Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    The ACC board of trustees slipped onto the May 7 ballot what can only be labeled a perversion of democracy. Community college taxing districts are built on school districts. There are three areas inside the Austin city limits that belong to other school districts, districts that are not part of the ACC taxing district. Those three small areas are about to be swamped by a vote allowing everyone currently paying ACC's tax to extend that tax to cover those three areas. It is a basic tenet of American democracy that only those facing a tax should be allowed to vote on that tax. I believe that was one of the principles upon which we rebelled. ACC's sleazy backdoor effort to expand their tax district makes a mockery of the democratic process. And their only response to that is to repeat, in mechanical fashion, that it's for our own good. The obvious arrogance of that comment aside, it doesn't address the issue. I live in a MUD and pay the highest property taxes in Austin. How about we hold a vote out here to extend our tax to Dr. Mink. Oh, she'll get to vote on it, too. It's at least as fair as ACC's proposal.

Dear Editor,
    I learned something amazing over the weekend. “Toll roads and uncontrolled growth are ruining our environment.” Really. Brigid Shea told me that in a recorded phone message on behalf of Margot Clarke. What a load of crap. Do these prospective Council members think they can throw a hot-button word like toll roads out there and we'll all go flocking to them? Not me. What's ruining the environment (well, besides the administration's policies and corporate greed) is uncontrolled consumption of nonrenewable energy like gas and oil and mobile-point pollution. But here's the rub, if we magically replaced every gasoline guzzling car and truck tomorrow with solar cars and hydrogen fuel cells, our road system would collapse because the major funding for highway construction and maintenance is the fuel oils tax. If we all went hydrogen, we couldn't pay for a left turn lane, much less major transportation facilities that deal with explosive and uncontrolled growth (OK, I'll give Brigid that one).
    Then I get this door hanger from Wes Benedict, no tolls. He says the “toll roads are a hasty reaction to failed policies that made Austin the most congested midsize city in America.” Another load of crap. I am not pro-toll roads, but I am anti-anti-toll roads. Any candidate who refuses to listen to real solutions, and won't consider viable alternatives to the continued gas-tax funded system is not the person I want representing me and my modern city. Somebody very wise once said, “The times they are a-changin'.” We can embrace change and come up with bold new ways to deal with major issues like transportation, or we can sit around and talk about the good old days. We'll have plenty of time because we won't be able to afford to go anywhere. Vote for visionaries.

Dear Editor,
    The Austin Chronicle has taken the erroneous position that just because people live within the Austin city limits but outside ACC's district that they should be compelled to pay taxes by the rest of Austin [“The Politics of Annexation,” News, April 22]. In other words, those who may have chosen their residence in order to not have to pay ACC taxes should have someone else force taxes upon them. So much for personal choice.
    The Austin Chronicle wrongly asserts that these people are receiving some benefit by living within the city limits and not having to pay the taxes. What makes the city limits so magical? The benefits of ACC stop at the city limits? If I live 100 feet outside of the city limits I'm not allowed these benefits?
    The fact is this: ACC is a governmental institution that is poorly run and has lied to the taxpayers. Remember that taxes were never going to have to be raised? As a governmental institution, it will consume more and more tax dollars and therefore has to expand its tax base. It would rather do that than look at itself for the solutions to its money problems. And of course they don't want to raise tuition, aka user fees, because it may decrease demand and jeopardize their self-importance. It's easier to forcibly take money from someone else.
    So what is the CTRCCTA? It is the Central Texas Regional Community College Taxing Authority that is looming on the horizon. They did it with the roads, and now they'll do it with education. It's coming. An educational taxing authority is coming.

Dear Editor,
    Uh, Louis, what about the "right" of nonsmoking bartenders and waitpersons to not be exposed to a known carcinogen as a condition of their employment? That's what I've always understood these bans to really be about, not the "rights" of nonsmoking customers. If you want to argue that these employees have no such "right,” go for it, but, at least in this week's column [“Page Two,” April 22], you don't address this central issue.

