she took today during the lunch hour, which, as she says below, usually is the busiest time for downtown.

Last week I ran into a parking services officer downtown and I asked him “You aren’t giving out parking tickets, are you?” He said “No, the city is paying us to walk around all day." 

Today a friend talked to a parking services officer and she said they WERE giving out parking tickets. What an awful city.  Parking limits are suppose to be implemented to TURN OVER PARKING SPACES. It is not supposed to be a revenue source for the city. It is ONLY about parking management, not revenue.

I was out for a walk today and took some photos of parking downtown. You can park wherever you want. There are open parking spaces everywhere. Most stores have been closed for a week or more. So why is the city issuing parking tickets? Is it just meanness?  

Bad city, bad greedy city! This is the busiest corner in downtown and NOBODY is here.  

Lullu closed two weeks ago. The barber shop closed down about a week ago. We are working with our tenants, putting them on 1/2 rent to defer rent to the future. We are ALL losing money, so why is the city still issuing tickets?

These photos were taken at 12:35 pm today, during lunch hour, normally the BUSIEST time of the day for parking downtown.

Revised sit-lie ordinance is a laudable compromise, but still flawed

Last night the Salem City Council voted 7-1 to move ahead with considering Cara Kaser's creative attempt to find a middle ground on how to deal with downtown's homeless problem. (Jim Lewis was the only no vote; Tom Andersen was out of town).

A Salem Reporter story, "Salem City Council moves ahead with sit-lie -- with some conditions," explains the essence of Kaser's approach.

The Salem City Council is moving forward with a plan to ban sitting and lying on public sidewalks — with provisions.

Councilor Cara Kaser made a motion to go ahead with the ban on Monday, Feb. 24, with a stipulation that it wouldn’t go into effect until an indoor or outdoor day facility provides shelter from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., the hours that would be regulated under the proposed ordinance.

It would also keep the ordinance from kicking people out of the downtown exclusion zone for violating the ban and requires the city to come up with a plan to provide permanent restrooms. 

This seems to be a reasonable compromise between the extremes of two groups of people who provided verbal public testimony at the February 24 council meeting.

I watched some of the testimony via CCTV's streaming of the meeting.

Quite a few downtown businesspeople were adamant that allowing the homeless to essentially live on sidewalks in the area is causing their businesses a lot of harm. Some of their employees are afraid to use the parking garages because of bad behavior by homeless individuals. And they're worried that customers are avoiding downtown.

On the other hand, many other people spoke about the need to not criminalize the homeless. They correctly pointed out that many of those living on the streets have no choice, either because of an inability to afford a place to live, or for other reasons -- such as mental health problems.

I believe Councilor Kaser said that her proposal isn't going to be liked by most of those who testified. Likely that's true, which indicates that it is an appealing middle ground. However, it still has problems. 

A Statesman Journal story, "Modified sit-lie proposal gains favor with Salem councilors, with restrictions," describes what could be the central drawback of the proposal: a lack of places for the homeless to go during the daytime when the sit-lie ordinance would prevent lying and sitting on sidewalks (with some exceptions).

Jimmy Jones, the executive director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, said while considerable resources are in the works, like more housing and a navigation center, the conditions suggested for the sit-lie are unlikely to be met and unlikely to be successful if achieved. 

"Even our expanded day center will not come close to meeting the need for the total unsheltered homeless population in Salem," Jones said. "There will need to be additional spaces designated. ARCHES will not be enough alone, and requiring that most of the downtown homeless be there will quickly overwhelm our capacity if there’s no place elsewhere to go."

Jones said about 1,000 people live outside in the Salem/Keizer area. Of those, 300 live in the immediate downtown area. 

He said the conditions will also be pricey. Expanding the ARCHES day center to include weekends and evenings will cost almost $1 million over their current operating budget. Even a minimal expansion, like extending to hours from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. during the week, would cost $400,000 a year. 

About 125 people visit ARCHES a day. The expansion would allow them to fit more people —"maybe 95 or so" — inside at one time. Expanded operating hours would lead to more traffic, Jones said. 

"We can handle the bulk of the folks, but having an overflow somewhere is going to be necessary," he said. 

Jones warned of creating even more "unintended consequences" like the ones seen after evictions of people living under bridges and in local parks, and a ban on camping on city property. 

When the ban was enacted, it pushed people away from established clusters of tents and tarps, like the one outside the ARCHES Project, and into new locations, like the stretch of sheltered space running along Rite Aid, T.J. Maxx and the former Nordstrom building.  

So there's numerous moving parts that need to fit together smoothly in order for a modified sit-lie ordinance to succeed. Here's some of the things that come to mind in addition to the possible lack of day centers for the homeless, as noted above by Jimmy Jones.

-- Providing a place for homeless people to store their belongings during the day.

-- Enforcing the sit-lie ordinance from 7 am to 9 pm, given that Kaser's proposal takes away the ability of police to exclude people from the downtown area if they have repeated infractions of the ordinance. 

-- Dealing with the reluctance of some homeless people to spend their day in an organized day center. This could be due to a mental health problem, or a simple preference for being on their own.

-- Ensuring that downtown businesses have the patience to continue dealing with problems caused by homeless people during what could be a lengthy period of city officials and homeless advocates figuring out how to make the revised sit-lie ordinance work.

Salem's proposed sit-lie ordinance rests on a bunch of "can'ts"

Tomorrow there's a good chance the Salem City Council will approve a citywide sit-lie ordinance that prohibits sitting and lying on public sidewalks between the hours of 7 am to 9 pm, subject to certain exceptions. 

Aimed at homeless people, obviously, this is the most recent attempt to pass a sit-lie ordinance, which so far has failed to get a majority vote from the City Council.

