Postmarks
Mueller re-development is a rip-off and "affordable housing" is a sham.
Fri., July 7, 2000
Grand Larceny to Taxpayers
Editor:
Your June 30 story on Mueller ["Prepare for Departure"] had it right when it concluded that the redevelopment plan was a win, win, win deal (for the developer, the politicians, and the adjacent neighborhoods). Too bad it is grand larceny of the owners of the property -- the taxpayers of Austin. The property is easily worth $3 per square foot. (and probably more) "as is" or about $93 million. As it is planned and illustrated in the article (a beautiful concept), roughly half the project appears to be commercial and the other half will be single-family and parks (including an artificial lake). Without more details, it is difficult to estimate costs, but residential housing on land this expensive (especially with a 25% "affordable" mandate) will at best be a "break even" deal if there were no additional costs. Unfortunately, there is about three feet of concrete under the existing runways and taxiways, massive parking lots, a large main building, and numerous other structures which have to be demolished and hauled off to someplace permitted by the city. When this "little" extra is added to the equation, the residential subsidy will be substantial. Construction of the "lake" will result in a lovely park but also involves a major excavation project, more haul-off (many thousands of truck loads) and a real expensive overhead item to keep full of water and maintain (in a city which is famous for not maintaining its existing parks -- like Patterson Park across the street). The city also requires normal projects to provide storm water controls (water quality and detention) which will consume a substantial bit of land (especially with small lots and high density = high impervious cover) and have city maintenance costs. Sewer and water lines will have to be upgraded, wire utilities and gas provided, etc. Commercial development will make money, but not enough to offset the development costs, land cost and subsidies for the rest of the site. It is fun to plan Disneyland projects if cost is no object -- the neighborhood's stated position is that profit is of no concern, only "a quality project." The developer will make money, the neighborhoods will be happy and have no money at risk, and the city has all the risk. "The profits from Mueller redevelopment will go to pay for the new airport" is what I remember was promised. Looks like this lovely experiment in "New Urbanism" will not have any (for the city at least), so it really wasn't a lie. A monumental "Daryl Slusher Boondoggle" in the making. Take the cash and use it to pay the debt on the new airport, create a trust fund, finance affordable housing, buy greenbelts, develop parks or something. Create a 50-foot buffer around the site (to placate the neighbors who are already smiling at the 100% increase in their property values and griping about paying taxes on their taxpayer-financed windfall), and let a developer do what they do -- make or lose money with lots of risk. This is a big-time rip-off of your money.
Sincerely,
David Smith
Cedar Park
Affordable Lip Service
Editor:
Another informative article on the redevelopment plans for Mueller ["Prepare for Departure," June 30], though it seems another example of how "affordable housing" receives only lip service in this town. While planners and entrepreneurs wrangle over the pittance of space to be allotted to residents who don't work in the high-tech industry, gentrification of the existing neighborhoods surrounding Mueller proceeds apace. Public sector and service industry workers are the real losers here; their stagnant incomes cannot hope to keep pace with skyrocketing rents and property taxes (as I believe you noted in your recent Tech issue). In response, the beneficiaries of the rising cost of living throw up their hands, roll their eyes, and proclaim that the magical Market moves in mysterious ways beyond the ken of us mere humans -- an assumption that the mavens of "Smart Growth" and "New Urbanism" seem to have swallowed whole when they think about it at all. We get little sense of long-term thinking applied to existing neighborhoods affected by Mueller's relocation. This is a serious oversight. Green space and "mixed-use" areas shouldn't overshadow the displacement of large numbers of working people against their will. The management of "growth" is not merely a problem of aesthetically pleasing space or environmental preservation, though these concerns matter; in Austin's case, it's also a matter of access to housing. In my own neighborhood, the proliferation of "for sale" signs, ostentatious new houses under construction, and reassessed real estate values -- amazingly all products of human decisions -- point the way to a decidedly single-use, single-income level future. All its claims of uniqueness to the contrary, Austin differs little from most cities in its enfeebled motions to preserve the integrity of decent and affordable neighborhoods.
Bill Bush
'A' Is for Anonymous
Editor:
I just read a letter to the editor in the June 30 edition of The Austin Chronicle from Quincy Benn Greywolf Welch["Bullock Booster"]. The purpose of his letter, as best I can determine, was to support Bob Bullock. He calls Mr. Bullock a friend and I admire his support of him. I believe one should stand by friends. One of the duties of friendship is being supportive.
However, it came across to me that Mr. Welch's letter did not support Mr. Bullock, and even less, Stevie Ray Vaughan. I can't even believe that Mr. Welch chose to include Stevie in a letter supporting Mr. Bullock, but this is beside the point. My point is that, in an attempt to name-drop (or what appears to be that), Mr. Welch included personal information about Mr. Bullock and Stevie Ray Vaughan that pertains to their involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous.
