Salem Political Snark

No, savings from Measure 24-399 WOULDN'T fund Civic Center seismic strengthening

Here's another T.J. Sullivan falsehood about Measure 24-399, the $82 million police facility bond on Salem's November ballot. (Sullivan's previous falsehood is described here.)

At the September 23 Salem City Club debate on the police facility bond between Sullivan and me, he said this:

So if we get $82 million for this new police facility, and we don't use the whole $82 million, we can, depending on how we write the bonding language, we can take that money and put it into retrofitting City Hall and the Library...That's the fastest way we're going to get City Hall and the Library retrofitted, by passing this bond.

Not true.

Here's a portion of the "Progress Report: Police Facility Planning" document prepared by Steve Powers, the Salem City Manager, for the April 4, 2016 City Council meeting. I've highlighted a couple of  especially pertinent points.

Powers notes that given the amount of contingency funds in the $82 million budget -- $5.4 million -- "it is unlikely that the project will be completed with adequate savings to make a measurable impact on the seismic strengthening need of Civic Center buildings, which is currently estimated at approximately $26.6 million (in 2016 dollars."

For sure.

The chance of this $82 million project coming in $27 million under budget is essentially zero. So T.J. Sullivan was just making stuff up when he said, "That's the fastest way we're going to get City Hall and the Library retrofitted, by passing this bond."

No, it isn't.

The fastest way is to REJECT Measure 24-399 so a better plan can be passed next year that includes money to save lives by seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library, which City officials intended to do before the size and cost of the police facility doubled after Chicago consultants "supersized" the building.

Watch this 3 1/2 minute video where I explain why it makes so much sense to reject the overpriced $82 million bond measure for a wiser $50-$60 million plan that gives the Police Department a perfectly adequate new building AND saves lives by making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

(The video shows two segments of the Salem City Club debate; first I talk about the need for seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center, then answer a question from the moderator about what will happen if Measure 24-399 is voted down.)

T.J. Sullivan lies about cost of proposed Salem police facility

Yeah, I know.

"Lie" is a word that's supposed to be reserved for Donald Trump'ian sorts of deliberate falsehoods. "Misspoke," "shaded the truth," "was inaccurate" -- these are oft-heard replacements for "lie."

But I don't what else to call what T.J. Sullivan, a representative of the Keep Salem Safe campaign that's advocating for Measure 24-399, the vastly over-priced $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot, did last night at a Morningside Neighborhood Association meeting.

Sullivan spoke first during the "pro" and "con" agenda item.

Then I had another five minutes to present the Salem Can Do Better arguments for voting NO on the bond measure so a wiser, less expensive police facility plan could be adopted next year that includes public safety funds for making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe -- which City officials planned to do before some Chicago consultants "supersized" the police facility.

During my presentation I used a poster board chart that compares the cost per square foot for the proposed Salem police facility, and four other police facilities that have been built recently in Oregon, plus the cost of a proposed Beaverton facility. 

Sullivan had seen this chart three weeks ago, when we'd taken opposite sides on Measure 24-399 at a September 23 Salem City Club debate. At that debate I'd also shared copies of a cost per square foot handout that had some explanatory text. (See above.)

So Sullivan had ample opportunity to check the numbers on the chart and handout. After all, I included the total square footage of each facility and the total cost -- obtained by me after doing some Googling until I found the size and development cost for the other five police facilities.

Yet when someone at the Morningside Neighborhood Association asked a question about why the Salem police facility cost was so high, Sullivan jumped up, pointed at my chart, and starting talking about how the chart was wrong, an "apples and oranges" thing, supposedly misleadingly showing the total development cost for Salem, and just the lower construction cost for the other five facilities.

(The development cost includes such things as furnishings, design fees, land acquisition, contingencies, and such.)

As soon as I grasped what Sullivan was saying, I blurted out "Wrong!" Because he was.

I'd done the research for the chart. I'd found the web sites where the total development cost and square footage of the other five police facilities was shown. I knew that Sullivan was wrong. 

But instead of replying with something reasonable like, "Well, maybe I'm mistaken," or "I need to look into this more closely," Sullivan kept on with his lie.

When I had the chance, I jumped up and reiterated that Sullivan was wrong, telling the people in the room that I'd prepared the chart and knew that the figure for each police facility reflected the total development cost. Yet amazingly, T.J. Sullivan still kept claiming otherwise -- interrupting me much more rudely than I'd interrupted him.

