Re “Architectural idol,” City, Aug. 7: The design of the proposed condo at 330 King E., like so many others these days, ignores applicable building bylaws. A developer’s condo design may be criticized by the city Design Review Panel for, among other things, building height and massing, particularly so if the design ignores exisiting city bylaws. It is presumptuous then for the developer to complain he cannot make such major design changes because he has already marketed the project in its original form. Marketing is controlled by the developer. If he proceeds before project approval, he must face the consequences of his choice of timing. Tough luck. Stig Harvor

SHADY BUSINESS
Swingers clubs are legal, but the apparent tolerance of sex trade businesses is not “perfectly legit,” as you write in your Toronto Notes item “Toronto: Come again?” (Aug. 7). They are supposedly outlawed by Criminal Code sections regarding living on the avails of prostitution and common bawdy houses. Official explanations from cities licensing the euphemistically labelled body-rub parlours and escort agencies ridiculously pretend they do not offer sex acts for cash.

After inquiries in two Aussie states found their vice cops were being routinely paid off, New Zealand and much of Australia (particularly Sydney, where brothel revenues increased during the Pope’s recent visit according to an article cited in the online version of your story) abandoned the ambiguous arrangement maintained in Canada and decriminalized the brothels. Canadians and our media are astoundingly gullible or timid in failing to question the politicians and police arguing to preserve the federal laws they don’t enforce and the obviously dishonest present system. Keith Baxter

AFTER THE FAT POLICE…
Re “An Unhealthy Approach,” Editorial Digest, Aug. 7: A question comes to mind about this rather unhealthy trend of government debating over the food that we citizens choose to consume: If we allow the nanny state to decide our food choices, then why not let them take an interest in how much sleep we get, what kind of sex we have and whether we floss regularly? Kudos on a great editorial. David Maharaj

Your editorial is correct to challenge Los Angeles city council’s ban on new fast-food restaurants in low-income areas, but your recommended solutions are problematic. Subsidies, tax breaks and education will not provide a real solution or even “encourage better choices” as these do not address the root cause, which is poverty. If I earn $20,000 a year, my choices are much fewer than if I earn $40,000. Ted Turner

Send letters to letters@eyeweekly.com or 625 Church St, 6th fl, Toronto, M4Y 2G1. Names withheld on request, but name, address and daytime phone number must be included. All letters become property of EYE WEEKLY for purposes of publication in print, online or in any other form.