"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. 

Council OKs DevNW Project over Mayor/Grant Objection

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Last night (11/23/20), City Council approved DevNW's application for the map/zone changes needed to allow them to transform the Evergreen Baptist Church property at Cottage and D streets into 19 apartment units.  The Planning Commission approved the application, but the Grant neighborhood association appealed the decision.  Grant opposed the project at every step in the process, relying in the main on a floodgates argument against the dreaded scourge of multi-family/low-income housing (aka, "luxury high rise" apartments). 

Grant rep Paul Tigan argues Council should disapprove the DevNW project

Shortly before 10 p.m., Councilor Hoy finally moved staff recommendation to affirm the Planning Commission decision with an amendment to the lower maximum height from 50 to 40 ft.  Seconded by Lewis.  Aye:  Hoy, and Councilors Lewis, Nordyke, Ausec, Andersen, Leung, and Nanke.   Nay:  Mayor Bennett, who not for the first time opted to benefit himself politically rather than fulfill his duty to follow the requirements of City code.  "This could have been resolved with more time and more consultation with the neighborhood", he baselessly claimed, after spending much of the nearly three-hour hearing interrupting with leading questions, shaking his head over answers, and repeatedly signaling his bias in favor of the Grant neighborhood association.  Bennett represents the City of Salem on the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance Board of Directors.

Council had, back in June, sided with Grant resident and former Councilor Cara Kaser in opposing the project, forcing developer DevNW to redesign the project and resubmit the site plan.  See "'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project"  (20 June 2020).  For her part in that decision, Kaser was investigated by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.  In late October, she entered into a stipulated final order with OGEC in which she agreed she'd violated ORS 244.120(2).  See November 6, 2020 Meeting Materials at page 123.  The situation recently led at least one observer to conclude:  

It is the Neighborhood Association and the City, not the developer, who has left evidence for bad faith. Until someone turns up evidence that is more than merely conjecture and hypothetical, the developer here deserves the benefit of any doubt or uncertainty.”

"City Council, November 23rd - Affordable Homes and German Baptist Church Project."   (20 November 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.)  See also Harrell, S. "Former Salem city councilor faced ethics complaint for failing to disclose potential conflict of interest ." (23 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)  Harrell, S. "More affordable housing is on the way after Salem City Council approves church property conversion." (24 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)    

While it's never too late to do the right thing, the Grant neighborhood association deserves no credit here, because they opposed the project throughout, as did Mayor Bennett, for the flimsiest of reasons.  While a majority of Council did finally approve the application, that doesn't begin to undo the damage.  Their bad faith refusal to fund the project back in June not only encouraged Grant to continue opposing the project, but also delayed development, raised costs, and generally made it look as though Salem doesn't really want or need all the quality low-income housing that's offered it.  No question that Council got this one mostly wrong.  

In other news, the Men's Mission reopened last week after closing due to a C19 outbreak.  Loew, T. "Salem's largest homeless shelter reopens after COVID-19 outbreak."  (19 November 2020, Statesman Journal.)(C19 winter capacity 110, down from 198)  Alexander, R.  "As temperatures drop, Salem's largest homeless shelter sees Covid outbreak"  (9 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)   Loew, T. "COVID-19 outbreak closes Union Gospel Mission shelter, store in downtown Salem."  (9 November 2020, Statesman Journal.)  UGM managed to isolate affected guests, no thanks to the Marion County Health Department, which seems to have been largely MIA on the pandemic front. Harrell, S. "Marion County has spent more than $1 million on a hotel for Covid respite. Most of its rooms have sat empty," (18 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)  There is a good chance Salem could gain additional shelter spaces through Project Turnkey.  See Radnovich, C. "Oregon lawmakers approve $35 million for homeless shelters amid pandemic, recession."  (10 November 2020, Statesman Journal.)  Awards are expected to be announced in late January/February 2021. 

11/25/20 update:  added cite to Salem Reporter coverage

12/18/20 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.  Recall that Bennett had chastised staff (and Council?) last month, for "looking at investing City money in this [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) and "'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project"  (20 June 2020).  

8/10/24 update:  McDonald, A. "Building Salem:  Veterans housing opens in Grant Neighborhood" (9 August 2024, Salem Reporter.)

'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

So much for Salem's commitment to affordable housing.

The plan was to purchase Evergreen Presbyterian Church and turn it into 14 units of low-income housing with on-site management and support.  Project description in the 2020-2021 Action Plan at 15.  Salem Breakfast on Bikes wrote about the plan back in May.

The property sits on D Street, right at CANDO's edge, just inside the Grant neighborhood.