I finally had to say, "T.J., I let you talk; now let me talk."

It really bothers me when political discourse in Salem descends into purposeful falsehoods. In other words, lying. I could have accepted that Sullivan thought the chart wrongly mixed total development and construction costs. But after I repeatedly told him that, as the chart researcher/designer, I knew that this wasn't the case, Sullivan should have backed off.

I'm not saying that Sullivan acted as poorly as Donald Trump. But he echoed Trump's style when he kept repeating something that wasn't true even after the truth had been pointed out to him. 

Hopefully this was a Keep Salem Safe campaign aberration, and we won't see any more false statements from the Yes on Measure 24-399 folks. 

And here's an open invitation to them: if you find something factually wrong in the Salem Can Do Better "vote NO" literature, let me know about it. I'll check out the supposed problem and fix it if we've said something that's inaccurate. 

But please, don't accuse me or other opponents of Measure 24-399 of promulgating misleading information when you don't have any facts to back that up.

Busted! Keep Salem Safe campaign caught in police facility falsehood

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the following email from the Keep Salem Safe campaign, which is backing the poorly-planned, way-over-priced $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot. 

Turns out my eyes were OK, because the Statesman Journal endorsed Measure 24-399 was a falsehood. 

I know, because the Statesman Journal editorial page editor, Dick Hughes, told me yesterday that the newspaper hasn't made any endorsements yet. I've told Hughes and the rest of the editorial board that I and others involved with the Salem Can Do Better campaign look forward to meeting with the board to present our arguments for a NO vote. 

It bothers me, as it should bother everybody in Salem, that the Keep Salem Safe folks, along with the Chamber of Commerce's Build Jobs PAC backing them, would say something that isn't true.

And this couldn't have been an innocent mistake -- claiming that they had "exciting news" about the Statesman Journal endorsing Measure 24-399 -- because anybody who read the editorial that the link circled in red above leads to would know otherwise. 

The editorial, "Salem police deserve better than lowest common denominator," didn't urge a yes vote on the bond measure. Also, it only talked about earthquake preparedness, and did this in a very confusing way, failing to make clear that the issue is whether the lives of everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library should be saved when the Big One earthquake hits, not just the lives of Police Department employees.

Here's a video I made that explains this:

Along with others supporting the Salem Can Do Better campaign that's urging a NO vote on Measure 24-399, I'll keep fact-checking dubious statements put out by the proponents of this $82 million boondoggle. 

Political campaigns -- whether local, state, or national -- should use sound facts and reasoning to make arguments for their side.

When a campaign resorts to falsehoods, as Keep Salem Safe did when they wrongly claimed that the Statesman Journal had endorsed Measure 24-399, this is an indication that facts support the other side.

For five good reasons to vote NO on the $82 million police facility bond measure, head to the Salem Can Do Better site. Or click on the image below. 

Either Chamber of Commerce is wrong, or Statesman Journal is deceitful

"What the ___?!" (I'll leave it to you to imagine a proper profanity to fill that blank.)

That was my reaction when someone sent me the message below from the Keep Salem Safe folks who are advocating for passage of a way over-priced and poorly planned $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot. 

They're telling people that the Statesman Journal has endorsed Measure 24-399. But clearly, this isn't true.

The link circled in red below leads to a newspaper editorial that talks in a confusing fashion about "lowest common denominator" and earthquake safety, but doesn't call for a yes vote on Measure 24-399.

After the editorial was published, I wrote a highly critical blog post about it: "Worst. Statesman Journal editorial. Ever?" But neither I, nor anybody else who left negative comments about the editorial, thought that it was an endorsement of Measure 24-399.

And that worst editorial ever is the basis for the Chamber of Commerce's Build Jobs PAC and Keep Salem Safe claim for an endorsement.

So this morning I emailed the five members of the Statesman Journal editorial board: Publisher Ryan Kedzierski, Executive Editor Michael Davis, Editorial Page Editor Dick Hughes, Distribution Director Paul Nettland, and Senior Reporter Carol McAlice Currie. (There are no community members on the editorial board, just newspaper staff.)

