There was, to say the least, a lot of HB 2 news this weekand a lot of reader reaction, too. (See our recap in Triangulator). Responding to the Department of Justice’s demand that the state not enforce HB 2’s bathroom provision, commenter chappa hillian (get it?) writes: “Finally, this law is called out for what it is. McCrory and the legislature now find themselves battling the Justice Department over civil rights. If the majority of North Carolinians were reasonable people, this would mean the end of GOP dominance in the next election cycle. However, evidence suggests that the majority of people in my state are not reasonable.”

To wit, GianniP has some thoughts about the homosexual agenda. “It is amazing that the legislature of this state had to be called into action to mitigate a municipal ordinance that flies in the face of common sense and is an affront to any notion of due privacy. This is another example of overreach that has made the LGBT community the most despised of all U.S. communities with the possible exception of the Klan.”

Moving on. Michael Barrow writes in response to our story on the funding disparities between the Art of Cool Festival and Moogfest [“Headliner Status,” April 27]: “I have to question why the city or county of Durham is held hostage to festivals to support them. Last year, the Durham Exchange Club kicked off the Durham Blues and Brews Festival [which Barrow cofounded], and it was a huge success. We never asked the city or county for a dime. … Your article paints a picture of two festivals that are unable to exist without taxpayer funding. Why on earth is it necessary for the residents of our community to be on the hook for these festivals that need to either thrive or die on their own?”

“To me,” adds Daniel Stark, “it seems a lot of the support for these festivals is motivated by real estatei.e., tied up with the dream of a walkable downtown. So a group like Durham Exchange that does important work but falls outside the footprint doesn’t really interest the [American Tobacco] crowd. Additionally, a blues and brews fest isn’t pushing the envelope artistically in the same way AOC and Moogfest are, so branding-wise it might be a little conservative for the tech-entrepreneurial set.”

In response to our story about residents’ concerns over Raleigh’s forthcoming changes to its comprehensive plan [Triangulator, May 4], Jenraleigh warns that bigger isn’t always better: “I imagine many people living in long-established neighborhoods don’t know that they aren’t protected from encroachment by a new neighbor. When that happens, your property value is decreased, as is your use and enjoyment of your property. I am happy to see new development that replaces homes that are in ill-repair. However, I don’t support the lack of restrictions on how close, how wide, and how tall a developer or new neighbor may build. The lack of adequate restrictions leaves existing homeowners subject to encroachment, and encourages the tear-down of smaller homes and single-story homes. Bigger houses don’t equate to higher density.”

“Those of us who are concerned about certain kinds of development are not anti-growth Neanderthals,” writes Stefanie Mendell. “We understand the demographics, and we want our city to grow. But we don’t want to lose what is special about Raleigh. We’d like to prevent tear-downs where possible, save trees where possible, and stop the huge houses that overwhelm their lots.”

Want to see your name in bold? Email us at, comment on our Facebook page or, or hit us up on Twitter: @indyweek.