The Church has outgrown the space and is looking to move.  It's not the first time Grant has felt one of its church's growing pains.  See, e.g., Loew, T.  "A mega church is buying up a Salem neighborhood.  Here's why." (19 August 2019, Statesman Journal.) ("Salem Alliance Church owns 31 properties, worth $22.7 million, comprising part or all of eight blocks in the Grant neighborhood, north of downtown.")  

Staff recommendation to Council was for the City to underwrite the purchase of the property using about $400K in federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds.  The developer, DevNW, is Salem's only Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) (pronounced "choh-doh").  Federal regulations require that at least 15% of the City's HOME funds be set aside for eligible CHDO activities.  DevNW and the City spent many months looking for an appropriate project before deciding on the Evergreen Church location, and the project has been deemed eligible in all aspects.

With advice from City staff, DevNW is seeking to rezone the church property from RS (Single Family) to CO (Commercial Office), to allow it to use the manse as office space.  DevNW currently rents an office in CANDO at 437 Union Street NE.  The rezoning application is currently scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on July 21, 2020, but Council recent actions may change that.  

Notwithstanding all the above, in a June 17, 2020 letter to Council, and in public comments on June 22, the Grant Land Use Committee chair asked Council to withhold funding for the project in order to prevent DevNW from attempting to rezone the property, which the Grant neighborhood believes would constitute a further "chipping away at [the neighborhood's] character", according to the letter. 

During the public hearing on the Consolidated Plan/2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, DevNW CEO Emily Reiman gave a brief overview of the project and offered to answer questions. 

DevNW CEO Emily Reiman offers comment on June 22 while Mayor Bennett is away from his chair.

Council Deliberates Rezoning

As Councilor Nanke would later comment, the Grant neighborhood's request that Council withhold funding for the DevNW project because of the rezoning issue was "kind of weird, in that it's throwing a land-use decision before it's been done into a Consolidated Plan."    
      
Councilor Hoy asked Reiman about the need to convert the manse into an office, saying  "seems like a real waste" given Salem's need for housing.  Reiman responded that the exterior of the manse and grounds would be preserved, and that communities generally see on-site services and management "as a positive" because "we have eyes on the project, and the people living there have ready access to services", adding "that's our preference because that's what we think will provide the best experience for low-income families."        

Mayor Bennett asked Reiman if she had been "informed of Council's long-term neighborhood and Council policy relative to bringing commercial office into that sort of historic older neighborhood." Reiman responded that her director of development could speak to that, but she was on vacation, however, the decision to seek the CO rezone "was made in partnership with City staff."  Bennett shot back, saying, "I'm talking about the neighborhood. City staff is City staff.  They do their own thing.  I'm talking about the neighborhood...Did you understand how profoundly concerned they are about the changing character of that neighborhood?"

Reiman said, basically, yes, that's why DevNW was committed to preserving the manse exterior, but Bennett was dismissive, saying "The interior is an office and lobby center or something like that?"  Reiman told him that DevNW offered a range of financial literacy classes and counseling, home-ownership classes and counseling, and credit-building services.  Bennett asked, "Would you be entertaining legislators there, as part of a lobby effort?"  Reiman replied that DevNW does engage in housing advocacy, is occasionally called to offer expert testimony at the legislature, and participates in meetings at the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services, but those activities amount to <1% of what they do.

Bennett wanted to know if she had "researched alternative office locations nearby, in a commercial office area already."  Reiman replied that their office was about four blocks away, and reiterated that "most people feel more comfortable about an affordable housing development when the property management and the owner are on site."

Councilor Kaser also asked why DevNW wanted its office on site, "and not someplace else."  Reiman reiterated the importance of onsite management and services, and DevNW's commitment to encouraging property ownership, saying they'd been looking for several years for a housing project that would allow DevNW to own its own office, "and have deeper roots in the Salem community."

Kaser asked Reiman if DevNW had "pursued other zoning" like RM1 or RM2, and what the "long-term impacts" of a CO rezone "would be to the neighborhood, in terms of changing its character."  Kaser said she thought DevNW wasn't willing to compromise "because you need the office."  She said, "that's very concerning.  It's very concerning to be using this [HOME Investment Partnership] money to build a permanent office space for you."  (As noted above, the project was eligible in all aspects.) 

Council also heard from Eric Bradfield, who, along with Sam Skillern, co-chairs the Grant neighborhood association.  Bradfield said he lives at 934 Cottage Street NE, "just across the street from Evergreen Church and parsonage", and was "here to represent my household this evening."  "The most contentious part of the project is the need for a zone and Comprehensive Plan change", he said, before arguing that Council should withhold funding for the project in order to prevent the rezone. 

