Andersen was the most unforgettable councilor, in my decidedly personal opinion. I'm not great at remembering how I met people (other than my wife, I hasten to add), but I have no problem recalling what I'm pretty sure was my first face-to-face with Andersen.
It was at a Salem City Club meeting. Someone introduced us. I was instantly taken by Andersen's intensity. His eyes were unusually alive when he spoke to me. He struck me as kind of crazy, in a good way.
Meaning, Tom Andersen was comfortable in his own skin. I'm kind of reticent. Tom surely isn't. Once in a while I'd run into him at LifeSource Natural Foods. I'd hear a booming voice in the parking lot say, "Hey Brian...", followed by whatever was on his mind at the moment.
He was the perfect guy to kick off the renaissance of progressives on the City Council. Andersen's force of personality was instrumental in leading liberals from council irrelevance to their current 7-2 majority.
He was the lone Progressive Salem-backed councilor when elected in 2014. As he put it, "organized people beat organized money." That formula has been successful ever since, with progressives now being a 6-3 majority on the City Council following the election of Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung.
What a difference five years makes. Elections matter.
Running unopposed for re-election in 2018, Andersen joked that he was disappointed to only get 99% of the vote. Someone did write in the name of his wife, Jessica Maxwell. It could have been Andersen himself, though.
...Here's some other accomplishments during Andersen's first term as a councilor that he mentioned in his talk today.
I didn't agree with Andersen on everything. But then, I don't even agree with myself on everything. Even when I disagreed with a position he took on the City Council, I admired how Andersen would set forth cogent reasons for his point of view.
Hopefully he'll win his House District 19 race and go on to be a great member of the Oregon legislature.
It's getting close to the Oregon primary election day, May 17. Per usual, the nastiness is ramping up in campaign attack ads.
Here's an example.
Today I learned the identity of the person who's been sending text messages wrongly accusing Tom Andersen, the Salem city councilor running in the Democratic primary for House District 19 against Brad Witt, of being weak on abortion rights.
It didn't take much sleuthing, since Claudia Howells identified herself in the text message. Howells' husband, Bradd Swank, lost badly to Andersen in a 2014 City Council race, so this raises the question of whether retribution is a motive for Howells. Or maybe she just doesn't like people not named Brad/Bradd. Here's the 2014 election result and the text message. Tom Andersen vigorously disagrees with what Howells says.
It's almost beyond belief that Tom Andersen isn't pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Claudia Howells must know this, yet she sent out the text message.
Probably she'll come up with the pitiful excuse that the text speaks of pro-choice voting records, not being pro-choice. But that's B.S.
If Andersen never has had a chance to vote on an abortion rights bill, because he hasn't been a state legislator as Witt has, obviously he doesn't have a pro-choice voting record.
This is a sleazy attempt to smear Tom Andersen. No other way to describe it. Claudia Howells should apologize to Andersen and promise never to do something like this again.
Currently Brad Witt is a member of the Oregon House, representing HD 31 -- which consists of most of Columbia County and parts of Washington and Multnomah counties.
But recently Witt formed a campaign committee to be elected in HD 19 -- which is in Salem.
Here's a map of HD 19, which definitely doesn't include Clatskanie, where Witt says he lives.
So how is it that Witt appears ready to challenge two Salem city councilors, Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung, in the May HD 19 Democratic primary? Currently he isn't shown as having filed for this race, but as noted above, his current campaign committee is for election to HD 19 rather than HD 31.
Well, I've heard that fellow Democrats in the state legislature redistricted Clatskanie out of HD 31 so Witt couldn't run again in his old district. The map below shows that now Clatskanie (near the top) is just outside of the HD 31 boundary.
This could have happened because in June 2021 Witt was found to have violated a legislative sexual harassment rule, according to an OPB story.
State Rep. Brad Witt violated workplace rules against sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment with a series of texts to a fellow lawmaker in April, a House committee found Tuesday evening.
But the House Conduct Committee found that, contrary to an allegation against him, Witt did not intend to create a quid pro quo arrangement with Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson in which he would exchange his vote on a bill for a date or sexual favors.
So it's possible that Democrats viewed Witt as sufficiently politically damaged by this episode to make it unlikely that he could win re-election against a Republican challenger, hence the boundary change that took his home out of HD 31.
Regardless, I've been told that Witt owns a residence in Salem which he hopes makes him eligible to run in HD 19.
That's fine.
