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. Neighbors, Not NIMBYs I read your pick for "Best Protest" with surprise and disappointment ["Best of Portland," WW, July 21, 1999]. It indicates that Willamette Week now advocates NIMBYism and is opposed to in-fill development. It is ironic that the Rivieres would claim to be concerned about our neighborhood's livability: they won't even say hello to neighbors who greet them on the street, even those who aren't developers. I have lived in this same Northwest Portland neighborhood since 1966 and have seen it change dramatically--and for the better. I welcome new condos and rowhouses because each unit represents one fewer McMansion on the edge of the urban growth boundary. It's a shame that Willamette Week validates NIMBYs instead of exposing them as the hypocrites that they are. When it comes to livability, infill housing is the solution, not the problem. Brett Schulz Northwest Overton Street Hatching Plans In your Best of Portland, under Fresh Air, you listed the Best Nest, located on Northwest Thurman Street [WW, July 21, 1999]. A nice write-up--save for one correction. The egg is not a rock. The egg is a human-made object, a masonry concoction of concrete, latex and dyes, in a nest of woven vines over a base of volcanic rocks. It is an environmental installation piece that was installed on the first day of spring. Yes, the egg and nest get a multitude of comments, especially about what will hatch from it (reptile or fowl) and when. The answer is soon to come, for the egg is fertile and will hatch soon, with an "opening" party to follow. You'll get an invitation. Geo Kendall Northwest Thurman Street Check Your Head Your editorial ["Best of Portland, Worst of Salem," WW, July 21, 1999] states, "No matter how hard we try, we cannot comprehend how any reasonable person could object to requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows" (presumably for private-party sales, as gun dealers are required to do background checks). Other passages display a combination of overly simplistic thinking and offensive arrogance. Why is it taboo for a private citizen to sell a gun at a gun show? The location of the transaction has no bearing on the fact that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun. For many, House Bill 2535 seems arbitrary and inane because it mandates background checks by private parties only when physically at a gun show. It likely is one reason some oppose it. Another reason could be the belief that passing this measure is another step toward making all gun ownership illegal--a belief, I might add, that is likely made more fervent for many by the tone and content of your article. Thus, opposing HB 2535 could be seen as striving to protect a constitutional right of all Americans--something WW would certainly champion were this any other constitutional provision. Others might object on principle to the notion of government-forced inspections of one citizen by another for the sale of an otherwise legal item. We aren't required to do this for the multitude of other inherently dangerous items that we currently buy and sell from each other. For example, none of us is required to perform background checks for valid driver licenses and auto insurance or for drunk-driving convictions before selling our car. That your staff can't see how or why anyone would have a different opinion than its own helps explain the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude displayed in the article; it also indicates that WW may need a not-so-small infusion of new blood. Perhaps a little intellectual diversity is in order at the old rag? Frank Medeiros Southeast 30th Avenue Un-Christian Activities As both a Christian and a resident of downtown Portland, I am rather upset at what First "Christian" Church is doing to Pat Kyrilov ["Getting On, Getting Out," WW, July 21, 1999]. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments--in Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25:31-46, for example--it is made clear that we Christians will be judged on how we treat the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the old, the disabled, the imprisoned and so forth. That the church would expect Ms. Kyrilov to pay $10,932.50 in legal costs because they want to evict her is plain ridiculous. They should have to pay her for making her move. The practice of updating the apartments as they became vacant should have continued. The new process of evicting longtime low-income seniors so that they can be replaced by higher-paying tenants is just plain wrong. Impatience and greed are not virtues. I volunteer with a small organization that provides service to the homeless. I have talked to homeless people who are working but can't afford housing. The last thing Portland needs is another decrease in affordable housing units. I'm sure there is a way that the renovation of the remaining units at the Rosefriend Apartments could be done without evicting anyone. I hope the membership of First Christian Church will realize the wrong that is being done in their name and put a stop to it, before eviction notices are served to "a 91-year-old retired social worker and an 81-year-old nun." The idea that a church might evict a nun is outrageous. Jan Anderson Northwest Broadway It's "Awful", "Not Ugly" In its cover story on metro-area legislators ["The Good, The Bad and the Awful," July 14, 1999], Willamette Week starts out with a good premise, rating legislators in four categories: brains, integrity, diligence and clout. Each of these areas is relevant to a policymaker's job. The publication loses its way, however, when it peppers legislative profiles with sophomoric