Salem Political Snark

Mark Coutis slammed by West Salem Neighborhood Association Ethics Committee

Ouch.

The Vice-Chair of the West Salem Neighborhood Association (WSNA), Mark Coutis, has been slammed hard by an ethics committee formed to look into his offensive remarks about Black Lives Matter, along with other subjects -- including how Coutis insulted people in his role as a WSNA Facebook site administrator.

What Coutis did was the subject of a public comment at a recent Salem City Council meeting.

You can read the juicy details in a report issued by an Ethics Committee formed to look into a complaint filed against Coutis. I've shared screeenshots of the PDF file below.
Download WSNA Ethics Committee Findings_August 2020_signed copy plus Coutis response

Mark Coutis apparently is aligned with the Salem Bridge Solutions "goon squad," as I called it at the time, that disrupted the West Salem Neighborhood Association in the course of taking control of WSNA a few years ago. A 2016 Statesman Journal story about the heated debate over building a Third Bridge across the Willamette said:

During the break outside the meeting, one businessman balked at the climate change argument.

“Salem is not getting any smaller,” said Mark Coutis, who works with a construction firm. He said cars burn fuel while they’re waiting in traffic.

His solution: Not one bridge, but two. And he wants his firm to build them.

The motto of the West Salem Neighborhood Association is "Positive and Productive." Read the following findings of the Ethics Committee and I think you'll agree that positive sure wasn't how Coutis acted.

UPDATE: I just noticed a Salem Reporter story on this subject, "Vice chair of West Salem Neighborhood Association resigns after derogatory Facebook comment investigated." Pleasingly, the story says, "The committee’s findings and Coutis’ response were first reported by a Salem blogger, Brian Hines." Yes, but it took a genuine journalist to learn that Coutis had resigned on Monday.

Salem River Crossing project officially dead, says ODOT

OK, this is akin to beating a dead horse twice, since I'd previously noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration had issued a "No Build" Record of Decision. 

But today ODOT sent out a news release that deserves to be commemorated, given the excellent news that it contains. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle that would have saddled Salem with vastly increased transportation costs with no real benefit for downtown rush hour congestion is officially dead.

The Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, was a terrible idea that took a long time to die. But thanks to steadfast opposition by citizens, and a wise Salem City Council, we can now say goodbye to a project that consumed lots of money, time, and effort for no good reason.

Hopefully City of Salem officials will learn something from this debacle: this is the 21st century, not 1950. Global warming is real. Building unneeded roads and bridges always has been a bad idea. Now it is a horrible idea that can't be tolerated if our planet is to remain fit for human habitation.

Here's the text of the news release.

SALEM— The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have published a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the NO Build Alternative on the Salem River Crossing Project. This final step officially ends this effort to construct a 3^rd bridge over the Willamette River in Salem.

The FEIS and ROD are available at https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=17317.

• • Copies of the document will also be available for review at the following locations:
  • Salem Public Works Department
  • Salem Library
  • Keizer Community Development Department
  • Polk County Community Development Department
  • Marion County Public Works Department
  • Independence Library
  • ODOT Region 2 Headquarters

ODOT and FHWA selected the No Build alternative because the Salem City Council chose to not respond to a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of their 2016 land use actions in support of the project. Without the City addressing the LUBA remand, the project team could not complete the Final EIS for the preferred alternative.

Earlier this year, in a Salem City Council work session, 6 of the 9 council members opposed responding to the LUBA appeal.   This decision had the net effect of reversing the 2016 land use actions and withdrawing City support for advancing the FEIS with a build recommendation.

The project officially started in 2006 after the City of Salem and other regional partners approached ODOT and FHWA with a request to begin the environment process to build a 3^rd bridge. The partners comprised of the cities of Salem, Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, the Salem Area Mass Transit District and ODOT.

In 2014, the partners endorsed the “Salem Alternative,” which Salem City Council had recommended as the preferred alternative. The necessary land use approvals were granted by the partners and the Salem City Council adopted its final ordinance. However, project opponents appealed the City’s land use approvals to LUBA. LUBA considered the issues appealed and remanded the City’s previously approved land use actions back to the City to address.

Without the city addressing the technical issues required by LUBA, ODOT and FHWA could not publish the FEIS for the identified preferred alternative. The only option was to file the No Build Alternative thereby ending this effort to build a 3^rd bridge.

Breakfast on Bikes blog concerned about HB 2974 being a Third Bridge workaround

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post, "Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme." Here's part of what I said about this bill  proposed by state Representative Paul Evans.

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

[Note: proposed amendments to HB 2974 add Benton County to the counties comprising the bridge district, remove the ODOT representative, and sunset the district in 2024 if a bridge district hasn't been formed by then.]