I just think it's unlikely that Witt could waltz into Salem from Clatskanie and defeat two Salem city councilors in the May primary who have vastly more local name recognition. However, Witt might be betting that in a three-way race with Andersen and Leung, he has a chance to win as an outsider.
Which his opponents probably would term "carpetbagger."
I'll end by saying that when I told my wife what I was writing about tonight, Laurel said she had positive experiences with Witt when she advocated ending coyote killing contests during a recent legislative session, something Witt supported.
Brad Witt probably holds policy positions that are close to those held by Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung. Unfortunately for Witt, they have to be viewed as front-runners in the HD 19 race given their connections in Salem.
Even though we're still six months away from the May 2022 election that typically decides City Council and Mayor races (50 percent + 1 vote and you win outright, even though the election is a "primary"), things are already getting really interesting.
Tom Andersen, the Ward 2 city councilor, isn't running for re-election. He was the first progressive elected to the City Council and serves as the unofficial leader of the now six-person progressive majority on the nine-person council (eight city councilors plus the Mayor).
The Statesman Journal story says:
Councilor Tom Andersen, of Ward 2 in south-central Salem, said he will not seek re-election and will instead run as a Democrat in the primary for the newly redistricted House District 19 in the Oregon Legislature.
The seat is currently occupied by Republican Rep. Raquel Moore-Green.
House District 19 has been a stronghold of Republicans for more than two decades, but recent districting efforts have moved the more conservative areas of Turner, Aumsville and neighbors east of Salem outside city limits into other districts.
According to the new legislative maps, House District 19 is now comprised of neighbors in Andersen's Ward 2, South Salem and southeast Salem.
It'll be interesting to see who files to fill Andersen's shoes. (Which should be of the bicycle variety, since Andersen is an avid cyclist.) Ward 2 leans decidedly leftward, so this City Council seat should remain progressive.
In Ward 4, Casey Kopcho has filed to run. Jackie Leung, the Ward 4 city councilor, hasn't indicated whether she intends to seek re-election. I wouldn't be surprised if Leung doesn't seek another term. She's a progressive who doesn't strike me as being all that enthused about City Council goings-on, though I could be wrong about this.
And this statement in the Statesman Journal story sort of implies that Kopcho could be Leung's hand-picked successor, since it isn't the sort of thing someone planning to run against Leung would say.
Kopcho said he aligns with many of Leung's positions and wants to bring more accountability along with a focus on homelessness, housing availability and economic recovery to the council.
Jim Lewis, the Ward 8 city councilor, won't be running again for his West Salem seat. He's a conservative, so this would be an appealing pick-up for progressives. Micki Varney ran against Lewis in 2018 and would be a strong contender if she enters the Ward 8 race.
I suspect that Chris Hoy, a progressive, will seek re-election to his Ward 6 City Council seat. But as always is the case in politics, what's suspected often turns out otherwise.
Chuck Bennett isn't seeking another term as Mayor. He's a moderate, by and large, so a good fit for a position that is elected citywide (obviously). Salem tilts leftward, yet has a substantial number of conservative voters.
It's great that Hollie Oakes-Miller has filed to run for Mayor. She came close to beating Jose Gozalez in their 2020 Ward 5 City Council race. For some reason the progressive Salem "establishment" didn't get behind Oakes-Miller, though I did. Yet with minimal funding she did very well against Gonzalez, who is fairly conservative.
Oakes-Miller, like Bernie Sanders, doesn't shy away from using socialist to describe herself. If the Chamber of Commerce backs a conservative candidate for Mayor, debates between this person and Oakes-Miller will be hugely entertaining.
Ten days after the May 1 gun rally at Riverfront Park where gun-toting Proud Boys threatened citizens and journalists with expulsion from the park, city officials keep changing their story about why a permit wasn't required for the rally.
As I said in "Typogate" adds a twist to Proud Boys rally, at first City Councilor Tom Andersen was told that a typo on the city web site caused a page to say that May 1 was the date permits would be required for events in city parks, since a missing "3" would have made the date May 31.
But I pointed out in that blog post that on March 27 the web page had changed from saying "Due to COVID-19, parks and other City facilities are not available for reservation" to "Due to COVID-19, parks and other city facilities are not available for reservation through April 30, 2021. Reservations are being accepted for outdoor events in parks occurring May 1, 2021 or after."
