The ugly truth about two-hour parking

On June 19, I was cited for exceeding the downtown two-hour parking limit. My citation said that my "chalk time" was 12:35 p.m. and that I was cited at 3:13 p.m. -- 158 minutes later, and clearly outside the two-hour limit.

But I had left downtown at around 1 p.m. and returned at about 2:45 p.m. and parked on the same block-front. (Earlier this year, the Parking Enforcement supervisor had told me that the two-hour clock ends when you leave your parking space and starts anew when you return, even if only a short while later.)

So immediately after finding the citation, I went to the Parking Enforcement office to explain that in fact I had been away from downtown for almost two hours during the time that I was allegedly overparked. A "senior officer" there told me that he could rescind my citation only if I had proof that I had been away from downtown -- such as a printed store receipt. Otherwise, he said, I would have to take my case to Salem Municipal Court. Unfortunately, I had no such receipt.

Your July story points out that two-hour parking was enacted to free-up more downtown parking places for shoppers during peak hours, thus encouraging people to shop downtown. Yet the irony is that the Parking Enforcement staff told me that they could rescind my citation only if I had evidence that I had shopped somewhere other than downtown.

Did  the downtown merchants who lobbied for the two-hour limit really intend that Parking Enforcement would, in effect, encourage people to shop away from downtown?

I am contesting my citation to the Court, and I encourage everyone who believes they have been cited unfairly to do likewise.  
- James M. Schultz

More citizen action could make downtown a better place
I was reading "Downtown Visions" in your July issue and was bothered by the responses and opinions the people of Salem have for their home.

It seems to me that people are spending too much time complaining about all the things they dislike, such as the Coffee House Cafe, which seems to be under constant attack.
What exactly is their contribution to making a change? How can the people of Salem expect their opinion to matter if they do nothing to help Salem grow?

Perhaps by forming a plan to make things better they wouldn't leave it up to the people in charge whose choice they always appear to disagree with. It's not just the Mayor or the business owners' job to make Salem a happening place to be.
- Natalie Laswell

Vagrants a problem for downtown patrons

One element that has soured some of my downtown experiences is the large population of homeless people that linger/loiter/swarm around the corner of downtown closest to the homeless shelter.

Of course we shouldn't "hide" this problem. I believe we should fix it, and I believe fixing it means more than warehousing people or rewarding those who choose anti-social and unproductive lifestyles.

At the same time, I really don't want to sit in front of Blue Pepper with a friend who is as hardworking as I am, while we attempt to enjoy a snack but can't due to being stared at, panhandled, oggled, or suffering the nasal assaults that come from the parade of homeless men that endlessly walk the streets on that end of downtown.
- Anonymous

23rd Street extension presents problems to residents (See, RURAL WELLS THREATENED BY MEASURE 37, the guest opinion by Brian Hines and OREGON'S NEW GOLD RUSH by Cliff Boyer)

People who wish to enter westbound Mission Street traffic after leaving the new development will have to travel through the residential neighborhood to get there.?The City of Salem is a partner with the developer of the former Curly's property and, as such, was willing to compromise the safety of children and the livability of the neighborhood.

Approximately 80 homes are in the affected area. The statement that the area will become industrial is purely speculative. Real people live there now and their lives are about to be changed forever. Three fast food outlets are proposed for the new development and a large portion of the users will be driving through what was once a quiet residential area.

The bottom line is that the residents of the affected area lack the financial resources or political power to defend themselves. This commercial development is being constructed at their expense.

The City of Salem benefits because the cost of providing the 23rd Street extension is reduced since the developer is "donating" the right of way. Everyone else loses.
- Anonymous ?

OSD/OSB consolidation (See: FATE OF BLIND AND DEAF SCHOOLS NOW RESTS WITH OR LEGISLATURE)

Why support inferior schools for disabled?

Many people, including Councilors Clem and Walker, seem to be more interested in simple-minded sentimentality than ensuring quality education and safety for students with disabilities.
The OSB buildings do not meet modern standards. They are not accessible, have not been seismically upgraded, are not energy efficient, and are not suitable for institutional purposes. They are the next Oregon State Hospital . . . a lawsuit waiting to happen!

The existing OSD campus also has physical facility problems.
Selling the OSB campus, a prime piece of real estate, would put 8.5 acres back on the tax rolls and provide funding to rehabilitate the OSD campus, bringing it to modern standards for safety and quality of life, and meeting the needs of students far better than the current run-down and outdated facilities can.

Which is more important? Sentimentality or quality education for vulnerable students?
- Anonymous

Combining schools could mean positive changes
The reality is that economies of scale can result in some very meaningful cost savings -- savings that would then allow for the further improvement of facilities to better accommodate all the specialties that are needed.
Anyone who is married realizes that sure, when the household combines you spend more on some things, but you also spend way less on others, and overall it comes out to be a big savings.
But I think there's an odd sense of pride, identity and selfishness that's really at issue here. The assumption is that with change would come death. Just because the two programs would be coexisting does not mean the programs would go away. In fact, I bet that, with proper management both could florish and improve well above their current standards.
- Anonymous

"Sicko" Review (See here for the SiCKO story)

Universal healthcare would make a better America
?I work with populations that often have "decent" jobs that offer some semblence of a benefits package, but even these people do not have health insurance. The packages might require a substantial out-of-pocket co-payment, or not cover them for one reason or another.

It doesn't seem fair to me that there is such a disparity in health care. I have a professional job that provides me with an excellent benefits package with healthcare and I pay almost nothing.
I know a creative entrepreneur who pays $600 a month for her "major medical" coverage.

Another woman I know was at a trade show in Canada. An accident sent her to the hospital. She received healthcare that was fast, delivered with heart and excellent patient focus, and she walked out without paying a cent. And she doesn't even live there!

She anticipated that she would be billed and  a month later called the hospital who treated her, asking when it would arrive. They explained that their health care system treats everyone the same way, even those who don't live there.

Imagine that right here in our own home country. Yes, it would cost, but I'd rather pay taxes and get something for them than what we have now.
- Anonymous