News from the Continuum

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

DevNW CEO Emily Reiman and Federal Programs Mgr Shelly Ehenger at Council on 12/14

At its last meeting in 2020, Council was again asked to approve HOME funding for the DevNW project (as Amendment #2 to the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan).  See "'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project"  (20 June 2020).  It did so by a vote of six (Andersen, Ausec, Bennett, Hoy, Lewis, Nordyke) to one (Nanke -- no reason given), with zero remarks from Mayor Bennett.

Bennett's silence speaks volumes about his character considering that, just last month, he had been the sole "no" vote on the motion to approve the project site plan and design review and had publicly chastised staff (and apparently Council) for "looking at investing City money in this [housing project, which] makes me increasingly uncomfortable that we haven't looked at this closely enough.  I hope in the future we'll look very closely at these kinds of issues."  See "'I do not understand the Mayor'"  (1 December 2020).

The next big NIMBY fit is likely to be over Sequoia Crossings, a multifamily project that will turn vacant Salem Housing Authority property in the Highland neighborhood at 3120 Broadway NE into ~77 units of a mix of studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments for highly vulnerable families.  Long "in the works", the project finally appears to be gaining momentum.  On December 7, City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, agreed to exempt the project from the competitive bidding process for contracting (i.e., approved using a "Construction Manager/General Contractor" method instead).  See here for details.  A pre-landuse application review conference with the planning department is expected in January, which should give the neighbors something to sink their teeth into.  There will probably be a pre-NIMBYtive traffic study, although there is no parking requirement because the project is within a quarter mile of the Cherriots Core Network.  This does not mean the plan is to have zero off-street parking, just that it won't be 1.5 spaces/unit (the current thinking is ~50 stalls will suffice).  This is a much-needed project that will build on lessons learned from Redwood Crossings.  If all goes according to plan, construction will be completed summer 2023.    

As promised in November and subsequently directed by Council (see "City to Buy Land Under ARCHES"), City Manager Steve Powers reports that the City met with United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley "to develop a plan for the launch of a local Crisis Response Unit."  There were unanswered questions, he says, so they met with staff from Eugene's CAHOOTS program: 

In this second meeting, three key next steps were determined to be necessary to clarify an accurate budget: conduct a Request for Information to determine possible operational homes for the program, conduct a deep systems analysis including dispatch capacity, given trends and needs seen in cities developing similar models, hold a meeting with core partners to walk through workflows and test [them] against common situations. [Emphasis added.] 

This is the second time that the City's tried meeting "with core partners to walk through workflows and test [them] against common situations", the first time being through the Good Neighbor Partnership.  Let's hope for better success this time around, whatever the ultimate outcome.  The budget coming out of the GNP inquiry was firmly in the $500K/yr ballpark for two shifts consisting of two teams of two.  Anchorage is getting ready to use alcohol tax monies to implement a mobile crisis unit that will cost $1.5M initially.  "For the first half of the year, it will operate 12 hours per day, seven days a week. A team will consist of a paramedic and a behavioral health clinician as well as a unit commander."   Wieber, A. "Anchorage funds a new mental health first responder team."  (24 November 2020, Anchorage Daily News.)  (Before heading to Alaska, Wieber covered the Oregon Legislature for the Salem Reporter.)  Our considered guesstimate is that, after all the analysis is done and the numbers are crunched, CRU will not ultimately "pencil out" without a new funding source, such as an alcohol tax,  notwithstanding Council Nordyke's fervent beliefs to the contrary.

The City's two duration warming shelters have been opened several weeks now.  Shelter on State, or SOS, opened November 22, and Portland Road opened ~December 1.  Both programs found they were initially under-subscribed and have had to adjust the initial plan to enroll select individuals (those assessed to be highly vulnerable if left outside and needing supports) through MWVCAA's Coordinated Entry program.  As of December 22, Portland Road is using a first-come-first enrolled plan (Portland Road).  SOS moved to first-come-first-served a couple of weeks ago.  

Both programs are attempting to adhere to a C19-preventative cohort model, whereby guests are guaranteed a space for 30 days if they agree to use it, and in fact do so.  Not surprisingly, few guests have had interest in, or perhaps the capacity to keep to, the necessary 30-day commitment.  Many prefer to stay put, given the duration shelter program provides shelter every night, but only at night, and to spend only the coldest nights in a warming shelter or even a hotel.  (Seventy or so hotel rooms have been on offer first-come-first-served when the mercury drops, courtesy the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency and CARES Act funding.)

