Salem Political Snark

City Council struggles with managing vs. ending homelessness

Tonight the Salem City Council had a work session on its 2022 Policy Agenda.

I watched some of it, but I have a low tolerance for discussions of this sort that tend to have elected officials and staff talking at length without really coming to grips with key issues in a fashion that ordinary people can relate to.

(If you have a high tolerance for this, the work session can be viewed here.)

Of course, maybe I missed a part of the work session where city councilors did come to grips with the top priority of the City of Salem -- dealing with homelessness.

A post that appeared today on the CANDO (Central Area Neighborhood Organization) blog, "News from the Continuum," is a masterful summary of how Salem has been handling homelessness. I highly recommend it. 

In short, not as well as was planned, but better than before. The post says:

Referring back to the tally publicized last June in the "City Puts 8.1 Million Toward Salem's Sheltering Crisis" announcement, here's how things have turned out as we head into winter:

I liked how the post aptly describes a central question facing city officials is whether to prioritize managing homelessness or ending homelessness. This is sort of akin to the age-old question of whether treatment or prevention is more important in health care.

Mayor Bennett asked about "sustainability", "how long can we do this" (i.e., pay for programs that manage vs. end homelessness).  Hoy continued to defend, sans evidence, management programs as an "investment", and asserted that such programs were what "the public" wanted.  Bennett (the Mayor) said what the public wanted was for the City to "make it go away."        

I think the Mayor is right.

After many years of shuffling homeless people around Salem -- letting them sleep on downtown sidewalks, then stopping this and allowing unmanaged homeless camps in two city parks, followed by closing down those camps and doing other things, like managed camps of tiny homes -- citizens are tired of ever-changing temporary efforts to manage homelessness.

If Congress passes the Build Back Better bill, hopefully this will allow Salem to make real progress in ending homelessness in our city, rather than merely managing the problem. Of course, just as treatment and prevention both have to be part of health care, managing homelessness will be needed so long as it still exists.

Income inequality seems to be a root cause of homelessness. This obviously is too large a problem for any city or state to deal with. It's a national issue. But this shouldn't stop city officials from focusing on efforts to end homelessness in Salem. 

Tiny home camps are better than no homes at all. However, getting homeless people into real homes should be the top priority.

We need to keep Salem from having Portland's problems

I used to have Portland envy.

Not so much that I wanted to move there -- I've had a Salem address since 1977 -- but Portland seemed like the cool kid to our north, while Salem was decidedly geeky.

Now, though, I'll happily take Salem, even if termed So-Lame, over Portland's increasing dysfunction. 

Every night my wife and I watch the Portland late night news on KGW. I used to fast forward through a couple of minutes of crime news, because I don't like the "If it bleeds, it leads" sort of journalism. 

Throughout 2021, and especially recently, shootings, vandalism, business break-ins, and such have been consuming much more of the 11 pm Portland news.

On September 23 the Oregonian reported seven shootings in one day, with 837 shootings through August. Today KATU says the Portland Police Bureau announced there have been 1,000 shootings in 2021.

Salem has occasional shootings, but nothing like Portland. As of October 10, an Oregonian story, "Under the Gun," spoke of the very high number of murders in Portland this year: 69.

The survival rules posted by gang outreach worker Lionel Irving Jr. on Facebook starkly spell out the danger for people most at risk of dying in Portland’s daunting surge of gun violence this year:

1. Don’t sit in cars kicking it. 2. Get EVERYTHING you need and get to your destination. 3. Keep your eyes and ears open! Watch your surroundings instead of running your mouth. 4. Know who you’re hanging with and what they’re up to. 5. Google numbers, order your food ahead of time, don’t sit in local spots.

Irving’s advice reflects a pervasive unease that has settled over Portland this year as the city continues on a pace to surpass the most violent year in its modern history when 70 people were killed in 1987. So far this year, 69 people have died.

The victims since January range from an infant who allegedly died at the hands of his father to a 77-year-old woman killed in a hit-and-run rampage.

But a stunning pattern of sudden, sometimes indiscriminate shootings sets this wave apart. Guns have accounted for three-quarters of the homicides, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive.

Fatal shootings in almost all sections of the city have followed fistfights, social media disputes and drug deals gone bad. People sitting in cars, relaxing after work with friends in a bar, attending house parties or walking in a park have been shot dead.

Forensic analysis of spent bullet casings from crime scenes reveals connections between many of the shootings, pointing to gangs and retaliation as frequent drivers of the gun violence, investigators say.

