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.

To the Editor,
    Re: “Point Austin” [News, Feb. 4]: The Travis County Attorney’s Office is reviewing the possibility that our entire City Council has been violating the Texas Open Meetings Act in the most serious way.
    Texas law gives all citizens the right to watch their governing bodies deliberate; it is one of the most fundamental pillars of our democracy. But our City Council has operated an institutionalized template of private, regular, and deliberative meetings between fellow council members designed, according to Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, to “try to achieve that level of understanding so that on Thursday we can minimize the line of questioning, and the debate, and move forward through the agenda” according to the Austin Bulldog interview.
    Martinez further reveals the charade, “I can’t say for sure, but I do not think I’ve ever switched a vote unbeknownst to my colleagues.”
    Council’s votes on Thursday are planned and known in advance – a nice, orchestrated play that mocks the entire concept of public participation. A system designed to minimize on-the-record public discourse between members. No embarrassing explanations required. Great for re-election campaigns and private interests, but illegal for exactly that reason.
    Maybe that is why Austin citizens have felt left out for years while developers and big money interests mysteriously win every fight prior to Thursday.
    Shortly after Chronicle pundit Michael King declared that there is nothing to see here, the mayor canceled the private meetings and announced that they will start deliberating in public work sessions like other Texas cities. Seems like the mayor and his attorneys may not have agreed with King.
    Journalists have a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. The Chronicle should assign one to this story.

Dear Editor,
    Concerning the article titled "AE's Nuclear Option" [News, Jan. 21]: There are several misconceptions that have been stated, such as the cost of nuclear compared to solar renewables. Here is an analysis of three sources of energy, each one generating 12,000 kilowatt-hours annually:
    Rooftop solar panels: 10 kW of solar rooftop panels supplies 0.137 x 8,760 x 10 = 12,000 kWh. The estimated cost is $6/W, so the total installed cost (without subsidies) is $60,000. Assuming a 25-year life, the average energy cost is 27 c/kWh.
    Large single axis solar photovoltaic farm: 5.5 kW of large solar PV 0.25 x 8,760 x 5.5 = 12,000 kWh. The estimated cost is $4/W, so the total installed cost (without subsidies) is $22,000. The average energy cost over a 25-year life is 10 c/kWh.
    Nuclear South Texas Project 3 and 4: 1.5 kW of nuclear generates 0.913 x 8,760 x 1.5 = 12,000 kWh. The estimated cost is $5/W, so the total installed cost (without subsidies) is $7,500. My energy cost (40-year life) is 1.6 c/kWh + 2 c/kWh O&M = 3.6 c/kWh.
    The program Austin Energy is emphasizing will be the Large Single Axis Solar PV program. However the financing interest rate used in the purchase power agreement will result in an energy cost of 16 c/kWH, which represents a rate increase to all Austinites. That's one reason AE has a rates committee right now, so they can increase your rates to pay for the 200 MW planned solar PV program. Note that over the 25-year life Austinites will pay more than 160$/MWh x 200 MW x 0.25 x 8,760 x 25 = $1.752 billion! That is on top of the $2.3 billion dollars AE is obligated to pay for the 100 MW bio plant in East Texas. Folks, AE is driving us into financial ruin with these foolish investments.

   [Associate News Editor Nora Ankrum responds: For clarification, "AE's Nuclear Option" does not compare the costs of nuclear and solar.]

Dear Chronicle,
    On a recent walk along West Bull Creek I was amazed to find an incredible amount of lead from the old shooting range that used to be located just west of 360 and north of 2222. I remember the range from when I first moved here in '79. The recent rain storm of September (Hermine) has scoured hundreds of pounds of lead from the meager top soil that used to be on the north side of the creek and dumped it into the bed of the creek. I first noticed a large amount of lead here in '08. I had heard previously during one of the city's Environmental Board meetings that a lead removal remediation had been done at the site sometime previously as a condition of the city allowing the hilltops of the "Champion Tract" to be developed. There was a large amount of lead visible there in '08, but nothing like what I've observed there on my most recent visit (Jan. 2). The concern is that Bull Creek dumps into Lake Austin just upstream from where the intake for our drinking water is located. I've noticed in our annual water quality report that there is a lead presence in our water supply. I'm wondering how much naturally occurring lead there is in the Colorado River watershed upstream from us? I'm no geologist, but my feeling is that the answer is none. This site was supposedly cleaned up already. I would like to see the site cleaned up again as best possible, although understandably all of the lead can never be fully removed from such a large site. At least it should be removed from the creek bed and overhanging limestone ledges where it remains perched waiting for the next rain storm to push it off into the bed of the creek.

