|
ARTISTICALLY SPEAKING...
I am a longtime member of the Portland arts and literary scene. I know public memorials are important to any community ["NIMBY," WW, Feb. 18, 1998]. They raise our consciousness, allow us to reflect on history, connect us to the world arena--show our location in the flow of time and the generations. So it's an opportunity to gain a Holocaust memorial in Oregon. Having said that, I would emphasize great memorials exhibit high artistic taste, are done in scale to their settings, and must inspire philosophical and spiritual values. As I pen this letter, I'm looking at a copy of the Portland Bureau of Planning design for the Oregon Holocaust Memorial to be located at Arlington Heights. I don't like the design--it's parochial, sprawling, and mediocre! If it's going to cover two acres of valuable urban green and play space, why site it at this particular location in Washington Park? If traffic congestion will increase and a turnaround for buses are needed, why not move the memorial to another location? Artistically speaking, why are there so many confusing elements to this design? It's disconcerting, rambling. Town Square, cobblestone walkway, vault, bronze teddy bears, indeed! One element is enough, done well. Picasso, Henry Moore, Jacques Jellum--any of these artists would do a smaller, more focused, monumental and philosophical memorial, which would resonate the Holocaust theme in a transcendant way. It's my understanding the design has been signed off on. Done. The final piece of business is the traffic issue. So move this botched-together, diffuse, diorama for dead children to another part of the park where it will have some room to scream. I would have preferred an honest-to-God art work, bronze Star of David dripping stained-glass tears of blood. An art work somber and terrible, worthy of Rodin. Not kitsch in your face, covering a football field, where Frisbees used to fly. The scale and location of this memorial are wrong. Walt Curtis, Southeast Grand Avenue
THE PROCESS IS THE PROBLEM
Mr. Young's claim that several Arlington Heights residents object to the siting of a Holocaust memorial in Washington Park is accurate ["Not in My Back Yard," WW, Feb. 18, 1998]. However, labeling these residents as Not in My Back Yard ("NIMBY") neighborhood activists was false and unfair. Our neighborhood association, along with eight other NAs contiguous to or near Washington Park, join Arlington Heights in objecting to the ad hoc process cobbled together by Commissioner Francesconi to decide whether the park is the proper site for the memorial. This process is veiled as a remedy for the original improper siting decision by the Parks Bureau to allow the memorial. However, this process contravenes and mocks the memorial-siting process detailed in the Washington Park Master Plan which neighbors and the City approved as guidelines, prior to any Holocaust memorial proposal, for the future of Washington Park. Additionally, the Policy of Placing Memorials in Public Parks adopted by the City Council on April 12, 1989, was ignored by the City in siting this memorial. No decent neighbor objects to the siting of a Holocaust memorial in this city. What raises concern is the Parks Bureau's and City Council's failure to follow well-established procedures relied upon by neighbors in working with the City to improve Portland's livability. The policy adopted by Commissioner Francesconi is fraught with conflicts of interest and has the appearance, at least, of rubber-stamping the initial Parks Bureau decision. If the City resolves this issue by a makeshift and arbitrary process, that will be an assault on our "model" neighborhood government and suggest that, rather than due process, the will of powerful special interests and politicians beholden to them dictates city politics. Len Stevens, President, Goose Hollow Foothills League
Southwest St. Clair Avenue
MORE THAN MEETINGS
Your piece on neighborhoods and NIMBYs ["Not in My Back Yard," WW, Feb. 18, 1998] brings to the surface a nagging issue bothering many people lately. Too many citizens and government officials around here have lost that involvement feeling. The thrill of the '60s is gone. When I hear the term NIMBY, I think of the time I participated in (but cannot take credit for) siting a jail with the strong support of local neighbors. Yes, support. The credit goes to the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, which sited the Inverness Jail in the late 1980s. Every project I have seen (here and in other communities) that has been labeled a NIMBY violated at least one--but usually all three--of the key practices followed by the sheriff's office. The sheriff: 1. Stayed in touch with citizens continually, not just when you want a new facility or program or "community decision." 2. Advanced a solution to something citizens actually recognize as a community problem. 3. Talked to the people most directly affected person-to-person instead of letting them find out about the project for the first time in the news. So-called NIMBY, therefore, is more likely the product of poor management rather than angry neighbors. Many people do good involvement work in this area. But many agencies find themselves in the same position as Detroit automakers in the 1970s. They no longer have a good product. They have the memory of a good product 20 years ago. Citizens today demand more. They want tastier coffee, better gas mileage, and more meaningful involvement. A 7:30 pm meeting with colorful charts is no longer enough. A good place to find out what is enough is the professional group the International Association for Public Participation. On the Internet, see the Core Values, http://www.pin.org/iap2.htm; and Elements of Good Practice, http://www.pin.org/e.htm. Michael Dolan, Northeast 14th Place Editor's Note: Dolan is the host of the online Public Involvement Network.
