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,
    As a Downtown business owner and free-thinking citizen, I am very disappointed by the recent ruling of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court to uphold Austin's smoking ordinance. The constant scrutinization and rendering of this ordinance has taken an unconstitutionally vague law and made it even more vague. It is impossible to expect people to comply with rules that they do not fully understand and that change on a regular basis. Additionally, I find the smoking ban to be incredibly insulting to the freedom and intelligence of businesses and consumers alike. Here's how I thought it worked: “I run my business the way I choose, and you choose whether or not you want to spend your time and money there.” Pretty simple, huh? Wouldn't a more viable solution be to post your smoking policies at the door so that potential patrons could choose whether or not to enter? Or would that require too much free thought?

   [Editor's note: For more on this, see Austin Powell's April 4 Music column, "Off the Record."]

Dear Editor,
    Recently I saw an Internet news story about the loosely organized trucking strike. The truck drivers had spread the word that they would park their rigs from Tuesday through Friday in an effort to bring down soaring diesel-fuel prices. I applaud those who participated in this.
    Why can't the entire country do the same thing? The oil companies are making historic profits on record-high fuel prices simply because they can. As a country, when will we say enough is enough? Do you have any idea what would happen if all trucks parked for a week? How about if every person in the United States refused to drive their vehicle for a week? Better yet, refused to do anything? No work, no shopping, no TV or air conditioning. Everyone just stay at home, shut everything off, and play cards or board games by candlelight.
    What if we let the oil and energy companies sit on their product for seven days? We could have two demands:
    1) Oil must drop to $35 a barrel;
    2) Price at the pump is lowered to below $1.50 a gallon.
    The great part is the oil companies would still be making profits in the billions … just not 40 billion a quarter.

Dear Editor,
    The City Council has taken to changing the game rules when they stymie a favored constituent. These ordinance revisions are put on a fast track by staff and then passed as an "emergency" in one reading instead of the traditional three with little citizen input.
    On Feb. 15, a Friday notice was mailed for a Planning Commission hearing on Feb. 26 to consider an amendment to Austin's Land Development Code to allow subsurface structures to be excluded from impervious cover measurements. On March 6, less than three weeks after the notice, it became law. This wiped out the policy, which considered underground parking as 100% impervious cover, requiring a minimum topping of 4 feet of soil, not enough for tree planting but enough for shrubs. The new ordinance changed that to 2 feet and an average of 4. And allowed Constellation's Star Riverside development (within the Waterfront Overlay on Lady Bird Lake) to proceed as planned.
    On March 21, a notice was mailed to announce a revision of the Sign Regulations to allow billboards on some scenic roadways and revise upward some size and height limitations. Our only hope to see the eventual end of billboards in Texas is by attrition. This ordinance change, initiated by Mike Martinez and Betty Dunkerley, is to give incentive to a sign company to remove two offending billboards in East Austin. There are more than a handful of offensive billboards, but the solution would not balance their removal by allowing many more in areas where they are now prohibited. This ordinance goes to the Planning Commission on April 8 and the council on April 10. What do you bet that it is passed as an "emergency"?

Dear Chronicle,
    Your article “Curious Development Afoot Over Aquifer” [News, March 28] is indeed curious, in that it reviews the grave concerns being expressed about the spray dispersal of wastewater in the Barton Springs contributing zone, yet that is exactly what is being done in every new development out there right now, and no one seems to be saying a thing about it. I have recently written about this matter, suggesting there is a better course of action for the residents of these developments, for their neighbors, and for the environment. New homes in this watershed are almost universally served by aerobic treatment unit systems, permitted by the county, with the effluent being sprayed over the lawns. The very interests that are decrying the idea that 1,377 homes would have their wastewater treated in a managed collective system, subjected to frequent testing, and the effluent sprayed over the landscape would sit silently by as that same number of homes had their wastewater treated to a much lower quality in treatment units of highly questionable reliability that are subjected to next-to-nonexistent management and no testing, with the effluent also sprayed – after highly questionable “disinfection” – over essentially the same landscape. This is the sort of “regulation” that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – and the public – allows the counties to apply, as long as the damage is done “only” one lot at a time. Then people run to TCEQ yelling about a proposal for doing this, only with better equipment and better management, on a collective basis. You suppose they will ever wake up and understand that the same thing – only without any real management or any pretense of assuring any level of water quality – has been going on all around them all along?
    We can do a much better job of managing our water resources in these sorts of developments (assuming the public agrees they should even be there – a whole 'nother issue). Using more “fail-safe” treatment methods and routing effluent to true beneficial reuse in subsurface drip-irrigation fields is a model that should be emulated in every development in this region. This scheme can be scaled up to served collective systems as well. Belterra is an example of a situation where applying such a scheme could not only obviate the ongoing fight over stream discharge of the effluent but also contribute very positively to the local and regional water economy. We need to stop treating “waste” water like it’s a nuisance to be gotten rid of and start addressing it like the resource that it is. Not just the water quality in Barton Springs but the very sustainability of economic development in this region depends on doing just that.

