A RIGGED ELECTION?
RE: “The Mercury’s Cutest Pet Photo Contest,” part of our Pet Issue [Feature, Aug 9], in which Mercury readers voted online to determine Portland’s cutest pet. One contest asked readers to determine who was the cuter dog: Ottis or Louie. Louie easily won with 1,437 votes to Ottis’ 824... OR DID HE?
Hi, I’m not trying to sound like sour grapes or anything, but you have a pet contest that’s going on right now, and there’s Ottis against Louie. And every 30 seconds, Louie is gaining, like, 10 votes. It’s a little bit fishy. So just wanted to give you that tip-off.
Anonymous, via voicemail[UPDATE, Aug 16, 2017: Louie has been DISQUALIFIED.—Ed.]
RE: Burger Week, the Mercury’s annual promotion of $5 burgers, and last week’s Letters to the Editor [Aug 9], in which readers noted the disconnect between the Mercury’s progressive values and Burger Week, considering “the beef industry is responsible for an obscene amount of greenhouse gases” and the amount of “carbon dioxide and methane emissions produced from animal agriculture dwarfs those of the energy industry.”
Here we are, in this heat wave and these ever-warming temperatures and with forest fires burning all around us—all signs of climate change—and you’re putting a big thing in there about burgers? Is anybody aware, or trying to do anything good here? Or are you just falling in line with all the developers and all the people grubbing for money? Why don’t you become part of the solution, instead of contributing to the problem?
If you people are not willing to address the problem of climate change, then perhaps you would think about the ethics of the whole thing and the cruelty involved with the animals. But maybe that doesn’t get to you, either! This gives me a really bad opinion of your newspaper—that you’re not at all what you purport to be, and are just a fraud.
Nancy Siverson, via voicemail
RE: “City Threatens to Cease Recognizing Neighborhood Association Considering Homeless Discrimination Bylaw” [Blogtown, Aug 12]. “The city will consider ‘exercising its authority to suspend, and perhaps eventually terminate’ its recognition of the Overlook Neighborhood Association if the group’s board votes to approve a discriminatory proposal that would prevent houseless residents from participating in meetings,” wrote News Editor Dirk VanderHart, noting the proposed rule seems targeted at “residents of the organized Hazelnut Grove encampment,” which the neighborhood association “has squabbled with since 2015.” A letter from Portland’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI), which is headed up by Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, stated, “In the spirit of diversity, ONI does not believe that residency should be based on a ‘legal home address,’ nor should it be limited to those who may be able to afford to buy or rent a home.”
Would Eudaly be okay with people who aren’t Portland residents showing up and voting against her in the next election? Why not, if a legal Portland address isn’t a requirement for a voting stake in an even more local system?
Maybe the homeless could join if they can provide proof they were once bonafide residents of the neighborhood, renting or owning a place prior to becoming houseless.
We’ve had the same issues in our neighborhood. And, because we know the individuals so well, we know who is actually residing in the area, and who has just carpetbagged in for the purpose of “advocating” at meetings.
We don’t require residency for membership in our neighborhood association, but membership is defined as residents, business owners, or representatives of businesses and organizations within the boundaries of our neighborhood. For cases like Hazelnut Grove, that would mean that HG, as an organization, could designate a single representative. It’s not as easy as showing up, but we’ve made accommodations.
For pointing out a common-sense solution to a hot-button issue, Psymonetta Isnoful, you win the Mercury’s letter of the week—and two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater.
Letters and comments may be edited for space. Email us at email@example.com.