EVERYTHING NEW IS BAD Your NIMBY article deserves several comments ["Not in My Back Yard," WW, Feb. 18, 1998]. First, your bias shows in quoting author William Kunstler [sic] out of context. While he spends a lot of energy decrying suburban sprawl, his most telling comment describes the underlying reason for the NIMBY attitude; to wit, Americans don't want anything new because they don't believe their culture can produce anything of value. Look around, in some parts of the city almost everything that's being built is pure dreck--ugly, cheap, plywood-sided snout houses with a two-car garage facing the street and a concrete front lawn. The cheapest, meanest house built before 1930 is better quality, better design than much of what's being built today. We may hate sprawl and love our downtown and other urban amenities, but for most Portlanders the higher density that civic leaders are trying to foist on us is anathema to our lifestyle goals. I don't believe it's either selfish or unenlightened to want Portland to be peaceful, spacious, low-key and green. That's why we came here and what we like about it. What we're seeing is a backlash against growth that's undesirable, unwanted and unnecessary. Our politicians give big subsidies to industries that import a majority of their workers from other parts of the country and then talk about having to "accommodate" growth. Neighborhood activists are self-selected and therefore not always representative of the neighborhood as a whole, but that's the way the City Council wants it because it gives them an easy excuse for overriding community concerns. Otherwise they would have to defer their big plans for neighborhood development to the people's wishes and it would be a lot harder to build housing on designated open space, two-plus-acre recreation centers in public parks or upzone whole single-family neighborhoods for higher-density housing. Stan Kahn, Southeast Pine Street
ARE THEY ON DRUGS?
It comes as no surprise to me that some drug companies lobbied intensely against Hersh Crawford's plan to try and reign in the use of some medications under the Oregon Health Plan ("Let Them Eat Prozac," WW, Feb. 25, 1998). Drug companies (like tobacco companies and every other company for that matter) are in business to make profits, NOT to help the public, no matter what their glossy literature may say. I have a few college friends who now work for drug companies, and they freely admit that their employers are totally ignoring rare diseases that only strike a small number of people because even if they find a cure or effective treatment, sales would be so small due to the low number of patients involved that the companies would not make enough money. Which brings up another point: Drug companies defend their outrageous prices by saying that they have to recoup their research costs for developing the drugs. What they won't say is that most (although not all) costs for drug and disease research is prepaid by U.S. taxpayers, either through the federal government (via CDC and NIH) or private foundations (such as the Pediatric AIDS Foundation). Therefore, most of the horribly inflated prices that we all pay at the drug counter amounts to little more than corporate welfare. If welfare to impoverished individuals is so bad, why is welfare to high-profit corporations considered "OK"? Nobody has ever been able to give me an answer to that one. Jane Bolton, Southwest 35th Drive
HEADLINE
Apparently I'm supposed to feel guilty for laughing at Sylvia, the current offering at Portland Center Stage. That must be the intended outcome of Steffen Silvis' snide, haughty review ("Put to Sleep," WW, Feb. 25, 1998). As a third-year subscriber with several friends, I welcome the challenging (Bacchae Revisited) and the classic (Macbeth), but I also enjoy being entertained once in a while. Sylvia is a very funny show, and there's nothing wrong with that. This late in the century haven't we learned that art can be engaging? Must it always be ugly and difficult? As a professional musician and arts educator I reject that notion. There is nothing wrong with being fiscally responsible either. One major Portland theater company just went broke. Is it a crime that Elizabeth Huddle programmed two comedies this year, bringing in audiences that can subsidize other important works that will never attract a mass audience? The Oregon Symphony Orchestra has "Mozart 'til Midnight" and Portland Baroque Orchestra has an annual Messiah. There are no performances at all if the bills can't be paid. Elizabeth Huddle appears to be a pragmatic artist. How refreshing, and how responsible. Michael Connolly, Associate Professor of Music, University of Portland
BLAME IT ON HIS MID-LIFE CRISIS
