Postmarks
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, follow this link.
 |
|
Date Received: Thu., Feb. 4, 2010
Dear Editor, I am deeply saddened by not only the loss of Informal Classes but also the University of Texas' disregard for one of its roles, namely providing benefit to the community [ 'A' Is for Axed: UT Chops Cactus, Cuts Classes, News, Feb. 5; Off the Record, Music, Feb. 5]. I have attended many Informal Classes over the years (as a UT student and an alumnus). As a result, I have enjoyed an enhancement of my interests as well as my professional skills. What a great program and benefit to the community Informal Classes is! UT has apparently lost sight of this fact, and that is more than unfortunate. I will always bleed orange, but some of my regard has certainly been diminished now. I must say, if part of UT's mission is "cultivating enduring regard for the University of Texas," they have failed miserably in their mission with this decision.
|
|
|
Date Received: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
Dear Editor, Re: Point Austin: The Army Saves the Day [News, Jan. 15]: The recent insane vote to approve the Hornsby Bend project is very sad to me and our neighborhood. For the ones who stood up to fight, thank you. To the ones who disregarded the human value of a comfortable life without extra noise and pollution, shame on you. I know you and any TXI official would not be happy to have this kind of pillaging brought upon yourselves. The bottom line is this points everything toward a very negative outlook for our future. There are plenty of riverbeds downstream to mine without it being in a neighborhood. I thought that these city officials were put in office to help the citizens of Austin. Well, they shouldn't be in office if this is what we're getting out of them. I hope there will be some kind of appeal to help our lives. I read an article that TXI is famous for doing favors to those who help them. I wonder what these individuals got. It makes no sense for city officials to have this kind of power to destroy.
|
|
|
Date Received: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
Dear Editor, UT is alienating itself from the live music capital through the demise of its iconic musical institutions. First, it cut back uniquely Austin deejays on KUT. Now it plans to close the Cactus Cafe. I hope the Cactus can still be saved, as UTs operating procedures require the Texas Union Board to get approval of the president and regents. Heres why UT will keep the Cactus: 1) UT already appreciates its significant cultural and historical value; the Unions website currently makes these (and other) claims to fame: The Cactus Cafι is one of Austin's great acoustic music traditions
the Cactus has acquired a national reputation." Indeed, one of the core values of the Texas Union is stewardship of the history and heritage the Union represents. 2) The Union will find other budget cuts. In the name of relieving short-term economic pressures, closing the Cactus permanently degrades the historical quality of our campus, and doesnt save much money. President William Powers recently launched the Ideas of Texas, a forum for employees to share ideas to improve UT. Hundreds of ideas are now listed that would save much more than the $122,000 UT says will be saved by closing the Cactus. 3) UT is a nonprofit. Andy Smiths statement (If they [the Cactus and informal classes] would have been making a profit, we wouldn't have done away with them) threatens every university program providing student services if they do not turn a profit! Continuing services for students vs. the Cactus is a false choice. At UT, we teach our students respect for our traditions and history. Support the Cactus by attending shows and speaking up to the Texas Union Board (contact info at www.savethecactuscafe.org).
Hayley Gillespie
UT graduate student
|
|
|
Date Received: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
Dear Editor,
First the dilution and homogenization of my beloved KUT. Now comes the closing of the Cactus Cafe and the ceasing of UT's informal classes. The continued withdrawal of UT from the Austin community is deeply disheartening and disturbing. What can the people who are making these decisions be thinking? Shame on them, each and every one.
