Letters for May 7, 2015

Irrational in Curtis Park

Re “It fakes a village” by Alastair Bland (SN&R Feature Story, April 30):

Curtis Park has long been populated by irrational people who fail to see their hypocrisy for what it is. Back in the 1990s, many of these people were often in the news advocating for low-income housing and programs for the homeless—in someone else's neighborhood.

But when a homeless program was suggested for the Sierra 2 Center: Oh, no! That wouldn't do! When families from Oak Park started frequenting Curtis Park (which I used to think was a public park, silly me!), the denizens of Curtis Park had the police roust them. They advocated for the Quinn Cottages, but they consistently object to women's shelters and the other social programs typical of other neighborhoods in Sacramento.

Now, they object to a grocery store and a gas station and, as is typical of these elitist snobs, they don't mind grocery stores and gas stations in someone else's neighborhood. And they also object to attractive, affordable, energy-efficient 21st-century homes being built near their exclusive little enclave.

Given that Curtis Park is one of the least diverse neighborhoods in Sacramento, forgive me if I wonder what they're really afraid of.

Peter Finn


It’s about design

Re “It fakes a village” by Alastair Bland (SN&R Feature Story, April 30):

As a Curtis Park resident, I believe this story captures the controversy here fairly well—except in one area. First, the piece leaves the impression that many or most residents here are against any kind of development. In all of the forums I’ve participated in, I’ve not heard this sentiment but from a handful of people. The vast majority are excited about a development.

The argument is about design. Additionally, there is praise from some sources for the Paul Petrovich design simply because it is infill development. Apparently, for some it doesn’t matter what residential and commercial looks like as long as it is built on that parcel. One is even quoted as saying, “[I]t’s a lot better than having a toxic rail yard.” That’s indeed a low bar to hurdle.

Frank Bruno

Curtis Park

Bee haters

Re “Feed the buzz,” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R News, April 30):

God forbid The Sacramento Bee realize that the drop in subscriptions could be due to shoddy journalism, and a left-leaning bent in a conservative market such as Sacramento. Sacramento has not abandoned the Bee, but the Bee has abandoned its readership. The changes in May will only illuminate this truism.

Margaret Lewis


More Bee hate

Re “Feed the buzz,” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R News, April 30):

The Sacramento Bee is an embarrassment. I was a journalism major and I was raised by a father who was a sports editor. I’ve lived in Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, Orlando, Chapel Hill, Omaha and elsewhere, and have always been happy with my regional news options. But I’ve never been so appalled by the quality and the content of a local daily before moving to Sacramento in 1998. Yes, us news junkies want to keep up with things local/regional, as well as national. But the SacBee—the content, the design, and most importantly the deplorable writing—has been worthless to me.

Dane Olson


‘City of Abundant Firewood’?

Re “Still kill your lawn” (SN&R Editorial, April 30):

Not a particularly well-thought out commentary. We can all agree that Sacramento residents (and businesses) need to think before they turn on the sprinklers and hoses. But most lawns in Sacramento have beautiful trees as a centerpiece. The trees provide the shade that reduces our need for higher demands of energy during the hot summers.

If we follow the “kill your lawn” suggestion, trees will become stressed, diseased, and many will die. Sacramento will lose its designation as the City of Trees and become the City of Abundant Firewood.

Frank Graham

via email