When one reads such vicious comments as "formulaic gag and schoolyard wordplay...," "...will serve as a cash cow...; "trite Broadway pantomime...," one must assume she has thrown good money after bad in purchasing season tickets ("Put to Sleep," WW, Feb. 25, 1998). However an assertion that audience laughter is similar to an open drain is unacceptable arrogance. Mr. Silvis' demonstration of arrogance abrogated his disdain. Nothing would have kept me from the show. It was a performance quite undeserving of Mr. Silvis' acid tongue. Players were true to the roles provided by Mr. Gurney's script. Kathryn Heasly grew in her part, as costume changes occurred. Mr. Chambers had great fun in his cross-dressing roles. The full house of seniors and high school students (quite a range of generations) enjoyed themselves. Let us hope for a more balanced review from Mr. Silvis. (Is he, perhaps, facing middle-age trauma?) His editor should alert him to the folly of assuming he knows far more than theater-going patrons. Bonnie J. Hubbard, Southwest 3rd Avenue
WRONG FREQUENCY
Jacob Pander's statement in your "Timbre" column last week [WW, March 4, 1998] that electronica in Portland is only now "emerging from people's basements" came as a surprise to all of us who have been performing experimental music here for the past few years. Even more confusing was the fact that while the Pander Brothers' "Secret Broadcast" show ostensibly documented Portland's underground electronic music scene, it failed to include any of the performers who have been its lifeblood. Where were Eternal Golden Void, Humyn+1, Solenoid, Axiomatic, Mothra, Office Products, Anathema, Jesse James, Slow Pulse Planet, Mos Eisley, and the many others who have helped to create one of the most organized, most diverse, and friendliest underground scenes in the country? I certainly don't wish to criticize any of the performers involved in the Pander Brothers' show, as many are enormously talented and original musicians, but to tout these groups as representative of the Portland scene is misleading. If any of your readers are interested in the real live electronic scene in the city I would urge them to come down to the Frequency shows while they last, the monthly Hypnotica series (which recently had its two-year anniversary) at the Bean, or the weekly Aural Fixation series at the Paris Theater. Yes, Arnold and Jacob, there is an exciting and inspirational electronic music scene here in the City of Roses, but unfortunately you seem to have overlooked it. Josh Banke, Northeast Couch Street
THE TRAGEDY OF A POOR EDUCATION
The recent cover story on Brandon Brooks looked as if the only reason someone figured out there is a problem is because Brandon is so talented with a basketball ["The Education of Brandon Brooks," WW, March 4, 1998]. The real tragedy is when it is disclosed that Brandon is one of the many Talented and Gifted (TAG) kids that get isolated and abandoned to classes below their learning rate and level. The Portland Public School has a complaint filed against it for this very action. Salem-Kaiser already has been sued and assessed as wanting. Mostly, folks think this is a middle-class, above-average-kid, so-what problem. It is politically correct, in some circles, to laugh at TAG programs as elitist. The true fact is that kids smart enough to "get it" in classrooms the first time, when teachers are taught to show the point 15 times, get bored and quit learning regardless of ethnic background. Other students don't look up to TAG kids, but students who are just a bit "smarter" than they are. Isolated TAG kids can turn into Brandon without the talent in basketball. Yes, most get identified and cluster together with other such kids. But there are many, like Brandon, who become "problems." Small surprise that a gunned-down gang member was once described in the same way Brandon is painted in your article. If education was valued, Brandon would be heading to Stanford to be the next "Tiger Wood" [sic] over current worries about heading to the land of what could have been. No one showed him and hooked him on the value of learning before he was in the fourth grade. The problem is not at Grant or Jefferson. It is when the lights go out in these kids' eyes early on. So why should Brandon have bothered? For this, people will blame Brandon. If I can, with confidence, predict there will be another Brandon, then the fault is with us as a society which says one thing about valuing education and whose actions say another. The fact that basketball was the focal point in your article makes Brandon a poster spokesperson for TAG kids who were not appropriately educated. If we can't serve the most talented, we will get disfunctional smart folks. Just what we don't need to make tomorrow better! J. Michael Reid, Northeast 24th Avenue |
