Feedback: November 14, 2025

In the Zone

Dear Editor,

Media coverage of the defeat of Prop Q, the city’s tax rate election, has suggested that it reflects a “rightward shift” in Austin politics or a “harsh disapproval” of the City Council’s ability to manage its finances. But if you review precinct-by-precinct results, the most striking shifts occurred in the neighborhoods most affected by the current Council’s “anything goes” zoning and land use policies.

We are residents of the Old West Austin neighborhood, which until Prop Q has supported every recent tax rate election and bond proposition proposed by the city, the county, AISD, and Central Health. We have seen no evidence of a “rightward shift” in our neighborhood, but we have seen rising anger at the City Council over unregulated high-rise and commercial development, including luxury condos costing up to $5 million where modest homes, apartments, and local businesses once existed. Prop Q lost decisively in neighborhoods close to Downtown in East, West, and South Austin because older neighborhoods have been treated with disregard bordering on contempt by all but a couple of current city officials.

If City Council members who supported Prop Q really want to regain voters’ trust, they can start by returning to policies that protect neighborhoods instead of developers of luxury high-rises.

Jim Cousar and Steve Amos

Global Health Good for All

Dear Editor,

I was struck by these words of Sarah Eckhardt [“Sarah Eckhardt Wants to Do ‘Big Things,’” News, Nov. 7]:

“What I’ve learned is that every single person, regardless of what political jersey you wear, feels that in the richest nation in human history we should be able to have homes, food, and health care within the reach of everybody.”

Reflecting on the same belief, it is deeply concerning that vital global health programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are facing proposed funding cuts and suspensions.

PEPFAR has been foundational for U.S. global health diplomacy since the Bush administration, and has saved millions of lives through HIV prevention, treatment, and social services. However, recent policy actions, including delays in payments, threaten the momentum of this crucial work.

Furthermore, the Global Fund depends heavily on U.S. contributions, and disruptions in funding risk undermining gains in fighting HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria globally.

This is where elected representatives, like Sarah Eckhardt, should play a critical role. Their advocacy can push for continued appropriations, resist rescissions, and ensure foreign aid budgets remain intact.

Eckhardt’s emphasis that people across the political divide expect basic human dignity guides us to a broader mandate – that these values should not only be upheld domestically, but globally. Global health is tied to national security, moral obligation, and most importantly, shared humanity.

I hope that local leaders like Sarah Eckhardt will champion these global health investments, reminding constituents that global solidarity is not partisan; it is a commitment to all people having access to health, regardless of geography.

Mackenzie Hantelman

Simple Math

Dear Editor,

In his Feedback letter in the Nov. 7 issue (Oct. 24 online), Chris Kuykendall asks us to “do the math” on Prop Q.

Yes, do the math – but do it right. Two large errors lead him to his mistaken claim that Prop Q would have raised the city property tax on a typical $500,000 home by $482 per year, instead of the correct number, about $200 per year, as cited by Brant Bingamon in the Oct. 17 Chronicle article Kuykendall was responding to [“The Prop Q Debate Has Entered the ‘Silly Season.’”] First off, Kuykendall says Prop Q would have raised the city tax rate from $0.4776 per $100 of assessed value to $0.574017 per $100. But much of that rise would (and will) occur regardless of Prop Q. Had it passed, Prop Q would have raised the city tax rate by $0.05 per $100 of taxable value, about half of what Kuykendall asserts. Moreover, a typical home with an assessed value of $500,000 will get a $100,000 homestead exemption on its city property taxes, bringing its taxable value down to $400,000. And here the math is really simple: $0.05 per $100 times $400,000 = $200 per year, just as the city said and Bingamon reported.

I get it. Voters are in a sour mood and very ready to vote no, especially on anything that will cost them money. That is clearly what happened to Prop Q. But it bothers me when people get the numbers wrong (especially when they do it in the course of complaining about the innumeracy of others), and I have to say I’m disappointed in the Chronicle for running Kuykendall’s letter without doing him the courtesy of pointing out his obvious errors.

Bruce Hunt

Reading the Results

Dear Editor,

I would like to explain my viewpoint on the results for Texas’ recent election results, more specifically the ones Austin differed in as stated in “Texans Approve All 17 State Constitutional Amendments” [News, Nov. 7]. I am not an expert nor may I speak for other people’s choices, but I do believe I may have an idea as to why people voted the way they did. 

For all tax laws I believe those that differed from Austin likely see the laws as encroaching onto their lives, as in why would you ban the inheritance tax if it prevents you from giving money to your children which you want to do. For all other laws I wouldn’t disagree with the claim that they’re “rooted in the conservative agenda” (though I would say that seems somewhat inflammatory) where people want control, over “their” own lives.

That would just be my interpretation of course.

Giovanny Benitez-Garcia

Health Care a Human Right

Dear Editor,

The recent Democratic wins in the U.S. have made many of us in Austin reflect on our own state. Coverage of health care gaps here shows that many neighbors delay or forgo medical care because it’s unaffordable or inaccessible. As New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has emphasized, health care is a human right, not a privilege for those with the right insurance or income.

Here in Austin, medical facilities are stretched thin. Having volunteered at People’s Community Clinic, I’ve seen firsthand how many Austinites face long wait times, insurance barriers, or struggle to afford treatment. These challenges extend beyond clinics, hospitals are overcrowded, with patients waiting hours and paying thousands for necessities. Local policymakers must prioritize expanding access, supporting clinics, and reducing barriers for underserved populations.
Austin has the resources to lead. We can ensure medicine is a right for all, not a privilege for a few.

Tahiyah Rahman