It looks like there is good news for rational transportation policy at City Council.
The first set of results show a commanding lead for Chris Hoy with 56% of the vote. Gregg Peterson is in second with only 28%, and a 435 vote difference.
Are there enough remaining votes yet to count to make up the difference?
Probably not.
So it seems likely that residents of Ward 6 will have elected
Chris Hoy to City Council. (If something goes sideways, we'll update this post!)
 |
Prepping for the Monster Cookie in 2015
(Hoy on left in helmet, via SBC) |
Hoy is on the Board of the Salem Bicycle Club, works in law enforcement, and seems well positioned to have a balanced approach towards a transportation mix in which walking, biking, busing are realistic options for people. With a fifth vote on Council, there may also be opportunities to apply some brakes to the waste of the Salem River Crossing project. The current bloc of four Councilors hasn't seem inclined to block anything by a 4-4 tie, but maybe with the fifth vote they'll be more assertive.
(
This post may be updated as others weigh in, or if new count numbers warrant revision.)
6 comments:
The paper's note says
"Two upcoming council meetings are on March 27 and April 10. It looks as though Hoy would have his first official meeting as a councilor on April 10, where a city spokesman says a swearing-in would most likely take place.
Marion County would need at least 14 days after Tuesday to get signature issues with the ballots resolved. That probably means the first day the county could certify the election is March 29, Marion County Clerk Bill Burgess said."
If the City wants to try to jam anything through, that March 27th meeting could be very interesting!
Chris ran on a "no 3rd bridge" platform. His main opponent, Gregg Peterson, was for the bridge. The voters in Ward 6 have spoken loud and clear. There will now be five Councilors who ran against the 3rd bridge in their campaigns. Now they just need to vote accordingly. They will have their chance when the Intergovernmental Agreement with the DLCD comes up for a vote in the near future. The agreement would advance the 3rd bridge planning process. If it gets voted down the DLCD will be forced to take some sort of action about the land use decisions made by the Council on December. It won't be pretty. Then there is still the LUBA appeal that the Council could reconsider trying to defend themselves against. It seems like the 3rd bridge may now be in deep trouble.
Re: "If it [the IGA with DLCD] gets voted down the DLCD will be forced to take some sort of action"
Will you write more about this over at N3B? If you really believe this is the case, It would be important to learn more about the actual mechanism by which this happens.
Imstead, it has seemed like the terms of the proposed IGA (as expressed in the Memo of Understanding) took DLCD out of the game:
"The Department shall withdraw Item #15 from the Land Conservation and Development Commission agenda scheduled for January 27, 2017 which requests permission to pursue the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). As soon as possible thereafter, Department shall file in LUBA a motion to dismiss Department’s Appeal, and Department shall not further participate in the consolidated appeals of the Decision, LUBA nos. 2016-125 or 2016-126. In the event of a remand, reversal or withdrawal of the City decision, nothing in this MOU shall prohibit or restrict Department from participating in, including an appeal of, any City land use decision made on remand."
Does that last sentence instead mean that if the IGA is abandoned/withdrawn, DLCD once again is involved? But since the UGB expansion was less than 50 acres, DLDC didn't have much power.
This is all obscure, and you seem confident. Please share more information and explain it all!
"The current bloc of four Councilors hasn't seem inclined to block anything by a 4-4 tie, but maybe with the fifth vote they'll be more assertive."
Nothing about the bridge has come before the current Council since the election. The Memorandum of Understanding(Intergovernmental Agreement) between the City and DLCD was supposed to be on the agenda in early February, and probably would have been rejected on a 4-4 tie. That may be why it was postponed, in the unrealized hope that the new Councilor would vote in favor of the agreement. Now the vote will not be a tie and, as Jim S. suggests above, the rejection will an assertive one!
"Please share more information and explain it all!"
Regarding the LUBA appeal, If the IGA is defeated we don't think that DLCD can restart its appeal, or be an intervenor, but LUBA's rules allow state agencies to participate by submitting an "agency brief". This would be an opportunity for DLCD to respond to issues or arguments that petitioners make. So that could happen.
Also, the MOU that the City Manager has signed is significant for DLCD because the city (city staff anyway) acknowledge that the city is behind schedule in meeting various obligations it has to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. DLCD may ask the city, sans IGA, how and when the city plans to address its outstanding obligations. The formality of an MOU or IGA aren't required, but DLCD and its Commission (LCDC) will want some assurance from the city that they are nonetheless committed to addressing their outstanding TPR obligations.
Technically, LCDC has a stick - it can issue an "enforcement order" when a local government engages in a pattern of practice that is inconsistent with state goals and rules, but it much prefers to be a good cop, working amicably with cities and counties to sort things out. Any enforcement order is likely to be preceded by a gentle reminders and, if necessary, sterner warnings.
Those gentle reminders are likely to start with a request from DLCD to the city to say more about its intentions to meet TPR obligations without the IGA. Also, it's likely DLCD will watch city's planning efforts more closely, including reviewing plan amendments and zone changes, and the city's scheduled planning work to make sure the city is properly applying the TPR.
If the land use actions from December are remanded by LUBA then the DLCD would be free, once again, to appeal any new land use actions. We doubt this would happen since a remand or reconsideration would most likely result in a reversal of the Council position on the 3rd Bridge, and no land use actions.
Thanks for the information and clarifications on both counts! (There will be more to say later as things develop, of course!)
Post a Comment