Mayor Chuck Bennett

Mayor Bennett really wants to have it passed this time, as a recent Salem Reporter story made clear. Here's an excerpt from "Salem Mayor pushes for 'sit-lie' in the face of increasing uproar over homeless problem downtown."

Each day Mayor Chuck Bennett opens his electronic inbox to a half dozen emails from downtown shoppers and business owners upset about the homeless people residing on sidewalks.

Feeling compelled to act, Bennett is pushing for a ban on sitting or lying on sidewalks during the day to deal with the 50 or so people camping in front of Rite Aid on Northeast Liberty Street.

He said the campers have no incentive to move on, and a new city law, recommended by both Salem Police Chief Jerry Moore and City Manager Steve Powers, would provide that.

“There are places that people can go during the day,” Bennett said, citing city parks, the library and day rooms at The ARCHES Project and Union Gospel Mission.

I believe Councilor Tom Andersen is out of the country, so Bennett needs five of the eight other members of the City Council to vote "aye" on the sit-lie ordinance. A plausible scenario is that Bennett, Jim Lewis, Brad Nanke, Cara Kaser, and Chris Hoy provide those votes.

It's a difficult decision. I looked through the public comments received so far on this agenda item. Opinions seemed split fairly evenly between those who favor the sit-lie ordinance and those who oppose it.

The way I see it, the proposed ordinance is the result of a bunch of "can'ts" -- all of which have merit, but many of them are contradictory.

Homeless people can't be allowed to drive visitors away from downtown Salem businesses.
Homeless people can't be treated like second-class citizens. 
Homeless people can't be allowed to camp on public property. 
Homeless people can't be the scapegoats of societal income inequality.
Homeless people can't litter downtown with their belongings, trash, and excrement.
Homeless people can't be shunted from place to place at the whim of city officials.
Homeless people can't be refused a safe place to sleep.

Probably there are more can'ts that i haven't thought of, and I readily admit that these brief one-liners don't capture the breadth and complexity of Salem's homeless problem. 

I share them simply because I've got a lot of sympathy for everybody involved: the homeless; social service agencies; police; downtown businesses; visitors to downtown; city staff; the City Council; those who live and work downtown. 

Seemingly there is no way to please everybody. If the City Council passes the sit-lie ordinance tomorrow, lots of people will be upset. If the City Council rejects the sit-lie ordinance, lots of other people will be upset. 

I don't know what the City Council should do. If it decides to approve the sit-lie ordinance, seemingly the current ban on homeless camps should be lifted to some extent -- such as by allowing camping in Marion Square Park, as was suggested by several people who submitted testimony on the proposed ordinance.

Obviously the homeless need some place to go between 7 am and 9 pm. If the City of Salem doesn't offer that place, the sit-lie ordinance is going to lead to more unintended consequences, and nobody wants that to happen.

Salem City Council's "sit-lie" decision seems well-balanced

Democracy in action.

At last night's City Council meeting there was spirited debate about a proposed ordinance aimed at reducing perceived problems caused by homeless people, the most controversial part being a ban on sitting or lying on a sidewalk during daytime hours. 

I watched much of the meeting via a CCTV feed. Citizens testifying against the ordinance far outnumbered those in favor of it, who mostly were from the downtown business community and Chamber of Commerce.

Both sides had reasonable points to make. Homeless people do cause problems, both in downtown Salem and elsewhere. But the sit-lie portion of the proposed ordinance (which had the strong support of the police department) was open to criticism for both constitutional and compassion reasons.

When the City Council started debate on this issue following the public testimony, Councilor Chris Hoy proposed several amendments to the ordinance.

The voting and discussion was rather hard to follow, even for members of the City Council, who had to ask questions about what was being voted on, and what its effect would be. The first amendment, to remove the sit-lie part of the ordinance, was approved on a 5-4 vote.

Interestingly, Councilor Hoy voted against the amendment, as did Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilors Jim Lewis and Brad Nanke. Councilors Andersen, Leung, Nordyke, Kaser, and Ausec provided the five votes that eliminated the sit-lie provision. 

In the end, a stripped-down version of the ordinance was approved on a 8-1 vote that includes a ban on homeless shelters on public property (tents, cardboard structures, etc.) and a ban on leaving belongings unattended for a period of time (24 hours, I believe).

This seems like a reasonable compromise, though I'm sure it won't please many people, including some downtown business owners. Councilor Andersen shared a good summary of last night's proceedings in a Facebook post. See below.

I agree with Andersen that shelters and unattended property are especially bothersome. When I see a homeless person sitting/lying on a bench or a sidewalk, I see a human being who deserves care and compassion.

But a fully enclosed sidewalk shelter, such as one that sits near the corner of Court and Commercial streets, strikes me as an ugly incursion onto public property that shouldn't be allowed. And won't be, if the City Council passes the ordinance after a second reading in December. 

Seemingly there should be places on private property where homeless people can be allowed to put up shelters, as is being done on the Arches property just north of downtown. Hopefully affordable housing eventually can be found for homeless people, which naturally is far superior to living in a tent or other temporary shelter. 

Here's Councilor Andersen's Facebook report. I've added some paragraph breaks to make it easier to read.

SIT/LIE BAN -NO, CAMPING BAN -YES
Last night the City council, in a long meeting, wrestled with the proposed sit/lie/camping/exclusion/abandoned property ordinance. Very powerful testimony from everyone, on all sides, who spoke.

There was an amendment put forth which removed the downtown ban from the ordinance, which I supported, consistent with my views (see below). The amendment passed on a 5-4 vote. Those voting to remove the ban were Councilors Kaser, Nordyke, Leung, Ausec and I. The other four councilors (Mayor, Hoy, Lewis, and Nanke) voted to retain the ban.

We then voted on another amendment, to ban camping city wide (previously there had not been a ban on camping in the city limits). That ban passed unanimously.