I was under the impression that AA had a whole lot to do with Anonymity and a whole lot less to do with name-dropping. I'm glad I'm not in the public eye and going to AA meetings with Mr. Welch. It concerns me even more that The Austin Chronicle chose to include such a rambling letter in its June 30 issue. I routinely pick up the Chronicle because I consider it a less sloppy and inflammatory rag than the Statesman. I'm not so sure now.
Mr. "Greywolf" Welch's letter begins with his stating to be 76 years of age. I am glad he's been around so long. I'm disappointed to know he's of that age and giving away personal information about people's involvement with AA as if he were a star-struck 18-year-old. As an aside, I would be curious to know Mr. Welch's tribal affiliation. His apparent self-promotion-at-others'-expense philosophy doesn't seem to fit in with other Native American people I know.
Sincerely,
Collin Phillips
Snotty Correction
Chronicle:
Just a little note to remind feature writer Wayne Alan Brenner ["Snot Flap Manifesto" Vol.19 No.44] that when used as a noun, the word is spelled m-u-c-u-s. The m-u-c-o-u-s spelling is reserved for the adjective form.
Thank you
K. Red
More Than Meets the Ear
Editor:
So Michael Bertin feels the songs on our new album are simply far too direct and "have all had their turns of phrase give way to straight shots," suggesting that we've chosen this path because it makes it easier than letting people "figure it out for themselves" ["Texas Platters," June 30]. Well, no, Michael, we still let the listener do that. Only it seems you didn't. Let's see, you listed "Gimme Back My Dog," "Some New Town," "Pinball Song," and "Lazy Guy" as examples of this perceived directness. Well guess what? "Gimme Back My Dog" isn't about someone wanting their dog back, "Some New Town" isn't about being in some new town at all, "Pinball Song" is definitely not about pinball, and "Lazy Guy," although it is about being one, is not so in a celebratory fashion as one who simply hasn't "figured it out" might hastily suppose. In fact, even our Replacements ripoff song, even though it makes a very obvious reference to the 'Mats musically and in name ("Placemat Blues" -- you caught us there, you clever devil), isn't really about the Replacements at all. I won't give the subject of the song away however, I'll let you figure it out. But Michael, this might require some thinking, and it'll definitely require that you listen (gasp!!). Maybe more than once.
Brent Best
Slobberbone
Ignorance & Denial
Editor,
I address this to Andy Gray, Eric Matus et al. ["Postmarks," June 16, 23, 30], who would deny, against vast scientific evidence to the contrary, that AIDS has its source in a virus.
I appeal to you: Please stop this dangerous folly. By denying its cause you contribute to the already unfathomable suffering in the world. You encourage, intentionally or not, activity which will lead to HIV infection. Tragically, those most likely to be affected by such misinformation are the ignorant and uninformed, the poor and marginalized.
The Third World in general, and Africa in particular, face economic and cultural disaster, all because of years of lack of information, denial and neglect of timely action with respect to AIDS prevention education.
Sandy Bartlett has spent years of tireless, selfless, sometimes thankless and exhausting effort to educate and inform this community. The same goes for the countless others in this world whose names will never be remembered.
He has faced denial, personal attack, and worst of all, willful ignorance on the part of some. I also believe with all my heart, that he has saved human lives through his effort. He is living proof that wisdom and compassion are inseparable.
As Sandy's life partner of over 20 years, I personally vouch for his integrity and tenacious dedication to truth. To say otherwise is a grave and hurtful mistake. He is my knight in shining armor.
Please, everyone out there, I implore you, practice mindful behavior and inform yourselves. AIDS is caused by a detectable but insidious and relentless virus.
Thank you. Play safely and remain wise and well.
Lou Dattilo
The Chron Stinks
Dear Sirs,
I am writing this e-mail to express my utter resentment about your publication. There is a part of your paper that is devoted to putting a media spotlight on discrediting very smart people who question the AIDS hypothesis; the article in question is the so-called "About AIDS" column. This column in recent weeks has done nothing but try to discredit numerous world-renowned people in medicine and science who question the status quo. This is completely insulting; the author has yet to bring forth the scientific evidence that he himself has performed to prove these people wrong. And from his track record, he will probably print some doctored report that will prove nothing. The integrity of your publication rivals that of roadkill, because it stinks. I wrote Louis Black, your editor, with very credible information that was written by, among others, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, and he wrote me back saying he is not interested. Which seems to indicate that you are only hearing one side of the story from a man who has no proof, when people like me come along and give documented, credible sources for proof from men with doctorates and Nobel Prizes, which makes your writer of the "About AIDS" column about as credible as a high school dropout. When will the time come when you people stop acting like the cowards you are and start evaluating all sides of the story, and when I say evaluate I mean just that not from a man like Sandy Bartlett who could not argue his way out of a paper bag. Your attention is needed to this matter in a quick, precise fashion!