Dear Editor,
    I read Michael King’s off-target, straw man defense of secret discussions by Austin City Council members [“Point Austin,” News, Feb. 4]. No one has claimed that council members can never talk to one another without violating the Open Meetings Act. Since they were completely omitted from King’s article, Chronicle readers who want to know the facts of what’s been going on behind the scenes at City Hall, or to read about the Open Meetings Act provisions involved, can check out the Austin Bulldog.
    Mr. King laments that we may sacrifice efficiency by requiring public officials to debate issues in public, and he’s right about that. Efficiency is also lost by having elections, having terms of office less than lifetime, and requiring government to retain records for public viewing. It’s surprising to see a journalist advocate views like those in Mr. King’s column. It would be even more surprising, if not revolutionary, to see voters accept such anti-democratic views.

Dear Editor,
    Michael King is appalled by the very idea that City Council members shouldn't be making decisions in secret meetings [“Point Austin,” News, Feb. 4]. One would think that the outrages of the Bush administration – for example, torturing and sexually molesting children in secret prisons in order to "persuade" their parents to provide information about WMDs – would have illuminated the importance of open government to every thinking American. Put yourself in the position of those parents, given that there were no WMDs to confess. This is what secrecy in government buys you. In 2009, ExxonMobile made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay a single dime in taxes, they were given a $106 million refund by the IRS. The fruits of secret energy deals crafted by Dick Cheney. Chris Riley is one of the hardest working, most well-meaning council persons this city has ever seen; we would be well-served by promoting Riley to a Daley-esque emperor of the city. That's not the point. For every Chris Riley, there are three Dick Cheneys setting up secret torture prisons and engaging in corporate malfeasance. This is why I want to see Riley's handsome mug beaming out at me from a streaming video feed every single time he meets with someone regarding official city business. King reminds us that voters rejected an open government amendment in 2006. Voters are frequently coerced into voting against their own self-interests – see the November 2010 elections, for example. King will recall his own role in this, inviting corporate lobbyists masquerading as "concerned citizens" to enjoy pages of commentary in the Chronicle's politics section. Perhaps King views secret torture prisons and corporate cronyism to be the cost of good government? If this is what King thinks, then to paraphrase Mr. Bumble: Michael King is a ass.

Dear Editor,
    Re: The passing of Alex Napier: I love you, Al. Thank you for treating me like your little brother and for selling me the best SVT [amplifier] I ever heard. Thanks for the day we hung out and watched Charlie in Japan and laughed about Wally's solo and the guy playing the Kubicki. Thanks for sending Hook to sit in with us in Madrid. Thanks for playing with one fucking finger. Please tell Ferguson hi for me and let me sit in when I get there. I'll be able to play bass again.

Dear Editor,
    Poll taxes were a payment due at the polling booth that were required in order to cast a ballot and were thereby used to control who had the ability to vote and thereby influence who would be elected. They were banned in federal elections by the 24th Amendment in 1964, and were banned on the state and local level by the Supreme Court in 1966 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. The decision specifically found that “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”
    As it does not appear that any free form of ID will be accepted at the polls under the currently proposed voter ID bill (Senate Bill 14), it seems to me that unless there is a provision in the voter ID bill to either accept free forms of identification (such as mail sent to the voter at his or her listed address) or provide a valid ID at no cost to the voter, then the voter ID bill is tantamount to a poll tax [“The World According to Voter ID,” News, Feb. 4]. If this bill is to go forward, then I would either encourage the acceptance of free forms of identification or the issuing of free photo IDs to be included in the bill, or for the constitutionality of the law to be challenged on that basis.

Dear Editor,
    It is the duty of every nation to protect its citizens. The only way a nation can guarantee, can absolutely guarantee, that it can protect its citizens is if we all live, every nation, in peace. Politicians should be considered factory workers, paid for the products they produce. Put on your hard hats; punch your time clock; make peace.

Dear Editor,
    If the goal is to reduce the impact of addictive drugs – and their prohibition – we should study Switzerland's heroin-assisted treatment program. It more than pays for itself in reduced criminal justice costs and allows addicts to work and pay taxes. It began in 1994 as Zurich's reaction to their infamous "needle park" and has spread to all 26 cantons, now includes other addictive drugs, and has treatment centers located in all but the smallest towns. It includes pure, low-cost drugs; clean needles; counseling; and, if requested, treatment. The Swiss have voted for it in repeated referendums. If the conservative Swiss can do it, we Americans can do it too.