A most telling graphic

Planning to Fail While Not Failing to Plan

The guiding image of Salem's transportation planning. Image by sameold2008 via Flickr

There's a saying popular in the self-help press that "Failure to plan is planning to fail." Of course, sometimes planning is used to chart a course towards failure anyway --- as with Salem's fetishistic attachment to the bizarre notion of a third auto bridge across the Willamette, a fantastically expensive and wasteful idea that completely ignores the reality of our energy future and the need to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Someone in Seattle puts it best, speaking of their latest carhead boondoggle, a huge tunnel right next to the soupy soils abutting Puget Sound. The point is that the technocratic planning bureaucracy is fundamentally unable to respond to an existential challenge like the climate crisis because the technocrats working in the trenches use the analysis tools designed for business as usual to estimate the effects of all the proposals. And none of those tools are programmed to offer a "survival of civilization despite ourselves" pathway.

Seattle's viaduct replacement debate has generated an untold volume of analysis, opinion, and argument. It's also generated at least one PhD dissertation.

Kevin Ramsey, a geography student at the University of Washington, takes a look at the way that concerns about climate change have been deployed in the debate over the replacement. (Abstract; summary; full text.) I'll confess that I haven't made my way through the entire 250 pages, but it strikes me as providing some fascinating analysis of the politics:

. . . agency planners incorporated concerns about climate change through an extension of their own established logics of transportation planning rather than through a fundamental reconsideration of Seattle’s automobile-centric transportation system.

More surprisingly, I found that stakeholders themselves helped make this happen. They did so by supporting (and even advocating) the use of travel demand models to predict the quantity of future greenhouse gas emissions from alternative viaduct replacement scenarios. Isolating the consideration of climate change to this single evaluation measure essentially enabled the issue to be treated as an afterthought in the planning process, rather than a motivator for reformulating the planning process altogether. It also ensured that the calculation of future greenhouse gas emissions was subject to the same kinds of assumptions regarding demand for automobile travel that activists had already contested for years. These assumptions were reflected in the agencies’ findings: all proposed viaduct replacement scenarios (including three that do not include a highway) were predicted to increase greenhouse gas emissions in the Seattle region to 14-15% above current levels by the year 2015.

The upshot, according to Ramsey, is that highway planners were able to essentially co-opt concerns about climate emissions into a business-as-usual approach to road building. The antidote, he says, is for advocates to level more fundamental challenges to the large systems that provide for automobile-dominated infrastructure.

Save the dates: Salem Progressive Film Series - Winter/Spring 2010

Thursday, January 14, 2010 --
Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives-The Environmental Footprint of War

In all its stages, from the production of weapons through combat to cleanup and restoration, war is comprised of elements that pollute land, air, and water, destroy biodiversity and entire ecosystems, and drain our limited natural resources. This outstanding, timely, new film explores the crucial need for public scrutiny of the ecological impact of war and reminds us of the importance of accountability and sustainability.

Thursday, February 11, 2010 -- A Sea of Change

This documentary broadens the discussion about the dramatic changes we are seeing in the chemistry of the oceans, and conveys the urgent threat those changes pose to our survival, while surveying the steps we can take to reduce the severity of climate change. It offers positive examples of new technologies and effective changes in human behavior that we all must choose before the oceans are lost.

Thursday, March 11, 2010 -- Manufactured Landscapes

From its stunning eight-minute opening shot to the remarkable documentation of China's Three Gorges Dam, Manufactured Landscapes is an impressive experience. That's partly due to the size and space of the landscapes, but mostly because of the beauty of the images--their composition and color. The goal of the photographer is to portray humanity's relationship to nature as we pursue progress. His images are striking and picturesque, leaving viewers on their own to comprehend the negative global ramifications. [Truly a stunning film; can't wait to see it on a full-size screen.]

Thursday, April 8, 2010 - Secrecy

With homeland security and the war on terror becoming increasingly important issues, the U.S. government has grown more and more secretive, allegedly to protect the country and save lives. But is this culture of secrets at odds with democracy? This documentary examines both the pros and cons of government concealment by focusing on classified secrets and the arguments the government makes in the name of national security.

Thursday, May 13, 2010 - Good Food

For decades small family farmers have been disappearing, but there is new life in the fields, orchards and pastures of the Pacific Northwest and in the business community to help sustain them. In Good Food we see the beautiful landscapes of the Pacific Northwest and meet some of the leaders in bringing good food to tables across the region. The film makes the important personal connection between the source and your table.

Yes, please! Utility-provided solar hot water --- mmmm, mmmm, good!