Thank you,
Eric Matus
Light Rail, Heavy Price
Editor:
In the letter headed "Silly Syllogism" ["Postmarks," June 23] the writer says, "In the 1970s, if Austin voters had looked at available data ... " (regarding nuclear power). He never mentions the politicians and others, who, for nearly a decade and through several campaigns, "educated" the "ignorant" voters on the benefits of nuclear power. Apparently those elected to positions of trust and paid by the voters, as well as their appointees and advisors, had no responsibility for "looking at the available data" before selling Austin taxpayers on the STNP.
The writer suggests substituting the Internet or the Town Lake Hike-and-Bike Trail for STNP. I'm unaware that Austin politicians promoted bond issues for the Internet. (But then again, I was unaware that the vice-president had invented it.) As for the hike-and-bike trail, if bonds were sold to build it, it is hardly in the same league as the STNP.
As for light rail, the writer tells us that Dallas' light rail ridership is exceeding projected levels, but says nothing of the public subsidy per rider necessary to operate the system. It is probably far greater than the public subsidy per user for other means of transportation, as it is in most cities with light rail.
The most recent news concerning light rail comes from Atlanta, where, even with Atlanta's population, MARTA currently has a $12 million deficit (and growing). MARTA just voted to increase one-way fares to $1.75, making it one of the costliest public transportation systems in the nation.
"Those who do not learn the lessons of history..."
George Santayana.
Werner J. Severin
Illogical Analysis
Editor:
In response to last week's letter writer who took aim at Ross Garber's thinking process["Light Rail's Dark Side," June 30]: It appears to me that Ross Garber got to be CEO of a successful company by being able to do meaningful analysis and proper math. To illustrate the sophistry of the writer's attempt to paint Dallas' rail system as a failure, I will use similar illogical analysis on I-35 here in Austin. Let's see what we get: According to 1998 CAMPO data, the volume of traffic on I-35 through downtown is about 200,000 cars per day. Doing some simple math, I can state that only about 70 cars per minute pass through this stretch in a single direction. Therefore, I-35 is way overbuilt, and we should close down all but one lane in each direction. Ask anyone stuck on the Town Lake bridge at 8am what they think of my plan. The only number that matters is PEAK volume; average volume is completely useless in this kind of analysis. Not to mention that looking at only one station (West End) in no way indicates how many cars are taken off of Central Expressway during rush hour. Simple math may be fun, but it sure gets in the way of thinking sometimes.
Phil Hallmark
Member, Light Rail Now!
Trains, Not Nukes
Editor:
It seems odd to read so many letters comparing a rail line to a nuclear power plant. The two things are very different. Nuclear power plants have problems with meltdowns and radioactive waste disposal that dwarf mere money problems. Trains, in contrast, are a safer and less polluting means of transportation than cars.
On June 23, a letter-writer wrote that since Japan and Germany are closing their nuclear power plants, Austin should not fund light rail. Japan and Germany are not shutting down their rail lines. Their rail lines work very well.
Ron Riley, in his letter of June 30, says that there is no evidence that rail lines improve life. Rail lines definitely improve life for the people who use them. Trains more people across long distances without cars. Trains allow children, elderly people, disabled people, and people who dislike driving to move around freely. Rail lines don't do much for people who don't use them, but everyone can use them.
Riley says that DART "loses an additional dollar or so every time someone boards light rail." This statement doesn't make sense. If 50 people board a DART train, DART makes more money than if only 49 people board the train. The more riders, the smaller the cost per rider. In contrast, the more car drivers there are on the roads, the more costly, polluting, and unpleasant car travel becomes.
Do you ever wonder why rail projects require voter approval but highway projects don't? It's because our governments are committed to protecting the profits of the car, oil, and road companies.
Rail is a sensible, useful, and enjoyable mode of transportation. I've enjoyed riding trains and trams in other cities, and I look forward to riding them in Austin.
Yours truly,
Amy Babich
United, Rail Stands
Editor:
Ron Riley ["Light Rail's Dark Side," June 30] correctly notes that getting started with light rail is expensive. It's always hard to switch transportation systems. Going from horse to car was difficult since horses didn't need paved roads. In 1905, the argument could have been made that cars were useless toys, since there was no place to drive them.
Similarly, shifting from train to air passenger service was difficult since there were no airports. That's why flying boats were so popular -- they didn't need infrastructure.
We'll have the same growing pains as we shift to light rail. What we will get is synergy. Each new mile of track added will add to the value of existing track, as more people have access to the system and those who already had access can travel to more points.
The San Diego Trolley illustrates this. It opened in 1981 with 16.5 miles of track and had 3.9 million riders during its first year of service, or 237,000 riders per mile of track. Now the system has 46 miles of track, but an annual ridership of 24.5 million, or 533,000 riders per mile of track.
Sincerely,
Philip Russell