The calls in Portland to "defund the police" after George Floyd's murder in 2020 now seem quaint, if not dangerously outmoded.

Certainly there's reason to question how wisely the Portland Police Bureau is being managed, but it sure seems like more officers are needed, not fewer, given the rise in violent crime and the inability of the bureau to stop vandalism of businesses both in downtown and elsewhere.

Then there's Portland's out-of-control homeless problem. Recently several people have told me about how shocking it is to see miles upon miles of homeless campers along the freeways in the Portland area. 

One person told me that freeway signs now have graffiti. They have a relative who lives in SE Portland. Businesses are regularly vandalized there. The relative is afraid to go to downtown Portland. 

A July 2021 opinion piece describes how bad the situation is. 

Portland’s housing crisis is now in its sixth year. If it was a child, it would be entering first grade this Fall. With kids, the first six years are marked by enormous growth and advancement. With homelessness, these last six year have seen enormous growth but in the wrong direction.

The growing crisis is getting on the nerves of local leaders. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler says the homelessness crisis has hurt the city’s “brand.” In a recent Metro Council meeting, Councilor Mary Nolan suggested the crisis is a “visibility problem.” In some ways they are correct. But, in others, they are way off base.

The crisis has become unavoidable for residents as well. Wheeler and local officials are correct that homeless camps, cars, and RVs are a blight that harms the region’s reputation. Nearly every neighborhood in Portland has a homeless camp. Most residents are within a five-minute walk of one. It’s more than just the camps and campers, there’s the garbage, the piles of bicycles, and the burnt out hulks of shopping carts. Paraphrasing Mayor Wheeler and Council Nolan, it’s ugly.

But, it’s way more than just ugly. It’s a crisis of public health and safety. And it ought to be treated as such

In 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, 113 people in Multnomah County had died homeless. Many of those deaths could have been prevented if our region didn’t have such a hands off approach. 

Multnomah County’s latest count of the homeless population found that two-thirds have some combination of substance use disorder or mental health issues. Unfortunately, these are the people who are most resistant to treatment. Drug users want to use drugs. Many of those with mental illness either can’t get the necessary treatment or don’t want it. Shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars toward so-called wraparound services will do nothing if the people who need them don’t use them.

So far Salem's crime and homeless problems aren't nearly as severe as Portland's. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes Portland has made. 

There's plenty of room for discussing, or arguing, about what those mistakes are.

My view is that Portland has been hampered by an excessive liberal tolerance of destructive street protests. At first those protests garnered a lot of sympathy in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

But as the months wore on in the summer and fall of 2020, anarchists and other trouble-makers were allowed to engage in both property damage and attacks on police via fireworks, rocks, and other projectiles.

This contributed to a decline in police officer morale. I'm not saying that the Portland Police Bureau didn't deserve some criticism for how they handled the protests, just that the bureau found itself caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Don't use force with protesters, but protect us from all the shootings and property damage.

Likewise, Mayor Wheeler and other city officials have been unduly passive as homeless camps spread all around Portland. It's easy to imagine that as word got out that Portland was allowing the homeless to do pretty much whatever they wanted, this could have led to more homeless people coming to the area.

One acquaintance told me that he thought Oregon's decriminalization of drugs in November 2020 could have caused our state to be viewed as a welcoming place by homeless people with drug problems. That's just conjecture, of course.

The good news for us here in Salem is that the Police Department seems better equipped to deal with  our lesser crime problem, and the City Council is doing the right thing in setting up tiny home managed homeless camps in each of Salem's eight wards.

That won't be enough to do anything other than put a small dent in our homeless population, but it's a step in the right direction -- as was banning camping in city parks following a failed experiment that allowed this.

City Council to reconsider West Salem homeless micro shelter camp

Complaining works. A Salem Reporter story, "Salem City Council to reconsider west Salem managed camp after opposition from neighbors," tells the outraged tale.

West Salem's city councilor wants the council to reconsider allowing a managed homeless camp on Wallace Road after residents objected to the plan.

At a Monday meeting, the council will hear a motion from Councilor Jim Lewis to reconsider the council’s previous approval of a managed camp along Wallace Road following overwhelming opposition to the project voiced during a Tuesday meeting at Salemtowne.

In council documents, Lewis explained that he wanted the council to withdraw its approval until city staff analyzed the site to determine if it’s feasible and met with west Salem neighbors to discuss alternate locations in that ward.

