RE: "FedEx Kinko's" [Everything as Fuck, July 9], in which the author writes from said establishment.
DEAR MERCURY—RE: Ian Karmel's non-embrace of Kinko's new name—I think it's actually FedEx Office. Too long? I call it F Off.... Other ideas: Koch brother supporters: Kocheroachs. Women's lady parts: Hobby Lobby.
Lzi
RE: Letters [July 16], a selection from the outpouring of complaints from the brony community following our review of A Brony Tale.
It's not necessarily about sexism; it's about how adults, both men and women, are not only so into this shit now but are also so earnest and self-righteous about it, even though it's just bad-taste crap that was created to make money off little kids, and yet now people can't just say they like the show or are fans but have to invent some identity as "bronies," like being a "Trekkie" or an "Avatard," but get up in arms when anyone teases them or doesn't get it. Honestly, it's rainbow-colored kitschy ponies peddling a bunch of earnest "values" within a fantasy world, so get a sense of humor about it at least. Especially if what you've chosen out of a huge array of culture available to you is rainbow kiddie crap—My Little Pony, Care Bears, Pound Puppies, Shirt Tails, Rainbow Brite, Barbie, etc. ad nauseam. It's cutesy, sanctimonious, culturally bankrupt crap, and "magic" and "friendship" are not something substantial enough for you to be preaching to me about. Making friends teaches the value of friendship, not a TV show.
posted by PGMuthafuckinE
RE: "The Bottom Line vs. the Fault Line" [News, July 16], regarding the efforts of building owners to have the city subsidize seismic retrofits.
If you live anywhere near an old brick building, you should be actively packing. The owners of these buildings invested poorly, whether they own one building or 30. It is interesting that the same moneyed interests who argue that the market controls rents, for instance, and that is why they can't afford safety, are the same folks who are resisting the argument the city is making: which is that they invested in buildings that need a lot of work to be safe, and it really isn't anyone's job to protect them from poor investments. If you can't afford the upgrades, then either tear down the unsafe building you own and build another one, or sell it to someone who can afford to either pay for the upgrades or build something safer there. If your investment was purchased for your benefit, then taking care of that investment—including making it safe for the public who lives within the seismic influence zone of your investment—is your responsibility, period.
posted by happyhedonist
The city is taking the responsible path by wanting to prepare for an earthquake. Should the city have to pay for this needed, but costly, regulation? No. The building owners make money from their investments. Let them pay for it. After giving this a few minutes of thought, here is a possible solution: Grandfather in the existing brick buildings to the current code, but require them to disclose to their residents that they are not built to the recommended seismic code, especially in residential buildings.
Additionally, give the building owners a reasonable amount of time to develop a plan to retrofit their buildings. At the same time, charge them a fee to keep their buildings on the current standard. Take the collected fees, and use it to provide low-interest loans to help pay part of the cost of upgrading. Loans, not subsidies. For those buildings where it is more cost efficient to retrofit their buildings than it is to pay the fee, they will follow that route. For those where the fee is cheaper, let them pay that. Landlords will eventually recover their money through the higher rents we know they will charge. But this is only a suggestion.
posted by Troy Lambert
THIS IS ONLY a suggestion, too, Troy, but how about you take this week's Mercury letter/comment of the week? It comes with two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater, where we also suggest you buy a beer to go with your movie. (It's a sound investment.)