Members of the Statesman Journal editorial board, the Keep Salem Safe campaign that is urging a “Yes” vote on Measure 24-399 is saying that you have endorsed the $82 million police facility bond measure. See image below, a screenshot of an email that someone sent to me.

Is this true? 

If so, I’m perplexed, because I figured the editorial board would meet with opponents and supporters of Measure 24-399 prior to taking a position on the measure. As a leader of the Salem Can Do Better PAC that is opposing the measure, I have lots of information to share with you that, I’m quite sure, you’re not aware of. Hopefully you’re not basing your (possible) endorsement on the City Club debate between T.J. Sullivan and myself that didn’t reflect all of the pro and con arguments on Measure 24-399.

Or, is this not true?

In that case, the Statesman Journal needs to tell the Keep Salem Safe campaign to stop publicizing a non-existent endorsement. 

Please let me know which is the case ASAP. 

Either the Statesman Journal has made an endorsement without learning crucial facts about Measure 24-399, or the Keep Salem Safe campaign is making an erroneous claim about the newspaper endorsing the measure. I need to let Salem citizens know which is true as quickly as possible. 

     — Brian Hines, Treasurer, Salem Can Do Better PAC

As the saying goes, I haven't gotten a response to my inquiry as of this blog's press time. I asked for a reply ASAP, which I assume professional journalists would know means As Soon As Possible.

In the 9 1/2 hours since I emailed the editorial board at 11:31 am, I've responded to many email messages. But so far no one on the editorial board has taken the time to send me what could be a one-sentence message.

Either, (1) "Yes, we intended the Lowest Common Denominator editorial to be an endorsement of Measure 24-399, even though we didn't actually say this in the piece," or (2) "No, we haven't yet made a decision to endorse or oppose Measure 24-399 and the Chamber of Commerce is wrong to say that we have."

As noted in my message to Dick Hughes, et.al., as the leader of the opposition to the $82 million police facility bond measure, Salem Can Do Better, I've been waiting for an invitation to meet with the editorial board. 

One would think that just as the editorial board hears from both candidates competing to be elected to an important local public office, such as Chuck Bennett and Carole Smith in the recent Mayor's race, so should it hear from both sides of an important local ballot measure, such as the $82 million police facility bond on the November ballot. 

I can't believe that the Statesman Journal would consider the confusing, illogical "lowest common denominator" editorial to be an official endorsement of Measure 24-399, especially since the editorial never advised a "Yes" vote on the measure, nor did it address any issue involving the police facility other than earthquake preparedness. 

So my hunch is that the Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Keep Salem Safe campaign are wrong in their claim that the Statesman Journal has endorsed Measure 24-399. But if this isn't the case, then the newspaper's editorial board has just published a highly deceitful political endorsement.

One that was made without talking with the "pro" and "con" sides of the bond measure, without presenting any substantive facts in support of the bond measure, and without even explicitly saying "we urge voters to approve Measure 24-399."

Worst. Statesman Journal editorial. Ever?

I've read a lot of crappy Statesman Journal editorials during the 39 years I've lived in Salem. But today's "Salem police deserve better than lowest common denominator" could well be the worst of them all. 

You can read the whole confusing, nonsensical piece via the link above, or in a continuation to this post.

The basic "argument" --and I put that word in quotes to indicate how the editorial barely has any coherent logic to it -- is that those, like me, who want to protect the lives of everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library from the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake (the "Big One"), not just Police Department employees, somehow is guilty of a Lowest Common Denominator thought crime.

I can't even begin to attempt to describe how this assertion makes sense, because the editorial lacks any sense.

For example, the editorial writer, who probably was Dick Hughes, added URL links to supposedly bolster points he was making. One would thlnk that the link underlying "public safety is the #1 responsibility of local government" leads to some academic research or political science article. 

But no.

It leads to a Statesman Journal story about the Salem Chamber of Commerce endorsing Measure 24-399, the $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot. And the story says nothing about public safety being the #1 responsibility of local government. 

As Jim Scheppke points out in his comment below, when the Chamber of Commerce commands, the Statesman Journal editorial board obeys. Such is the power of corporate advertising in this age of newspapers teetering on the edge of a financial abyss.

Here's the online comments that I and several of my Salem Community Vision colleagues made about the editorial. We demolished it. 

