PHIL CAMPBELL: We are in a GED/re-entry program at Safefutures Youth Center in West Seattle, and we have read your article about re-entry programs ["Last Chance High," May 17]. You did not properly describe the way re-entry programs are.
We were not dumped here; we chose to come here because we felt that [mainstream] high schools didn't really care about our education. At our re-entry school, our teachers are actually interested in helping us; they're not just doing it for the money. Most of us at Safefutures chose to come here because the environment is better for us. We get more one-on-one help, work at a pace that works for us, and we don't have to deal with all of the elective classes that don't really help us in the long run.
You should have observed more than just Marshall for this article. When people read your article, we will come off as terrible people who are never going to make it in the real world. We are not ashamed of [being at a re-entry school], but [after] this article, people will look at us differently and think that we are all corrupted youth who need "behavior modification." We are proud that we are getting our lives together.
Staff and Students at Safefutures Youth Center, West Seattle
THE STRANGER: Each week I read your paper and notice how many negative letters from readers are printed. I wanted to send you a positive letter. For years now, I have appreciated the calendars, the advice, and the stories. The Stranger has been a dependable, weekly comfort. Even when abroad, I have been able to depend on you via Internet (but nothing beats the slam of the newspaper box followed by that sweet smell of newsprint). Thank you, Stranger. I love you.
Kathleen, via e-mail
EDITORS: What the fuck happened? Your paper used to be funny! I used to look forward to hanging out at a cafe reading Last Days every Thursday. I would get shushed for gut-laughing at an eardrum-popping volume. Now, if I manage to make it through one paragraph of Tamara Paris' mediocre drivel, the punch line will inevitably make me want to puke up my coffee. Where the fuck is Dave Schmader? All that's left is I Love Television and the funnies, but even your comics are really starting to suck. Get it together please.
Jim Walls, Seattle
EDITOR: I read, with considerable dismay, Josh Feit's column Five to Four [May 17], hailing Council Member Judy Nicastro's call for the unfettered development of view-blocking high-rises. I believe her words were, "Downtown should be one massive high-rise."
Anyone who lived in Seattle before 1990 (which evidently includes none of your editorial staff) knows that high-rise construction displaced thousands of low-income housing units in downtown Seattle. Those who are still fortunate enough to live in previously affordable neighborhoods know that existing buildings are typically replaced with new apartments or condos that rent or sell for nearly double the cost of older units.
Each new set of zoning/parking/design exemptions the city rubber-stamps to promote more apartment/condo construction magnifies development pressure on our existing stock of truly affordable housing. The Stranger apparently endorses the notion that we need to bust the CAP initiative or break promises the city made when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan. I disagree. There are ways to add new housing downtown and in other neighborhoods without destroying the social fabric of Seattle.
If density alone were enough to accomplish a Manhattan-style "24-hour vibrant core," one would already be able to find a cheap pastrami sandwich in Belltown, Capitol Hill, or the U-District at 3 a.m.--just like you can on nearly any corner in NYC. Is Manhattan, with some of the most expensive real estate on Earth, really a good model for the creation of affordable housing?
The real irony here is that The Stranger has adopted the same supply-side logic that the Association of Washington Business and the Building Industry Association of Washington perennially trot out in their attempts to eradicate the Urban Growth Boundary in the name of creating "affordable housing." Strange bedfellows, indeed!
Matthew Fox, Seattle
TO THE EDITOR: In Rick Levin's article "Commies, Cops, and Cubans" [May 24], you dedicated an entire page to what amounted to making fun of a man who is homeless and most likely a paranoid schizophrenic. Being the daughter of a schizophrenic, I have heard many a rant similar to Pedro's. Yes, I have to laugh occasionally at my mother's irrational babbling--it is the only way I can cope with it. But I still show an immense amount of compassion and love. Levin's story was written in such a way that Pedro is portrayed as a sideshow freak. "Just go down to the corner and see a real crazy person! Don't worry, he's harmless! Just listen to the funny things he says!"
A little love and treatment could go a long way for Pedro. Your article just adds to an already huge stigma attached to a group that needs our help and compassion.
Lisa Coleman, via e-mail
DEAR EDITORS: In an article entitled "2001 Corporate Power Chart" [May 10], The Stranger claimed that Avista Corporation was responsible for the defeat of particular legislation (House Bill 1840/Senate Bill 5867), and characterized the company as being "focused on lobbying against renewable energy." There is no factual basis for these assertions.
The legislation to which the article referred would have required utilities to invest an equivalent of three percent of their revenues on "public purposes," such as conservation, renewable generation resources, and low-income energy assistance. It mandated that these investments derive from a charge imposed upon all utility customers. Avista pioneered this method of funding conservation programs.
Since 1995, when we initially garnered approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to apply a charge to our customers, 25 states have enacted legislation to implement a similar program. Avista maintains two "public purposes charges": Our charge for electric conservation initiatives raises funds equal to 1.54 percent of revenues, and another one applied to natural gas customers collects an amount equal to 0.5 percent of revenues. In other words, HB 1840/SB 5867 embodied a concept that Avista had originally conceived.
The legislation was not "killed" when Avista "flexed [its] muscle." The principle reason for the measure's demise was the breadth of opposition it encountered. The bill was opposed by many parties, such as the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU), the Association of Washington Business, Alcoa, Energy Northwest, and others. Although Avista did sign a testimony sheet indicating our opposition, we did not testify against the measure.
The Stranger's contention that Avista is "focused on lobbying against renewable energy" is also inaccurate. We were the first utility in the Northwest to construct a bio-mass electric generating plant, demonstrating our commitment to renewable power in the early 1980s. Avista also recently relicensed its largest hydroelectric projects through a collaborative process that involved environmental organizations, tribal interests, wildlife groups, and state and federal agencies. This was the first process of its kind in the nation, and it produced an agreement requiring passage of endangered bull trout, increasing minimum stream flows, and obligating Avista to spend $200 million for river restoration. During the recently concluded legislative session, Avista promoted the advancement of fuel cell technologies, supported the idea that utilities offer "green rate" options so that consumers can buy power from renewable resources, advocated higher conservation standards for public buildings, and encouraged measures to help reduce air emissions from older (peaking) power plants.
K. Collins Sprague,
Director, State Government Relations (Washington) Avista Corp.
THE STRANGER NEWS STAFF RESPONDS: The Stranger never disputed that Avista sets aside 1.5 percent of revenues toward public purposes. We reported that Avista opposed new legislation (House Bill 1840) mandating that three percent of utilities revenues be set aside for public purposes. Avista lobbyists signed a testimony sheet indicating opposition to the measure, and according to records kept by the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee, Avista lobbyists Tom Dukich and Collins Sprague gave verbal testimony opposing the measure on February 19, 2001.
Meanwhile, as The Stranger's Second Annual Corporate Power Chart indicated, during the 2000 election cycle, Avista contributed $6,625 to the members of the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee--the committee that dealt with House Bill 1840.
