Salem Political Snark

South Salem Office Depot kicks out farm stand and food trucks

Office Depot acted like a corporate jerk when it kicked out a farm stand and two food carts from their vast and mostly empty south Salem parking lot.

A Statesman Journal story, "Where did the food carts at the South Salem Office Depot parking lot go?," describes the bullshit reason for this decidedly unneighborly act of corporate asshole'ness.

The departure was fueled by an order from Office Depot's corporate office claiming the food trucks and stands were taking up too many parking spots, food cart owners said. This left staff of the South Salem location, who confirmed the move, to force Don Chuy's Tacos, Cary's Bakeshop and Nanneman Farms Fruit Stand off the property.

Today around 2 pm I took some photos of the Office Depot parking lot, which supposedly is so jammed to overflowing that there's absolutely no room for the farm stand and food trucks.

That's a big fat corporate lie.

The shady side of the parking lot where the fruit stand used to be had one car in it, with just a few cars nearby.

I recall that the food trucks used to be on the other side of the Office Depot parking lot. It was completely empty.

The middle of the parking lot did have some cars in it. But even here, there were plenty of empty spaces.

And on the side of the building, there's a huge parking area that had precisely zero vehicles in it. 

So a lack of spots for parking definitely wasn't the reason Office Depot kicked out the farm stand and food trucks. 

That leaves me to speculate that the Office Depot corporate office just wanted to be mean.

OK. Now I want to buy my office supplies from anywhere other than the South Salem Office Depot. Amazon. Fred Meyer. A store in Outer Mongolia. 

Since Office Depot wants its parking lot as empty as possible, I'm glad to oblige by not having my car take up one of the spaces. If the farm stand and food trucks return, so will I.

Salem City Council reverses itself and approves Meyer Farm subdivision

Some Salem progressives are deeply irritated at fellow progressives on the City Council after Monday night's 4-3 approval of a revised Meyer Farm subdivision application , which followed a 5-2 denial of the application on February 28.

The Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook page has an image that sums up how opponents of the subdivision are feeling today.

They're justified in feeling this way. 

One reason is how City of Salem staff turned a subdivision denial into an approval by working with the applicant on a revised application, even though opponents figured that what staff should have been doing is preparing a Final Order of the denial.

This gave the developer, Portland based Kehoe Northwest Properties, time to turn a loss into a win. Opponents of the subdivision likely are wondering what occurred outside of public view to result in a City Council vote against the development becoming a vote for the development.

However, when we look at how the votes changed between February 28 and March 28, there's less room for anger at city councilors altering their position on the subdivision -- while still providing considerable justification for outrage.

Particularly at several progressive members of the City Council.

On February 28 there were eight members of the council, conservative Jim Lewis having resigned his seat. Those voting to approve the subdivision were Chuck Bennett and Jose Gonzalez. Those voting to deny the subdivision were Tom Andersen, Trevor Phillips, Jackie Leung, Chris Hoy, and Vanessa Nordyke. Virginia Stapleton was absent.

But prior to the denial, at the February 28 meeting there was a motion to approve the subdivision with some conditions. Hoy, Bennett, and Nordyke were in favor of the motion. Andersen, Leung, Phillips, and Gonzalez opposed the motion.

Yesterday, March 28, all nine City Council positions were filled, since Micki Varney, a progressive, had been selected to fill Jim Lewis' seat. This time Jackie Leung was absent, a crucial absence, because there were only four votes to approve the subdivision application: Bennett, Gonzalez, Stapleton, Hoy. Three councilors voted to deny the application: Nordyke, Andersen, Phillips. 

Varney abstained. A Salem Reporter story says:

Councilor Micki Varney, who was appointed to the council last week to serve the remainder of Jim Lewis’ term, abstained because she hadn’t had a chance to review testimony, City Attorney Dan Atchison said at the meeting. Councilor Jackie Leung was not in attendance.

Wow. Micki Varney didn't start off her council appointment at all positively.

It's mind-boggling that Varney didn't take the time to review testimony on probably the most important land use decision that will come before the City Council this year. It also doesn't look good that the City Attorney apparently was the one to explain why Varney abstained, not Varney herself. 

So if opponents of the Meyer Farm subdivision are looking for someone to blame for the subdivision's approval, Micki Varney would be Culprit #1. If she had voted against the revised application, the motion to approve it would have failed on a 4-4 tie. 

Culprit #2 has to be Jackie Leung, another progressive, who voted against the subdivision on February 28. Unless Leung has a really good explanation for why she missed Monday's meeting, the ire of subdivision opponents should be focused on Leung, along with Varney. 

(I like both Leung and Varney. I've supported their City Council campaigns. But I've got to call them out on this issue, because to me failing to vote on an important issue is worse than voting in a way I disagree with. Democracy belongs only to those who show up.)

NOTE: Initially I had it as Leung and Nordyke rather than Leung and Varney. I wrote this post late at night and my proof-reading obviously was lacking, being excessively focused on turning on our TV and starting to watch the 4th season of "Yellowstone." Great series by the way.