I can't be sure about this, but from the tone of the Salemtowne meeting -- lots of shouting and interruptions of those trying to explain how the homeless camp would operate -- this feels like a bunch of conservative Republicans taking a Trumpian stand against supposed government overreach.

A town hall over a planned managed homeless camp in west Salem turned vitriolic Tuesday night as hundreds of people gathered in a crowded room at Salemtowne to ask questions and voice concerns.

The gathering was tense, with audience members repeatedly cutting off or shouting over a handful of speakers from the city of Salem and homeless service provider Church at the Park who were there to answer questions over two hours.

What's decidedly strange is that so far as I know, there wasn't much (or any) opposition to the managed camps that have been set up in north Salem. I guess west Salem residents are just crankier about doing their part to deal with the homeless crisis.

However, City officials did screw up by not engaging in community outreach before revealing the plan for a micro shelter homeless camp on city-owned property on Wallace Road just a few days before the City Council was set to approve the camp.

On the whole, the micro shelter approach seems way better than letting homeless people camp in city parks or downtown sidewalks. The shelters are small, one design being just 64 square feet, but they're a heck of a lot better than a tent or cardboard box.

What's sad, of course, is that living in a glorified shed passes for progress in housing the homeless. This shouldn't be happening in a country as well off as the United States. Our social safety net has so many holes in it, it's better termed a Swiss Cheese approach to doing as little as possible for our most vulnerable citizens.

I'm no expert on homelessness.

But the reading I've done says that "housing first" is the best way to help homeless people break the cycle of living on the streets. Give the homeless a home, even a very basic one, and they're much more likely to find a job, stop excessive drinking or drug use, get healthier, and otherwise transition out of what's caused them to become homeless.

It sure seems like the federal government should be footing the bill for micro shelters. Absent that, there's a push to get people in Salem to donate the $5,000 cost of a micro shelter. A Statesman Journal story tells how to get involved with this effort.

Those wanting to sponsor a shelter or learn more can email:

           -- Hazel Patton at [email protected].
           -- Ron Steiner at [email protected].
           -- Emil Graziani at [email protected].

Salem's homeless need Biden's infrastructure plan

Whenever I read about Salem's homeless problem, I feel way more sympathetic toward city officials and the City Council than I usually do.

There's simply no easy answers. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Today's excellent story by Whitney Woodworth in the Statesman Journal lays out the "Mission Impossible" facing city leaders. 

After more than a year, Salem officials are poised to end sanctioned camping for those living in Wallace Marine and Cascades Gateway parks starting June 1.

But the problem that has plagued the city for years persists — there are not enough shelter beds, transitional housing or organized campsites to house the hundreds of people sleeping outside. 

The plan is not to forcefully evict everyone from the parks come Tuesday but to slowly, over time, connect campers with resources as new shelter beds and housing options are added and then to clean up the emptied sections of the park. 

Salem City Council voted unanimously Monday, with one councilor absent, to rescind the allowance for camping at the two parks and begin a slow rollback of the program.

Mass evictions and sweeps are not expected due to legal restrictions, lack of alternative shelters and officials' desire to not push people into camping on sidewalks downtown.

What the Salem City Council is trying to do makes sense, but probably it will end up irritating all of those involved in homeless issues.

-- Homeless people won't like being told to leave city parks, even though this will happen gradually.

-- Those who live near the Cascades Gateway and Wallace Marine parks won't like homeless camps remaining in them for the foreseeable future.

-- Advocates for the homeless won't like how few shelter/housing options exist for them in Salem.

-- Users of the parks currently sheltering homeless people won't like the destruction of public property by some of those in the camps.

This seems to be one of those social problems where giving one group what it wants leads to an unbalanced approach that really irks other involved groups.

So policymakers end up displeasing everybody to some extent, because that's the only viable option given available resources.

What's the solution? Increase the resources.

Given City of Salem budget limitations, it's unlikely that a lot of money for the homeless is going to be available locally, especially since city officials face a big bill to repair the damage caused to Wallace Marine and Cascades Gateway parks by the camps.

Getting big bucks from the State of Oregon also seems like a long shot. There's too many competing needs, and state government can't run a budget deficit.

That leaves the federal government. 

President Biden's several trillion dollar infrastructure plan, the American Jobs Act, contains many billions for affordable housing and other measures that could help homeless people. 

A piece called "Can Biden End Homelessness?" is cautiously optimistic. 