Dear Editor,
    The worst argument I've heard for supporting the smoking ban is its purported inevitability. We're told by proponents that to oppose the ban is to stand against the current of progress. We're reminded that there used to be smoking on airliners, in movie theatres, and in restaurants, and that banning smoking in bars is the next step in society's relentless march forward.
    This overlooks the obvious difference between bars and other public places. No matter how tony the decor or the clientele, bars still exist primarily as dens of vice. Whether they are music clubs or not, bars exist to sell booze. They already are gathering places for adults engaging in unhealthy behavior. They are not family environments like movie theatres or restaurants. They are not part of a regulated transportation system. They are private businesses selling alcohol to people who patronize them of their own free will.
    People who support the ban suggest they should have the freedom to go to a bar and not smell cigarette smoke. There is no such freedom. The freedom you have is the choice to go into the bar in the first place.
    I would like to add that I am a nonsmoking, working musician. If the honky-tonks I play go smoke-free because the patrons give up their habit, I'll be plenty happy. But if they go smoke-free because someone who would never darken their door decides they should, that will just be wrong.

Louis,
    The Chronicle is the most important source of progressive information in Austin, and perhaps for all of the Southwest. Your support of music and the environment has been incredible – thank you. Further, your reporting of local political news has, for the most part, been an important balance to the Statesman and has made Austin a better place.
    The reason for this letter is that it appears there is an intentional avoidance of printing information concerning 9/11 (9/11 has been the excuse of the neo-cons to loot our treasury, to destroy our civil liberties, and to embark on an extremely dangerous and deadly foreign policy of invasion). Today, there is overwhelming objective information that the “official” government story concerning this great national tragedy is a “fairy tale.” Additionally, it appears as though the Chronicle is putting very little effort into reporting the unconstitutional, imperialistic, brutal, and racist aspects of the Iraqi War.
    Because the Chronicle is the main source of information for so many in Austin, and because 9/11 and the Iraq War are so vital to the real freedoms (not the fascists' illusions) of our community, I would ask that you publish the information that the predominate/corporate media will not deal with.

Dear Editor,
    Where o' where is Ross Perot and why is he so silent? When he made his attempt to run for U.S. president he focused on the huge budget and government spending. George W. Bush's decision to go it alone in Iraq and not take the time to make the case to allies has cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $3 billion and obviously the spending is not final. George W. Bush has a record budget, and spending goes beyond the budget with more and more requests of Congress for money. Requesting money from other people is a pattern George W. Bush has mastered since young adulthood. He has a pattern of using other people's money. Now the money is yours and mine.
    Why is Ross Perot so silent? Does he think it is not polite to criticize a fellow Texan?

Dear Editor,
    I am writing in opposition to the smoking ban initiative on the May 7 ballot. Austin already has a smoking ban that protects children and nonsmokers alike while giving informed adults the freedom to choose.
    Right now, our current smoking ordinance mandates:
    1) Of 46,000 businesses in Austin, more than 99% are smoke free.
    2) No smoking is allowed anywhere children under 18 are present.
    3) More than 2,000 restaurants are smoke-free. Only six allow smoking.
    4) More than 400 bars are smoke-free. Only 200 allow smoking.
    5) More than 150 live music venues are smoke-free. Only 63 allow smoking.
    6) Only 211 businesses and their employees have chosen to allow smoking in Austin.
    If this ordinance is enacted, live music venues in Austin will suffer and some will close down. The current ordinance has already caused the Filling Station to close down and caused Katz's to file bankruptcy. These will not be the deep pockets places owned by out of town corporations. They will be the locally owned businesses run by your friends and neighbors.
    Please help save local venues and local jobs. On May 7, please vote no on the smoking ban and help keep Austin the live music capital of the world.

