Home · Articles · News · Letters to the Editor · letters, 4/16/2003
April 16th, 2003 | Letters to the Editor
 

letters, 4/16/2003

     
Tags:
CUTTING REMARKS
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the April 2 write-up [Rogue of the Week] you did
on permits for construction on private property my family owns. While I disagree with many of the assertions made, there's one item in particular I wanted to clear up: that my "spokesman did not return a call seeking comment."

Not only was Willamette Week's call returned, but I also provided a written statement by the deadline given by your reporter. Following is a synopsis of that statement:

Last fall contractors prepped land for the survey process, as part of site preparation. The city only requires a permit for removal of trees 12 inches or greater in diameter. Of the approximately 30 trees the contractors removed, 18 were less than 12 inches in diameter--and therefore no permit was required. Three were greater than 12 inches in diameter, so permits were obtained before removal occurred. Nine were stumps that had been "topped" by previous landowners, which were in a rotting state of collapse. Frankly, the contractors didn't think these stumps qualified as living trees, and therefore permits were not pursued. As soon as it came to our attention that indeed permits were still necessary, we immediately collaborated with the city and obtained the proper permits without incident.

I regret that this statement was not taken into consideration before the article was published, but would appreciate it being made available to your readers.

Peter Stott
Southwest Patton Road

Nigel Jaquiss responds: The spokesman who handles Mr. Stott's business matters did not return my call before my 5 pm deadline. The spokeswoman who handles Mr. Stott's personal matters faxed me a letter at 4:51 pm. Regrettably, I did not see the fax until the next day.

THE HAMBURGLAR
I just read Miss Dish's bit [March 26, 2003] on the Original Tommy's and the Oregon folks who are ripping off the name and menu of the L.A. original. I grew up in L.A. and am a longtime fan of the Original Tommy's. Ten years ago, my roommate and I used to drive to Eagle Rock from Los Feliz to have chili dogs all the time.

I was really excited to see the Tommy's that used to be on West Burnside, but when I tried the dogs there I was disappointed and had a feeling it couldn't be the original or that something was lost in the move to Oregon. I never went back. I think it's pretty amazing (and wrong) that
the folks who run the local "Tommy's" have gotten away with such a blatant ripoff--from the cursive logo to the menu to the bumper sticker--for so long. Maybe now that the truth is out, homesick Los Angeleans will satisfy their urges some other way--perhaps by driving to Redding, Calif., to have an In-N-Out burger instead.

A. Scollard
Northeast Portland

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

comments powered by Disqus
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close