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.
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
1) “This is a campaign of semantics and good intentions, with supporters seeming to be remarkably unconcerned with substance” [all quotes taken from “Page Two,” May 5].
I support it and am concerned with the substance.
2) “Read them. They are ridiculously crammed with dictates and restrictions.”
Yes, they are. It is obviously an attempt to make the ammendment have teeth by giving it specificity and not some general guideline. I'd like to look at other ammendments to the city charter to compare it.
3) “These are proposed changes to the city charter, the core document that structures the city: They are not guidelines, or even laws, but charter amendments!”
Unless I am mistaken, ammendments are the only mechanism for citizen originated proposals to make it into our city government. There is no way to put guidelines or laws on the ballot, just charter ammendments.
4) “Given that no one can reasonably estimate the actual costs of these propositions, the social and economic justice communities are again shocked, if not exactly surprised, by the arrogance of the environmentalists' privileged take on the matters at hand.”
I'm not in favor of this for enviromental reasons, but for social justice and good government reasons.
5) “Supporters' tunnel-vision certainty that these amendments will do exactly what they believe they'll do is troubling.”
I am entirely confident there will be some unwanted reprecussions. I think that on the whole however the good will outweigh the bad.
6) “In pursuing this 'open government' agenda, the framers of these propositions did much of what they supposedly 'oppose.' They were put together quickly by a relatively small group, without much public input.”
Dunno, I wasn't involved in the creation of it, I have no idea how transparent the process was. I tend to think he's right though, it is not terribly well written, and it definitely looks like it could use more consideration.
So what. There isn't a charter proposal that that isn't true of to some degree.
7) “As another example of 'Do what we say not what we do,' I had an e-mail exchange with a gentleman who wrote Michael King that we must be opposed to Prop. 1 because it 'will add to [the continuing declines in print media circulation and revenues] because the public will be able to learn what city hall is doing over the Internet and not from the Statesman and Chronicle.'" [And he didn't want me to publish it.]
Uh, again so what?
8) “The form of this debate is as upsetting as the content of the propositions.”
Then focus on the content and rise above the bait.
R. Michael Litchfield
[Louis Black responds: "Unless I am mistaken, ammendments are the only mechanism for citizen originated proposals to make it into our city government." Of course, I didn't limit it to citizen originated proposals, there is the old-fashioned, constitutional way of lobbying your elected representatives, but still you are mistaken, as there are also "ordinances."]
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor:
In your reprint of Mike Clark-Madison's PR piece [“Austin@Large,” News, May 5], he shamelessly accuses SOS Alliance, Sierra Club, Save Barton Creek Association, and other supporters of Proposition 2 of both promoting sprawl and “declaring a large chunk of the city of Austin ... off-limits to any kind of meaningful public investment or planning.” In fact, Proposition 2 is an antidote to the actions of the corporate and toll road clients of Clark-Madison. These corporate interests have sabotaged decades of democratic planning efforts by citizens to limit development in the Barton Springs Watershed – such as the Austin Tomorrow Plan, the SOS Ordinance, and Envision Central Texas. It is this sabotage – abetted by the City Council – that has led to sprawl, not the planning conducted by Austin citizens.
In the recent Envision Central Texas referendum, Austin-area residents voted to limit all new development in the Barton Springs recharge zone to one-tenth of a square mile – far less than would be allowed under Proposition 2. ECT and Proposition 2 embody the scientific consensus: even moderate-density development throughout the watershed will destroy Barton Springs and the aquifer upon which 50,000 people depend for drinking water.
Rather than barring public investments, Proposition 2 would limit city subsidies to private developers and for toll roads, and prioritize investments in street improvements for existing residents. By limiting the city's ability to use taxpayer funds to subsidize new private development in the watershed, Proposition 2 would increase the likelihood of significant public investments in parks and nature preserves.
Audaciously, Clark-Madison asserts that Proposition 2 “removes people from the process.” Instead, Proposition 2 attempts to restore some local democratic control in response to developers and corporations like Lowe's who have convinced the Texas Legislature to intervene in local land-use matters and allow high-density polluting development that overrides local planning and ordinances.
Brad Rockwell
Save Our Springs Alliance
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
Once again Mike Martinez has used his skill of self-promotion to win your endorsement for City Council Place 2 [Endorsements,” May 5]. Over the highly qualified and distinguished public service career of Eliza May. As a 19-year Austin firefighter and former executive, PAC and relief and outreach board member of the Austin Association of Professional Firefighters, I have watched Martinez spend his energy only on things that would win him political favors and financially put him in this position to run for council.
Your endorsement states that his major success as president was wining collective bargaining for firefighters. Winning was a group effort that started more than 10 years ago under different presidents, but it became apparent that this would be something to hang his hat on for his further political aspirations. No one mentions the fact that he mortgaged our future pay raises with a loan from the IAFF that would have to be paid regardless if we won or lost. This $150,000 was at least 10 times what it would taken to accomplish to win at the polls and that the members, not him, would have to pay back. But that amount would not cover the services to the usual political-guru suspects that are now reaping the rewards with the coordinated Wynn, Martinez, and Cole campaigns. Nor was anyone aware that instead of motivating the rank and file to support this issue, Martinez paid civilians to get the signatures so he would be guaranteed that it would be on the ballot.