Then, we did not expand the downtown area exclusionary ban. (There already is a procedure to ban from downtown folks who, while in the downtown area, break other laws already on the books.) Finally, we voted on the remaining parts of the ordinance – a city wide camping ban and a provision about what to do with abandoned property downtown [if abandoned for 24 hours, property would be stored for a period of time – 30 days (I think) with notice provision, then destroyed].

All along I have said we need to balance the need for a vibrant downtown and the needs and concerns of those who live, work, shop and own businesses there with the needs of and concern for those whose unfortunate life circumstances have brought them to the downtown are. This is a difficult balance and I believe we achieved the best possible result last night.

I have always felt that one of the main problems is a visual one, tents, shopping carts and the like in the downtown area. This is understandable from both sides – if all your worldly possessions could be fit into one or two shopping carts, you would never want them out of your sight; with the result being visual “pollution” downtown, with attendant issues.

However, the sit/lie ordinance may not pass legal muster and would most likely not be effective. Instead it would just suck up limited city resources which could be better used (downtown toilets, storage areas and the like). Now we can move forward together to continue to improve the life of downtown and the lives of all who live in Salem.

Check out the City of Salem's new "sit-lie" proposed ordinance

Something needs to be done about homeless people sleeping on sidewalks during the day, and leaving their belongings on sidewalks. The City of Salem has come up with a proposed approach that seems quite reasonable.

Because there's been discussion on Facebook and elsewhere that this amounts to a criminalization of being homeless -- which isn't true -- I'm hoping that people will educate themselves about the proposed ordinance before rejecting it as a bad idea.

Below I've copied in the questions and answers from a City of Salem web page, "Salem responds to growing concerns of activities in public right of way, including sidewalks and parking strips." I've also copied in the Findings section of the proposed ordinance. 

[Note: I don't see the language/details in the first question and answer below in the proposed ordinance. Perhaps this is an oversight and the proposed restrictions will be added later, as currently the Findings section is the only substantive part of the draft ordinance.]

I'm curious to learn what, specifically, homeless advocates might find objectionable in the following descriptions of the proposed ordinance and the Findings that provide the rationale for the ordinance. Personally, I don't find much, if anything, that strikes me as a bad idea.

Yes, before implementing the ordinance City officials need to make sure that there's a safe place for homeless people to store their belongings during the day. This seems to be a key to making the ordinance work. 

Read on...

-------------------------

FAQs:

1.      What does the proposed City of Salem Sidewalks and Public Space Ordinance restrict?

• Sleeping or laying on the sidewalk during the day, from the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
• Erecting “campsites” on the sidewalk all day or all night.
• Leaving personal property unattended on the sidewalk all day or night for more than 24 hours.

2.      What is the purpose of the proposed Sidewalks and Public Space Ordinance?

• Keeping sidewalks and public spaces clean helps the overall appearance and vitality of city, particularly in commercial areas.  Business owners, their employees, and their patrons may also feel more safe using the sidewalks in all areas of the city.
• With the ordinance in place, Salem Police can make contact with those in need and help direct them to the appropriate shelters or service. It also gives Salem Police a tool to use when unsightly and unsanitary temporary structures are being used on the sidewalks, or when individuals establish a presence or camp in front of a business that detracts from or deters visitors to the business through their behavior, trash, or waste.

3.      Are there exceptions or times where sidewalks and public spaces could be used to set up temporary seating?

• If enacted, the ordinance allows for medical emergencies, seating for persons with physical disabilities, strollers, sidewalk cafes, attending a parade or other special event, sitting in a chair or bench, waiting for the bus, or other City-permitted activity.

4.      Does the proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance cover the entire city or just downtown?

• If approved, the proposed ordinance would apply to the entire city.

5.      Does the proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance apply to everyone?

• Yes. All laws must be applied and enforced uniformly.

6.      If homeless individuals can't sit on the sidewalk during the day, where will they go?

• Over the past several years, due to the City Council's priority of addressing our community's homeless, a variety of options are available for food, shelter, storage, and other personal needs. 
• Available services include Arches, Union Gospel Mission, Salvation Army, parks and city benches, or churches or social service agencies who allow such activity.

7.      Can offenders be jailed?

• Not for simply being in violation of the conduct regulated by the ordinance.
• Repeat violations can lead to an exclusion order. Violation of an exclusion order can lead to a citation for trespass, which carries criminal sanction and possibly jail.

8.      What about Boise?

• This ordinance was written based on the 9^th Circuit's decision in Martin v. City of Boise and complies with the outcome of that case.
• See the Idaho news article for more information.

9.      What about the City of Portland case?

• The City of Portland enacted a similar ordinance several years ago, that an Oregon circuit court judge invalidated because it was found in conflict with an Oregon criminal law for pedestrian interference.
• The proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance avoids this issue by: 1) not imposing criminal sanctions (no jail) and 2) specifically addressing appearance and enhancement of community vitality.  This ordinance is not directed at preserving physical pedestrian access or public safety.

-----------------------------

Portion of the prop0sed ordinance:

Section 2. Findings.

(a)  The City of Salem is a geographically diverse city, largely comprised of residential, commercial, and industrial areas.

(b)  Maintaining pedestrian and authorized commercial activity on public sidewalks is essential to public safety and welfare, thriving neighborhoods, and economic vitality within the city.

(c)  Sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk, camping, or leaving personal property unattended on a public sidewalk, is not the ordinary, customary, or intended use of a public sidewalk.

(d)  The need to maintain pedestrian and commercial traffic is greatest during the customary hours of operation of businesses, shops, restaurants, and other public and private enterprises, services, and activities within the city, when public sidewalks are in greatest use, and when city residents are most likely to use their neighborhood sidewalks.