After a few more questions, Bennett moved to approve the Con Plan/2020-2021 Action Plan without the award to DevNW.  "This one needs to go back to the drawing board, clearly" because DevNW was "unwilling to walk away from having commercial office space and plans to proceed" with the rezoning.  "And I just don't want to start down that road, so I'm making the motion to just pull them out of this package.  Maybe they'll rethink it."  Kaser said she "completely agree[d]" with Bennett, and that DevNW needed to look for "an area that would be compatible." 

Councilor Ausec said he would not support removing the DevNW award because he thought the project was compatible with the neighborhood, comparable to the activities of the church, and noted that the Comprehensive plan had been amended numerous times.  See Comprehensive Plan  (adopted 1992, amended 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2x in 2009, 2x in 2013, 2015) and Grant Neighborhood Plan (adopted by Grant 1979, revised 1983, adopted by City Council with exceptions 1983).

Bennett's motion passed 7-1, with Ausec voting no.  Councilor Leung did not vote or participate in the discussion, having declared a conflict because she participates in a DevNW savings program.

Why Council Got it Wrong

There's a great deal not to like about this decision, but let's start with the result.  This is what Jimmy Jones, Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, had to say about Council's decision to eliminate the DevNW project from the 2020-2021 Action Plan:

It was unfortunate that DevNW’s project wasn’t approved.  The community is in desperate need of affordable housing.  Our limited rental stock and low vacancy rates, and high rental prices, are in large part the result of a lack of development in Salem and the surrounding communities going back to the recession of 2009.  We’ve struggled as a community to attract affordable housing development to this area, and we are close to $1 billion short in new development from meeting the affordable housing need.  So every single unit matters.  I hope that DevNW isn’t discouraged, and continues to pursue the project.  There’s a way to do this that makes sure the community gets the project, that the neighborhood wishes are respected, and the best practice model of having onsite property management in these low-income housing models is in place.  

More concerning was the apparent lack of understanding of the Urban Renewal federal housing programs. It appeared that the Council came to the conclusion that there was very little post-award public process and oversight by the City of Salem with any development project financed by federal dollars, which is simply not the case.  The City retains oversight over those dollars after they are awarded and has to sign off on project plans at critical junctures in the development process.  I have worked with the City very closely on these projects for several years, and they do a good job of making sure everyone is held to account.

Now let's turn to the process.  It wasn't just "kind of weird" for Council to decide a pending zoning (land-use) matter before it even went to the Planning Commission, it was wrong.

The issue before Council was whether or not to approve staff recommendation and adopt the Consolidated and 2020-2021 Action Plan.  Any decisions to withhold a federal grant for an eligible project for which there is adequate funding must be demonstrably unbiased and non-arbitrary.  This is especially true when the applicant is the area's only recognized CHDO and the award is within the federally mandated set-aside.  Council's decision fails this test.

First, at no point before, during, or after the public hearing did Councilor Kaser state for the record that she is married to Bradfield, and, with him, owns and occupies the house directly across from the property in question (see map below).

We asked her why she didn't disclose the information or declare a conflict.  This was her response:

Per City and State ethics rules, even though I own property across the street from this site, I don’t have an actual or potential conflict of interest for this specific legislative decision because a single pecuniary, or material, tangible “benefit” or “detriment” to myself or any family member is not known and speculative at best. 

But it's not at all clear that Council's decision was "legislative."  Decisions whether to grant or withhold HOME funds are governed by § 92.356 of the Code of Federal Regulations (among others).  Even if Kaser was correct that she wasn't bound to reveal her interests by Salem Revised Code, Title 1, Chapter 12 (City ethics rules), Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 244 (State ethics rules), she should have considered her obligations under the applicable Federal rules.  When she was asked whether she had, she declined to comment.  Bradfield, Kaser's husband, argued Council should not fund the DevNW project on behalf of "my household."  He did not declare Kaser to be a member of that household, and neither did Kaser.  At a minimum, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Second, Council's decision was in the nature of a land-use decision, rather than a legislative decision, as Councilor Kaser would have it.  Land-use decisions must be on the record in the land use proceeding, and untainted by ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest.  They also require that interested parties be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard.  Council's decision fails all aspects of this test.

City Councilors knew DevNW's rezone request would be at the Planning Commission July 21,  because City Attorney Dan Atchison told them so during the public hearing.  Council deliberately withheld funding for an eligible project in order to prevent the developer from pursuing the rezone -- a process it was legally entitled to pursue -- because they disapproved of the zoning change and wanted to circumvent the land use proceeding.  In essence, Council's decision was a land-use decision, even though it was not properly before them, was not free from the taint of ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest, and violated DevNW's right to due process before an impartial tribunal.  

