Thank you very much for the article ("Be Creative or Die," October 9) and for Tara Servatius (a treasure). I better understand now why I am so much more fired up about an outdoor whitewater park than most of the other "innovations" in our fair city. It's different, and exciting, and it's cool. Just the kind of thing to attract and retain the "creative class."
Hugh McColl said it best when he grumbled he was a right-brained guy in a left-brained industry. In a left-brained town, too, I would add. Those of us who labor in Charlotte's right-brained businesses know how hard that can be.
--Charlie Elberson, Charlotte
A Very Questionable Basket
How ironic your cover story "Be Creative or Die" appears right before City Council commits Charlotte taxpayers to a coliseum folly that will earn the contempt of every American city sure to be bullied in the future by the NBA, NFL and MLB to match our desperation for "prestige." With nearly every dime of revenue generated by the hotel-motel tax going to subsidize a coliseum for the waning NBA the next three decades, Charlotte will become a classic example of an ambitious community that put all its resources in one very questionable basket, only to lose its momentum in attracting the type of talent that will truly take this community much closer to its "world class" ambitions.
--Phil Busher, Charlotte
The "Best of Charlotte" (September 18) issue gets my vote for worst layout. Who designed it? The intern? You should have put all reviews (staff, reader poll and celebrities) together. Where were the street addresses and phone numbers?
Wait! Wait! I just figured it out. Your marketing geniuses must have figured out they could sell more advertising if the vital info was included only in the paid advertising. You kids are geniuses.
--Albert So, Charlotte
I speak as an attorney with no out-of-court contact or relationship with Judge Bill Jones.
Your article ("Along Came Jones," October 2), first of all, violates the rules I learned in journalism school and violates what I understand to be journalistic ethics. Tara Servatius makes the clear inference Judge Jones retired in exchange for a commitment by the Judicial Standards Commission not to further investigate or censure him for alleged violations of his duties. Yet nothing in the article confirms this. I suspect there was no "deal," though I do not know. In fact, to an attorney reading the article, it appears clear there was no such arrangement. To the public at large, there would for most be the belief there was. This is wrong on your part.
Secondly, to her credit, Ms. Servatius did not use the Karen Myers case as an example of alleged misconduct by Judge Jones. Still, she quotes Ms. Myers who continues on a vendetta based on a false foundation. I was the attorney representing Ms. Myers' children in her custody case. There was exactly one substantive evidentiary hearing in her case. At that hearing, I called expert witnesses who testified the children were at risk in Ms. Myers' care. There was no evidence to rebut that argument, nor was any produced at a later time. I contended then, and contend now, that Judge Jones had no alternative but to follow the recommendation of the Children's Law Center, the children's custody advocate, the experts and me that the children be removed from Ms. Myers' primary care.
But you and others are ill advised to rely on the spokesperson chosen in this article and since you hold yourself out as dealing with substantive news you have a duty to avoid unfair inferences in your articles.
--Ronald L. Chapman, Charlotte
Don't Be Silly
How silly can Tara Servatius be? She uses an entire column kvetching about something as trivial as nuclear protection and evacuations ("Pills and PR," October 9). Why would she think the local politicians should be wasting their time on such nonsense?
We all know that they have better things to do with their time. Chief among them is begging the NBA to put another team in Charlotte, which will rarely win and never make money. Then, of course, they have to spend $300 million to build a new arena, which they will give to the new team to run and pocket all the revenue...and on and on and on.
So as those local pols prioritize the needs of the city, of course the new arena and team take precedence over a nuclear attack. It's the American way.
--John Petrie, Charlotte
Agenda of Mutual Respect
I don't know if Nicole Henderson Auger knows any gay couples, but her response (Letters, "Out of Her League," October 9) would suggest that she doesn't. If she did, she would know that the only "agenda" that anyone is interested in is mutual respect. We have to respect individual choices. That would be a good step toward recognizing human rights.
If she knew any gay couples, she would also know that their relationship is not based on deviant sexual behavior, at least no more than any of her hetero relationships. Her judgements seem to be based on stereotypes.
There is no subversive underground movement to convert people to a different way of life. It is about recognizing and respecting someone's choice in partners, same sex or not. If a service is provided for a heterosexual couple based on the fact that they are a couple, then a gay couple should have that same treatment.
I'm talking about something as simple as being able to leave work without being penalized if your better half is in an accident. Some companies require paperwork to cover such an incident and same sex partners are not recognized.
And to say that gays feel that what they do in the bedroom entitles them to special rights is crazy. What is done in the privacy of one's home is kept there.
--Bobby Blue, Charlotte
Focus on Human Rights
In response to Nicole Henderson Auger's letter (re: Elizabeth Chapel's "Broken Up,"), I would like to state that I am a lesbian and I am an introvert. I do, however, want acceptance. I do not see what is wrong with that.
I do not want to shock and I do not want to dangle anything in the public's eye. It would be wonderful if being gay were not an issue at all. But it is an issue. People are discriminated against because of it. People are killed over it. Until that changes, I will continue to speak up.
I do not feel that because of what I do in the bedroom, I am entitled to special rights. I simply do not want to be denied my rights because of what I do in the bedroom. Legal marriage was a right given to all straight couples, so how would that be a special right for me?
I am just one lesbian. This is only my point of view. Please do not lump us all into one category. We are individuals with different personalities and different approaches to different situations. Once we are lumped into a category, it becomes easier to dehumanize us and that is where our troubles begin.
I agree that we should focus on human rights. No one is more important than anyone else and they should not be treated as such. But when focusing on human rights, you cannot leave someone out simply because you disagree with them.
--Laetitia Savelle, Charlotte
We welcome your letters to the editor. Please send your letters to: The Editors, Creative Loafing, PO Box 241988, Charlotte, NC 28224. Or write us via the Internet at the following address: firstname.lastname@example.org. Please note that this e-mail address is for letters to the editors only. Please limit your letters to 300 words or less. Please include your phone number for confirmation, including e-mail letter writers; your phone number will not be published. We reserve the right to edit all letters for space, grammar and clarity.