We are not one for hyperbole and histrionics (a word I don’t take lightly given its horrid history), so I don’t feel the image we have selected to accompany this post is either (and if you don’t get the Heathers reference, I recommend it–it’s a great movie!). The first time I can find that we (the LWV) mentioned the municipal and religious reuse ordinance was Valentine’s Day of this year, but it has been under debate and deliberation for far longer. We have followed the highs and lows of this discussion, but tonight’s special meeting was a sight to behold. Unfortunately, it was not recorded by Salem Access TV, so you’ll have to just use your imagination as I walk you through the debacle.
First, a few quick notes to sweep them out of the way. The meeting started 10 minutes late and we advocate for timely and efficient government. There was no need for the delay; all councilors (except Councilor Flynn, who was on vacation) were present. Second, the council voted to confirm the date and specifics of preliminary (known elsewhere in the country as a primary): 17 September for Wards 3 and 6, the at-large councilor race, and the school committee.
Here is how the council was supposed to act on the Municipal and Religious Reuse Special Permit:
1) Vote to remove the matter from the table
2) Reconsider the vote to send the matter to committee
If the motion under reconsideration (“send it to committee”) passed, no further action needed, the committee on ordinances, licenses, and legal affairs (OLLA) would take the matter up at their next meeting
If the motion under reconsideration (“send it to committee”) failed, the council could then vote for 1st passage (where it could THEN go to OLLA before the 2nd [and final] passage) OR it could be killed
Here is how the council acted:
They voted affirmatively to move the matter from the table unanimously.
They all began to wax eloquent on the matter, some were poignant and some were full of misinformation, but all were lengthy opinions on an ordinance that has been through well over a year of discussion and debate. The point of this meeting was to move to action. Some highlights of their speeches, nonetheless:
Councilor Furey gave personal testimony showing that housing has a human face. He underscored the need for action on this bill because it would help with affordability in the Salem housing market.
Councilor Dominguez noted that the council needed to act quickly, but that they need to ‘do this right.’
Councilor Turiel rehashed every argument he’s ever made in favor of the ordinance and confirmed his support.
Councilor Milo got quite animated about how Salem is working and warned against getting “caught up in the rhetoric” of the housing crisis (Ed: the housing crisis has been well documented and acknowledged across party lines here and here or here...we could go on, but there is drama afoot). Milo continued to note that this ordinance is not a “silver bullet” that will fix affordable housing, and for the record, we have not heard that argument from either side. We contend that it is one facet in a multi-faceted approach to help with additional units in the city.
Councilor Madore gave an impassioned oratory and mentioned Salem residents’ capacity for compassion. She noted that when there was a visible crisis, like the recent fire, Salem residents contributed money, clothing, and other donations to help the victims. She said the housing crisis is an invisible crisis in slow motion and implored the council to do something to help.
Councilor Sargent said that Salem has “always taken on more than their share” of state problems (Ed: Beverly is doing really fantastic things over the bridge). He also asked if “anyone knows what properties this covers.” In fact, we do...we did a thorough analysis of the properties that would qualify under this ordinance before endorsing it, and we can certainly share the spreadsheet. (Or better yet, join us at our Affordable Housing meetings where you can learn the information first hand and contribute to the discussions; they are full of disagreements, but we ultimately get to a good place.) Additionally, anyone can get the list through a tax assessor database query. Sargent rounded out his oratory with a note about what was redeveloped with ease when he was a teenager. The last major zoning overhauls skewed toward single-family developments and initiated a 2/3 “supermajority” for zoning changes, which happened in the 1970s. The development that Sargent saw as a teenager would not be possible today (caveat: this is making an assumption about Sargent’s age coupled with my mathematical ability).
Councilor McCarthy reminded everyone that the zoning remains the same, this is a permit that applies to qualified buildings. He also reminded the council that the buildings are currently vacant and becoming problematic.
Councilor Dibble ceded the dais to Furey and became outraged at the majority for holding up progress (yes, I think that is what he said). He started getting quite incensed and yelled about the council not proceeding with committee, 1st passage, 2nd passage; and instead insisting on 1st passage, committee, 2nd passage. His primary concern seemed to be about the affordable housing clause dropping out of the special permit. (Ed: The LWV has been working with a city on a deep-dive into the Salem-specific needs for inclusionary zoning, which sets the percentage of units and the percentage of area median income (AMI) necessary to fulfill the needs for “affordable” housing in the city for FOR-PROFIT development projects. This ordinance is forthcoming.)
Are you still with me? That was a succinct recap. So, after all of this pontificating, Dibble called for a move to committee. Turiel reminded him of the process (a vote to reconsider needed to be approved or rejected first). Debate about the ordinance ensued. Okay, here is where parliamentary competence and council decorum broke-down. Furey tried to shut down discussion from the dais as acting president. Dibble physically moved up to reclaim his position as president. There was shouting. Councilors were incensed. Turiel called the question, and that was either not heard, or ignored. TWENTY minutes after the call to reconsider was put forth, and after much shouting and posturing, the process was explained again. Finally, a vote was taken to RECONSIDER the motion to move the matter to committee. It failed 6-4. Dibble, Sargent, Dominguez and Milo voted yes (to send it to committee); Peterson, Turiel, McCarthy, Madore, Gerard, and Furey voted no (so that it would be put to a vote). McCarthy put forth an amendment to include text in the permit to require a minimum of 10% (units) at 80% AMI in the ordinance for 99 years (in perpetuity). This was put to a vote and the ordinance as amended was moved for first passage and sent to OLLA. Only Sargent was the dissenting vote.
I personally was aggrieved to see the flagrant display of personality on display in council chambers, and I received many texts and emails asking me to call generally for civility and parliamentary competence. Putting yourself forward to serve the city as a councilor is laudable. It is a lot of work and much of it goes unappreciated because there are critics everywhere–we know, we hold you accountable, too! However, what we saw tonight: name calling, hurt feelings, verbose statements intended to stump in an election year - that is not what serving the city is about. We hope that this body can set aside this meeting and work to resolve the many issues facing Salem together, through thoughtful deliberation and consensus building.
Respectfully submitted, Jen Lynch
Reminder: the preliminary election will be held on 17 September. The general election will be held on 5 November.