Dear Editor,
    Austin has been searching for the truth about water and Barton Springs for decades. Mr. Bill Bunch erroneously states [“Postmarks,” March 28] Lee Leffingwell's modification to the Barton Springs ordinance would increase development. Certainly Barton Springs water quality has suffered from developers insensitive to the environment, but not Leffingwell’s efforts to permit redevelopment.
    There are no projects taking advantage of the ordinance. If there were, they would have to comply with Save Our Springs water-quality goals – nondegradation – which at this stage of Southwest Austin development would only serve to improve water quality. Still, Leffingwell’s attempt to promote redevelopment adding water-quality ponds falls short. Neither the city nor the market offers any developer an incentive worth losing existing revenue streams just to redevelop SOS noncompliant property.
    Today, many (but not all) developers are more sensitive to the environment. But the city is not responding to current scientific studies or facts on the ground. The persistent focus on impervious cover prevents a more informed discussion from taking place on watershed-based strategies to protect Barton Springs.
    One analysis by Andrés Duany tells us suburban sprawl creates three times more impervious cover per living unit than New Urbanist development. Research provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan, and the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan all state sprawl is the cause of water quality problems, not development per se.
    Population growth is a reality Austin cannot ignore. Austin does not have a viable strategy to protect Barton Springs from that growth. The city must preserve open space, not mandate low-density suburban development. New Urbanism offers more realistic strategies to protect Barton Springs than either Mr. Bunch or the city. But without linking development to preserving open space, even that policy would fail. Time is short. Change is needed.

Dear Editor,
    I'm writing in response to Ricardo Acevedo's letter to the editor in the March 28 edition of the Chronicle [“Postmarks”]. Mr. Acevedo wrote in saying that "progressive modern people" should be outraged that there's a show playing in town called The Dick Monologues. Apparently his delicate sensibilities have been offended by this "retro-feminist sexism," and while I really don't want to explore all of the possible psychological reasons the title of this show bothers him so much, I will say this in the spirit of helpfulness and understanding: Dude, get a fucking life.

Dear Editor,
    It's not surprising that Austin's air is heavily polluted. Blaming Houston will not help. There are many very simple things we can do.
    How about an anti-idling campaign? Idling motor vehicles put out heat and poison gas. What if motorists switched off their engines while sitting in traffic jams?
    How about a ban on gasoline-powered leaf blowers? Even Los Angeles has banned these monstrosities.
    And how about treating people who aren't in cars as full citizens? Ten years ago, the City Council announced that it would vastly increase the percentage of Austinites who walk and bicycle for transportation. In this time, Bogotá, Colombia; Paris; and London have succeeded wildly at this. And Austin has done nothing.
    Austin supports increased population density without increased pedestrian space. If we can't have sidewalks, how about pedestrian lanes? Austin talks big about “walkability” and treats pedestrians like dirt.
    Why don't we have midblock crosswalks on busy streets in places where people actually cross? Every weekday, state office workers walk across Lamar to eat lunch in the Triangle. No crosswalks. No recognition that pedestrians even exist.
    Get off the train in Chicago, and you'll be on streets lined with bicycle racks. You'll see plenty of bicycles, too, both parked and in motion. Why isn't Congress Avenue lined with bicycle racks? Why aren't bicyclists clearly welcome on Austin streets?
    Austin's drive-by New Urbanism is just like its clean-air policy – empty talk by hopeless car addicts. Without car-free leaders, I fear that nothing will change.