I believe it's time for the public to wake up and realize that during negotiations that dragged out signing a contract, which we would have had in place for almost two years now if we had negotiated under meet and confer. The hard feelings and the budget cuts that now affect all of AFD are the result of his arrogance and the city's quiet payback for playing hardball with the person that has all the marbles.
Don A. Williamson
[Editor's note: Don Williamson unsuccessfully ran against Martinez for president of the firefighters union in 2003.]
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
As one of the supporters “unconcerned with substance,” and part of the “small, insider, special-interest group” promoting these amendments [“Page Two,” May 5] – and a “union buster” to boot [Endorsements, May 5], I hope you will indulge this response. My “special interest group” is the ACLU. I joined others to draft an open-government amendment that would help end secrecy across a number of key areas of city life.
When people say “special-interest groups,” they usually mean groups that have a self-interest in the issues at stake. Props. 1 and 2 are supported by public interest and environmental groups. Do we want to end the secrecy surrounding police misconduct, tax abatements, and development projects? Yes. Does that make us special interests? No.
Proponents – very concerned about substance – carefully drafted an amendment that will, within the legal framework of Texas open-government laws, open up information of keen public interest. Open-government law is very granular. In order to address a specific process or document, you have to talk about it specifically – and this amendment does so. It is substantive, specific, and will indeed result in an open City Hall.
Finally, the ACLU has been accused by the police association of “union busting,” but I'm sorry to hear that charge from the Chronicle. We grant police officers the authority to arrest us, hold a gun on us, and use the full force of government's intrusive power. We must be able to hold our police force to the highest standards of accountability.
We are not “union busters” for taking the position that the next police contract negotiations (where the city negotiated our current oversight system) should be conducted in public, nor for believing that misconduct records should be open to the same extent they are at the majority of other Texas cities. These are reasonable positions, taken after long experience negotiating with the police association on these very issues.
Kathy Mitchell
[Editor's note: ACLU Central Texas chapter president Kathy Mitchell helped draft Proposition 1 and is the treasurer of the Clean Water Clean Government PAC supporting Props. 1 and 2.]
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Editor,
We are all parks, trails, open-space, and clean-water advocates who have worked for decades to protect and improve Austin’s environment, and we oppose Propositions 1 and 2. We worked all last summer and fall with some of the propositions’ proponents on the Travis County Parks Bond election that permanently preserved Reimers Ranch and set aside thousands of acres to protect water quality in the Pedernales and Colorado Rivers, yet we first heard of this petition drive when we read about it in news reports and saw paid petitioners on the streets. At that point it was too late to offer input that may have improved the language and prevented many of the negative consequences.
As written, Propositions 1 and 2 will hurt, not help efforts to protect parks, open space, and water quality. Prop. 2 will limit the city’s ability to draw development away from the aquifer, undermine successful efforts to work around the state grandfathering law to limit development, and put us on a collision course with the state Legislature. The steep cost of both these propositions will also force cuts in not just environmental protection but also parks, libraries, and social services.
Perhaps worst, if 1 and 2 are approved it will almost assuredly delay a planned November bond election that is recommended by the citizen’s bond committee to include more than $90 million for parks, open space, and water quality protection. If this bond election is postponed it will mean that some key properties over the aquifer will be lost to development forever.
If you care about parks, open space, and water quality we strongly urge you to vote no on Propositions 1 and 2 this Saturday.
Fred Ellis
Director, government, and community affairs
Hill Country Conservancy
with Jon Beall, Jeb Boyt, Valarie Bristol, George Cofer, Anjali Kaul, Charlie McCabe, Nan McRaven, Ted Siff, Amy Wanamaker
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
Does it make sense that saving Barton Springs is cheaper than paving its watershed? Does it make sense that ending secretly negotiated tax giveaways and police contracts will save taxpayers' money? We'll see if Austinites find that it does on Saturday when we vote on Propositions 1 and 2.
Did you know that CAMPO has the authority to use federal highway funds to protect land in the sensitive Barton Springs Watershed? CAMPO's chief Michael Aulick put it in writing to his board last year.
Bruce Perrin wrote last week (to me), "you imply that the money CAMPO is planning to spend on the roadways can somehow be used by the city to purchase open space". No, Bruce. I specifically stated that the city of Austin should use bond funds to purchase open space and conservation easements in the Barton Springs Watershed.
All levels of government should be coordinating efforts to protect clean water in the Edwards Aquifer, in drinking-water wells that serve 50,000 citizens, and in Barton Springs. Conserving our fragile water resources is cheaper than paying for pavement and pollution.
But instead of coordination for conservation we have a failure of leadership at all levels. The only official regional entity we have is the one (CAMPO) that plans to pave Central Texas in a toll road scheme dependent on neverending, car-dependent sprawl in every direction.
Prop. 2 will slow down the toll road insanity. Prop. 1 will stop the secret tax giveaways. It's up to the voters to speak to the powers that be. We have the opportunity to vote for reform, for transparency in local government, for increased protection of Barton Springs, and for saving tax dollars.