(e)  Persons who sit or lie down on public sidewalks, camp, or who leave personal property unattended on public sidewalks, during customary business hours threaten the safety and welfare of all pedestrians, with the greatest impact on those pedestrians who are elderly, young children, or who have physical and mental disabilities.

(f)  Persons who sit or lie down on public sidewalks, camp, or who leave personal property unattended on public sidewalks, deter city residents and visitors from patronizing local shops, restaurants, and businesses, and enterprises, and from utilizing public and private services, and activities within the city, and deter people from using the sidewalks in their neighborhoods, with the greatest impact occurring during customary business hours.

(g)  Persons siting or laying on public sidewalks, camping, or the accumulation of trash and personal property unattended on public sidewalks, is detrimental to pedestrian safety, public welfare and the economic vitality of the community, with the greatest impact occurring during customary business hours. This behavior causes a cycle of decline as residents and tourists go elsewhere to walk, meet, shop, dine, and access other services and activities, and residents become intimidated from using the public sidewalks in their own neighborhoods.

(h)  Sitting or lying down, camping, or leaving personal property unattended, is an incompatible and detrimental use of the public sidewalks in all areas of the city.

(i)  The people of the City of Salem promote policies that preserve the right to enjoy public spaces and to traverse freely, while protecting free-speech rights, as well as other safe activity consistent with city ordinances and permitting requirements.

(j)  The prohibitions against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, camping, or leaving personal property unattended on public sidewalks, contained in this ordinance leaves fully intact the right to speak, protest, or engage in other lawful activity on any public sidewalk consistent with city ordinances and permitting requirements.

(k)  The prohibition against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, or leaving personal property unattended on public sidewalks, contained in this ordinance, apply only to public sidewalks. There are numerous places within the city where the restrictions of this ordinance do not apply, including private property, public benches, private seating areas of sidewalk cafés, non-sidewalk areas of public parks, public plazas, and other non- sidewalk common areas open to the public.

(l)  The prohibition against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks contained in this ordinance contains exceptions for medical emergencies, persons in wheelchairs, and permitted activities, among others.

(m)  The City of Salem desires to help persons in need to obtain services. In order to provide persons sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, or camping, the opportunity to obtain referrals to appropriate service entities, a peace officer may not issue a citation without first warning the person that sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk during certain hours is unlawful.

(n)  The City of Salem desires to provide persons an opportunity to remove their personal property from public sidewalks on their own. Prior to removing unattended personal property from a public sidewalk in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, advance notice is to be given unless the property poses an immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

(o)  “Campsites” have become a frequent occurrence throughout the City, including on public sidewalks, public property, and public rights-of-way. These campsites are unsafe and unhealthy for the people living in them, and have a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the city, and the safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of the City of Salem.

(p)  The City of Salem is a compassionate city, and desires to help persons experiencing residential instability or homelessness, to transition to safe and permanent housing. However, allowing camping on our public sidewalks, in our neighborhoods, and in other areas of our city does not help people transition to housing and has a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the city, and the public safety and welfare.

(q)  Maintaining accessible and attractive sidewalks for pedestrian and commercial traffic is an important public safety objective, and important to maintain the economic vitality of the city. Blocked and obstructed sidewalks present hazards to pedestrians, and discourages visitors and patrons to community businesses.

(r)  The placement of tents or other items on public sidewalks, public property, and public rights-of-way, for habitation, is not the ordinary, customary, or intended use of these areas, and is an incompatible and detrimental use of these spaces in all parts of the City.

(s)  Campsites can also obstruct and delay emergency personnel responding to emergencies. Campsites can obstruct ingress to and egress from businesses, residential buildings, and other establishments and property. Campsites often exhibit the presence of human waste and uncontained food, which poses public health risks.

 

 

Salem could have a real downtown association soon

There's some great news in the May issue of the Salem Cherry Pits free newsletter (previously known as Downtown Cherry Pits; see here and here for past issues).

There's an effort underway to form a real downtown association. Currently several groups claim to represent downtown, notably the Salem Main Street Association. 

But as I've written about several times, that association -- referred to in Salem Cherry Pits as the Salem Lame Street Association  -- in no way represents downtown businesses and property owners. See:

Salem Main Street Association is a failure
Here's some problems with the Salem Main Street Association

The board of the Salem Main Street Association is self-selected, so isn't elected by downtown businesses and owners. Also, it was mistakenly organized as a 501(c)(3) organization, rather than a 501(c)(6) organization, which, as you can read below, is what the  real downtown association would be. 

Hopefully a genuine downtown association will come to be before too long, since businesses and property owners in Salem's urban core need to speak with a single voice when issues arise that demand such.

Here's a scan of the page in the May Salem Cherry Pits that has the downtown association article.

 

A perspective on how homeless people are hurting downtown

I've said it before, and I want to say it again:

We've got to get over a reluctance to talk honestly about downtown's homeless problem. It's possible to both (1) feel compassion toward homeless people and (2) feel bad about how homeless people are making downtown Salem less pleasant for visitors, residents, and business owners.

Downtown Court Street in the morning

Yesterday Carole Smith, who lives downtown and owns property there, sent me the message I've shared below.  

In an email to the Salem City Council, Smith describes how a prospective tenant backed out of signing a lease because of the homeless problem; how a friend views downtown; and shares her view that downtown businesses are suffering due to a lack of attention to homelessness by city officials.