Margaret,
    So enjoyed your article of the Louisiana Guide [“Cajun Coeur,” Music, April 22]. Just got back from Baton Rouge yesterday and I discovered the absolute best po'boy sandwiches! The restaurant is Georges, and there are three locations – one is right under I-10. Take the Perkins exit after you get off of the bridge and are heading to New Orleans. It is under the interstate. The one I went to is on Highland Road. By far the best shrimp, oyster, and roast beef po'boys you will ever eat. I am from New Orleans and if I still lived there, Georges would be one of those "roadies" that I would have to do at least once a month. I am still trying to find a good po'boy in Austin, but often the failure is in the bread. It is not real French bread, and it is not lightly toasted.
    If you get back that way anytime soon, try Georges.

Dear Editor,
    Does Louis Black even read "Page Two" before he posts it? He complains that "Among too many, the current method of political debate is to first frame the issues in the manner most appropriate for your view. You can then go on to explain how, given this frame, you are not only right – and obviously so – but, in addition, anyone who disagrees with you is either corrupt or a moron. Finally, trivialize the main concerns of those with the opposing point of view, while ignoring any valid issues, and you are home,” then immediately spends the rest of the column doing just that [April 22]. How exactly are phrases like "The argument that this is about nonsmokers' rights isn't valid" and "There is no issue of nonsmokers' rights as regards this ban" anything other than trivializing? Facetious statements like "You Are Spiro Agnew!,” "... confidently speak for the silent!!,” and "They aren't speculating; they know!" certainly sound like treating the opposition as "either corrupt or a moron.”
    I'm not at all surprised by Black's snide double standard; this is exactly the same method he's used all along against Nader/the Green Party/anyone who opposes Republicans but isn't a Democrat. If Black wants to reduce himself to a sanctimonious demagogue, that's fine, but he should leave the Limbaugh-esque self-righteous hypocrisy to the Republican experts.

   [Louis Black responds: OK, I'll rise to the bait. I said the pro-ban view was perfectly legitimate, that the health issues were real and the economic impact was unknowable. My take was since a compromise had been reached and only approximately 200 businesses allowed smoking, why upset the club owners again so quickly without waiting to see how the current plan works? I ended with urging all to "Vote your heart, your conscience, and your convictions on the smoking ban." Any name you want to call me I probably deserve and I admit to being all kinds of stupid but how did I "frame the issues in the manner most appropriate for your view. You can then go on to explain how, given this frame, you are not only right – and obviously so – but, in addition, anyone who disagrees with you is either corrupt or a moron. Finally, trivialize the main concerns of those with the opposing point of view, while ignoring any valid issues, and you are home"?]

Dear Editor,
    We would like to offer some feedback to a few of your mentions of Place 4 council candidate Wes Benedict [“The Council We Deserve,” News, April 22] as well as to the “Naked City” [News, April 22] item this past week regarding his ethics complaints filed against Betty Dunkerley: In 2002, her total reported contributions were $62,000 more than the total reported expenditures. Where did that $62,000 go? What is she not telling us, and why does she claim it's "not substantive"? She also failed to submit corrections this week, as promised.
    Wes did indeed run for council in 2003 against Danny Thomas, garnering 35% of the vote, but not as a Libertarian. City of Austin rules don't allow partisan-defined campaigns. In response to your assessment of his seemingly pro-environment rhetoric, Wes is an independent thinker – able to consider a myriad of solutions, regardless of who brings them to the table.
    In addition to the single Austin Toll Party endorsement you mention, Benedict has also been endorsed by AustinVoter.com, the Travis County Libertarian Party, and yes, the Travis County Green Party. It should be noted too that Dunkerley did not pick up the significant Austin Neighborhoods Council endorsement – a telling miss. Also, Dunkerley indeed has something to do with “the toll roads” issue – she hasn't opposed shifting existing highways to toll roads, and she is very much indebted to the toll road lobbyists who are funding her campaign.
    As for the nostrums Wes is speaking to, he is making connections entrenched incumbents refuse to address: corporate subsidies = gentrification/burdens on lower-income inner-city residents = traffic congestion, along with criticizing failed policies and the horrific quick fixes to Band-Aid them (i.e., nostrums!).

