H-E-B Center at Cedar Park
Doesn't Support AMD's Move
RECEIVED Wed., Sept. 28, 2005
Dear Editor,
So now computer company AMD admits their justification for moving to the Barton Springs watershed is false ["Headbutting Over AMD Development Continues," Sept. 23].
The company claimed their employees would save 10 thousand miles of driving a day by moving. However, as the Chronicle reports, the location labeled "existing" in their traffic study isn’t really their existing plant. It’s a highway intersection almost three miles farther east. This completely skews the study’s results against staying at the current Eastside location.
What’s surprising is the "who cares" attitude displayed by the company once the fraud was revealed. The Chronicle says spokesman Kevin Lyman told them "AMD never had any intentions to stay at its current site." Therefore, they didn’t study the commuting distances from there. How does this excuse a deliberate deception of press and public?
Lyman’s new claim (should we believe him now?) is that the current site "can’t accommodate all our employees." FASL, the joint venture between AMD and Fujitsu, owns more than 50 vacant acres at the current site (see www.traviscad.org). It would seem there is room to stay and grow in east Austin if they want to.
Finally, the claim that Southwest Austin will benefit by the move is suspect. One of Oak Hill’s chief complaints is traffic. How will adding 9,381 car trips a day (according to AMD’s own study) help with that situation?
The only way to have corporate accountability is for individuals to take personal responsibility. They need to come clean on their conflicts of interest.
So now computer company AMD admits their justification for moving to the Barton Springs watershed is false ["Headbutting Over AMD Development Continues," Sept. 23].
The company claimed their employees would save 10 thousand miles of driving a day by moving. However, as the Chronicle reports, the location labeled "existing" in their traffic study isn’t really their existing plant. It’s a highway intersection almost three miles farther east. This completely skews the study’s results against staying at the current Eastside location.
What’s surprising is the "who cares" attitude displayed by the company once the fraud was revealed. The Chronicle says spokesman Kevin Lyman told them "AMD never had any intentions to stay at its current site." Therefore, they didn’t study the commuting distances from there. How does this excuse a deliberate deception of press and public?
Lyman’s new claim (should we believe him now?) is that the current site "can’t accommodate all our employees." FASL, the joint venture between AMD and Fujitsu, owns more than 50 vacant acres at the current site (see www.traviscad.org). It would seem there is room to stay and grow in east Austin if they want to.
Finally, the claim that Southwest Austin will benefit by the move is suspect. One of Oak Hill’s chief complaints is traffic. How will adding 9,381 car trips a day (according to AMD’s own study) help with that situation?
The only way to have corporate accountability is for individuals to take personal responsibility. They need to come clean on their conflicts of interest.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Beers
Stephen K. Beers
