Salem will respond to and pay for homeless camp cleanups on ODOT land 13%

By Whitney Woodworth22%

8/8/2026, 4:01:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 11.6% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 764 faulty-reasoning hits from 907 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.9% and a BS Rank of 13% (26,878 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.90% of the article peer group.

Salem will bear the cost of cleanups at homeless encampments along Interstate 5 and under downtown bridges in an effort to better respond to them under a new agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation after the agency spent more than half a million dollars responding to them in 2025 and part of 2026. 
The agreement is intended to create a consistent process for removing trash, storing and returning belongings and keeping a trauma-informed and respectful approach toward people experiencing homelessness, according to a copy of the memorandum obtained from ODOT through a public records request. 
City Manager Krishna Namburi signed the agreement July 23 following council's direction to work more closely with ODOT to respond to camps. 
Council will receive a copy of the agreement during its Aug. 24 meeting. 
People living unsheltered in Salem have long sought highway overpasses and bridges for protection from the elements and the sometimes less-than-frequent sweeps on state-owned land. 
Statewide, the Oregon Department of Transportation is responsible for clearing these camps but faces budget cuts and other limitations. 
When sweeps do occur, new encampments pop up in a matter of days. 
"Highway right-of-way located within the City limits is owned by different jurisdictions," the memo stated. 
"This varied jurisdictional ownership has made it challenging to apply a consistent and well-coordinated approach to managing and cleaning up personal property and trash left by people camping in the right-of-way." 
Salem spokesman Rob Layne said the agreement gives the city clear authority to engage with people camping on ODOT property, get them access to services and work to prevent campsites from reestablishing. 
The city sought the agreement after Salem City Council directed Namburi in January to work with ODOT following residents' and leaders' complaints about the growing encampments in downtown and along I-5. 
Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency Executive Director Jimmy Jones said people are drawn to state-owned land because, historically, ODOT has been slower to remove camps than the city. 
It's a place people say they can feel safe and not shuffled around. 
But the areas can frequently become unsafe due to traffic, fires and living conditions, he said, pointing to the DUI crash that killed four people camped on ODOT land in Salem in 2022. 
Jones said he supports camp removals when there are legitimate health and safety concerns but opposes efforts aimed to push people out of Salem. 
A sweep doesn't house people or reduce homelessness; it simply pushes them elsewhere, he said. 
"It is a redistribution strategy at its core," he said. 
"Trespassing does not reduce the homeless population by so much as one person, never does." 
Jone said the consequences can sometimes be dangerous: People can get pushed into residential neighborhoods or less safe camps. 
He said he's supported Marion County-Salem Fire's Rapid Engagement, Assessment and Community Health REACH team and Salem Police's Homeless Services Team for their nuanced approach interacting with the unsheltered population. 
"They're doing it in a kind way," Jones said. 
"They're doing it in a humane way. 
They're doing it in a trauma-informed way, but it is still designed to get people to move from one location into shelter or to another location ... but these are still sweeps, right?" 
What Salem, ODOT will do as part of agreement 
The agreement designates certain city officials as "persons-in-charge" under Oregon law and allows them to order people to leave ODOT property, trespass people and request law enforcement assistance. 
Under the terms, Salem will post notices, remove trash, transport personal property and provide monthly reports to ODOT about cleanup activities. 
ODOT will continue normal maintenance activities, provide coordination assistance, give access to ODOT property and store recovered personal property. 
ODOT will use the savings for other cleanups or deterrent activities in the city. 
Layne said the cleanups will be paid for with current Clean Team and Homeless Services Team staffing and funding. 
How much did ODOT spend on Salem-area sweeps in 2025, 2026? 
The Oregon Department of Transportation spent $558,469 on clearing encampments in the Salem area in 2025 and 2026 through July 7. 
Encampment clean-ups along Interstate 5 accounted for the bulk of the costs at $515,840. 
According to ODOT records, MLK Parkway sweeps, which include under the Center Street and Marion Street bridges, cost $42,629 in 2025 and the first half of 2026. 
A major sweep that occurred on July 13 under a Center Street Bridge ramp is not included in costs. 
'There's not enough shelter' 
Salem assisted state agencies as they cleared downtown homeless encampments that had become home to dozens of people near Riverfront Park and the Gilbert House Children's Museum. 
During the sweep, Kaitlyn Schwartz gathered her belongings and prepared to find a new place to sleep. 
She said high housing costs and the lack of a safe, stable place to shelter pushed many people like her into the camps under Center Street. 
“To me, you have to be rich out here," she said of Oregon. 
“Costly expenses for daily living are so high out here.” 
Jones said there are probably about 2,000 people in and around Salem who are homeless and only about 1,000 shelter beds. 
"All of them can't go into shelter," he said. 
"There's not enough shelter." 
Whitney Woodworth is the Statesman Journal's watchdog reporter for city hall and covers economic development. 
Send comments, questions and tips to her at wmwoodworth@statesmanjournal.com or follow at @whitneywoodworth.bsky.social 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Whitney Woodworth: 2.3%Statesman Journal: 1.3%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 2.8%Whitney Woodworth: 0.6%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.8%This article: 7.8%Whitney Woodworth: 1.9%Statesman Journal: 1.7%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 1.4%Whitney Woodworth: 0.1%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.4%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Whitney Woodworth: 0.6%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 1.7%Statesman Journal: 1.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.2%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.4%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Whitney Woodworth: 0.1%Statesman Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 2.3%Statesman Journal: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Whitney Woodworth: 0.6%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 8.6%Whitney Woodworth: 4.9%Statesman Journal: 4.2%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 2.7%Statesman Journal: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Whitney Woodworth: 0.8%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Whitney Woodworth: 1.6%Statesman Journal: 1.2%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.5%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.4%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Whitney Woodworth: 2.1%Statesman Journal: 1.9%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 2.6%Whitney Woodworth: 0.1%Statesman Journal: 0.1%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.1%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Whitney Woodworth: 2.3%Statesman Journal: 1.3%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 1.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 2.4%Statesman Journal: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.1%Whitney Woodworth: 0.4%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 2.9%Whitney Woodworth: 0.8%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.9%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.1%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.6%Whitney Woodworth: 1.7%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Whitney Woodworth: 0.9%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground3.6%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.7%Whitney Woodworth: 1.5%Statesman Journal: 1.1%Unattributed Quote8.7%This article: 3.5%Whitney Woodworth: 0.6%Statesman Journal: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.2%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whitney Woodworth: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Whitney Woodworth: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

907 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers44%attributed speech504writer words
Selected voice

Kaitlyn Schwartz

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words12% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Kaitlyn Schwartz: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.