Editor,
    Under "Lege Notes,” April 22 [News], Kimberly Reeves reports that a regional gas tax increase "would amount to $25 million a year, up against a $2 billion price tag on toll road construction."
    First, toll roads are built with primarily gas tax monies, not toll bonds. The shortfall covered by toll bonds is well under $1 billion.
    Second, experts at CAMPO have estimated that a 2.5-cent local gas tax increase would return $1.1 billion over 20 years (p.179, draft CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan). Over 40 years, the life of CTRMA's bonds, the return would be more than $2.2 billion.
    Third, a gas tax could produce revenue as soon as six months from now. It will be years before tolls produce positive cash returns.
    Of course, this is all academic. Gov. Perry and state Rep. Krusee plan to loot our existing gas taxes for their grand Trans-Texas Corridor toll empire. And, as your reporter observes, Krusee and Sen. Barrientos will loot any local gas tax increases for their pet passenger rail schemes.

Dear Editor,
    The liberals got their way on abortion; but as I look at the numbers of innocent lives that have been taken, from 774,600 in 1977 to 1,588,600 in 1985, I am amazed that these same liberals can not understand why Social Security is having a hard time meeting its budget. If these little children had been allowed to live and enter the workforce, even at the lower end of the pay scale, the past 20 years would have added between $300 billion to $500 billion to the Social Security fund. Another liberal nose job (that's where they cut off the nose to spite the face).

To the editor,
    OK, three times is enough. Louis Black, Michael King, and now Daniel Mottola have in the course of arguing the pros and cons of smoking bans, called smoking a “lifestyle choice.” No one can claim ignorance of the truth that smoking is not a lifestyle choice. It is a devastating addiction that kills 1,000% more people per year than all other drugs combined. Smoking is not a choice. It is a compulsion brought on by experiencing the effects and then having to continue. Even the tobacco companies have admitted it and paid heavily for pushing it to children.
    Smoking is a horrible addiction, and we have finally trumped the poor tobacco companies' bulging PR coffers and gotten the word out. There will be no turning back. There is no argument from a smoker that means anything. They are sick people who need help. Just like alcoholics, we must approach them with understanding and kindness and then try to help in any way we can. Secondhand smoke is not even an issue. The source of the problem is and always has been that they are trapped in a desperate compulsion brought on by a substance that attracts and then kills. If I can do anything to help them, I will. Banning smoking anywhere helps them. They are the real victims, and any business that depends upon encouraging this horrible addiction in order to survive (like tobacco companies or bars) must be eliminated. There is no argument that can validate preying upon these unfortunate addicts in order to make a living.

To the editors,
    I couldn't help noticing this item in the Pets section of the Classifieds ads in last week's Chronicle [April 8]: “MONKEY free very lazy but friendly smokes cigarettes need to give away moving to Chile call Chris.”
    This antismoking thing has gone just a little too far when they won't let a monkey into Chile just because he smokes cigarettes.