Now I've got some blogging company, since a post on the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog notes that HB 2974 is being looked at by the City Council's legislative committee. Here's what the post said:

On the Rep. Evans Bridge District idea, one item especially in the analysis might give us pause. It seems to suggest that it's not at all out of the question that the District might try to site a bridge in Salem again. 

It had seemed like the District was an attempt to gather support for something more like a bridge at Wheatland Ferry.But this note makes it look more like it might be a bad-faith end-run around City Council's decision on the SRC.

Between the problems of property tax compression, the fact that any new bridge will induce traffic and add to greenhouse gas emissions, and adding another layer of regional government or governmental entity - all these together suggest the Bridge District idea should be approached very cautiously and critically.

I've heard that Rep. Evans didn't like that some opponents of HB 2974 were worried that this was a backdoor way to get around the Salem City Council's decision to kill the Salem River Crossing project. 

But I agree with the Breakfast on Bikes blogger: it sure looks like a Third Bridge at the same location as that project proposed could be brought back to life by the Special Bridge District.

Hopefully HB 2974 won't move forward in the Oregon legislature. Most of those who testified at HB 2974's first, and so far only, hearing were opposed to the bill according to a Salem Reporter story. Excerpt:

The prospect of a new governing body empowered to build bridges drew more opposition than support at a public hearing on Monday.

House Bill 2974 would allow voters in Marion, Polk, Yamhill and Benton counties to create a special district to oversee bridge planning, maintenance and funding. Board members would be elected and any taxes would go before voters.

Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, pitched the idea mere days after Salem City Council in February effectively ended the Salem River Crossing, a long-proposed bridge across the Willamette River, by a 6-to-3 vote.

During an hour-long public hearing at the House Rules Committee, witnesses mostly opposed the idea over economic, environmental and logistical concerns.

Sid Friedman, a Yamhill County resident, said the district would only offer one solution when more are needed.

“We do have transportation issues, I think we all recognize that, but this bridge district would only be looking at one solution — a new bridge, or bridges — instead of taking a more comprehensive look and saying ‘Here’s what we truly need to address our transportation issues,’” he said.

Bob Cortright, a West Salem resident, said the proposal would add another transportation body to an area with no shortage of governing bodies, like the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation.

Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

One big reason: four people elected to a Special Bridge District, plus an ODOT representative, would get to increase the taxes of everybody in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties -- without the people in those counties getting to vote on whether they wanted to pay for whatever new bridge those five people dreamed up. Or, whether they'd ever use the bridge.

If you agree HB 2974 is a bad idea, send in testimony opposing the bill as soon as possible, since a hearing on the bill is scheduled for next Monday, April 1, 3 pm, Hearing Room C, before the House Committee on Rules.

The email address for the committee is: [email protected]

Read on for why you should oppose HB 2974.

HB 2974 is a bill from Representative Evans that attempts to get around the City of Salem's recent decision regarding a 3rd bridge across the Willamette River. It was just scheduled for a hearing and possible work session in the House Rules Committee this Monday, April 1, at 3:00 pm.   
 

We need your help to stop this bill.

The Rules Committee members need to hear from as many people as possible ASAP in opposition to the bill, and people need to show up in person to testify against the bill this Monday.
  
HB 2974 authorizes formation of a bridge district in the Salem area, consisting of Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. The bridge district would have the authority to levy property taxes to plan, finance, construct, operate, and maintain bridges over Willamette River in the Salem region. The district board would consist of four members, one elected from each of the four counties and one member representing the Department of Transportation.

Here's why this bill is NOT needed:

• • It overrides the recent decision of the Salem City Council after years of thoughtful debate.
  • Some locations for a bridge that have been discussed would adversely impact the most valuable farmland in the state.
  • The Bridge District will have the authority to tax property owners in 4 counties, most of whom will never use the bridge during the hours of congestion.
  • If tolling is also required to pay for the bridge, drivers will travel another route to avoid the cost, which means all other neighboring bridges will also need to be tolled
  • We are trying to reduce our dependence on traffic throughout the region, and adding another route will merely increase that traffic volume.
  • Building another bridge and more road miles will increase driving, adding to greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s the opposite directing Oregonians want to go.
  • The project is estimated to cost more than $400 million, and therefore consume all or most local transportation investment dollars.
  • ODOT and the City of Salem need to come together to solve the congestion, which occurs only at rush hour times or during infrequent cases of emergency.
  • Instead, actions such as improved ramp and traffic control measures at the feet of the current bridges, must be taken. 
  • Seismic retrofits of the existing bridges are much cheaper than building a new bridge.

The full bill can be read here.

 

Written testimony can be submitted here.
 

