Regal shouldn't limit use of Whiteside

As Jay Holararri's letter ("First-run films should be OK at Whiteside," Jan. 31) suggests, Regal Cinema's refusal to sell the Whiteside without a restriction precluding the showing of first run movies in the building is outrageous.

The letter raises at least two legal questions, which the city legal department has likely already considered. The first is whether such a condition is valid. What is outrageous to a layman is sometimes, although not always, illegal to a court.

The second question is whether the City of Corvallis, not being a purchaser or potential purchaser, has standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the restriction. It would seem that it would, given the impact on the city of a limitation on the use of a major downtown building for a perfectly lawful purpose.

Even if the city got the condition declared invalid, that, of course, wouldn't necessarily revive the Whiteside as a theater. Regal could simply refuse to sell or raise the price so high that nobody would buy. But the city could make it extremely difficult for them to let the building rot down.

Would someone put a movie theater, or several theaters, in the building? It might not be economically viable; but, if the restriction were knocked out, the opportunity would at least be there if someone wanted to have a go at a movie house or some mixed use that included one.

Aaron Brown, Corvallis

Ugly Whiteside wall could use a mural

In regards to Robert Corl's letter, the outside west wall of the Whiteside Theatre indeed is a longstanding eyesore.

Why not change that?

I recently observed several attractive murals in Eugene and Cottage Grove.

Why not a mural for the Whiteside? Perhaps even one of those murals which makes the eye see it as three-dimensional like they have in Lyon, France.

I think Corvallis has enough artists for this to become a reality.

It may even speed up the process of deciding who will help preserve Corvallis' own historic movie palace. It may engineer some local pride as well, and that's not bad.

Ben LeRoux, Corvallis

Presidential politics: It's all about money

As the presidential campaign reaches "Super Tuesday," we are reminded that money is really what it is all about. Who has it and who can raise it.

Candidates without huge amounts of personal wealth have been marginalized, and in most cases have had to drop out. With their departure we no longer have the diversity of ideas and opinions that make our republic strong. When this happens in a democracy, we all lose.

Most of the money candidates spend is on advertising, and most of that is on TV ($107 million as of Feb. 1 - $57 million by the Democrats, $50 million by the Republicans).

If, as the Federal Communication Commission states, "the public owns the airways," then why can't we the people demand that as part of their licensing that they provide free and equal time to all political candidates and parties?

They are after all, making untold billions of dollars annually on our resource.

Why should a candidate like Mitt Romney, whose personal wealth is stated to be between $190 million and $250 million, and has spent by some estimates, $40 million of his own money on the campaign so far, be allowed to squeeze out the Abe Lincolns of American politics?

All that for a job that pays "only" $400,000 per year plus perks (love that Air Force 1) and retirement.

The system isn't just broken, it is corrupted. We need more than just change. We need in Jefferson's words "a revolution every 20 years." It's past time.

Roger Paul, Corvallis

No simple solution to immigration issue

Paul deLespinasse's column ("Immigration is new front in quest for civil rights," As I See It, Jan. 24) has generated a lively discussion.

Immigration is definitely one of the hot button issues being discussed today. Both money and people flow across our borders - ignoring legal and illegal goods, etc. - which of these create the most mischief.

A change in our policies has resulted in our borders acting like a one-way membrane. Folks used to cross our borders to pick our crops, then go back to spend the money they earned at home. But now, because we've made it so much harder to cross our borders, only a suicidal fool would risk such a practice. Folks talk about 12 million or more here and can't seem to figure out why.

Money flows relatively unrestricted - to build factories where cheaper labor resides, etc. Folks here lose their jobs, by the millions.

Everyone seems to have their own myopic view of our border traffic, even ignoring complications like goods and services. Folks can get very angry when someone brings up one kind of border traffic over the kind they find most irritating.

Just when you think you have it all figured out, some new kind of border traffic gets your attention - like the safety of Mexican trucks.

There's no simple solution here. We might as well pull up a stool, because this is going to take a while - and a lot more attention than you've been paying to it up 'til now.

Robert G. Gourley, Corvallis