"...he suggests the other course of action is to 'just do it.' Just do what? Readers are left scratching their heads."

Rick Anderson missed an important opportunity when covering the Seattle Housing Authority's efforts to provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to the Morrison's problems ("Death by committee?" 12/7). Currently, the Morrison Task Force is studying six options for the low-income housing facility. The group includes representatives from the City of Seattle, King County, SHA, community service agencies, and low-income housing groups. The task force's recommendation will be presented to the SHA Board of Commissioners in January or February. Mr. Anderson, however, views SHA's efforts working with stakeholders as "too democratic."

It's not clear what process Mr. Anderson prefers. Ignoring other stakeholders who also work with some of Seattle's neediest residents? In fact, he suggests the other course of action is to "just do it." Just do what? Readers are left scratching their heads. It is unfortunate that he didn't use the opportunity to outline elements of the proposals and shed some light on the complex task of providing low-income housing for the population served by SHA and the Downtown Emergency Service Center.

To his credit, Mr. Anderson recognized that some Morrison residents are pleased with SHA's recent management changes at the building, but he gave their opinion little weight. Over half of the residents signed a petition endorsing SHA's management of the building and requesting that SHA remain as owner and manager. The task force is considering this as one of the options for the Morrison. Seattle Weekly's readers deserve more thorough coverage of this story, with more complete facts.

VIRGINIA FELTON
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, SHA

Geek fantasy fix

Thank you for the well written and, in a way, necessary article [Kiss my ASCII, "You'll geek to anything," 12/7]. You make a good point in that we, as a geek-fanbase, rush to anything vaguely fantasy-related to get a fix, knowing the really, really good movies are few and far between (can you think of ANY in the past 10 years?). But I'm not sure exactly where the fault lies.

As youngsters, we clamored to see Conan or The Beastmaster, or if our parents weren't watching, Deathstalker, and like any other genre of film, found 80 to 90 percent crap. But speaking from personal experience, because we've been given so much crap, some of us have come to appreciate it for its own sake. I went to see the Dungeons & Dragons movie (and, in true geek fashion, went with the twenty-/thirtysomethings I game with), and I did enjoy it. But not because it was good (though there were moments that were). I enjoyed it because it was laughably bad.

I, too, have hopes for Lord of the Rings. I grew up on the books, and rather than the various versions of Carroll's Alice, the director seems to understand the source material. But because I can appreciate good cinema doesn't mean I can't appreciate bad. Yes, by supporting these films, we ensure that more awful fantasy movies are made. But that's because deep down inside, we really want them.

JOSH
VIA E-MAIL

What a sad world

What is so hard about being humble? After having read Emily Baillargeon Russin's piece on the gloriousness of fur ["Ready and Sable," 12/7], I just sat down and shook my head. Regardless of the cogent arguments I could present about the intrinsic and horrid cruelty of the fur industry on sentient beings, it just seems the plastic people of this city must prioritize their pathetic cry for attention over the 40+ animals that must be killed for one stupid coat. What a sad world we live in when these truths exist in supposedly progressive bastions like Seattle. Maybe someday we will live more humbly as a species. For now, the ugly and transparent fakes like Russin are certainly having their day.

JOE HAPTAS
SEATTLE

Pomp and circumstance

I am disappointed in the "attitude" Ms. Robinson brings with her when she chooses to criticize and compliment at the same time. I have had an incredibly welcoming experience while dining at Zoe [see "Here she is. . . ." 12/7]. I have read Ms. Robinson's restaurant reviews for many years and find that her writing is often aloof, a characteristic I sense she carries with her when she makes her presence known. While she can obviously hit the nail on the head with her reviews, she often reverts to a condescending writing style. I have no idea what her credentials are as a food critic, but I suspect they are nothing more than a woman who likes to eat.

I have found the entire staff of Zoe gracious and informative. They know the specifics of their menu and how to create a wonderful evening. I will agree that Zoe does not offer great food at every level. However, I have found the menu to be adventuresome without being peculiar, and the presentation appealing and creative. I respect the role a food critic offers in letting a broad audience know what to expect when they walk into a restaurant. I simply wish Ms. Robinson would focus on a more positive style of writing and leave her pomp and circumstance at home.

GARY FULLER
VIA E-MAIL