Salem

Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

Conversely, not-talking can be expensive. This was my theme in the Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column that hit the streets today. 

The current Salem Weekly issue isn't available online yet, so I'll share "Some talking could save $30 million" as a continuation to this post (see below). Here's how the column starts.

“We need to talk.” This can be an ominous-sounding statement. Like when your boss utters it after a bunch of co-workers already have been laid off.

But government officials should love to hear those words from the people they serve. 

For example, if taxpayers want to talk about being asked to pay $70 million for something that could cost $40 million, that’s a conversation worth having.

Which is what needs to happen here in Salem. 

After several years of mostly-secret meetings, City officials are running around town pushing a plan to build a new three-story Police Facility with expensive underground parking at the Civic Center.

Cost: $44 million. However, the City of Eugene recently remodeled an existing building into a similarly-sized police headquarters for $17 million. 

Salem Community Vision, a group working to improve local government decision-making through more citizen involvement, is asking why less expensive alternatives to the $44 million Civic Center Police Facility haven’t been seriously considered.

Below is a cost comparison worksheet prepared by Geoffrey James, an architect, and Gene Pfeifer, a designer and builder. Here's a PDF version:  Download How to save $33 million

James and Pfeifer have lots of experience with complex construction projects. They were instrumental in finding a much less expensive solution to fixing Courthouse Square, Marion County's problem-plagued building. 

The image at the top is a Site Plan prepared by the City of Salem. The City's June 2013 cost estimate for the new Police Facility and Civic Center renovation project is under the image: $70.5 million. Below that is a $37.5 million estimate prepared by James and Pfeifer that reflects a smarter way to go. (click to enlarge)

This isn't the last word, of course. It's a discussion piece.

People in Salem need to have an open, factual, and candid conversation about the best way to build a new Police Facility and seismically retrofit the Civic Center buildings. Like I said in the column, if talking can save $30 million, let's converse.

If you agree, sign the Salem Community Vision petition at Change.org. And give the group a Facebook like. 

For more info about why there is a better way than what the City of Salem is proposing, have a look at the Salem Community Vision brochure — presented as "inside" and "outside" images. (click to enlarge)

Here's the entire Salem Weekly column.

Sometimes public officials manage to hit the Outrage Sweet Spot, doing something so ethically, politically, and financially dubious that everybody – conservatives, moderates, liberals; Republicans, independents, Democrats — has good reason to scream What the #$%! is going on here!?

Congratulations, Salem City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director: if you go ahead with a plan to approve a new $400 million Third Bridge design without holding a single public hearing on it, that places you squarely in the Outrage Sweet Spot.

Which, of course, is pretty damn bitter to the citizens who are getting screwed over.

But before I get to that, let's review the drama of an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for $400-700 million Third Bridge across the Willamette River. Here's the basic plot points:

In Act 1, a citizen advisory panel studies a bunch of options for a new bridge, including not building one. They can't reach agreement on what to do. So the first input from the community at large is who knows?

But in Act 2, the bridge Oversight Team says what the hell!, let's go for it and build a giant, expensive, freeway'ish monstrosity of a bridge that will zip people from I-5, across the river, and onto Highway 22 as quickly as possible — ignoring the fact that this would do next to nothing to reduce brief rush hour traffic congestion on the current two bridges, which supposedly is a main reason the $700 million "4-D" design is needed.

In Act 3, the absurdity of the 4-D bridge leads to a lot of opposition. When asked, most neighborhood associations reject it. At several Salem City Council public hearings, vociferous testimony against a Third Bridge is presented. 

So the City of Salem comes up with the so-called Salem Alternative. I say "so-called," because this wasn't an alternative suggested by citizens. It was cooked up by City staff and bridge consultants as a way to defuse opposition to the 4-D design.

Ah, the Salem Alternative, a kinder and gentler bridge.

