While the new land use and transportation planning rules provisionally adopted last week are worthy of more in depth discussion, today's front page article leans too much into the frame of "increasing density" and not enough into reducing emissions and reducing the cost of housing. It appears neutral, but slants towards the NIMBY.
It is also likely distorted by the Statesman Register Journal Guard Today's desire for one story to serve multiple papers.
|Front page today|
When it cites local opinion, it quotes the supportive letter from Cherriots, but instead of also quoting the letter from the City of Salem, which was also generally supportive (though a separate letter from a group of Mayors with Mayor Bennett's signature was more critical), it quotes letters from Eugene and Springfield. It fails to point out the those cities have the most robust culture of NIMBYism in the valley. Eugene has been a hotbed of opposition to HB 2001 for middle housing and to ADU legalization a couple of years earlier. Of course they have complaint! A better story would give more context for this opposition. Without that context and analysis, it leans into the prevailing bias of the Eugene area, and has a hidden implied audience, suggesting the story was also written for the Register Guard. It short-changes Salemites of a proper local analysis that dovetails with Our Salem and the current debate over the proposed bond package.
The story is paywalled, but it's worth reading even with the shortcomings. (See brief discussion from last week here.)
|We are "dramatically off-track" - DLCD summary|