Evacuated tube solar hot water panel much like those providing much of the hot water used every year at LOVESalem HQ. Image by guate84105 via Flickr

Just got a survey from NW Natural (the gas company) -- it was all about whether NW Natural would find a receptive market for an offer to put a utility-installed, -owned, and -maintained solar hot water heater on the roof here at LOVESalem HQ in return for a monthly hot water service fee (presumably it would have a natural gas backup).

That's a GREAT idea. As the survey pointed out, Salem gets about the national average in solar energy flux, so we're not nearly as deficient as you might think during a few months in the winter. I'd leap on this in a minute -- if LOVESalem HQ didn't already have a nifty solar hot water heat system provided by Salem's own Ron Summers of Summers Solar. But had NW Natural's offering been available, there's no doubt we'd have gone that way.

This is something we need to see a lot more of from every institution -- utilities especially, but also city and county governments: figuring out ways to get homeowners and renters over the financing barrier that makes renewable energy and efficiency improvements such a high hurdle. The hot water system we installed cost $8100, but the final cost after the federal tax credit, Oregon tax credit, and the Energy Trust of Oregon rebate was only $3700. We were lucky in that we had the cash from a prior home sale available so we could swing the $8100. But not a lot of people have that kind of cash sitting around just after buying a house -- and even those who could swing the $3700 final cost would have cash-flow problems with the up-front $8100.

By setting up a revolving loan fund for renewables and efficiency improvements, Salem could tie payment for the systems to the property tax bill and collection system and wind up helping the whole community, combat economic insecurity, raise property values, provide good local jobs, and reduce the amount of money that leaves the city every month for utilities. What are we waiting for?

The discussions we need to be having before we need them

Image by Flatbush Gardener via Flickr

Have you prepared your end of life care instructions?

Because, if not, you risk winding up getting what someone else thinks is the right thing for you. Unless you make your wishes known, you could be turned into a hockey puck for monstrous, morally bankrupt and vicious people to try to use to score political points.

Ending on a good note!

May it echo from a thousand overpasses, and then in coffeehouses, and then in legislatures all across the land. Image by Public Citizen via Flickr

Whoa, a local political body has actually noticed one of the key ingredients needed for a renewal of political and social well-being: stop honoring the legal fiction that property can acquire constitutional rights. More like this, please!

This Resolution was passed by the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Oregon on Dec. 6th, 2009.

This is not an official copy but should be pretty close
2009-043: Opposing Corporate Personhood
RESOLUTION 2009-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

WHEREAS, (as stated in the preamble to our Oregon State Democratic Platform) “...as Oregon Democrats, we assert that the citizens of our state and our country ARE the government, we hold up the Bill of Rights and derived civil liberties as the enduring standard of liberty, and we firmly oppose abrogation of those rights and liberties in the name of governmental convenience or security....” [emphasis added.] and

WHEREAS, The basis for establishing rights as “persons” for corporations under the U.S. Constitution has been and currently is based upon a questionable interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, and

WHEREAS, Our country and the world have suffered catastrophic economic devastation as a result of the ensuing imbalance of political and economic power, and

WHEREAS, Corporations, relying on the Supreme Court's Buckley vs Valeo decision, now wield undue political influence since they are allowed to use money to exercise their putative first amendment rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

1. We strongly urge our state legislators to submit and vote for a State constitutional amendment that declares that in the State of Oregon corporations shall not be recognized as persons nor accrue the rights of persons under State laws.

2. We strongly urge our Representatives to the U.S. Congress as well as our Senators to the U.S. Congress to submit an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which declares that “the rights and privileges granted by this document shall accrue to natural persons only.”

3. We strongly urge our State Legislators to begin the U.S. Constitutional amendment process in our state and urge other states to do likewise to achieve a two thirds majority of states.

Submitted by Richard Harisay, Delegate to the State Central Committee and Delegate to the State PRC.
Date approved : Sunday, December 6th, 2009
Resolution sponsor(s)
Richard Harisay, SCC Delegate
Marion County Democratic Central Committee

Good writeup on Measures 66 and 67

From Onward Oregon:
5 Top Myths About Measures 66 and 67

With about a month to go before the special election on Measures 66 and 67, the misconceptions are flying! Are you confused?

Well, here at Onward Oregon we wanted to shed a little light on the reality of these revenue measures. So to clear up some common misconceptions about Measures 66 and 67, here are our 5 top myths about Measures 66 and 67.

Myth #1: Additional corporate taxes will cost Oregon jobs

Reality: Under the current corporate tax system, two thirds of Oregon businesses pay only $10 per year in taxes, a level that hasn’t changed since well before World War II. Under the new system, 88 percent of Oregon businesses still will pay only $150 per year in taxes. Even those businesses that will have to pay tax on gross sales will not be hard hit – a business generating $1 million in sales will write the Oregon Department of Revenue a check for only $500. No business will cut jobs because its tax bill goes up by $140 or even $500. In fact, we need Measures 66 and 67 to save jobs in Oregon – teachers, state troopers, and home health care workers all risk losing their jobs if these measures fail.