No elevated on- and off-ramps; street level entry and exit; a graceful arch to sooth the eye; minimal supporting piers for a cleaner look and less environmental impact; no homes or businesses to be displaced, as the Big Bad 4-D design would have.

The City Council voted 9-0 in favor of the Salem Alternative. There was much self-congratulatory talk of how these public officials had listened to citizens and shifted to the oh-so-local and not-freeway'ish at all, no, not at all, Salem Alternative. 

This was just a sweet little bridge that would allow residents of northeast Salem and west Salem to finally get to know each other. Images of crosstown block parties with picnic tables set up in the middle of the Salem Alternative blossomed as I watched the 9-0 vote proceedings on CCTV.

But political skeptics like me (it's always wise to be skeptical about politicians) could see Act 4 looming around the bend. And now the curtain has risen on an outrageous turn of events.

Kinder and gentler bridge is no more. It's hard to tell who made it disappear. Earlier this month I asked, "Dude, where's the Salem Alternative bridge?" All we know is that the bridge Oversight Team directed their highly paid consultants to drastically alter the design approved by the Salem City Council.

As the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog said (great resource for people interested in land use/transportation goings-on): 

The "Salem Alternative" analysis that the Oversight Team saw on October 31st doesn't much look like a "local" bridge! It seems to have grown and looks more like the giant bridge and highway of 4D again.

I noted in my "Dude…" post:

No more "signature" arch design. Lots of piers have reappeared in the water. Lanes have multiplied. Overpasses will whisk trucks and other I-5 traffic to the coast (maybe a few will even think "This is Salem, isn't it?" as they zoom through the half-billion dollar concrete monument).

Which gets me to my Can you believe this? I've heard from the No 3rd Bridge folks that there won't be any public hearings on the new bridge design. None. Zilch. Nada. 

The City Council does not plan to hold a public hearing before voting on their "preferred alternative" for the 3rd Bridge. They plan to rush to judgement on a plan presented at the Oversight Team meeting on October 31st that is NOT the Salem Alternative, even though it is misleadingly labeled as such. 

If they do the public will be completely blindsided.

The City Council will then be on record as approving a $400 million bridge plan that 99.9% of Salem citizens have never seen. We are talking about the largest public works project ever contemplated in our city. And our City Council is about to advance it without a public hearing.

There are eight "build" alternatives detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that received a great deal of scrutiny over about five years. Then the Salem City Council developed a ninth alternative and held two public hearings before voting to advance it last June on a 9-0 vote.

Now there is a tenth alternative that the Oversight Team hopes will be approved in less than three months with no public information effort and no public hearings.

Amazing!

Sure is. Freaking amazing.

I hope the City Council changes its mind. I hope Mayor Anna Peterson, City Manager Linda Norris, and Public Works Director Peter Fernandez realize that pulling a bait-and-switch on Salem area citizens is morally and ethically outrageous. 

They need to do some walking in the shoes of the people who live in the 35-45 homes and work in the 15-25 businesses that would be displaced by the bigger-and-badder new bridge design.

Hey, public officials: if your home or business was going to be condemned for a bridge, wouldn't you want to be able to testify about this? Wouldn't you want to able to look your city councillors and mayor in the eye and say, "You're going to ruin my life. And for no good reason, because we don't need this bridge."

The City of Salem has made it a habit to act imperiously, ignoring community input, conducting the public's business in as secret a manner as it can get away with.

But this new ploy, markedly changing the design of the Salem Alternative and then voting on it without a public hearing — now we're in Truly Outrageous Territory. Sadly, people have come to expect so little of politicians, it is difficult to be surprised by the crap officials do anymore.

However…a City Council voting on a $400 million bridge design that taxpayers would be expected to pay for without a single public hearing being held — that surprises even politically cynical me.

[Update: as a continuation to this post I'll share a message that Jim Scheppke of No 3rd Bridge has sent to Councillor Laura Tesler. Jim reports how Peter Fernandez misled councillors and the public in his comments at tonight's City Council meeting.]