Virginia Stapleton was absent on February 28, so her position on the Meyer Farm subdivision wasn't known, making it not much of a surprise when she voted to approve it yesterday. Chris Hoy was in favor of a modified subdivision plan on February 28, so it wasn't a huge shock when he voted in favor of a modified plan on March 28. The Salem Reporter story says:

Hoy previously made a motion during a March 1 meeting [actually, it was February 28] to modify the planning administrator’s decision, telling the applicant to preserve significant trees on 10 lots by dedicating them as open space or incorporating them into the homestead lot. He also called for relocating a pedestrian path on Hilfiker Lane to ensure it didn’t impact trees. That motion failed.

At Monday’s meeting, he said he believed the new application got “very close” to his previous motion.

“I think it's the best outcome we can hope for given the difficult situation,” Hoy said.

Likely this isn't the final word on the Meyer Farm subdivision. Members of the Meyer family who don't want to see the farm turned into a housing development are engaged in a legal challenge regarding ownership with the family members who do favor development. 

That's one way the subdivision could be stopped. An appeal to LUBA, Land Use Board of Appeals, is another way. There appears to be some valid grounds for appeal.

Meyer Farm subdivision rejected by City Council, but city staff are trying to keep it alive.

Ah, the games City of Salem staff like to play, even when they seem illegal, or at least, decidedly improper. 

Last Monday night the City Council voted 5-2 to reject an application to build a 139 single-family lot subdivision on the beautiful property in south Salem known as the Meyer Farm.

I wrote about this last October in "Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed." Neighbors, along with others concerned about the proposed development, formed a Facebook group, Friends of The Meyer Farm.

I've followed their persistent, thoughtful, energetic efforts, finding them impressive.

Fighting a subdivision is a David versus Goliath exercise. The developer has way more money, and the City of Salem tends to favor development, since more houses means more property tax revenue for the city.

So it was a pleasant surprise to read a Salem Reporter story, "Salem City Council denies proposed subdivision on historic farm citing concerns about tree removal." 

The Salem City Council denied an application by a developer to build 139 single family lots on the historic Meyer Farm in south Salem.  

In a 5-2 vote, the council voted in favor of denying the planning administrator’s approval of the project, citing concerns over the removal of significant trees on the property.  

Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Jose Gonzalez were in favor of approving the administrator’s decision. Councilor Virginia Stapleton was absent and Councilor Jim Lewis has resigned. 

The planning administrator approved the tentative plan submitted by Portland-based developer Kehoe Northwest Properties on Nov. 3.  

The plan has drawn vocal opposition from the community with members concerned about the loss of Oregon white oaks, traffic and the degradation of open space.  

Not so pleasant was a video of part of the City Council meeting shared on Facebook where Dan Atchison, the city attorney, jumps in after the 5-2 vote to say, among other things, that the developer, Kehoe Northwest Properties, can submit a revised application at the next council meeting on March 14.

This sure seems to be either illegal or highly irregular.

What the hell is going on here? The City Council had just voted to reject the subdivision application. An order to that effect should be prepared by city staff and presented to the council for a vote at the next meeting.

If Kehoe Northwest Properties wants to appeal the decision, that's their right.

But Dan Atchison shouldn't be acting like he's the attorney for the developer. He's the attorney for the City of Salem. He's supposed to represent the interests of the City of Salem, which now includes supporting the City Council rejection of the subdivision application. 

The Friends of the Meyer Farm folks see what Atchison did as wrong. And some of them are highly familiar with how land use decisions are handled by the City of Salem. A member of the group says:

If you listen to the recording of the Council vote (see above) you will then hear the City Attorney say "The Applicant has the right to modify the application and propose conditions on the 14th." That statement is alarming and sounds illegal. 

It isn't true that the only controversial part of the proposed development was how significant/protected white oaks and other trees on the property were being handled. (Mostly by being cut down.) Atchison seemed to be suggesting that all Kehoe Northwest Properties has to do is make a few changes to its tree preservation plan and, bingo, a revised application can be approved at the next city council meeting.

In a comment on a Statesman Journal story about the subdivision rejection, "Controversial plan to build homes on South Salem Meyer Farm property halted," Peter Meyer, a member of the Meyer family, said:

As would be expected, Mr. Kehoe would say he thought the deal was done. But it's not. Aside from the many serious environmental (cutting down protected trees) and transportation (terrible traffic) issues with his proposal, he doesn't even have title to the property, which is something the City Council should take seriously.

He clearly knows -- there's a paragraph about it in his Preliminary Sales Agreement -- that ownership of the farm has been in litigation since August of 2019 and continues to this day. A majority of the Henry Meyer Trust (which owns the property) beneficiaries do not want to sell the farm and a majority of Henry Meyer's descendants do not want to sell it. The Council made the right decision by refusing to commit the City's good will and resources to this bogus proposal. --peter meyer

To summarize: the city planning department wanted the application to be approved. But the City Council disagreed, voting 5-2 to deny the application. Now City of Salem staff are required to assist in carrying out the City Council order that rejects the subdivision application. The council has no staff of its own. The job of city staff is to carry out City of Salem policies and priorities. Now that includes working to carry out the rejection of the development application, not trying to undermine that decision.