|
|
|
Date Received: Fri., Jan. 29, 2010
Dear Editor, Even if it means a comparison to Ben Bernanke, I applaud Wells Dunbar for giving his full attention to the issue of the high cost of Austins growth in the Jan. 29 City Hall Hustle [News]. If growth creates negative fiscal impacts, then why are we subsidizing it and expending so many local resources trying to get more? For each new housing unit built in Austin, the cost of public infrastructure is around $25,000, which covers the incremental cost of building schools, roads, water, sewer, etc. The developer picks up only around $2,000, which leaves the remaining $23,000 capital cost for the general taxpayer. At the rate of 6,000 new housing units built annually, thats $138 million of unfunded costs dumped into the taxpayers' lap every year the hidden costs of growth. But it gets worse; on an operating costs basis, residential housing uses $1.25 in services for every $1 it contributes in taxes. What about quality of life? Imagine another million people in the Austin metro area over the next 20 years, with another 300,000 housing units and a Walgreens/CVS on every corner. Another million people means another 60,000 unemployed people at 6% unemployment. Another million people sucking Lake Travis dry means emergency water rationing, dry swimming pools, and dying tree canopies. Higher cost of living, higher cost of housing, lost habitat, traffic gridlock, more noise, more pollution, and higher unemployment. Finally, Austin will stop growing but at an unacceptable cost. Are we helpless victims of growth? Must we accept whatever growth is thrust upon us? Why does the city of Austin give $125,000 a year to a New York public relations firm to promote Austin on every No. 1 list? Why do we subsidize growth at $138 million per year? Cant we begin to take our foot off the growth accelerator and require that those who benefit from growth pay the costs of their impact?
|
|
|
Date Received: Thu., Jan. 28, 2010
Dear Editor, I applaud Lee Nichols' article Can't Get There From Here [News, Jan. 22]: Cap Metros misguided direction has made a mockery of Austins stated objectives for social equity/justice. The commuter train decision was a disaster because it diverted massive resources to serve 1,000 daily train riders who mostly have cars, while degrading service for 40,000 daily bus riders, who mostly have no choice. The high cost of the commuter train also deferred implementation of a network of Rapid and Express bus routes which should be running now, according to Cap Metros All Systems Go promises. The first Rapid Bus (North Lamar-South Congress) alone would have substantially improved transit for up to 10 times as many people as the commuter for a fraction of the cost. In fact, many commuter train riders are better served by the Express bus routes which have existed for years. Considering Cap Metros massive cost overruns on the train's implementation and operations, taxpayers will subsidize every daily, two-way rider on the train by an average of $15,000 per year and a rider from Leander-Austin by about $30,000. This is 10 times the subsidy of a bus rider. There are no societal benefits from this and a negative net impact: Congestion and pollution are increased, hazards are created, flexibility is greatly diminished, and social equity suffers as overall transit is degraded with increasing fares and reduced service. Some people would be embarrassed, but it would clearly be better if Cap Metro stopped the commuter now, avoided bankruptcy, and focused on providing the most effective transit for available resources. There is a limit to tax dollars and dollars spent unwisely cannot be spent to serve the communitys greater good. Cap Metros 10-year trends of decreasing ridership and increasing costs are not sustainable and will lead taxpayers, transit riders, and transportation to further suffering.
Jim Skaggs
Coalition on Sustainable Transportation
|
|
|
Date Received: Sun., Feb. 7, 2010
Dear Editor, If the regents at the University of Texas can afford to pay their head football coach a multimillion dollar salary (plus bonuses), then why can't they afford to keep informal classes and the Cactus Cafe open [ 'A' Is for Axed: UT Chops Cactus, Cuts Classes, News, Feb. 5; Off the Record, Music, Feb. 5]? As far as I can tell, the regents should go back to the budgeting process or suffer a public relations nightmare for the university due to an apparent disregard for local culture. Maybe resulting publicity will lead to a loss of revenue much more than the $120,000 or so they state they would be saving. It sure has made me rethink my views on UT and its lack of leadership.
|
|
|
Date Received: Sat., Feb. 6, 2010
Dear Editor, As a University of Texas professor of American Studies currently researching contemporary American roots music, Im disappointed at UTs plan to close the Cactus Cafe, Austins most significant venue for that aspect of our national musical heritage, as iconic as the Victory Grill for blues and the Elephant Room for jazz [ 'A' Is for Axed: UT Chops Cactus, Cuts Classes, News, Feb. 5; Off the Record, Music, Feb. 5]. Each new comment from the UT administration seems to add another after-the-fact rationale. If the percentage of nonstudents vs. students in attendance is the reason for shutting the Cactus, then I would recommend UT closely examine such events as readings by authors at the Harry Ransom Center and the Michener Center for Writers, the Distinguished Lecturer series sponsored by the Humanities Institute, and home games of the UT baseball team all of which may require abolishing for serving majority nonstudent audiences. Or maybe its time the administration recognizes a mistake has been made.
