Great news for Salem -- preserving access to undeveloped land

Wonderful idea. Huzzah for Mr. Gehlar and the Audubon Society:

. . . a recent $1.35 million bequest to Salem Audubon Society has launched the small nonprofit into just the organization to help reverse the trend. . . . But when longtime audubon member Mark Gehlar left the society a donation in his will, the 1,600-member nonprofit had the opportunity to expand its education role in Salem. The way? By building an easy-to-access nature center. The society has its sights set on a sliver of land on the former Boise Cascade site. The area is next to the Eco-earth globe in Salem's Riverfront Park. It's the perfect location because a proposed footbridge across the Willamette Slough would connect the nature center with 22 acres of Salem Audubon Society property, said Sue Johnston, executive director of Salem Audubon Society. "To have a really successful nature center, you need a diversity of habitats," said David Harrison, a Salem Audubon Society board member. "This area is centrally located, it would have the footbridge to Minto Island and it would have access to acres and acres of public land along the waterfront." A decision about whether the center could be located on the Boise Cascade site is at least six months away, said Tim Gerling, who is a project manager with the group developing the property. Another possibility is locating the center in Riverfront Park. Either way, the land needs to be donated or at bargain prices. "Our chief obstacle is getting a piece of property," said board member Harrison. "So we are trying to build public support ... because we see it as a nature center for the entire community."

UPDATE: Salem Monthly story on the Audubon Society plan.

If your "low flow" toilet needs multiple flushes

Jack Bog has a post mentioning how bad "low-flow" toilets are, and someone posted a reply noting that there are actually really good low-flow toilets out there because they finally figured out a way to have a good, standardized engineering test that will separate the contenders from pretenders in terms of performance.

This is a huge issue in Salem (and everywhere else) -- we've got hundreds of thousands of toilets being flushed multiple times because inferior design means that the first wave of 6 liter flushers don't do the job. Not only is it an immoral waste of pure potable water, it's a tremendous waste of energy (pumping all that water to the tanks, and then all that energy to treat the waste on the way out).

Salem should set develop a "pay as you save" program for the Water/Sewer Bureau, where anyone in Salem who installs one of the top-rated low-flow models -- the ones that actually DO reduce water consumption -- can charge the cost of the toilet and the installation to their water and sewer account with the city and pay it off @ $5 a month. For many people, the savings from the better performance would pay the bill, and the city would see a huge drop in wasted water and energy.

Read the article about the testing, it's funny and important at the same time.

Statesman-Journal disgraces itself

The Statesman-Journal completes its disintegration into a parody of a newspaper with its editorial declining to endorse the vital Cherriots bond (24-247). The concluding paragraph suggests that destroying the viability of the transit system will be useful because it will prompt a "community discussion of what an effective, efficient transit system would look like if it were being designed from scratch — and how to pay for it."

Oddly, THAT's the discussion we should be having over our streets and bridges, rather than rushing to pump $100M into nothing but more of the same auto-dominated building. We need to be talking about how to stop spending our way into an ever-greater maintenance backlog of expanded roadways that will supposedly "reduce congestion" -- ignoring the cumulative millennia of experience that shows that all roadway expansions intended to fight congestion end up increasing that congestion at a new, more-congested level.

But, experience be damned, the SJ calls for the defeat of a $6M annual bond to preserve a functional transit system while calling for passage of a $100M streets bond that will do nothing to prepare Oregon's capital to meet the ravages of an unwinding economy that will make transit evermore vital to people on the lower end of the economic ladder, even as the climate changes make transit more and more necessary to our survival.

When the streets bond fails, nothing changes -- we can get the planners to revise their plans and come up with a new, smarter proposal without a hitch, a proposal for taking care of what we have in a way that we can afford.

But if the Cherriots bond fails, real people will be hurt real bad real fast. Transit dependent workers will have no options at all on weekends; seniors and the disabled will lose all ability to get around independently on weekends, and commuters and other "choice riders" will give up on the system.

In short, as we starve the transit system, we'll complain that it's a scrawny, useless thing and short-sighted folks like the SJ editorial board will then argue that we should cut the funding even further because the system is so scrawny that it doesn't do anyone any good.

Transit levy creates quandary for voters
Request ill-timed with school and fire measures on ballot

October 27, 2008

In today's challenging economy, voters can't afford to do everything. That is why the Statesman Journal Editorial Board cannot recommend passage of the Salem Area Mass Transit District's $30.4 million, five-year operating levy.

