Dear Editor: First of all, Mr. Black's rant is confusing in that Prop. 1 (that's Prop. 1, not Prop. 2) is the open-city-government amendment [“Page Two,” April 7]. Is this what you are talking about, Mr Black – open city government?! Or are you just blowing air and analogies about cards and masturbating?! Get your amendments straight! Secondly, this amendment is trying to stop the government from being run like a corporation and help us (the people for whom these elected officials work) to hold them accountable. Yes, we want them to show all their cards when they are "negotiating.” This is something that would benefit us all. This amendment would make it more difficult to meet with lobbyists at lunch time and conduct your affairs at City Hall! Your readers must realize that the City Council wants so badly for this not to pass that they attempted to misrepresent the information. This was ruled in a court of law! And this was the first time in Texas history a City Council was reprimanded by a court of law for unlawful ballot language! Unlawful! If City Council does not want this to pass so badly that they are willing to lie to the people then I want it to pass even more. I am sure if people realize this they may feel the same way.
Lisa Boettrich
[Editor's response: Sorry for any mistakes on my part. Actually, concerning economic development matters, the two propositions overlap in a complex and confusing way, which is yet another reason to oppose them. Unfortunately, the proposition, not its intention or your version of it, becomes the law if passed. The ballot language proposed by supporters was even less informative than that proposed by City Council. Finally, with all this talk of open government do you really want the city to show all their cards when negotiating with AMD, major mall and residential developers, the state, and the like?]