Let me see if I get this straight. Marilyn Monroe spent most of her lifetime being exploited, primarily by those of the male gender, and the best Seattle Weekly can offer in her memory is a cover with Mickey Mouse breasts [Cover, May 18]. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Rossi Voter Against Revote
"Election systems are far from perfect anywhere. So a reversal of the outcome here is certain to encourage political operatives elsewhere, too, to swoop in when a margin of victory seems to be less than a margin of error" ["The Monkey Wrench Trial," May 18] . This quote from George Howland Jr.'s well-written article hits the nail on the head. The election process is administered and managed by people and, as such, is subject to errors. But until there is serious dialogue and effort to fix the election system that should start with the "startling" acknowledgment that things are screwed up, then both Democrats and Republicans leave themselves open to these challenges.
In my opinion, King County should become the poster child for an improved election process. The size of King County relative to the rest of the counties in the state brings both benefits and responsibilities. Appointing blue-ribbon panels does not resonate with the average person as a serious attempt to find solutions to serious problems when it is painfully clear that things are screwed up. I am waiting for the next missing box of absentee ballots to turn up. If King County does not step up to the plate, Dino Rossi will be sending thank-you notes to the King County executive and council when he defeats Maria Cantwell in 2006. Imagine this issue combined with the resources of the national Republican Party. By the way, I voted for Rossi, but I do not think that there should be another election.
Not a Monkey Wrench
If the words "monkey wrench" were intended to be pejorative, then they were consistent with George Howland Jr.'s editorial ["The Monkey Wrench Trial," May 18]. However, the editorial equates litigation with the pejorative "monkey wrench." If litigation, per se, is deemed to be something to be avoided, then liberals have dramatically changed strategies.
Bye-Bye New York
In Mossback's "The Manhattan Project" [May 18], Knute Berger laments the Manhattanization of Seattle. To begin with, increasing densities and allowing taller buildings do not a Manhattan make. Secondly, we don't have a subway system to support Manhattan-type densities. What's most pathetic about Berger's whine is that it's the same one I've been hearing since I moved here 17 years ago. Seattle envies its peer cities of Vancouver, B.C., and San Francisco. Seattle wants to be a "world-class city" (whatever that means), yet when it's time to step up to the plate, Seattle retreats to some bygone fantasy era of 1970s Fremont or it looks to tidy, manageable, charming but boring cities like Copenhagen (I'm sure it's a nice town, but who really goes out of their way to visit or live there?) for inspiration. It is exactly this type of provincial, small-town, parochial attitude that makes me want to throw my hands up in disgust, give up on this town, and go screaming back to New York, one place that is not afraid to be a real city. Perhaps Mossback would prefer a change to Seattle's motto from "New York Alki" to "Bye-Bye New York"?
Let's Not Lose Seattle
Aptly said [Mossback, "The Manhattan Project," May 18]. Let's take Knute Berger's argument further. As little as seven years ago, there was still a sense of uniqueness to be found in the Big Apple. One had to go to New York City to really experience what N.Y.C. had to offer. It couldn't be found anywhere else. Juxtapose this with two months ago when I walked down N.Y.C.'s Broadway. It felt as if I was in Salt Lake City (where I'd been one month prior) —same stores and same chain eateries. The "city" had been homogenized. The result: a New York City perfectly mimicking smaller cities, exurbs, and suburbs across America. So if Seattle now tries to mimic New York City, we'll end up coming full circle. In our effort to reinvent the city, we'll inevitably end up where we started—trying to re-create the "lost" Seattle we once had. Why waste the time and money? Instead of looking back-East backward, let's look forward and learn from the mistakes of those big-city thinkers and planners. It's time for an original vision that really will celebrate what makes Seattle special, a vision that will make cities elsewhere desire to imitate us.
Forget Free Day Care
Knute Berger's article is built on weak arguments [Mossback, "The Manhattan Project," May 18]. Just by building more skyscrapers and mass transit, we will not become Manhattan. We will reduce our dependency on cars and possibly have cheaper rent (it's simple supply and demand). We can still have historic neighborhoods, parks, green spaces, and dense living. As a matter of fact, it would be uniquely Seattle.
Nobody is talking about getting rid of Pioneer Square, the Pike Place Market, or the Arboretum, so Berger's scare tactics are useless. Sure, most high-rises will have penthouses where the rich will live. Good! They will pay more in local taxes to help pay for some of Mayor Nickels' projects. Meanwhile, middle-income people will be able to live close to work and school.
I agree that Nickels is too cozy with Paul Allen and other developers. But that doesn't mean all his ideas are bad. I also agree that we need to make our urban core more livable. However, we aren't a socialist European country. Free public day care wouldn't work in the litigious U.S.A. What we need to do is have drug rehab, mental-health facilities, and low-income housing. The homeless problem is the only thing that I don't like about living downtown.
Agree or disagree? Write to Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western Ave., Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to email@example.com. By submission of a letter, you agree that we may edit the letter and publish and/or license the publication of it in print, electronically, and for archival purposes. Please include name, location, and phone number.