Sincerely,
Colin Clark
Communications Director
Save Our Springs Alliance
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
Last week Editor Louis Black wrote that “this paper's long history of championing environmental causes has been forgotten” [“Page Two,” May 5]. Actually, we remember. For years we have relied on the Chronicle to hold City Hall, the Statesman, and developers accountable and to stand up for Barton Springs. Austin, and Barton Springs, would have long ago been lost without the Chronicle.
This time the Chronicle is not writing that Stratus Properties and AMD are preparing to begin the construction of Jim Bob Moffett's dream of a satellite downtown. We're not reading that AMD's move out of East Austin and into the Barton Springs Watershed is a betrayal of 30 years of city planning, the 1992 voter-approved Save Our Springs Ordinance, and years of Chronicle and citizen advocacy. Instead, Black and others at the Chronicle forget what is at stake and attack Proposition 2 without supporting any other alternative.
Black labels Prop. 1 and 2 supporters as “hyperpartisan.” Yet his headline and writing epitomize hyperpartisan, zero-tolerance advocacy. Let's debate the merits, and agree to disagree where appropriate, but let's not pretend as if the large sums of money AMD and Stratus have placed around the community are irrelevant. When Jim Bob did it, it was certainly relevant.
It is through-the-looking-glass when Clark-Madison dons the progressive mantle in arguing that the open government amendment will starve social services [“Austin@Large," News, May 5]. The City's trickle-down economics give multimillion dollar subsidies to developers and some of the world's largest and most profitable corporations in closed-door deals. Meanwhile, small business, the arts, social services, parks, Barton Springs – everything that makes Austin special – are pitted against each other and go begging. Prying open City Hall will help us shift priorities to the community and away from insider special interests. Yes on 1 and 2 for Austin's future.
Bill Bunch
Save Our Springs Alliance
[Editor's note: Bill Bunch played a prominent role in shaping the language of Prop. 2.]
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
James McGuffee is the most qualified candidate for the ACC Board of Trustees Place 8 election on May 13. James lost a close ACC election in 2002 but has continued to follow the issues that affect ACC and the community ever since. He has done this by attending the board meetings and work sessions, helping with the Del Valle annexation election, and serving as an active member of one of the ACC board's citizen advisory committees. James has 15 years of experience in higher education, including working at ACC for several years and now is a professor and department chair at St. Edward's University. James has the experience necessary to make educated decisions about important issues facing ACC right now. He knows the needs of the students, the employees, and the community, and he has worked hard to prepare himself to serve as a volunteer on the ACC Board of Trustees, and he deserves our vote. I urge you to examine the qualifications and to vote for James McGuffee on May 13. The ACC district now includes all of the city of Austin so all voters living in the city can vote in this race, plus Manor ISD, Leander ISD, and Del Valle ISD residents.
Sincerely,
Daniel Dewberry
ACC adjunct professor
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
Thanks to the Chronicle and Margaret Moser for the excellent story on Big Chief Kevin and the Flaming Arrows [“My Gang Don't Bow Down,” Music, May 5]. It provided valuable context for what many in their new community might otherwise have viewed simply as entertainment – and the Arrows definitely give good show!
Gloria Badillo Hill
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Editors, Publisher, and Mike Clark-Madison,
As an ex-liberal turned vast right-wing conspirator, I'm torn on the issues of Prop. 1 and Prop. 2. The red flags went up when both the Chronicle and the Statesman came out against 1 and 2 while tap dancing around the hard questions and demonizing supporters with power-mongering rhetoric.
Opponents of 1 and 2 say it will cost too much, but they don't say exactly how or why. Opponents are very short on details and long on browbeating accusation, such as diverting money that the city could spend on “other things.” But if money were really the issue, Prop. 6 wouldn't even be on the ballot. If Prop. 6 passes, the cost of insurance will skyrocket, and the city will find itself on the losing end of a costly lawsuit in light of the fact that domestic partners have no more legal standing than roommates in the state of Texas.
So cost is just an agenda-seeking red herring. The real issue is that the city leaders, the Statesman, and the Chronicle have a common interest, i.e., packing the city full of as many people (taxpayers and readers) as possible for financial gain, open government notwithstanding. Austin has been sold down the river by political wolves in liberals clothing who passed the homosexual litmus test to get elected. To watch the left go at each others' throats in this power play is most amusing indeed.
And Mike Clark-Madison makes my point in spades [“Austin@Large,” News, May 5]. (How many times can you use “progressive” in one column?!) It's amazing that one person can cough up so many guilt-tripping, condescending, browbeating red herrings and still be so full of shit. But Mike and I agree on one thing, “It has not been pleasant watching the 'progressive' agenda in Austin deteriorate from solution-oriented consensus-building for the common good into an irrational pre-emptive culture war.” Gee Mike, I didn't really notice the change. “Deteriorate,” like from bad to worse?!
Kurt Standiford
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
ExxonMobil's profits in 2005 were $36 billion. ExxonMobil paid $98 billion in taxes in 2005.
More than two-thirds of the profits came from foreign operations. Only 10.8% of these profits came from refining and marketing in the United States.
Less than 19% of ExxonMobil's oil production came from the United States in 2005. More than 81% was produced in foreign countries.