UPDATE: Roger Kaye of Friends of Marion County, a land use advocacy organization, asked an attorney with 1000 Friends of Oregon about whether the Meyer Farm application could be amended by the developer. This was the response Kaye got:

Without having attended the Council meeting or read its decision, it looks like ORS 197.522(3) would not apply if the denial constitutes the city's final decision on the application. Did the council issue a written final decision or specifically state during the vote that the vote was for a final decision?

 

If, so it seems that returning with an amended application would not be consistent with ORS 197.522(3). However, on the flip side, if the council voted to deny the current version of the application but to allow the applicant to return with an amended application prior to the final decision, returning with an amended application would be ok. 

 

ORS 197.522 is pretty commonly used to allow modifications to applications. While it's possible that an applicant could have a closed door meeting with staff to amend the application, there's nothing unlawful about that as long as the amended application goes through the public land use process for the final decision. 

 

Hope this helps!

Take a few minutes to help save 30 beautiful acres in Salem

If you love trees and open space -- who doesn't? -- please consider taking a couple of minutes to help save the 30-acre Meyer Farm property near Trader Joe's in south Salem from being turned into a subdivision.

Back in October 2021 I wrote a blog post about this, "Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed."

If you drive past Trader Joe's on Hilfiker Lane SE, on your left you'll see a surprising urban sight: thirty acres of beautiful undeveloped land. 

Unfortunately, there's a decent chance that before too long this property will become thirty acres of much less beautiful developed land.

But not if a group of people devoted to seeing the land remain as natural as possible succeed in their effort to stop the planned subdivision. Consider joining the Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook group if you share their goal.

On Monday, January 10, 2022, 6 pm, there's a Public Hearing scheduled for the subdivision application (SUB 21-09) as part of a City Council meeting. The councilors will receive testimony from citizens and vote to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed subdivision at the Meyer Farm.

Requested action(s). Do one, or both, of the following:

1. Tell the City Councilors why you think this proposed subdivision should be denied by submitting your written testimony to the City Registrar by 5:00 p.m. on January 10 by email to [email protected]. You can also submit paper copies at the mailbox outside the City Recorder's office at the Civic Center, 555 Liberty St. SE, Room 205, also by 5:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

2. Provide virtual comment live via Zoom at the Public Hearing on January 10. In order to testify at the hearing, you will need to sign up between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. the day of the hearing at https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/Public-Comment-at-Salem-City-Council-Meeting.aspx. A meeting link will be sent to all persons who signed up to testify.

I'm a member of the Friends of the Meyer Farm Facebook group. These are some of the issues the group has identified which argue against approving the subdivision application. You can mention the issues in your public comment/testimony urging denial of the application.

Traffic. There's concerns about how neighboring streets and intersections will be affected by the traffic generated by the proposed subdivision.

Trees. A tree inventory submitted as part of the development application appears to be out-of-date and incomplete. So there's no way to tell how many trees are planning to be removed, and how many saved.

Wildlife. Fourteen local wildlife species that need the Meyer Farm to survive are protected by local, state, and federal law, along with their required habitats.

History. The Meyer Farm has significant historical value, being one of the last original parcels from the Land Donation Act of 1850. Ownership of the farm can be traced back to the original claimant, Joseph Waldo.

Heritage. A barn that Joseph Waldo built in 1854 is still on the property. It qualifies to be listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. 

Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed

If you drive past Trader Joe's on Hilfiker Lane SE, on your left you'll see a surprising urban sight: thirty acres of beautiful undeveloped land. 

Unfortunately, there's a decent chance that before too long this property will become thirty acres of much less beautiful developed land.

But not if a group of people devoted to seeing the land remain as natural as possible succeed in their effort to stop the planned subdivision. Consider joining the Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook group if you share their goal.

The Statesman Journal has done some good reporting on plans for the Meyer Farm. Family intrigue is involved. Here's some excerpts from "Subdivision, tree removal proposed for historic 30-acre  Meyer Farm in southeast Salem."

A proposal to turn nearly 30 acres of pastoral land in southeast Salem into a 138-lot, single-family residential subdivision has been filed with the city, and the public comment period ends at 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 1.

The property in question, 4540 Pringle Road SE, is known as the Meyer Farm. A five-minute walk from one of the busiest thoroughfares in town, it features mostly open space with a large oak grove, a creek and views of the Cascades.

...Geoffrey James, land use chair for Morningside, posted its concerns on the "Friends of The Meyer Farm" Facebook Group page.

The group, created in April 2021, wants to save what it identifies as a historically significant urban farm, which includes an 1854 barn and a 1915 farmhouse. It is the last remaining parcel from Joseph Waldo's Donation Land Claim of 1852.