The cohort model makes perfect sense from a health standpoint (fewer people swapping the same air).  But expecting people to leave a tent camp every night for weeks or months doesn't seem reasonable considering that it means their stuff might be moved or even missing one morning when they come back for the day, or whatever.  And with C19 shutting almost everything down, there aren't a lot of other daytime options.  While the duration shelters do provide some personal storage space, that doesn't address the problem of where shelter guests are supposed to go during the day.  There was a plan to open Center 50+ during the day for the Portland Road guests, but the plan collapsed under November's surging positivity rate.  

How the response to this week's flooding will affect duration shelter program implementation, if at all, remains to be seen.  See Harrell, S. "Homeless campers flooded out of Cascades Gateway after heavy rain."  (21 December 2020, Salem Reporter.);  Urness, Z.  "'People are suffering:' Floodwaters inundate homeless camp of 300 at Cascades Gateway Park."  (21 December 2020, Statesman Journal.);  Barreda, V.  "Crews pick up debris, help replace belongings for campers flooded out of Cascades Gateway Park."  (23 December 2020, Statesman Journal.)  The City is under pressure from Cory Poole, owner of Paradise Island Park (adjacent to Cascades Gateway Park), whose already loud voice has been amplified by the Statesman, to reimpose the ban on camping in the Cascades Gateway and Wallace Marine parks.  City Council is expected to discuss a yet-to-be-developed plan for how to do that at their next meeting, January 11, 2021.  Providers have told the City that the plan must provide, if not shelter, at least a comparable alternative to the park camping.  Given there are an estimated 600 campers in the two parks, the duration shelter program could accommodate ~10% of them, but only through the end of March.  It could be that the City's should focus more on managing expectations that trying to appear to be responsive to impossible demands.    

City to Extend Park Camping to June 2021

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston 

 

City Manager Steve Powers plans to ask Council at the meeting on December 14 to approve extending the City's C19 Emergency Declaration six months to June 1, 2021.  The original Resolution 2020-18 adopted last March prohibited public gatherings on public property and suspended the camping ban in Wallace Marine and Cascades Gateway parks.  See "Sit-Lie Meets COVID-19."  The extension was inevitable, given the surging number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Marion and Polk counties, and the dearth of shelter spaces.  Powers recently gave this report on park conditions:

 

We continue to work on removing garbage from Wallace Marine Park. A total of 120 cubic yards over two days, equivalent to 10 City dump trucks, of garbage has been removed.City staff and Service Master have carefully and respectfully removed garbage and waste that would be a health and water quality issue.  In Cascades Gateway Park we made a big dent! We cleared all the major garbage from the forested areas west of Mill Creek –about 36 cubic yards worth of garbage (three heavy dump truck loads). We did not encounter the massive volume of garbage, debris, and bicycle parts as we have been at Wallace Marine Park. While it was more spread out, some of the campers have been storing the garbage in bags in dump piles, which helped us considerably. Still was a long day’s work. We need to assess the east side of Mill Creek and there is still garbage to be removed from the open area camping now occurring west of the dog park.

 

November 2019 Photo Courtesy Statesman Journal

Heavy rains mid-November 2020 drove campers in low-lying areas out of the parks and into downtown, again.  Tents are most conspicuous outside what's commonly known as the ARCHES building on Commercial Street NE, Marion Square Park, and the Commercial Street side of Rite-Aid.  The City Manager has noticed, and says, "[p]olice and outreach workers will encourage people to relocate", despite the shortage of humane options.  Powers says he believes "This is a dynamic situation that is untenable situation for all." [Sic.  An editing error (?) that makes one wonder which thought came first: "dynamic" or "untenable"?]  The June 1 date for letting the C19 emergency declaration expire coincides with the expected opening of Union Gospel Mission's new men's shelter.

 

12/7/20 update:  City reportedly plans to clear the camps in Marion Square Park and around the ARCHES building on Tuesday 12/8/20. 

12/14/20 update: Council voted 5 (Andersen, Ausec, Bennett, Hoy, Nordyke) to 2 (Nanke, Lewis) to extend the C19 emergency declaration.  See staff report and Whitworth, W.  "Homeless can continue camping in 2 Salem city parks, council decides."  (14 December 2020, Statesman Journal.) The new resolution, Resolution 2020-506, no longer prohibits public gatherings (defined as 2 or more) on public property, but it does require masks and social distancing, and provides that "publicly owned sidewalks, including landscape strips, are limited to active pedestrian use", enforceable by trespass under SRC 95.550.  So, effectively, a ban on sitting, lying and sleeping on sidewalks. 

5/17/21 update: the same language was included in Resolution 2021-21, passed 24 May 2021.  In a 17 May work session, the primary purpose of which was to hear a presentation by the staff of the MWV Homeless Reliance.  On pointed questioning by Mayor Bennett, City Attorney Dan Atchison denied it amounted to a ban on sitting, lying and sleeping on sidewalks.