|
|
|
Date Received: Fri., Feb. 5, 2010
Dear Editor, Who writes the column " The Luv Doc Recommends"? He (I'm almost positive that the writer is male) is terrific! He should get some recognition for writing good, interesting stuff that is always my favorite part of the Chron. Since the Chronicle's dreadful loss of The Straight Dope, The Luv Doc is almost alone in nonpolitical comment.
|
|
[Editor's note: The Luv Doc is written by Dan Hardick.]
|
|
|
Date Received: Fri., Feb. 5, 2010
Dear Editor, If Andy Smith and Bill Powers were truly concerned about returning to the university's core mission of providing higher education to enrolled students, they would resign immediately [ 'A' Is for Axed: UT Chops Cactus, Cuts Classes, News, Feb. 5; Off the Record, Music, Feb. 5]. Petty administrators, overpaid presidents, and dictating regents have absolutely nothing to do with quality education. Universities need administrators like a fish needs a bicycle. Administrators do have a function, of course, which is to make sure the university runs like a business and is subject to the same cost-benefit logic that guides corporations. Just as axing the Cactus and informal programs has nothing to do with returning to the university's mission, it also has nothing to do with fiscal constraints, at least not in the way Smith and Powers claim. The university has plenty of money to pay for those programs. What cutting them succeeds in, though, is sending a clear message to their overlords in the bond markets and at bond-rating agencies, which the university needs to keep happy in order to continue financing its massive increase in building and infrastructure spending (an expansion that by magnitudes outstrips the growth in the number of students the university serves). Bond traders love nothing more than an institution's demonstrated resolve to eschew sentimentality and ruthlessly cut programs that don't make money. Smith and Powers are assuring them of the university's ruthlessness. In an almost cruel way, the protests that Smith's decision has sparked play right into the administration's hands. Now, when they don't relent on the cutting of the programs and they won't, even if the money is found somewhere they are sending an even more favorable message to the bond markets: Look at the way we implemented our program of fiscal austerity even in the face of immense popular protest. Bond traders will squeal with delight, and the university becomes even more like a business.
|
|
|
Date Received: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
Dear Editor, Re: Sound of the City [Earache! Music blog, Jan. 13]: Great interview. I love listening to the things that Black has to say. You can tell he is intelligent and has an immense passion for music and its many aspects. As a fellow Detroiter, it's obvious that our community as a whole is experiencing the drastic effects of the recession due to the collapse of the auto industry and the highest unemployment rate in the nation. I feel that, with all of the negative things that are associated with our city, Black Milk gives us something positive that we can be proud of. I realize that this performance already took place, but I just wanted to share how much pride we have for the music that comes out of Detroit thanks to artists like Black Milk. I am sure that the people of Austin enjoyed him there as much as we do back home.
Ray Monberg
Detroit, Mich.
|
|
|
Date Received: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
Dear Editor,
I was thrilled to hear about UT's new cost-cutting measures this week! It is truly inspirational that in this era of obscene Wall Street bonuses and Caligula-esque corporate executives, the UT Board of Regents was willing to magnanimously dock their own bloated salaries just the tiniest little bit in order to reduce the university's budget. And to go the extra yard by cutting slightly into the multimillion dollar raise they're planning for their football coach was just an amazing display of human decency. Can you imagine how much outrage and fury they would have provoked if, instead of shaving a meager percentage off of their own orgiastic millions, they had done something insane like shutter yet another legendary Austin live music venue to save the paltry sum of its operating costs? Why, they might just as well have done something so indefensibly stupid as cancel an informal class program that has improved the Central Texas economy by increasing the knowledge base and earning potential of thousands of low-income Texans over the years!