Myth #2: Oregon won’t be able to attract new businesses because of the new taxes.

Reality: Even with the new tax provisions, Oregon corporate taxes will remain among the lowest in the country. Oregon will still be a very attractive place to do business – even with the new tax measures, Oregon will rank 48th in the nation in corporate taxation, and will still have the lowest taxes on the West Coast. Washington’s Business and Occupation tax, for example, is almost 5 times higher than Oregon’s new corporate minimum tax. And, Oregon’s new corporate taxes are structured specifically to protect small business, so we’ll keep the dynamic businesses we have and maintain an environment that will encourage new businesses to grow here.

Myth #3: The new measures will increase taxes on most Oregonians, and we just can’t afford it.

Reality: Hardly any Oregonians will be affected by personal income tax increases. The changes in personal income taxes only affect individuals making more than $125,000 and households making more than $250,000 per year. That means that almost 98 percent of Oregonians will see no change in their personal income taxes. Even those folks who do see an increase won’t be bearing much of a burden – the increase applies only to income above $125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families. If your family has taxable income of $260,000, your taxes will only go up by $180 for 2011. And more good news, that amount will be cut in half in 2012.

Myth #4: If Measures 66 and 67 fail, it’s really no big deal.

Reality: If Measures 66 and 67 don’t pass, a lot of Oregonians will pay the price in lost state services. 94 percent of Oregon’s budget goes to vital services – education, healthcare, public safety, and human services. Most Oregonians will be hit hard if the changes the Legislature made are reversed — through cuts to schools, decreased police and fire protection, and reduced health care for the poor and elderly. 300,000 Oregonians will also be affected in another way. The measures include a tax break for people receiving unemployment benefits. If Measures 66 and 67 fail, these unemployed, struggling Oregonians will lose a critical tax break they need. Voters have a chance to decide who they think deserves a break — and who can pay a little bit more.

Myth #5: The Legislature just passed these tax measures because it couldn’t do the heavy lifting necessary to cut the State budget.

Reality: The Legislature made every reasonable cut to State program budgets BEFORE deciding to enact revenue measures. The 2009 Legislature faced a huge problem – the State budget had a deficit of $4 billion. The first thing the Legislature did was make cuts; in fact, they addressed half the deficit with cuts of nearly $2 billion! They also took advantage of another $1 billion in Federal stimulus money and tapped $255 million in reserve funds. Which left a gap of around $800 million to be filled with tax increases. So when someone says we need to reduce spending before we raise taxes, you can tell them: We did. The Legislature cut spending by more than twice the amount added in these tax measures.

Between now and January 26, we’ll be bringing you more information on these important measures. Vote Yes for Measures 66 and 67! And tell your friends and family to vote yes, too.

Onward,

The Team at Onward Oregon

Good news on Climate for a Change

We can stop bothering people about everything and about their carbon footprints. It's too late for that now. And besides, the more we convince people that this is a problem from hell, the more they shut down. Therefore, we have to quit bothering people to change their lives -- we have to make the necessary changes upstream of everyday people, and stop bothering them.

This is why people concerned about the impending climate catastrophe need to realize that it's too late for the gradual, lifestyle-change approach that could have worked if started much sooner (and that I, among others, was wrong to support for too long).

We are in extremis, like a ship heading towards a collision -- this isn't the time to be telling the passengers to all run over to the starboard side and hope that we'll lean a little further to make the impact a little less severe -- this is a time for a radical course change.

That change is simple: Stop burning coal and fooling with "new oil" (oil from coal, oil from tar sands, oil from shale), and limit all deforestation rates to stay under reforestation rates. That's it -- if we can do that, fast, then we have done essentially the best we can do.

Best of all, this gives us the basis for a great deal:

"Hello world, it's us, the people who have been nagging you senseless with increasingly shrill and worried tones about an ever-increasing list of things you're supposed to make minute and calculated judgments about. Well, we're here to say that we've seen the error of our ways and we now realize that we were wrong to propose upending absolutely everything. We'd like to make a deal -- if we can all work together to get the world converted off coal and unconventional oils, we'll stop bothering you about everything else. Fly to your heart's content. Drive anywhere you can afford the gas for. Heat your house to 80F in winter if you like, and cool it to 60F in summer. We won't say a word, so long as you're not using coal or alt-oil to do it. Because we realize that, in the relevant time frame, all the world's oil and natural gas will be used up, by us or someone else. The only hope we have of preventing climate catastrophe is to get off the coal and alt-oils, and prepare society for the transition that has to happen when natural gas and oil run out. But that's a fine problem to have -- as Bill Clinton would say, "In Arkansas, we'd call that a high-class problem," because it's a much nicer problem than the one we're facing now, where we enviros are having to shout and scream about everything that is emitting carbon because we've failed to focus on the real issues: the coal, the alt-oils, and the CO2 trapped in soil. But we're over that now: help us put coal away, stop the oil sands and tar-sands madness, and keep deforestation rates down to less than reforestation rates, and we'll stop bothering you about everything else."

