Kudos to Statesman Journal editorial page editor Dick Hughes for telling it like it is in "Why Salem projects often fail."
Download Why Salem projects often fail (PDF file to read if SJ story is archived)
A common thread runs through Salem, from the old Boise Cascade property across downtown parking spaces and into the city’s seismically unstable civic center.
The thread is that each of those projects — redeveloping the Boise Cascade site, redoing downtown parking and renovating the civic center — suffered from the same flaw: too little public involvement in the front end, which created big public opposition on the back end.
…And though civic leaders may to bill Salem as the City of Collaboration, it too often resembles the City of Contention.
How does this happen? Here is why:
• Oregonians expect to be involved in public decisions. They want to be heard. That is as Oregon-ish as eschewing umbrellas or wearing socks with sandals.
• A lot of Salem residents have time on their hands to pack public hearings with their arguments. Good for them, but others — the parents and others who seemingly do not have time to attend government meetings — should be represented as well.
• It is human nature for people to only pay attention once they recognize the potential impact on them.
• Meeting agendas often are undecipherable, and thus irrelevant, to the layperson.
I've been singing this song ever since I became involved in City of Salem goings-on.
My first exposure to the climate of citizen disinvolvement at City Hall came when my wife and I were shocked at how five beautiful downtown trees adjoining the US Bank building were cut down for no good reason.
After I contacted City officials, including the Mayor and City Manager, about serious problems with how this debacle of a decision was handled — such as people being told the tree removals couldn't be appealed, which isn't legally true — I expected them to respond with "Thanks for letting us know; how can we do better from now on?"
But no.
Without exception, I and others were met with a circle-the-wagons mentality. Citizen involvement was viewed as a distraction, something to be brushed-off, an irritant. Not as an opportunity to improve City of Salem policies or make more informed decisions.
Hughes wrote that this is needed at City Hall:
A commitment to recruiting, not simply encouraging, public involvement. In the spirit of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” it also is essential to involve the potential opponents.
This is a major mistake by the current administration — failing to engage citizen activists, and also ordinary citizens who have a gripe about how the City of Salem is handling something.
Mayor Anna Peterson, City Manager Linda Norris, and other top officials should watch House of Cards and see how (fictional politician) Frank Underwood does his wily business.
Now, I'm not suggesting they should be as underhanded as Underwood is. But they would benefit from realizing that ignoring your opponents, rather than working with them, is a recipe for political disaster. The City's attempt to foist downtown parking meters on Salemians is a prime example.
Hughes said:
In the case of Salem’s proposed downtown parking meters, the city task force recommendation came across to the public as a done deal, regardless of what officials said.
In addition, task force members implied that their recommendation obviously represented the best-possible solution because they had spent so much time studying the issue. But that is a fallacy of logic. If you travel the wrong road, you won’t arrive at the right destination regardless of how long you spend on that road.
Amazingly, City officials never asked downtown small businessses what they thought about the parking meter proposal, nor was the public allowed to speak at task force meetings. Unsurprisingly, this non-collaborative "our way or the highway" approach was met with a major stop sign: 9,000 signatures on a citizen petition to ban downtown parking meters.
Even more amazingly, Carole Smith and other organizers of the successful petition drive never were contacted by the Mayor or City Manager. They were totally ignored. More proof that Anna Peterson and Linda Norris are dedicated to making this a City of Contention, not Collaboration.
I figured that Smith and her fellow downtown activists would be invited to sit down with City officials and discuss the best way of moving forward on parking policies. This would have been the right thing to do, both politically and ethically.
But the current City Hall attitude is Changing direction is a no-no. Unless you're completely blocked.
Same thing is happening with the City's $80 million proposal for a new police facility and Civic Center renovations. Citizens have pointed out ways to save taxpayers $40 million, which would vastly increase the chance that a bond measure could be passed.
Yet City officials continue to plow ahead on their vastly over-priced $80 million project, which was planned in near-secrecy with very little public involvement.
So unless something changes, it will be blocked. The bond measure will fail.
Salem will be left with an inadequate police headquarters and Civic Center buildings that are seismically unsafe. Again, collaboration would be much better. But this would require City officials to be open-minded and flexible, which aren't qualities often on display these days at City Hall.
I enjoyed the comments on Hughes' piece, which included one from me. I'll share some of them in a continuation to this post. Here's a sample, a comment from Loreen:
This is an excellent opinion piece. It is all true. I have lived in Salem for decades. i cannot remember a time when Salem public processes and decisions have been so secret and decisions made with so little respect for the public's input as with our current City Council. We need some new blood on the Council.
1