|
TIME TO PLAY HARDBALL
Your questions about the feasibility of major league baseball in Portland ("Boys of Summer," 500 Words, WW, April 22, 1998) had all the zip of a slow-pitch pick-up game. Apparently you, along with a number of community leaders, prefer to look at the subject while wearing rose (city)-colored glasses. A little hardball is in order. The discussion so far has been dominated by costs of an acceptable ballpark, whether publicly or privately financed. Don't think for one minute that Civic Stadium would meet MLB standards (e.g., distances from home plate to the grandstands). But even if a magic wand could create a spanking new venue along the lines of Camden Yards or Jacobs Field, there are more compelling reasons to dismiss the idea as a ridiculous example of "wishing will make it so." Three other costs should be considered: The franchise itself, players' salaries and ticket prices. Acquiring a franchise is daunting. Example: The Baltimore Orioles were purchased in 1973 for $173 million and are worth far more today. Their payroll for players--admittedly near the highest in baseball--is some $73 million annually. Their average ticket price is $18.93 per game, the fourth-highest in the majors. There is simply no likelihood that Portland can hope to bring a major league team to this great city. The fundamentals aren't in place: (1) The enormous investment for a franchise and to bankroll a competitive team, (2) adequate TV-radio contracts (we would be one of those "small-market" clubs that are always troubled), (3) sufficient corporate interest in lavish "sky suites" that now account for about 10 percent of a team's revenue, and (4) purchasing power among the potential fans. The average household income in Oregon still lags behind most other major league markets. Can anyone honestly anticipate attendance averaging 25,000-plus for home games? Where were these fans when we had high-quality AAA baseball? Furthermore, any claim that major league baseball is needed to strengthen Portland's economy is bogus; no academic analysis has shown a significant impact from new major league clubs. Income for other entertainment is largely displaced, that's all. No doubt about it, this is an idea that has struck out even before the game has begun. Donald W. Lief (who grew up as a Brooklyn Dodger fan)
Southeast 58th Avenue THE TROUBLE WITH POLITICAL PROS
Re: WW's political endorsements ["Looks Aren't Everything," May 6, 1998]. I have always been concerned about WW's endorsements of young candidates whose only goal in life is to be a professional politician. It troubles me. I worked with many such hard-chargers in Washington, D.C. They all had Ivy-League résumés built around the subject, with short stints here and there trying to get another claim of "experience" and another constituency to which to pander. Miles wide, inches deep, no real life experience. The classic example of such a politician is Bill Clinton. And what I have observed about such candidates is that they sell out the cheapest, sell out the fastest, and never have a bold initiative to champion (unless their pollsters tell them the public has already decided). Jim Bennett
North Shaver Street FRESH MEAT?!
Can it be that child pornography has actually become hip? Is it possible that I'm the only person left out of the loop on this new trend? These thoughts never crossed my mind before reading "Fresh Meat" [Shine-ola, WW, May 13, 1998]. "Shine-ola" subtitles itself "A weekly round-up of things we like." This week, the authors apparently found that "braless wonders, who are eerily sexy beyond their 13 years" didn't "have to be edible, just very, very tasty." My response to this is, "What?!?!" Admiring the clothing advertised in "dELiA*s" catalog would be one matter, but recommending that WW readers call to order a catalog "for a peek" at the "pubescent nymphet" models is something else entirely. To which exact demographic does this column cater? I do not believe that young girls, especially girls who are too young even to apply for a provisional driver's permit, should be considered "fresh meat" by anyone. Isn't there enough material for sick pedophile freaks to admire as it is, without pointing out some they might have missed? Jessica Coleman
Southwest Vista Avenue SAY WHAT?
Steffen Silvis makes me feel low-brow and unsophisticated. Although I have been a participant in community theater for more than 20 years and have studied the subject at length, I am rarely able to make out what he means or for whom he is writing. I found his May 13, 1998, offering particularly inaccessible, beginning with the [subhead], "The Other Side Theater ends its season with a problematic play by Irvine Welsh." I cannot figure out what he means by "problematic play" from the context of the review. One seminal sentence is altogether baffling: "Though the Kaleyard School slammed with Billingsgate is still the style, here it's under the muse of gratuitousness." Sounds impressive. But I have not been able to find anywhere handy, including the Internet, any explanation of what the Kaleyard School might be. Nor how it can be slammed with Billingsgate. Nor where that is the style. Nor what might be the muse of gratuitousness. I'll continue reading Silvis reviews. Perhaps one day I will gain the enlightenment of those for whom he writes. He must be doing important work, else Willamette Week would not provide him with the second-best pulpit in the region for this sort of thing. Mike Heywood
President, board of directors,
The Old Slocum House Theater Company
Vancouver, Wash. Steffen Silvis responds:Webster's New World Dictionary, second college edition, and the American College Dictionary, among other reference books, define the Kaleyard (or Kailyard) School as literature dealing with Scottish life, often written in dialect. T&A, GO AWAY
So now the WW is giving a soapbox to tasteless, meaningless fetish cartoons? What exactly was the purpose of publishing derf's personal beat-off dream ("It must be great to be a baby," May 13, 1998)? Doesn't he get enough breasts shoved in his face by the mass media, or will he and countless other boys use breast-fed vs. non-breast-fed childhoods as an excuse to belittle the bodies of their mothers, sisters, daughters and peers? If he is so in love with one part of the female anatomy (as if this is what defines a woman), why doesn't he (and the rest of the fetish boys) get himself a breast job so he can truly have a mindless experience at his fingertips 24-7? This would certainly alleviate the pressure put on smaller-breasted women who get themselves altered for the benefit of boneheads like derf. Imagine the furor that would arise if instead of female bodies being used to sell every product imaginable, we were subjected to bulging male crotch shots--homophobic, misogynistic America would riot in the streets. Sara Prator
Northeast 15th Avenue THE WRONG AGENDA?
In your article "A November Agenda" [500 Words, WW, May 13, 1998] you challenged Oregon's leaders to take on Oregon's "impoverished" character as defined by our tax code. But you seem to be blind to improvements which have already occurred. First, you pined over the corporate income tax rate being lower than the personal income tax rate, adding to the burden of poor families. Why, then, did you support increasing the corporate rate, rather than reducing the personal rate? You also bemoan the inequities in Oregon's property tax system. Those inequities were created by the pre-Measure 47/50 property tax system. Had that system been so fair, there would not have been any inequities to lock into place. Furthermore, the shift in the property tax burden on homeowners from half to 66 percent was due to the rapid increase in residential property values, while commercial property values stayed relatively flat. The property tax cut-and-cap stopped that increasing gap dead in its tracks. And who says property tax reform is complete? California's Proposition 13 created far more inequities in property tax rates than Oregon's Measure 47/50, but polls show that Prop. 13 would pass by a greater margin today than it did in the 1980s. Oregon's property tax cut-and-cap does something California's doesn't --the cut-and-cap follows the property, even when it is sold. Over time, it is likely Oregon's will be even more widely supported than California's. In the face of broad public support for property tax relief, your premise of tax equity (trying to imply that you think families need tax relief when what you really believe is that taxes on businesses should be increased) will likely fall on deaf ears. Becky Miller, executive assistant
Oregon Taxpayers United |