Dear Editor,
    What Michael King (and all of the other smoking ban proponents) fails to acknowledge in his editorial [“Point Austin,” News, April 15] is that there are plenty of alternatives right now for nonsmokers to go out for the evening and enjoy themselves in a smoke-free environment. More than 95% of restaurants and 60% of bars are smoke-free in Austin. Nonsmokers actually have more choices in how they spend their leisure time than smokers do. So it is a farce to suggest that nonsmokers' rights are violated when they are subjected to secondhand smoke. If they do not want to be exposed, then they have a wide variety of smoke-free entertainment options!
    Likewise, it is a farce to suggest that the ban is put forward to protect employee health by ensuring a smoke-free workplace. The people that work in smoking venues have numerous smoke-free workplace options – more than 2,400, in fact. They are not victims. Rather, they are adults who have purposefully chosen from the 211 places that allow smoking. The majority of these employees are smokers themselves. It is an affront to their intelligence to assume that they did not know or did not choose where to seek employment. What's next? Will they outlaw barbecue joints because employees are exposed to the smoke that gives that great Texas barbecue its fabulous flavor? If not, why not? It can't be good for them!
    I know from personal experience that this smoking ban will harm local businesses in Austin. When a similar ordinance was passed in Tempe, Ariz., our Clicks Billiards location was forced to close within a year. We saw an immediate 50% drop in revenues and were unable to recover.
    Clicks has spent thousands of dollars purchasing sophisticated smoke eaters in order to provide a comfortable atmosphere for our nonsmoking clientele. They appreciate it and continue to patronize Clicks. However, approximately 70% of our clientele enjoy smoking. Passing this ban could well be the death knell for multiple Austin clubs, live music, and the livelihood of hundreds of people.
    Austin already has an ordinance that protects children and nonsmokers while giving informed adults the freedom to choose. It's not a smoking issue. It's a freedom of choice issue.
    If you agree that this intrusive smoking ban goes too far, please vote against it. (FYI, to the apathetic voter who thinks the ban won't pass ... we lost that vote in Tempe by only 900 votes.) Please vote early!

Dear Editor,
    Boy, talk about madness. People are idiots, aren't they? On both sides of the ban! But hey, let's think about these Top 5 things I've come up with on why people go out, and then reflect a bit.
    1) The possibility they might get laid.
    2) To drink.
    3) To see live music.
    4) To dance.
    5) To smoke.
    And I'm not even sure people go out to smoke, they usually just smoke while doing these other four things. My point is, there are plenty of reasons people will still frequent bars. Since the beginning of time people could drink at home for 10 times cheaper than at the bars, yet, for some crazy reason they still went out. Was it so they could smoke? No, they could do that at home, too! And since people rarely find a hook-up while sitting around their coffee table enjoying a puff, they'll have no choice but to go out, or join HookUp.com. Which would you do? So until we pass a ban on the exchanging of phone numbers while in a bar (which is a violation of somebody's rights, somewhere, I'm sure), people are still going to go out. So ban or no ban, people will continue going out. Quit your sweating and give up the bitching, cause this is a democracy, and if the people want it one way and it ain't your way or my way ... tough shit.

Dear Editor,
    I am a nonsmoker. My husband, a local musician, is a nonsmoker. We're not children. We're not victims. We're patrons of clubs that decided, after weighing the economic costs and benefits, to allow smoking. We choose to support these bars with our hard-earned money. The employees choose to work there and take our hard-earned money. It's a foolproof system.
    As far as I know, the laws of economics still function in this city. If it's true that smokeless clubs will bring legions of nonsmoking music lovers back to the scene, then someone should exploit this vast market. Maybe Onward Austin or Lance Armstrong can open a music venue. It should be a goldmine, right?
    Smoking is bad and ugly. Everyone should quit. But don't claim that the ban won't adversely impact the clubs that currently support local music. A wise man once said, “Cigarettes and rock & roll just go together.” And I know it's only rock & roll, but I like it the way it is.
    Vote No.

Dear Editor,
    First of all, thanks to all at the Chronicle who have written informatively, sometimes passionately, and always wisely, about the proposed smoking ban. I'd like to make two points: first, I fear the ban will pass, but largely with the votes of people who never venture out of their living rooms at night to visit a club and will not even if the ban passes. Secondly, the ban is an act of selective fascism: The city will expect bar owners to treat a client who smokes within 15 feet of the bar as a criminal, yet owners are expected to endure and tolerate vagrants who panhandle, sleep, urinate, etc. at the very threshold of the establishment. I can't wait to see the next SXSW where musicians and patrons alike will be rounded up en masse!