The district is going back to the voters after its levy failed twice in 2006, forcing route reductions. The current proposal creates a quandary for voters.

On the positive side, the district is doing a lot of things right under General Manager Allan Pollock. Cherriots has increased fares. Ridership is up. Pollock has a tighter rein on operations and has instituted money-saving measures. He appreciates the need for more crosstown routes instead of making so many riders transfer at the downtown Courthouse Square transit center.

Yet there still seems to be a disconnect between the Cherriots' elected board of directors and many taxpayers.

The property-tax levy has support among downtown business leaders but not communitywide. Taxpayers see nearly empty buses going by and wonder why; the district's own trip statistics don't give a satisfactory accounting.

The district raised hackles by how it handled the potential siting of a transit center in Keizer. Stories abound of bus drivers' perceived discourtesy to other drivers and pedestrians, with each incident creating bad feelings toward the district.

The 2008 levy is smaller than the 2006 request, which was defeated once by voters and once by the double-majority requirement. However, we think the board made a tactical error by placing this year's levy on the same ballot as Salem-Keizer School District and city of Salem bond measures, as well as operating levies for Keizer Fire District and Marion County Fire District 1.

Those conditions created long odds for the Cherriots levy, despite the regional importance of transit. Many taxpayers worry about the uncertain economy, which has worsened in the months since the district proposed the levy.

The proposed levy is small — 49 cents per $1,000 of assessed home value. That's $98 per year for the owner of a $200,000 house. But taxpayers must prioritize their expenditures, including their property taxes.

Some people have suggested that the transit board is politically tone-deaf — unaware or unable to build support among civic leaders.

We prefer to think that board members are so passionate about transit — for good reason — that they count on others to share their enthusiasm. They have led a grass-roots campaign, holding scores of meetings.

If the levy fails, the district has warned bus and CherryLift riders to expect an end to Saturday service, as well as weekday reductions on many routes. Those could be devastating to service-industry workers, students, people traveling to medical appointments and others who depend on public transit.

But this also could force a community discussion of what an effective, efficient transit system would look like if it were being designed from scratch — and how to pay for it.

Oregon Federal Candidates Health Care Forum

Oregonians for Health Security is hosting a Federal Candidates Health Care Forum at Willamette University next Thursday, October 23rd from 7-9pm. Jeff Merkley and Kurt Schrader have confirmed and we are awaiting responses from Gordon Smith and Mike Erickson. Ron Mauer will be in attendance and the event will be moderated by Jack Ohman.  ( See attached flier) We will be discussing a number of topics in health care, including Medicare, Insurance & Accountability, Workforce & Delivery and Financing.

 

There will be time to ask your own questions of the candidates regarding health care as well.

 

For questions about the event or to rsvp, contact Greg at Oregonians for Health Security. 888-654-2273

 

Thank you!
--
Ariel Brantley-Dalglish

Communications Coordinator

Oregonians for Health Security

(503) 239-8800 office

(646) 620-3870 cell

www.oregoniansforhealthsecurity.org

Peak Oil Lecture in Salem

Free lecture Wednesday to focus on oil production

Salem residents are invited to a free lecture about peak oil production at 7 p.m. Wednesday at

Salem Public Library, 585 Liberty St SE.

John Kaufmann, a senior policy analyst for Oregon Department of Energy, will present evidence for and against peak oil production. He will discuss why it matters, including the role of oil in our society.

The program will explore the effects of peak oil, and compare supply-side and demand-side alternatives.

Kaufmann has led energy-efficiency and renewable-energy efforts with Oregon Department of Energy for 25 years.

He led Oregon's efforts to adopt the nation's most energy-efficient residential and nonresidential building codes.

He also was lead staffer to the Portland Peak Oil Task Force. Portland was the first city to plan for peak oil.

The program is sponsored by League of Women Voters of Marion & Polk Counties.

Great Question: Our environment vs. Development, are they exclusive ideas?

Salem:  Our Environment vs. Development are they exclusive ideas?

"Since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen--his everlasting power and divinity--being understood through the things that he made."  Romans 1: 20-23 

How do we rate as stewards of the land and natural resources?

What's happening in our community--are conditions setting us up for flooding that might be worse than 1996?

Is the City of Salem in compliance with State Land Use regulations?

  What impact does this have on Salem's future? 