Here are the Committee members (click a name for contact info).
 

Representative Paul Holvey (Chair)

House Democratic Leader Jennifer Williamson (Vice-Chair)

House Republican Leader Carl Wilson (Vice-Chair)

Representative Denyc Boles

Representative Rob Nosse

Representative Barbara Smith Warner

Representative Sherrie Sprenger
 

Thank you for taking the time to help stop HB 2974!

 

Letter writer gets so much wrong about the Third Bridge

Today's Sunday Statesman Journal has a caustic letter to the editor regarding the recent City Council decision to kill the Salem River Crossing/Third Bridge project on a 6-3 vote.

I couldn't find the letter on the newspaper's web site, so wasn't able to leave a comment telling Rose Treasure how much I disagreed with what she said -- which was full of falsehoods. 

So to set the record straight from my perspective, and blow off some irritated steam, here's my responses (in red) to Rose's letter, complete with links to actual facts. 

West Salem is on the short end of the third bridge decision

To the people writing to the editor, crowing about their bridge win -- you are crowing and patting themselves on the back for endangering the lives of your neighbors, your little sibling, over the bridge.

Huh? Some people have expressed their support for the vote by a clear majority of the City Council to pull the plug on a poorly planned bridge project that deserved its nickname of Billion Dollar Boondoggle. What you call "crowing" others call praise for a wise decision. 

No one's life is being endangered. Emergency vehicles can use the Union Street bridge if necessary. The West Salem Fire Station is being re-opened. The Oregon legislature has made a commitment to seismically retrofit the Center Street bridge to markedly reduce the risk of collapse in a major earthquake. 

You're congratulating yourselves and the do nothing city council for, well, doing nothing, a decision which hurts property values, damages life quality, and puts everyone on this side of the river in danger of being cut off.

It's hard to see how property values in West Salem are harmed by a decision to kill a bridge project that had no funding, would have required tolling on both the new bridge and existing bridges, and would have taken many years to build -- if that ever happened.

By contrast, retrofitting the Center Street bridge is estimated to cost only about $60 million, a whole lot less than the $430 million cost of the Salem River Crossing project, excluding financing costs. So there goes the "cut off' argument.

I don't know what the letter writer means by "damages life quality." If she means stuck in traffic, the City Council authorized a Congestion Relief Task Force that has made recommendations for alleviating downtown-area traffic problems. 

Congratulations. You're a big bully, and you forced us to accept your will.

The City Council is composed of eight councilors and a mayor elected by Salem voters. Six of the nine members of the City Council made campaign promises to oppose a Third Bridge. Doing what you promised citizens you would do isn't bullying. It is what elected officials should do: keep their word. 

Also, who is "us"? The City Council represents all of Salem. Bridge supporters who live in West Salem seem to feel a sense of entitlement. Because this minority wants a Third Bridge, they believe that everybody in Salem should do their bidding. That isn't how democracy works. 

After all, our lives after a major earthquake or a bridge-damaging event are not worth tearing down houses or moving streets, or even dealing with a little congestion in your neighborhood.

As noted above, no lives are threatened because the Third Bridge project was put to a well-deserved death. 

It is over and we have our answer, so we should all shut our mouths now and let you talk about unity. No thank you.

I haven't heard any elected officials telling bridge supporters to shut their mouths. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Mayor and city councilors have been urging supporters of a Third Bridge to work on other ways to alleviate traffic problems in the downtown area. This is the "unity" being talked about. Everybody coming together to move forward in a positive manner. 

This city council does nothing to benefit us.

That's a ridiculous statement. I recently wrote about accomplishments of the City Council. Some people may object to what the Council has done, but that's how politics works. Rarely is a decision applauded by everybody. 

They took plastic bags and left us with nothing. Took streets and camp-ways from the homeless and left them with nothing. Took one bridge and left us with nothing. They are the 2019 do nothing council. 

More ridiculousness. You're left with reusable bags. And with paper bags that likely will cost 5 cents. The City of Salem is working on ways to reduce homelessness. You're left with the two current bridges and the Union Street bridge. 

That is their legacy, and now yours, east Salemites. You did nothing, gave nothing, and produced nothing but damage. Congratulations. 

Rose, what you call "damage," many others applaud as wise decision-making. Just because you don't like what the City Council has done, it makes no sense to call it nothing. That's amazingly self-centered.

I'm a liberal/progressive. I often (well, usually) disagree with what conservatives in Congress and the White House do when they're in control. However, I don't call what they do nothing. I call it bad decisions. Likewise with what conservatives on the Salem City Council did when they had a majority. 