Last week, Biden’s American Jobs Act included $213 billion for affordable housing. This will produce or renovate one million affordable housing units and 500,000 homes for low/middle income home buyers. This money is on top of the $27.5 billion in emergency rental aid included in the American Rescue Plan.

Many of us have long argued that housing is as much part of “infrastructure” as roads and bridges. Now we have a president who agrees.

Thanks to pressure from activists, Biden’s housing platform also called for “providing Section 8 housing vouchers to every eligible family so that no one has to pay more than 30% of their income for rental housing.” Currently, nearly 75% of households eligible for Section 8 rental assistance do not receive it.

We finally have a president committed to ending widespread homelessness. And a grassroots housing movement to provide political support. Biden’s budget plans are not perfect; advocates sought nearly double the $40 billion allocated for public housing renovation– but it’s light years beyond what any prior president has proposed.

Federal funding is essential for ending homelessness.  Now the key question is: Will cities open neighborhoods to ensure housing is available for the unhoused?

Well, my understanding is that the Oregon legislature already has mandated that cities relax zoning rules to allow multifamily housing in all residential areas, including single family neighborhoods. That's a step in the right direction.

And the City of Salem is engaged in a planning process aimed at revising the Comprehensive Plan that guides future development. That's another potential step in the right direction.

These steps, along with others, just need federal dollars to make them effective ways of markedly reducing Salem's homeless population. Hopefully the American Jobs Act will be approved by Congress this year, with or without Republican support.

Homelessness and other big problems always should shock us

Today the Statesman Journal had a front page story about homeless campers being flooded out of Cascades Gateway Park following the recent heavy rains. 

This story didn't shock me, because I recall the same thing happening at Wallace Marine Park not too long ago, seemingly last year or the year before. Yet I should have been shocked by the very idea of people in the United States having to sleep outdoors because they lack a home.

There's an old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. It also appears to lead to complacency. 

This is dangerous when it comes to problems facing our society. If we get used to bad situations, they can come to seem acceptable to us, since we tend to forget what life was like before the problem became so serious.

The March 9, 2019 issue of New Scientist, which I'm just getting around to reading, has an article called "Not such a hot topic: Bizarre weather is soon viewed as normal and that is troubling news." It talks about people getting used to climate change, but the boiling frog analogy pertains broadly.

We measured the literal remarkability of temperatures by seeing how much comment they generated on Twitter. Hot and cold conditions resulted in lots of posts, particularly if they were unusual for the time of year.

But temperatures quickly became unremarkable: after just a couple of years of strange temperatures, people stopped tweeting about them. Our best estimate is that people base their idea of normal weather on what happened in just the past two to eight years.

...The tale of the boiling frog has long been used to describe the dangers posed by change that happens slowly relative to people's perception and memory. The apocryphal story compares a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water, who jumps out right away, to another placed in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated up.

This frog never recognises the danger it is in and eventually boils to death.

Our findings suggest that we may be at risk of becoming boiling frogs -- but we can still determine our fate. There are plenty of records we can use to provide the longer-term context critical for understanding climate change.

Normally, keeping things in perspective makes problems seem smaller, but the opposite is true regarding climate change.

For sure.

I've lived in Oregon since 1971, forty-nine years. Global warming has increased a lot during that period. In the old days, storm after storm would hit Oregon. Sometimes it would rain almost constantly for weeks. Usually the Willamette Valley would get snow during winter. Ice storms were quite common, bringing scary freezing rain.

Now it's rare that I need the winter tires that I put on our cars in November. I'm pretty sure that not a flake of snow has fallen the past three years. Many fir trees in our rural south Salem neighborhood are dying, at least partly because of hot summers and below normal rainfall. 

Yet it's tempting to say "We're having a mild dry winter" as if this is something good, or at least nothing to be worried about. In truth, global warming is worth worrying a lot about, because it threatens the habitability of Planet Earth for us humans. 

Most people know this. However, only those of us old enough to remember when the climate was considerably different have a lived experience of global warming -- a powerful way to be continually shocked by how the world's climate is changing.

Likewise, homeless advocates here in Salem have a broader perspective on this problem than those of us who have only become fully aware of it in the past few years. It's easy to look upon the flooding of homeless camps as simply something that happens every year, like geese flying south for the winter.

Again, we should be perpetually shocked by the sight of a homeless person, because homelessness should be very rare in a rich country like ours.