You're invited to attend a forum:

Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. at

First Congregational Church,

United Church of Christ

700 Marion Street NE, Salem, Oregon

 Huntington Room on the lower level 

Sponsored by The Comprehensive Plan Supporters

Questions: 503-588-6924

Speaks Volumes: Demand management and transit as afterthoughts

A very revealing message is contained in this latest schedule update from the big firm running the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the "Salem River Crossing" project:  the section headed Transit/TSM/TDM [italics added] reveals that, just as it appeared to those who attend project meetings, there has been no meaningful consideration of ideas for managing bridge use during the peak use periods rather than trying to find financing to build a $600+ million bridge.

In other words, the whole exercise has been about trying to ram through an already-preferred idea (an expensive new bridge) rather than a fresh look at the issues and search for alternatives.

Now that the economy is melting down, the chances of Salem being able to get federal funds or make up a local share for a third bridge are dwindling even further.  Meanwhile, we will continue to pay millions to CH2M-Hill to produce a report to present the foregone conclusion desired by the road gang.

Dear Task Force and Oversight Team:

Since our meetings this summer, the Project Team has continued to make progress on the Salem River Crossing project. Here are several updates with respect to progress and the schedule for publishing the Draft EIS.

Alternative 2B
As you know, the Project Team identified this new alternative this summer and then reviewed it with the Task Force and Oversight Team at meetings in July and September. Alternative 2B consists of a new bridge between the Marion Street bridge and the Union Street future pedestrian/bicycle bridge. A description and drawings are posted on the website at www.salemrivercrossing.org <http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/> .

Adding this alternative to the EIS strengthens the study by providing an alternative unlike the others and providing context that will help us better understand the costs and benefits of the other alternatives. 

Transit/TSM/TDM
At the May Task Force meeting, we identified a subcommittee of Task Force members to work with the project team to further develop the transit/TSM/TDM options to be incorporated into each of the alternatives in the EIS. At the first meeting of that group in July, there was disagreement about several key issues, including which options should be studied in the EIS and why. As a result, the Project Team called a "time out" while the approach was clarified. This has now been completed and has been communicated to the transit/TSM/TDM subcommittee. We will send you more information on this approach once the subcommittee has finished their review.

Schedule for Draft EIS
The time needed to resolve these two issues was not anticipated in the project schedule. The net result is a delay of about 4 months. While most recently we forecast that the Draft EIS would be published in the spring of 2009, we now expect it to be the end of the summer. While there is clearly time pressure on this project - for example, efforts to secure funding as part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal transportation bill - going fast at the expense of quality is risky. EIS's rarely get challenged on technical grounds but are often challenged on procedural grounds.

We will work to make up any time we can in the schedule and to avoid further delays. Part of the time to prepare a Draft EIS is for technical analysis and writing. But a large part consists of reviews by the many agency stakeholders in the project (including the Task Force and Oversight Team). Assuming no unforeseen technical issues, the largest "unknown" in the EIS schedule is the review and approval by FHWA. The project team coordinates regularly with the local FHWA staff to understand and address issues the agency may have. Unfortunately, however, the FHWA review is done partly outside the local office and our ability to coordinate further is limited. 

Please be assured that the consultant staff and agency staff are working to prepare a Draft EIS as quickly and cost-effectively as possible while assuring it is procedurally air-tight. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Please let us know if you have questions or would like to discuss further.
 
Tim

_____________________
Tim Burkhardt, AICP
(503) 872-4495

CH2M HILL
2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97201
Front Desk (503) 235-5000
Fax (503) 736-2000
tim.burkhardt@ch2m.com
www.ch2m.com <http://www.ch2m.com/> 

NOW on PBS - Driven to Despair

Week of 10.10.08

Reinventing American Transportation

By Maria Zimmerman

Maria Zimmerman is a policy director for Transportation For America, a coalition which aims to create a world-class transportation system in the U.S.

It is a challenging time for most Americans. The stock market is down, way down. Energy costs are up, housing values are down. General anxiety levels are high.

Hanging over it all is a sense that we have come to the end of the road with our over-dependence on oil, which is threatening our national security and the family pocketbook. Somehow we must turn the page to a new era as we revive our economy and improve the quality of life for American households.

This realization is particularly acute in our suburbs. For decades part of their allure for homeowners and businesses was the combined attraction of lower land costs and lower energy costs. That equation is being tested, and increasingly America's suburbs are looking for ways to provide more transit options, develop urban mixed-use centers, and build sidewalks and trails. The reinvention of America's suburbs may be one of the most stunning evolutions of the 21st Century.

