one advocate described them as "A BIG DEAL," putting "the environment and environmentally friendly transportation as the central issues to address as Salem grows":
Of the 20, six speak to non-auto transportation: complete neighborhoods, walk and transit friendliness, access to frequent transit, bicycle and pedestrian use, traffic/pedestrian accident, and active transportation.Overall this is great to see.
Five address environmental concerns (in addition to emphasizing walking, biking, and transit). They are: tree canopy, proximity to parks and trails, development in environmentally sensitive areas, reduction in air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Two speak to affordability: Total affordability and housing affordability.
|What special sauce does "Our Salem" have that this did not?|
Still, if we assume this new language will be effective, is it actually the right balance?
|Right off, three seem redundant|
- Walk and transit friendliness (crash rates cover this, as do access to frequent transit, and bicycle and pedestrian use)
- Active transportation (ditto)
- Housing affordability (covered by housing+transportation+energy affordability)
|The "Safe Community" candidates in December|
Still, I do not find this very satisfactory, and I wonder if there needs to be another iteration on the selection of metrics for "Our Safe Community."
|Can the Comprehensive Plan address some of this?|
|More thought to displacement?|
It seems to me that it is appropriate to look at that top 20 list now that it is published and to ask whether the overall shape is right. I am not sure that it is, and I think it may need some adjustment, not to the total sense of priorities, which seemed to be clear, and fairly arrived at through the public process, but because some of the proposed metrics overlap and the redundancy does not do justice to the real jumble and diversity and manifold nature of a city. A good city is richer and more various than this "top 20" list metrics would indicate.