Hinessight

I always feel like applauding a watchdog group that barks noisily when our so-called “public servants” are engaging in some shenanigans. So I will: clap, clap, clap to Friends of Marion County and their hard-working president, Roger Kaye, for catching the Salem City Council in what appears to be a conflict of interest cover-up.

Yesterday the Statesman-Journal reported that revisions to Salem’s annexation rules would be put on hold until January as a result of Roger’s efforts. Some background: In 2000 Salemites voted to approve annexations of land into the city. Presently city rules require that developers tell people how they plan to use the property that they want to have annexed.

This makes sense. Before voting on whether to bring a parcel into the city, wouldn’t you want to know what was going to be done with it? An ugly commercial strip mall is one thing; a creatively designed sustainable community is quite another thing.

However, now that more conservative city council members have replaced the progressive Mayor Swaim-era councilors, common sense is giving way to corporate interests. The council has been considering making changes to the annexation rules that would much reduce the information given to voters about a proposed development.

That’s fine, so long as the changes are made in an aboveboard manner. But Friends of Marion County revealed at a Monday City Council meeting that several councilors, plus Mayor Janet Taylor, have failed to disclose that they received substantial donations from the Colson & Colson Construction Co. which—no big surprise—would benefit from a revision to the annexation rules.

I’ll include a copy of Roger Kaye’s letter to Mayor Taylor and the City Council for the interest of Salem land use junkies. Laurel is a board member of Friends of Marion County and has been following this issue, along with other Measure 37 related matters. The battle is just beginning over whether short-term financial gain or the long-term public interest will be the centerpiece of land use planning in Oregon.

We hope very much for the latter. But this will only happen if elected officials vote to do the right thing, rather than what will bring them the most campaign contributions.

Over the weekend I was aghast to read a brief mention of House speaker Dennis Hasterts’s new atrocious policy: only allow votes on bills that are supported by a majority of the Republican majority. Good god.

It was bothersome enough to think that we’ll have at least two more years of Republicans ruling Congress. But there was some consolation in knowing that this would be rule by a democratically elected majority.

Now Hastert is planning to allow a minority of House representatives to call the shots, since 51% of Republicans could stymie a bill that has the support of 49% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats. He would rather trash democracy and bipartisanship to avoid the prospect of, heavens, a bill passing because of Democrat votes.

If you want to let Hastert know what you think, send him a message.

Here’s a copy of a Washington Post article on the subject. I placed it in an extended post so people could read it (and weep) without registering at washingtonpost.com.