So that did away with the typo excuse, since in addition to saying that reservations were required as of May 1, the page said that the open use/no reservation period ended April 30. Hard to see how someone could accidentally type "April 30" when they meant "May 30."
At yesterday's City Council meeting, Councilor Andersen asked City Manager Steve Powers to discuss the confusion over whether the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally should have been required to have a permit.
I made a transcript of the Andersen-Powers exchange from a video. Here's the transcript. The video follows. I consider Powers's explanation to be weak, bordering on unbelievable, for reasons I'll explain below.
City Councilor Tom Andersen: I want to ask a question, and then I’ll have some comments afterwards, probably a little bit of both.
Director Fernandez specifically referred to the incident that happened on May 1. And I can’t speak for Councilor Nordyke, but that may have something to do with the genesis of her motion.
There’s been some confusion in the community about the date that permits were to be reinstituted.
There was a city web site page that said permits needed to be applied for and would issue on May 1 and after. But I have been told by city staff that permits would take place on May 31 and after.
And that’s created a whole lot of confusion around the May 1 event because there are people who say look at the city web site. It says you’ve got to have permits on May 1.
And there wasn’t a permit for the circus that happened there on May 1. I’d like City Manager Powers, if you would, to respond and then I’ll have some other comments.
City Manager Steve Powers: There never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day. That web page, that section of the web page that’s been referred to, it was incorrect and frankly also poorly worded before it was corrected.
But in my update reports to you, available publicly, information that staff would share with people inquiring, to respond to an earlier question, yes, we are getting inquiries, people requesting dates to reserve, and in those conversations with staff and with individuals, it was always no earlier than May 31.
Now I do want to emphasize, no earlier than May 31. Part of the review was certainly based upon feedback from councilors regarding we need to look at resuming permits.
It was also based frankly on the Iron Man being interested in Salem, a significant boost to our community. And it was based upon at that time what seemed to be a positive, in a good way, trend with the disease.
That was before Polk and Marion slipped back into extreme risk, which fortunately we’re now back into high risk. This is still very much a moving target, and I think the key will be that Covid compliance, those safety plans for public events, that will be critical for anyone that is reserving our parks or a portion of a park for a public event.
Andersen: Thank you Mr. City Manager. This just points out to me how unfortunate this was, because staff was operating under the assumption that permits wouldn’t happen until May 31 and beyond, but the web site said May 1.
And there are people in the community rightfully concerned about no permit for what happened on May 1, even though the web site said that.
This is the video I used to make the transcript.
This is my critique of what City Manager Powers said. I'll phrase my criticisms in the form of questions that I'll email to Powers for his response.
(1) You claim there never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day, May 31. Yet according to the Internet Archive Way Back Machine, on March 27, 2021 the City of Salem "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page changed to say that the open use period would end on April 30, with reservations required as of May 1.
Web pages don't change by themselves. Someone edited the page.
I'm assuming this someone received an order to change the page from a supervisor or higher-up. Who issued that order? Knowing this person's name will go a long way toward learning whether there truly was an intention for permits to start before May 31.
(2) You claim that the web page was poorly worded before it was corrected. Comparing the current page and the page as it was from March 27 to April 30, the wording is almost exactly the same aside from the different dates.
What did you mean by "poorly worded"? Also, who is responsible for the content of the "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page? Obviously this could be the same person I asked the name for in question (1) above.
(3) In your response to Councilor Andersen you seemed to say that city staff responded to inquiries about park reservations by saying the date permits were needed was May 31. Since the city web page said May 1 for over a month, March 27 - April 30, it's hard to believe that no one ever said something like, "I saw on your web site that reservations are needed after May 1."
Are you claiming that no City of Salem employee noticed that the web site said the open use period ended April 30 for the month-plus that language was on the page in question?
(4) Since the supposed May 1 error was on the city web site from March 27 to April 30, who made the decision to change the web page to say "May 31" on the day before the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally?
Hopefully you can understand how suspicious this looks, since social media posts about the upcoming rally were noting the lack of a permit for the rally, given that the city web site was saying that a permit was needed for park events on May 1 and after.
Then, after the May 1 date had been on the city web page for over a month, the date suddenly changes the day before the rally. Knowing who authorized the change to May 31 will help citizens understand why this was done on April 30.
(5) In your response to Councilor Andersen you imply that citizens shouldn't trust what they find on the City of Salem web site, but rather rely on statements you make at City Council meetings. Do you actually believe this?
