FOLLOW THE MONEY
The Seattle City Council last year passed, in a walk, a prostitution crackdown it called the "Sex Industry Victims Ordinance." Now we have council members caught taking a 40-DD bra full of campaign cash from strip-club interests ["Bada-Bing Bomb" and "Nicastro's $25,000 Day," July 23].
Why revile prostitution while supporting the prostitution lite of strip clubs? And what about the supposed liberal mantra that the sexual activity of consenting adults is not the province of government?
The swirl of inconsistencies resolves if we focus on the flow of money. The prostitution crackdown was expressly designed to generate fine revenue. The Rick's rezone brought in campaign cash. Strip away the nonsense, and we find an operating principle: If the cash is coming our way, it's good; if not, why, that's rampantly immoral. Could this be the real reason that the council is called a "green" party stronghold?
Russell B. Garrard
Attempting to ascertain the validity, legality, and intent of the Colacurcio "family" contributions to the Seattle City Council incumbents is like attempting to ascertain the validity, legality, and intent of the "Kenny Boy" Lay (and other convicted, unindicted, and untried) contributors to the perverted (def: deviating from what is considered right, natural, or true) presidential candidate who was the unelected, selected presidential appointee in 2000 ["Bada-Bing Bomb" and "Nicastro's $25,000 Day," July 23]. Hell, everybody wants or needs a perversion or two. Pathological liars want and need even more. Why pick on the Seattle City Council incumbents? I've seen all of them in council meetings, and if they are "on the take," I'm Gunga Din.
The July 23 story "Bada-Bing Bomb" brought back some colorful, poignant memories. Nightclub impresario Frank Colacurcio Sr. had (and hopefully still has) two kindly, personable sisters who owned two restaurants. The one I was friendly with was a bright-eyed Italian grandma type. She did her own cooking and served good, affordable home-style meals complete with desserts. A popular cocktail waitress, a good friend, was a friend and former employee of Mr. Colacurcio. She said that he was good to his employees, actually cautioning some women against a criminal lifestyle.
Many women have worked their way through college and other training by performing and/or serving in such clubs as the article described. Besides, many citizens support and donate to preferred political candidates and urge friends and relatives to do the same. I've done it myself.
The article's vivid headline and subhead seemed to imply, if remotely, some connection to a well-known, absurdly glorified Italian-based organization that has long been a disgrace to honest, hardworking Italians everywhere. Come on, guysyour sexy headline was more than enough to grab readers' attention.
Cathleen Delaney Graham
You know you want to run a cartoon of Frank Colacurcio Jr. stuffing a dollar bill into Judy Nicastro's garter ["Nicastro's $25,000 Day," July 23]. Don't hold back.
It seems that the story on "brainstorming" moneymaking ideas for the monorail missed the all-time best idea for making money on the monorail ["I Know! Let's . . . ," July 23]. Don't build it! Take the bucks that have already been drained out of the public coffers, have a big handshake all around the board table, and go home, while we count our blessings that we won't be held up at the turnstile or by the tax bill when the real costs start flowing in.
Here's another one: How about not having competing, equally overconfident, and almost equally flawed public transportation systems in a single, small city? (Almost equally, because nothing the light-rail folks have done so far to mislead the publicand they have done a lot is as outrageous as the book cooking and smoke blowing that the monorail clan has done on ridership projections, construction costs, environmental impact, contracting method, and schedule.)
Implementing either of these ideas will avoid constructing a massive blight on our landscape, avoid creating traffic and parking snarls in our neighborhoods, and refocus our energies on proven transit systems that work.
The DBOM (design, build, operate, and maintain) contractor is the only one likely to make any money on the monorail (actually they're guaranteed to make money), and you can imagine their enthusiasm for getting a pot of unbaked ideas from a citizens' group.
THE '60S WERE GOOD
"Dumpster-Free Remodel" [Turf, July 23] was interesting and informative, but the introductory paragraph got my hackles up. Brian Miller is correct to attribute the growth of ideas like recycling, conserving resources, environmentalism, innovative building design, and more to the '60s movement and the alternative culture it created. The unflattering image he presents, however, sounds like it comes out of the corporate press archives. Remember the peace sign and the ubiquitous "Have a nice day"? These are '60s mantras and don't seem to describe the activities of Ted Kaczynski.
The PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties did a great job of outlining the serious motivation and, yes, the excesses behind this movement. Shelter as a basic need was thought to be too important to be left to professionals and bankers. A great variety of housing was created, from basic shelter to works of art. The emphasis was on being light on materials, fitting into the landscape, and being efficient and handmade.
The fact that thousands of young people were dropping out of the prepackaged, corporate-dominated economy scared many powerful people. The pressthen, as now, the servant of the powerfuldid all they could to discredit this movement.
The other powerful motivation for this movement was political: '60s activists wanted power returned to the citizens and out of the hands of those who were leading us into global mischief, military adventurism, and economic servitude. They wanted the U.S. government to pay attention to our Constitution and its duty to serve the people instead of powerful special interests. They wanted democracy.
SAY IT AIN'T SO
Mark D. Fefer's article about green building, "Eek-ology" [Turf, July 23], quotes an architect who "had to throw away a lot of beautiful cedar siding" for lack of a place to use it. Surely this isn't literally true. Certainly it was donated to Habitat for Humanity or given to someone who could use it? Or is the article more aptly titled than I thought?
What do you think? Write to Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, 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.