Jim Scheppke
Time to retire "Statesman Journal Editorial Board." How long did it take for you to research and write this? Did you knock it out in under a half hour? This piece is pretty breathtaking in its lack of analysis of the many subtle nuances of the police facility issue that the other commenters here discuss intelligently.

You are also guilty of binary thinking, something editorial writers should scrupulously avoid. The claim here is that you are either for the $83 million Taj Mahal police facility or you are for "the lowest common denominator" and don't believe that police are important. That is not the position of the people like me who plan to vote "No" on this bloated bond measure.

Another mischaracterization that you make is that the opposition won't support a new police facility "until the civic center and library also are rebuilt or replaced." No one is calling for replacement. And we firmly believe that all of the projects can be completed at the same time for $20-30 million less than the Taj Mahal by itself.

It seems obvious that the SJ is determined once again to take direction from your overlords at the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, and not undertake a careful and thoughtful analysis before rushing to judgement.

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

Brian Hines
This is an astoundingly uninformed editorial. Whoever wrote it didn't bother to educate themselves about the police facility planning saga.

If they had, they would have realized that until 2014 Mayor Peterson, Police Chief Moore, and other city officials were totally on board with a Public Safety plan that sought funds for (1) a 75,000 square foot police facility, and (2) seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library so lives and public property are saved when (not if) the next Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.

This plan made sense, and was being pushed by the City of Salem, because City Hall will collapse in a large earthquake. Which is a prime motivation for moving the Police Department out of City Hall into an earthquake-safe building.

What the wise 2014 City of Salem plan recognized, and what the Statesman Journal editorial board is failing to understand, is that moving the Police Department out of City Hall obviously does nothing to fix the seismic deficiencies of that building, and of the Library.

So the current unwise plan is to move other City employees into the same unsafe space in City Hall now occupied by the Police Department. Thus other City staff, rather than police employees, will be killed in the Big One earthquake.

Further, children and other Library visitors will be buried under tons of concrete, because the proposed $82 million bond measure doesn't include the previously allocated funds for making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

The editorial board is absolutely wrong with its "lowest common denominator" talk.

Opponents of the wasteful $82 million police facility plan on the November ballot object to this boondoggle because the cost per square foot of the vastly oversized police facility is DOUBLE what other police headquarters have been built for recently in Oregon.

What we want is a lower cost yet adequately-sized police facility that recognizes the common denominator of keeping BOTH police employees safe and other Civic Center employees safe (along with visitors to the Civic Center).

See the Salem Can Do Better web site for more reasons to vote NO on Measure 24-399.

http://www.salemcandobetter.com

There isn't a need to choose between protecting the lives of Police Department staff and the lives of everybody else who works at, or visits, City Hall and the Library. Just a few years ago, before the size and cost of the police facility got supersized by Chicago consultants, the Mayor and Police Chief argued for making seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center part of a Public Safety bond.

They were right.

Voters should reject the $82 million police facility bond, because $50 to $60 million would allow Salem to BOTH build a perfectly adequate police facility and make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

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

Brian Hines
Had to add another thought about this ridiculous illogical editorial. Here's the proper swimming pool metaphor that applies to the $82 million police facility boondoggle:

Imagine a plan to give two Salem high schools, A and B, swimming pools. But after out-of-state consultants come to town, the plan changes. Now high school B will get an Olympic-sized pool, double the size of what was planned before, and high school A won't get ANY pool.

This is exactly analogous to how plans for making a new police facility and the Civic Center earthquake-safe have changed.

First, a new 75,000 square foot seismically-sound police facility was to be built, AND the Library and City Hall would be seismically retrofitted to save lives when the Big One earthquake hits.

But then Chicago consultants were hired, and the size of the proposed police facility doubled to 148,000 square feet. Plans to do seismic retrofitting for City Hall and the Library were dropped.

So before, Salem had a common denominator: save lives of BOTH police department employees and everyone else who works at or visits City Hall and the Library, including children at Storytime.

Now, the $82 million plan gives the Police Department double what it needs, while ignoring the urgent need to prepare the Civic Center for the 8.0 - 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake that is a matter of when, not if.

The Statesman Journal editorial board needs to read the public documents that I've collected regarding the dangerous structural deficiencies of the Library and City Hall before making rash assertions that returning to the Public Safety plan being pushed by the Mayor and Police Chief in 2014 -- a 75,000 square foot facility PLUS renovations to the Civic Center -- reflects a "chip on the shoulder" mentality.