In our representative democracy, elections are how people can register their dissatisfaction with decisions made by elected officials. Meaning, vote them out. Or, register their satisfaction by re-electing the officials. Progressives have worked hard to move from a 1-8 City Council minority in 2014 to a 6-3 majority in 2019. 

Elections have consequences. Like, killing the Third Bridge, as the six progressives promised voters.

Rose Treasure
Salem

Third Bridge talked about in three acts last night

Driving home from the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting last night, I pondered the weirdly wonderful discussion of how the City Council killed the Third Bridge on February 11, and what to do next about downtown-area traffic congestion.

Troy Brynelson of the Salem Reporter wrote a good story about the meeting, "After splitting on third bridge, councilors seek common ground in West Salem." Excerpt:

Salem City Councilors Cara Kaser and Jim Lewis bridged some political differences Monday night, pledging to work together to solve the city’s congestion woes after staking opposing views last week about the Salem River Crossing.

The two are the only councilors whose wards fan over West Salem, home to some of the most vocal supporters of the third bridge.

Kaser joined five other councilors in voting against the project and found herself the subject of social media murmurs of a recall. But she shrugged it off, saying she heard more kudos than condemnation.

“Of course there were people who were negative toward me, but the thank yous outweighed the people who were upset,” said Kaser, elected in 2016.

Being a blogger, I'm going to take a more personal approach in describing the meeting -- which struck me as being somewhat akin to a three-act play with different plot lines in each portion of the production. 

Act 1: Salem Bridge Solutions fails to read the crowd. 
After dealing with some other business, Jim Allhiser, the chair of the neighborhood association, opened up discussion of the City Council decision to kill the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, project on a 6-3 vote. His initial remarks were warm and fuzzy, saying "We're all neighbors. We all want to do what's best for the community."

But things went downhill from there. Way downhill. 

His first mistake was to fail to mention that a propaganda PowerPoint presentation was going to be shown.

After silently fumbling at his computer in an attempt to get it going, eventually it started to play, with an eerily disembodied voice singing the praises of the Third Bridge and insulting the six councilors who dared to bring this Billion Dollar Boondoggle to a well-deserved end.

As false statements about the bridge project began to multiply, the audience grew restless. Many people were there to support Councilor Kaser and her five progressive colleagues on the City Council who voted against proceeding with a Third Bridge.

Apparently Mike Evans, co-leader of Salem Bridge Solutions, who created the presentation, assumed that most of those attending the neighborhood association meeting would have their (metaphorical) pitchforks out, prepared to skewer Kaser and the other bridge-denying councilors.

This is the problem with a canned presentation.

If Evans or another Third Bridge supporter had been standing at the podium and speaking live, they would have seen and sensed that a large proportion of the crowd wasn't there to praise them. This screenshot of a recording of the meeting shows only two people wearing the iconic green Salem Bridge Solutions t-shirts -- the Evans brothers. 

Quite a change from the February 11 City Council meeting, which featured a sea of green.

So last night got off to a shaky start from the perspective of Salem Bridge Solutions. Act 1 ended with Third Bridge supporters having to deal with the aftermath of a recorded slide show presentation that got bad reviews from about half of the audience.

Act 2: Mostly polite dialogue replaces one-sided propaganda.
With the Salem Bridge Solutions slide show debacle out of the way, Allhiser did a good job introducing people who had signed up to speak for a maximum of three minutes about how they felt about the City Council decision to kill the bridge.

I didn't count the number for and against that decision. My impression is that more were for the Third Bridge, but not dramatically more.

Opponents of the Salem River Crossing made good points, as did supporters of the project. This was a welcome change from the Salem Bridge Solutions approach of talking loudly with no serious attempts at finding common ground with those opposed to the Third Bridge.

Mike Evans did speak for three minutes in his typically annoying manner.

He referred to the six councilors as "a few misguided people who call themselves progressives." Evans also said his group was ready to recall all or some of the councilors, along with engaging in an effort to make West Salem its own city.

Here's some of the things people said that elicited a right-on inside my head when I heard them:

-- The City of Salem should put a halt to further housing developments in West Salem until infrastructure catches up to population growth in that area.

-- Dreams of getting a lot of money from the state legislature for a new bridge need to be tempered by the fact that a Columbia River Crossing project to replace the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver will be a higher priority.

-- Making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe needs to occur as soon as possible now that the Salem River Crossing project is dead.

-- The recommendations of the City of Salem's Congestion Relief Task Force will help traffic flow more smoothly across the two current bridges at a relatively low cost.

-- Marine Drive needs to be constructed now that it no longer can be viewed as part of the Third Bridge project.

