Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, March 29, 2012


Bloodsucker lawyers cost public too much: Defense attorneys making millions off the public to handle indigent cases is a real problem — the Bentley that one of them in the [Jeff Martinson] case bought and the office building bought by the other only highlight the problem ("Public Money Pit," March 15; "Eating Jeff," March 8, both by Paul Rubin).

This simply cannot go on at any time, much less during a period of economic hardship and gigantic governmental budget shortfalls.

Whether or not these bloodsucker lawyers here in Maricopa County signed a legitimate contract [in Martinson], they should not be paid such enormous fees. And as New Times' story ["Public Money Pit"] shows, criminal defense attorneys get big paydays [here] routinely.

This must be stopped! And I pray that Mr. Rubin will stay on the case to make sure the public doesn't continue to get ripped off. Having read him for years, I'm certain he will.
Jess Taylor, Phoenix

Abolish the death penalty: Have you ever heard of any prosecutor — anywhere — who proactively has moved on a death case or even a life[-in-prison] case when the DNA proves [him or her] wrong? Never happens.

[Prosecutors] will continue to fight — despite science — [when they should] make the apology, set the [defendant] free, and learn from it.

It is for this reason [that we need] to abolish the death penalty. It makes America look [hypocritical] to the rest of the world — except [in countries like] China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.
Charlie Oscar, city unavailable


Vanesian's story on the mark: Read your article on the Phoenix Art Museum's Frank Lloyd Wright show with pleasure. You are a little hard on the old rascal, but your piece [is] the best short writing so far on an enormous subject ("Wright Got It Wrong," Kathleen Vanesian, March 15).

May I add one note? The beautiful perspective rendering of Fallingwater was executed by Hulda Brierly Drake, whose younger sister, Cornelia, is living still, I believe, at Wright's Taliesin [in Wisconsin at age] 99.

This supports your view that most of the so-called "Drawings by FLW" were made by others.

Your remarks about the show are much to the point.
Bernard M. Boyle, Tempe

Why the ax to grind?: I found your review of Frank Lloyd Wright's work at PAM perplexing, at best. You clearly have an ax to grind and have written a review of the man, as opposed to the exhibition itself.

Dredging up a checklist of Wright's wrongdoings and dirty (not so) secrets does not constitute a review in the classic sense. Not impressed.
Alexander Pietrzak, Scottsdale

Setting it straight on Wright: Not only did you write an article that talked about the ever-controversial Frank Lloyd Wright as he was (and you dared to include information on his difficult personality and structurally under-engineered and inadequate designs), you laid it all out in an easy-to-follow, coherent way.

You are correct when you say his architectural designs [are] appropriate for an academic setting, but they are woefully unlivable and way too expensive when actually built.

I can't tell you how many times I have read about FLW's Los Angeles-area architecture being in great need of repair. Usually, owners are blindsided by the never-ending necessity of major repairs [from] rain damage.

I hadn't known about [Wright's] complicated family life and inability to pay his bills — all very interesting.
Joyce Farmer, Laguna Beach, California

A strangely bitter commentary: Why is it disappointing to Ms. Vanesian that Wright's office — not Wright himself — did many of the drawings [in the exhibit]? Can she point to any architect who produces all of [his or her] drawings?

Does the personal life of an artist detract from the substance of [the] work? If so, we would need to add virtually every significant artist to this list.

I find her comments on much of Wright's work strangely bitter, as if he were perpetrating a huge hoax with his architecture. In particular, she brushes aside his Fallingwater with a few dismissive sentences about "this highly problematic house . . . which is in need of constant restoration and maintenance."

Why would she characterize one of the most compelling pieces of American architecture this way? This house has inspired awe in virtually every person who has experienced it.
Roger Broome, New York City