BURN ON CIENNA

DEAR EDITOR: What a shame that your Burning Man story ["Burned Out," Cienna Madrid, Sept 14] focused so narrowly on five Seattle dudes and their quest for sex and drugs in Black Rock City. Cienna Madrid apparently couldn't see beyond the superficiality she surrounded herself with to discern the profound and spiritual side of Burning Man. While thousands of people come to the playa solely to party, thousands more come for the freedom from time, routine, and constraint; for the many works of imagination writ large, art that you could find nowhere else but in the vast expanse of the playa; for the performances, the ability to easily meet fascinating folk from around the world, the natural beauty of the venue, the experiment in community; for their own renewal; for many reasons that are neither shallow nor physical.

I agree with Madrid that Burning Man will continue to grow, not fed simply by those seeking sex or drugs as she concludes, but by a vast number of individuals on other quests.

Eric Swenson (six-time Burner)

BURN ON THE COLLEGE INN

EDITOR: Can you stop plugging the College Inn Pub for maybe just one issue? ["So You've Decided to Go to College in Seattle," Brendan Kiley, Sept 21.] It's getting really old. The College Inn is nothing more than a dark, dank hole with an insufferable staff, obnoxious regulars, and overpriced beer. The only way it might be considered "one of the finest bars for reading and conversation," as Brendan Kiley put it, is if you enjoy reading with a headlamp and think fine conversation involves pretending to listen while waiting to talk. Instead of kissing your advertisers' asses all day long, you should give incoming students some real advice and send them to Dante's, Kai's, or the Knarr.

David Conway

BURN ON OUR ELECTION CONTROL BOARD

DEAR STRANGER: Has it ever dawned on you that your endorsements don't mean a hill of shit? None of your readership showed up for Judy Nicastro three years ago, and hardly any of them showed up for Stephanie Pure on September 19.

Maybe you should stick to selling porn ads and advocating Seattle as the next overcrowded, overexpensive hot spot. Which reminds me—how many of those 300-square-foot, $149,000 condos did Josh Feit rush out and buy?

Jef Jaisun

GLORY BE BARNETT

DEAR ERICA: You really earned your pay in the September 21 issue (they DO pay you at The Stranger, don't they?). I enjoyed your two installments to the back-to-school guide: witty and oh so true. I also appreciated your coverage of the viaduct—"Digging a Hole," In the Hall, and the experimental smart card for transit [In Other News]. You are the only reporter in Seattle doing a creditable job on these issues. Keep it up!

Janice Van Cleve, PCO 43/1858

43rd District coordinator, areas 21 and 22

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

EDITOR: Perhaps a closer look at Smart Mobility's press release on the viaduct is in order [In Other News, Sept 14]. Clearly, among all the proposals of what to do with the Alaskan Way Viaduct, removing it is the only unworkable solution.

Myth #1: "58 percent of trips (on the viaduct) are under five miles." Of course they are, the actual structure through downtown is less than 5 miles long. But even if they are talking about overall door-to-door travel distance, people use the viaduct because it is more desirable than surface streets to get to their destination. (Fremont to the stadiums for example.)

Myth #3: "The local street grid is about twice the capacity of the Alaskan Way Viaduct." This bit of logic assumes that all the cars and buses already in the local street grid will magically disappear as the traffic on the viaduct is absorbed. Try this, next time you need to go from Sea-Tac to Greenwood: Get off on First Avenue and fight your way through the street grid and see if it is more or less convenient.

But hey, thanks for printing an advocacy group's press release.

Kevin Barry

ERICA C. BARNETT RESPONDS:
Regarding "Myth No. 1": The Smart Mobility study refers to the total (door-to-door) length of trips that include travel on the viaduct, not just trips on the downtown elevated structure. So your claim that people "use the viaduct because it is more desirable than surface streets" for long-distance trips is not supported by the facts.

Regarding "Myth No. 2": This is also inaccurate. The Smart Mobility report refers to excess downtown street capacity, not total capacity if all the cars simply went away. First Avenue, incidentally, is the one street downtown with virtually no excess capacity. Excess capacity grows as you head east from the waterfront.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: In the September 21 story "Driving the Debate," we incorrectly reported the highest point of the proposed Pacific Street Interchange. It is actually 110 feet. We regret this error.