ExxonMobil's U.S. oil production suffered an annual decline rate of more than 14% in 2005. The annual loss of ExxonMobil's U.S. oil production in 2005 amounted to more than 29 million barrels of oil.
Profits are needed to explore for and discover oil. Less than 2.7% of ExxonMobil's profits were left for exploration worldwide.
Seldon B. Graham Jr.
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
I will be voting for Propositions 1 and 2 on Saturday because I think our city government is broken and is not listening to the citizens. I hope these amendments will change that.
I have participated in our public process over the past several years. What I have witnessed is citizens showing up for public hearings on matters they care deeply about only to be given their three minutes of time and a pat on the back for "participating.” Then they are sent on their merry way so the city can get on with the business of passing the deal that has been hashed out ahead of time. The public hearings are merely a formality and don't make a difference at all. The city is not listening, and the people are frustrated and have gone home.
I visited City Council members with a group of others to ask them to pass a nonbinding resolution asking AMD not to move out over the aquifer. We were told "no,” and it was suggested that the "people" should do something about it.
If these amendments pass, the citizens will have tools to know what the deals are before the public hearings, and grandfathering claims to build over the aquifer will require super-majority approval of council.
The people are doing something. Please vote Saturday for Propositions 1 and 2.
Harold Daniel
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Editors,
Concerning the gangreenista “dark water” amendment:
... “Trifle” City Charter already contains strong environmental support statements within it; SOSA needs intensive remedial training gathering four council votes.
… By mandating nothing but confrontation, the amendment throws away COA tools used to remove/lessen/remediate development over the watershed.
… Places Austin in direct opposition to state law “245” which preliminary legal action has shown the city unlikely to win.
… Tighter development regulation doesn't address suburban lifestyle that's poisoning the aquifer, nor account for the fact that if the other two-thirds of the aquifer beyond COA jurisdiction is destroyed, the Barton Springs Watershed will not survive.
Concerning the 1984 open government amendment:
… Internet costs – city balloon price $36 million. SOSA (EFF) sandbag price $24 million. Upkeep costs are disputed.
… Meeting with every shade of power broker is something all council members do. Office calendars don't reveal meeting subject matter because they weren't intended to. Demanding draconian monitoring due to lack of evidence isn't “open government,” but political paranoia.
… Unless advocates would have us believe that COA leaders and administrators don't speculate about their work with virtually everybody, interpretation of “real time” over the Internet will effectively “bug” all city personnel and visitors.
… Leaves amendment legal defense, interpretation, electronic protocols, and enabling ordinances to the “bad guys” (City Council and various staff).
… Bars or short-circuits almost any COA economic development negotiation with any business firm.
… By dissolving a negotiated agreement (“meet and confer” and APD personnel file protection) the amendment places an anti-union action into the City Charter.
Sincerely,
Ricky Bird
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor:
In 1993, when Statesman environmental reporter Bill Collier became a PR man working for Freeport McMoran, the Chronicle covered it as a news story and as confirmation of unseemly bias in the Statesman's environmental reporting.
But there was no similar condemnation by the Chronicle nor a story examining journalistic ethics when Chronicle reporter Mike Clark-Madison recently parlayed his progressive journalism credentials to a position as a PR man for TateAustin's clients, who include AMD, the Austin Chamber of Commerce, and the local toll road authority. Instead, last week the Chronicle published as a piece of journalism a PR piece by Clark-Madison, who in the first sentence identifies himself as “a progressive writer and journalist” and “active citizen and neighborhood leader” [“Austin@Large,” News, May 5]. Mr. Clark-Madison does not identify himself as a PR man whose clients are the very corporate insiders that are targeted by Propositions 1 and 2. And the Chronicle has neither covered TateAustin's work on behalf of those opposing propositions 1 and 2 nor explained how passage of propositions 1 and 2 would adversely affect TateAustin's clients by affecting city support for toll roads, providing timely public disclosure of tax-giveaway deals, and preventing those who would pollute the aquifer like AMD from getting taxpayer subsidies. The Chronicle did little to help the reader evaluate Clark-Madison's piece, only noting in small print at the end of it that Mr. Clark-Madison is now “in partnership with TateAustin” and that his “column” was written for an antiproposition PAC.
Mr. Clark-Madison is just doing his PR job. What are you doing, Chronicle?
Doug Young
RECEIVED Wed., May 10, 2006
Dear Editor,
Many of us in the South Lamar Neighborhood Association endorse and embrace Foundation Communities [“Don't Put Their Back Yard in My Back Yard,” News, May 5]. The points made by the one neighbor whom you interviewed are not mine. I do agree that our meetings are tyrannized, but not by the contingency of the north. Often members use tactics, such as impromptu "straw polls" to push their agendas and intimidate others, instead of letting our process work. They did this time, attempting to install an 11th-hour rule that would require a 75% yes vote instead of our bylaws' simple majority before we could back FC. (Meeting minutes available at www.southlamar.org/docs/SLNA%20Meeting%20Minutes%2002-16-06.pdf.) However, that idea was voted down, and in fact a more than 76% majority voted to back the nonprofit. Also, many of us neighbors realize the characteristics of the proposed residents do not reflect the majority of homeless people and that most U.S. families are one paycheck from being homeless ourselves. I am ready to have faith that FC could help people and to recognize those being helped are very much like me. I am happy that my neighbors have opinions. I chose to live in South Austin because it has a robust, diverse community. And, I recommend even more of us pay our dues (or request waivers) and attend the meetings, volunteer, and actively participate in managing our 'hood.
