Skip to main contentFREE YOUR MIND AND YOUR TONGUE WILL FOLLOW
Regarding the hatchet job of Nov.21 ["Two Starches?"], Roger Porter refers to something he calls "culinary intelligence." Imagine my surprise to find Roger so incredibly deficient in any semblance of "culinary intelligence." The cafe in question is Cafe Dacx, a classy cafe with some of the most flavorful food I have found in Portland. I found the cafe via a column in The Oregonian that--I subsequently discovered--correctly described Cafe Dacx as "the best new restaurant in town."
In his unprofessional and pathetically mean-spirited review, Roger ridicules food flavors and presentations that are clearly creative and unique; apparently, traditional roast beef at the Hilton banquet line is the Roger Porter idea of "culinary intelligence." Furthermore, Roger can not see the vision of the cafe--something Roger should call his "culinary blindness." Cafe Dacx is an overload of vision, both aesthetic and culinary. In the future, I hope Roger expands his limited "culinary intelligence," for he will discover there is more to life and food than yearning for the typically insipid food he recognizes. However, judging by the waiting line at my most recent visit to Cafe Dacx, Roger has a vision shared by the few, the proud...well, I guess just Roger.
Shannon Buchanan
Northeast 25th Avenue
NEWS GONE TO THE DOGS
Trapped by the vicious rain of this morning's storm, I read the lead story about the bulldog [actually a boxer; see "Dog. Gone."] in the Nov. 28 WW. Slow week at the news desk? Temporary temporal-lobe deficit? Demented dog devotee devote a dollop of dough to your paper? I am still searching for an explanation for the raison d'être for this wandering, woofy, trivial tale of...my mind staggers--what the hell was the point of this drivel? Of what value is this material to anyone?? In a complex current world filled with crucial, important, grave, meaningful stories, you all made the choice to write a story about a dog-napping???
The mind boggles. Trivia rules. How about a story on my Aunt Agatha's blind chipmunk? Some real drama and social import there!
Steve Allen
Northeast Hazelfern Place
I AM NOT A BLEACHING AGENT
Regarding "The Bleaching of Northeast Portland" [WW, Nov. 28, 2001]: Yes, a number of white people have moved here into Northeast Portland, but your idea that they are forcing black people out of their homes is insulting and a vague generality. Many of the people selling their homes have owned them for years, profiting from the sale and then moving. Unfortunately, renters do suffer the brunt of this. Blame the real-estate market and corporate layoffs, but don't blame me. I moved here, like many others who have bought homes in Northeast Portland, because it's the only place in Portland I can afford to live. And just because many of us moving here are white doesn't mean we are trying to change people's lives. We'll wait for Starbucks-drinking journalists and other hypocrites to come create that opportunity.
It's a simple fact that everyone wants to live in the best conditions they can, and when a place that was once overlooked becomes noticed as a nice place to live, more outsiders will want to live there. Hopefully, an anti-displacement program will help those who need it.
Your article insinuates that African Americans should have their own neighborhood and be left alone. Isn't that supporting segregation? Multiculturalism and diversity mean that people of all ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds should get along and live together. And please don't ignore the voices of the gay/lesbian and Hispanic populations that live here, too: They are definitely not part of your "bleaching" conspiracy.
Ryan Washburn
Northeast 30th Avenue
SHUCKIN' & MOVIN'?
This is in response to Chris Lydgate's article "The Bleaching of Northeast Portland" [Nov. 21, 2001]. It purports to be written on behalf of the black folks forced out of their neighborhood by incoming whites but instead is only the misguided ramblings of a self-hating white liberal.
First, his entire piece is steeped in racist ideas about black people--he seems to have this stereotyped image of blacks as poor people who can't contend with the complexities of market forces, a modern day Amos and Andy. He doesn't mention once that rising housing prices raise rates for everyone, black homeowners included. Instead, all he can say is poor [Mr.] Grixgby and his wife "worry they will fall behind in their mortgage payments." In fact, Lydgate never even talked to one person he claims to represent, his conclusions being based on pure economic data.
Lydgate doesn't save his racism for black folk, though. By saying that North and Northeast Portland will be "reduced to pale imitations of their former selves," Lydgate implies that whites are inferior to blacks in other ways, causing the neighborhood to suffer. Although he doesn't mention them, we all know the white stereotypes that Lydgate is getting at.
Justin Levy
Southeast 44th Avenue
Chris Lydgate responds: As president of the Portland Association of Misguided Self-Hating Starbucks-Drinking White Liberal Journalists, I'd like to thank both writers for their comments. Without question, gentrification produces winners as well as losers, and the article should have pointed this out. Nonetheless, neither writer seriously challenged the article's central thesis: that Northeast and North Portland have lost thousands of black residents over the last 10 years.
SALMON * UGB
Nick Budnick's article "Fight Sprawl, Kill Salmon" [WW, Oct. 31, 2001] misses the point. Budnick suggests sprawl is better for salmon than the compact neighborhoods created by Oregon's land-use system. This conclusion is highly dubious. Sprawling development increases the amount of land converted to urban uses, which is unquestionably harmful to salmon.
Moreover, the article ignores the existing land-use goal requiring protection of urban wildlife habitat. The problem isn't the law, but its implementation. Too many local governments, especially Washington County, systematically violate and resist efforts to meet the wildlife habitat goal.
The article also begs the question: Why has there been no significant improvement in Oregon's land-use system? The answer: A legislative majority that puts developers ahead of citizens, voting repeatedly to weaken land-use safeguards. If not for Gov. Kitzhaber's vetoes, Oregon's Legislature would have fundamentally weakened farmland protections, while mandating dramatic expansions in urban growth boundaries. Salmon would have suffered, along with air quality and traffic.
Of course, the Legislature's anti-environment bent isn't limited to land use. The Oregon League of Conservation Voters' 2001 Environmental Scorecard shows the Legislature flunked for the fourth straight session, earning a 45-percent average score. (Voters can find out how their own legislators scored by checking out www.olcv.org/
scorecard.)
The only hope to save salmon and take meaningful steps to improve our land-use system--not to mention clean up the Willamette, improve recycling and address toxics in our air--is if Oregon voters elect more leaders committed to protecting the environment.
Jonathan Poisner
Executive Director, Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Southwest Stark Street
WWeek 2015