Not good neighbors: I appreciate your reporting in regard to the Cardinals stadium ("National Football Cartel," John Dougherty, January 31). I am an individual who lives south of the alternative site being considered for the stadium at 40th Street and Loop 202. Thanks for the information regarding the politics of maneuvering to get the stadium built. It helps me to understand the Bidwills and their legacy of greed. Why don't the Bidwills build it next to their homes in Phoenix?
I would like to add that, as with the original site in Tempe, which was taken out of consideration because of its proximity to a runway, the site at 40th Street and Loop 202 is not much better. I must say that the individuals considering this site haven't stopped to consider that the stadium height and its lighting could cause some trouble with freeway traffic. Most football stadiums in other cities are known for their bright lights. I have to wonder how the lights would interfere with a freeway next to it. Additionally, the noise from the freeway and the noise from the stadium could create a health problem for those of us who will live adjacent to the stadium.
I strongly oppose this monstrosity next to my home. As I said, "Bill Bidwill, build it next to your home and see how you like it."
Inaccurate, but worthwhile: I found John Dougherty's article to be interesting. Based on my knowledge of these issues, his facts are somewhat inaccurate, but still contain enough truth to be worth reading. And the conclusions, while spun inaccurately in my opinion, contain enough truth to be compelling. Even though I obviously don't completely agree with Dougherty's article, it was a good and worthwhile read.
I have an idea that would either restrict funding for future stadiums to those derived from users (i.e., ticket-price surcharges, or extra sales taxes on concessions), or place an outright ban on tax funding of these venues. I am less concerned with the exact mechanism than with the concept that future stadiums should be paid for by their users and only their users, not the general taxpayer. Even though I supported the stadium and the ballot proposition, I understand where the opposition is coming from. I think the concept of user financing for these types of facilities makes more sense than a general tax.
We as a country subsidize many private businesses. Half of what you pay for the gas you put in your tank is taxes to subsidize the automobile industry by building roads on which you can operate its vehicles. Another billion-dollar subsidy is the airport, analogous to a stadium in that a complete facility is built at taxpayer expense, but it draws off a user-driven revenue stream. My point is that these taxes are user-derived. So why not use this mechanism for publicly owned stadiums? That's the simple rationale behind my idea, but it really would make no difference in terms of total out-of-pocket costs to users if there were a total ban on tax funding, which is why I've offered that alternative.
Take responsibility: Against popular studies and trends, it is possible that memories conveniently misplaced by the mind are gone for a reason, possibly a mental fail-safe ("Expert Tease," Paul Rubin, January 24). Other symptoms Kim Logerquist has shown, such as obesity, mood swings and personality disorders, in my experience (with friends and acquaintances) have all been a result of not taking responsibility for personal problems. Rather than blaming parents, bullies or smelly farts like most people, this female has decided to shoot for $5 million. Why blame their parents for making them weird when they can get $5 million?
The people who are effective in this world are surrounded with a positive circle of influence. These people take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming the past.
It was stated that this person was a "loner" -- she obviously is not. A "loner" by my definition is a person who chooses to be on the outside and is comfortable being that way; these kinds of people are also able to think on their own without reciting text from a book. This person is an outcast, blind, without direction.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Who's Deluding Whom?
The reality of mental illness: So, another buffoonish version of "Buckwheat" turns on the modern-day emperors of trash and bash media ("Visions of Grandeur," Robert Wilonsky, December 27, 2001). You don't have to be a math genius to see that John Nash as an old, forgotten mental patient equals safety, boredom -- an ageless has-been. As an egghead stereotype, Nash is the epitome of mad-nerdish genius -- a good mental patient. He doesn't attempt to commercially express himself, he just disappears, off in the corner, so Ron Howard can feel good and make lots of moola.
Artists and musicians feed young people's dreams of breaking the mold of conformity that ensnares them. When asked to accept SMIs (seriously mentally ill) as they are, they turn their backs and token freak shows pop their puppet heads, as though a frustrating cry for equality. The mindless media fights against the fetters of journalistic integrity like a spoiled child, to spit its ever-increasing anti-handicapped patter under the guise of free speech. In ever-growing carnival theaters, the mentally ill are asked to perform various big-top side shows, but many real mentally ill consumers are intelligent, deep and talented. And they will not be forgotten.
Richard P. Beeman