No, it doesn't. It represents a "Save the lives of EVERYBODY who works at or visits City Hall and the Library, not just the lives of police employees." This is why voters need to say NO to Measure 24-399.

It makes Salem less safe.
-----------------------
Geoffrey James
The speaker for the Salem Can Do Better PAC, at the City Club debate on Friday, was crystal clear that the opponents of the current proposal, for an over sized and over priced police facility, DO support a state of the art "MODERN" police facility, and they are actually IN FAVOR of what the city, and the previous consultant, planned for the O'Brien site in 2013, and that was a $30 million facility and $15 million of seismic strengthening of city hall, and a replacement Council Chambers, all for a total of $55.8 million.

I believe EVERYONE would support that.

The new city councilors should place a $60 million Police+Seismic on the ballot in May 2017, so we can ALL vote for it. 75,000 sq.ft (they have 28,000 now) actually provides excess space for decades of growth, and we observed all that when we toured Eugene's handsome new 74,000 sq.ft. facility ($17 million complete).

Here are FOUR reasons why this current $82 million proposal is a bad idea, (and has divided this community), and Salem Can Do Better.

https://www.scribd.com/document/325196125/Four-Reasons-to-Vote-No-on-the-Police-Facility-Bond-Measure

Here's the entire Statesman Journal editorial for what it's worth (which isn't much):

My opening "NO" statement at City Club police facility bond measure debate

Today I faced off with T.J. Sullivan in a Salem City Club debate about the $82 million police facility bond measure on the November ballot.

The Statesman Journal has a good story about the debate, "Sides spar on proposed Salem police facility." I'll talk about how I saw the debate in another blog post.

For now, I'll share my opening remarks. As written, of course. What I said verbally in my allotted 7 minutes was somewhat different, but not hugely so.

Because the 7 minutes went by more quickly than I thought they would, my remarks about earthquake preparedness got truncated. But I was able to speak about most of those seismic'y ideas at other points in the debate.

I've included photos of the two charts I used in the debate in the text below. This is a PDF file of my remarks:
Download Debate opening remarks PDF

7 Minute Opening Statement by Brian Hines
Why Vote “NO” on Measure 24-399
Salem City Club Debate, September 23, 2016

(remarks as written; spoken remarks were somewhat different)

My Salem Community Vision colleagues and I have closely followed the police facility planning saga for three years. We know there is a better way than the wasteful, poorly-planned, $82 million bond measure on the November ballot.

A way that makes City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe AND gives Salem a perfectly adequate new 75,000 square foot police facility — all for $20 to $30 million LESS than what taxpayers now are being asked to pay for a supersized police facility alone.

Here’s why we know Salem can do better.

(1) SALEM ISN’T A RICH TOWN

Our per capita income is
15% less than Oregon as a whole
12% less than Eugene’s
28% less than Portland’s

Salem has many problems that need money  — affordable housing, homelessness, safe bike paths, deferred maintenance on City buildings.

Needlessly spending tens of millions of dollars on a police facility that can be built for much less will markedly hurt our ability to deal with these problems.

If Salem was a palatial town, it might be OK to build a Police Palace. But we aren’t. And it isn’t OK.

(2) THE $82 MILLION POLICE FACILITY PLAN IS A “FULL MEAL DEAL”

At the City Council meeting where the police facility go-ahead was given, Councilor Steve McCoid said, “I’m convinced that a full meal deal is the way to go.”

Wow.

What else in Salem gets the full meal deal?

First class treatment. No expense spared.

What other need in Salem gets not only what was requested by advocates two years ago, but double that request?

The police facility is a unique “full meal deal.”

The disturbing image this brings to mind is of those hungry other unmet needs in Salem pressing their faces to a window, watching the Police Department gorge on a $82 million building that’s way larger and way more expensive than it needs to be.

(3) SIZE OF THE POLICE FACILITY HAS DOUBLED IN PAST 2 YEARS

CHART. POINT TO CURRENT AND 2014, 2015, 2016


After several years of planning, as late as 2014 City officials were pushing for a 75,000 square foot police facility.

Back then Mayor Anna Peterson, Police Chief Jerry Moore, and other City officials were totally on board with a 75,000 square foot police facility.

