WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. Another Opinion As the city project manager for the Lovejoy Ramp and Central City Streetcar projects, I would like to respond to Rex Burkholder's letter ["Bicycle-Friendly City?" WW, June 30, 1999]. When Northwest Lovejoy Street between 9th and 14th avenues is rebuilt as a regular at-grade, surface street, it is true there will be no bike lane for eastbound travel. Because of the operation of the Central City Streetcar, we don't believe it is safe for bike riders to use that portion of Lovejoy where there will be tracks (Northwest 11th to 14th streets). However, Northwest Johnson Street, which is designated as a bike facility in the city's Bike Master Plan through both the Pearl District and Northwest Portland, is a very good, safe alternative. Bicyclists coming from Northwest Portland who want to go to the east side of the river will be directed across Northwest Johnson Street to Northwest 9th Avenue. From there, they will be directed north to Northwest Lovejoy and then up the new, shorter ramp that will connect to the Broadway Bridge. The ramp will have widened sidewalks and separated bike lanes in both directions, so it will be much friendlier to both pedestrians and bike riders. As part of the Lovejoy Ramp Project, the City staff is currently looking at what kind of intersection treatments we can build in order to make bike travel on Northwest Johnson Street easier. The Lovejoy Ramp Project is just one of the infrastructure projects in the River District. Streetcar service will begin in early 2001, new parks are planned and new streets will be built as more housing comes online. Our goal is to make the District friendly for all modes of transportation. Vicky L. Diede Office of Transportation City of Portland Rut of the Dolls I would love to run over Susan Seubert with that Mack truck she's hoping for ["The Accidental Photographer," WW, June 30, 1999]. She and Willamette Week are perpetuating the "dark artist" cliché. Every other art school student does that tired old Barbie-doll/Kewpie-doll art project with that tired old rape/feminist content. Trouble is, Willamette Week gives Seubert the pages and story. It's no wonder that artists don't break out of the stereotype, when they have the press. Maurissa Kraft Southeast 28th Place Name Your Fear The profile of photographer Susan Seubert says that each photo in her Panphobia series has a "phobia name scripted underneath" ["The Accidental Photographer," WW, June 30, 1999]. What are the phobias for the photos you printed? Seubert rejected a "journalistic style," yet, judging from the profile, she illustrates a theme with a collection of captioned photos. This style seems photojournalistic to me. Seubert says that "if you decontextualize the things we fear...they become rather silly." The mixed persons of "you" and "we" confuse me. If she had said "I" in both cases, OK. But if she means someone tied up and assaulted with plastic dolls, it's easy to imagine photos of dolls on context-free black backgrounds being scary, not silly. Steve Tyler Northwest 143rd Avenue Editor's Note: The middle photograph in the set of three is captioned "Merinthophobia," fear of being bound. Flanking it are two versions of "Pediophobia"--fear of dolls. Where Blame Is Due Your poke at Sen. Gene Derfler was, I thought, appropriate. However, after reading your treatment of Cliff Frey's situation ["Why Hasn't Gov. Kitzhaber Set Him Free?" July 7, 1999], your journalistic stance on domestic violence seems, at best, disingenuous. Specifically, the last paragraph on page 19, which attempts to explain why Frey's crime of sexual assault is "a bit more complicated," troubles me. This sentence reads, "For one thing, the girl and Frey had a consensual sexual relationship dating back to New Year's Eve in 1993." And without fail comes the old "mixed signals" hook in the next sentence. The leading sentence of a paragraph (if my memory of journalistic principles is reliable) is the weightiest in terms of proving the hypothesis of the passage, and each succeeding sentence adds to that proof. It appears that Maureen O'Hagan is suggesting that we accept consensual relationships and "mixed signals" (as perceived by the aggressor) as conditions which may ameliorate or even negate the crime of sexual assault or rape. Girl, you must have had a tough life and never gotten over it. I really thought we were beyond the point where people are vulnerable to physical victimization by a partner simply by virtue of an existing or previous relationship. Perhaps most of society is there and Ms. O'Hagan is simply behind the curve? Vicki Page Southeast 27th Avenue Pay the Piper I am writing you in regard to the news story about Cliff Frey ["Why Hasn't Gov. Kitzhaber Set Him Free?" WW, July 7, 1999]. First of all, I would like to give Governor Kitzhaber three cheers for NOT granting Frey clemency. As a rape victim myself, I feel it would be a great injustice to let him out of jail just because he has a low IQ. Does that mean that if any criminal has a low IQ, then we should let them out of jail? Cliff Frey admitted he knew he had done something wrong at the time of his arrest. He was offered a shorter sentence if he pled guilty, but he chose to take his chances in court. Too many times, criminals are let off just because they have a medical condition or a learning disability. And too many times, these criminals have repeated their crime. The justice system has been too easy on criminals, and it is now time for them to suffer the consequences of their actions. I am not opposed to separating him from the other criminals so that he is not tortured or raped; however, I don't feel that he should be let out. Cliff did the crime and admits it. Now he should finish his sentence and face the consequences. Name withheld by request Southeast Portland Ask A Stupid Question... The thing I hate most about television news is that it is all opinion. They show someone being shot, and then they ask Joe Blow what he thinks about it. Does Joe have any insight into the situation? No. I do not understand why that is interesting. I assumed it wasn't. But I guess I was wrong, because the interview with Beth Stewart was just that ["Q & A," July 7, 1999]. You had featured in your "Life" section an interview with a filmmaker. I thought this would be interesting, so I turned right to it. But instead of asking her questions regarding being a filmmaker or a woman in the film industry, she was asked about fashion. Beth does not seem to have much insight or opinion about this subject. And why would she--she is a film-maker. It starts off with bringing up a film that she made, Get Your Paws Off Me. That sounded interesting. But the only question asked regarding it is: If Beth were wrapped in hosiery, what kind would it be? I personally see this as an attack against women filmmakers. It reduces a person who expresses herself, and (I have to extrapolate) expresses herself regarding her gender, to her superficial exterior. I find the whole thing uninteresting and insulting. Paul Rogers Southeast Morrison Street - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published July 14, 1999