Complicating the proposal is the fact that the Henry A. Meyer Revocable Living Trust, which owns the property, has been mired in a trust dispute in Marion County Circuit Court for more than two years. The next scheduled proceeding is a status check hearing on Monday, Oct. 4, in Judge Thomas Hart's courtroom.

Henry Meyers' descendants, including five living children, have been split on selling the property, and complaints of trust mismanagement have surfaced.

The trustees were removed and the court appointed a successor trustee, attorney Michelle M. Morrow, around October 2020. Morrow's attorney, David L. Carlson, signed to authorize the filing of the subdivision application.

It's decidedly weird that what sounds like a caretaker trustee, Michelle Morrow, decided to take the side of the Meyer family that wants to develop the property, entering into an agreement with a Portland real estate developer, Martin Kehoe of Kehoe Northwest Properties.

This seems to almost guarantee a legal battle between Morrow, Kehoe, and the Meyer family members who favor the 30 acres becoming a subdivision, and the Meyer family members who want the land to remain much as it is -- perhaps becoming a city park.

I've recently started watching the streaming series Succession, which is about the intense family struggle to determine who gets to carry on the legacy of Logan Roy, a man in his 80's who founded the huge business that may or may not be wrested out of his control.

It'll be interesting to see whether the Meyer Farm saga reaches anywhere near that level of family conflict. 

Another Statesman Journal story, "Future of historic SE Salem Meyer Farm hinges on trust dispute, subdivision approval," describes the twists and turns of family control of the property. Excerpts:

Descendants of Henry Meyer have been fighting over the future of the farm for more than two years, split on whether to sell the land or maintain their father and grandfather's legacy for future generations.

...The trust was supposed to be dissolved 20 years after his death — Henry died May 30, 2000, at the age of 84 — but began to unravel before then.

At the time, it was managed primarily by Tim Meyer, one of the sons, an international banker and co-owner of Salem-based Kettle Chips. He was a co-trustee helping plan for the dissolution in 2018, outlining options that included transferring the farm and trust assets to a family-owned LLC, according to one sibling.

Most of the siblings served as a co-trustee at one time or another.

Tim died in April of that year before he could implement any plan, and successor trustees allegedly made plans to sell the farm without consulting all siblings.

Peter Meyer, another son of Henry's who lives in New York, filed a petition in August 2019 in Marion County Circuit Court alleging the successor trustees abused their discretionary authority and engaged in "reckless misconduct" and "willful wrongdoing" in violation of the trust. The petition asked that they be removed and cease and desist all activities to sell the property.

Exhibits filed with the court include a redacted July 2019 letter of intent for the purchase and sale of the farm for a projected 240-unit single-family development for $5.75 million.

Multiple objections, counterclaims and cross petitions have been made in court since.

The court removed the trustees, with no finding of fault or liability, and named a new successor trustee in late 2020, an attorney not related to the family. Up until that point, the trust had been managed by descendants of Henry.

Even though the family drama adds some special spice to the Meyer Farm issue, the backdrop against which it will play out is familiar.

The 30 acres is within Salem's urban growth boundary. Oregon's pioneering land use system uses that boundary to protect farm and forest land near cities that otherwise would be overtaken by unfettered development.

(Witness Phoenix, Houston, and many other cities with a checkerboard style of sprawl caused by developers seeking cheaper land outside the city limits.)

So progressives like me are faced with a quandary about proposed subdivisions such as this one. We support dense urbanization because this is the most efficient use of scarce land inside an urban growth boundary.

But we also have a fondness for nature, and compassion for neighbors of the Meyer Farm who enjoy  having all that nearby open space.

I speak as someone who has lived on ten acres in rural south Salem, about six miles from the city limits, for the past 31 years.

Nature is tremendously healing. My wife and I can walk out of our back yard onto trails that lead through our natural property, across a small creek, past a stand of large trees, to a nine-acre community lake.

It's wonderful to have all this close at hand. It helps keep me as (questionably) sane as I am.

I want city dwellers to also have easy access to semi-wild spaces like the Meyer Farm. There has to be a balance between dense urban development and making sure enough natural open space remains for people living in a city to enjoy.

The Meyer Farm property is special, maybe totally unique in Salem, given its size, beauty, and history. It shouldn't become a subdivision unless strong efforts to preserve it as a natural area end up failing.

Here's a screenshot I made of a satellite image of the Meyer Farm property using Google Maps on my iPhone. The 30 acres is the undeveloped square in the center of the image. 

Comparing the image above with the proposed subdivision map below, you can see that most of the trees on the property would be cut down.

Open space is shown in the upper left of the subdivision map, so much of that dense stand of trees apparently would remain. Of course, Friends of the Meyer Farm are arguing that all of the trees should be saved by leaving the property natural. Or as natural as possible, if it were to become a park.

Costco approval was bad decision by Salem City Council

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

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

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

All I'd add is this. 

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the opinion piece.

PacTrust's Costco a 'wholesale' disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon's urban-rural divide explained by political scientist

So, why is there such a tension between people in rural Oregon and urban Oregon?