Given the obvious impropriety of Council's actions and the prejudice to DevNW, one has to ask where was the City Attorney?  Was he taking advantage of the virtual meeting format to play Minecraft, or catch up on other work?  It is a mystery the answer to which may never be known, but one thing we do know.  He should have stopped Council at the very outset and informed them they could not withhold HOME funds for an eligible project except for a legitimate reason, which they didn't have.  He also  should have told them that DevNW had every right to seek the rezone, and, as it was a land-use matter, Council should keep their views to themselves and not discuss it unless and until the matter came before Council in due course. 

Fortunately for Salem, DevNW plans to appeal Council's daft decision.  This is not the first time the City's been in hot water over conflicts of interest in how it makes federal funding decisions.  See Brynelson, T. "City commission derailed over potential conflicts of interest." Salem Reporter, 16 November 2018; Bach, J. "Salem development commission may disband after feds raise ethics concerns", Statesman Journal, 20 December 2018.  And it probably won't be the last, given the astounding ignorance displayed during the public hearing.

And then there's the hypocrisy.  None of those Black Lives Matter speeches (Andersen, Nordyke, Hoy, Kaser) decrying the "crushing weight that 400 years of institutional, systemic, and personal racism has [had] on people of color" mean a damn thing when the same so-called "progressive voices" aren't willing to do more than advocate for change.  The first opportunity they had to actually vote against their privileged class interests in favor of housing and services for low-income families, what did they do?  They voted with the NIMBYs to maintain the status quo.  So predictable.  And so Salem.

6/29/20 update:  the July 21 hearing has been postponed at DevNW's request.  They will now be seeking a zone change to RH (multifamily high rise residential) with proposed conditions and submit  Site Plan Review and Design Review applications, to be consolidated with the zone change request.  The new design eliminates the onside management/services, adds 7 units (for a total of 21), and will require additional HOME funds.  DevNW will present details of the new plan at CANDO's virtual meeting on July 21st.  There will also be a presentation on the YMCA's veteran housing project.

7/8/20 update: see Harrell, S. "Why Salem City Council nixed an affordable housing development over an office space." (8 July 2020, Salem Reporter.)  In other developments, the City has agreed to reserve the funds set aside for the Evergreen Project pending approval of the new design plan or new project plan, obviating the need for an appeal.

8/6/20 update: the minutes of the May meeting of the Grant neighborhood association -- just published -- state with reference to the Evergreen Church project, "Cara [Kaser] stated that she will recuse herself from any involvement by City Council in this process and will assist the neighborhood in its response to the land use process."

 

9/15/20 update: Staff Report recommended approval of zoning change and new plans.  The September 21 hearing was postponed at DevNW's request.  "Grant NA Still Opposes Affordable Housing in Church Project" (14 September 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes) ("On the whole the Neighborhood's opposition to the proposal, framed as an "existential threat to the existing neighborhood," is exaggerated, and the result is a NIMBY move to preserve incumbency privilege.")  See also "Incumbency Privilege in the Historic Preservation Plan at Council Monday" (10 July 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes).

9/21/21 update:  Oregon Government Ethics Commission found probable cause to investigate Councilor Kaser's conduct in this matter as possible violation of ORS 244.120(2).

 

10/6/20 update:  Planning Commission unanimously approved staff recommendation as modified, except for condition 8 (trees).  See "Affordable Housing Project in 1928 German Baptist Church to Try Again at Postponed Hearing."  (4 October 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.) 

 

10/23/20 update.  Councilor Kaser entered into a stipulated final order with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission in which she agreed she'd violated ORS 244.120(2).  See November 6, 2020 Meeting Materials at page 123.

 

10/26/20 update:  Grant neighborhood association appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the DevNW project.  City Council to conduct a hearing November 23.  See "City Council, October 26th - German Baptist Church Decision."   (25 October 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.) 

 

11/2/20 update:  Councilor Kaser resigned two months before her term ended.

 

11/20/20 update:  Breakfast on Bikes slammed Kaser, City and Grant for their handling of the DevNW project.  See "City Council, November 23rd - Affordable Homes and German Baptist Church Project."   (20 November 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.)   

 

11/24/20 update:  "Council OKs DevNW Project over Mayor/Grant Objection"  (24 November 2020.)  Harrell, S. "Former Salem city councilor faced ethics complaint for failing to disclose potential conflict of interest ." (23 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)