Beth Troell
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Editor,
Mike Clark-Madison tells us that props 1 and 2 are not progressive, a term he takes to be a synonym of "well-meaning ninny" [“Austin@Large,” News, May 5]. Certainly this is how Clark-Madison comes off in his diatribe against these propositions. Then again, maybe not. Neither Clark-Madison nor the former City Council members who oppose Clean Austin have chosen to reveal how much they're being paid by EducatePAC.org, a name taken straight from the playbook of the Bush administration, since the primary goal of this PAC is to obfuscate, hoping to confuse voters into voting against their own best interests. Well, except for voters who also happen to be developers hoping to get special tax breaks for paving over the aquifer. Clark-Madison should be challenged on every inane point that he makes, however, the Chronicle affords Clean Austin proponents only 300 words to make their case, so one will have to suffice.
Clark-Madison equates the validity of making information public with how many people will directly use this information. So, Mike, re-runs of Friends are more important than any book on science, engineering, the arts? Recently, transportation activist Roger Baker attempted to find out what percentage of the 2000 transportation bonds have been spent on bike/ped facilities. The city informed him that they would tell him nothing without a formal FOIA request. Baker obtained such a request and learned that for the first five years of the bond, every single penny has been spent on acquiring SH 130 row and nothing on promised intersection improvements, HOV lanes, and bike/ped facilities. Sixty-seven million clams would pay for an awful lot of library, Mike. Too bad nobody was minding the piggy bank and the money was spent on a boondoggle instead; a toll road, which by TxDOT's own analysis, will only relieve 8% of the traffic on I-35 by 2020.
Patrick Goetz
[News Editor Michael King responds: For the record, I read Mike Clark-Madison's article on the Educate PAC Web site, considered it a solid analysis of the politics underlying the props controversy, and asked him, as a former columnist and city editor, if he would permit a Chronicle reprint of the piece, as a guest “Austin@Large." He agreed. (No payment was discussed, but as is customary we intend to pay him a freelance fee.) Had I realized the hysterical and venomous personal attacks the reprint would subject him to (as reflected in the above letters), I might have warned him more strongly against it. In no way does he deserve this personal abuse or the flame-war attacks on his integrity, for the apparent offense of having a different opinion than that of our correspondents.
Mike Clark-Madison responds: I was not paid anything, by EducatePAC or anyone else, to write the piece that appeared on their Web site and in the Chronicle last week. Period. I did it for free because I care. Being a whore doesn't pay as well as the Bunch Davidians think. In fact, it pays a lot less than being the trust-fund baby of an oil and sprawl fortune like SOS moneybags Kirk Mitchell, who's dumped far more money into this race than any developer or "insider." By the Bunch Davidians' own standards, their own side should be deemed untrustworthy and corrupt, because it's funded with dirty money (and, as an added bonus, has violated numerous campaign-finance laws). In sum, Dear Leader Kim Jong Bill and his sugar daddy are trying to buy an election to rewrite Austin's laws for Bunch's personal benefit. Explain that away, kids, before you start calling me a whore. I do thank Patrick Goetz for having the remarkable courage to actually engage in the substance of what I wrote instead of simply libeling me. However, his point is likewise inane. Why yes, I do think the validity of spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to publish information (which is different from simply "making it public") is dependent on how many of those taxpayers are going to use it. I've never watched Friends, but I've never paid for it either.]
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Chronicle,
Has Louis Black forgotten the value of rigorous debate [“Page Two,” May 5]? Propositions 1 and 2 address issues that matter – directing development away from our state's most sensitive watershed and holding our city government accountable. The propositions have inspired a rich, if heated, public debate about unnecessary tax abatements, grandfathering to avoid SOS standards, the proliferation of toll roads, our rightful access to public information, accountability of our police, and more.
If Mr. Black is uncomfortable with the debate, maybe he should blame the City Council. After all, a court of law had to throw out the council's misleading ballot language because electioneering against the propositions right there on the ballot is illegal. The edited ballot still contains electioneering language, as bewildered voters will see. When the City Council spends our tax dollars to influence an election this way, they cross the line. I'd rather have heated debate at every election than this cynical corruption of our right to a fair vote.
The City Council's weird tactics are a big reason why I support propositions 1 and 2. We need open government to reveal the City Council's motivations and as always, we need to save our aquifer from rapacious development.
Tara Shadowen
[Louis Black responds: Tara, I'm genuinely confused here. Isn't debate a discussion among the differing sides on an issue? Isn't this what I'm engaged in, presenting one side? I'm not uncomfortable with the debate, though the partisan attacks are unnerving. I am against the props. but wouldn't that mean I was participating in the debate? Your letter reads as though you are talking about acquiescence and not debate? Also, your interpretation of the judge's ruling seems more partisan and self-serving than accurate.]
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Editor,
A decade or so ago, I was a regular contributor to the letters to the editor in both the Chronicle and the Statesman.