I ask because few people watch City Council meetings, and even fewer accurately remember what happens at them. By contrast, hugely more people use the City of Salem web site to learn city policies and obtain other useful information.
Yet you made no apology for the web site saying something different from what you reportedly were stating in public meetings.
In fact, your response made it seem as if the web site saying May 1 was something that happened through a random quantum fluctuation or something -- an accident that no one should have taken seriously, since they should listen to what the City Manager says, not what the City of Salem web site states.
Salem Health is allowing people to get the Covid vaccine who aren't part of the 1a group that supposedly comprises the only Oregonians eligible to be immunized currently.
This seems unfair to me, though I'm not criticizing those who took advantage of the extra doses that Salem Health has been doling out to those in the know who have shown up at the Fairgrounds vaccination site.
Yes, it is well known that often it is possible to get more shots out of a vial of vaccine than the usual number. That vaccine shouldn't go to waste. However, I don't understand why those extra doses are being given on a first-come, first-served basis to otherwise ineligible people when this opportunity hasn't been communicated to the general public.
I learned about this from a Facebook post by Tom Andersen, a member of the Salem City Council who was able to be vaccinated today even though he isn't a health care provider or a resident/staff member of a long term care facility. Those are the basic 1a groups; a detailed list of who is currently eligible to get a Covid vaccine is here.
Andersen said: "I got my first COVID shot today. The local hospital has extra doses so opened up at the state fairgrounds on a first come basis. While not one of the first, I was one of around 1000 or more who got shot."
I'm bothered by what Salem Health is doing. Public confidence in what will be a lengthy Covid vaccination process will be undermined if there appears to be favoritism in who gets a shot, whether intentional or unintentional.
Yesterday Governor Brown announced that as of January 23, seniors 65+ will be eligible to get vaccinated, along with teachers and some others . Here's the three tweets from Brown. Note that this next group, which I gather will be 1b, isn't supposed to be vaccinated until January 23, not January 13.
So Governor Brown told Oregonians to be patient "if you are newly eligible."
Hey, I'm 72. I'm newly eligible.
I'm also a Salem Health member, as my family physician works at their Edgewater Clinic. I didn't call my doctor's office, because Brown said I shouldn't. I figured that when seniors aged 65+ are able to be vaccinated, information about how to get a shot will be widely available.
But obviously a bunch of people learned that if you show up at the Salem Health vaccination site at the Fairgrounds, and there are extra doses available, it's possible to get vaccinated even though you aren't eligible to get a shot.
I went to the Salem Health Covid vaccination web page to see if there was any indication that someone not in the 1a group could be vaccinated. Answer: no, there is nothing about this. In fact, the message is the opposite.
If you aren't part of the current 1a group, you aren't supposed to go to the Fairgrounds site. This is boldfaced. Here's screenshots.
So anyone who went to the Salem Health Covid Vaccine web page would be met with the words: "You must live or work in Marion County to be vaccinated at this site AND you must fall into Phase 1a (see below)."
That "below" says that Phase 1a includes health care workers, residents and employees of nursing homes, and first responders. Also, "Anyone who arrives to be vaccinated will be asked to attest to their eligibility as a member of OHA's Phase 1a groups living or working in Marion County." Yet other people who show up at the Fairgrounds site have gotten vaccinated even though they aren't in the Phase 1a groups. Hopefully Salem Health can explain why this is happening.
It would be understandable that those administering the vaccines would grab anyone within reach if some doses were going to expire for lack of refrigeration, or whatever, and otherwise would need to be thrown away.
But this comment by Tom Andersen says that "extra doses" have been used by Salem Health several times in the past week. How does someone learn that these extra doses are available? Salem Health should be more transparent about why and how they are administering vaccinations to people who aren't currently eligible to get a shot.
Again, I couldn't find any indication on the Salem Health Covid Vaccine web page that it is possible for someone to wait in line for extra doses being given on a first-come first-served basis, yet this is happening.
Nobody likes paying taxes. (Well, almost nobody.) But everybody likes the services taxes provide. (Well, almost everybody.) That's the perpetual dilemma facing government at all levels, federal, state, local.
Robert (Bob) Barron
Today's Salem City Club program on the City of Salem's financial situation featured Bob Barron, who became the city's Chief Financial Officer last June -- a new position created by a reorganization at City Hall that did away with the assistant City Manager, leaving the CFO in charge of financial goings-on.
