Skip to main content
Could you get any more snide and condescending when it involves life over here across the river in Vancouver ["Welcome to the 'Couv," WW, March 21, 2007]? Contrary to the nose-in-the-air Portland snobs who contend otherwise, there are plenty of good places to eat, plays to see, bookstores to visit and great neighborhoods in The 'Couv. What you won't find is $30-a-plate fennel and fish dishes with a swirl of some squeeze-tubed sauce around it. What you also won't find is 45-minute 5-mile drives across town to visit friends. I lived in Southeast Portland and have been in Vancouver for the last six or so. Like Royce Pollard said, if there's anything I want in Portland, it's right over there.
Mike Nettleton
Northwest Vancouver
We pay your taxes
I was excited when I picked up today's issue of Willie Week to see some column inches devoted to the scene in the 'Couv ["Welcome to the 'Couv," WW, March 21, 2007]. My excitement quickly turned to disappointment and frustration when I read the lead article ("Safety Valve") with its opening analogy of Vancouverites as leeches, dodging state and sales taxes, benefiting from Portland's infrastructure without spending a dime.
To Mike Thelin, I say, do your homework!
Those of us who live in Southwest Washington and work in Oregon pay 9 percent Oregon state tax—the same as Oregonians. Yes, we travel on Oregon roads, drink Oregon water and breathe Oregon air when we are at our jobs, so perhaps some sort of use tax makes sense (New York state has the same sort of statute, taxing commuters from the surrounding states who go where the best jobs are). It's just that I (and many of the Vancouver residents who toil in Portland) would rather be acknowledged as a part of Oregon's unofficial tax base than reviled as opportunistic parasites.
Furthermore, many of the Vancouverites I've met who don't work in Portland never go to Portland—meaning that they buy their goods in Washington and pay the sales tax. My family is happy to support the infrastructure (including good schools) in Southwest Washington and we not only shop on our side of the river, but also buy from local vendors so the money stays in the community.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see this spread on "the second-largest city in Oregon," as our mayor calls Vancouver. I hope that more Portlanders will hop on a bus, ride a bike, or take a boat across the river and and check out some of the places your reporters mentioned. I just hope they remember: the Vancouverite they meet may well be an Oregon taxpayer!
Jessica Letteney
Vancouver
What did you think was going to happen?
I don't think I understand the point of the piece by your reporter who posed as a supporter of the Iraq war at the March 18 antiwar rally, in order to see what happened "in a town that claims to believe in free speech" ["The Anti-Protester," WW, March 21, 2007]. What happened was: People engaged in their own free speech by voicing disagreement with him, some of them strenuously. The entire point of the rally was to oppose continuing the war. Should it have been a surprise that the people attending would have done so individually, rather than only as a group?
Voicing disagreement—even doing so impolitely—is not actually inconsistent with supporting free speech. No one appears to have suggested that the reporter should be jailed for expressing his opinion, or that the government should have intervened to prevent him from carrying his sign at the rally. The right to free speech is, after all, our right to speak our minds without certain forms of government intervention, not the right to be free from other private citizens daring to disagree with us. The First Amendment does not require us to support views different from our own, or to thank people for expressing odious opinions, or to politely refrain from disagreeing with others.
One would think that a reporter, of all people, would understand this. Perhaps this is why your piece didn't, in the end, appear to have any point at all.
Sheila Potter
Southeast Yukon Streeet
Domino effect
That Pitkin fella has brass cojones for going to the antiwar lovefest ["The Anti-Protester," WW, March 21, 2007]. I could never do that—terrorists don't bother me, but antiwar liberals on a rampage scare the merde out of me. After all, you can reason with some terrorists.
I think by now we can all agree the Iraq war was a dumb idea, but so was the unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Korea by Truman, ditto Kennedy's invasion of Cuba & Vietnam, and so would be an invasion of Darfur. Let's face it, if Clinton had bombed Iraq instead of a few empty tents and an aspirin factory, the lefties would have reflexively supported him. Bush is an inarticulate, free-spending embarrassment to the Republican party that only a mom could love. The good news, is Bush makes Nixon look better in hindsight, and virtually assures an Obama/Clinton victory in '08. As a conservative, I love this idea, because we'll see once again how awful Democrats are at leadership during a crisis.
Mark Kraschel
Northwest 12th Street
WWeek 2015