"The reinvention of America's suburbs may be one of the most stunning evolutions of the 21st Century."

As a critical first step, we need to make a commitment to building an infrastructure for the future on a scale similar to the one we made to the Interstate Highway system 50 years ago. But this time, we need to focus on completing our transportation system with inter-city trains, world-class public transportation and streets that are safe for walking and biking, as we restore our existing roads and bridges to good repair.

These investments will help stabilize our economy in the short-term as they lay the groundwork for the future, while helping millions of Americans in our daily lives, reducing our national dependence on oil and making for a cleaner, greener and less energy-intensive future.

Today, transportation is the second highest household expense after housing. America has invested in a stunning national highway system, but lags far behind other nations in building transit and high speed rail corridors that could complete our national transportation system.

For some families, long commutes and a lack of affordable or convenient transit mean that they are actually spending more on transportation than housing, particularly in exurban areas where people have relied upon the "drive until you qualify" approach to homeownership. And yet for those who do have transit available, they are saving almost $9,500 per year. Public transportation already saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year.

Providing the transit, walking and biking infrastructure so that more people in our growing nation can live in closer proximity to daily needs and use their cars less could save billions more gallons of oil. It can also restore value to many of our urban neighborhoods: In most regions, homes near jobs and/or transit stations are holding their value, while those with the longest commutes are seeing steep declines and little buyer interest.

"In most regions, homes near jobs and/or transit stations are holding their value, while those with the longest commutes are seeing steep declines and little buyer interest."

America has a long history of visionary transportation investment that has left a sizable imprint on our landscape and world standing. Our canals, railroads, bridges, and highways have shaped settlement patterns and served as the backbone of our economy. While these investments shaped the past, it is time now to ask what kind of investments America needs today when gasoline prices are high, oil dependence is a national threat, climate change is threatening the globe, and families are looking for more affordable and reliable options.

The next president and Congress should endorse a bold program to build modern, world-class train and bus systems in our cities and towns, high-speed rail that connects urban and rural areas, complete streets safe for biking and walking, and to get our highways, bridges and existing transit in tip-top shape.

We can do this by following this five-point plan:

1. BUILD TO COMPETE. We must catch and pass competitors in China and Europe, by modernizing and expanding our rail and transit networks to connect the metro regions that are the engines of the modern economy and improve freight connections.

2. INVEST FOR A CLEAN, GREEN RECOVERY. Our nation's clean energy future will require cleaner vehicles and new fuels, but it also must include support for the cleanest forms of transportation - modern public transit, walking and biking - and for energy-efficient, sustainable development.

3. FIX IT FIRST. Before building new roads that will themselves have to be maintained, we should restore our crumbling highways, bridges and transit systems and protect the investments we have made in existing communities.

4. DO NO HARM. Although there are many transportation projects in the "pipeline," we must reevaluate them to eliminate wasteful spending on projects with little economic return, especially any that could deepen, rather than relieve, Americans' dependence on oil and gasoline.

5. SAVE AMERICANS MONEY. We must provide more travel options that will help people to avoid high gas costs and traffic congestion, so that Americans can spend their money and time in economically productive ways. We also can save taxpayer dollars by asking the private developers who reap real estate rewards from new rail stations and transit lines to contribute toward that service.

"Public ridership on transit is at a fifty-year high."

Already, Americans are voting with their feet. Public ridership on transit is at a fifty-year high, and local ballot measures to invest in new transit service are passing overwhelmingly in communities large and small across the country. A growing list of states is trying to fund faster train service between cities as an alternative to air travel. Yet federal support for these kinds of initiatives is lacking, and stuck in 20th century funding silos and bureaucracy.

Only half of Americans have access to any public transportation and most live in places where driving is a must. Even if options do exist, six in 10 public transportation systems are overburdened as people flock to them to avoid high gas prices. Meanwhile, our metro areas are absorbing millions of new residents as our population grows toward 400 million, and they must be prepared to accommodate them while remaining livable.

This time, we can't afford to invest precious transportation dollars as though we are expecting a return to cheap gasoline. We need to invest in a way that reduces our vulnerability to oil shocks and price increases while making our economy stronger, our households wealthier and our climate safer.

