I'd like to respond to the letter to the editor published on Feb. 6 titled

and the advertisement it refers to, which appeared in the Reporter on Jan. 30.

Suzin Daniel, a real estate agent in Pagosa Springs, Colo., had her car vandalized while visiting Santa Fe. Vandalism is a serious issue and we are working hard to prevent these types of crimes and make arrests. However, we feel it was in poor taste for Ms. Daniel to use this situation as a way to promote her real estate business in Colorado.

As the letter to the editor suggested and as your paper has diligently reported in the past, it is clear that we need more police on the streets and must add new positions in order to continue to meet the needs of our growing community. The good news is that the city's increased investment in police recruitment is paying off. Our vacancy numbers are now in the single digits, the lowest in at least four years.

In 2007, the police department hired 26 police officers selected from a pool of more than 300 applicants. As a result of these hires, the police department is working to improve its response to criminal activity and is currently taking a strong, proactive approach to crime prevention efforts. These plans include the addition of a new Street Crimes Unit, which will focus on property crimes-such as the one Ms. Daniel's ad refers to-as well as graffiti, gangs, violent crimes, narcotics and repeat offenders.

With the support of Mayor Coss and the Santa Fe City Council, we are now looking at funding sources to increase the number of sworn officers.

We understand more than anybody that crime is not about statistics, it's about people. The Santa Fe Police Department is here to serve you. We are working hard to lower our crime statistics for a safer Santa Fe.



Mrs. Domandi since you decided to announce to your radio listeners to read your letter in the Reporter, bragging about your deconstruction of Ms. Sauthoff's minor point about women in roles of power, you should understand that you have an important, or at least well-respected and heard voice, in our city and writing such a sloppy and dismissive letter is an embarrassment to your listeners, the community and the readers of this paper [


According to the AFL-CIO citing the US Census Bureau, "In 2007, women [were] paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid," with the study citing that the figure is even worse for women of color. It has been almost 45 years since Kennedy signed an Equal Pay Act and sadly it's starting to look more and more like Brown v. the Board of Education.

In a study in 2004, CNN determined it will take until the year 2050 before women are paid the same wages that their male counterparts are paid. Taking this into consideration, isn't it possible that women would feel a burden in the work force? And isn't it possible that this can have the effect of making women feel degraded to the point of making women hide or suppress any kind of traditional feminine traits?

Do you really believe women in managing positions feel as respected as their male counterparts? It was only months ago that, in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling helping women who realize they are being discriminated against feel they have some recourse. Women, it is now a reaffirmed law, have only 180 days from the point of discrimination to file suit.

Is this what you mean when you say it's no longer true that women are discriminated in the workplace, that it was in the '70s that this "used" to happen? Naive views like your own will keep women from being granted what they deserve.

In closing, the idea that only men are big-game hunters, and your attempt to define womanliness as Eros is so ill thought out that it does not deserve further comment.



As director of Bench Warmer's The Spanish Lesson, good and bad reviews I've had 'em all. However I've never been associated with a review that cries racism and sexism. It is appalling that Angelo Jaramillo does just that [Performing Arts, Feb. 6: "

"]. The first is that SF Playhouse should have "more minority playwrights on the bill, as there were none." I am certain that when plays are submitted for Bench Warmers a racial profile isn't required. If SFP picked shows on the ethnicity of the writer and not the quality of the script-now THAT would be racist. If Jaramillo checked for minority scripts he would have found Jewish and gay authors. Or does Jaramillo consider minorities only those of the dark-skin persuasion? Now who's racist?

Secondly, Jaramillo complains of "stereotypical and sexist depictions of Mexican women as thick-accented…dominatrix sluts." What about when asked how to ask a girl to his room the actress says, "Earl! Women in Mexico do NOT go up to a man's hotel room on the first date." Or that these two have been in this relationship for months and didn't just meet and fall into bed?

Finally, when Earl can say what's been on his mind there are frightening consequences, then a fun surprise ending. (Which Jaramillo ruined, by the way, without a spoiler alert to the reader.)

This quick jump to cry racism and sexism without any real investigating is the kind of "crying wolf" that sadly waters down the seriousness of true racist/sexist acts, and all of this within a paper with a half-naked dominatrix Bettie Page wannabe on the cover-but at least she was white, huh? Pitiful.



I was pleased to see a reproduction of artist Tim Jag's painting in your visual arts listings [Feb. 6]. I went to the opening of "

" at the New Mexico Museum of Art, and it is a really beautiful show.

However, the blurb about the show mentions neither the name of the show (it is not called "Also") nor the name of the artist whose work is reprinted in your paper. If I may make a suggestion, I think that if an artist's work is printed in your paper, then the artist's name should appear under it. It seems only fair to the artist, especially to an artist who lives in Santa Fe.


  SO WHAT?    

What's the point of Zane's World in the Feb. 6 Reporter ["

"]? He seems to be asking us (the residents of SF) to take action, to defeat the entropy of feasibility. OK, that's nice, but, uh, what's the actual point of the article? Yes, I tend to agree that we get into an "analysis paralysis" mode as a society, and I do think there are some things we could/should do as a city more/better (although I suspect Mr. Zane and I have different priorities), but I am completely unmoved by this column's vagueness and pointless chastising of the citizenry.