Act 3: Elected officials show that a disagreement doesn't equal discord.
There were quite a few elected officials at the meeting: Salem city councilors Jim Lewis and Cara Kaser; Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett; State representative Paul Evans; and a Polk County commissioner whose name I didn't get. (May have forgotten some others.)

Lewis and Bennett spoke about how disappointed they were with the decision to kill the Third Bridge.

However, they weren't bitter or insulting like Mike Evans of Salem Bridge Solutions was. Pleasingly, they expressed a willingness to work with opponents of the Third Bridge to find common ground on moving forward with a different sort of new bridge project. 

The Salem Reporter story says:

The two councilors and Mayor Chuck Bennett joined more than 100 people in attending the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting Monday night at the West Salem Roth’s conference center, eager to debate the city’s congestion problems and solutions old and new.

After listening to citizens speak, all three officials took the chance to say they hoped to work together on new ideas.

 “I’m willing to work with anyone — anyone — who is committed to help address our mobility and congestion issues via an additional bridge across the Willamette River,” Lewis said.

“I really am encouraged. I think you can count on Lewis and Kaser and the other councilors to move forward on this,” said Bennett. “We’ve got a ways to go but I hope we can keep talking about it. I really hope you stay engaged.”

Kudos to Jim Lewis and Chuck Bennett for being so positive, given the pain they felt at seeing the demise of a project they strongly believed in. I found their remarks to be honest, forthright, and inspiring. 

Which I guess isn't all that surprising, because elected officials are different from the rest of us in these politically polarized times. Meaning, they have to sit in a room and work closely with individuals they disagree with -- while others interested in politics can sit in their corner of the political spectrum with like-minded people.

Bottom line: I walked away from the neighborhood association meeting feeling way more positive than when I walked in.

I was expecting more discord than actually transpired. Once Act 1 was over, the rest of the meeting featured people with a wide variety of views about a new bridge across the Willamette who generally spoke politely without demonizing the other side.

It's too early to say whether Paul Evans' proposal for a regional Special Bridge District will turn out to be a viable way to move forward with planning for a wiser approach to a new bridge. But it may be. I agreed with what I recall Cara Kaser saying: we need another bridge, but it should be outside of Salem.

Meaning, a regional bridge funded by people in several counties. A major problem with the Salem River Crossing was that it was intended to be a regional bridge, yet with Salem residents being expected to foot most of the cost to build it. 

Before last night's meeting I thought it would be a losing proposition for Salem Bridge Solutions to attempt a recall of one, some, or all of the six city councilors who voted to kill the Third Bridge.

Now I'm even more convinced of this. There's considerable enthusiasm for exploring a different sort of new bridge across the Willamette. Embarking on recalls would be a major distraction from this effort, with little chance of success.

Lastly, I recall someone expressing surprise that suddenly progressive members of the City Council are sounding all positive about another bridge across the Willamette, after being so opposed to the Salem River Crossing project.

But that sentiment was on display at the February 11 council meeting, where "I'm in favor of a bridge, just not this bridge" was heard fairly frequently.

Which reminds me of my divorce from my first wife, Susan, in 1989. After we split up, I got married again -- and soon. After all, I was in favor of being married (as was Susan), just not to this person. 

Salem Bridge Solutions should think twice about recalling city councilors

Well, notwithstanding the title of this blog post, actually Salem Bridge Solutions should think more than twice about the wisdom of attempting to recall the six progressive members of the City Council who voted to kill the Salem River Crossing project last Monday.

I'll describe the more-than-two reasons below.

First, though, let's look at some evidence that Salem Bridge Solutions, a group that's pushed hard (fanatically, even) for a Third Bridge across the Willamette truly is seriously considering embarking on recall efforts. 

A post on the Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook page brings up the subject of recall elections.

One person then questions why this should be pursued given the September 30, 2019 deadline for completing an Environmental Impact Statement -- which was going to be difficult to meet even if the City Council had voted to continue on with the bridge project last Monday.

Another person then leaves a comment that shows the motive of some Salem Bridge Solutions supporters is revenge, not getting the bridge built.

Mike Evans is one of the leaders of Salem Bridge Solutions. He tells another commenter that the group will be organizing to make recalls happen.

The recall kickoff is a West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting on Monday, February 18. It's questionable that this sort of blatant political organizing is allowed by the City of Salem ordinance governing neighborhood associations, but I'll leave this issue aside.

So now let's turn to what Salem Bridge Solutions should consider before it commits to attempting to recall some or all of the six city councilors who aroused their ire.

(1) Only three councilors currently can be recalled. The state Elections Division Recall Manual says that a local office holder can't be recalled until six months of their current term has expired. Progressive councilors Tom Andersen, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung were elected in 2018 and their terms began in January 2019. 

So they couldn't be recalled until sometime in July.

