"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.