Postmarks

---

State Rep. Keel Responds

Letter to the editor,

I am committed to continue working diligently to improve the quality of representation for indigent capital murder defendants. Current standards are inadequate and actually prevent the appointment of better qualified attorneys in greater numbers.

HB 268 amends current law to implement major improvements. Separate standards for the diverse requirements of trial, direct appeal, and post conviction writ counsel are mandated. For the first time, trial counsel must have prior experience in the selection of juries in capital cases before they can assume the role as lead counsel. Current standards don't require this nor do they contemplate the availability of more proficient attorneys, such as former appellate briefing attorneys to represent indigents on appeal, or former prosecutors who have much more solid experience in the trial of capital cases.

The tenor of your April 8 story ["Keel-Hauling Death Row Defendants," News] – that standards would be lower and incompetent counsel would now be eligible – is incorrect. Current standards allow appointment of attorneys previously found to have rendered ineffective assistance, but HB 268 forbids that practice – just the opposite of what you reported. Your article basically rehashed the talking points distributed by the Texas Defender Service and others who have a vested interest in keeping the current narrow system as is. I invite your readers to view for themselves the lengthy testimony (www.house.state.tx.us) and particularly the pointed questions of democrat committee members who shared my concern that the few lawyers opposing the new standards were being disingenuous.

This bill passed in a bipartisan vote out of committee and out of the full House 141-1. Your reporter, who has written two articles critical of my actions on this measure, didn't attend the committee hearings and has never attempted to interview me. I welcome your publication's insights on this issue and would entertain any specifics you believe could improve services to indigent defendants.

Sincerely,

Terry Keel

state representative

Austin, District 47

[News Editor Michael King responds: It's been so long since Rep. Keel returned a Chronicle phone call, we're delighted to hear that he would like to talk to us about his House Bill 268, even as we understand several of his colleagues – described here charmingly as "democrat committee members" – are having second thoughts. We'll be glad to listen to his case for the bill. Keel also made his disdain for the bill's opponents abundantly obvious at the hearing (which Chronicle reporter Jordan Smith indeed covered fully on video, as Keel recommends to our readers). We notice Rep. Keel chooses not to address at all one of the primary objections to the bill – that it will trigger a "fast-track" federal appeals process that will be even more cursory and unfair to the condemned than the current system, which generally acts as a rubber-stamp to a Texas capital trial process that is all too often a parody of justice. To accuse the Texas Defenders Service – which defends capital cases at impossible odds for virtually no money – of a "vested interest" in the current system is simply laughable. We share Rep. Keel's stated goal of improving the quality of defense counsel available to the condemned – we just don't agree that the price should be making it impossible for that defense counsel to be effective.]

---

Correct Numbers

Dear Editor,

I have read the article by Mike Clark-Madison in this week's Chronicle on Block 21 and Seaholm ["Delay of Game," News, April 8]. As the architect for the AMLI/Endeavor team, we have prepared the design concept, including the square footage for all the uses. In response to the 400,000 square feet listed for our project, I felt it necessary to correct our proposal's total square footage. Our proposal includes the following numbers, totaling approximately 607,900 square feet (just under the maximum density allowed by the city – approximately 608,000 square feet).

Square footage devoted to each building use:

Residential: 345,800 square feet

Residential: 130-150 units

Retail: 43,900 square feet

Cultural entities: 118,200 square feet

Hotel: 100,000 square feet

Hotel: 125 rooms

Public space – Plaza at Second Street: 15,200 square feet

Parking: 516 cars

Total: 607,900 sqaure feet

On a side note, I noticed that our firm name was spelled Nelson; please note that the company is Nelsen Architects.

Thank you for dedicating the time to present the story of the Block 21 and Seaholm projects in the Chronicle. We value the consideration given to this important decision.

Sincerely,

Sandra Turner

Nelsen Architects

[Editor's note: We appreciate the clarification. In calculating the square footage on the AMLI/Endeavor proposal, we apparently conflated the "residential/condo/hotel" space – distinguished here by Turner – as all "residential." In that case, it would appear that the AMLI/Endeavor bid is the only one to propose building out Block 21 to nearly the maximum available density. And we apologize as well for misspelling the name of Nelsen Architects.]

---

Top 9? Top 6?

Dear Editor,

In Rachel Proctor May's "Scrap It or Cap It?" [News, April 8] article, she stated that SB 1546 would turn the "top 10" into the "top 6." I don't understand her math on this. If 72% of next year's freshman class is top 10 percenters and the bill capped this at 65%, UT would admit 9.7% fewer 10 percenters. Thus, she should have said it would effectively turn the "top 10" into the "top 9," at least for next year.

