Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: Today

Re: “Transit, public use and the problem of parking lot pee-ers

I am concerned with the decision to basically close down the second floor at the plaza. Will the patrons that use the plaza to maybe connect to other busses be able to use the 2nd floor restroom or are they planning on moving that too?
How about the businesses that on the 2nd floor, will they be forced to move out of the plaza, or will they be given a choice to move downstairs at maybe at their own expense? I feel that maybe STA will have to offer an incentive to relocate in the Plaza

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Thomas Redmond on 11/21/2014 at 4:31 PM

Re: “Transit, public use and the problem of parking lot pee-ers

I agree. Spokane needs more, not less, vibrant public gathering places. The closest thing we have at this point is the atrium at River Park Square Mall, which let's face it, is pretty much a shrine to capitalism and the Cowles.

This is a city damn it! We have hundreds of thousands of people dedicated to life here. We aren't some grimy little gas station between Seattle and Minneapolis. We deserve more than a Spartan, stripped-down transit hub that no one wants to stand at!

The retroactive leadership at DSP, GSI and Visit Spokane (why are the tourism people even associating with the other two at this point?) can go to the dark, dank, abandoned pee-smelling urban hell that they would foist upon the rest of us.

After all, didn't we get the memo that only those with wealth and power should be able to afford dignified conference rooms? Only those in cars deserve to minimize their exposure to the elements outdoors? That only those paying the rent-a-cops should feel comfortable when they come around to question your right to exist where you are?

People are sick and tired of this elite tyranny. We work way too hard to be treated like stray dogs and be bossed around by these corporate cats in our own city. This is not a company town. Spokane is marching towards a brighter, more inclusive future whether the good 'ol boys are ready or not! If they were smart they'd jump out in front and claim credit for the bright new Spokane with emboldened public institutions. Instead they are wasting their time (and in some cases OUR tax money!) trying to stuff us back into the kennel where they think we belong.

Nope! Try again boys. Better go hurry up and publish another report about your austerity agenda while the media is still listening!

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by FedUpAndOverIt on 11/21/2014 at 4:21 PM

Re: “Announcing the Inlander 2014 Short Fiction Contest — now with cash prizes

This is why we love The Inlander! Thank you for offering this contest.

Posted by Sophia Aldous on 11/21/2014 at 10:43 AM

Re: “'It Just Felt Right'

I'm so proud of her. What an insperation.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Mirm Stevens on 11/21/2014 at 7:36 AM

Re: “Republicans' Last, Best Chance

The Republicans' landmark victories this month meant nothing and they must change their principles immediately despite their successes? Apparently it's now legal to smoke weed in Idaho, which is the only explanation for this column.

Posted by muddydog on 11/21/2014 at 5:18 AM

Re: “In defense of Steven Moffat, Doctor Who's controversial showrunner

Disagree entirely. The entire defense of Moffat in this article seems to be built on the fact that he's superior to Davies. While I would never agree with that postulation (even Davies is superior in my opinion), it's completely beside the point. Who you SHOULD be comparing Moffat to is EVERY OTHER AUTHOR of comparable fiction in existence.
There seems to be a misconception by the author of this article that a good story relies on an interesting concept, or on particularly creative scary monsters, or on the size of the threat that the Doctor is confronted with. This seems to coincide exactly with Moffat's way of thinking and writing, and it couldn't be more FALSE.
The old, pre-revival Doctor Who was superior to Moffat's incarnation in almost every way - its writers didn't have access to the same technical and technological tricks, which forced them to utilise the viewer's IMAGINATION (you know, that asset rendered unnecessary by CGI). It didn't matter if the monster looked bad and uncreepy (and they usually did), because the viewers understood and believed in what these monsters represented - because back then, the monsters did represent something other than a discardable quick scare.
I can only recommend this brilliant short essay on the subject:

Posted by BlueTooth on 11/21/2014 at 5:00 AM

Recent Comments

© 2014 Inlander
Website powered by Foundation