That leaves councilors Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, and Matt Ausec -- who were elected in 2016. If Salem Bridge Solutions wants to shift the balance of power on the City Council, two progressives need to be replaced by two bridge supporters, which would turn the recent 6-3 vote against the Third Bridge to a 5-4 vote in favor of it. 

(2) How liberal are the wards of the three recallable councilors? Salem Bridge Solutions needs to remember that Salem leans decidedly leftward, based on the results of the last presidential election (Clinton won in each of the eight wards).

Using Clinton's winning percentage as a proxy for how liberal a ward is, Cara Kaser and Tom Andersen represent the most left-leaning areas of Salem (tied for #1). Sally Cook represents the next most liberal ward (#2), followed by Chris Hoy's and Brad Nanke's wards (tied for #3), Matt Ausec's ward (#4), Jim Lewis's ward (#5), and Jackie Leung's ward (#6). 

Thus it would be tough for the conservative Salem Bridge Solutions group to win two of three recall elections among the councilors currently eligible to be recalled. Plus, I suspect many voters wouldn't take kindly to recall efforts aimed at two of the three women on the nine-member City Council (Mayor Bennett is the ninth). 

Councilor Ausec seemingly would be the group's best shot at a recall victory. But even so...
(3) A replacement election would follow any successful recalls. Above is what I found on the City of Salem web site regarding vacancies on the City Council.

The two sections don't make sense, perhaps because of a typo. Seemingly one section should refer to what happens if a vacancy occurs more than one year to the next primary election, and the other section should refer to what happens if a vacancy occurs less than one year to the next primary election.

But both sections speak of "more." Which is confusing.

Logically it seems that a special election would be required if there's more than a year to the next primary election, and a majority of the City Council would appoint a replacement if there is less than a year to the next primary election.

Regardless, Salem Bridge Solutions needs to keep in mind the possibility that even if they're successful in recalling one progressive councilor, that still would leave a progressive majority on the Council that might be able to appoint a temporary successor.

And if a special election is held, obviously there's no guarantee that a pro-bridge candidate would be elected.

(4) It'd be a tough sell to argue why a councilor should be recalled. The Recall Manual says that a petition to recall a local elected official has to state the reason, which appears on the recall ballot along with a statement from the official about why they should remain in office. 

Good luck with that, Salem Bridge Solutions.

Each of the six progressives on the City Council made a commitment to oppose a Third Bridge during their election campaign. Last Monday these councilors fulfilled that pledge. I deeply doubt that voters are going to consider that keeping a campaign promise is a recallable offense. 

Salem Bridge Solutions seems to live in a political bubble of their own making that reflects their own passionate desire to have the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, built at a cost of half a billion dollars or so -- which almost certainly would require tolls on both the new bridge and the two current bridges, plus increases in various taxes.

But they need to remember that other people in Salem are just as passionate about other things. Such as, not building a wasteful bridge that studies show wouldn't reduce congestion, just shift it from one part of town to another. Tom Andersen made the case against the Salem River Crossing in this video of his remarks at last Monday's City Council meeting.

And people also are passionate about not having elected officials removed from office for no good reason. Which gets me to my last reason...

(5) Pushback against recalls would be powerful. I know how strongly my fellow liberals feel about their hard work over a series of City Council elections paying off with a 6-3 progressive majority on the council. Believe me, they will not react meekly to recall attempts by a conservative single-issue group, Salem Bridge Solutions.

Especially since Salem Bridge Solutions didn't support any candidates in the 2018 election other than incumbent councilor Jim Lewis.

Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy were unopposed in their re-election campaigns. If Salem Bridge Solutions wants to win votes in the City Council, they need to do it the old fashioned way: by winning elections, not by trying to recall people who won their council seats fair and square.

I also suspect that independents and even many Republicans would react strongly against recall efforts whose only basis is that a public official voted in accord with a campaign promise. People can smell unfairness a mile away, and what Salem Bridge Solutions is considering doing reeks of it. 

Even more lastly... just noticed a Facebook post by State Representative Paul Evans that shares a press release from his office regarding a proposed formation of a bridge district in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties. This is the sort of positive effort that Salem Bridge Solutions should be focused on -- not on the negativity of recall elections.

Time for Chuck Bennett and Jim Lewis to do some bridge building

Let's be clear: By "bridge building" I don't mean constructing a Third Bridge in Salem across the Willamette River. That project died last Monday night when the City Council voted 6-3 to kill it. 

What I'm talking about in the title of this blog post is what happens next in Salem.

Ideally, those fervently in favor of the now-defunct Salem River Crossing project and those fervently opposed to it will come together to work on ways to reduce rush hour congestion in the downtown area that don't involve spending upwards of half a billion dollars on another bridge. 