A 2014 City of Salem FAQ document said this was the right size, allowing room for growth over the next 30-40 years.

The Police Facility Task Force that Mr. Sullivan chaired recommended a similar size in its final report: 75,000 to 106,000 square feet. Both consulting firms that spoke to the Task Force said the same thing.

But after Chicago’s DLR Group got a contract from the City of Salem, the size ballooned to 148,000 square feet — double what City officials had been saying was the right size.

And nobody on the City Council except Tom Andersen challenged this.

Andersen questioned why the building is being constructed to house future police officers added at an assumed rate of 2.4 a year, when the historical average since 1977 has been 1.3, half that rate, and has been just .8 in the past 21 years, a third of the assumed rate. 

So the police facility is being built to house a large number of PHANTOM OFFICERS who almost certainly won’t be added to the force.

Andersen also questioned the need to use 25,000 square feet and $11 million for a new 911 Center when the current one is fine where it is in leased space for at least another ten years, and over the next 30 years it costs less to lease than build.

The Center serves 22 communities, but Salem taxpayers would pay the whole construction cost. So our plan doesn’t include a new 911 Center.

Plus, why the need for a very expensive parking structure, $26,000 a space, when hundreds of spaces are available in the Marion Parkade,  just a block away?

Police Department officials told Andersen it would be unsafe for their staff to walk from the Parkade to the new facility at night. Which shows that a new police headquarters won’t even make the immediate surrounding neighborhood safer.

(4) COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS DOUBLE WHAT IT SHOULD BE

CHART  — POINT

This chart shows the cost per square foot of four Oregon police facilities that have been built between 2012 and 2016 and two proposed facilities.

Salem’s Police Palace is more than double the cost of the Canby, Eugene, and State Police facilities. And it is 43% more costly per square foot than the proposed Beaverton police facility.

So not only are Salem taxpayers being asked to pay for a police facility that is double the size it needs to be, they’re being asked to pay double per square foot for that Police Palace.

(5) EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS BEING IGNORED

The City of Salem’s previous 75,000 square foot police facility plan included money to make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

Which made sense.

The Police Department currently is in City Hall, which will collapse when the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits, the Big One.

The Big One will be the greatest disaster in the history of North America.

It is a geological ticking time-bomb that WILL go off. Just a matter of when.

In October 2013 the City Manager at the time, Linda Norris, said, “The way it is, right now, city employees wouldn’t even be able to get out of the building alive, much less use the building.”

So a Public Safety bond that included money for BOTH a new police facility and seismically retrofitting the Civic Center was in the works.

Yet the supersized plan citizens will vote on this November asks for $82 million — $22 million more — JUST for a police facility.

This is SO, SO wrong.

If you saw people being led OUT of a building that was going to collapse, you’d think “Wonderful!” But if you went around to the back and saw other people being led INTO the building, you’d say “That’s crazy! EVERYBODY needs to be gotten out of the dangerous building!”

Moving the police department out of City Hall because the building isn’t earthquake-safe is crazy — because the current plan is to move other city staff into the same space so THEY now will be crushed to death when the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.

Which is just ONE of the very good reasons I’ve shared to vote NO on the police facility bond measure.

The current estimate of City staff is that seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall would cost $27 million. But Salem Community Vision’s architect and design-build specialist think $20 million is more likely.

Regardless, $60 million, or less, would buy Salem BOTH a perfectly adequate new 75,000 square foot police facility AND seismic upgrades that will save lives when the Big One earthquake hits.

Architect Geoffrey James urges NO vote on $82 million Salem police facility bond

Here's #2 in the oh-so-fascinating four-part Salem Can Do Better series, "Our Marion County Voter's Pamphlet arguments against Measure 24-399." 

(If you missed part 1, it's readily available for viewing.)

This Voter's Pamphlet argument features Geoffrey James, a Salem architect with over 50 years of experience. I've come to know Geoff well after serving with him on the Salem Community Vision steering committee for the past three years -- where we've followed every twist and turn in the police facility planning saga. 

One of Geoff's claims to fame is how he and fellow SCV steering committee member Gene Pfeifer, a design-build specialist, played key roles in reducing the cost of fixing the Courthouse Square building by tens of millions of dollars.