I just noticed your current policy that states "letters may not be edited, added to, or changed by sender once we receive them."
Does that mean that any factual errors, misspelled names, or new circumstances after the submission must be disregarded for the sake of a policy? Is it just one strike and you're out, period?
If such is the case, those who utilize the Chronicle for research or to stay properly informed would be left without the most currently available communication being offered. And the unintentionally misspoken words would be left in the printed records forever.
If a particular writer became a nuisance, you could simply reject the entire letter.
Can you please provide a reason for this policy? Are there any exceptions, or has no one ever considered these consequences?
Bill Oakey
[Editor's response: The statement is a proactive measure that we can point to if a letter writer wants to keep rewriting their letter after it has been accepted. In practice, we certainly accept and incorporate relevant changes.]
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Editor,
While Mike “Dub” Wainwright's castigating comments aren't lost on me (“Postmarks,” May 5), it should be noted that trying to slap a bicycle Band-Aid on the problem as he sees it, is as detrimental to finding a solution as myopic soccer moms with a built-in sense of entitlement. Look Dub, I'm with you! I'm the first to shout populist/environmentalist platitudes at anyone who'll listen. But don't you think that insisting everyone ride a bike is a gross oversimplification? You call for a march toward “real solutions,” and I just don't think it's as easy as fat asses on bikes. We need to figure out how to help families cart all their kids to various after-school activities using public transport (not all of them are soccer-bound; for some it's music lessons, acting classes, or underwater basket weaving – fuck if I know, I don't have kids), and haul their groceries from store to McMansion. I don't resonate with these folks either, believe me, but I'm a single woman, and I can bike until my feet fall off. People with kids and other extenuating circumstances don't have that freedom. There's a whole dialogue that needs to happen here. People like us have to work at understanding differing needs, not “othering” ourselves out of frustration. It might be fun to look down our noses at people living bloated lives, but you know what? I think it's more fun to fix what's broken, together. We're not going to teach people to pair down their excesses by publicly shitting on their lifestyles. I save that for dinner parties.
Bike on,
Teighlor Darr
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Editor,
The Chronicle's quixotic endorsement of Brewster McCracken notwithstanding [Endorsements, May 5], I've got a couple of dumbbells I need to get off my chest.
Never mind your capricious and damned near libelous take on my knowledge of city issues. Everyone I've talked to (other candidates included) has dismissed the Chronicle's off-base character assassination attempt as “a cheap shot” that “pissed [them] off.” I was willing to dismiss it as well.
Never mind the gruff and bullying advice handed down from the grandmaster of all things Austin, Michael King, that I had better stop saying water treatment plants were in East Austin – which I've never said.
I have said on numerous occasions, and I will continue to say, that most of the facilities “similar” to what a water treatment plant would be – that is, definitely undesirable, possibly dangerous, and likely an eyesore – are already in East Austin.
Mr. King: Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, USA
0198614373 $10.95 at BookPeople. Or, www.oed.com, as you aren't receiving any hefty city contracts (yet).
One thing I cannot abide, however, is the sloppy journalism that the Chronicle has employed throughout the council race.
It kind of cheese-grated on my nerves when I was written off as a “student wannabe,” but I understand; you're all a bunch of ageist geriatrics who shouldn't be allowed to drive or hold sharp objects.
However, I'm studying journalism, and May 5's "Election Notes" took the cake from my messy preschool fingers and used it to dress the teat of power from which the Chronicle seems to be suckling as of late.
I was the second biggest fundraiser for the Place 5 seat, but you wouldn't know that by reading the Chronicle. I raised more than a thousand, spending very little of my own money – generally, the sign of a well-functioning campaign.
Facts are facts – even the ones you leave out.
Daryl Slusher was castigated for losing his soul after leaving the Chronicle for a career in public service but if Michael King is any indication, you don't have to leave journalism for the vacuous stench of entrenched complacency to suck your spirit down the tubes. Just hang around. It comes with age.
I'm a 20-year-old student newcomer-wannabe with almost no knowledge of Austin government. Well, that's half right.
But Billy Joel was all right: “Only the good die young.”
I hope I die before I become Michael King.
Colin Kalmbacher
RECEIVED Tue., May 9, 2006
Dear Editor,
As two of five Rollingwood City Council members who have an intimate understanding of Rollingwood's contract with the Lower Colorado River Authority for the construction and operation of the city's wastewater system, imagine our surprise and dismay when we read Michael King's sloppy and misleading “Naked City” “exposé” of what's happening in Rollingwood in the May 5 edition of The Austin Chronicle [News].
Mr. King asserted that only 500 of 1,400 homes in Rollingwood have been hooked up to the city's new wastewater system. Well, there are only about 500 homes in Rollingwood, almost all of which are hooked up. The fewer than 10 homes not hooked up have owners who chose to stay on septic. The number 1,400 refers to the number of residents.
Mr. King stated that the cost of the wastewater system was “originally estimated at $7.2 million, the job came in at $17 million, although that has reportedly been reduced somewhat.” Well, the costs have been reduced much more than “somewhat.” In fact, instead of having monthly capital costs once projected to be $144,000, the city's monthly liability now stands at $70,000 and will remain unchanged at that level.