This effort should include lobbying efforts at the State Capitol to make sure that the money already earmarked for making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe is spent on this as soon as possible. 

But I'm worried that this isn't going to happen without some serious work by Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Jim Lewis (who represents most of West Salem) to channel the anger of the Salem Bridge Solutions folks in a positive direction. 

Earlier today Salem Bridge Solutions, the group that has been pushing hardest for a Third Bridge, put up a Facebook post that is pretty much the exact opposite of what needs to happen. 

Now, I readily admit there's a chance (albeit seemingly a slim one) that "fixing this travesty" and "organizing something soon" could mean something other than, say, working on a recall of all or some of the six progressive city councilors who voted against continuing on with the Salem River Crossing Project. 

But a recall is mentioned in some of the comments on this post. And so far the Evans brothers haven't shown themselves to be anything other than single-minded passionate -- fanatic might be a better word -- advocates for a Third Bridge. 

Michael Slater wrote a right-on Facebook post today over on the page where City Council goings-on are discussed. I urge you to read it, because Slater nailed it in what he called "The 5 Reasons the Bridge Advocates Lost." Here's number 2 and 3. I corrected a few typos.

2. They didn't build any bridges. Ironically for a group advocating a bridge, they did not work hard to build bridges to voters in other wards. You know, the people that would have to help pay for the bridge. Their advocacy was an inside game of lobbying and pressuring the City Council members. Bridge leaders ran no radio or cable ads, sent no mail, and knocked (to my knowledge) on no doors in wards outside of ward 8. If you want a community to spend $400 million plus to help you out of your (traffic) jam, it's best to persuade them to support by explaining why they have either a moral responsibility or self-interested reason to do so. Bridge advocates didn't bother.

3. Their leadership was divisive and bullying. The Evans brothers became the face of the Build the Bridge effort. They came across as mean, bullying, and disruptive. Yes, some people can get away with that (again, think DC), but it didn't play in Salem. Enough said.

Today someone told me that Councilor Cara Kaser is planning on coming to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting publicized in the Salem Bridge Solutions post (that group engineered a takeover of the association, so now controls the agenda).

Since Kaser was singled out for special criticism because she represents part of West Salem, the person who told me she was coming to the meeting worried that she might need police protection. Hopefully this worry was overblown.

Regardless, I'm hoping that both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will do what they can between now and February 18 to urge the leaders/members of Salem Bridge Solutions to work cooperatively with all of the City Council -- including the six progressives who voted against the Salem River Crossing proposal -- to find common ground.

A City of Salem task force has come up with numerous ways to reduce rush-hour congestion in the downtown area. Salem Bridge Solutions should involve itself with making those improvements a reality. And there's considerable openness toward exploring a different location for a new bridge.

Sure, it will take many years for another bridge project to come to fruition. But backers of the Salem River Crossing need to come to grips with the fact that it is dead. Nothing will bring it back to life, including attempts to recall the councilors who voted against it.

Hopefully both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will come to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. They should sit next to Councilor Kaser and vow to work with her, and with her progressive colleagues, on ways to address the traffic concerns raised at last Monday's City Council meeting.

Some of those concerns were valid. Some weren't. Through respectful open discussion, people in Salem can do their best to bridge the divide that currently separates our community. 

I understand the anger and disappointment that backers of the Salem River Crossing felt after the 6-3 City Council vote to terminate the project. It hurts to see a cause that you deeply believe in go down in flames. But life goes on. Negativity needs to turn to positivity.

The February 18 meeting is a great place to start.

I'll end by noting that I found the Facebook post by Jim Allhiser, chair of the West Salem Neighborhood Association, to be highly questionable.

I've been to NA meetings where both sides of a political issue have made presentations, but what Salem Bridge Solutions is doing is so blatantly one-sided, I'm wondering if it fits under the purpose of neighborhood associations -- since they are supposed to represent everybody who lives in a certain part of Salem, not just those with a particular viewpoint.

It took a village to stop the Third Bridge

After I watched the Salem City Council kill the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge project last night, my first reaction was to feel deeply thankful toward the six councilors who did the right thing by saving Salem from this Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

But with a bit more reflection, my thankfulness expanded to include many hundreds, in fact many thousands, of people who stopped the Third Bridge. 

Most broadly -- and in some ways most importantly -- everybody who worked so hard to elect the six progressive councilors on the nine-member City Council. The Third Bridge would have continued on with no serious roadblocks if the Council had remained dominated by conservatives and a lonely progressive, Tom Andersen.