Barron has an impressive background, as evidenced by his bio above. He came across as a straight-shooter who will tell it like it is, budget-wise, which is exactly what the City of Salem needs from its Chief Financial Officer, because in some other regards city officials have been prone to shade the truth on policy matters.
And Barron gets bonus points for looking the part of a CFO. Plus he and his family have a Goldendoodle, which has to be one of the coolest breed names I've ever seen. (My wife and I have a Husky mix... boring name, by comparison.)
Don't subtract points for Barron living in Keizer. After his talk he told me that was necessary because they haven't sold their home in Connecticut yet, and they couldn't find a suitable place to live in Salem that accepted dogs.
Barron had an interesting observation about his ten years-plus working for FedEx. He said that at FedEx 10% of time was spent getting data, and 90% was spent analyzing the data. But his experience in the public sector was the reverse: 90% of time goes to obtaining information, leaving just 10% to make sense of it.
(He did add that the situation with the public sector is improving somewhat.)
Early on in his talk Barron noted a big difference between Connecticut and Oregon. Oregon limits annual property tax increases, while Connecticut doesn't. So in his previous jobs with Connecticut city governments, a gap between projected revenues and expenses could be met simply: raise the property tax rate.
Here in Salem, though, property taxes can only go up 3% a year, which often isn't enough to meet the demand for services. Which led to the slide below that shows the financial problems facing the City of Salem.
You can see in the top box, if you're able to read small print, that the City of Salem faces a $10.9 million operating deficit in FY 2020. That's the difference between general fund revenues and expenses. It's reasonable to ask how the city got into this mess, but that's another subject, and it wasn't raised at today's City Club meeting.
The middle box contains a bit of good news. A couple of accounting items -- Unspent Contingency and Personnel Vacancies -- are estimated to bring the $10.9 million deficit down to a "mere" $5.8 million.
Then, in the right of the bottom box, some magic happens, and the decrease in what amounts to reserve funds drops to just $2.3 million. From my scribbled notes, I'm pretty sure this is the result of the Operations Fee passed by the City Council last year. (See above.)
The fee won't be in effect for the full fiscal year, and a Statesman Journal story said that it would raise roughly $7.1 million in the first year. Since half of $7.1 million is about $3.5 million, and $5.8 million minus $3.5 million is $2.3 million, this shows that, almost certainly, the Operations Fee is the reason the FY 2020 deficit drops to $2.3 million.
An employee-paid payroll tax is the other way city officials hope to deal with the general fund deficit.
The City Council decided to refer this to voters in the May 2020 election. I suspect it will be a close call as to whether the payroll tax is approved. When the election grows closer I'll write more about the pros and cons of the payroll tax.
One fact that is either a pro or a con, depending on a person's perspective, is that an estimated 60,000 people who work in Salem and live somewhere else would pay the tax. But they won't be able to vote on the tax. So we can expect to hear a lot of talk about "no taxation without representation" from aggrieved commuters to Salem.
Bob Barron said that the tax is fair, because those 60,000 people use city services. However, the payroll tax, which is expected to raise about $9.1 million a year, would be dedicated to public safety: police, fire, compliance (not sure what that means), and traffic safety.
The flip side of that supposed fairness, of course, is that thousands of other people live in Salem, but work elsewhere. So even though they use city services, they wouldn't be subject to the payroll tax.
Councilor Tom Andersen spoke briefly after Barron's presentation. He defended the employee-paid payroll tax, though he said that he would have preferred that the City Council had approved it directly, rather than referring it to voters.
Andersen said that from what he's heard so far, the argument against the payroll tax will be along the lines of... Government always wants more money and they do a bad job of spending what we give them; the new police facility has had massive construction cost overruns, so why should we throw more money at the City of Salem; and so on. (Can't remember a few other reasons Andersen gave).
I got to ask a question during the Q&A period. It went like this:
"The payroll tax is dedicated to public safety. Police and fire make up most of the general fund budget. Crime rates are going down. There are fewer fires now. So are you two confident that inefficiencies have been wrung out of the police and fire budgets, since likely there will be a spotlight on this issue in the run-up to the May vote on the payroll tax?"
Not surprisingly, the responses from Barron and Andersen were general and non-specific. I recall that Councilor Andersen related that the police chief had talked about burn-out among his officers, saying that it was difficult to find someone willing to put in overtime when this was needed.
There's going to be a City Club debate on the payroll tax in April, the month before the election, so I'm confident this and other issues related to the public safety budget will be discussed at that time.