Here's an excerpt from Geoff's "credentials" page:

In 2011 he was appointed Chair of the Courthouse Square Technical Committee. This is a Marion County office building that had serious structural problems. Consultants said it would cost $65M to fix it. Geoff found a way to fix it for 1/3 of that, i.e. saving the County some $35M.  That is his style, i.e. always finding a way for the building owner to get true value and protecting their investment. He has a track record of achieving affordably low construction costs, by careful and innovative design and by always putting the client's interest first. Affordable and Responsible is his motto, and it shows in his achievements of buildings that cost less to build, but fit the client's detailed needs.

So when Geoffrey James urges a NO vote on Measure 24-399, because there is a much better way to build a new Salem police facility, voters should pay attention to this knowledgeable architect. 

Vote NO on the over-priced $82 million police facility bond

I’m a Salem architect with over 50 years of experience. I know how to design buildings. Please, vote NO on Measure 24-399 so a better-planned police facility can be built for much less money.

The Police Department needs a new headquarters. But it should be 75,000 to 106,000 square feet in size, as a citizen’s Task Force on the Police Facility I served on recommended.

Unfortunately, City officials hired a Chicago consulting firm that ignored this recommendation. The DLR Group came up with a plan for a 148,000 square foot building: double the size and double the cost.

This over-sized building will cost taxpayers $348 per square foot to construct. By comparison, the State Police recently built a facility in Salem that cost only $150 per square foot, using a tilt-up concrete construction method.

An alternative procurement approach like “design-build” also could greatly reduce the construction cost.

A city councilor applauded the wasteful $82 million, 148,000 square foot plan, saying it is the “full meal deal.”

This is why I urge you to vote NO on it. City officials went along with every item on the Chicago consultants’ extravagant wish list:

— A parking structure costing $26,000 per space, rather than much less expensive surface parking.

— A new $11 million 911 Center, disregarding a financial analysis that said continuing to lease space for the Center will save money over the next 30 years. Also, Salem taxpayers would pay the whole construction bill even though the 911 Center serves many other jurisdictions.

— Adding space for double the number of new future officers than the Salem Police Department historically has added per year, so much of the square footage in the over-sized $82 million building won’t be needed.

Salem can’t afford wasteful government spending. Vote NO on Measure 24-399.

Geoffrey James
and Salem Can Do Better

Good Salem Weekly piece about debate on $82 million police facility bond

Here's excerpts from "Salem's Controversial $82 Million Police Station: Is It Too Big? Or Just Right" in the current issue of Salem Weekly. Not surprisingly, I chose the passages that mentioned my arguments for voting NO on the police facility bond.

On September 23rd, two dynamic speakers – one in favor and one opposed to a ballot measure funding a controversial $82 Million police station – will present their cases at Salem City Club.

...Brian Hines will speak in opposition to the measure. Oregon blogger, author, citizen activist and treasurer of Salem Can Do Better PAC, Hines says, “Just as someone can be a strong supporter of our nation’s armed forces, yet oppose wasteful military spending, those of us who oppose the police facility bond measure admire Salem’s Police Department and Chief Moore, while disliking the extravagant $82 million plan being voted on this November… The $82 million bond measure gives the Police Department much more than it requires for a perfectly adequate new police facility, which squeezes out money for other important unmet needs in this town.”

One hot-button facet of the measure is the way it includes a 25,000 square foot 911-call center in the new facility. Currently, the region’s 911 needs are met by staff working in a leased building in another part of town, entirely separate from the police station. Opponents question whether this regional center should be housed under the new Salem police station roof.

“The current 911 Center is fine where it is, in leased space for at least another ten years,” says Hines. “A City of Salem financial analysis showed that continuing to lease space for the 911 Center saves money over the next 30 years, compared to spending $11 million to build a new Center. And Salem taxpayers would pay the whole construction bill, even though the 911 Center serves many other jurisdictions.”

...Hines maintains that public safety can be served best if the community rejects the bond and returns “to the plan that was being pushed by the Mayor, Police Chief, and other City officials back in 2014: build a 75,000 square foot police facility AND make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe — all for $50 to $60 million.”

Here's a one-page paper showing how this can be done: $60 million can buy Salem a perfectly adequate new 75,000 square foot police facility and save lives by seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library so these buildings are earthquake-safe when the next Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits (which scientists say could be at any time, given the geological record).