Kudos to you, regents, for averting a public relations disaster of (French) revolutionary proportions; you should in no way be brought up on federal corruption charges for investing in foreign corporations that support terrorism, or selling off UT-owned biotech patents for your own personal profit.
|
|
|
Date Received: Mon., Feb. 1, 2010
Dear Editor, I just read that UT has decided to close down the Cactus Cafe along with its informal classes program. The savings they expect from this? $122,000 per year. With a budget the size of UT's, and with all of the money that their sports program alone generates, it's an unbelievably absurd premise that they can't find the money to keep the Cactus open. This venue featured in a cover story in the Chronicle a few months ago [" Blood on the Tracks," Music, Feb. 6, 2009] is one of the finest of its kind in the U.S., loved by both audiences and performers alike for decades, and a huge part of the music scene here in the "live music capital of the world." This will be an enormous blow to local culture think back, folks, on all of the wonderful national and international acts you've enjoyed in the friendly, well-run, intimate, near-perfect-sound atmosphere of the Cactus Cafe. Think they're going to find another local venue in which they can share their music with us? Somehow I doubt it. Mack Brown's salary alone could spare the money to keep both of these programs going. I suppose it shows us where their true priorities lie. Even if the sports program funds are technically separate from those affected by this decision, it's an ugly comparison in the eyes of the music-loving public and we all know they could find the money somewhere. Let them know your displeasure, folks.
|
|
|
Date Received: Sun., Jan. 31, 2010
Dear Editor, Re: Can't Get There From Here [News, Jan. 22]: I am legally blind and suffer with arthritis. Allow me to share with you my experience riding with MetroAccess. The odyssey started two days prior to my trip. I called the reservation line and waited on hold for 45 minutes, and it took another 25 to 30 just to make a reservation. Let me point out that most of the operators will not spend that time. At 7:40am the next day, MetroAccess picked me up for a 9am appointment time. I rode around the north side of Austin and arrived at my destination shortly after 8am. When the appointment was over, I was unable to return home; a taxi voucher was issued for my next appointment at noon. I arrived at the next appointment at 9:45am. This office has no waiting room. I sat on the curb and waited until noon. That appointment ended at 1pm and again I waited outside until my ride arrived at 2:30pm. I got home dehydrated, with low blood sugar, and in tears at 3pm. As soon as I arrived at home, I called the complaint line. The first three times I dialed the number, I got a busy signal, then I was put on hold for a few minutes only to hear a recording saying, We are sorry all of our Go line representatives are busy. Please try your call again. That went on until 5pm. Now let us total the hours preparing for a ride and riding. One hour on hold, 20 minutes making the reservation, 30-minute pickup window, two-hour wait to see doctor, two-hour wait plus 30-minute window, and one or more hours riding around. That can total seven hours or more; now, add another four to six hours total to file a complaint. Even worse is being dropped off at a doctors office or work before the building even opens. Blind and suffering from arthritis, waiting in the dark, often with no cover from the weather and no place to sit. Just standing there, alone, waiting to be preyed upon. In the meantime, all the attention and money is spent on that overpriced money pit of a rail system, all the while ignoring the problems with regular bus service and MetroAccess. Because of the train, the whole system is suffering. I am at wit's end and ready to chain myself to a bus!