Thus arguably the unsung heroes in this saga of people-power triumphing over money-power are the people who donated money, knocked on doors, and otherwise helped with the campaigns of Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung. Progressive Salem greatly aided these campaigns, with the notable exception of Leung's.

Salem owes all of you a big debt of gratitude, along with the voters who cast their ballots for these six progressives. This debt can't be quantified, even though a billion dollars is a defensible nice round number.

Next, a big shout-out to those who appealed the City of Salem's go-ahead for an expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate a Salem River Crossing bridgehead. When the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled in favor of the appellants on several "assignments of error," it was clear that the project was doomed.

Why?

Because the legal remand back to the City Council to address the errors meant that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Third Bridge would be on hold until the Council acted to fix the problems. Last night, the Council voted not to do this, which killed the project (since a deadline for completing the DEIS was coming up).

So massive thanks go to those who petitioned LUBA: Sarah Deumling, Linda Wallmark, Gary Wallmark, Linda Bierly, Ken Bierly, James (Jim) Scheppke, Robert Cortright, and Doug Parrow. E.M. Easterly joined in as an Intervenor-Petitioner. John Gear served as their able attorney.

I'll add that last night Councilor Jim Lewis, an avid Third Bridge supporter, posed a ridiculous question to Cortright after Cortright testified against moving the project forward. Lewis asked why the LUBA petitioners didn't appeal the decision, since they prevailed on only a few rather minor points.

Well, duh, if Lewis had read the press release issued by the No 3rd Bridge folks after the LUBA ruling, he would have seen:

The eight citizen petitioners who brought the appeal are very pleased with the remand. They urge that Salem pursue a number of less-costly actions to address traffic congestion problems rather than try to repeat the UGB expansion process to accommodate the new bridge on the new route.

In other words, once Third Bridge supporters were a minority on the City Council, there was no way the UGB expansion was going to happen.

No UGB expansion meant no final Environmental Impact Statement. No EIS meant no Third Bridge. Thus Cortright simply told Lewis that he was pleased the Council was revisiting the legal issues, since he was confident the six progressive councilors wouldn't want to address the assignments of error.

I just said No 3rd Bridge folks, as in plural, but in large part the group's Facebook page and organizing efforts were led by one guy, Jim Scheppke. Yes, he had help.

Scott Bassett initiated the fight against the Third Bridge and deserves a lot of credit for his solid research on the drawbacks of this project. Scheppke then was instrumental in keeping the drawbacks of the Third Bridge in the public eye through frequent Facebook posts over a number of years and other means. 

As did the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger (summary here), and yes, me (Third Bridge posts here). Ken Adams conducted a great CCTV interview of Bob Cortright, and likely informed people about the Third Bridge in other ways.

The citizen members of the initial Salem River Crossing Task Force helped out by voting for a "no build" option, as this showed that while bureaucrats and special interest groups favored the Third Bridge, the general public and Salem neighborhood associations were opposed.

Surely there are other people who were instrumental in stopping the Third Bridge who I haven't mentioned. Accept my thanks in abstentia. 

Lastly, I want to thank those who helped kill the Third Bridge by their clumsy support of it.

This includes several Salem mayors, most recently Chuck Bennett. Heavy-handed politicking with rampant fact-free spin-doctoring by public officials and the Chamber of Commerce helped sway people against the project, as did a failure to reach out to opponents and seek common ground.

The green-shirted Salem Bridge Solutions group didn't advance its cause by spreading similar blatant falsehoods, along with a notorious display of bad behavior at a West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. With friends like that, it's no wonder the Third Bridge has died a well-deserved death.

Killing the Third Bridge was a wise move

Anyone who doubts that the City Council did the right thing by killing the Third Bridge on a 6-3 vote last night should spend 10 minutes and watch Councilor Tom Andersen's eloquent explanation of why the Salem River Crossing project deserved to die. This video starts (hopefully) at the beginning of Andersen's remarks.

He points out that the official bridge reports show that a Third Bridge wouldn't reduce congestion, would be environmentally unsound, would displace many homes and businesses, likely wouldn't stand up in a major earthquake, would require tolling on both the current bridges and new bridge, and would suck about half a billion dollars out of taxpayer pockets.

So who has been pushing for the Third Bridge? Andersen poses this question yet leaves it unanswered. Well, the answer is... mostly special interests. Realtors. Builders. Pave-it-over advocates. Chamber of Commerce boosters. Sure, many people testified in favor of building the bridge last night.

But we need to remember that six of the nine members of the City Council were elected after making campaign promises to oppose a Third Bridge. So most people in Salem agree with killing this wasteful, ineffective, unneeded project.

Last night was a victory of the general public interest over special interests. Many thanks to Councilors Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, Jackie Leung, and Matt Ausec for doing the right thing.