DEAR STRANGER: Grant Cogswell is way out of line, reviewing the Seattle Poetry Slam in the guise of a calendar listing [Readings, July 27]. As the former president of Salon Productions, another nonprofit local spoken-word production company, I am horrified by the use of listings to attempt to ruin the reputation of a long-standing community event. The Slam has brought national-level talent to our audiences, [and has developed] the skills of local artists during its open-mic and open-slam formats. Seattle will be hosting the National Poetry Slam in 2001, bringing revenues, national media attention, and at least 300 of the best poets in the country to our city. (Last year the nationals were featured on 60 Minutes, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, The New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, all of whom considered this work POETRY.)

The sheer gall of trying to connect Slam poets with Adult Children of Alcoholics is worthy of a potential libel case. Let's remember, the purpose of any open mic is to provide a place for artists to try new material and directly interact with the viewers. Perhaps if Mr. Cogswell had spoken to ANY of the artists at the venue, or any of the event organizers, he may have gotten a clearer picture of the mission of the Seattle Poetry Slam and what it does to bring quality AND education to its audiences. Each one of those poets has more integrity than Mr. Cogswell for being willing to participate in face-to-face communication.

I suggest you keep listings to the facts, and work toward supporting your local arts, rather than continuing to attempt to undermine them.

Gabrielle Bouliane, Seattle

DEAR EDITORS: I am a regular customer at the Silver Dollar, and just recently learned that your paper did an article on the casino ["The Best of SeaTac," July 20]. They are all wonderful people, and I am always treated well. This isn't Vegas, it is a mini-casino in the city of SeaTac, and you can expect to lose your money in any casino if you are brave (or should I say stupid) enough to bet it in the first place. When you put a business in the "best of" category of your paper, is it some tradition to insult it as much as you can, or see how many people you can turn away? You are hurting the employees whose sole source of income is tips. You are also hurting yourself by giving your paper the reputation of a rag.

Anonymous, via e-mail

DEAR EDITOR: After watching the Seattle City Council vote to virtually gut Initiative 41, two words come to my mind: Look east. ["Wills Kills Monorail," Josh Feit and Dan Savage, Aug 3.] The previous Spokane City Council refused to address voter concerns over such things as financing a parking garage with public money so that Nordstrom could have a shiny new downtown mall to live in. [The council] also continued to pour money into building a bridge directly over the Spokane Falls (in violation of the city and state's own Shoreline Protection Acts), while the streets fell into even greater disrepair. So what happened? The voters of Spokane, notorious for being squeamish about any sort of change, voted out the "old guard" candidates who were up for re-election and replaced them with their exact opposites. Steve Eugster, a man who sued the city many times on behalf of the people, was elected to the council. If you think that's amazing, the voters also passed city initiatives that changed the city government from a manager system to a strong mayor system, AND voted for the election of council members by districting. So to those on the current Seattle City Council, I urge you to look to the east and learn about the consequences of ignoring the will of the people. If it can happen in Spokane of all places, it most certainly can happen here.

Robb Rush, Seattle

EDITORS: A year and a half ago, I was called to jury duty for King County. For 21 days we considered the case of a 33-year-old black male, found guilty when he was 17 of four different violent acts of rape. One involved an elderly Capitol Hill woman whom he and accomplices raped with produce they found in her refrigerator, after breaking in her front door like storm troopers. Shuffled from one institution to another, at age 19 he escaped, only to re-offend again. Deemed a "sexual predator," he eventually wound up at SCC [the Special Commitment Center] on McNeil Island. ["Hospital or Hoosegow?" Phil Campbell, August 3.]

After 14 years of incarceration (including the reformatory at Monroe), he had completed his sentence and paid his debt to society. However, he had received no treatment during that time except for the last six months, which the state argued was merely window-dressing. In fact, during those years, he was expressly denied the opportunity for treatment. The state argued that since he was still a threat without treatment, he should not be set free.

We sent him back to McNeil. Even though he'd DONE HIS TIME! Isn't it a cornerstone of our judicial system that once a person pays their debt to society, they regain their freedom?

By the way, [the inmate] established a "trusting, emotional relationship" with a female staffer at SCC. Maybe that's what they call "treatment," but it didn't cast SCC in a very good light. Sounded like a lot of "slap and tickle" was goin' on. If this state really wants to do something about sexual predators, and if citizens are going to keep screaming bloody murder when one decides to live in their neighborhoods after being released, then we'd better get off our asses and give those who want treatment an opportunity to receive it, which means giving them an environment where they feel safe to receive it. Phil's story shows that nothing has changed [at SCC]. It's a place where we banish people that we can't deal with (to an island, for chrissake), and give them no opportunity to get help. It's a no-win situation for us all.

Jon Allen, Seattle

EDITORS: [Sex offenders] are the scourge of society. Fine, the current law is flawed. Change it and lock these bastards up for life, with no weight rooms, no basketball courts, no gardening--just bars.

Jim Gregson, Seattle

EDITORS: Thank you for the article "Hospital or Hoosegow." As a member of the Georgetown Guardians Group (we provide a community watch for the sex offenders living in Georgetown), I have to say the problems that you have addressed are right on the money. It is inconceivable to me the way Washington is NOT dealing with the problems of sex offenders in our communities. We are fortunate here in Georgetown to have a slight majority of men who have been through the SOTP [Sex-Offender Treatment Program] at Twin Rivers, as opposed to offenders who haven't been through therapy at all. The difference is night and day. Why this program is only running at 60 percent due to budget cuts is beyond my understanding. As you reported, the SOTP has a two-percent re-offense rate. If our legislature can't see the actual money savings from a program like this, then they are blind.

Jennifer Brooks, via e-mail

TO THE EDITOR: The Drive to Survive Committee is the alliance of community organizations and low-income activists that headed up the push to repeal the Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) impoundment law. We were disturbed to read "Licata Loses Again" [July 13, Josh Feit and Amy Jenniges], which cited the impoundment vote (the status quo was preserved 5-4) as the latest example of Council Member Nick Licata fighting noble but symbolic battles that are fated to lose.

The impoundment fight could have--and certainly should have--been won. The four council members who supported repeal, led by Nick Licata and Richard McIver, were not sending a symbolic message--they signed on to win. It is to their credit that they remained committed to those positions after several other council members announced that they would not support the repeal.

Even though the Licata/McIver amendment failed, the campaign to pass it generated real collateral benefits. The council is still considering whether to create a right to legal representation for indigent people whose cars are impounded, so that illegal traffic stops and invalid license suspensions leading to impoundment can at least be challenged after the fact. If this legislation (proposed by Licata) passes, it will be a real victory--and it would not have happened if Nick Licata, Peter Steinbrueck, Richard McIver, and Judy Nicastro had not committed themselves to trying to repeal the impoundment law outright.

K. L. Shannon, coordinator on behalf of the Drive to Survive Committee