Joel Sumner

[Rachel Proctor May responds: I appreciate Joel Sumner's calculations, but the "top 6" percentage – borrowed from several references (alternately, "top 7") in the committee discussion – wasn't intended to be a precise estimate. And the numerical base wouldn't be UT's freshman class, but the total number of top 10 percenters in the state, of whom UT admits only a portion, and which changes year to year. The point is that capping the program will inevitably reduce the percentage of "top 10" admissions, for good or ill.]

---

Contradictions

Dear Editor,

I am involved in a neighborhood planning effort and find that existing residentially zoned property owners are seeking to change zoning status to mixed use under the well-intentioned notion of promoting a more dense and integrated urban core. The problem is that there is no zoning rule in place that assures that residential properties changed to mixed use do not become solely commercial. This means that if you change residential property to mixed-use zoning it can have the unintended result of a strip shopping center in place of existing urban housing. I don't believe this reflects the hopes of our city's leaders, and many of its residents, but it is a loophole that can allow inappropriate cannibalization of inner city residential property. Can we not have zoning that affords residential property to allow mixed use and still assure that it has a reasonable residential component? I believe the only way to do this now is to negotiate a private covenant that forces private parties to police developments and hire their own lawyers to uphold the stated Austin City Council vision of more residential density mixed with retail and commercial in the city core. Private property owners, even if they agree with the intended results, should not be required to fight and uphold city planning goals with their own time and money; appropriate zoning rules should guarantee it.

Chris Cavello

---

Ban Hits All the Same

Dear Editor,

Mr. Black's "Page Two" [April 8] analysis of his position on the smoking in public places vote is based largely on what he thinks the effect of a smoking ban would be on small businesses that have live music. What he doesn't consider is what effect the flawed ordinance passed by the City Council last year is having right now. Under that ordinance a significant number of live music venues are classified as restaurants (not bars) and consequently are now nonsmoking. Following passage of that ordinance there are reports of fall-offs in business in some of those clubs. Patrons who wish to smoke are migrating to bars where smoking is possible. The current ordinance is arguably hurting the very live music scene Mr. Black so assiduously defends against attack. And it's likely that a number of those venues are the small ones Mr. Black has particular concerns about. If Austin voters pass the new ordinance the playing field will be leveled and all businesses can compete on their own merits with no more built-in disadvantages. If it fails, we're back to the same flawed ordinance now on the books, and some of the clubs Mr. Black voices support for will continue to have one hand tied behind their back.

Austin voters should vote yes on the smoking initiative not only to treat all businesses equally but to address the very real public health hazards of smoke to both patrons and workers. And Mr. Black should reconsider his position, as it certainly appears to run counter to the arguments he puts forth.

Kenneth Pfluger

---

Et Tu, 'AC'?

Dear Editor,

Bravo, AC, on a wonderfully absurd, and embarrassingly elaborate April Fools' Day joke. Et tu, Bruté?

Joe Jackson

---

Mentally Battered by 'Sin City'

Dear Editor,

I just arrived home from seeing Sin City based on the Chronicle's four stars and AC pick rating [Film, April 1]. I am compelled to warn other readers that this movie is essentially two straight hours of violence, much of it unnecessary. The Chronicle review mentions the violence, but buyer beware: I was so disgusted/nauseated/bored by the end that I left 25 minutes early. I am not a prude – far from it, in fact. But I don't like to be mentally battered for two hours. My advice is pay for another movie, step in for five minutes of this one so you can appreciate the cool cinematography, then spend the rest of your evening relaxing with a more enjoyable flick.

Audrey Reynolds

---

Not So!

Dear Editor,

Normally, I disagree with Amy Babich; I believe retrofitting Austin to bicycle-based transportation (a frequent theme) is unrealistic, as much as I, too, would prefer it. However, she's spot-on ["Postmarks," March 11] regarding the pols' only appearing to solve traffic problems.

I agree that having more road-miles per capita here than in any other city in Texas, the congestion we so enjoy has been largely created by the way traffic is managed, and that the aim of that management is the creation of problems to be addressed with large amounts of tax money. Artificial congestion, with the resultant pollution, scares us into such absurd projects as the toll plan, and the North I-35/183 North interchange.

Rey Washam ["Postmarks," April 1] speaks as though City Council has let us down. However, every council meeting I've surfed into on Access has involved people advocating for themselves (us) against the council's advocacy for developers.

The controversy over zero-access Loop 360 is no longer mentioned, developers are still calling the Barton Springs uplands a "treed-up" waste, Lick Creek is being ravaged, Pioneer Farms is being nibbled away in favor of multiple tax units on streets with names like "Horse Wagon," and North Austin has seen Parmer Lane go from a mile per minute to five minutes per mile in some sections, all to kiss developers' backsides.

I was trained (elsewhere) to drive efficiently a transportation system both well-planned and efficiently run, which makes it very clear that Austin's system has neither of these attributes. Drivers trained locally seem, from their frequent willingness to second outrageous plans, not to recognize the difference, and to believe that things are as they are because they must be. Not so.