We saw this divide in action earlier in 2019, when Republicans in the state Senate walked out in protest of a climate change bill, supported by loggers driving their trucks in circles around the Capitol building, horns blaring.

Today a political scientist from Western Oregon University, Mark Henkels, offered up some explanations of what's going on here in the course of his presentation at a Salem City Club meeting, It's Complicated: The Politics of Oregon's Rural-Urban Divide.

Mark Henkels

Early on in his talk, Henkels defined "urban" and "rural" as applied to Oregon counties. He considers that our state has six urban counties: Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Multnomah, and Washington. The rest of the state is rural.

He said that because Salem is the second or third largest city in Oregon, that argues for Marion County being urban. Deschutes County includes Bend, so arguably it is semi-urban, but not enough to make his urban cut.

No big surprise: currently rural Oregon is more Republican than urban Oregon.

But back in 1988, that wasn't the case. Democrats even had a slight edge over Republicans in rural areas, 47% to 41%. (Henkels did mention that many of the Dems were Reagan voters who hadn't changed their registration.) And in urban areas Democrats and Republicans each had 44%.

Much had changed by 2018.

Rural Oregon was only 27% Democratic, a drop of twenty points, while Republican registration declined by only eight points to 33%, with non-affiliated voters jumping markedly from 13% to 33%. In urban areas, Democrats had come to vastly outnumber Republicans, 41% to 21%, with non-affiliated voters rising to 31% of the electorate.

Henkels considers that economic trends explain much of the political changes. 

Rural Oregon still tilts toward agricultural and industrial sectors, while urban Oregon has become largely post-industrial. Meaning, services, high-tech, medical, and education sectors. Post-industrial workers are more diverse. They move around a lot. They go where the jobs are.

By contrast, traditionally a family farm often was worked by succeeding generations, and a child might follow a parent in working at the same industrial plant. 

Agriculture and industry tend to foster social stability, traditional values, and a desire to preserve the existing economy. Henkels called this cluster "material" values, which doesn't really mean materialistic or non-spiritual. Rather, I took that term to mean a connection to what already exists, a conservative clinging to the things that have worked in the past.

Urban areas in Oregon tend to embrace post-materialist values.

Quality of life is as important, if not more so, than how much money someone makes. Protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are valued goals. This slide shows how drastically rural Oregon and urban Oregon differ in this regard.

A whopping 59% of the Portland metro area holds post-materialist values, while all urban areas are at 46% and rural areas only 17%. Looking at political leaning rather than geography, 49% of liberals are post-materialist, while moderates are at 33% and conservatives at 18%.

While this is my take, not that of Henkels, it seems to me that it's totally wrong to say that rural conservatives are "values voters." Actually, urban liberals hold equally strong values, just different ones. It means as much to a Portland progressive that Oregon does more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it means to an Eastern Oregon conservative that logging jobs be protected.

Along that line, this slide shows that more lumber is being produced with fewer mills, and hence fewer workers. Henkels said this mirrors trends in other American industries, with automation and production in foreign countries leading to industrial job losses in this country.

So Henkels noted there isn't an easy answer to the question, "What is it like to be a true Oregonian?" People with widely divergent values or political leanings can say with equal fervor, "I'm an Oregonian. This is the way it should be."

One reason the urban-rural divide has become so extreme is that political beliefs in general have become more extreme. The slide above shows the distribution of Democrats and Republicans on a scale of political values. The vertical lines show the median value on the scale, so the closer the two lines are, the more closely Democrats and Republicans agree.  

The gap has widened markedly since 2004.

Exacerbating this tribalism, Henkels said that politics has become nationalized, with candidates in local elections taking on national party positions to a greater extent than before. And increasingly people get their news and opinions from different media outlets, Fox News vs. MSNBC being one example. He also noted that in many rural parts of Oregon, conservative talk radio from national sources is ubiquitous, whereas urban areas have more choices.

On the plus side, near the end of his talk Henkels said that Oregonians share a lot of values. We value good education and quality health care. We agree about environmental protections in some areas, such as preserving salmon runs. We value aging services, an area that Oregon has been a pioneer in.

The suburbs and growing cities like Bend could become the new middle ground. A more complex economy in rural areas likely would narrow the values gap between urban and rural Oregon.

In the Q&A period, Henkels talked some about Oregon's land use system. Rural people often blame urban growth boundaries and other aspects of our land use laws for the problems facing the agricultural and industrial sectors. However, he noted that the area outside Sacramento looks very different from the area outside Salem, even though both are state capitals.

Oregon has considerably more protections for agricultural land, which is why we have farmland so close to urban areas, rather than sprawling subdivisions. So farmers should be thankful for our land use system, though naturally there's room for improvement in it.

Heritage School needs to be treated fairly by the City of Salem

I like David and Goliath stories. I always root for David, the little guy or gal.

That's why I'm hoping Salem's small 35-student Heritage School gets treated fairly by City officials and the City Council regarding its concerns about what the large, rich, and powerful Mountain West Investment Corporation wants to build adjacent to the school.