Then Smith shares a response she got from City Manager Powers. No member of the City Council replied to her email message. Lastly, you can read Smith's reply to Powers. Here's her message:

Brian, along with several other business and property owners from downtown and businesses north of downtown, I sent an email to the City Council about the problems we have had to address on our own downtown.  Here is my email:

---------------------------

After our downtown antique store tenant lost thousands of dollars, was physically assaulted, then died of a stress heart attack -- all as a result of your lack of policy on homeless downtown, we thought we had found the perfect long term tenant for his space. Today he was supposed to come walk through the space. Instead,  this is the text we received:

 

“Carole, I’m hearing from some of my staff that they are not comfortable with being on the street level; safety concerns with homeless at the doorstep. Go ahead and put your for-lease sign up”

 

The same day I received this email from a friend who normally doesn’t come downtown until later in the day:

 

"Hi Carole,

 

This morning I was in Downtown Salem at around 8am - usually it's later in the day when I'm down here, but I was so surprised by the number of people either sleeping on sidewalks, (2 people within 30ft of the Gov Cup) or people with mental health issues wandering around the core downtown area.

 

Not a welcoming environment. Just four or five years ago it did not look like that down here. I realize the city leaders can't fix this issue overnight, but I'm wondering if the issue is more about not taking the problem seriously, or not knowing what to do, or worse, not caring enough. 

 

Also seems to be more empty storefronts than normal, at least on the corner of Chemeketa and Liberty, on the west side of the street. On the east side, the bank that had been vacant for ages has been torn down, but now it's just an empty lot full of water.

 

Even the Beanery (Allan Bros) has shuttered. Is the old Brick restaurant location still in remodeling? The old beauty school building on Court and Commercial is still vacant, and has been for a long time. 

 

Is it because business happens at a pedestrian pace in Salem? Why are so many storefronts empty for extended periods of time?"

 

Everyone downtown is tired to death of your inaction. If you don’t start solving this problem you won’t have a downtown.  The last time I contacted you about this problem, not one of you responded to my email. Have you forgotten you REPRESENT US?    

 

Why are you not helping solve this problem before it kills every business downtown? How many more merchants have to die of stress heart attacks, how many more businesses have to move out of downtown, and how many more possible tenants are going to pass on leasing space downtown before you realize it's your job to help us solve these problems?

 

Please respond,

Carole Smith
---------------------------

Not one city councilor responded but the City Manager sent this email:

On May 17, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Steve Powers <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Smith,

 

Thank you for contacting the City with your concerns regarding the state of the downtown.  Any incident that causes someone concern is unfortunate. The Salem Police Downtown Enforcement Team is dedicated to keeping the downtown area safe.  The Urban Renewal Agency provides grants to downtown property owners for security and safety improvements. The City is continuing partnerships to help and house the homeless.

 

Please be assured the City is committed to a vibrant, growing downtown.  New businesses continue to come downtown.  Businesses are leaving spaces to expand and grow into larger spaces downtown rather than choosing to leave downtown. Existing businesses are opening new businesses and investing even more in our downtown. Downtown is attracting major investment from large developers from outside the city. There are many recent examples of businesses and property owners investing in the downtown. 

 

o   Two new women’s clothing boutiques have opened. One is on Center Street between Liberty and Commercial, and the other is on Liberty Street in the Metropolitan Building. The latter opened just in the last few months.

 

o   The Gray Building (former Brick restaurant) –  The entire second story, previously undeveloped and vacant, has been leased with multiple (3-4) new business. Bigwig donuts has opened on the first floor in a portion of the former Brick space.

 

o   This week the Noble Wave brewpub is opening on Liberty in the Reed Opera House taking the space that Brown’s Towne Lounge vacated when they moved further down the street to expand.

 

o   Perle Holistic Skincare opened in a ground-floor space at 170 Liberty St.

 

o   Issacs and Valley Dance Academy moved into downtown in the last year at Commercial and Court.

 

o   195 Commercial Street was purchased by LMC Construction and Sturgeon Development Partners for the development of a $43 million dollar, 123 room hotel and they are preparing for design review by Historic Landmarks Commission.

 

o   440 State Street is nearing completion of its buildout and will operate multiple eateries similar to the Pine Street Market in Old Town in Portland.

 

o   Koz Development is going through land use approval to develop 146 residential units at the corner of Commercial and State.

 

o   Rudy’s has leased the space on the corner of Chemeketa and Commercial and will be opening another business in this location.

 

o   The site where the former Wells Fargo building was demolished is in due diligence for a purchase and a pre-application meeting has been held for a potential mixed use project with retail and housing.

 

o   The Nordstrom’s building is under contract and in its due diligence phase. This is the second prospective buyer for this property, which has been under contract for about 9 out of the 12 months it has been on the market for sale.

 

o   The tanning salon in  Liberty Plaza has moved to another location downtown. They did not leave downtown.

 

Most of these new businesses have been the beneficiaries of new construction or renovations that have received support from the Riverfront-Downtown URA grant program.  

 

Thank you for your interest and contributions to a prosperous downtown.

 

Steve Powers

[email protected]

503-588-6255

City Manager

City of Salem

Salem, Oregon

And my response today:

 

Thank you for your reply.  

 

Reading your reply was like going to the doctor to discuss cancer and all the doctor can talk about is all the healthy patients he saw that day.  It doesn’t matter about the healthy patients, your downtown has cancer - mostly caused by the refusal of the city to address problems that only government can solve.  

 

When people ask for help solving problems in the City of Salem, it is offensive to receive a reply pointing out how many new businesses are coming downtown.  

 

Don’t you realize they will soon see the corpse of downtown that we all have to live with?  I guess you are okay as long as there is a fresh batch of dupes coming along each year. You don’t care to communicate and solve the cancer you are letting infiltrate almost all businesses downtown .

 

For decades, downtown has hosted the lowest rents and the highest vacancy. And that makes you proud that new businesses are drawn to cheap and vacant. Great job.

 

Can you please furnish an equally researched list of businesses who have left downtown over the past 2 years?  I think you will find they are NOT leaving downtown to expand, they have lost all their money and they closed. Long established businesses have not been able to find buyers when retirement looms.  