On a shorter time frame, it bothers me that over 325,000 people have died from COVID-19 since the pandemic hit the United States early this year, and a good share of Americans look upon this death toll with a yawn. Do they not care about their fellow citizens, or have they become used to the Covid frog being boiled so steadily, the demise of so many fails to shock any more? 

Probably a bit of both.

Today 3,379 Covid deaths were reported. By comparison, the 9/11 attacks in 2001 killed 2,977, and the United States embarked on a decades long effort to punish those responsible and learn how the tragedy happened. Now COVID-19 is killing a 9/11 worth of people each day with regularity, yet our country just wants to get health clubs, restaurants, and schools open as soon as possible.

Naturally other examples can be given of how outrage either is lacking, or has a short memory -- the Black Lives Matter movement, for example.

Some improvements have been made to policing practices, but by and large, new questionable killings of Blacks aren't met with the same outpouring of support for the victims as was the case after the George Floyd murder.

Obviously it isn't possible for us to be in a constant state of shock at all of the crappy things happening in the world. That way lies madness, or at least an unhealthy degree of stress. We need to pick and choose where our sense of outrage is directed. I'm simply saying that we all should look upon societal problems clearly, compassionately, and continually.

Closing our mind to a problem because it has become familiar to us doesn't make the problem go away. It merely assures that when it pops up in our awareness again, likely the problem will be worse.

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.

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.

A view of Salem's problems from wide angle of inequality and corporatism

Watching the Salem City Council discuss homeless solutions last Tuesday night made me feel like I was looking through a magnifying glass. The problems were real. The ideas about how to help homeless people were tiny.

Now, there's nothing wrong with small steps, like allowing a women's homeless shelter to add nine beds to their current 10 bed capacity, or considering allowing the homeless to camp in industrial parts of town.

But equally valuable, if not more so, is looking at Salem's problems through a wide-angle mental lens that sees homelessness, environmental degradation, lack of affordable housing, urban sprawl, and other issues as manifestations of a systemic societal failure.

This is the goal of a book by Russ and Dave Beaton, long-time Salem residents, that I've read the first part of. Russ brought some copies to a group that we're both members of, and I eagerly forked out $10 to get one at a bargain price (The Economics of Hope sells for $17.95 on Amazon.)

I'm liking the book a lot.

Russ is a retired emeritus professor of economics at Willamette University. Dave, his brother, has worked in both state and federal government, with a special interest in the impacts of information technology on the workplace and society.

They've written an approachable book for those of us who don't know much about economics, yet want to understand why things are so screwed up locally, nationally, and internationally. 

There's a lot of moving parts to this question.

But the core thesis of The Economics of Hope is that inequality is tied tightly to climate change and other assaults on our planet's environmental well-being. And corporatism -- a mindset that elevates the values of corporations far above what is desirable -- lurks at the heart of what ails us.

Here's some passages from the book that speak to this. And it isn't just large multinational corporations that are the problem. It's also a Chamber of Commerce mentality that views money and jobs as more important than quality of life and sustainable living. (boldfacing is in original).

In summary, the reality of the [corporate] model looks very much like the medieval structure of Feudalism, except the currency of the Realm is not eternal salvation, but money -- pure and simple. The reward is not sitting at the right hand of God, but a villa in the South of France. 

A spot in Heaven for repentant souls is replaced by the lure of owning a 200-foot yacht, or perhaps, to shamelessly mix metaphors, the ability to soar with the gods in the corporate jet.

...Special attention must be afforded the phrase Corporate Sponsorship. From softball teams to local symphonies, corporate sponsorship is eagerly sought. Presumably, we cannot afford such enrichment opportunities without such philanthropic largesse.

With an admitted generous dash of cynicism, it could be added: "For sure, we can't afford them, since you have already looted from the community any economic surplus that would allow us to pay for such amenities on our own. Give it back...!"

...It will be argued in response that corporate sponsorship in local communities is normally sought from local business interests, and not from national corporations. This is certainly true, and leads to an important reminder.

It is the mindset we are talking about, and not just the presence of some transnational institution itself.

Local business people -- as well they should be in many cases -- are normally seen as community leaders and benefactors. This promotes a "chamber of commerce" mentality which assumes economic prosperity to be the primary value in a community, and from which springs all other features that the community might cherish.

Once that assumption is met, diversity of interests and choices is encouraged, since business is enthroned as the dominant institution that provides all meaning in life. Corporate "sponsorship" has done its job as a small but effective down payment toward a cultural mindset. 

Without further prompting, locals are playing their part, and the corporatist paradigm has won out.

