Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
   We believe the Chronicle made a mistake in endorsing Allen Kaplan for the ACC board of trustees [Endorsements, April 28]. In your editorial, you state that you were “swayed by his experience and the stability he will bring to the board.” On the contrary, for years Kaplan has been a destabilizing presence to the extent that he twice jeopardized ACC’s accreditation status, in 1996 and again in 2003. Further, he has demonstrated an inability to manage his own personal finances.
   As a board trustee, Allen Kaplan has repeatedly crossed the clear demarcation between the policymaking role of the ACC board of trustees and the president’s role as the administrator. Specifically, in October 2003, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools noted that the situation regarding the functionality of the board and its ability to separate its duties from the executive management had worsened since its initial visit in March 2003 and singled out Board Secretary Allen Kaplan for special mention:
   Interviews with faculty and staff representing all campuses and all major employee constituencies yielded additional strong concerns about the board secretary [Kaplan], whose spouse is an ACC employee. Representatives of employee associations told the committee that college employees are reluctant to express any disagreement with the interests or positions taken by the board secretary’s spouse for fear of retaliation from the board member. Such sentiments were pervasive across all employee categories.
   Kaplan can’t manage his own money. The Austin American-Statesman in an April 23, 2006 article reported that “Public records show that in 1999, [Kaplan] filed for bankruptcy and that between the late 1980s and 2002, several liens and civil judgments were filed against him for back taxes.” ACC has a budget of more than $140 million a year and is overseeing expenditures from a $99 million bond package. If Kaplan isn’t able to manage his own finances, can we trust him to manage that of ACC’s?
    Ana Mejia-Dietche has the vision and the experience to bring a new and informed perspective, fresh enthusiasm, and integrity to the role of trustee and will bring the stability that ACC needs and the Chronicle desires.

Dear Editor,
    What an overdue breath of fresh air Stephen Colbert delivered to the White House Correspondents' dinner! For the first time ever, the usurper was stuck in his chair facing a man who looked him dead in the eye and let him know: what he's done to our country, what the press has done to betray that country into the usurper's hands time and again, and that we all know it, too.
    Expect the usual crowd of Neoconderthals and media whores to appear, declaring Colbert "unfunny," "inappropriate," or "stupid." Expect the news to bury the story deep and for pressure to be brought to Maher-ize Colbert. It's too late.
    Thank you, God, for giving Stephen the courage to expose the usurper, his lies, and his whores without batting an eye.

Dear Editor,
    Even if we ignore the political timing of a "gift" given to make us forget Stratus Properties is the local name for Freeport-McMoRan, one of the worst corporate polluters on the planet, we have to understand this money will be used by the Hill Country Conservancy (where Freeport's old point man David Armbrust is chairman of the board) to create green zones that will increase the value of Stratus property on the aquifer. Is this a gift or the cost of doing business?
    Stratus sold the Lantana Tract to AMD, which is in a donating frenzy, too. But are these really gifts? Or a vast loss for the people of Austin – the loss of Barton Springs.
    If these "gifts" get us to defeat propositions 1 and 2, Austin will give hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations like Stratus Properties that lobbied (more "gifts") for the grandfathering bill that has enabled 119 projects in violation of current water ordinances.
    If we don't pass Prop. 1 we'll get more back room deals, like the new Clean Water Ordinance drafted by Council Member Leffingwell last week. A fraction of zero compared to Prop. 2, it goes before the Environmental Board Wednesday, May 3. Lee Leffingwell is a member of the EDUCATE PAC, founded by Mike Blizzard (paid by Stratus), who works to discredit propositions 1 and 2.
    The Leffingwell draft (sham) ordinance, the Green Water Treatment Plant/Guerrero Park debacle a few weeks ago, the court order requiring the city to clean up inaccurate and negative ballot language – aren't these arguments to vote for Open Government, Prop. 1?
    It is heartbreaking to see the devastation that's resulted from these developer "gifts," which represent vast loss to the environmental community and to state and local government.

Dear Editor,
    How much stock in oil do Bush and the VP or others in office have?

Dear Editor,
    Unfortunately, the recent “Naked City” news brief [April 28] about the disappointment of the Design Commission regarding plans for the new UT Hotel and Conference Center makes it appear there is a trend afoot on the 40 acres of turning its back to the city of Austin. On the contrary, the university fully understands and appreciates the importance of its outreach to and intermingling with the Austin community. In fact, the physical design of the new Blanton Museum of Art accomplishes exactly that. When phase II of the museum is completed, it will bookend the existing grand landscape entry that already beckons visitors onto the UT campus, making MLK a primary access artery, not an alley. Austin’s intellectual and creative capacity is a critical element in UT's international acclaim. There are no alleys separating the capital city from its flagship university campus. The university and Austin are intricately interwoven.

Dear Editor,
    Proposition 2 gives Austin voters the opportunity to ask city and corporate officials to take action now to save Barton Springs. At the moment, the whole future of Barton Springs and 30 years of city planning to protect Texas' most vulnerable major aquifer are being thrown out the window by Jim Bob Moffett's former right-hand man, Beau Armstrong, and Armstrong's new business partners at AMD and City Hall. This is the first major component of the scheme that the Chronicle exposed and help defeat in years past. We knew then, and we know now, what it means for Barton Springs.
    What has changed? Water quality at Barton Springs has deteriorated as "grandfathered" development has continued. The worst algae bloom in memory persists today. The science is even more compelling that we will lose Barton Springs if we do not direct development into our Desired Development Zone.
    And Moffett's original plans for a satellite downtown on Southwest Parkway expanded, adding the "Lantana" tract where AMD is now slated to build offices for 3,000 employees. The role of one of the world's worst corporate offenders of human rights and the environment is obscured, leaving us with the wispy-white Stratus Properties and AMD's greenwashing.
    Austin voters have a say in the future of the soul of Austin. A vote for Proposition 2 is a vote for securing our future and protecting our heritage.

   [Editor's note: Bill Bunch of Save Our Springs Alliance played a prominent role in shaping the language of Proposition 2.]

Dear Editor,
    Come on Colin [Clark]! First you say that the roads CAMPO is planning to build will all be over the Barton Springs Watershed [“Postmarks,” April 28].
    Then you imply that the money CAMPO is planning to spend on the roadways can somehow be used by the city to purchase open space.
    You know that is just not true. CAMPO money is almost all state and federal, which cannot be used for anything but transportation. You know this – you have been beating CAMPO up for years on these projects!
    Make your arguments on truthful statements. If they are valid, a “spin” doesn't need to be applied.

Dear Editor,
    I read in the April 28 “Beside the Point” [News] about controversy regarding the taxi cab permits of Roy's Taxis, and whether to give its permits to Yellow Cab Inc. (forming a more expensive monopoly) or give them to a new franchise.
    This reminded me of Union Cab of Madison, Wis. (www.unioncab.com). Union Cab is employee owned and operated and has been so successfully since 1979. Taxi companies work well as employee-owned cooperatives, because cab drivers often already own most of the capital (i.e., the cabs). It might be an interesting direction for the city to explore, given how well it would sync up with Austin's independent spirit. The city might consider supporting a start-up employee-owned firm with some basic small-business loans or grants, if cab drivers are interested. Worker ownership and management can be a wonderful way to put a little more dignity into the daily grind. It also helps insure that the business stays local and focused on the needs of the community, not the needs of faraway corporate managers and stockholders.

Dear Editor,
    I found the Maroon "letter" and cartoon on Scott McClellan to be mean-spirited [“Scotty Needs Our Help!,” News, April 28]. The piece mercilessly ridiculed McClellan, but what was its point? An ad hominem attack such as this one should include some journalistic value or at least advocate some position, but this one was just a series of nasty statements about McClellan. While it may be easy to kick a man when he is down, doing so is in very poor taste, not to mention completely inhumane (yes, even where Republicans are concerned). The piece you published was so bitter, it made me wonder what kind of personal insecurities the author may harbor where Mr. McClellan is concerned. As a longtime reader, I am disappointed that your editors allowed such a piece to be included.

   [Anonymous senior Chronicle officials respond, on background only and off the record: We realize this may be a stretch, but, for some, the point was "humor." We are impressed to find one person who actually feels sorry for the former press secretary to the leader of the free world. As for the author's insecurities, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of said condition, and would not be at liberty to share such information if we did in fact know anything, which we don't.]

Dear Editor,
    Last week Liveable City released a report indicating that, since 1999, the city of Austin has "grandfathered" 122 developments over the Edwards Aquifer (www.liveablecity.org/media/CleanWaterProp2.pdf) in direct violation of the SOS Ordinance. Usually grandfathering means allowing an existing use to continue despite the fact that the zoning no longer allows that use. With respect to the aquifer, grandfathering has exactly the opposite meaning, namely allowing a new use to be implemented (in violation of zoning) simply because the owner had made some indication (at some time in the past) that they might want to do something like this some time in the future.
    The latter version of grandfathering is of questionable legal merit and only exists because of an Austin-bashing state law sponsored by Mike Krusee and passed with the help of a lot of cash from Stratus and similar big development interests. There is no legal precedent for such a thing that I know of – it's a straightforward right-wing "takings" law, which can and should be strenuously challenged in court, as it jeopardizes environmental preservation nationwide by setting a precedent for such laws. Suppose I own land that is discovered to have some extremely critical environmental features. All I need do is drop off a pencil-sketched site plan at the One Texas Center indicating a Tokyo-density development covering the entire site, and the city must allow me to bulldoze the entire site (or agree to pay me $50 million per acre – the cost of land in Tokyo).
    Unfortunately the city government has shown no interest in standing up to and legally challenging "grandfathered" development over the aquifer. The Edwards Plateau is considered to contain one of the 20 most critical biodiversity zones in the entire world (see, for example, www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2006/01/26/LifeArts/Slipping.Under.Texas-1505649.shtml), and we're simply standing by as it's paved over to make way for AMD, strip malls, and endless suburban sprawl. Perhaps we need to send the city government a message by voting yes on Proposition 2.

Dear Editor,
    I just wanted to draw your attention to the tone of the Cyril Neville profile [“Tell It Like It Is,” Music, April 28]. The writer blithely disassociated the racism in Austin from the racism in New Orleans. When Mr. Neville was describing the black middle-class neighborhood that the city leveled with a freeway, I thought, well surely here's where the writer kicks it up and discusses the parallels here in Mr. Neville's new home and asks him what he thinks of this. The notion that Austin is somehow a respite or safe haven from these "isolated incidents" (to use the terms that keep whites in perpetual denial) of oppression, humiliation, exclusion, and violence is a position that creates the atmosphere of preciousness, passivity, and fashionable liberalism that Austin is known and loved for (by whites). Please consider probing into the dark side of Austin – pun intended. Or just start probing – that would be a good start. But what I anticipate is that this publication will continue to maintain Austin's status quo: Keep Austin white – I mean weird! I look forward to your inevitable rebuttal.

Dear Editor,
    Without getting into the merits of many of the issues raised in Michael King's April 28 “Point Austin” column [News], it's obvious he doesn't realize just how sick East Austinites are of getting a disproportionate share of infrastructure that benefits the entire city but has localized negatives. No issue exists in a vacuum and the Guerrero plant was seen as just the last straw, that East Austin should get preferential treatment until more of a balance is achieved. The fact that the part of the park where the plant was proposed for isn't used much isn't a reason for sacrificing it. The existence of enough woods to serve as critter habitat and oxygen production is as important as jogging trails. Maybe on its own it would have been a good project, but East Austin is done with hosting more than its share of infrastructure.

   [Michael King responds: Are those East Austinites who have suggested an alternative site nearer SH 130 also out of touch, with themselves? This is a water treatment plant, not a gasoline tank farm. By Tom Cuddy's curious split-city logic, there are right now a "disproportionate" number of such facilities on the West Side, and a "preferential" treatment should be … what? I don't have a position on where the plant, if any, should go, and Guerrero is, in any case, off the list. I was writing about the grandstanding accusations of nefarious, secret plots, for what was one of several potential proposals by city staff.]

Dear Editor,
    I'm guilty for taking your wealth of writers for granted. I want to thank Marc Savlov for writing the best review I've read all year in the conundrum of a movie called Silent Hill [Film Listings, April 28]. He hit the nail on the head with his review, driving it so deep into the cracked wood, I shall forever carry splinters. His resplendent imagination and descriptive phrasing ("nightshade logic") left me no alternative but to write in and display my man-love.

Dear Editor,
    "Boo hoo hoo ... I can't afford to fill up my SUV, and traffic is awful, and then when I finally get to downtown, parking is a nightmare ... boo hoo hoo. I wish someone in power would do something."
    Every time I turn around, I hear this same refrain. This, my friends, is a classic example of people wanting government to change so that they don't have to. If parking and traffic and gas are driving you to the poor house/crazy house, why not get off your fat ass and ride a bicycle once in a while? Park 'em anywhere. Runs on food. And despite what many people believe, it is an extremely fast way to get around this small, centralized city. If you can't do three miles on a bike, you've got worse problems than gas prices.
    If Austin were a truly progressive city, it would address our car-related problems. But instead of real solutions for this, we keep coming up with ways to bring more cars and pollution and traffic into downtown. Wake up people! Cars are the problem! We need fewer cars downtown!
    The City Council should support a broad-based measure to encourage bicycle commuting in the Austin area. It's easy, cheap, and extraordinarily effective. Unfortunately, you can't cram a cheeseburger in your face and slam a Big Gulp on a bicycle, but given the "huskiness" of so many of our citizens, maybe this is a good thing.
    Healthy, environmentally sound, fast, fun, stress relieving, cheap ... too bad it doesn't come in pill form; someone could make a fortune.

Hello,
    While I'm extremely appreciative of the nice things Stephen MacMillan Moser writes about me in his blurb about my Web site, www.foundclothing.blogspot.com, and the recent New York Times article about it, it seems that he somewhat misses the point of both the article and my hobby (finding clothes and accessories, washing them, then wearing them) [“After a Fashion,” Arts, April 28]. I don't think of what I'm doing as a "trend," as he calls it, and I don't think that other people who find clothes do, either. That's like calling garage-sale hopping or thrift-store shopping "trends." In other words, I think that people have been doing these things for decades – I was just the first person (maybe) to produce an online archive of found clothing and items. (Also, I don't understand why he puts "found" in quotes. I mean, the clothing is exactly that: found. I mean, it's not a brand name or euphemism! Then again, maybe my nit-picking is just the future trademark lawyer in me coming out.)
    As I explained to the Times, my reasons for finding and wearing clothes have nothing to do with being trendy (at 30, I'm a little too old to be so concerned with what's cool, don't you think?) and everything to do with recycling, conservation, spontaneity, and thrift. People, especially New Yorkers, throw tons and tons of perfectly useful items on the street every day. It's enough to make even the most casual environmentalist wince.
    That said, thanks for the coverage! Please eat some good salsa for me; up here the salsa's like baby food or something.

   [Stephen Moser replies: I'm not sure what Mlle. Apple was expecting when she sent me the link to the New York Times article about her, but her letter fails to mention what the article did mention, and that is that her hobby of "finding" clothing includes digging through garbage for them. At 30 years old, I think everyone, except the homeless or mentally disturbed, is too old to be digging in the garbage for their clothing. Ideally when Mlle. Apple becomes a trademark lawyer, she will be able to afford to start purchasing her clothes.]

Editor,
    If California can recall its governor, Gray Davis, for alleged inaction, why can't Texas recall its corrupt representative, Tom DeLay, for unethical, un-American, anti-democratic political prejudice in Congress and criminal violations?

Robert Gabriel:
   Mr. Gabriel, your article speaks truth ["Cyril Neville Tells It Like It Is," April 28]. I don't think many folks are ready (or willing) to wrap their heads around the issues of which you speak. Folks would rather put more energy into talking about anything but the realness. Thanks for being "that guy." Most folks won't discuss race issues and gentrification on that level. Not only did you discuss it; it's published on the cover. Thanks for holding it down for all people. Maybe your article (and Mr. Neville) will encourage folks to have more constructive discussions about the fascist regime that terrorizes all of us, not just black folks.

Dear Editor,
   God damn it, President Bush is out of control!! He needs to pass a law right now to keep Americans from buying too much gasoline! How could that son of a bitch do nothing while demand for gasoline keeps rising, despite high prices! Please, for God's sake President Bush, protect us from high gasoline prices! Make us stop!!
   That was for all the liberals, who believe the price of gas is President Bush's fault. It's not. Grow up. Good News from Massachusetts: Senator Ted Kennedy, big mouth advocate for alternative energy, is suing to keep a proposed wind farm from ruining the view from his "average man's" estate on Cape Cod. Senators who screamed about ANWR are screaming about gasoline prices. Man, it's just plain fun watching people like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch whipping vapid, shallow people into a frenzy of ignorance and outrage, eager to blame someone for something they themselves are responsible for. Gosh, gasoline has finally cost us more, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 1983 and 1984! God-Damned Oil Companies!! Hey ... compare your property taxes, adjusted for inflation, from 1983 and today; then compare gasoline prices and maybe some people with a brain will see how the city of Austin is an evil money-grubbing corporation that has screwed people far worse than oil companies ever did.
   Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dear Editor,
   In response to "Which Country Is More Dangerous," by David Hamilton ["Postmarks," April 21]. Let's see who has the serious brainwash problem. That "large country" (USA?) with the nuclear arsenal, has used that big stick to keep a relative peace these last 50+ years. It caused the USSR to finally back down and start acting like a civilized, free trade democracy. Albeit they have a long way to go. Since the USA has had its nuclear arsenal can anyone name a square inch of soil we have taken by force from anyone?
   After 25 years of Muslim terrorist strikes on nightclubs, army barracks, and navy ships, what more do we need to know or talk about before we launch a "pre-emptive" strike?
   Does Saddam Hussein's possession of enough mustard gas to kill 5000 Kurds qualify as a weapon of mass destruction? The only reason the six long-range missiles (capable of reaching Israel) were not counted as WMD by the inspectors was because the warhead containers were empty. Outside of Tikrit an empty underground bunker the size of seven football fields was found. In a patient, diplomatic effort we gave the weapons inspectors six months of extensions on their WMD search. I'd say that was plenty of time for Saddam to move several bunkers of weapons.
   David, or anyone, who doubts, run the visual of September 11 through your head, and you will have no doubts about who is being brainwashed and who is lying about their intentions.

Dear Bill Bunch (El Pomposo SOSAnista),
    When development is ecological and profitable, the aquifer shall be saved. Until then, only a losing advocate attempts to switch the topic to a consensus object like "clean water." No one is arguing about the aquifer or watershed being in trouble; the question is, do the proposed charter amendments help the situation or not? They don’t, and that is revealed by the ACLU analysis of the amendments, that leaves crucial decisions in the very hands of the officials your gangrene-clique rationale holds are conspiring against the SOS ordinance. Since one cannot logically take the position that the Austin City Council is running a secret star chamber imposing Chapter 245 on neighborhoods and then propose a solution whose execution would allow those same officials to be in charge of the "reforms," the amendments are the very essence of deception and hypocrisy. Which means that this is an exercise in nothing but political power and ego.
    Your BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) "strategy" to deal with MoPac congestion while buying all the watershed land is an exercise in herbal fantasy. The sprawl and the billion dollar figures are real enough, but tell us, commandante, what’s the real 3-D alternative?
    Finally, any appeal to citizens to save Barton Springs is marginalized by SOSA’s environmental smear of anyone disagreeing with the latest encyclical decree. The science indeed shows a problem, but your "solution" is just another special-interest power broker ruse into Austin politics. Words illustrate intent, but action shows true meaning. Why, after 14 years, are there no specifics for "conservation-oriented development"?

Dear Editor,
   I was in a bar the other night, and an illegal immigrant was smoking inside. He was also talking loudly so he must have been publicly intoxicated. He even tried to bring his dog on to the patio! I don't think he was wearing sunscreen, either! OMG! What's next, dogs and cats, living together?

Dear Editor,
   The following reasonably credible individuals and entities have publicly taken a stand and are taking peak oil seriously: investment house CIBC World Markets; Leeb Capital Management; Goldman-Sachs Global Investment Research; the Bank of Montreal; Simmons & Co. Intl.; oil investor and billionaire T. Boone Pickens; billionaire Richard Rainwater; Jones Heward Investments Inc.; Groppe, Long & Littell; the City of San Francisco; US Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland); and the 12 others that have established a Peak Oil Caucus in Congress, to name just a few.
   Are you paying attention?

Dear Editor
   The Chronicle became my window on Austin after my wife and I moved from Falls Church, Va., to Hays County in 1999. I came to trust your reporting and then your judgment because I believed "you got it." Having grown up on a Dallas County farm during the Forties and Fifties drought, my memories of Austin were certainly idyllic of when it was a "sleepy college town."
   Sometimes SOS Bill Bunch is his own worst enemy, but I shudder to think what Austin would be like today without this unique organization and its single-minded focus on protecting all aspects of Barton Springs.
   Recent "Page Two" comments by Louis Black [April 7], and Michael King's "Point Austin" [April 21], bring to mind how "Establishment" the Chronicle has become in just six years when it comes to Barton Springs and what it takes to preserve that Edwards Aquifer canary.
   Isn't anyone at the Chronicle listening anymore? Twelve thousand plus citizens created an Envision Central Texas paradigm that includes preserving the Aquifer, its watershed, and a lot more of what we need to retain that special quality of life that attracts so many of us.
   Citizens across Hays and western Travis counties have coalesced to protect their own little "barton springs" from Houston-style high-density residential sprawl following LCRA Pied Piper, Joe Beal, as he plays the empty tune that the developers and engineering firms orchestrate. They all will be gone with their fortunes when there isn't enough water and the Piper has to be paid.
   We can't rely on LCRA, TCEQ, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, or City Hall. SOS on its worst day has done more to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare than all of them combined. Keep giving 'em hell, Bill.

   [Louis Black replies: Six years! Hell, we sold out long before that, as I count it, almost 25 years. But against such a sophisticated argument let me paraphrase my thinking on this (Michael King is more than capable of speaking for himself). These are two well intenioned badly written, badly laid, way-too-vague propositions that in the long run won't work, they won't open government up and they won't protect the Springs. They will do far more damage than good. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. But it is these propositions that would become the law, not the intentions behind them, not the desires of the citizens, not the various and sundry explanations of what they are supposed to mean by SOS board members. To pretend that in dissenting we are lying, being bought-off, have sold out – in general that those who disagree are corrupted, evidences more than anything else the self-righteously corrupt damage being done to Austin's progressive community.]