LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[July 13th, 2005] THE EMPEROR'S NEW TAVERN

I found the recent review of Gotham Bldg. Tavern ["Table Talk," June 29, 2005] to be absurd. In a city that prides itself on craft beer, this establishment has three tap handles. On a recent visit, all three of those handles were from beers made out of state. Doesn't anyone in this town have a clue about pairing local beer with food? Besides Higgins, I can't think of any other. It almost makes me want to go back into the business, God forbid!

Regarding their food, I had a side dish of asparagus with a hollandaise-truffle sauce. It was eight dollars, and what I got was several skinny spears drenched in an egg sauce with not a hint of lemon or truffles. The entree was a skirt steak with potatoes that described itself in a language way beyond its own borders. At 24 dollars, it was underwhelmingly plain.

Please, people, when the emperor shows up with no clothes on, call it like it is.

I owned and managed several successful restaurants in Portland for over 20 years, and believe me, the Gotham Tavern is pretentious bullpuckey.

Tom Calhoun
North Sumner Street

WHAT'S WW SMOKING?

In the July 6 Rogue of the Week column, Willamette Week advocated the renewal of the 10-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes. Implemented in 1993, this was a temporary tax and was meant to expire after two years. Instead, it was renewed several times to help fill budget gaps. The article states that the extra tax would provide health care to 16,000 low-income Oregonians (a third of whom are smokers themselves), but never addresses why smokers should be forced to provide healthcare for the poor.

Smokers are already forced to pay extra for light rail, schools, law enforcement, and other state-run services we all benefit from. A smoker has no more responsibility to the poor than a non-smoker. The only difference is that there are more non-smokers than smokers, and naturally, most non-smokers are happy to raise cigarette taxes. They don't have to pay extra and get to feel good about voting to fund health care for the poor.

By making so many state programs dependent on tobacco money, the government has a growing interest in keeping smokers smoking. Maybe that's why Oregon will only spend $3.5 million (1 percent of total cigarette-tax revenues) on smoking prevention programs this year. The Centers for Disease Control recommend a minimum of $21 million.

Oregon's cigarette tax is already too high at $1.18 per pack, and it should not be raised again. Lawmakers have done the right thing, albeit years late, by letting the tax expire.

Bruce Smith
Research Associate, Cascade Policy Institute
Southwest Alder Street