 

Our neighbors' building value was lowered from $380,000 value in 2017 to $280,000 in 2018. Marion County lowered their building value by $100,000. What does that say about the health of downtown? Please supply the proof for your statement that businesses are leaving to expand outside of downtown.  

 

You have abandoned the historic business and property owners downtown and are now only interested in hearing or helping the younger business/property owners. Look at your advisory boards like DAB [Downtown Advisory Board].  Do you really feel the age group reflects the downtown community or just the part of downtown your staff want to listen to and control?

 

My email was intended for the City Council. They represent the citizens, not the City Manager.  

 

Carole

Should lying on downtown sidewalks be banned between 8 am and 11pm?

Downtown Salem has a serious homeless problem.

This is obvious to anyone who visits the area. I go to a Tai Chi class on Court Street three days a week around 4 to 7 pm. I'm bothered by the trash, people curled up in sleeping bags, shopping carts filled to overflowing with people's possessions.

Last month I wrote "Seeing Salem's homeless sleeping outside stirred up these feelings." But I've got to be honest. I didn't share all of the feelings I had. 

Along with feeling bad about the plight of the homeless, I also don't like what homeless people are doing to downtown Salem. It isn't pleasant to see shopping carts on the sidewalk. Nor is it pleasant to park in the Chemeketa Parkade and walk down stairs reeking of urine.

Recently I parked in that garage on the second floor. A homeless person was sitting on the stairs leading down to ground level, talking on his phone, with stuff spread over the full width of several stair steps. He had to move some things aside so I could get by. 

An hour and a half later, after my Tai Chi class, he was in the same spot, but standing up talking on his phone. A woman walked up the stairs just ahead of me. I thought, “If I find it disturbing to encounter a homeless person on the stairs, I wonder how a woman walking up the stairs by herself feels."

We've got to get over a reluctance to talk honestly about downtown's homeless problem. It's possible to both (1) feel compassion toward homeless people and (2) feel bad about how homeless people are making downtown Salem less pleasant for visitors, residents, and business owners.

 

Screenshot from video shared in the blog post linked to below

 

Last month I shared an opinion piece by Carole Smith, who lives downtown and also leases space to several downtown businesses: "Downtown Salem's homeless problem is hurting businesses." Below are further thoughts that Smith emailed to me, along with information she's received from several downtown business owners about how the homeless are affecting them.

I'm planning to write another blog post about what the business owners said -- keeping their names confidential given how strong feelings run when there's any talk about restricting homeless people in downtown Salem.

Which is what Carole Smith suggests below: a ban on lying on sidewalks between 8 am and 11 pm, along with some other ideas. These proposals deserve serious consideration, even though a similar "sit-lie" proposal was rejected by the City Council in 2017. Some business owners tried to resurrect the idea in 2018, but it wasn't recommended by a Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force.

 

UPDATE: Someone drew my attention to the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding homeless people sleeping in public places, like sidewalks. After looking at the ruling, and some news stories about it, it seems that the City of Salem could justify an ordinance that prohibits lying on sidewalks during a specific time period, like 8 am to 11 pm, since the ruling says:

Our holding is a narrow one. Like the Jones panel, “we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets . . . at any time and at any place.

... [footnote] Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.

Anyway, here's part of what Carole Smith said in her email to me. You'll see that she balances compassion for homeless people with concern for their impact on downtown businesses.

 

I have been thinking a lot about homelessness, what causes it, what might be done about it, and hopefully how to relieve  innocent citizens from having to deal with a national crisis on their own.

 

Addiction and mental illness are both diseases. No one choses to be mentally ill or addicted. It happens to people just like cancer or many other diseases just happen to people. Why do we treat people with these two diseases differently than people with cancer, lupus, pneumonia, ringworm, etc? 

 

Both behaviors are classified as a “disease” in the United States, yet we continue to treat the victims of these diseases as if continuing on with their disease is a choice. It isn’t. They can’t help being mentally ill or addicted to alcohol or drugs. It's a disease they have little or no ability to control.

 

So, how do we help people with diseases?  

 

When you frame the question that way people have to acknowledge that diseases can, and should be, treated. How is it in the best interest of a citizen to sleep on sidewalks in freezing weather? If a child did this they would be in protective custody immediately. Why not adults who cannot take care of themselves? Why are they allowed to live in dangerous conditions?

 

Where has our sense of humanity and compassion gone?

 

The homeless need services. They need a home where they feel safe and are protected while they work on controlling their disease, if they have one. A home where they can be monitored to take their medications and counseling to help them cope with their problems more successfully. The same for addiction treatment.  

 

These are solvable problems but government doesn’t want to be bogged down by illnesses that are lifelong. Public officials prefer that citizens deal with the fall out from mental illness and addiction. We have to sweep up trash everyday, wash sidewalks, destroy needles and other drug paraphernalia, recycle the cardboard, hose out urine and feces from our doorways.  

 

And the homeless come back every night and begin the cycle all over again.

 

One solution to the homeless problem is to provide police services downtown at 8 AM each morning to wake the homeless and ask them to pack up for the day. Then at 9 AM, the Downtown Clean Team comes through downtown hosing sidewalks and picking up garbage from homeless campers.

 

The city budgeted $90,000 this year for “Clean Team” and $60,000 in next year's budget. Why do they clean in the afternoon instead of before the shops open each morning? It wouldn’t cost any more, just change the time they clean.  

 

We need a city ordinance that no one can be prone on public property between 8 AM and 11 PM.

 

Homeless citizens would be welcome to sit on benches but not to lay down, same for sidewalks. We have had homeless citizens sleeping until 3 in the afternoon in front of our building for weeks. Also, all shopping carts would have to be off sidewalks by 10 AM and moved into a designated area in a public park or parking garage.

