Don’t Worry, We’re Self-Destructing
To The Editors:
Tara Servatius’ column “They’re So Dense” (CL, November 7) is absolutely ludicrous. I think she might want to consider moving to Atlanta. Until recently, that city was perfectly happy sprawling ad infinitum. Where is she getting her statistics? The last time I checked, cities such as Atlanta were having serious issues subsidizing the costs of urban sprawl. A little research will reveal that the costs of infrastructure for a low-density area, as well as the costs of building schools, hospitals, and fire and police services, are more than for a high-density area. I lived in the northern suburbs of Atlanta from 1992-1999, and literally watched the area become completely overtaken by urban sprawl. As land developers laughed their way to the bank, they left the city financially unable to respond to the demand of new roads, sewer lines, or even basics such as trash removal. The tax base of the low-density areas simply could not afford their own infrastructure.
Also, Servatius complains of pollution from automobiles in high-density areas. Interestingly enough, the suburban model of growth is the very thing that demands the use of cars, leaving users with no other transit options. Not to worry though, Servatius. This city is well on its way to self-destruction. Just watch what happens to our little vibrant uptown area when the completed I-485 loop opens. Or, you could investigate into what the beltway did to Atlanta back in the 1980s. It catalyzed unchecked sprawl outward, turning the city into a terrible, disorganized mess.
Joseph D. Martinez
CharlotteSelfish and Reprehensible
To The Editors:
I find Tara Servatius’ writings on urbanism of late to be both confusing and worrisome. In her most recent column, “They’re So Dense,” she attempts to discredit efforts to increase urban density, “exposing” them as vague, empty promises employed by local pols in need of a campaign issue, “harmless little political hypo-[crises].” I believe the reason why she sees the goals of urban planners (as if they are all in favor of infill development — if they were, there would be no sprawl for her to defend) as “idyllic and impossible” is because she assumes all city-dwellers to share her values and concerns. The difficult truth is, in Servatius’ own words, when you live in a city you have to deal with other people, even those “with varied social skills and income levels” (“Renaissance by Concrete,” October 17). The IQ’s of her neighbors aside, there exists in the city an equally wide range of goals and priorities. Maybe asphalt and mortar aren’t your thing, but a good number of people (myself included) aren’t interested in making a longterm, high maintenance investment in housing, people for whom a small downtown apartment will do just fine. “Transient,” after all, doesn’t necessarily mean homeless.
What worries me is the longterm fallout of urban decentralization. While Servatius’ column ridicules efforts in Portland, San Diego and Sacramento, it conveniently makes no mention of the destruction and desolation (not to mention millions spent in urban-renewal programs) caused by decentralization in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, nor of the so-called “cowboy developers” in Houston who elected to save money erecting new buildings instead of repairing vacant ones they already owned. While uptown Charlotte may gleam today with the luster of new money and recent construction, flattening the city’s center of gravity will eventually choke the urban core and create inaccessible pockets of vacancy and disrepair, the same sort of unappealing dereliction Servatius found so abhorrent on her own street.
Her hasty argument against mass transit is equally misinformed and one-sided. More cars equals more traffic equals more congestion and pollution, period. To toss efforts to increase ridership and broaden service on mass transit aside, casually sighing, “I don’t see the point” (to paraphrase) is selfish and reprehensible.
“What the market wants is, of course, an afterthought.” When the market’s primary motivations, reinforced by popular culture, advertising, and columns like hers, are fear of and disdain for one’s neighbors (witness “Renaissance by Concrete,” the proliferation of gated communities, people who buy Hummers, etc.), pandering to these motivations will only deny the city’s inhabitants the cooperative and tolerant spirit that, under the best circumstances, represents the potential of urban living.
As a resident of downtown Seattle for almost six years, I grew quite fond of living within the realm of the unpredictable, in a place I could call “home” and yet be able to leave at a moment’s notice. I also wasn’t so self-concious as to worry about who I’d see, or who would see me that might know someone who knew me, while I ran down to the corner grocer in my pajamas. Servatius says pollution irritates allergies and sensitivities, yet refuses to give up her car. Hypocrisy yes, but harmless it isn’t.
Zachary Whittenburg
Charlotte
Lucy Gets Personal
To The Editors:
Lucy Perkins may have invited some negative karma her way after writing “Oedipus Rush” (CL, November 7). After earnestly proclaiming that she does not delight in Rush Limbaugh’s deafness, she then proceeds to do precisely that. Worse yet, she asserts that Limbaugh has become deaf because he has “feigned deafness” over the years to women, racial minorities, the poor, and others who are “ignored by the Republican and thence Limbaughan philosophy.” Karma, she says, is biting him in the ass.
There is certainly room in the pages of Creative Loafing, and in the marketplace of ideas generally, for debate about the merits of the philosophy of the Republican — and Democratic — parties. A substantive point in this debate would be that, on an issue such as school choice, which has overwhelming support from minorities in urban centers, many in the Democratic Party are turning a “deaf ear” to minorities in order not to upset the teachers’ unions. An unfair, and even hateful, point would be that those who have ignored the supporters of school choice (even while utilizing the escape hatch of private schools for their own children) should become physically deaf because they “ha[ve] purposefully chosen to remain deaf” to the concerns of those supporters.