"I do not understand the Mayor."

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Last week, Mayor Bennett voted against a plan to transform an empty church property in the Grant neighborhood to affordable*/low-income housing.  He was the only member of City Council to vote against the plan, which both staff and the Planning Commission had approved, and which had the support of many in the neighborhood, but not the Grant neighborhood association board.  He did so "lamenting the loss of historic homes in Salem’s neighborhoods to development."  Harrell, S. "More affordable housing is on the way after Salem City Council approves church property conversion." (24 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)  

Bennett's opposition left some Salem residents baffled.  "I do not understand the Mayor", went the refrain. 

Evergreen Presbyterian Church and Manse

The confusion is understandable, if you don't know Bennett.  Yes, 39% of Salem area households are renters, and Salem has a desperate need for quality affordable/low-income housing of the sort that the project in question offers.  But, Chuck Bennett is a politician.  As mayor, he always votes last, so he knows whether his vote is needed, and he never misses an opportunity to have his cake and eat it, which is to say, please a constituent, or at least throw them a sop.  Pleasing constituents is Bennett's raison d'etre; it's what gives his life meaning.  True, some say Bennett is just a little thick, has been around too long, "doesn't get it", and/or is beginning to resemble his very thick predecessor, Anna Peterson.  Bennett himself suggested just last year that he's been around too long and doesn't get it.  But one need not choose between these views.  The point is that Chuck Bennett is not hard to understand, once you know how he thinks. 

Consider his closing remarks last Monday, which for ease of reference are set out in their entirety at the end of the post.  As noted by Salem Reporter, the remarks began and ended with a lament for the loss of historic homes to development.  But doesn't the project plan commit to retaining the exteriors of church building and manse (pastor's house)?  Does Bennett truly believe turning these interiors into apartments = loss of historic homes?  You'd be forgiven for thinking so, but as that view makes no sense, you have to assume he was seeking to please the Grant neighborhood association, which opposed the project, and he had to code his message so that it didn't sound like pandering.  And, let's face it, people rarely express the real reasons they oppose affordable/low-income development.  See, e.g., McArdle, M.  "Why Do People Oppose Development?"  (15 February 2012, The Atlantic.)

Salem MSA 2020 AMI & FMRs

 

Bennett knows that preserving historic homes is not among the City's Strategic Plan "priority areas", whereas Affordable Housing and Homelessness are.  So, to speak against the project, he had to obscure the fact that it would bring the City much needed affordable/low-income housing.  He did that by suggesting that the project somehow threatens existing housing that the City needs even more, namely the historic homes in Grant.  

 

First, he claimed that the historic single-family homes in Grant, where the current median list price for a home is $282,500, are "affordable", which they may be in the sense that their owners are spending no more than 30% of their gross household income on taxes, mortgage and utilities, even though the homes (and any home ownership) are out of reach to the lower-income households that are the true target of the City's Strategic Plan.  Next, he claimed that, "to come across D Street" -- i.e., approve the project -- is "to open [Grant] up to a real potential of losing" its historic homes.  Surely by now, we can all hear this affordable/low-income housing dog whistle, but just in case, see, e.g., Olorunipa, T and Itkowitz, C.  "Trump tries to win over ‘Suburban Housewives’ with repeal of anti-segregation housing rule"  (23 July 2020, Washington Post.)

 

Concerned not to appear opposed to the City's Strategic Plan priorities (even though he was to all intents and purposes ignoring them), Bennett claimed he was "just not convinced that this is the right project for that location."  In other words, it was the developer's fault for not designing the right project.  

I think this is a family area.  We have a huge number of families that are homeless -- I don't think we're taking care of them.  I don't think we're offering them the kind of housing they need.  And this had all the potential to do that.                

Here, Bennett makes the implicit claim that the project is not for families (because it consists of small, 0-1BR, units), and not suitable for homeless.  However, City policy is that a family may be a single person or a group of persons. Family, as defined by HUD, includes a family with a child or children, two or more elderly or disabled persons living together, one or more elderly or disabled persons living with one or more live-in aides, or a single person.  Salem Housing Authority's Public Housing Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy at 41.  And, the developer intends to target at-risk, low-income families, e.g., children ageing out of foster care, elderly or veterans, depending on funding source requirements.  So, contrary to Bennett's claims, the project does have "all the potential" to offer housing to homeless and at-risk families.  Are such minor deceptions not important because the project was approved?  Bennett apparently thinks so.     