Below I've taken what Russ and Dave Beaton have said above and related the "corporate mindset" and "corporate sponsorship" notions to some specific local issues. Obviously these are my notions, not theirs, but I think there's some common ground in how we see things.

-- The City Council is putting an employee-paid payroll tax on the May 2020 ballot, not an employer-paid tax. And the money, if the measure passes, isn't going to homelessness, parks, libraries, or such. It would be spent on public safety, the police and fire departments that already have by far the largest share of the City's general fund budget.

-- Urban Renewal funds in the millions of dollars are handed out freely to businesses and developers, even when there is no urban area that really needs renewing. But it took a lot of effort to pry loose $50,000 from the City of Salem to fund the beginning stage of a Climate Action Plan that is needed for the small little goal of preserving the earth for human habitation.

-- Businesses and developers in Salem wrongly cut down or wreck street trees that belong to everybody without consequences, or at least no major consequences, while ordinary citizens are held to stricter standards. There are lots of examples of this that I've written about over the years. Here's a very recent example and one from 2013.

-- Likewise, massive road projects are funded as a matter of course, since they are in tune with a chamber of commerce mentality. Meanwhile, those who advocate for making Salem a city where people can walk and bike safely and easily have to struggle to get a single Neighborhood Greenway built, whose cost is a fraction of a single road-widening.

-- When businesses complained about the homeless disrupting downtown commerce, City officials jumped into action to push a ban on homeless camping throughout Salem. However, when local experts on homelessness pointed out the obvious -- that the ban did nothing to reduce the number of homeless people, just change where they congregate -- the City Council appeared confused and unsure what to do. Once again, making money is being taken more seriously than acting humanely.

I'll give the Beatons the last word. Here's another passage from their chapter "What is Corporatism?"

Understand, in no way are we suggesting that corporatism represents some insidious, regimented, sinister force; a pernicious organization with chapters, board members, a secret handshake, and that meets monthly in some five-star hotel on the outskirts of Houston or Dubai.

What we are saying is that powerful corporations, working through their network of relationships to other institutions -- especially government and the media -- have effectively found ways to consolidate, expand, and solidify their power and influence over many important aspects of American life.

The wealthy are definitely in control. It is vital to understand the many permeating effects of this expansion of power if ways are to be found to devise a comfortable and viable local alternative.

A final all-important reminder: The tangible effects, pro and con, of corporations on our lives have been hashed and rehashed, and this will no doubt continue. That is not the main point. The main point is that it has tended to give you, the average American, a mindset compatible with (and inadvertently supportive of) Global Corporatism -- manifested even in your local actions.

Leading you through introspection to examine that mindset or world view is our main purpose in this chapter. 

This is a necessary first step on the part of regular thinking citizens if we are to undertake effective local actions to make our communities more safe, sustainable, prosperous, and personally satisfying. The task will be difficult, but we see it as a fundamentally optimistic endeavor: it represents the path to the best possible future we can expect.

Great idea to deal with Salem's homeless problem

A few days ago Susannn Kaltwasser asked an excellent question on a Facebook page where Salem City Council issues are discussed. 

Kaltwasser is correct. An October 2019 survey of Salem residents found that after being asked an open-ended question, 41% said that homelessness and poverty were their top concerns. Crime and drugs were mentioned by only 4%. Here's a screenshot from the survey report,

So it's perplexing that City officials want all of a proposed employee-paid payroll tax that will be on the May 2020 ballot to go to public safety. Here's a information sheet about the payroll tax and operations fee (already passed by the City Council). 
Download City Revenue Fact Sheet

Judging by the citizen survey, putting that estimated $9.1 million a year into efforts to reduce the number of homeless people in Salem is a much higher priority than adding to the police and fire departments budget.

Thus Jim Scheppke had a great idea in a comment he left in response to Kaltwasser's question. (The payroll tax also is being called the "Commuter Tax," since it would raise money from the estimated 60,000 people who work in Salem but live elsewhere. It also would be paid by people who live and work in Salem, naturally.)

This idea should be seriously considered by the City Council.

I'm not sure when the deadline is for filing measures to appear on the May 19, 2020 primary ballot, but likely there is time to amend the measure that currently calls for all of the payroll tax money to be dedicated to public safety.

If you agree that helping the homeless is a better use for $9.1 million a year raised by the employee-paid payroll tax than adding police officers and fire department personnel that don't appear to be urgently needed, send an email to the Salem City Council telling them this: [email protected]