A Statesman Journal story mostly misses the point about why the Heritage School wants to see changes made to a Mountain West proposal to build a 180-unit apartment complex next to the school. 

The story, "Salem's Fairview Training Center was intended as a green business, residential community. What happened?," veers off into describing the complex history of Fairview after the 275 acre site in south Salem was bought in 2002 by a group of people with a dream of fashioning the property into a world-class sustainable community. 

[UPDATE: I shared a PDF file of the story, but the Statesman Journal just told me that even though I've subscribed to the newspaper for 42 years, it's a no-no to share the copyrighted story, so I removed the file.]

But the real story is about what's happening today, not yesterday.

Looking back is fine as a historical exercise.

However, the conflict between what Mountain West wants to construct and what the Heritage School considers to be in accord with Master Plans for developments on the Fairview property almost certainly is going to come before the Salem City Council eventually, so the Mayor, councilors, and City officials need to have a firm grasp on a few simple truths that weren't emphasized enough in the Statesman Journal story.

Here's the truths:

(1) Further development at Fairview is supposed to be guided by the 2005 Fairview Master Plan and 2016 Amended Fairview Refinement Plan. There are other refinement plans, such as the Pringle Creek Community and Fairview Addition refinement plans, both of which emphasize principles of sustainability that are supposed to be reflected in every Fairview development project. 

(2) The Heritage School bought property at Fairview in 2004, expecting that further development in the acreage surrounding the school would be developed in accord with the Fairview Master Plan. Sure, "refinements" to that plan were expected, but not massive changes. 

(3) Indeed, the 2016 refinement plan says, "Special care is taken as the land added to the Refinement Plan area is regulated to be compatible with the adjoining land uses." So since the Heritage School has been at Fairview for 15 years, people involved with the school rightfully expect that the Mountain West apartment complex will reflect the above-mentioned principles of sustainability, as Pringle Creek Community and Fairview Addition do to a large extent.

(4) But Mountain West basically has plans to construct three-story buildings that are similar, if not identical, to other apartment complexes it has built. Only lip service is being paid to green construction, preserving natural surroundings, encouraging alternative transportation, and other sustainable principles that are supposed to be followed by those developing property at what's known as "Sustainable Fairview."

Obviously Mountain West Investment Corporation knew it was buying land that's supposed to be developed in accord with the Fairview Master Plan and Refinement Plan. Yet the company is asking for a bunch of variances that would allow it to escape various requirements of those plans.

See my first blog post on this subject, "Salem's Heritage School seeks changes to Mountain West apartment complex plan."

It's important to note that what the Heritage School is requesting is that Mountain West be required to build the apartment complex in accord with the sustainable vision that makes the Fairview property unique in Salem.

Seemingly Mountain West is counting on City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council on being willing to give a big rich, powerful "Goliath" developer an exemption from the sustainable principles that drew the Heritage School, Pringle Creek Community, and Fairview Addition/Olsen Development to Fairview.

Which isn't fair.  

Since Mountain West wants to build a standard cookie-cutter apartment complex, it should have bought land elsewhere in Salem, not at Fairview. Plunking a non-sustainable development in the middle of the Sustainable Fairview property diminishes the stake of those who chose to locate at Fairview before Mountain West. 

The Statesman Journal story describes the minimal commitment Mountain West is making to Fairview's sustainable vision.

Brian Moore, Mountain West's director of real estate development, outlined features of the development "that we believe advance sustainable purposes." Those include the installation of electric-vehicle charging stations and the preservation of 21 mature trees, with plans to plant more than 250 additional trees.

Whoopee. This is pathetic.

I'm pretty sure Mountain West is required to preserve the mature trees in accord with a tree conservation plan in the 2016 Refinement Plan. And a few charging stations is almost insulting to the original vision of Sustainable Fairview.

My wife and I owned shares in Sustainable Fairview Associates from 2003 to 2006, when we checked out with a 30% profit after I became a SFA gadfly -- being dissatisfied with how development of the property was being carried out (or rather, attempted to be carried out). 

So it's pained me to observe how the original vision for Sustainable Fairview has been steadily chipped away, with the notable exception of Pringle Creek Community. Some of the blame for this falls on City officials who care more about having some sort of development occur at Fairview rather than requiring quality sustainable development.

And here we go again, revisiting what happened in 2012 when I pleaded in a blog post, "City Council, preserve the vision of 'Sustainable Fairview.'" Back then, as now, a standard apartment complex was planned for what should be a special community. Hopefully the City Council will act more wisely this time. Here's some excerpts from the post:

Please, Salem (Oregon) City Council. Pretty please.

Don't allow the beautiful property in south Salem to become less than the world-class Green development that Sustainable Fairview currently is zoned as.

A few days ago I learned that the Salem Planning Commission is OK with turning the undeveloped portion of the property from a vibrant green to a blah gray, architecturally speaking. On May 14 the City Council meets to decide whether to allow Simpson Hills, LLC to build a bunch of typical apartments on 43 of the 104 acres it owns at the site that used to house the Fairview Training Center.