Transportation for America <http://t4america.org/>

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/440/index.html

Week of 10.10.08

Driven to Despair

NOW on PBS

With gas prices spiking and home values crumbling, the American dream of commuting to work from the fringes of suburbia has become an American nightmare. Many are facing a hard choice: Paying for gas or paying the mortgage. How did it come to this? It's not just about America's financial crisis; it's also about big problems with our national infrastructure. Overstressed highways and too few public transportation options are wreaking havoc on people's lives and hitting the brakes on our already-stretched economy.

This week, NOW on PBS takes a close-up look at our inadequate transportation network and visits some people paying a high price—in both dollars and quality of life—just to get to work. Do we have the means to modernize both our infrastructure and our lifestyles?

A great idea for Salem

An important idea for Salem

The Henry George Foundation publishes an "Incentive Taxation (IT)" newsletter that talks about an important historical idea for a better tax system:  one that shifts taxes off productive activity and onto land ownership.  This is both fair and efficient -- fair because most of the value of land is created by people other than the owner, efficient because land ownership is the one source of wealth that is not diminished by a tax.

As the new reality brings the return of hard times to America, cities that are willing to innovate and to rethink the basics are the ones that are going to thrive.  Any town that's willing to move taxation off of improvements (buildings) and onto land ownership will see a revival of its urban core.  Look at the many gaps in the urban fabric in Salem -- this is caused by the number of unused and underused lots, which are owned by speculators.  Land value taxation (LVT), the system discussed in the piece below, is the solution.  While the article below is about Philadelphia, the points apply to every city in the US.

[Incentive Taxation or IT] is based in Philadelphia, PA, and the hammer is starting to come down; Philly is not alone, however. A search of news stories from across the country tells the tale: from annually distressed Pittsburgh, PA (since they lost LVT) to usually robust Columbus, OH. The implosion on Wall Street is forcing New York City to consider higher property taxes; summer flooding in Cedar Rapids, IA, wrecked much of the tax base causing tax hikes, and Las Vegas/Clark County is seeing foreclosures and tumbling revenues, as are California and Georgia. 

The Philadelphia Story 

Mayor Michael Nutter hinted at trouble recently, when he indicated that a deficit of $450 million over five years is looming. Some believe $90 Million a year (around 2.25% of the total budget) is not a big deal, but it is[1] . Cities have to face the fact that in the near to mid-term businesses will contract, and the returns on invested pension funds will be much lower than forecast. 

For decades, Philadelphians have lived with taxes that led to job loss and a declining population. The "new" Center City is great, but it is simply filling a vacuum of empty offices that small to medium firms abandoned for the 'burbs because they didn't have the connections and the clout to get great deals and abatements. 

Perhaps the expense side of Philadelphia should be trimmed, as the local editorials are saying. Small savings add up quickly in a city budget that pays not just for essential services but camps, concerts, and flowers in the park. 

If we as a community think we ought to have these things, we must find a source of revenue that is stable – one depending less on a tax vulnerable to the shocks of global financial markets and totters on a volatile small base, which defines the most taxes on business. 

Isn't it time to increase tax revenue by switching from taxes on mobile businesses and jobs? If so, then what do we tax? Wages? No way! Sales? A regressive tax! 

Property tax? Better, but the property tax is two taxes, both with very different characteristics and behaviors. The first, a tax on buildings, hurts the best that our community has to offer: those that want to build and maintain their properties. The second, a tax on land value, would put downward pressure on sites making them more affordable. 

Any economist will tell you that land values are not created by someone's hard work, but rather one's community neighbors. A high land value tax means that community-created land values come back to us as revenue. A low tax on land produces lots that sit vacant for years, inviting land speculation, and parking lots where buildings should be. A tax on land value has provided a stable revenue source in Arden, DE[2] . 

So, let the tax reductions continue, as the reformers of the recent past (led by Michael Nutter) envisioned. $90 million annually can be raised elsewhere, not least by initiating a higher tax on land values. This would guarantee that: small business would not be socked; high value locations would fill in with shops, and homeowners see a lower tax since their land is further out. Tax reduction "signals" creating jobs, and commerce would strengthen without hurting revenue flows so essential to Philadelphia. 

________________ 

[1] http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/29695689.html , http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/28500299.html 

[2] http://arden.delaware.gov/index.htm 

More on Urban Chickens

WorldWatch notes that chickenmania is spreading.  Now that our economy is headed back into a Great Depression, time to learn from the wisdom of people who lived through it.

A few chickens on a city lot keeps down pests -- they eat slugs! -- provides good fertilizer, and provides nutritious, inexpensive food.  What's not to like?