 

Last week one of my tenants told me she made $22 of sales the day before. No one can stay in business when sales are hurt that badly. Another tenant sold $1,500 in November but his rent is $2,400 a month. Other businesses are choosing to move out of downtown and our customers are gone.   

 

Another fact many people are unaware of is that the type of homeless has changed dramatically.

 

In the past we had homeless people who had worked jobs, had families but had lost a job, had a medical emergency, or other bad luck. They mostly camped along the river away from the public. Today, the homeless population is much older and sicker. They have problems that prohibit them from using the services of the Union Gospel Mission.  

 

To enter the UGM, you have to be alcohol and drug free. To avail yourself of the beds in the UGM, you have to submit to chapel and religious teaching.

 

The addicts cannot enter the UGM because of their addiction, and the mentally ill people simply cannot sleep with 200 other men in a room. They get claustrophobic. Their illness makes it more comfortable for them to sleep outside so they can breathe. And certainly their needs are far beyond anything the downtown business community can help with.

 

It appears to me that Americans are more compassionate about their pets than their fellow humans.  

 

When a pet is homeless, it is rounded up, gets free medical attention, sheltered, fed, and is adopted to a new home. We don’t treat our homeless human neighbors half that well. It is shameful that we pay our taxes but the government we are funding has washed its hands of its responsibility to provide services.

 

Anyway, we are struggling for our very survival downtown.  

 

Businesses are being damaged everyday, customers are being driven off, businesses are checking their leases for expiration dates so they can move out of downtown, and the homeless are provided no services or help. 

 

UPDATE: Carole Smith just sent me this.

 

If you want a bit of good news in your article, the City of Salem has $2.5 million in their proposed budget for NEXT year [2019-20] to fund the Homelss Task Force recommendations. I assume it will pay for storage for their shopping carts, 24/7 restroom availability, garbage and laundry facilities AND the purchase and renovation of the Arches building north of downtown.  

 

They are using Urban Renewal funds for that purchase.  You should also note they are taking $5 million of Urban Renewal for Police Station improvements when they said they WOULD NOT.  So, the public is getting the police station they voted down.

 

Download 2019-20 proposed budget

 

Downtown Cherry Pits takes a satirical jab at Salem issues

I like satire. I admire humorous writing. And I appreciate efforts to improve downtown Salem. Downtown Cherry Pits is a funny satirical newsletter that hits on all three cylinders for me.

The March 2019 issue has a great cover.

There's a lot of good stuff in the other eight pages also. Check out the issue via this PDF file of a scan I made of it.
Download Downtown Cherry Pits March 2019

Or if you're lucky, there will be some free copies left in a box hanging on the wall outside 363 Court Street NE in downtown Salem (next to Lullu's).

Carole Smith is the creative force behind Downtown Cherry Pits, which was born last December as I reported in "Downtown Cherry Pits debuts as Salem satirical newsletter." Each issue has improved, in my decidedly personal opinion.

Here's the January issue if you want your brain to munch on another Cherry Pits.
Download Downtown Cherry Pits January 2019

The March issue features both humor and some serious examination of how the City of Salem has been managing -- or rather, mismanaging -- a Downtown Parking District tax that originally supported a downtown association and maintenance of parking garages. 

Here's a story in the March issue that talks about how that money has been frittered away on other budget items by Mayor "Chuckles" Bennett and other city officials.

A chart on page two of the March issue shows that after 32 years of parking tax money going to funding for downtown projects and support of a downtown association, from 2012 to 2017 the City Manager kept all of  the funds. 

This happened during the reign of City Manager Linda Norris, with the willing connivance of then City Councilor Chuck Bennett. I reported on this debacle in a couple of blog posts. I'll share an excerpt from each.

Should Salem City Manager be known as Exalted Emperor Linda Norris?
It deeply bothers me when "public servants" are pleased to suck up taxpayer money for their often-lofty salaries, yet fail miserably at their core job -- choosing to lord it over the people they should be serving.

Case in point: Salem (Oregon) City Manager Linda Norris.

A recent Statesman Journal story, "Will latest downtown group succeed?," only tells part of the sorry tale of how Norris did away with the existing downtown association so she could personally rule over how funds provided by businesses are spent.

...The SJ story by Michael Rose reveals that City Manager Exalted Emperor Linda Norris rules without the usual open government transparency demanded by Oregon's public records law.

After taking control of the EID money contributed by downtown property owners, Norris doesn't allow anyone to know what is going on with her and the "hand-picked" yes-people she has chosen to be her lackeys.

...This is amazing. Amazingly disturbing.

The top non-elected city official dissolves a duly organized downtown organization so she can take control of the group's money. Then chooses to keep records of her Imperial Pronouncements secret. I can't believe this would be tolerated even in Tony Soprano's New Jersey, much less in supposedly squeaky-clean Oregon.

City of Salem took over Salem Downtown Partnership for lousy reasons

A few days ago I talked with someone in-the-know about how the Salem (Oregon) City Manager, Linda Norris, ended up controlling on her own $215,000 in Economic Improvement District funds paid by downtown businesses.

It was a lengthy conversation. This person asked to talk with me because he/she was so disturbed about how the EID was handled, and liked my blog-reporting on other downtown issues.

I was on the phone with this person for about 90 minutes. I learned a lot about how the City of Salem ended up cancelling the contract Salem Downtown Partnership had to administer the Economic Improvement District (EID) money. 

The headline, so to speak, is this:

Norris and other City of Salem staff set up Salem Downtown Partnership to fail. Instead of working cooperatively and collaboratively with this duly-selected organization that represented downtown businesses, the City undermined its efforts in various ways.