The political is not — and should not be — personal. Perhaps we can agree that when personal tragedy befalls our ideological adversaries, we, at the very least, will not make a grotesque attempt to trace that misfortune to their belief system. Such an attempt reduces political debate to a series of ad hominem attacks, and (here’s where karma comes into play) it diminishes the stature of its author.
Bert Gall
Charlotte
Stamp Out Lucy
To The Editors:
In the Lucy Perkins column “Christ! What’s Wrong With You People?” (November 14), Ms. Perkins’ characterization of Christians was in the least rude and in the most, down right hatred. Ms. Perkins’ attack on people of faith shows one of the problems that Charlotte is facing today. Good-natured humor is well accepted as a form of entertainment. Hate speech against Christians and other groups is not cool, funny or hip. It’s offensive, mean-spirited, and often reflects the lack of a diverse education. When you label a group of people, it’s a lot easier to make them an enemy. This type of dangerous speech should be considered terrorism and stamped out.
There are a lot of great things going on in Charlotte in the arena of religious tolerance. I suggest that Ms. Perkins check them out and write an informed column on religion. It’s easy to find the bad in anything, it’s much more difficult to find the good in something you don’t care for. I once read that if you embrace that which offends you, then you will gain wisdom. This is the key to practicing diversity. I suppose that if I dug deep enough, I mean really deep, I could even find some good in Ms. Perkins.
Mark Rosen
Matthews
Pray for Lucy
To The Editors:
In response to Lucy Perkins’ “Christ! What’s Wrong With You People,” if Ms. Perkins’ goal was to offend Christians (of which I am one), then I believe she failed miserably. I found myself amused at the shallow arguments she presented, and at the same time concerned with how emotional and personally offended she becomes when people present their beliefs to her. I would expect someone in her position to be much more open-minded. Sorry Lucy, but I am going to pray for you.
Stephen Lineberry
Gastonia
Right On, Lucy
To The Editors:
I can’t believe that I just read Lucy Perkins’ column on obnoxious Christians; or rather, I can’t believe somebody finally said what many of us think every time we have to listen to those smug hypocrites. As far as I know, nobody in print has had the guts to tell those pompous clowns to go jump in a lake. I know they’ll be complaining like crazy about Ms. Perkins’ column, so I wanted to throw my support your way before all hell (pun intended) breaks loose. The sad thing is that you know the “get right with Jesus” people won’t get it. Get a clue, people — everybody else thinks you’re a bunch of nauseating pains in the butt. Surely that’s not what Jesus wanted his followers to be, so give the rest of us a break and concentrate on straightening out your own lives.
Jerry T. Poole
CharlotteOutraged by Verdict
To The Editors:
I just finished reading the story of Donnie Alexander Rodgers being found not guilty of rape (“Unprotected” by Tara Servatius, November 14). I have never been so horrified and angered. Two of my best friends have been raped, and I was astonished that the jury was able to look at the evidence presented and consider it insufficient! I feel so impotent to do anything. I wish that I could drive to the jurors’ houses and ask them, “Why?” and “How could you not convict him?” The judge and veteran court officials were astounded by the unbelievable verdict. I pray that the jurors can live in peace with the decision they made, but I know that I would never be able to do so. It appears that the world in which we live does not find anything simple worth believing. The fact that race and drug issues were brought up and discussed as possible theories are ridiculous! However, I do know that in the end justice does prevail. Donnie Alexander Rodgers has not seen the last courtroom and he has certainly not seen the last judge. May God have mercy on him and the jurors who will answer for their decision.
Virginia O’Kelley
CharlotteI Should Have Called
To The Editors:
I have many excuses that I give myself when I try to justify not contacting the DA in the case of Donnie Alexander Rodgers (“Unprotected” by Tara Servatius, November 14). Someone gave me the number and told me I should call, but I thought that I was too busy, that it was an open and shut case anyway, that I couldn’t really offer anything substantial. When I read your article, I was floored. My wife and I are the friends that stopped over to that little house in Elizabeth the night of that horrible rape. We left around 4am, we left in a cab (which I am sure can be substantiated through the call logs of the cab company).
Donnie Rodgers’ story is a complete load of hogwash and I really think it’s a sad, sad episode in our judicial system’s history to know that his crime is going to go unpunished. The victim in this case was a really sweet girl. She was not smoking pot or even drinking much (she had a half glass of champagne in the 1-1/2 hours that we were there). All she was doing was cooking a late night snack and relaxing. She was very easygoing and I really found her to be instantly likeable.
It has been two years since all of this went down, and soon Mr. Rodgers will be on the streets of Charlotte, free as a bird to add to his 20-year-old rap sheet. God give sanctuary to my newborn daughter and to all of the other daughters, wives and sisters that will be in that much more danger the moment he is set free. Shame on you prosecutors who did not prove the case. Shame on you jurists who knew what the truth was in spite of the shoddy evidence. And shame on me for not doing my part to keep my family safer. Someone will the pay the price for our mistakes.
Art Sande
Charlotte
This article appears in Nov 24-30, 2001.
