Letters

Theater reviews

Write-up was full of narrow-minded views

I would like to ask Dale Burrows, writer of the “Odd Couple” review if he actually saw the show and if he actually knows any women?

If I were to base my answers solely on the April 7 review, they would both be “no.”

I have never read a more chauvinistic review in my entire life. Who actually uses the term “Chatty Cathys” anymore? “The talk is gossip,” in the first act, he says. Since when is reminiscing about the past, worrying about how late Florence is, and asking Vera where she’s going on vacation considered gossip? The only explanation I can find for this is that he thinks a woman is gossiping every time she opens her mouth. It’s not as if the guys in the male version of the Odd Couple play cards silently. There’s plenty of loose talk, joking, and jibing when they get together, just as there is when women get together.

I don’t know what men he was talking to, but the ones I know weren’t checking their watches. And I have some pretty honest male friends.

He also doesn’t know much about the play itself. He calls the female version of the Odd Couple a “spin-off and a makeover of the Neil Simon comedy classic.” Had he done his homework, he would know that Neil Simon himself rewrote the original Odd Couple for women. When the play was run as a revival on Broadway in 1986, Simon re-wrote it for female characters, with Rita Moreno and Sally Struthers in the lead roles. It’s not as if the folks at the Edge defaced Simon’s testosterone-laced classic out of some quirky desire to see more women on stage. They’re using the script Simon himself wrote.

It seems that Mr. Burrows suffers from the same delusion that so many other small-time critics suffer from: you think the only way to be a good critic is to be snide and self-important. The way to be a good critic is to be objective and observant, and above all else, to leave your Cro-Magnon notions of the female sex at the door.

ALLISON SCHUMACHER

Seattle

Edmonds

Park land purchase would be a savvy buy

As we demonstrated with the purchase of Marina Beach Park, municipal borrowing to pay for parks is an astute financial move in Washington State. Not only will the state provide grants at the time of the purchase, but, if the transaction is properly structured, the state allows the city to apply again and again in subsequent years for additional grant funding.

Even without such grant programs in place, park acquisition is perhaps the best reason for a municipality to borrow money. Land not immediately acquired is inevitably lost, and, unlike borrowing to fix a pothole, repair a building, or purchase a vehicle, the city can be certain that the life of the asset purchased (land for a park) will exceed the term of the bond.

In looking at the purchase of Sherwood Park, Edmonds citizens have the added benefit that the money stays in the family so to speak. Rather than purchasing from some out-of-state corporation, the grant money from the State of Washington would actually wind up in the hands of the Edmonds School District. Excellent!

LORA PETSO

Edmonds

Preserving the senior center is best move

It’s good that the Edmonds City Council is looking at future economic development ideas. I’m sure that at its recent retreat, many plans were suggested and some may be acted on soon. But one idea that got weeks of press, I cannot recommend, nor can we likely afford, that is, moving the South County Senior Center.

Most cities and towns have a senior enter providing a variety of services and activities for its senior population. And the benefits often stretch well into our communities, particularly to the families of these seniors. While the value of such places, programs and support can not always be quantified, a ‘good’ senior program more than pays for itself every year.

I’m sure local developers have their plans for the center’s waterfront site, and would promise us a ‘world class’ something or other. But let’s first ask why our seniors shouldn’t continue to have a class facility along the water. Does the fact of one’s station in life relegate the need for community support to a lower rung, below high priced, waterfront condos?

This issue becomes even more acute for two reasons. First, Edmonds is a community with an aging population. The 2000 Census shows 40 percent of our population is 45 years of age and older, and one-third is over 55 years of age. While we don’t use phrases like ‘retirement community,’ Edmonds’ profile slants that way.

Then even if you would move the center, where could it be rebuilt? The cost of just building a basic house on a wisp of land is astronomical. How much money would it take to rebuild our 28,000-square-foot center? And where is there land to do so that also isn’t already eyed by developers?

I think this economic development idea should be labeled D.O.A. But if the Council has interest in our seniors and their center, it would be a good time to start planning for the center’s remodeling and begin a city initiative to keep our center and its services world class for decades to come.

JIM UNDERHILL

Edmonds