Finally, to signal he understood and sympathized with the full horror of what would happen to Grant if Council approved the project, Bennett invoked the image of Council's 2007 decision to approve the Keubler Gateway Shopping Center - Costco rezone, and warned of how, as a member of the Planning Commission, he 

voted against the re-zoning of that PacTrust property because I thought it was the wrong use and I thought there might be a slippery slope there.  And [in December 2018] watched as you all [Andersen, Ausec, Hoy] and some of your predecessors [McCoid, Cook] tried to kill the development of that property, despite the fact it had appropriate zoning and then complained that previous councils had set it up. 

Never mind if you think it's a stretch to compare converting an empty church property to apartments with a building a big-box shopping center, or that Bennett voted in 2018 to approve the Costco site plan. Bennett's point here is, he has great instincts, he's seen it all before, and we should be thankful he continues to be there, because he's always looking out for constituents.  And, now you understand Charles R. Bennett, politician. 

*Government determines what constitutes affordable housing.  Currently, affordable housing is defined as any home, rented or owned, in which costs comprise less than 30% of the household monthly income.  For more look here.

from Salem's Housing Needs Analysis

12/6/20 update: more details on the current state of Salem MSA housing market:  Woodworth, W and Poehler, B.  "Struggling to rent: Rising prices push some Salem-area families to the edge."  (6 December 2020, Statesman Journal.)

~~~

Bennett's closing remarks following the hearing, lightly edited for clarity: 

I think I'm going to be the sole no vote.  I represented this area for nine years.  I know how hard, how difficult it is to maintain a small, affordable single-family neighborhood and Grant neighborhood association has done a mighty good job of doing that despite all kinds of Councils that come and go.  But...to come across D Street...is to open that neighborhood up to a real potential of losing it.  I think I mentioned I saw it happen over the years downtown, as Victorian homes were moved out and high rises -- or not high rises -- went into their place.  That whole Grant Neighborhood a big chunk of it and this sort of sort of CANDO neighborhood lost house after house after house to a variety of developments.  The only one that seems to have been sympathetic was Liberty Street, where they tried to preserve the houses, and they've still lost houses. 

I continue to believe that our affordable close-in neighborhoods that are devoted to families is something we need in Salem.  It's a kind of housing that meets -- if we need housing for a variety of needs -- neighborhoods like NEN and Grant and Highland, CANDO and even parts of SCAN are really what we need to keep preserving.  I think this [rezoning] is the first step down the road.

I'll talk about slippery slope too.  When I was on the Planning Commission [in 2007], I voted against the re-zoning [from Residential-Agriculture to CR] of that PacTrust property [Keubler Gateway Shopping Center - Costco] because I thought it was the wrong use and I thought there might be a slippery slope there.  And [in December 2018] watched as you all [Andersen, Ausec, Hoy] and some of your predecessors [McCoid, Cook] tried to kill the development of that property, despite the fact it had appropriate zoning and then complained that previous councils had set it up.

 

[Bennett, Lewis and Nanke voted to approve the Costco site plan in 2018.]  

 

I am [also] concerned listening to the discussion of parking that we have made that mistake again on this no parking [in] dense housing developments [by revising the Multifamily Housing Design Code in February 2020 to eliminate minimum parking requirements in new development so as to promote infill].

 

[Voting to eliminate the requirement of parking:  Andersen, Nanke, Leung, Lewis, Nordyke, Ausec.  Against:  Bennett, Kaser, Hoy.]   

I think this could have been resolved with more time and more consultation with the neighborhood I know this neighborhood very well and they have worked hard over the years to be as inclusive and as inviting as any neighborhood in this town.  All you have to do is...take a look at a map of the neighborhood, see the various types of development that have been regularly supported by this neighborhood.  But also [kept] the focus on trying to maintain that core single-family area that is served so well by those schools [Grant Elementary and Parrish Middle].  I'm also not convinced by the discussion of 19 units versus 14 units or nine units.  I'm just not convinced that this is the right project for that location.  I think this is a family area.  We have a huge number of families that are homeless -- I don't think we're taking care of them.  I don't think we're offering them the kind of housing they need.  And this had all the potential to do that.  And then to learn that we're looking at investing City money in this makes me increasingly uncomfortable that we haven't looked at this closely enough.  [Council improperly denied the project HOME funding in June, but will have the opportunity to correct its error on Monday, December 14, see "'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project"  (20 June 2020).]  I hope in the future we'll look very closely at these kinds of issues, but at this point I'm just a no vote on this so we'll call the vote.  Call the roll.

12/28/20 update:  Monday last, Council was asked again to approve HOME funding for the DevNW project (as Amendment #2 to the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan).  It did so 6 (Andersen, Ausec, Bennett, Hoy, Lewis, Nordyke) to 1 (Nanke -- no reason given), with zero remarks from the Mayor.