Mr. King stated that the motion to hire outside legal counsel for review of professional services contracts was made by Mayor Pro Tem Dale Dingley. As reflected in the council meeting minutes of March 27, Alderman Bill Hamilton made the motion, which was seconded by Alderman John Barton.
We have no idea what Mr. King means when he says “The issue is now complicated by revelations of apparent conflicts of interest involving Mayor Hollis Jefferies (up for re-election May 13).” The negotiated amendment to Rollingwood's contract with LCRA that was signed by the city and LCRA in September 2005 has no complications. After five months of negotiation, you can be assured that both parties are crystal clear about what the contract and the amendment contains. The contract and the amendment are not renegotiable. Likewise, there are no “revelations of apparent conflicts of interest” involving Mayor Jefferies – period. A year ago Mayor Jefferies voluntarily recused himself from negotiations with the LCRA because of a purely coincidental and tenuous connection between his employer and the LCRA, over which Mayor Jefferies had no control whatsoever. Mayor Jefferies was under no obligation to recuse himself. He did so to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Unfortunately, by including “conflicts of interest” in the same sentence as “Mayor Hollis Jefferies,” Mr. King engages in a wholly unwarranted character assassination of a public official nine days before that official stands for re-election.
Lastly, we also have no idea what Mr. King means when he says “Maybe the entire city needs to adjourn to a neutral venue.” We're sure his intention was not to somehow try to belittle one of the most appealing small towns in the state, if not the nation, nor the 1,400 residents who are very proud to call Rollingwood home.
Alderman John Barton
Alderman Mike Wiley
[Michael King responds: I apologize for the error concerning the number of homes in "The City of Rollingwood," and it's been corrected on the Chronicle Web site. To describe the rest of what I reported in last week's “Naked City” – based almost entirely on city documents – as an "exposé," is flattering, but a bit overwrought.]
RECEIVED Mon., May 8, 2006
Dear Editor,
There seems to be a frantic fear of new communications technologies by Louis Black and Mike Clark-Madison in the respective headline references to their columns [“Page Two,” “Austin@Large,” May 5] on "indecent" and "unclean" aspects of Proposition 1 for Open Government on the May 13 ballot.
Sure, democracy is messy, untidy, and very difficult, but remember the high priests also feared the printing press as a threat to their secrets in the temple, where they controlled the Word and the Word was God. No wonder Black is upset by the self-certainty of "moral rightness" proclaimed by proposition supporters.
Who would have thought your local "alternative weekly" would call such a Proposition "naïve" and a "shotgun attempt to install direct-democracy-by-computer" [Endorsements, May 5]? Maybe there is a need for an emergency posse to "turn back the clock" to halt Austin's "move from the counterculture into the mainstream," which self-proclaimed progressive Clark-Madison apparently likes and lauds.
Gene Burd
[Editor's note: Chronicle writers do not write their own headlines.]
RECEIVED Mon., May 8, 2006
Dear Editor,
Glad to see you've returned to interesting covers after that terrible spat of group photos with drab backgrounds. I understand one was an acting troupe mimicking an old poster – but it wasn't visually interesting.
The April 28 cover (Cyril Neville) was one of the best I've seen in a long time!
Michael Elliott
RECEIVED Mon., May 8, 2006
Dear Editor,
We, the undersigned current and former elected leaders of ACC employee organizations, commend the Chronicle's endorsement [May 5] of Allen Kaplan for re-election to the ACC board. The accusations against him quoted in a “Postmarks” letter [May 5] last week stem from misrepresentations by ACC's mercifully departed President Richard Fonte, who used them as part of a campaign to keep college employees from expressing their opinions to the board and to keep the board from evaluating him for his poor performance.
We, the very people cited in the letter as being negative about Allen, are in fact all supporting him, which exposes the accusations for the falsehoods they are. Those of us involved in educating ACC students are grateful for Allen's dedicated work for the college and ask Chronicle readers to vote to continue it.
Terry Thomas, Al Purcell, Daniel Traverso, Joe Lostracco, Mary Parker, Maxine Montgomery, Bill Montgomery, Becky Villarreal, Don Becker, Dan Dewberry
RECEIVED Mon., May 8, 2006
Dear Editor,
You got it right with your endorsement of Allen Kaplan [Endorsements, May 5]. One of the biggest changes at ACC in the six years since I left the board is that the board and faculty are working together, leading to success in the 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax-cap and annexation elections (unlike the failed 1999 tax-cap election when the faculty was alienated).
Kaplan and retiring trustee John Worley were the leaders from the board side in healing the earlier rift, with the ACC/AFT faculty union leading from the faculty side. Our community is much better off as a result.
The discredited attacks on Allen by former ACC President Richard Fonte (repeated without evidence in a letter last week) [“Postmarks,” May 5] were testimony that Allen was seen as a leader in listening to the faculty and in holding the administration accountable, both of which were very unwelcome to Fonte.
That Allen's performance as a trustee is positive is proven by the fact that he is supported in this election by virtually all current and former faculty leaders, as well as most of the other (unfortunately few) of us citizens who pay continuing attention to ACC. Keep him on the job.