Best bike

Bamboosero Bikes:

Substitute bicycles for fish and you've got the idea behind Bamboosero.

Craig Calfee, a frame designer who has built bikes for Greg Lemond and other professional racers, started Bamboosero with the idea that teaching a man (or woman) to build bikes is a long-term solution that can have a lasting impact.

Using bamboo makes this possible. It grows in most of the developing world and makes it far easier to supply a bike builder with raw materials. And it makes a common resource more valuable. Much better than mining or cutting down the forest. Oh. . . and it rides like a dream!

The Bamboosero idea is simple: connect bike builders in developing countries with bike buyers like you. Buying a Bamboosero Bike doesn't just get you a great bike, it:

• helps working families support themselves
• injects badly needed foreign currency into struggling economies
• creates the production capacity for an incredibly efficient local transport - bicycles!

You can choose from road, city or mountain bike models. You get a great bike. And Bamboosero gets to help entrepreneurs build businesses that will have an enormous economic impact for years to come.

Why Bikes?

Bikes are reliable and efficient. They can bring a better life within reach: access to safer drinking water, improved medical care, and more nutritious food.

Bikes can make jobs, markets, and schools more accessible.

And since bikes are easier to maintain than cars or buses, particularly in areas where parts and mechanical skills are scarce, the improvements they create can be counted on day after day, season after season.

While donations of food or medicine can help in extreme situations, bicycles enable villages to build their own economies and connect with resources beyond their own area. Donations to help get Bamboosero programs started will go further than most charity efforts because the model is truly sustainable.

Is it still LEED certified if it falls apart?

Portland's Daily Journal of Commerce:

10-year-old Marion County building needs extensive repairs

The Salem Courthouse Square building, built in 2000, needs several structural repairs. (Photo courtesy Marion County)

The Courthouse Square building in Salem, home to Marion County government offices and Salem-Keizer Transit, was only two years old when occupants started to notice the building settling, in 2002. Grouting cracked and tiles came loose, said Dave Henderson, the county’s business services director.

Things got worse from there, said Henderson, who works in the building. “There are areas you can see the partition walls pulling away from the exterior walls,” he said. “The drop-in ceiling grid is visibly misaligned in some places.

“You have some places where floor tiles in the restrooms have popped and have had to be replaced.”

Marion County is now looking for an architectural and engineering team to repair the building. Structural problems with the building have resulted in cracks, ceiling deformation, uneven floors, and door and window misalignments, according to the county’s request for proposals.

Courthouse Square was built by Pence Kelly Construction Inc., which has since joined with LCG Co. to form LCG Pence Construction. Arbuckle Costic Architects was the designer and Century West Engineering was the structural engineer.

In 2008, David Evans and Associates prepared a structural evaluation of Courthouse Square for the county. The building’s floor slabs experienced excessive deflection, or displacement under a load, according to the DEA report issued in February 2008 and updated in April 2009.

The design of post-tensioned slabs on the top three floors of the five-story building appeared to not meet industry standards, according to the report: “Per DEA’s independent structural calculations, it appears that portions of the original structural floor slab design were inadequate with regard to code requirements for deflection criteria and the minimum required mild reinforcement for serviceability and/or ultimate strength.

“In addition, the design did not meet industry standards …”

The report recommends that portions of the building be strengthened as soon as possible; however, the building is safe to occupy while a strengthening plan is developed and implemented, according to the report.

More than 350 people work there, for Marion County and Salem-Keizer Transit combined, and the building gets hundreds of visitors each day, according to the county’s request for proposals. The building also holds the county’s core computing data center.

Henderson said he hopes work can be done in phases so county and transit employees can keep working during construction. Marion County uses roughly 80 percent of the building; Salem-Keizer Transit uses portions of the first and fifth floors.

County officials are monitoring the building, which is still settling, Henderson said. “The building has not yet stabilized.

“The most important thing we’ve done is confirm with three different engineering firms that the office is safe,” he said. “We’ve shared that information with people (who work there).”

The request for proposals calls for a design team to begin work in February. County officials don’t know how they’ll pay for the project yet, Henderson said, and won’t know the cost of the project until the design team takes a closer look at the building.

A contractor could start work on the repairs within a year, he said. . . .