Dear Editor,
    Notwithstanding Michael Ventura’s defense [“Letters @ 3am,” March 28] of Barack Obama’s minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the United States of America remains the only positive and effective sovereign republican force defending human freedom. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, he now owns his preacher’s intellectual and moral distortions, as well as his reeking anti-Americanism.
    To briefly review. At great expense in blood and treasure, America has saved the world from tyranny multiple times. The U.S. put the final decisive nail in the coffin of slavery bestowing civil, voting, and property rights to all citizens – regardless of race or gender. America developed and promulgates the most dynamic economic model ever devised elevating living standards for all and extending life spans to levels nothing short of miraculous. This system has generated trillions of taxpayer dollars that Americans have willingly donated to a needy humanity – domestic and international. And this astounding model is available to all.
    To be sure, in historical context the citizens of the U.S. are the most productive, compassionate, and courageous contributors to mankind to ever have existed. Indeed, America is, as Abe Lincoln observed, “the last best hope of earth.” Sadly, Mr. Ventura’s position is exactly the opposite. It proves a key philosophical, ideological, and obvious lethal flaw of postmodern leftism – historical perspective is pliable wherein no good deed (by the U.S.) goes unpunished.
    At bottom, Mr. Wright’s sympathies reveal a profoundly disturbed and dangerous person lacking any claim of clear moral and rational thought. And unless Mr. Obama unequivocally condemns Mr. Wright’s rancid anti-Americanism, he proves himself undeserving of the presidency. And this is separate from Mr. Obama’s unworthiness because of his liberty-killing extreme leftism. Furthermore, Mr. Wright’s, Mr. Obama’s, and Mr. Ventura’s positions once again reveal why neo-leftism must be filed in the category of unhinged philosophical, ideological, and political darkness.

Hey y’all,
    Just wanted to thank Ricardo Acevedo for writing in a letter to the editor last week and mentioning The Dick Monologues [“Postmarks,” March 28] – we’re grateful for the publicity. I confess I was curious if Ricardo had seen the show since what he described doesn’t really feel to me like what we’re doing. I gave him a call, and he said no, he hadn’t seen the show.
    Just wanted to clarify – while I love the idea of a performance dedicated to “retro-feminist sexism,” as Ricardo suggests the show is, and while I hate to be too hard on him (get it? I said “hard on”), thing is, we call it The Dick Monologues because it’s a series of readings, songs, and poems about Dick Van Dyke. In fact, we were going to call it The Dick Van Dyke Monologues, but some fucking politically correct cast member suggested if we did that, the damn lesbians would get all up in arms on us. And like an idiot, I listened. So there you have it – another attempt at political correctness gone straight to hell.
    We sure hope y’all will come out and see us sometime. The group cover of the theme song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang at the end is a real showstopper.

Dear Editor,
    I suppose I have never before attempted to purchase beer on a Sunday morning. However, I stopped by a store this Sunday to buy a few brews and was turned away. You know why? Because it is the Lord's day. So let me get this straight. The church says that we shouldn't drink alcohol on Sunday. So our government makes and enforces laws prohibiting purchasing beer on Sunday morning. OK, I have a couple of problems with this.
    First, separation of church and state! Surely all you "founding fathers" people can agree on that. Second, believe it or not, beer keeps in the fridge for at least one day, so that silly law really doesn't stop people from drinking on Sunday morning. Perhaps we should just skip the no-alcohol sales on Sunday and make it mandatory for everyone to attend church.

Dear Editor,
    I've been reluctant to weigh in on Villa Muse because my company fervently supports all new media ventures in the area. But VM has been releasing information that is not supportable by facts. My company has been engaged twice in the last few years to perform feasibility studies on the potential of large-scale music recording and film production and postproduction facilities. We looked at every conceivable iteration of such a venture and analyzed potential start-up costs against potential income and profit. Getting to the point: There is no way a media complex as press-released and described by VM would work. Let's be honest, folks: Austin, and even the entire state of Texas, is not going to become a major media market rivaling New York or Los Angeles – ever. It's not to say we don't support realistic ventures, and, when properly planned and sized to reality, such ventures can certainly be successful. Austin actually does need, and could support, a well-implemented, state-of-the-art postproduction facility.
    What worries me, as a designer of media facilities, is that the next time a well-planned and realistic media venture comes before City Council or a responsible bank for approvals or funding, the "VM legacy" will impact those decision-makers because of its absurdity.
    VM says the complex will generate a $6.5 billion benefit annually to the area. Billion with a “B”? Forty thousand new jobs? I would very much like to see the Perryman Group and Angelou Economics studies they cite – and compare to the research we’ve done. We interviewed film and music industry executives comparable to the many names dropped by VM … everyone agrees Austin is a very viable place to shoot films, a well-known music town, and a great place to develop video games … and don’t you guys have that Festival? … but the kind of new studio complex investment VM talks about isn’t being contemplated even in Hollywood in today’s economic climate.
    I’m curious why the many supporters of VM, as currently planned, haven’t examined their claims more closely. These numbers do not add up, and bad facts decrease the chance that legitimate future projects will receive support.