Published February 20, 2003 in issue #0207 of the Hook

I'm not sure what crime Bob Weitzner committed, but there must be a severe shortage of bad guys in Charlottesville for Bob to merit two columns by the Fearless Consumer ["Over-Exposured," February 13, 2003].

In the interest of full disclosure, I've known Bob for close to 20 years and consider him to be a good friend. Bob asked Eli Frantzen (hopefully still a friendly acquaintance) to paint a mural. They agreed on a price, Bob was happy with the mural, and Eli was happy for the work.

The mural was damaged, and Bob asked Eli to restore it. Bob was happy with the result, and Eli was happy for the work. If the value of the mural had increased beyond the cost of repairing it, I'm not sure of Eli's complaint. Bob had been paying for insurance on the mural and was entitled to be reimbursed for its then current value. Eli was entitled to be compensated for her restoration work, and she was.

With regard to Stu Rifkin (also a friendly acquaintance), Stu was a minority owner and a well-compensated employee. Bob bought out Stu's minority interest, and they went their separate ways. If, in a tongue-in-cheek history, Bob chooses to ignore Stu's contribution to the restaurant, I'm not sure that Stu, let alone Barbara Nordin, has cause to complain. One article about a landlord tenant dispute I can understand; two articles begin to smack of a personal vendetta.

Ira Doppelt
Charlottesville

#

>> Back to The HooK front page