I'm a proud progressive. I'm a member of Progressive Salem. I enjoy hearing City Councilor Tom Andersen speak. And I like the food at the Marco Polo restaurant a lot.
So today it was great to mix those pleasures together and listen to Andersen talk about the past, present, and future of local progressivism at the first Progressive Salem Power Lunch meeting while munching on a tasty Marco Polo buffet meal.
If you're a conservative wondering if I'm going to share any inside political secrets, I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I hope you'll read this blog post anyway.
Andersen did refer several times to "Trumpism's emotional illogic." However, he also stressed the need for elected officials of all political persuasions to work together on making Salem a better place.
I heartily agreed with his call to make "livability, livability, livability" our mantra, rather than "jobs, jobs, jobs."
Jobs, after all, are a means to an end: livability. And that end will draw in more businesses and jobs, since livability is a key factor in why a company decides to locate in one city rather than another. Chasing warehouse jobs, such as those to be offered by an Amazon distribution center, shouldn't be our highest goal.
Andersen is a proponent of giving City Council members a monthly stipend, since currently they are unpaid. This restricts the ability of people to seek to become a city councilor. He noted that 28% of Salem residents are non-Caucasian, 18% are below the poverty line, and the average household income here is $49,000.
So a stipend would make it more likely that the City Council reflects the diversity of Salem. Currently, it doesn't. The City Council has rejected the stipend idea on a 7-2 vote. Likely Andersen will keep pushing it, since it seems like a desirable thing to do.
He was the lone Progressive Salem-backed councilor when elected in 2014. As he put it, "organized people beat organized money." That formula has been successful ever since, with progressives now being a 6-3 majority on the City Council following the election of Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung.
What a difference five years makes. Elections matter.
Running unopposed for re-election in 2018, Andersen joked that he was disappointed to only get 99% of the vote. Someone did write in the name of his wife, Jessica Maxwell. It could have been Andersen himself, though,
He talked about his disappointment at not being able to have the streetlight fee made more equitable. Currently a homeowner pays $2.80 a month, and Walmart (along with other businesses) pays $13.50 a month. When Andersen suggested doubling that latter fee to $27 a month, he was accused of being anti-business.
Pretty clearly he isn't. Andersen spoke about the generally good job SEDCOR (Strategic Economic Development Corporation) is doing locally. He said that 85% of their money/time is spent on retaining and strengthening homegrown businesses.
Given the new progressive majority on the City Council, developers appear to be keeping this political reality in mind, sometimes asking themselves, "Do we want to bring our project to the Council?" This is a good thing, as it encourages dialogue and cooperation with people affected by a proposed development.
One example is a residential development on Wiltsey Road in Jackie Leung's ward that now is going to save more white oaks than was originally planned after Leung asked to have the project reviewed by the City Council rather than being rubber-stamped on the "Consent Calendar."
Perhaps because the developer was aware that the City Council rejected a controversial relocation of Costco, Andersen said that Mountain West has agreed to make some changes to their development that the Heritage School is pleased with. So a willingness to compromise headed off a contentious hearing before the City Council.
Likely this wouldn't have happened if progressives weren't a 6-3 majority on the Council. Here's some other accomplishments during Andersen's first term as a councilor that he mentioned in his talk today.
During a Q & A period following his talk, Andersen said that progress is being made on homelessness, though much more remains to be done. Eighty-three of the 100 homeless people identified as most in need of help are being housed. Other measures are being implemented, such as providing a place for the homeless to store their belongings.
He noted that the "engine" driving the homeless problem is income/wealth inequality -- which obviously is impossible to solve at the local level.
Regarding the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge, Andersen said this was a regional problem that tried to be solved locally (meaning, Salem residents were going to be expected to pay most of the bill for a half billion dollar regional bridge). Now it's time for proponents and opponents of the Third Bridge to move forward together on better ways to deal with transportation problems in our area.
Since the books in the Salem Library will need to be removed when seismic retrofitting and other renovations begin, someone in the audience suggested that the old Book Bin building on Lancaster Drive be used as a temporary library -- which could remain as a branch library.
Lastly, the Progressive Salem lunch meeting ended with someone thanking Councilor Andersen for the countless (almost) hours he puts in on public service.
"There's no way I'd do this for free," the person said. Me neither, I thought.
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.