...When Simpson Hills, LLC bought 104 acres of the Sustainable Fairview property, the buyers knew that this was, duh..., a sustainable development with especially sustainable zoning regulations that had been approved by the City of Salem quite a few years ago.

The vision of the Sustainable Fairview Master Plan, for example, included having highly energy-efficient homes; all stormwater captured on site; minimal emphasis on cars/roads; varied types of housing; mixed uses on site so people could "live, work, and play" in a conveniently compact area.

Disappointingly, Simpson Hills, LLC now wants to back off substantially from those laudable goals.

Note the expanse of gray in the plan for lots 1-3 above. Those are parking lots and roads. Lots of lots. Lots of roads. The rain water that runs off them, which will be lots, is planned to end up in the holding pond shown on the right of the drawing. Then all the water will go into Pringle Creek. 

Pringle Creek Community, by contrast, has permeable asphalt and other ways of capturing stormwater. And the original plans for Sustainable Fairview envisioned limited "obvious" parking, with cars sequestered behind dwelling units, rather than prominently parked front and center.

...Simpson Hills, LLC shouldn't be allowed to breeze into town with a cookie-cutter proposal for the Sustainable Fairview property that maximizes profits for themselves and minimizes Salem's chance to have a world class Green development. 

...Frequently I critique Salem's blah'ness on this blog. There's a good reason Oregon's capital is nicknamed "So-lame." Often, it is.

Sustainable Fairview is a non-lame flash of creativity, innovation, excitement, and world-class Green design that needs to be nurtured, not crushed by a Simpson Hills, LLC proposal which seeks to markedly diminish those qualities.

Well, ditto with the current Mountain West proposal.

City may buy Hillcrest after Mark Wigg proposed this. West Salem Loop is another Wigg idea.

This is a great example of bottom-up creativity here in Salem.

As far as I know, the City of Salem had no intention of buying the 45-acre property that formerly housed the Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility until Salem activist Mark Wigg proposed this, and I shared Wigg's ideas in a September 2018 blog post that went to City officials: "Hillcrest is for sale. The City of Salem should buy it."

Here's how my post started out.

The State of Oregon has put the 45 acre Hillcrest property up for sale. According to Wikipedia, Hillcrest was a youth correctional facility that closed on September 1, 2017. 

I learned of this from Mark Wigg, who is active in promoting more walking/cycling trails in Salem, along with more parks. Below you can read a presentation Wigg emailed me, which I presume has been sent to City of Salem officials and City Council members.

What he says makes a lot of sense. In a follow-up email, Wigg added: "Living accommodations for 300. Gym kitchens classrooms pool."

It's good to see that City officials are seriously considering Wigg's idea, as reported yesterday in a Statesman Journal story, "City of Salem considers purchasing former Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility property."

Salem officials are weighing whether to buy the former Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility on the city's southeast side, though it's too soon to say what they'd do with the land.

...The Oregon Department of Administrative Services, which generally handles the state's real estate transactions, has listed the roughly 45-acre Hillcrest site at 2450 Strong Road SE — across the street from the former Fairview Training Center property — for $5.6 million. 

...Hillcrest has several halls, an administrative building and a former high school. Should Salem officials buy the Hillcrest site, they would consider leaving at least one of the buildings for housing, according to a city report.

The site's administrative building is apparently "the most feasible option" to turn into transitional single room occupant housing that would include restroom and kitchen facilities, according to the report.

Since Mark Wigg had a great idea about the City of Salem buying Hillcrest, the folks at City Hall should pay attention to other Wigg proposals. In 2016 I wrote about his idea for a Salemtowne to Downtown multi-use path in "Why people will LOVE to use a multi-use path in West Salem." 

And here's Wigg's newest great idea for a multi-use path he calls the West Salem Loop. It incorporates the Salemtowne to Downtown path along a Marine Drive easement. See this PDF file for the long description of the proposal.
Download Trail dream-West Salem Loop

This is a short description. The petition can be viewed and printed out via this PDF file.
Download West Salem Loop petition

Here's clickable email links for Councilor Jim Lewis and Councilor Cara Kaser. Please let them know that you want the City of Salem to make the West Salem Loop a priority. This would be a wonderful addition to Salem's multi-use paths.

Salem's Heritage School seeks changes to Mountain West apartment complex plan

This is a classic -- and oh, so Salem -- development story with David and Goliath overtones.


On one side we have a charming 35-student private school, the Heritage School, which set up shop on the old Fairview Training Center property in 2004, when the vision for the property's 275 acres hadn't yet been diluted. 

So the folks who invested a lot of time, energy, and money into renovating a building on the Fairview property, anticipating that the surrounding acreage would be developed in accord with a Sustainable Fairview Master Plan, now are justifiably irked that Mountain West Investment Corporation plans to build a 180-unit cookie-cutter apartment complex directly across from the Heritage School.