Hunter Ellinger
RECEIVED Mon., May 8, 2006
Editors,
Re: “Don't Put Their Back Yard in My Back Yard” [News, May 5]: Convert a hotel to single-cost residencies? Not a project I would support. Who wants segregated living? By income or any other descriptor.
There are far better approaches, and they succeed. The most obvious: market-value apartments, even upscale, in the hotel, subsidizing below-market rentals.
The public has every right to fear institutionalized approaches to living. All generally deteriorate for the precise reason that there is so little variety to excite; eventually a monotony sets in, and deterioration.
Plan the top floor as a penthouse for some well-to-do; I will happily take an apartment in that building, in the basement. And the surrounding neighborhood: How does one complain when the building is itself fully income-integrated?
Better planning, better solutions. (Example played out in Chicago.)
Harold A. Maio
Ft. Myers, Fla.
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Dear Editor,
How very nice for Mike Wainwright [“Postmarks,” May 5] – and all the other cycling advocates who make a good and sensible idea sound bad with sanctimonious elitism – that he can afford to bicycle wherever he goes! How awesome to have a job that not only lets you show up sweaty and disheveled in the summer but also pays enough that you can afford Austin's absurd housing costs.
It might shock the bike-or-die crowd, but the overwhelming majority of commuters don't drive their third Escalade home to a mansion in the hills; they're working-class people who just can't afford to live in Austin. Gas could be $10 a gallon and it would still be cheaper for me to have a nice house outside of Luling and commute 60 miles than it would be to rent a fleabag apartment across the street from work. "Oh, work closer to home, or live closer to work!" they say, as if it were just that easy. Must be nice.
It must also be great to be (temporarily) able-bodied enough to even be capable of operating a bicycle. Where in the mythical car-free Austin are the elderly and the disabled? Who's going to pay for all those fast-as-a-bicycle power chairs? You can't climb up on a high horse if your legs don't work.
More people who can bike should, but being an ass about it isn't going to encourage them to do so.
Jason Meador
Luling
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Dear Editor,
I can't figure out what the furor about the props and the springs and the corporations are all about. We in Austin have, or are acquiring, the best developers that our provincial City Council can buy. Our traffic management is convincing us, often by means of artificially congesting our roads with red-light synchronization and senseless interchange designs, much more highway construction is needed so that the children of our construction workers are fed, and probably, given the incredibly slow rate of road construction around here, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be well-supported. A fine altruistic side benefit is that Austin will be contributing to the welfare of countless foreign nationals via the foreign-based toll collectors. (Let's dig deep and push for the highest tolls we can afford!)
Our wealthy minority is quite satisfactorily seeing to it that the working, producing, majority are properly in their voiceless place.
Finally, the developers and the road builders are seeing to it that no square inch of the "treed-up" Austin region will ultimately be "underutilized." In the bargain, this will be true of the aquifers as well.
Complaints, complaints, complaints. Austinites can't recognize a good thing when it's breathing down their necks.
Duane Keith
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Dear Editor,
I understand that the Chronicle is against amendments 1 and 2 and respect that opinion [Endorsements, May 5]. However, I was completely stunned to receive a call this evening from a "political research" company (Finch Research of North Dakota) conducting push-polling on behalf of Educate PAC.
Unlike legitimate political research, push-polling uses the guise of research to unethically sway the opinions of those contacted and gain personal buy in from those contacted – both practices which are prohibited by the standards of legitimate research organizations. I was stunned, not only to be push-polled, but to have the vice-president of the "research" firm confirm to me in a phone conversation that the purposes of the call are to "educate people to vote no" against the amendments and, secondarily, to identify those respondents who say they are likely to vote no and ask them to put political signs in their yards against the amendments.
If Educate PAC truly have the courage of their convictions, they should use legitimate means to persuade Austin citizens rather than co-opting the guise of legitimate research for shady practices such as push-polling.
Rebeccalyn Bilodeau
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Dear Editor,
Re: Cyril Neville “Tells It Like It Is” [Music, April 28]: You want telling it like it is? Try this on:
1) It is really dumb to build a city below sea level.
2) It is just stupid to have a city below sea level with no evacuation plan to deal with the inevitable.
3) People who lived in a city below sea level with no evacuation plan to deal with the inevitable, and who, to my knowledge, never questioned this state of affairs before the inevitable happened; and who, furthermore, now want to blame what happened on everyone except the people who built and lived in and ran the city under sea level with no evacuation plan – well, they're whiners, even if they can play the drums.
Andrew Wilson
Portland, Ore.
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Joe Addley,
As to your question about the stocks owned by the president and VP [“Postmarks Online,” May 3], they have no idea what stocks they own, they are placed in a blind trust when they take office so that there cannot be a conflict of interest. Basic civics 101.
Carl Swanson
RECEIVED Fri., May 5, 2006
Dear Editor,
Not only is it nonsense to make Rob Roy a gated neighborhood after 25 years, it is illegal for the commissioners to abandon St. Stephens School Road and Pascal Road. The "reasoning" given: that too many cars use this route! I only lately became aware of the mess because I was out of town last summer when the commissioners gave up public roads to rich folks wanting more quiet. What can I do now?
Ellen Evgenides