Plane Talk To the Editor, Regarding Jim Nintzel's "Air Strike" (Tucson Weekly, December 12): Great job--it's nice to have some down-to-earth coverage of the sleazy antics of people like Vicki Cox-Golder. Nobody may be saying it directly, but I firmly believe The Weekly played an important role in her defeat. Hopefully she and the "Land Man" will slither out of sight along with a few other Amphi school board members--particularly Richard Scott. And don't worry about the inability of the token newspapers (i.e., the Star and Citizen) to do some good investigative reporting. Just let them continue to feed Tucson their unimaginative and very predictable drivel. To me, their news is the "we're-from-the-government-and-we're-here-to-help-you" version. Anyone interested in a real in-depth story will pick up a copy of The Weekly. Keep up the good work. I'm glad you're here! --Doug Williams To the Editor, Regarding "Air Strike" (Tucson Weekly, December 12): The possibility of a plane crash at La Cholla Air Park can't hold a candle to what happens when they are simply overhead. I taught at Lakenheath Air Base in England. Everything stopped when the planes were overhead. As the sound neared, all eyes were on the windows. Who wants to look at a chalkboard when you can watch a plane? No competition. --Laura Francis To the Editor, Regarding "Air Strike" (Tucson Weekly, December 12): Had Amphi's proposed land purchase near La Cholla Airpark been consummated, the resulting construction of a middle school would have caused a serious threat to safety and eventual closure of the airpark. The participation of concerned airpark residents and associate members, the Tortalita Home Owners Association, the FAA, ADOT, members of the northwest community and the local media played a key role in seeing this purchase effort reversed. I would like to personally thank the Tucson Weekly for its swift attention to this most serious matter. Your extensive coverage of the matter was invaluable! Until now, I have never had occasion to call upon my neighbors as I did this month. The Tucson Weekly came through when La Cholla Airpark needed you most! --Christopher K. Pena Animal Instincts To the Editor, In "Gimme Shelter," (Tucson Weekly, December 5) Jeff Smith rants that "It turns out the Tucson Humane Society would rather euthanize stray dogs and cats than let them into an adoptive home where they might meet a natural death by coyote or motor vehicle." Smith is one sick fucker if he thinks being hit by a car/truck and dying is a death preferable to euthanasia. Bet you think neutering emasculates the owner, as well as the pet. Go play in a suicide lane, would ya please? --Gail Defendorf To the Editor, I normally resist responding to Jeff Smith's self-righteous rationalizations, but his latest column ("Gimme Shelter," Tucson Weekly, December 5) cries out for rebuttal. Smith takes the Humane Society to task for their adoption policies: "[they] would rather euthanize stray dogs and cats than let them into an adoptive home where they might meet a natural death. Say, by coyote or motor vehicle." Does Smith really believe that a stray animal is better off being killed by a wild animal than by a painless euthanasia? Does he adopt an animal expecting that it will soon die by being run over? Is that fate "natural"? The Humane Society screens potential adoptors to make sure they are willing to provide a healthy, secure life for their pet. Smith prefers "letting an animal have a chance at life--with all the risks nature includes to make that life entertaining." Will he find it "entertaining" when he finds his puppy's mutilated corpse? Will the animal be "entertained" by the impact of a careless neighbor's pick-up truck? When the inevitable happens, will Smith simply chalk the incident up to "nature," walk away from the injured, dying or dead pet, and head over to the nearest "puppy mill" for a replacement? Whose attitude is really more callous here? --Kay Dodder A Better Build To the Editor, I'm sorry I didn't see Jane Weinzaphel's comments about architecture being respectful of the surroundings, but I certainly appreciate Kurt Cooper's letter (Tucson Weekly, November 27) about adding the concept to our building codes. While it's nice to see "infill" development, it's apparent that developers can submit plans for the most insensitive, obtrusive treatment of properties and have them approved, or perhaps even mandated because of building codes. A small example is a new Santa Fe-style subdivision on Prince Road. One of the last parcels of urban desert (mesquites, creosote, cactus, quail, rabbits) in the area was completely bladed and walled. Its back gate now bears the likenesses of former flora and fauna in effigy. Rather than natural arroyo drainage system, a water channel was constructed of block and cement. No streetside landscaping was added to blend with the existing neighborhood; a bare block wall fronted with a sidewalk faces the street, inviting graffiti. There are a few examples, for instance in the Old Fort Lowell neighborhood, where thoughtful builders were able to construct houses--well designed for the landscape and climate--on small pieces of property and still save the integrity of the original surroundings. Although the properties are larger, the west side of Richland Heights is another good example of the desert coexisting with a mid-city neighborhood. Although a small amount of regional design is appearing again in our mass housing market, approving boards, developers and home buyers need to see the desirability of home design and property development that is appropriate for the desert to maintain Tucson's unique character and use our resources more wisely. --Carmen Vitello The Right Stuff To the Editor, To my delight, Todd McKay's "Glutton For Punishment" (Tucson Weekly, December 5) made me laugh out loud. I've actually been to some of these all-you-can-eat places. Sure, I enjoy the reviews of Steamed squid- with- a- delightful- fermented- prune- sauce- buried- in- the- back- yard- for- 17.5- days, but I don't find myself eating in those places very often. So, I was enjoying the blue-collarness of McKay's review, turned the page and, nothing. What happened to the last part of the article? Oh, well. I think the family and I will go on out to Gordo's for a gorgeout. --Christine Maxwell To the Editor, I read with disgust your journal's recent review of all-you-can-eat restaurants ("Glutton For Punishment" Tucson Weekly, December 5). Have your people nothing better to do than run around consuming gross quantities of sleazy food? Do you consider their bloated opinions useful to your readers? Did I really need to know the difference between two equally disgusting sounding chocolate deserts at the Sirloin Stockade and the Golden Corral? I think not. Please, in future issues, refrain from supporting the borderline obsessive/compulsive habits of local degenerates who are obviously incapable of holding down a day job. And another thing, the modern phrase is "All-you-CARE-to-eat." Let's hang on to that last shred dignity, shall we? --Matthew Kirsch Weirded Out To the Editor, While I look forward to reading your paper every week, I must ask one question: Whatever happened to News of The Weird? That was one of my favourite pieces; I usually saved it as the last column to read each week. I will admit that a lot of the goings on in Tucson qualify to compose their own News Of The Weirdcolumn, however, it was nice to find out that wackos are worldwide, not limited to our fine city. --Lorraine Ochoa We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth