Paramount Theatre
FEEDBACK
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 [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.
Article on ACC Did a Disservice to All
RECEIVED Wed., May 17, 2006
Dear Editor,
Your article on the Austin Community College Board of Trustees election campaigns did a disservice to everyone involved and to ACC in general [“ACC Race: The Dirt,” News, May 12].
As you all know, I have been personally involved in ACC politics for more than 15 years. I am finishing my third term as president of ACC's Adjunct Faculty Association, and I have worked on many ACC board campaigns over the years. I do not recall a time when the political climate has been calmer.
Your only evidence for calling the election an "ugly, rumor-mongering mess" seems to be a letter to the editor you published in your May 5 issue [“Postmarks”]. That letter was rebutted by another in the May 12 issue [“Postmarks”]. That's it – exactly two letters to the editor, total, and none at all in the American-Statesman. That, my friends, is not an ugly mess.
Your article focused entirely on the race between Allen Kaplan and Ana Mejia-Dietche race for Place 9, and didn't even mention the other race for Place 8 between James McGuffee and Rodney Ahart. I know all four of these people, and I assure that all of them are well qualified and would make great board members, and all are on friendly terms. The only real differences are in length of experience at ACC.
ACC is a tremendous resource for our city and our region, and deserves more respect from you. As an underfunded institution of higher learning facing tremendous growth, we do have problems. Adequately compensating all of our employees remains a challenge, along with finding adequate space for everyone. These are problems we are all working on together.
Your view of ACC seems to be stuck in the Nineties. I wish you all would catch up to this decade – before we get into the Teens.
Your article on the Austin Community College Board of Trustees election campaigns did a disservice to everyone involved and to ACC in general [“ACC Race: The Dirt,” News, May 12].
As you all know, I have been personally involved in ACC politics for more than 15 years. I am finishing my third term as president of ACC's Adjunct Faculty Association, and I have worked on many ACC board campaigns over the years. I do not recall a time when the political climate has been calmer.
Your only evidence for calling the election an "ugly, rumor-mongering mess" seems to be a letter to the editor you published in your May 5 issue [“Postmarks”]. That letter was rebutted by another in the May 12 issue [“Postmarks”]. That's it – exactly two letters to the editor, total, and none at all in the American-Statesman. That, my friends, is not an ugly mess.
Your article focused entirely on the race between Allen Kaplan and Ana Mejia-Dietche race for Place 9, and didn't even mention the other race for Place 8 between James McGuffee and Rodney Ahart. I know all four of these people, and I assure that all of them are well qualified and would make great board members, and all are on friendly terms. The only real differences are in length of experience at ACC.
ACC is a tremendous resource for our city and our region, and deserves more respect from you. As an underfunded institution of higher learning facing tremendous growth, we do have problems. Adequately compensating all of our employees remains a challenge, along with finding adequate space for everyone. These are problems we are all working on together.
Your view of ACC seems to be stuck in the Nineties. I wish you all would catch up to this decade – before we get into the Teens.
John Herndon, adjunct professor of English and Creative Writing
President, Adjunct Faculty Association
Austin Community College
President, Adjunct Faculty Association
Austin Community College
[News Editor Michael King responds: John Herndon appears to believe that the only means voters and campaigners have of communicating their perceptions, disagreeable or otherwise, to reporters and editors is via letters in "Postmarks." As our endorsements reflected, we don't disagree with his overall judgment of the ACC candidates – but our reporters' job is not to "do a service," good or ill, to either the candidates or indeed ACC. We didn't invent the bad historical blood still lingering beneath one of the campaigns, and we reported what we found there. If Herndon truly wants ACC to move into the 21st century, perhaps a good beginning would be to abandon the provincial "speak no evil" approach to public affairs reflected in his letter.]
Reply to this | Comments »
Crucial Issue Is Affordable Housing
RECEIVED Wed., May 17, 2006
Dear Editor,
Re: “Looking for Cheap Dirt” [News, May 12]: While the price of gas registers as a national crisis, the fact that so many people (believe themselves to) benefit from the housing bubble affords the problem far less attention than the much more crucial issue of affordable housing. In Austin it is getting more and more difficult to put a roof over one's head, and Rachel Proctor May's article is therefore as welcome as it is timely. I nonetheless had two problems with the piece. First, its occasionally glib tone, in my view, did not adequately express the serious threat that a future of wealthy people living in cookie-cutter developments poses to both basic considerations of justice and the city's "Keep Austin Weird" funkiness. More directly, however, I was somewhat surprised to see omitted from the writer's list of possible solutions the most basic one: rent and vacancy control. Though Texas libertarianism has little room for such ideas, they are a staple of many urban municipalities; as Austin grapples with big-city problems of homelessness and unequal access to housing stock, those not lucky enough to own property also demand our attention.
Re: “Looking for Cheap Dirt” [News, May 12]: While the price of gas registers as a national crisis, the fact that so many people (believe themselves to) benefit from the housing bubble affords the problem far less attention than the much more crucial issue of affordable housing. In Austin it is getting more and more difficult to put a roof over one's head, and Rachel Proctor May's article is therefore as welcome as it is timely. I nonetheless had two problems with the piece. First, its occasionally glib tone, in my view, did not adequately express the serious threat that a future of wealthy people living in cookie-cutter developments poses to both basic considerations of justice and the city's "Keep Austin Weird" funkiness. More directly, however, I was somewhat surprised to see omitted from the writer's list of possible solutions the most basic one: rent and vacancy control. Though Texas libertarianism has little room for such ideas, they are a staple of many urban municipalities; as Austin grapples with big-city problems of homelessness and unequal access to housing stock, those not lucky enough to own property also demand our attention.
Mike O'Connor
School Ratings Are Unfair and Frustrating
RECEIVED Wed., May 17, 2006
Dear Editor,
Re: “Shrinking Schools” [News, May 20, 2005]: I know that this article is an old one, but I just had to write and say how wonderful it was to read. I'm planning a move to Austin with my fourth grader and scoping schools and neighborhoods like crazy. Researching Austin schools, I happened across this story online. We are urban dwellers, through and through. My daughter goes to an elementary school in Houston ISD that most would consider unworthy but one that we have loved for five years and hate to leave. Just the mere mention of a move to Austin has been an open invitation to a plethora of comments on AISD and which schools to avoid. So far, I can't find anything wrong with the schools mentioned except for their minority population, standardized test scores, and poverty levels. I find that so incredibly frustrating. If I thought that way, we would never have chosen the school that we've been so incredibly happy with all of these years. Thanks for printing this article.
Re: “Shrinking Schools” [News, May 20, 2005]: I know that this article is an old one, but I just had to write and say how wonderful it was to read. I'm planning a move to Austin with my fourth grader and scoping schools and neighborhoods like crazy. Researching Austin schools, I happened across this story online. We are urban dwellers, through and through. My daughter goes to an elementary school in Houston ISD that most would consider unworthy but one that we have loved for five years and hate to leave. Just the mere mention of a move to Austin has been an open invitation to a plethora of comments on AISD and which schools to avoid. So far, I can't find anything wrong with the schools mentioned except for their minority population, standardized test scores, and poverty levels. I find that so incredibly frustrating. If I thought that way, we would never have chosen the school that we've been so incredibly happy with all of these years. Thanks for printing this article.
Carol Cunningham
Houston
Houston
Snarky Nature of Responses in 'Postmarks'
RECEIVED Wed., May 17, 2006
Editor,
I've been noticing a trend recently over the last six months or so. Perhaps it has been going on longer, and I just wasn't paying attention. The trend is the snarky nature of the Chronicle's responses to the printed letters-to-the-editor. The responses by Louis Black and Mike Clark-Madison to the "Bunch Davidians" was about as egregious an example as I can remember seeing.
The letters published, which seemed normal for the type the Chronicle tends to publish, were labeled as hysterical and venomous by Mr. Black. Mr Clark-Madison called the letter writers "Bunch Davidians," and Bill Bunch, I assume, was called Kim Jong Bill, as well as referring to Kirk Mitchell as a sugar daddy [“Postmarks,” May 12]. Rereading the letters that engendered such responses, it seems it was the Chronicle that engaged in personal attacks. If Mr. Clark-Madison was referred to as a whore, perhaps the Chronicle should have shown that. After all, the Chronicle does control the flow of information in this particular instance.
I've been noticing a trend recently over the last six months or so. Perhaps it has been going on longer, and I just wasn't paying attention. The trend is the snarky nature of the Chronicle's responses to the printed letters-to-the-editor. The responses by Louis Black and Mike Clark-Madison to the "Bunch Davidians" was about as egregious an example as I can remember seeing.
The letters published, which seemed normal for the type the Chronicle tends to publish, were labeled as hysterical and venomous by Mr. Black. Mr Clark-Madison called the letter writers "Bunch Davidians," and Bill Bunch, I assume, was called Kim Jong Bill, as well as referring to Kirk Mitchell as a sugar daddy [“Postmarks,” May 12]. Rereading the letters that engendered such responses, it seems it was the Chronicle that engaged in personal attacks. If Mr. Clark-Madison was referred to as a whore, perhaps the Chronicle should have shown that. After all, the Chronicle does control the flow of information in this particular instance.
Noel Gonzales
All We Really Want Is a 30-Foot-Tall Border Fence and Cheap Gas
RECEIVED Wed., May 17, 2006
Sir,
Here in the United States of Soviet Republicans, also known as the Reds, we are not concerned about the issues that the rest of the Western world flouts, and we're not swayed by left-wing, anti-American media enterprise (the lame) rantings.
We do not care that our leaders wiretap our phones or record every phone call we make. We could care less that our exalted ruler gives out millions of dollars in no-bid contracts to his cherished corporate fellow-travelers. We do not mind that our glorious patriotic leaders send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a war designed to bolster sales for USSR's oil companies. It doesn't bother us that middle-income jobs are sent to foreign shores in order to keep the profit margin high for those who contribute to the governing oligarchy party. We don't give a darn that the army and CIA torture foreign cab drivers in our names.
All we want is a 30-foot-tall fence on our border to keep out people who would take our two-dollar-an-hour jobs and cheap gas so we can drive our SUVs the mile home each night from work so we don't miss American Idol.
Here in the United States of Soviet Republicans, also known as the Reds, we are not concerned about the issues that the rest of the Western world flouts, and we're not swayed by left-wing, anti-American media enterprise (the lame) rantings.
We do not care that our leaders wiretap our phones or record every phone call we make. We could care less that our exalted ruler gives out millions of dollars in no-bid contracts to his cherished corporate fellow-travelers. We do not mind that our glorious patriotic leaders send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a war designed to bolster sales for USSR's oil companies. It doesn't bother us that middle-income jobs are sent to foreign shores in order to keep the profit margin high for those who contribute to the governing oligarchy party. We don't give a darn that the army and CIA torture foreign cab drivers in our names.
All we want is a 30-foot-tall fence on our border to keep out people who would take our two-dollar-an-hour jobs and cheap gas so we can drive our SUVs the mile home each night from work so we don't miss American Idol.
Jay Williams
A Tragi-Comedy in the Making?
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Mr. Black,
Given the results and the resignation of your last editorials [“Page Two,” May 5 and 12], I believe you got “punked.” Remember it's bad form to publicly kick hell out of the politically handicapped (challenged?). As I have insisted for some time. SOSAnistas aren't representative of Austin, or most of the “enviro” community. Militant unicausal ideology as it relates to democratic politics and the sociology of running a functional government makes most unsuitable for positions of power in representative democracy. They tend to not recognize that advocacy can lead to authoritarian fixation. Often they lack appreciation for basic economic realties, and the administration of law and regulation in our humble real world. Perhaps, it's due to having to represent against developer attorneys and government administrators, who actually have anti-environmental agendas. Regardless, it is evident that they're tone deaf to what Austin voters are telling them.
Given this denial, it's no surprise that they align with similar groups whose ambitions minimize political reality. The ACLU wants to run APD, El Concilio/Poder/LULAC (local) wants to run E Austin, ANC wants to glacialize/control COA planning, EFF wants a “free” Internet – the ambitions are huge, the funds often narrow, and the groups “share” the same base of supporters. Group names change, but often the players stay the same. The latest misadventure won't cure their ailment. The council's ordinances won't be broad enough, fast enough, or good enough to please them. While their “values” campaign (à la W), should teach them a need for good relations and coherent proposal content, what is most likely to happen is redoubling of “vision” intensity. As the chasm grows wider, contempt will boil over and all local greens will take some lumps. A tragi-comedy is in the making.
Given the results and the resignation of your last editorials [“Page Two,” May 5 and 12], I believe you got “punked.” Remember it's bad form to publicly kick hell out of the politically handicapped (challenged?). As I have insisted for some time. SOSAnistas aren't representative of Austin, or most of the “enviro” community. Militant unicausal ideology as it relates to democratic politics and the sociology of running a functional government makes most unsuitable for positions of power in representative democracy. They tend to not recognize that advocacy can lead to authoritarian fixation. Often they lack appreciation for basic economic realties, and the administration of law and regulation in our humble real world. Perhaps, it's due to having to represent against developer attorneys and government administrators, who actually have anti-environmental agendas. Regardless, it is evident that they're tone deaf to what Austin voters are telling them.
Given this denial, it's no surprise that they align with similar groups whose ambitions minimize political reality. The ACLU wants to run APD, El Concilio/Poder/LULAC (local) wants to run E Austin, ANC wants to glacialize/control COA planning, EFF wants a “free” Internet – the ambitions are huge, the funds often narrow, and the groups “share” the same base of supporters. Group names change, but often the players stay the same. The latest misadventure won't cure their ailment. The council's ordinances won't be broad enough, fast enough, or good enough to please them. While their “values” campaign (à la W), should teach them a need for good relations and coherent proposal content, what is most likely to happen is redoubling of “vision” intensity. As the chasm grows wider, contempt will boil over and all local greens will take some lumps. A tragi-comedy is in the making.
Ricky Bird
Bastrop
Bastrop
This Is Where You Come In ...
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
In last week's article, “ACC Race: The Dirt” [News, May 12], Rachel Proctor May wrote “Perhaps it should come as no surprise that ... [it] has devolved into an ugly, rumor-mongering mess.” How sad that the majority of space in your paper dedicated to the ACC election was devoted to the politics of personal destruction in the Place 9 race. Where was the article devoted to a discussion of the issues that my worthy and honorable opponent, Mr. Ahart, and I were debating?
As your ACC trustee-elect in Place 8, I pledge to give six years of dedicated, quality community service. However, in order for government to work well we also need an informed public. That's where you come in. I strongly encourage you to more actively cover the actions of the ACC board of trustees. Be actively involved in informing the public year-round. Don't limit yourself to bringing out your shovels every two years trying to uncover dirt.
In last week's article, “ACC Race: The Dirt” [News, May 12], Rachel Proctor May wrote “Perhaps it should come as no surprise that ... [it] has devolved into an ugly, rumor-mongering mess.” How sad that the majority of space in your paper dedicated to the ACC election was devoted to the politics of personal destruction in the Place 9 race. Where was the article devoted to a discussion of the issues that my worthy and honorable opponent, Mr. Ahart, and I were debating?
As your ACC trustee-elect in Place 8, I pledge to give six years of dedicated, quality community service. However, in order for government to work well we also need an informed public. That's where you come in. I strongly encourage you to more actively cover the actions of the ACC board of trustees. Be actively involved in informing the public year-round. Don't limit yourself to bringing out your shovels every two years trying to uncover dirt.
Yours in service,
James McGuffee
James McGuffee
Complaint About Food Coverage
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
I sent Virginia Wood an e-mail awhile back about the lack of information on the quality of restaurants currently in the Chronicle. An example is the current issue: descriptions of people in the food business who are artists [“Musicians on the Menu,” Food, May 12]. Nothing about the businesses; quality of food, etc. Thank goodness Dale Rice is still available.
I sent Virginia Wood an e-mail awhile back about the lack of information on the quality of restaurants currently in the Chronicle. An example is the current issue: descriptions of people in the food business who are artists [“Musicians on the Menu,” Food, May 12]. Nothing about the businesses; quality of food, etc. Thank goodness Dale Rice is still available.
Joe Langston
[Editor responds: We're unclear on this one. Some issues we run restaurant reviews; other issues we run food-related features. Almost every issue we have Restaurant Roulette, with short comments on dozens and dozens of restaurants. What are we missing?]
Black a Snide Half-Wit
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
No doubt The Austin Chronicle is being deluged with letters of readers unhappy with the defeat of Propositions 1 and 2. I was surprised by the defeat, even with the massive campaign against them.
My reaction to the result is similar to when the American-Statesman endorsed Bush in 2000 and again, to my wonderment and dismay, in 2004. I've never bought the paper in the six years since.
Since the Chron is free, my solution is to simply stop reading Louis Black and his snide half-wit titles to letters.
For whatever reason I don't understand that he wants Austin encircled by toll roads, I just want to say to the majority who voted for them: you'll be paying the king of Spain to drive on the roads we've already paid for. Congratulations.
No doubt The Austin Chronicle is being deluged with letters of readers unhappy with the defeat of Propositions 1 and 2. I was surprised by the defeat, even with the massive campaign against them.
My reaction to the result is similar to when the American-Statesman endorsed Bush in 2000 and again, to my wonderment and dismay, in 2004. I've never bought the paper in the six years since.
Since the Chron is free, my solution is to simply stop reading Louis Black and his snide half-wit titles to letters.
For whatever reason I don't understand that he wants Austin encircled by toll roads, I just want to say to the majority who voted for them: you'll be paying the king of Spain to drive on the roads we've already paid for. Congratulations.
Sincerely,
Kenney C. Kennedy
Kenney C. Kennedy
Thanks for Helping Make Austin Safe for the Likes of Stratus, Trammell Crow ...
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
First, thanks for the editorial addendum to my last letter to the Chronicle [“Postmarks,” May 12]; you know, the snide comments you assured Rob D'Amico that you were going to be "more careful about" in the future [“Postmarks,” April 28], since it's unfair to letter writers, who have no opportunity for rebuttal.
My concerns about Clark-Madison's potential conflict of interest were characterized as a "hysterical and venomous personal attack.” Clark-Madison works for TateAustin, which represents many large corporate interests that might have been financially impacted by Props 1 and 2. In politics, when in doubt, follow the money! I will leave it to you to look at the anti-Prop contributors and put two and two together. Next time perhaps you might check your facts a little more before using the final word to trash a correspondent.
Also, thanks for helping to make Austin safe again for the likes of Stratus, Trammell Crow, and the HBA. I doubt it would have been possible without the thousands of lines of editorial content you devoted to the defeat of Props 1 and 2. William Randolph Hearst would have been most proud. A real newspaper might have tried to provide a little balance, perhaps by giving up some editorial space to the opposition; but we all know nothing of the sort exists in modern America.
Finally, I suggest you take a good look at the list of people and organizations you refer to as "Bunch Davidians": www.cleanaustin.org/endorsements.php. When I look at this list, I see a lot of folks who have worked long and hard for many years trying to make Austin a better place for everyone. I think these people deserve better than the disrespect you've shown them over the course of this campaign.
First, thanks for the editorial addendum to my last letter to the Chronicle [“Postmarks,” May 12]; you know, the snide comments you assured Rob D'Amico that you were going to be "more careful about" in the future [“Postmarks,” April 28], since it's unfair to letter writers, who have no opportunity for rebuttal.
My concerns about Clark-Madison's potential conflict of interest were characterized as a "hysterical and venomous personal attack.” Clark-Madison works for TateAustin, which represents many large corporate interests that might have been financially impacted by Props 1 and 2. In politics, when in doubt, follow the money! I will leave it to you to look at the anti-Prop contributors and put two and two together. Next time perhaps you might check your facts a little more before using the final word to trash a correspondent.
Also, thanks for helping to make Austin safe again for the likes of Stratus, Trammell Crow, and the HBA. I doubt it would have been possible without the thousands of lines of editorial content you devoted to the defeat of Props 1 and 2. William Randolph Hearst would have been most proud. A real newspaper might have tried to provide a little balance, perhaps by giving up some editorial space to the opposition; but we all know nothing of the sort exists in modern America.
Finally, I suggest you take a good look at the list of people and organizations you refer to as "Bunch Davidians": www.cleanaustin.org/endorsements.php. When I look at this list, I see a lot of folks who have worked long and hard for many years trying to make Austin a better place for everyone. I think these people deserve better than the disrespect you've shown them over the course of this campaign.
Patrick Goetz
Appalled and Confused at Demonstrations
RECEIVED Tue., May 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
This past April, in Dallas, I witnessed the immigration protest in the streets downtown. Coming from Hispanic decent on my mother's side, I was appalled and confused at the sight of hundreds of teenagers protesting in the streets and waving the Mexican flag and posters with statements such as "Viva Mexico" and "Mexicans deserve a chance to” (that is not a typo, that is the correct quotation).
Illegal teenage immigrants, whose special Hispanic classes my tax dollars pay for, had skipped school to carry around signs that said "Viva Mexico."
After reading the Chronicle's article [“Immigrants Flex Muscle,” News, May 5] and seeing that the protesting had continued, I was appalled. What about "Viva America" for giving you medical care when it was not earned? Or a job without a Social Security number?
Many U.S citizens have no understanding as to why, for so long, the government looked the other way when it came to illegal immigration. And now that the government wants to take action to fix the ongoing problem, the immigrants decide to flex their freedom-of-speech muscle.
Last time I checked, U.S. citizens have freedom of speech and protest. And, I wonder if it ever occurred to one single illegal immigrant protester to look into getting their green card instead of forming unions? They want to live the "American Dream"? Well, a part of that dream takes ambition.
This past April, in Dallas, I witnessed the immigration protest in the streets downtown. Coming from Hispanic decent on my mother's side, I was appalled and confused at the sight of hundreds of teenagers protesting in the streets and waving the Mexican flag and posters with statements such as "Viva Mexico" and "Mexicans deserve a chance to” (that is not a typo, that is the correct quotation).
Illegal teenage immigrants, whose special Hispanic classes my tax dollars pay for, had skipped school to carry around signs that said "Viva Mexico."
After reading the Chronicle's article [“Immigrants Flex Muscle,” News, May 5] and seeing that the protesting had continued, I was appalled. What about "Viva America" for giving you medical care when it was not earned? Or a job without a Social Security number?
Many U.S citizens have no understanding as to why, for so long, the government looked the other way when it came to illegal immigration. And now that the government wants to take action to fix the ongoing problem, the immigrants decide to flex their freedom-of-speech muscle.
Last time I checked, U.S. citizens have freedom of speech and protest. And, I wonder if it ever occurred to one single illegal immigrant protester to look into getting their green card instead of forming unions? They want to live the "American Dream"? Well, a part of that dream takes ambition.
Jacklyn Hinojosa Villacci
Dallas
Dallas
'Chronicle' Sides With Liars
RECEIVED Mon., May 15, 2006
Dear Editor,
Anyone who has lived here in Austin for 20 years or more can see and feel the damage done already to our beautiful ecosystem. Even with the protections afforded now, which are vastly not enough to save what is left, we know the damage is done. This damage is almost irreversible already! At the whim of developers and their allies in our city government, just to make a bigger buck for themselves or for their campaign war chests and the promise of a job in the private sector after their so-called civil service. It is a shame that the voting public is just a fraction of the population and is becoming more and more one-sided. These people lie and propagandize to get the dollar, all the while professing they are for the people and environment. Balderdash! The Statesman backs the issue with lies and half truths because the biggest advertisers are developers, the current mayor and council for the most part don't want to lose their gravy train either, and the rest are realtors and businesses that gain from the destruction of our proud hill country. Why the Chronicle sides with these people is beyond me. But the fact remains we have been led down this path of destruction that is fraught with rolling blackouts, polluted creeks, and rivers that you can't even swim in and drinking water that smells as bad as it tastes and is for you. If this is what intelligent progress is it stinks just like the water and the Snydley Whiplashes that create it. Save our aquifers now and turn the damage around or we all are in the treatment plants. Austin has always developed faster than the proper infrastructure could be placed, and that has always been very shortsighted. To keep developing the same way is just wrong and is of no benefit to the community but a few. Vote yes on Props 1 and 2 and help put a little life back in our beautiful Austin, and some controls on our deceiving politicians.
Anyone who has lived here in Austin for 20 years or more can see and feel the damage done already to our beautiful ecosystem. Even with the protections afforded now, which are vastly not enough to save what is left, we know the damage is done. This damage is almost irreversible already! At the whim of developers and their allies in our city government, just to make a bigger buck for themselves or for their campaign war chests and the promise of a job in the private sector after their so-called civil service. It is a shame that the voting public is just a fraction of the population and is becoming more and more one-sided. These people lie and propagandize to get the dollar, all the while professing they are for the people and environment. Balderdash! The Statesman backs the issue with lies and half truths because the biggest advertisers are developers, the current mayor and council for the most part don't want to lose their gravy train either, and the rest are realtors and businesses that gain from the destruction of our proud hill country. Why the Chronicle sides with these people is beyond me. But the fact remains we have been led down this path of destruction that is fraught with rolling blackouts, polluted creeks, and rivers that you can't even swim in and drinking water that smells as bad as it tastes and is for you. If this is what intelligent progress is it stinks just like the water and the Snydley Whiplashes that create it. Save our aquifers now and turn the damage around or we all are in the treatment plants. Austin has always developed faster than the proper infrastructure could be placed, and that has always been very shortsighted. To keep developing the same way is just wrong and is of no benefit to the community but a few. Vote yes on Props 1 and 2 and help put a little life back in our beautiful Austin, and some controls on our deceiving politicians.
Robin Johns
King or Clark-Madison?
RECEIVED Mon., May 15, 2006
Dear Louis Black,
You must put a leash on Mike Clark-Madison’s inability to take criticism without demanding the last word ["Postmarks," May 12]. If a letter-writer misstates facts, and there is plenty room for interpretation there, of course a correction is enlightening. But Michael King just seems to personally get upset.
You must put a leash on Mike Clark-Madison’s inability to take criticism without demanding the last word ["Postmarks," May 12]. If a letter-writer misstates facts, and there is plenty room for interpretation there, of course a correction is enlightening. But Michael King just seems to personally get upset.
Tom Cuddy
[Louis Black replies: Actually, I must not.]
'Chronicle' Used to Do Objective Endorsements
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Chronicle:
What’s happened to you lately? Used to be, when you opposed an issue on the ballot, you stated your opinion and your reasons, often with a little humor, and left it at that. Now in your opposition to Props 1 and 2 you have abandoned all pretense of journalistic objectivity – not merely in your editorials and endorsements, but in the “news” as well – to launch venomous attacks on every aspect of these attempts to save Barton Springs and our city processes. Your hysterical rantings seem to include everything but the kitchen sink, yet somehow overlook relevant facts. You’ve forgotten the connections between the criminal and polluting corporation Freeport-McMoRan and its local subsidiary Stratus, working with AMD to pave the watershed; you barely mention these things while they sprinkle the town with cash so nobody notices what they are really doing. Is mass bribery no longer worth reporting on? The vast majority of the proposition opposition’s funding comes from companies that benefit financially from development over the aquifer and are shrieking with rage at the prospect of their profit playground going off limits. Will Wynn trumpets his environmental accomplishments in his campaign letter and Web site, falsely claiming that he will protect the aquifer and Barton Springs, while remaining deafeningly silent on his failure to lead – or even act at all – against AMD’s ruinous plans, the main reason he failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement. You write about the sudden need (?) for a new downtown library but overlook the urgent need to act now to save Barton Springs. You’ve spent weeks distracting from the real issue. Voters, we can wait forever for the perfect solution, or we can act now to save the soul of our city, the best swimming pool in North America. Vote for Props 1 and 2.
What’s happened to you lately? Used to be, when you opposed an issue on the ballot, you stated your opinion and your reasons, often with a little humor, and left it at that. Now in your opposition to Props 1 and 2 you have abandoned all pretense of journalistic objectivity – not merely in your editorials and endorsements, but in the “news” as well – to launch venomous attacks on every aspect of these attempts to save Barton Springs and our city processes. Your hysterical rantings seem to include everything but the kitchen sink, yet somehow overlook relevant facts. You’ve forgotten the connections between the criminal and polluting corporation Freeport-McMoRan and its local subsidiary Stratus, working with AMD to pave the watershed; you barely mention these things while they sprinkle the town with cash so nobody notices what they are really doing. Is mass bribery no longer worth reporting on? The vast majority of the proposition opposition’s funding comes from companies that benefit financially from development over the aquifer and are shrieking with rage at the prospect of their profit playground going off limits. Will Wynn trumpets his environmental accomplishments in his campaign letter and Web site, falsely claiming that he will protect the aquifer and Barton Springs, while remaining deafeningly silent on his failure to lead – or even act at all – against AMD’s ruinous plans, the main reason he failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement. You write about the sudden need (?) for a new downtown library but overlook the urgent need to act now to save Barton Springs. You’ve spent weeks distracting from the real issue. Voters, we can wait forever for the perfect solution, or we can act now to save the soul of our city, the best swimming pool in North America. Vote for Props 1 and 2.
Karin Ascot
Political Chair of Austin Sierra Club.
Member of the board of directors of SOS Alliance
Political Chair of Austin Sierra Club.
Member of the board of directors of SOS Alliance
[Editor responds: "Used to be, when you opposed an issue on the ballot, you stated your opinion and your reasons, often with a little humor, and left it at that." Excuse me, when was that? Are you talking about the tens of thousands of words we wrote in favor of the SOS ordinance and protecting the environment over the years? Perhaps because you agreed with those you didn't notice that they were opinionated. But you are rewriting history here.]
Says What We Call the Props 'Plain Irresponsible': We Think the Props Are 'Plain Irresponsible'
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
I must admit that I'm really disappointed in your misrepresentation of Props 1 and 2. The dissenting opinions, especially of Prop. 2, are much more accurate and straightforward [Endorsements, May 12]. Proposition 2 only puts in writing what the city is saying (protect the aquifer) but isn't doing. The idea that tax dollars are being used to subsidize the destruction of the springs is insane and should not be allowed. This does not mean all construction in the watershed is banned but rather that we aren't having to pay for it. You have a huge impact on progressive voters, and your call on these props is just plain irresponsible.
I must admit that I'm really disappointed in your misrepresentation of Props 1 and 2. The dissenting opinions, especially of Prop. 2, are much more accurate and straightforward [Endorsements, May 12]. Proposition 2 only puts in writing what the city is saying (protect the aquifer) but isn't doing. The idea that tax dollars are being used to subsidize the destruction of the springs is insane and should not be allowed. This does not mean all construction in the watershed is banned but rather that we aren't having to pay for it. You have a huge impact on progressive voters, and your call on these props is just plain irresponsible.
Garret Nick
How Can 'Chronicle' Not Just Offer My Arguments?
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
Arguing against the Open Government online Proposition 1, Louis Black [“Page Two,” May 12] and Mike Clark-Madison [“Austin @ Large,” News, May 5] complain that its costs will harm social services. The Basic Needs Coalition of Central Texas did issue a press release saying that the city's “estimated cost to implement Proposition 1 poses a direct threat to the city's continuing support of social services and basic needs assistance.” This press release came out two months after sworn testimony demonstrated that the city's cost estimate was without basis and the court ordered the cost figure excluded from the City Council's misleading ballot language. The press release came after Liveable City estimated the cost would be $2 million or $3 million, not including the savings that would result. The city verified Liveable City's cost estimate.
The potential savings engendered by Proposition 1 are enormous. It would allow timely citizen input on backroom deals that in the past decade have cost Austin taxpayers more than $735 million, including the $37 million subsidy for a Neiman Marcus mall. In fact the only time social services have been substantially cut by the city in recent years was in response to the $483 million secret deal with the police union. In contrast, Proposition 1 would allow the public to have input next time before tax dollars are bargained away in secret.
When the world's wealthiest corporations receive large city subsidies and tax abatements from Austin, everyone supporting basic needs, including the need for clean water, are left scrambling for pennies. With reduced government funding social service agencies depend more heavily on corporate sponsors who are the recipients of city concessions. It is unfortunate that the coalition became a conduit for the inflated cost estimate first circulated by the city and that this error is now perpetuated and amplified in Chronicle editorials.
Arguing against the Open Government online Proposition 1, Louis Black [“Page Two,” May 12] and Mike Clark-Madison [“Austin @ Large,” News, May 5] complain that its costs will harm social services. The Basic Needs Coalition of Central Texas did issue a press release saying that the city's “estimated cost to implement Proposition 1 poses a direct threat to the city's continuing support of social services and basic needs assistance.” This press release came out two months after sworn testimony demonstrated that the city's cost estimate was without basis and the court ordered the cost figure excluded from the City Council's misleading ballot language. The press release came after Liveable City estimated the cost would be $2 million or $3 million, not including the savings that would result. The city verified Liveable City's cost estimate.
The potential savings engendered by Proposition 1 are enormous. It would allow timely citizen input on backroom deals that in the past decade have cost Austin taxpayers more than $735 million, including the $37 million subsidy for a Neiman Marcus mall. In fact the only time social services have been substantially cut by the city in recent years was in response to the $483 million secret deal with the police union. In contrast, Proposition 1 would allow the public to have input next time before tax dollars are bargained away in secret.
When the world's wealthiest corporations receive large city subsidies and tax abatements from Austin, everyone supporting basic needs, including the need for clean water, are left scrambling for pennies. With reduced government funding social service agencies depend more heavily on corporate sponsors who are the recipients of city concessions. It is unfortunate that the coalition became a conduit for the inflated cost estimate first circulated by the city and that this error is now perpetuated and amplified in Chronicle editorials.
Jane Norwood, PhD, LMSW
[News Editor Michael King responds: As we have reported, Judge Stephen Yelenosky did not rule that the city staff estimate of $36 million for the first year's implementation of Prop. 1 was "without basis" (in Jane Norwood's phrase) but that (as an estimate only) it was "insufficiently certain" (in the judge's phrase) to use on the ballot. Similarly, Liveable City did not give (nor did the city confirm) a $2 million-3 million estimate for Prop. 1 implementation as written, but for a more limited system much reduced in scope – a system that is not on the ballot nor in the amendment.]
You Think I'm Right?
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Louis Black,
I read your column last week, and I am familiar with your awkward form of writing (which I only realized after you pointed that out, but your ideas are usually interesting) [“Page Two,” May 12].
I've been working a lot of overtime for the IRS lately, opening mail and sorting forms and correspondence, and this schedule pretty much keeps me away from reading the Chronicle. During this peak period of time for the forms coming in, 14-hour workdays this year, uh, it's hard to read the Chronicle, or anything much, for me, lately, and this has been happening for me since 2002.
Anyway, to the point:
I don't know much about the local politics lately, havin' not read much for the past coupla months. A local roller girl gave me a Mike Martinez poster, which I put up outside my house. Then I read something, like he will bike to work if he gets elected to council, and this sounds good. Less traffic for me! Sometimes I bike, too; I would prefer that.
But to the main point here, the propositions ... I read your recent column, seems like everyone is for those props; they have good names, like the Orwellesque names the Bush administration uses, which usually, or always do about the opposite of what they sound like. While this may not be the intention/motivation of these local folks, anyway, you and Michael King seem to agree that these props are badly written, so badly that we should vote them down. Well, that has been my policy, as far as I remember back, to vote "no,” like on all 21 propositions. Yet, my main point here is that, how about you and your fellow writers write up what you would consider a good proposition, or propositions, and present them side by side with the ones we are voting on and print them like that in the Chronicle. Now that would be something we could really compare and discuss. You think I'm right?
I read your column last week, and I am familiar with your awkward form of writing (which I only realized after you pointed that out, but your ideas are usually interesting) [“Page Two,” May 12].
I've been working a lot of overtime for the IRS lately, opening mail and sorting forms and correspondence, and this schedule pretty much keeps me away from reading the Chronicle. During this peak period of time for the forms coming in, 14-hour workdays this year, uh, it's hard to read the Chronicle, or anything much, for me, lately, and this has been happening for me since 2002.
Anyway, to the point:
I don't know much about the local politics lately, havin' not read much for the past coupla months. A local roller girl gave me a Mike Martinez poster, which I put up outside my house. Then I read something, like he will bike to work if he gets elected to council, and this sounds good. Less traffic for me! Sometimes I bike, too; I would prefer that.
But to the main point here, the propositions ... I read your recent column, seems like everyone is for those props; they have good names, like the Orwellesque names the Bush administration uses, which usually, or always do about the opposite of what they sound like. While this may not be the intention/motivation of these local folks, anyway, you and Michael King seem to agree that these props are badly written, so badly that we should vote them down. Well, that has been my policy, as far as I remember back, to vote "no,” like on all 21 propositions. Yet, my main point here is that, how about you and your fellow writers write up what you would consider a good proposition, or propositions, and present them side by side with the ones we are voting on and print them like that in the Chronicle. Now that would be something we could really compare and discuss. You think I'm right?
Thanks,
Rick Nelson
Rick Nelson
Public Needs to Be Reminded of What Is Important
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
Speaking of teacher pay raises [“Triumph in the Lege?,” News, May 12], can someone please explain to me why the Legislature gave the judges/justices (some of which make anywhere in the range of $100,000 a year) of this state a 25% to 35% pay increase, and our childrens' teachers are getting a whopping pay increase of $2,000 a year? The state leaders obviously need a greater respect and understanding of the need to hire and maintain excellent teachers as they did for the judges! Thanks for your article. The public needs to be constantly reminded of what is important.
Speaking of teacher pay raises [“Triumph in the Lege?,” News, May 12], can someone please explain to me why the Legislature gave the judges/justices (some of which make anywhere in the range of $100,000 a year) of this state a 25% to 35% pay increase, and our childrens' teachers are getting a whopping pay increase of $2,000 a year? The state leaders obviously need a greater respect and understanding of the need to hire and maintain excellent teachers as they did for the judges! Thanks for your article. The public needs to be constantly reminded of what is important.
Another concerned parent,
Gena Pelham
Gena Pelham
Props Too Expensive and Go Too Far
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
Mr. Black's column on Unreasonable Discourse [“Page Two,” May 12] is a welcome exposé of the true nature of the agenda of the SOS Alliance and its supporters. In their search for the Holy Grail of saving Barton Springs, they are willing to reek havoc with our elected officials and city staff and defame anyone and everyone who opposes them. They ignore the fact that all “deals” negotiated in secret, must be approved by council in open meetings. Ignoring the facts has always been one of their greatest strengths.
Their real problem is they represent a very small minority of Austin citizens. They do not have the power to elect a majority to council to implement their agenda. Their alternative is to amend the charter, this eliminates the need to have their candidate scrutinized by all the citizens of Austin prior to being elected. Their amendments are long, confusing, poorly written, and impossible to effectively enforce, but their slogans of Open Government and Saving the Springs sound great. Sadly, if they are successful, the result will be millions wasted attempting to implement their plan, more millions in litigation by those damaged as a result of their plans, thousands of city staff hours wasted and the end of economic development in Austin. They hope this will hurt greedy developers, but in reality it will hurt Austin's workforce far more.
Those supporting the defeat of Props 1 and 2, state the obvious: These amendments are too expensive and go too far. Sadly, these truths are not and have never been a concern of the SOS and its supporters.
Mr. Black's column on Unreasonable Discourse [“Page Two,” May 12] is a welcome exposé of the true nature of the agenda of the SOS Alliance and its supporters. In their search for the Holy Grail of saving Barton Springs, they are willing to reek havoc with our elected officials and city staff and defame anyone and everyone who opposes them. They ignore the fact that all “deals” negotiated in secret, must be approved by council in open meetings. Ignoring the facts has always been one of their greatest strengths.
Their real problem is they represent a very small minority of Austin citizens. They do not have the power to elect a majority to council to implement their agenda. Their alternative is to amend the charter, this eliminates the need to have their candidate scrutinized by all the citizens of Austin prior to being elected. Their amendments are long, confusing, poorly written, and impossible to effectively enforce, but their slogans of Open Government and Saving the Springs sound great. Sadly, if they are successful, the result will be millions wasted attempting to implement their plan, more millions in litigation by those damaged as a result of their plans, thousands of city staff hours wasted and the end of economic development in Austin. They hope this will hurt greedy developers, but in reality it will hurt Austin's workforce far more.
Those supporting the defeat of Props 1 and 2, state the obvious: These amendments are too expensive and go too far. Sadly, these truths are not and have never been a concern of the SOS and its supporters.
Bill Lee
Doubts Props Will Pass
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
The Chronicle's willingness to discuss the merits of both sides has been a service to the community [Endorsements, May 12]. Despite the smoke of the partisans, Austin's Democrats are seriously split. Austin's Republicans will vote against. I very much doubt that Propositions 1 and 2 will pass.
The Chronicle's willingness to discuss the merits of both sides has been a service to the community [Endorsements, May 12]. Despite the smoke of the partisans, Austin's Democrats are seriously split. Austin's Republicans will vote against. I very much doubt that Propositions 1 and 2 will pass.
Davida Charney
No Human Development Is Ever Good
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
So the bottom line (as much as I loathe that word) is: Vote against 1 and 2 because the means with which they would allegedly protect the environment are too extreme and would compromise representative government, and their language is harsh and not (easily) amenable to recourse (some would also say the campaign is manipulatively simplifying). And the pro-props are debating that, claim by claim.
But the reasons I'd vote for them are exactly those. You say the city is already progressive and moving toward conscientious development. No human development is ever good in any way for nature (maybe except zoos and solely conservatory structures). It's a zero-sum game, and there's no turning back. Wake up: Progressive/conscientious development is an oxymoron. If we were to do it, we can do it – or at least convince ourselves we are doing it – “conscientiously” or less ruthlessly. But if we have a choice whether to do it in the first place, then no, I'd vote for no development. Period. Maybe I'm too cynical and value wildlife, clean water, and unspoilt land over human progress, but I'd vote for 1 and 2 precisely because it's brash, retaliatory, “unsophisticated.” I realize this may be very Bush-esque rhetoric, but sometimes you have to ... stoop to their level ... to actually get things done (good things, too). Radical gestures remain that – gestures, empty. It may take more sophistication to know when to be brusque and unrelenting, and it's time.
So the bottom line (as much as I loathe that word) is: Vote against 1 and 2 because the means with which they would allegedly protect the environment are too extreme and would compromise representative government, and their language is harsh and not (easily) amenable to recourse (some would also say the campaign is manipulatively simplifying). And the pro-props are debating that, claim by claim.
But the reasons I'd vote for them are exactly those. You say the city is already progressive and moving toward conscientious development. No human development is ever good in any way for nature (maybe except zoos and solely conservatory structures). It's a zero-sum game, and there's no turning back. Wake up: Progressive/conscientious development is an oxymoron. If we were to do it, we can do it – or at least convince ourselves we are doing it – “conscientiously” or less ruthlessly. But if we have a choice whether to do it in the first place, then no, I'd vote for no development. Period. Maybe I'm too cynical and value wildlife, clean water, and unspoilt land over human progress, but I'd vote for 1 and 2 precisely because it's brash, retaliatory, “unsophisticated.” I realize this may be very Bush-esque rhetoric, but sometimes you have to ... stoop to their level ... to actually get things done (good things, too). Radical gestures remain that – gestures, empty. It may take more sophistication to know when to be brusque and unrelenting, and it's time.
Kevin Hsu
Always Played the Heel
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
When I was growing up in Midland during the Fifties and Sixties, there was a wrestler we used to watch on local TV. He had a hairdo like a skunk tail, and he always played the “heel.” He'd be gouging an eyeball with the opponent in a choke hold while shaking his head at the ref, denying his obvious infraction.
Bush is looking more and more like a heel, in more ways than one. Merely the latest example is his reaction to the news that his security minions are tabulating every phone call made in America. No, Bush says, we're "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." No, I ain't gouging his eyes out, ref. National security! National security!
Add this reaction to similar ones on subjects like illegal wiretapping, torture, and rendition. The audience doesn't believe the president any more than it did that other heel.
When I was growing up in Midland during the Fifties and Sixties, there was a wrestler we used to watch on local TV. He had a hairdo like a skunk tail, and he always played the “heel.” He'd be gouging an eyeball with the opponent in a choke hold while shaking his head at the ref, denying his obvious infraction.
Bush is looking more and more like a heel, in more ways than one. Merely the latest example is his reaction to the news that his security minions are tabulating every phone call made in America. No, Bush says, we're "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." No, I ain't gouging his eyes out, ref. National security! National security!
Add this reaction to similar ones on subjects like illegal wiretapping, torture, and rendition. The audience doesn't believe the president any more than it did that other heel.
Ben Hogue
'Chronicle' Facilitating Bush Administration-Type Activities
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
Let's see, in Washington we have the Bush administration compensating journalists to generate and promote "advocacy news" presented as real news to support their agenda. Here in Austin it appears, we have the Chronicle allowing its writers to craft articles that promote the agenda of the PR firms employing them [“Austin @ Large,” News, May 5].
What is next from Clark-Madison and the Chronicle? Fast food is healthy for kids, or is it that global warming is a myth. Perhaps that will depend on the local PR firms.
Might it be easier for your readers to bypass the Chronicle altogether and simply go to TateAustin's Web site for its news?
I like my neighborhood library too.
Let's see, in Washington we have the Bush administration compensating journalists to generate and promote "advocacy news" presented as real news to support their agenda. Here in Austin it appears, we have the Chronicle allowing its writers to craft articles that promote the agenda of the PR firms employing them [“Austin @ Large,” News, May 5].
What is next from Clark-Madison and the Chronicle? Fast food is healthy for kids, or is it that global warming is a myth. Perhaps that will depend on the local PR firms.
Might it be easier for your readers to bypass the Chronicle altogether and simply go to TateAustin's Web site for its news?
I like my neighborhood library too.
Mark W. Tschurr
Changes Often Prove Permanent
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
Recently, for my husband's birthday, I gave him a copy of the book Austin, Texas Then and Now by local resident Jeffrey Kerr. It is filled with historical photos of Austin landmarks and how they appear today. He read it cover to cover one evening, then sat, looking thoroughly depressed. I asked him what was wrong. "They can't leave anything alone,” he said. Read the book. You'll see. (It really is a great book.)
Did you know that there was another spring right here in the center of town? Seider spring. It was a popular destination for swimming, picnicking, and relaxing by the water's edge. Sound familiar? All that is left of it today is a small trickle. It is paved over and a nondescript, corporate grocery store sits on top. When I thought about the area I wondered if the road dipped right there on 35th Street because there used to be water below it.
If AMD is allowed to build on the Barton Springs Watershed it will simply continue the process that turned Seider spring into asphalt and a historical marker instead of a cool body of water. Make no mistake. They really can't leave anything alone. Once we let one corporation bend the rules, they'll push the door wide open, and we'll never be able to close it again. It might not happen the year after they build it or even several years later. But it will happen. And maybe when my small children grow to be teenagers they'll tell us that the water at Barton Springs isn't safe to swim in anymore. And maybe by the time they are adults, with children of their own, Barton Springs will be a curious dip in the road that cars zoom over, unaware of the beauty that once lay beneath.
And maybe, right there on top of the deep end, a nondescript corporate grocery store will stand, exactly in the spot of the diving board where my son once stood.
As Kerr says in his book about our town, "The changes we impose often prove to be permanent."
Recently, for my husband's birthday, I gave him a copy of the book Austin, Texas Then and Now by local resident Jeffrey Kerr. It is filled with historical photos of Austin landmarks and how they appear today. He read it cover to cover one evening, then sat, looking thoroughly depressed. I asked him what was wrong. "They can't leave anything alone,” he said. Read the book. You'll see. (It really is a great book.)
Did you know that there was another spring right here in the center of town? Seider spring. It was a popular destination for swimming, picnicking, and relaxing by the water's edge. Sound familiar? All that is left of it today is a small trickle. It is paved over and a nondescript, corporate grocery store sits on top. When I thought about the area I wondered if the road dipped right there on 35th Street because there used to be water below it.
If AMD is allowed to build on the Barton Springs Watershed it will simply continue the process that turned Seider spring into asphalt and a historical marker instead of a cool body of water. Make no mistake. They really can't leave anything alone. Once we let one corporation bend the rules, they'll push the door wide open, and we'll never be able to close it again. It might not happen the year after they build it or even several years later. But it will happen. And maybe when my small children grow to be teenagers they'll tell us that the water at Barton Springs isn't safe to swim in anymore. And maybe by the time they are adults, with children of their own, Barton Springs will be a curious dip in the road that cars zoom over, unaware of the beauty that once lay beneath.
And maybe, right there on top of the deep end, a nondescript corporate grocery store will stand, exactly in the spot of the diving board where my son once stood.
As Kerr says in his book about our town, "The changes we impose often prove to be permanent."
Sincerely,
Lizzie Martinez
Lizzie Martinez
[Editor's note: As its SOS sponsors acknowledge, Prop. 2 will have no legal effect on AMD's decision to build on the watershed. They are hoping the public pressure represented by the vote will persuade the company to rescind its plans.]
Daniel Johnston's 'So-Called Illness'
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
Re: The Devil and Daniel Johnston: I never knew Daniel, nor was I familiar with his music or art, although we have something in common. We have both been involved with the world of bio-psychiatry. I was lucky enough to survive. I withdrew from drugs several years ago, and friends say my recovery is remarkable.
Someone needs to tell Mr. Black and the general public about Daniel's so-called “illness” [“Visions Holy and Damned, Innocent and Experienced,” Music, May 5]. He was doomed from the moment he was diagnosed manic-depressive (not a real illness). His parents were duped, like many, by psychiatry. The “wrong medication” indeed! I think the movie said it was Haldol. This proved to be his initiation into the world of bio-psychiatry and his life as a mental patient! It is true, according to the movie, that Daniel had some sort of emotional breakdown after he took LSD (not uncommon), resulting in his involvement with psychiatry and initiation into the world of psych drugs, leaving him never to be “well” again without the consistent use of the mind-altering drugs (another win for big pharma!). Each time he would try to quit, withdrawal effects caused the psychosis displayed in the movie that put himself and others in harm's way. Then came police and forced psychiatry.
Now, a shell of the creative genious he once was, Daniel has neither the wherewithal nor the initiative, much less the knowledge or support he would need, in order to withdraw from these horrible drugs and get his mind back.
I cried several times during the movie and am teary eyed now as I write. This is clearly a case of there being no appropriate resource for a magnificent human being in emotional distress.
Re: The Devil and Daniel Johnston: I never knew Daniel, nor was I familiar with his music or art, although we have something in common. We have both been involved with the world of bio-psychiatry. I was lucky enough to survive. I withdrew from drugs several years ago, and friends say my recovery is remarkable.
Someone needs to tell Mr. Black and the general public about Daniel's so-called “illness” [“Visions Holy and Damned, Innocent and Experienced,” Music, May 5]. He was doomed from the moment he was diagnosed manic-depressive (not a real illness). His parents were duped, like many, by psychiatry. The “wrong medication” indeed! I think the movie said it was Haldol. This proved to be his initiation into the world of bio-psychiatry and his life as a mental patient! It is true, according to the movie, that Daniel had some sort of emotional breakdown after he took LSD (not uncommon), resulting in his involvement with psychiatry and initiation into the world of psych drugs, leaving him never to be “well” again without the consistent use of the mind-altering drugs (another win for big pharma!). Each time he would try to quit, withdrawal effects caused the psychosis displayed in the movie that put himself and others in harm's way. Then came police and forced psychiatry.
Now, a shell of the creative genious he once was, Daniel has neither the wherewithal nor the initiative, much less the knowledge or support he would need, in order to withdraw from these horrible drugs and get his mind back.
I cried several times during the movie and am teary eyed now as I write. This is clearly a case of there being no appropriate resource for a magnificent human being in emotional distress.
Ellen Heath
Transformers Support Group
Bio-Psychiatric Survivors, Family and Friends
Transformers Support Group
Bio-Psychiatric Survivors, Family and Friends
How Many Times Have Bunch and SOSA Saved the Springs?
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
Just one question for Bill Bunch and the SOSA. Since, according to you and your group, every time someone paves a driveway or builds a house, Barton Springs is destroyed, how many times have you and your group saved Barton Springs? It's so fragile, I imagine it's been brought back from the brink of destruction dozens of times because since I've been here in Austin, according to SOS, Barton Springs has been destroyed at least a dozen times. Pave this road, it will destroy Barton Springs. Build an office complex, and Barton Springs is destroyed. Yadda yadda. You know Bill, people get tired of others who do nothing but scream about constant, impending disaster when it never materializes. Edwards Aquifer has millions if not billions of square feet of homes, roads, offices on it, and I swear, Barton Springs hasn't been destroyed yet. But to listen to SOS, there's fixin' to be an oil slick on it if one more building or road is built. Did MoPac destroy Barton Springs? Nope. Barton Creek Mall destroy it? Nope. The railroad? Nope. Did Rollingwood destroy it? Nope. Wonder why not – all are on "our most fragile treasure, the heart of Austin,” Barton Springs. And as we know, anything will "destroy Barton Springs,” just ask SOS. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Just one question for Bill Bunch and the SOSA. Since, according to you and your group, every time someone paves a driveway or builds a house, Barton Springs is destroyed, how many times have you and your group saved Barton Springs? It's so fragile, I imagine it's been brought back from the brink of destruction dozens of times because since I've been here in Austin, according to SOS, Barton Springs has been destroyed at least a dozen times. Pave this road, it will destroy Barton Springs. Build an office complex, and Barton Springs is destroyed. Yadda yadda. You know Bill, people get tired of others who do nothing but scream about constant, impending disaster when it never materializes. Edwards Aquifer has millions if not billions of square feet of homes, roads, offices on it, and I swear, Barton Springs hasn't been destroyed yet. But to listen to SOS, there's fixin' to be an oil slick on it if one more building or road is built. Did MoPac destroy Barton Springs? Nope. Barton Creek Mall destroy it? Nope. The railroad? Nope. Did Rollingwood destroy it? Nope. Wonder why not – all are on "our most fragile treasure, the heart of Austin,” Barton Springs. And as we know, anything will "destroy Barton Springs,” just ask SOS. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Carl Swanson
Supports Martinez for Council
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Chronicle editor,
I'm writing to ask The Austin Chronicle readers to vote for Mike Martinez for City Council on May 13. As an Austin firefighter and vice-president of the Austin Firefighters Association, I have worked alongside Mike and have watched his tireless fight for the interests of working families and his relentless commitment to improve and diversify the fire department. He has been a strong, smart, steady leader for all our community. Mike has the solid support of Austin firefighters.
I'm writing to ask The Austin Chronicle readers to vote for Mike Martinez for City Council on May 13. As an Austin firefighter and vice-president of the Austin Firefighters Association, I have worked alongside Mike and have watched his tireless fight for the interests of working families and his relentless commitment to improve and diversify the fire department. He has been a strong, smart, steady leader for all our community. Mike has the solid support of Austin firefighters.
Delia Garza
Austin firefighter
Austin firefighter
SRV Should Be in the Hall of Fame
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear sir/madame,
Why isn't Stevie Ray Vaughan a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
He gave so much to music by exposing the world to a new sound that entertained many diversified musical tastes. He single-handedly started a revolution by bringing the blues to the forefront at a time when the Eighties was epitomized by groups like Flock of Seagulls.
Stevie had been playing guitar since age 8. He started the band Double Trouble, becoming an overnight success. Even great blues players like B.B. King were impressed by his soulful sounds, passionate performances that enveloped you with his grimaces and electricity, shooting from his guitar and gravelly voice into your soul.
When he sang "Life Without You,” stopped midsong just to talk to fans about how he conquered addictions, asking them not to do drugs, to love one another and ending his speech with "are you with me?," the audience went wild. Lives changed forever, including my own. He risked his "coolness" to help others through his music. A task no other artist can claim.
He was more than a great musician. He was a good man. He was humble, modest, and kind. He was reborn, gave himself to God, and against all odds managed to quit alcoholism and drug abuse in 1986 because he wanted to keep playing his music to make us all happy.
On Aug. 27, 1990 the angels took Stevie Ray home. It's time for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to recognize and honor his legacy. YouTube.com has tons of videos, including comments by fans and musicians who were inspired.
Please do your part to get Stevie Ray Vaughan inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's up to all of us to thank him.
Why isn't Stevie Ray Vaughan a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
He gave so much to music by exposing the world to a new sound that entertained many diversified musical tastes. He single-handedly started a revolution by bringing the blues to the forefront at a time when the Eighties was epitomized by groups like Flock of Seagulls.
Stevie had been playing guitar since age 8. He started the band Double Trouble, becoming an overnight success. Even great blues players like B.B. King were impressed by his soulful sounds, passionate performances that enveloped you with his grimaces and electricity, shooting from his guitar and gravelly voice into your soul.
When he sang "Life Without You,” stopped midsong just to talk to fans about how he conquered addictions, asking them not to do drugs, to love one another and ending his speech with "are you with me?," the audience went wild. Lives changed forever, including my own. He risked his "coolness" to help others through his music. A task no other artist can claim.
He was more than a great musician. He was a good man. He was humble, modest, and kind. He was reborn, gave himself to God, and against all odds managed to quit alcoholism and drug abuse in 1986 because he wanted to keep playing his music to make us all happy.
On Aug. 27, 1990 the angels took Stevie Ray home. It's time for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to recognize and honor his legacy. YouTube.com has tons of videos, including comments by fans and musicians who were inspired.
Please do your part to get Stevie Ray Vaughan inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's up to all of us to thank him.
Rosana Modugno
Saint Petersburg, Fla.
Saint Petersburg, Fla.
Supports Lofton for Place 6
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
I have always thought that all of Austin should be represented on the City Council. Right now, most people would say that we have a fairly good balance, though East Austin does seem to be continually slighted by the council. That's one of the reasons I am supporting DeWayne Lofton for City Council Place 6. DeWayne, the only native Austinite in the race, is the only candidate running for Place 6 who is from historic East Austin, and he won't forget where he comes from once he gets to City Hall. I am voting for DeWayne Lofton because he will represent all of Austin – not the central city establishment, not the business interests, not the West Austin elite – but all of Austin, and that's exactly how it should be.
I have always thought that all of Austin should be represented on the City Council. Right now, most people would say that we have a fairly good balance, though East Austin does seem to be continually slighted by the council. That's one of the reasons I am supporting DeWayne Lofton for City Council Place 6. DeWayne, the only native Austinite in the race, is the only candidate running for Place 6 who is from historic East Austin, and he won't forget where he comes from once he gets to City Hall. I am voting for DeWayne Lofton because he will represent all of Austin – not the central city establishment, not the business interests, not the West Austin elite – but all of Austin, and that's exactly how it should be.
Sincerely,
Nate Walker
President emeritus
University Democrats
Nate Walker
President emeritus
University Democrats
Supported SOS Audience but Doesn't Props 1 & 2
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor:
In 1991, before very many people had even heard of SOS, I made a substantial contribution; I spent many hours entering voter registration numbers on petition sheets – unpaid of course, petition drives weren't a business in those days. I helped create Travis Audubon Society's support of the original proposition. I had nothing to do with writing it, but I knew those that did, and the original SOS was never intended to be a first step. It was a well-written proposition meant to be the last word. My feelings about the environment and politics have not changed. I am opposed to Propositions 1 and 2, as are most of the people I have admired in this fight. I know Proposition 1, is bad and I think Proposition 2 is bad.
At the time of the first referendum, we regarded ballot access as difficult and we were careful. Now initiatives are common and poorly written. 'Tis sad.
In 1991, before very many people had even heard of SOS, I made a substantial contribution; I spent many hours entering voter registration numbers on petition sheets – unpaid of course, petition drives weren't a business in those days. I helped create Travis Audubon Society's support of the original proposition. I had nothing to do with writing it, but I knew those that did, and the original SOS was never intended to be a first step. It was a well-written proposition meant to be the last word. My feelings about the environment and politics have not changed. I am opposed to Propositions 1 and 2, as are most of the people I have admired in this fight. I know Proposition 1, is bad and I think Proposition 2 is bad.
At the time of the first referendum, we regarded ballot access as difficult and we were careful. Now initiatives are common and poorly written. 'Tis sad.
Raymond Heitmann
Intense Campaign Over Props 1 & 2 Are Good for All: Besides, It's the Council's Fault
RECEIVED Thu., May 11, 2006
Dear Editor,
Apparently, Black doesn't actually like democracy – or at least not the part about people strongly disagreeing with each other [“Page Two,” May 12]. Since the very first elections in this country, political campaigns have been hot, and people get involved at a personal level. When there is no heat, it may be a sign that neither the officials we elect nor the propositions before us actually promise anything significant to the voters. Then we think our vote doesn't matter.
This election is about real issues that matter – development over the watershed and the accountability of our government. More than any election in recent memory, the propositions have forced candidates to stake out positions on these issues, even if they say they oppose the propositions themselves. We have enjoyed a rich public debate about tax abatements, grandfathering, toll roads, access to information, police accountability, and much more.
If Black doesn't like the tone of that debate, he should look to City Council, who set the tone at the very beginning. A court had to step in and overturn the council's very personal, very black-and-white reaction.
When council launches its campaign from the dais, using its public acts to electioneer, the tone has been set, and not in a civil or respectful way.
I usually agree with the Chronicle's endorsements, but the council's reaction alone is the reason I'm voting for 1 and 2 – it really makes me wonder if they have something to hide.
Apparently, Black doesn't actually like democracy – or at least not the part about people strongly disagreeing with each other [“Page Two,” May 12]. Since the very first elections in this country, political campaigns have been hot, and people get involved at a personal level. When there is no heat, it may be a sign that neither the officials we elect nor the propositions before us actually promise anything significant to the voters. Then we think our vote doesn't matter.
This election is about real issues that matter – development over the watershed and the accountability of our government. More than any election in recent memory, the propositions have forced candidates to stake out positions on these issues, even if they say they oppose the propositions themselves. We have enjoyed a rich public debate about tax abatements, grandfathering, toll roads, access to information, police accountability, and much more.
If Black doesn't like the tone of that debate, he should look to City Council, who set the tone at the very beginning. A court had to step in and overturn the council's very personal, very black-and-white reaction.
When council launches its campaign from the dais, using its public acts to electioneer, the tone has been set, and not in a civil or respectful way.
I usually agree with the Chronicle's endorsements, but the council's reaction alone is the reason I'm voting for 1 and 2 – it really makes me wonder if they have something to hide.
Sincerely,
David Mauro
David Mauro