Duane Keith

---

In Favor of Smoking Ban

Dear Editor,

Louis Black's column was more evenhanded this time around ("Page Two," April 8), but I take exception to one of his remarks about my letter ["Postmarks," April 8].

When I pointed out that the possible economic damage of the smoking ban would only occur if smokers have more interest in their smoking than the music, Black quipped: "If the audience is not there for the 'right' reasons, are the musical performances of any value?" I said nothing about the value of the music – that's strictly Black's conclusion, not mine.

The musical performances are, in fact, what really matter to me, but when is the cost of supporting things that have nothing to do with the music too high? Like Black, I've also left clubs because "my eyes were stinging from tobacco smoke" ("Page Two," April 1). But I've also been on lots of club stages as a musician where I didn't have that option. As both an Austin musician and clubgoer, I've logged plenty of time in the trenches feeling the effects of cigarette smoke.

One thing I have noticed is that, while there are a few clubs like Elysium that seem to be smoker hangouts, the majority of clubs become smoke-filled by a small minority of the clubgoers. Meanwhile, all the eyes in the club are potentially burning, as well as lungs, and smelly clothes. It seems more like tyranny of the minority than the economic mandate that the club owners are claiming.

The argument that the smoking ban could lead to further "lifestyle-inspired legislation" is weak. The smoking ban is no more insidious than the 1990 city ordinance that banned defecation on Austin's public streets and sidewalks. It's a public health issue and nothing more (unless the American Lung Association and the Lance Armstrong Foundation, among others, have some diabolical agenda that we have yet to discover).

If the smoking ban passes, I'll be spending more time and money in Austin clubs.

Jason Levitt

---

Preserve Tranquility

Dear Editor,

For anyone out there who loves to eat at the Salt Lick and enjoys the beautiful area surrounding the Salt Lick: There is a rock crusher/quarry that has temporarily opened (awaiting final permits by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) by KBDJ Inc. just east of the Salt Lick. If allowed to operate at full capacity, there will be 104 18-wheelers per hour traveling on those narrow, curving, and hilly roads that were never meant to have such traffic. There is also a huge threat to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone as the rock crusher/quarry sits directly on top of it and to the quality of the air in the area, as constant blasting will take place.

I have no doubt that citizens of Austin should be involved in our efforts to stop the operations of this rock crusher/quarry, as it poses such dangerous threats. Austin owns hundreds of acres of conservational land all around the site of this rock crusher/quarry and if not stopped, this land will be in danger.

Visit StopTheCrusher.com to help us put an end to this horrible threat to the folks who love our Texas Hill Country!

Debbie Lambert

Buda

[Editor's note: The Chronicle has received several similar letters.]

---

Dark Visions

Dear Editor,

I envision a world with no war, hunger, disease, or poverty. I envision a world where there is no prejudice, human oppression, or greed; where no dictators rule with the swords of tyranny and fear. Believe me when I tell you that President Bush is working for this!

I envision a world where we stubbornly consume our future to feed our past, where we destroy our most precious and vital of natural resources – clean air and water – by bull-headedly maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels and minimizing or ignoring completely the use and development of renewable solutions. Believe me when I tell you President Bush is working on this.

I envision a future not so far at all away where once temperate climates become unbearable, where species die at a dizzying rate, where one after one the chain of life is broken, link by link. Oh wait, this is already happening. And believe me when I tell you that President Bush is spending the needed funds to continue studying the problem.

I envision a world where at some point we no longer have that which we as humans need to survive, a situation that many people already experience. I envision a world without humans, where remnants of our civilizations slowly crumble and decay into a horrible eulogy that will continue for millennia unheard. Believe me when I tell you that President Bush, who is seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is in the unique position of guiding the world toward saving change, is on the job and working on it.

These are the visions that wake me in the middle of the night. In these visions there is no longer the grand array of life once supported by this jewel, this mother Earth. We have smothered ourselves out of existence and taken with us war, hunger, disease, and poverty. Where there are no humans, there can be no dictators to rule with the swords of tyranny and fear. On a dead planet there are no political parties. No Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists to battle with. Trust me when I tell you President Bush seems to be doing precious little to avoid this vision. But he is most definitely allotting the funds toward the continued study of the problem.

David Skinner

---

Tolls Are a Double Tax

Dear Editor,

Ms. Strayhorn is not entirely wrong in her assessment of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority ["CTRMA Responds to Strayhorn: 'I Am Rubber. You Are Glue ...'," News, April 8]. First the bidding process for the toll way system has some questions that need to be answered. A former employee of Cintras becomes the governor's consultant. The toll system is really a double tax. We pay for the road and pay to ride on it.

Clyde L. Harris

Hillsboro