Mailbag

The City Needs to Hold Developers Like Michael Goodman
Responsible

“Welcome to Goodmanville” (Sept. 3) clearly illustrates the
conundrum that providing housing for University of Arizona students has
become. The university has never acknowledged the burden it puts on the
community; in fact, it just proudly admitted the largest freshman class
ever. The city of Tucson’s land-use code has no specific criteria for
these projects. The most prolific developers have one house plan which
they construct over and over again, giving no consideration to the
contextual uniqueness of a particular site.

So who pays the price? The answer is obvious: The surrounding
neighborhood not only has to adjust to insensitive architecture; it has
to struggle to maintain a decent quality of life in the face of a large
influx of transient renters.

The city has the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, which lists as
unlawful acts the behaviors which neighbors find most offensive:
excessive noise; unruly gatherings; placing rubbish, trash, filth or
debris upon the property of another or public property; and public
nuisance. These are unlawful for people in all residences,
owner-occupied or rental, 24/7.

However, enforcement has been lax, left up to exasperated neighbors
calling 911. It is time for the city to set a zero tolerance policy and
to enforce it with hefty financial penalties for those most
responsible—the owners/landlords of the property who do not
respect the law or require their tenants to be law-abiding.

We may not be able to stop construction of mini-dorms in the near
future, but we can hold the Michael Goodmans of the community
responsible for maintaining civility in our neighborhoods.

Ruth Beeker

The ‘Weekly’ Showed Goodman Too Much Civility

I was glad to see the “Goodmanville” article in the Tucson
Weekly. Thanks for that. I thought it was too polite, though.

I especially delighted in the part where he declined to be
interviewed, because he felt he wouldn’t get a fair shake from you
guys. Poor little guy! He’s already had his say as far as I’m
concerned. Every time I have to look at one of his ugly boxes, I’m
seeing his side of the story. Every time Kathleen Williamson is kept
awake by a roaring, marauding college party, she’s hearing his side of
the story. Each time Canara Price looks out and sees, instead of the
Santa Catalina Mountains, one of those dropped-in monstrosities, she
gets Goodman’s side of the story.

What this guy is doing is criminal. He’s blighting our neighborhood
and our city, for excessive personal financial gain. He’s destroying
people’s lives.

He needs to be prosecuted and driven out of town, not respected! A
little venom next time, please.

Al Perry

The Risk of Testing Roundup on Buffelgrass Is Worth
Taking

Randy Serraglio’s piece (Sept. 3) presents a case for not deploying
our most potentially potent weapon in the war on buffelgrass. He
correctly notes that the invasive grass is spreading rapidly, could
totally destroy our Sonoran Desert and cannot be eradicated by manual
removal. So far, so good.

He strays from the facts by stating: “It isn’t really possible to
know whether Roundup is safe, because it isn’t possible to know what’s
in it since its composition is patent-protected.” The active ingredient
in Roundup, glyphosate, is clearly printed on container labels. I
believe this was the case even before Monsanto’s patent expired and
generic formulations became available. Detailed information on health
and environmental hazards is accessible on container labels and the
Internet.

Since he fails to state an alternative, I assume Serraglio’s
preferred option is to do nothing while deserts go up in smoke. As one
who has spent many an hour swinging a pick on the frontlines of this
war, I’m not willing to capitulate so easily.

Yes, chemical control presents risks. When balanced against the
virtually assured destruction of our unique desert legacy, the risk is
worth taking.

William C. Thornton

Where Are Examples of Olbermann, Maddow Distortions?

I want to thank John Gray Wallace (“Claim: Olbermann, Maddow Are
Modern-Day Fascists,” Mailbag, Aug. 27) for enlightening me as to my
being a “mental midget” for watching “propagandists” and “fascists”
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Thankfully, Wallace’s letter cast aside my blindness and political
naiveté. I never suspected the tremendous persuasive power in
referring to those with whom you disagree as Nazis and fascists. Thank
you, Mr. Wallace, for leading me to an understanding how the level of
political discourse is thus elevated.

I suppose Wallace gained his wisdom from those on the airways whom I
expect he reveres most—Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and
Beck—so I shall change my viewing habits and rush to them,
because they are well-known for dispensing pure truth.

But, Mr. Wallace, a humble, small bit of advice: You convinced this
mental midget; however, those more easily persuaded by the left’s dark
propaganda may need specific evidence of Olbermann’s or Maddow’s
perfidy. There must be so many instances that you were just unable to
choose a few to share in your letter. Oh, please excuse my rashness and
boldness.

John Bryant

This article appears in Sep 17-23, 2009.