Here's a PDF file of a January 4, 2018 letter from the Heritage School to the Salem Planning Commission that lays out the school's concerns about the Mountain West development. The screenshot below shows the conclusion of this testimony.
Download Heritage School Testimony PDF

Note that the Heritage School isn't opposed to Mountain West building an apartment complex on the Fairview property. The school just wants to have that complex developed in accord with the sustainable principles embodied in the original Fairview Master Plan and 2016 Refinement Plan. Read the school's testimony to the Planning Commission (link above) for details.

Recently I talked by phone with Wendi Warren Binford, a Willamette University Law School professor who co-signed the Heritage School testimony letter. One of her children graduated from the Heritage School, which offers classes in grades 1-8, and she has another child currently in 3rd grade.  

Here's how she summarized the Mountain West apartment complex in a written message:

As for the development, it is comprised of 16 buildings, including 15 monolithic three-story apartment blocks on just nine acres. Their “pathways” repeatedly cut through parking lots, alleys, driveways, and streets. It is an extremely hostile concrete and asphalt environment to pedestrians, cyclists, and especially, to children.

Binford wanted to speak with me because I've written extensively about the Sustainable Fairview development. My wife and I owned shares in Sustainable Fairview Associates from 2003-2006, so I have firsthand knowledge of how the original vision for this property has steadily been eroded over the years.

I was told that three three-story apartment buildings are planned to be built directly across from the Heritage School, just 40 feet from the children. People in the apartments would look right into the school's windows. 

"The school came to Fairview for the original vision," Binford said. "And the school has stayed true to the vision." 

Unfortunately, the City of Salem has allowed repeated diminishing of that vision over the years through incorrectly named "refinement" plans for the Sustainable Fairview property. I say incorrectly, because the changes haven't really been refinements to the original vision, but wholesale alterations.

Back in 2012 Salem Weekly ran a story, "Master Plan. What Master Plan? The Lesson of Fairview Sustainable." It starts off with:

Salem took a leap of faith in 2008.  It designated a special plot to have world-class qualities.  “Sustainable Fairview” (near Reed and Battle Creek Roads) would be ‘green,’ innovative – energy efficient.  The City wrote the recipe down in a Master Plan.

On August 13, 2012 Salem’s City Council chose to piss the Master Plan away.  It voted to build 41.1 acres in a manner inconsistent with Plan requirements.  The action was the latest in a series by Salem’s Planning Commission, city staff and City Council to rip up the promise of Fairview.

Some blame the developers: after all Simpson Hills LLC and AKS Engineering had a clear look at the Master Plan from the get-go.  But we don’t demand developers be ethical, (though we should) because if we did, we’d all still have to construct our own houses with neighborhood “barn raisings.”

But the City of Salem – deserves our scorn.  And maybe we too are guilty, for not holding it more accountable.

When, even after critique from “sustainable” quarters, the developer’s second proposal came in badly lacking, (it did not comply with a single of the original requirements, according to Morningside Neighborhood Association) – our city endorsed it. Planning Administrator Glen Gross recommended it; the Planning Commission approved it.

So here we go again. I don't believe the Mountain West apartment complex is part of the Simpson Hills property, but the same process is being followed in the plan review process -- which Binford told me requires 11 variances.

Supporters of Heritage School got a continuance of a Salem Planning Commission hearing until January 8.

Binford believes the Planning Commission will approve the apartment complex plan, but is more optimistic that, upon appeal, the City Council could  modify that plan to make it both more in line with the original vision of Sustainable Fairview, and create fewer hardships for the Heritage School.

Earlier this month the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog had a post about the proposed Mountain West apartment complex. These comments were right-on.

On the 18th the Planning Commission will look at plans for what appears to be a cookie-cutter development of three-story walkup apartments with parking lots in the former Village Center area. It would be called "the Grove."

In 2016 a revision reduced much of the area for the Village Center, but still called it "Adaptive Use" zone (in red below). At this point, however, it sure doesn't look like the plan at hand "adapts" any building at all.

Without more information it's premature to pass much judgement, but on the surface it looks like a substantial dilution, or perhaps even erasure, of several of the key concepts for the Fairview project.

In the "Class 2 Adjustment" part there are 12 separate requests for adjustment. It's surprising a new Refinement Plan is not part of the current round of process, as the adjustments may very well be more than merely fiddling on the edges and constitute more substantial change, especially when they are considered as a totality and not severally. Those "incremental" adjustments add up.

Exactly. The Heritage School bought property at Fairview expecting that City officials would only allow development on the 275 acres that was consistent with the Sustainable Fairview Master Plan. 

But there's been a steady reworking of the Master Plan, until now it's difficult to recognize anything truly "sustainable" in the proposed Mountain West apartment complex. A powerful developer such as the Mountain West Investment Corporation shouldn't be allowed to trample on the rights of a small educational institution like the Heritage School. 

This is the David vs. Goliath ethical dilemma that the Salem City Council likely will have to wrestle with at some point.

I'm hoping David comes out on top, because this town has a long history of elevating the interests of developers over those of ordinary citizens, and this needs to stop, with a better balance between those competing interests being struck.