Regards,
Sheila Patterson
|
|
|
Date Received: Fri., Jan. 29, 2010
Dear Editor, Louis Black writes another tirade about the smoking ban [ Page Two, Jan. 15]. He alleges that pro-ban voters are less concerned about health hazards than a desire to push their concept of morality on others. And then he excuses a second contingent of nonsmoking, anti-ban types (including himself) who voted against the ban for the ideological reason that the gummint should stay out of people's business even in cases when their motivation is to limit the public's risk of developing lung cancer. It's self-evident that the approximately 200 businesses this law affects are places where people go at night to enjoy a beverage or to hear music or both. That was the statute's intent. The large number of buildings where smoking was already eliminated is not apropos to why this specific law was proposed. Those 200 businesses have a whopping significance in that they include virtually every live music venue in the city. There are a dozen or so such clubs that comprise the backbone of the scene. It's easy to identify them they advertise regularly in the Chronicle. Based on the four that I frequent, there has been no detectable drop-off in business. Whatever decrease in the cash register occurred, it was small enough that they could compensate by upping the price of a beverage by 25 or 50 cents, and could do so without alienating their customers. Predictions of economic doom were hype, as the aftermath of the ban has proven. Excuse me, but the argument that the ban would actually increase turnout in these business was silly from the get-go, which merely proves that there were over-the-top arguments on both sides. I bypass contentious online forums because they are rampant with this kind of blather. I would request that Louis Black not use print space to respond to messages received in that forum, and leave the paper to more rational sorts of discourse.
|
|
|
Date Received: Fri., Jan. 29, 2010
Dear Editor, Thanks for the article Can't Get There From Here [News, Jan. 22]. It highlights Austin's worst transportation problem failure to address the basics, such as sidewalks and bus stops, before building zoomways and parking lots for cars. As Lee Nichols points out, the sad state of Austin's bus system is not Capital Metro's fault alone. A big chunk of the problem is a lack of sidewalks. A civilized city needs good sidewalks on both sides of every street. Without this, bus and train systems do not work well. Without continuous sidewalks, car owners will not choose to walk. Bicyclists have nowhere to go when the bike gets a flat or the street is jammed with idling cars. Old people, children, disabled people, and people who like to walk are just out of luck. It's so sad to read of Austin's grand transportation schemes that leave out the sidewalk system. Unlike many of Austin's deficiencies, the lack of sidewalk is easy to fix. People already know how to build sidewalks. We don't need a traffic study to build sidewalks. Austin even has a Sidewalk Plan. There's an inventory of existing and missing sidewalks. There's a system for deciding which sidewalks to build first. But there is no reasonable timetable, no funding schedule that would finish the sidewalks within, say, 20 years. At present rates of construction, it will take 200 years to build the sidewalks. This is ridiculous and disgraceful. But we can change it. Right now, Austin spends about $5 million per year on building sidewalks. If we spend 10 times that much, we can have sidewalks in our lifetime. If we don't, we can have a mean, dysfunctional city full of angry people in cars. Let's choose civilization. Finish the sidewalk system.
|
|
|
Date Received: Thu., Jan. 28, 2010
Dear Editor, Rachel Feit's review of the East Side Show Room would lead a reader to think this place really was a special place to be [ Restaurant Review, Food, Jan. 29]. I was puzzled. I live on the Eastside and have been to this establishment a few times and will never go again. There are so many great new places on the Eastside that to even allude that ESSR is a place to go is well, like I said, puzzling. I'd read the Yelp reviews and was struck by how many wrote about the rude waitpersons, manager, doorperson, long waits, being asked to wait outside in the frigid weather, being told to not talk to friends at the bar, the crappy food, the expensive drinks, etc., etc., etc. I wanted to give it a chance for myself though. Yes, the ESSR lived up to its reputation. Our waitperson was rude, dismissive, arrogant, and the service was slow, slow, slow. The food was terrible for the price. With the many new places over here where the staff is happy you've come in and treats you accordingly, I would never suggest anyone go to ESSR. Ms. Feit states ESSR is "a thoroughly engaging restaurant space that
oozes style." Style over substance is not somewhere I want to spend my money or time.
|
|
|
Date Received: Thu., Jan. 28, 2010
Kate X Messer, What a wonderfully insightful article and kickass photography [ Bravo/Brava, Screens, Jan. 29]. Thank you for capturing an under-the-radar queer artist like "Christeene: Austin's Favorite Cum Dump," who'll hopefully forever add some much-needed flavor to Texas' music and cultural scene. Y'all rule.