physical descriptions: "pit bull with a pageboy;" "improbably blond;" "copious;" "Hobbit-like;" "Chris Farley lookalike;" and "bald-headed bumbler." Such phrases, drafted by Willamette Week's Patty Wentz, read more like an unofficial high school rag than reliable and intelligent journalism. Perhaps Willamette Week writers would not be as quick to cast judgment on the physical attributes of legislators if they themselves were so scrutinized. Imagine readers camping outside of the publication's headquarters on Southwest 10th Avenue, taking notes on the appearance of various reporters. Since many of us have not had as much experience devising clever allusions, our descriptions might be more pedestrian: "ugly;" "fat;" "short;" or "bad dye job." If we published our opinions, along with photographs of individual journalists, in a We Rate the Writers! magazine, we might be accused of being misguided and mean-spirited. After all, what does physicality have to do with a reporter's skills? Indeed. The decision to become an elected official, whether it be president or dogcatcher, assumes a certain vulnerability to criticism or ridicule. Calling a representative to task for a particular vote, or making fun of a senator's propensity to grandstand--these are expected and acceptable forms of appraisal. Running for office is not the same as running for Miss Oregon, however, and metro-area readers deserve an "alternative" newspaper that knows the difference. Angela Uherbelau Northeast 51st Avenue Public Art Ache Karen E. Steen's "Saved by a Prayer" piece in last week's Buzz column [July 28, 1999] was the last straw. After countless articles in every city paper on the plight of these Homeric pillars, this piece finally brought home the utterly hypocritical (and seemingly totally unconscious) position of so many "lovers of public art" in Portland. Those old column paintings under the Lovejoy Ramp, nice as they may be, are nothing more or less than graffiti. What I'd like to know is, where's the outcry every time a contemporary piece of public art gets scrubbed by a demolition crew, an over-zealous neighborhood committee or a city cleaning squad? If the only difference between the two is that one is 50 years old and the other 50 days, that doesn't speak well of the foresight of "art lovers." But of course that's not the only, or even main, difference. The real issue is the aesthetics and the cultures that the different kinds of graffiti represent and speak for--the fact that one is seen as harmless, pretty and an affirmation of the values of those great old ancient Greeks; the other is seen as threatening, ugly and a creation of people who threaten these values. While the older pieces couldn't be more gentle, romantic and benign, more contemporary pieces are vilified as unsightly gang-related messes of misdirected teen angst. In discussions on contemporary graffiti in Portland there seems to be a total lack of discrimination between simple tags (often of minimal aesthetic value and often put on private property) and larger more complex pieces (often extremely well-composed and executed, often on dreary, dilapidated public property like Stefopoulos' art). This latter form of graffiti is internationally recognized as a valid and vital art form, one that lives in galleries (since the early 1980s) as well as on the street where it was born and continues to thrive. It's high time for this city's art lovers to wake up to the rest of the beauty and creativity around them. While the old Greek's pieces are definitely worth saving, there's a lot more public art out there that shouldn't be destroyed so thoughtlessly either. Ezra Ereckson Southeast 28th Avenue What's Faith Got To Do With It? In the article by Nigel Jaquiss entitled "The Great Cattle Caper," [WW, July 28, 1999], there is a line referring to Jay Hoyt: "At the center of the con is a silver-tongued Mormon..." Searching the article for any relevance of Hoyt's religion, I could find none. Substitute "silver-tongued Jew." How does that sound to your ears? Such blatant bigotry has no place in your newspaper. Your readers are owed an apology. Steve Levy Southwest Nebraska Street You Had To Be There As an activist parent who is very involved in school-funding issues, I couldn't let Steven Novick's letter on school funding ["Funding Arithmetic," WW, July 28, 1999] go unanswered. It was clear from Novick's letter that he was miles away from the school-funding battles that took place in the state Capitol. Otherwise he wouldn't have questioned Rep. Randall Edwards' leadership on this issue. When quantifying leadership on school-funding matters, I'm mystified as to how Novick can totally ignore the most important school-funding votes this session. Those were the votes on locking up the tobacco-settlement money. Edwards wrote the alternative bill that would have freed up $150 million of the tobacco money for schools--the amount needed to get the total school funding to the no-cuts level of $4.95 billion. Edwards' alternative bill to fund schools was the bill that the Republican leadership had to fight the hardest to kill. They failed to kill his bill on the first try (it received 30 votes). On that vote, Edwards deserves credit for not only rounding up every one of his Democratic colleagues but also for securing four Republican votes. Did anyone else accomplish that this session? Novick seems to have some other agenda. If it is to eliminate tax exemptions, that's a legitimate area of debate. He should leave the analysis of leadership on school-funding issues to those who were actually engaged in the debate. Andi Jordan Lake Oswego - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published August 11, 1999