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. FROM SUMMIT TO TROUGH Having just finished a day of slogging through Measure 7 at the Miller Nash "Summit," I decided to relax by perusing Willamette Week. Unfortunately, your misinformed Rogue of the Week column [Dec. 6, 2000] compels me to spend my evening setting the record straight. The forum was exactly as billed--an attempt to flesh out the complexity of the new law from every angle. All sides were represented--from 1000 Friends to Oregonians in Action. In fact, much, if not most, of the discussion centered on critiquing the serious ambiguities, inconsistencies and other problems with the measure. There was absolutely no effort to seek "potential clients who feel wronged by land use regulations and now have a tool to get some cash." After the large morning session, the firm hosted a working group of legislative leaders, government representatives and property-rights interests. Again, it was a serious effort to address the many gaps and, in the opinion of many of the attendees, flaws in the measure. Perhaps the firm's motives are best discerned from the fact that many attendees were prominent attorneys from competing law firms. Although I write this as a private citizen, I have opposed Miller Nash many times in my role as Washington County counsel. In this instance, the firm deserves a great deal of credit for putting aside potential short-term gains to perform an important service for all the citizens of Oregon. Your unwarranted criticism did your readers a great disservice. Dan R. Olsen Southeast Main Street MISTAKINGS AND MISGIVINGS Your Nov. 29 article on Measure 7 ["This Land Is Their Land"] tied together several threads about our love-hate relationship with land use planning. I have seen this relationship change over 19 years, first as a real estate agent, then as a planning commissioner, and now as a lawyer. I believe that Measure 7 passed for a number of reasons, including these: 1. Senate Bill 100 was intended to cause some land to be designated for development, with other land locked up until it should logically be developed. Restrictions would be reduced over time to encourage orderly urbanization. Instead, the state has increased restrictions on farms in rural areas, without halting the "martini farms" that planning was supposed to stop. 2. Developers and owners need clear rules before they will invest in needed housing. Zoning was supposed to supply that certainty. Yet two metro-area cities are famous for disapproving high-density projects that comply with their zoning codes. A third city often applies unwritten rules, even requiring owners of two adjoining legal lots to pay a fee before selling one of them. 3. The excesses of a few cities have poisoned the well for those that plan responsibly. For example, one county made a landowner abandon a rural house because it had been vacant for one year after the previous occupant died. 4. Oregonians gave up some freedom to use their land in exchange for the promise that Oregon would not look like suburban Los Angeles. Streets like 185th Avenue show that the state did not keep this promise. This state still needs responsible land-use planning. The cities challenging Measure 7 in court must consider how their actions helped Measure 7 pass. Dean N. Alterman Southwest 2nd Avenue PICKING UP THE CHECK FOR 1000 FRIENDS Let me see if I've got this straight: In the world according to Willamette Week, Measure 7 was hoisted upon Oregon by a right-wing extremist group with "buzz-cut survivalist-style" haircuts engaging in "class warfare" ["This Land Is Their Land," Nov. 29, 2000]. And the only reason the measure passed was because the more enlightened special-interest groups were asleep at the switch and all us voters were just too confused to know what we were actually voting for. Yeah, right. I realize it is a novel concept, but how about giving the voters a little credit? Perhaps the same group of Oregonians who are intelligent enough to appreciate a progressive land-use scheme also have enough gray matter to dislike an oppressive application of those same land-use laws. The explanation for Measure 7 passing is probably this simple: Oregonians largely like the land-use planning laws currently in place because they go a long way toward providing an environment we want to be a part of. However, we also understand the fundamental unfairness of having one citizen absorb the entire cost of a land-use regulation that purports to serve the public good. Frank Medeiros Southeast 30th Avenue Patty Wentz responds: With all due respect, Mr. Medeiros is unfairly characterizing my story. As I pointed out, there are many people who believe that the vote for Measure 7 was no accident, but rather an indication of a backlash coming from a populace frustrated with governmental controls of all kinds on their property. FORGET THE KIDS--WHO GETS THE HOUSE? As a member of the board of the Northwest Children's Theater, I take great personal offense at the statements made by Louisa McCleary in her letter published in the Nov. 29 WW ["Staging a Coup," Letters]. She has no basis for her vicious claims that the theater board has at any time attempted to "appropriate" the Northwest Cultural Center, nor for her vituperative attacks on your reporter. The center is owned by a membership of local citizens and managed by a board of directors. When vacancies on the board developed, the theater board suggested some names, and Ms. McCleary herself was asked to fill a position, but she refused to participate in the interview process. Among the additional falsehoods in her letter, she alleges that the theater refused to negotiate over this dispute. In fact, there was mediation under the auspices of one of the state's most respected mediators, former U.S. Attorney Sid Lezak. One of the "neighborhood leaders" who was engaged in the process accepted the terms of the mediation on behalf of the "leaders," but the rest of the "leaders" rejected it. We, on the other hand, have always been willing to abide by the agreement, and have recently offered another suggestion for settlement, but have not even had the courtesy of a response. The Northwest Children's Theater has at all times acted in the best interests of the building--we are the major tenant there, and supporter of the many social-service agencies that have space at very low rents. For Ms. McCleary, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise is irresponsible in the extreme and threatens the existence of both the theater and the cultural center. The impartial reporter from the Willamette Week was accurate in his observations made in the Oct. 11 article regarding who has been a help and who has been a hindrance to the building. Stephen Kafoury Southwest 6th Avenue