|
|
|
Date Received: Mon., Feb. 1, 2010
Dear Editor,
"Support for KUT is brought to you by ______." Fill in the audio blank. Listeners to KUT may cringe when they hear that intro, knowing it means another commercial from their nonprofit, noncommercial local radio station of the University of Texas at Austin (the license held by the university regents). These nonstop, irritating commercials, prerecorded and live, are a violation of FCC rule CFR 47, Section 73.503 which prohibits commercials on noncommercial "educational" public stations such as KUT. The station management and the university are well aware of it but have the attitude that "everybody's doing it." The new FCC, under Obama, may take a different view, if it hears enough complaints from listeners. Complaints can be very easily registered online or in writing. Check the FCC website. The station is still controlled by Bush-Perry Republican regents at UT, but even they are subject to FCC licensing rules.
|
|
|
Date Received: Sun., Jan. 31, 2010
Dear Editor, Re: Point Austin: Revenge of the Cyborgs [News, Jan. 29]: Back when computers were called mainframes and the IBM on a secretary's desk was a Selectric, corporate advocacy ran toward offering a senator a ride on the corporate jet in exchange for face time. Voters might find out what the deal was years later, when someone accidentally spilled the beans or the pol retired and let a nugget slip in his memoirs. Laws and policies that favored corporate interests were crafted almost invisibly. Increasingly stringent ethics rules have made this kind of arm-twisting more difficult and risky. Having businesses make their cases to the public is a far better alternative than crafting deals in back rooms. On some occasions they might even force an elected official to be honest. Corporate officers have blogs, and they can expound on matters of health care, solar power, union legislation, and tort law that look dangerously like political advocacy. Perception of whether this favors a particular candidate is in the eye of the beholder. The exact same publication might be viewed as an offense in one jurisdiction and harmless in the one right next door. A few people forming a for-profit or nonprofit to finance a Michael Moore-style film, website, or coloring book with a political theme have found themselves at risk of prosecution, and the rules for deciding what is and is not corporate campaigning have gotten more complicated as exceptions are made, either for or against. One can only understand the problems as time passes, and it becomes clear that continuing in this path is untenable and undesirable. Unlike as described in the column, corporations are run by real people. People who own stock in pension funds want those assets protected. Predatory legislatures have more room to do harm than lawyers or advocacy groups.
|
|
|
Date Received: Sat., Jan. 30, 2010
Dear Editor,
I became concerned recently when I noticed that KVUE Channel 24, the local ABC affiliate, made such a production out of airing the Republican primary debates for governor on their free TV channel. But apparently they have relegated the Democratic primary debate only to their website and cable channel not equal coverage!
I did a little research and couldn't find out much about the possible conservative political agenda of Belo Corp. or its chairman, Robert Decherd. It is a media empire with numerous television and newspaper holdings. Judging from the KVUE website's political stories, they seem biased. I thought local stations had a responsibility to the public to present both sides of the political spectrum equally.
|
|
|
Date Received: Mon., Feb. 1, 2010
Dear Editor,
When all Americans finally wake up to the fact that both parties are bought and paid for, that both parties have little interest in what is best for we the people or this nation, it will be too late. But the good news is we only need about 10% of registered voters to realize this truth in order to change course. But what could such a small number of people really do? The answer is simple. Never vote for an incumbent again. Re-elect no one, every time.
In just a few election cycles they could all be gone. But more importantly, with a committed group of voters willing and able to sway every election to one of the challengers, those who fill the vacant seats would be unable to dream of re-election. Without the need or desire to campaign while in office, without the hope of a lucrative career as a politician, corruption and special-interest ties would be greatly diminished. Say goodbye, also, to the two-party system.
This would be a paradigm shift with many unknowns, but when youve come to the conclusion that the current system is broken beyond repair, the unknown starts looking pretty good. When enough of us finally admit that accepting the lesser of two evils will doom us to devastating mediocrity, throwing a virtual grenade into the system becomes a risk worth taking.
Having party loyalty in this day and age makes you the equivalent of a professional wrestling fan. You're thoroughly entertained and the show will never end, but doing your part to keep this illusion of choice alive has serious consequences. Please consider giving up your loyalty to these false faces who wink and glad-hand behind closed doors while you and I suffer the consequences.
|
|