Dear Editor,
    I read today that Rep. [Robert] Talton (of Pasadena) feels the need to privatize CPS according to his personal bigotry. I am shocked and appalled that in a state that is groaning under the weight of desperate, unwanted, unloved, and uncared-for children there exists a representative of the people who feels we need to cut the number of people who are willing to adopt and love and care for them by a substantial number.
    Children in foster care are far more likely than not to find themselves wards of the state because of the actions of their heterosexual parents. Anyone willing to step in and do everything they can to help them should be applauded and supported, not marginalized and discriminated against or stripped of their rights as Americans and human beings.
    I have been turning it over today, and just can't imagine how we might begin to implement this ban. For instance, what if the foster parents are heterosexual, but their best friends are gay? Or their neighbors? Or their parents? How will we pay for all this screening? How will we pay for the additional burden on the system?
    Are we going to allow the Religious Reich to deny children this most basic answer to their situation? I urge every Texan to call and write your representatives and voice your opinion.

Dear Editor,
    Jomana Malone claims that she's never seen a live musician in Austin (“Postmarks,” April 22), because of the smoke. Yet, her assertion that she would start going to shows if the ban passes is contradicted by the fact that Austin already has nonsmoking venues. If she's such a music fan, why hasn't Ms. Malone gone to shows at the Cactus Cafe, La Zona Rosa, AMH, coffee shops, or restaurants, or to smoke-free shows at places like the Saxon?
    Ms. Malone is exactly the kind of patron who doesn't go to concerts now and won't start, regardless of the outcome on May 7.

Dear Editor,
    When making your endorsements for the race for Austin City Council Place 3, you state in reference to candidate[s] Jennifer Kim [and Gregg Knaupe] that "we are concerned that the usual big-money suspects see their candidacies as the most likely to yield additional influence on an already malleable council" ["Endorsements," April 15].
    Please let me dispel your concerns; there is no "big-money" in this campaign when every candidate, including Ms. Kim, must comply with the campaign contribution limits of $100 per person. Jennifer Kim has run a grassroots campaign from the start – getting votes and support one voter at a time. Jennifer has a broad base of support – male and female, young and old, and from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds all over the city – but all from individuals. What you fail to recognize is that there are thousands of supporters backing Jennifer Kim because they believe that she has the right mix of knowledge and experience working in public service at the local, state, and national level and is the best choice to make a well-rounded Austin City Council member.

Dear Ms. Babich,
    I like to cycle, and am always trying to get myself on the road more. In college, though I had a car, 90% or more of my road time was on bicycle, and I'd love to commute by bicycle.
    Reorienting the roads themselves to accommodate thousands of bicyclists will mean kicking cars off, unless someone can convince a huge number of sedentary people to adapt to regular, strenuous biking – thus replacing cars with bikes.
    Count on many more cycling injuries than there are automotive injuries. Include heart attacks with the strains, sprains, abrasions, and fractures.
    And yes, we do fear drivers [“Postmarks,” April 22], with good reason, because many Austin drivers are badly trained if at all trained. Did you know that kids can now be licensed on the strength of a note from home?
    The main point is, though, that altering the roads is relatively easy, but altering Austin is not. The distances involved in getting around the city and into it from the "suburbs" are too great. There isn't time enough in the day for many to ride, and few places of business have enough shower facilities for sweaty cycling employees.

Dear Editor,
    The misguided souls who self-righteously support a draconian anti-smoking ordinance fail to realize that the encroachment on personal freedom they endorse won't stop there. Smoking is legal, and smokers have already been corralled into tiny private venues where they gather by mutual consent. To those who would take that from them, too: Remember that many areas of your own lives are ripe for overregulation – your diet, your alcohol intake, your consumption of vitamins and/or pharmaceuticals, your driving habits, your landscaping choices, to name a few. Send smokers' rights down the tubes today, and yours will follow tomorrow.