Download How to reduce the cost PDF

Five good reasons to VOTE NO on Salem's $82 million "police palace" bond

Here's one of the Marion County Voter's Pamphlet arguments that I submitted last week on behalf of Salem Can Do Better, the organization Carole Smith and I formed to oppose the overpriced, poorly-planned $82 million police facility bond measure (24-399) on Salem's November ballot. 

Please read every word of it. Hey, it costs $400 for each Voter's Pamphlet argument -- maximum of 325 words -- so each freaking word is costing the Salem Can Do Better PAC more than a dollar. Savor each carefully chosen phrase.

If you want to donate to the PAC, you can do that here. And it'd be great if you gave the Salem Can Do Better Facebook page a "like" if you haven't done so already. 

This argument is signed by every member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee. Salem Community Vision has been closely following the police facility planning saga since the fall of 2013, three years.

We've advocated strongly for a wise, cost-effective 75,000 square foot police facility plan that meets the Police Department's needs. yet doesn't put an excessive burden on taxpayers.

Unfortunately, City officials have gone along with the "supersized" $82 million, 148,000 square foot Police Palace plan that some Chicago consultants came up with after a local task force appointed by the Mayor recommended a 75,000 - 106,000 square foot building.

Note: the actual police facility design doesn't have minarets. 
But the cost per square foot is double what other Oregon police facilities have been built for,
so "Taj Mahal" is a fitting nickname for the way over-sized/over-priced proposed police facility.

Here's the Voter's Pamphlet argument. If you find it convincing, consider writing a Statesman Journal letter to the editor in your own words that echoes some of the points made below. Submission form is here.

Five good reasons to VOTE NO on the police facility bond

We urge you to vote NO on Measure 24-399. Here’s why:

(1) COST IS TOO HIGH. Not only is the proposed police facility considerably larger than what Salem needs, the $562 development cost per square foot is more than double the square foot cost of facilities built by the State Police and the Eugene Police Department.

(2) SIZE IS TOO LARGE. In 2014 the Mayor and Police Chief said a 75,000 square foot police facility was the right size, offering room for 30 to 40 years of growth. But after Chicago consultants were hired, Salem taxpayers now are being asked to pay double for a supersized 148,000 square foot facility.

(3) EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS BEING IGNORED. The oversized $82 million, 148,000 square foot police facility has squeezed out funds for making critical life-saving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall. So now plans have been shelved to save lives at City Hall and the Library when (not if) the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.

(4) NEW 911 CENTER NOT NECESSARY. The current 911 Center is fine where it is in leased space for at least another ten years. Also, continuing to lease space for the 911 Center saves money over the next 30 years, compared to spending $11 million to build a new Center.

(5) SALEM HAS MANY OTHER NEEDS. Wasting tens of millions of dollars on an over-priced police facility means this money can't be used to meet other needs: affordable housing, safe bike lanes, downtown vitalization, better parks, etc.

Here’s a bonus reason: lack of public involvement in this project from start to finish. After voters reject this bond measure, citizens can work with City officials on a better police facility plan.

For more information, go to www.SalemCanDoBetter.com

Brian Hines
Geoffrey James
Susann Kaltwasser
Gene Pfeifer
Jim Scheppke
Carole Smith
and Salem Can Do Better

Salem City Club debate on $82 million police facility bond measure

Here's a big question about the September 23 City Club debate on Measure 24-399, the $82 million police facility bond measure on Salem's November ballot.

Where will it rank among history's Great Debates? How will it compare to Lincoln versus Douglas, Huxley versus Wilberforce, Augustine vs. Pelagius? 

Since I'm one of the debaters -- taking the NO side on Measure 24-399 -- I can confidently say that this City Club interchange between me and T.J. Sullivan will be incomparable. 

Meaning, there's no way it can be compared to the great debates I mentioned.  

But it's going to be highly interesting and, hopefully, entertaining. Sullivan and I each have good arguments to make about whether a YES or NO vote on the bond measure is the best way to go. I'm looking forward to presenting my arguments for why the $82 million police facility plan deserves to be voted down so a better plan can be brought forward.

Click on the Salem Can Do Better link below for specific reasons:

Today the Salem City Club sent out an e-bulletin about the police facility bond measure debate. It has info about both the September 16 and 23 City Club events, so scroll down that link to learn about the bond measure debate. I'll share the info below via three screenshots.

Click here if you want to attend the debate.