Now, admittedly this is the opinion of only one person. But this person was in a position to be very well informed about what happened during the period Salem Downtown Partnership (SDP) had the EID contract.

And, no, this person wasn't either of the key businesspeople who got SDP up and running -- Carole Smith and Eric Kittleson. He or she prefers to remain anonymous.

Downtown Cherry Pits isn't enamored with a wanna-be, but isn't really, "downtown association" that goes by the name of the Salem Main Street Association or Salem Lame Street Association. Here's how the January 2019 issue describes the group.

It does indeed seem strange that a private group with a self-selected board of directors is acting as if it were a genuine downtown association -- which it clearly isn't. I wrote about the drawbacks of the Salem Main Street Association, and past downtown association follies by city officials, in "Here's why Salem needs a genuine downtown association."

Salem no longer has a downtown association. We need one. What happened at last night's City Council meeting is only one of many reasons why. 

But before I explain what transpired at the meeting, a bit of relevant history about how downtown lost its downtown association is in order. I wrote about this in a couple of blog posts.

...So here we are in 2017.

A new group, Salem Main Street Association, was formed in April, as I discussed in "New Salem Main Street Association debuts with questions and concerns." Among other things, I noted that the Association doesn't really deserve its name, since it doesn't have any members. 

Rather, it is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization with a self-selected board of directors. Meaning, the board established by the founders chooses new board members. Since there aren't any members -- such as downtown business owners -- Salem Main Street Association isn't at all like a real downtown association.

...I get the impression that Salem Main Street Association is angling to be treated like a downtown association without actually being one. I also have a suspicion that Mayor Bennett and other City officials want to have parking meters installed downtown, and they see the Salem Main Street Association as a willing accomplice in helping to make that happen.

Salem's homeless problem is hurting downtown businesses

Below you'll find a opinion piece about Salem's downtown homeless problem written by Carole Smith.

She and Eric Kittleson live downtown and lease space to several Court Street businesses. So they have an up-close and personal perspective on how homeless people are impacting Salem's urban core.

Smith submitted the piece as a guest opinion to the Statesman Journal, which declined to publish it. I have no idea why, since what she wrote is timely, provocative, and based on both her own direct experience and that of her tenants. 

I'm also sharing a video Kittleson took on a Sunday morning around 11 am. It shows how unattractive Court Street looked that day with homeless belongings littering the sidewalk, taking up both private and public space. 

Homelessness is a complex problem. Most homeless people aren't on the streets by choice, but by necessity. They deserve compassion. 

But we also need to have compassion for the downtown business owners whose livelihood is being impacted by the homeless. In her piece Smith describes several disturbing anecdotes about behavior by homeless people that is decidedly unacceptable. 

Salem keeps talking about dealing with the homeless problem. So far, though, that talk hasn't led to much action. 

I'm downtown frequently. It bothers me to see benches taken up not by visitors and shoppers, but by slumbering homeless people. It bothers me to see the entrances to businesses, which are private property, filled with the belongings of homeless people. It bothers me to use a stairwell that smells of urine. 

Those who live downtown and own businesses there obviously are much more impacted than I am by the homeless. Something needs to change. Soon. Here's the video by Eric Kittleson and opinion piece by Carole Smith.

Downtown Salem's homeless problem is hurting businesses
by Carole Smith

Homeless citizens were recently removed from City property under the bridge. The City Council has directed police not to remove homeless citizens from public property downtown unless there is a bed available in a facility. Does the City of Salem realize that when they clean out a homeless camp they drive them right onto downtown property? 

If the City can move homeless citizens from City property under the bridge, then why can’t they move them from public sidewalks and posted private property? What is the difference? Is it “humane” to leave citizens shivering and sleeping in 30 degrees on sidewalks with one cotton blanket? How is that humane, but sleeping under cover of a bridge is inhumane? 

Police are called several times a day to remove addicts and severely mentally ill citizens from downtown entryways, sidewalks, and private and public property. When business owners ask police to move homeless citizens so they can open their doors, the police recommended: “Just wake them and ask them politely to move.” Now store owners have been assaulted and injured by violent homeless people. 

Downtown businesses had a homeless citizen walking up and down the sidewalk in an agitated state, slashing the air with a stick and announcing “I am going to kill my wife, I am going to kill my children.” This lasted a month. One business had sales for the month of $1,500. That isn't enough to even pay rent. This is the damage the Mayor and City Council are doing to Salem businesses -- every day. 

A homeless citizen was sleeping in an entry blocking a fire exit. He refused to move. The police were called. It took several hours and five officers to move him. He was completely naked under his blanket because he had peed himself. He was seriously mentally ill and needed help, but the officer said there was nowhere to take him. But there were beds for homeless campers removed from under the bridge? 

A customer was attacked and seriously bitten by a homeless citizen’s pit bull in front of Starbucks. A local restaurant had a homeless citizen unzip his pants and urinate on their plate glass window with customers eating on the other side of the glass. When the owner called the police they instructed him to “Ask the man to move along.”

We have told the Mayor and Councilor Cara Kaser that there are buses of homeless citizens paroled from Portland jails unloaded at Rite Aid. Police officers have told us Idaho and Colorado are also busing to Salem. One business found a Facebook post from Texas offering free bus tickets to Salem because “we have better services here.”

The City needs to build a covered tennis court (or two) at Riverfront Park with a heated concrete slab. During the summer it can be a tennis court, in winter, a heated pad for homeless to camp on the warm cement. When it gets dirty, move them and power wash the cement and let them come back.

At least they are not hurting businesses, and they could be warm during the winter. Then, build “tiny home villages” to house them permanently and provide mental health and addiction treatments. 

I took this photo of a sign in one of the businesses shown in the video. It's humorous, but also sad, since no business should have to put a sign like this in their front window.