Observing via CCTV the Salem City Council debate tonight whether to move ahead with the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, felt like I was watching a movie where you know the bad guy is going to be killed at some point, but you know that isn't going to happen until a lot of drama and close calls have built up the suspense.
Like I said yesterday in "Jim Lewis dreams the impossible Third Bridge dream," it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Lewis' motion to have City staff respond to issues raised in a legal setback that remanded (sent back) the Council's 2016 approval of a new bridge was going to fail 5-4.
After all, the five progressive councilors are on record as opposing what I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. There's no way they were going to break their campaign promises and vote to move forward with the Salem River Crossing project.
(Come January, their numbers will grow to six, when Jackie Leung replaces Steve McCoid on the City Council.)
What I wasn't sure about was whether the strategy of the No 3rd Bridge Five would be to give the Third Bridge the final death that it deserves at this meeting, or whether the death throes of the bridge would be strung out. It turned out to be the latter, since a substitute motion by Tom Andersen was approved after Lewis' motion failed.
Andersen's motion calls for the City Council to hold a work session on the Salem River Crossing in January 2019. Then the consensus seemed to be that either a vote on the legal remand would happen at the next Council meeting, or perhaps in February.
This seems to be a smart move.
If the five progressives had killed the bridge project tonight, that would have looked a lot like a football team running up the score in the fourth quarter when they were already way ahead. Bad form. Tonight lots of people testified in favor of a Third Bridge. Emotions ran high.
So what Tom Andersen and Cara Kaser talked about was having a work session to review all of the materials related to the Salem River Crossing prior to voting whether to address the issues in the remand.
If the City Council votes against addressing those issues, the Third Bridge apparently will be dead -- Lewis said that if the City of Salem doesn't handle the remand issue by September 2019, the project will be shut down, since a draft Environmental Impact Statement needed to move the project forward requires that all approvals be obtained by that time.
(I'm pretty sure the date was September 2019. It might be earlier.)
The January work session will give both supporters and opponents of the Salem River Crossing on the City Council a forum to put forth their best arguments to either keep the project alive, or kill it.
My bet is that it will end up being killed, since opponents have by far the better arguments.
As Kaser pointed out tonight, likely there is a need for another bridge across the Willamette. However, the current Third Bridge plan is for a very expensive regional bridge aimed largely at speeding traffic through Salem to Portland, the coast, and such, rather than a local bridge aimed at reducing rush hour congestion between West Salem and downtown.
And Kaser also observed that Salem residents would be expected to foot most of the bill for a Third Bridge, even though it would be a regional bridge, not a local bridge.
Lewis seemed to see the handwriting on the wall after his motion failed.
Mayor Bennett did his best to put a positive spin on the approval of Andersen's substitute motion, but as the saying goes, this was just putting lipstick on a pig. The No 3rd Bridge Five, who are soon to become the No 3rd Bridge Six, have the power on the City Council.
They will use the January work session to put forward some excellent reasons why the Salem River Crossing project should be killed. Then, at a subsequent City Council meeting, almost certainly it will be.
Lastly, I believe it was Tom Andersen who reminded his fellow city councilors of what happened in December 2016, when five conservative members of the City Council voted to more the project forward by approving an Urban Growth Boundary expansion the month before three newly elected progressives were going to join the Council.
Tonight five clueless members of the Salem City Council voted to move ahead with the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing.
...Now, one would think that this City Council meeting would be a joyous occasion for supporters of the Salem River Crossing. It marked a step forward for the Third Bridge. Yet exactly nobody spoke in favor of it at the public hearing (which wasn't very public, because nobody other than city councilors could speak during it).
I saw downcast eyes and morose expressions from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Five.
City Manager Steve Powers also didn't look very happy, perhaps because I suspect he agrees with much, if not all, of what Councilor Tom Andersen said in his animated six minute explanation of why he was voting NO on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed to accommodate the Salem River Crossing bridgeheads.
Below you'll find a video of Andersen's remarks. I urge you to watch it. This was a great example of the proverbial speaking truth to power.
I especially liked his oh-so-true observation that the City Council was rushing to get a vote on the UGB expansion before the end of the year because three newly elected city councilors who are against the Third Bridge, and said so in their campaigns, will take office in 2017.
So the vote tonight was a last gasp attempt by the Chamber of Commerce-backed councilors -- Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis, Bednarz -- to kiss up to the Powers That Be in this town. They used special interest money to get elected, and they paid back those special interests with their "yes" votes for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.
Recent Comments