Antone's Nightclub
How About Letting Voters Think for Themselves?
RECEIVED Mon., Oct. 27, 2008
Dear Editor,
In last week’s Chronicle, Michael King told us that we should oppose Proposition 2 ["Point Austin: Unpropped,” News, Oct. 17] because of the potential unintended consequences “causing municipal headaches and unnecessary expense over other projects (i.e., projects other than the Domain), while eliminating a useful city tool that can and has worked well.” A couple of days later, I get a letter in the mail from Will Wynn in which he emphatically states that “Proposition 2 would not change the City’s current or future incentive policy in any way,” citing this as a reason we should oppose Prop. 2. Can you people at least get your stories straight? It’s insulting to Austin voters that you seem to believe that you can get us to vote against Prop. 2 for mutually exclusive reasons! Louis Black tells us the decision to oppose Prop. 2 was a difficult one ["Page Two,” Oct. 24], with “even more division than usual, even among Chronicle staff.” If that’s the case, then why the uninterrupted stream of anti-Prop. 2 articles? How about giving 1,000 words of column space to someone who supports Prop. 2 and letting voters think for themselves? That might allow someone to respond to Katherine Gregor’s Chicken Little assertions about how Prop. 2 would kill the Mueller deal ["Developing Stories: Controlling Developers,” News, Oct. 24], not to mention end affordable housing forevermore. Let me use my remaining 100 words to take a haikulike stab at responding to Gregor: If the city had simply blanketed Mueller with CBD-CURE zoning and sold it to the highest bidder, they would have been able to build at least 10 times as much affordable housing, with plenty of money left over for libraries, parks, and infrastructure. Instead, they decided to basically give the land to an out-of-state developer. If there’s any deal that needs to be carefully looked over again, it’s Mueller!
In last week’s Chronicle, Michael King told us that we should oppose Proposition 2 ["Point Austin: Unpropped,” News, Oct. 17] because of the potential unintended consequences “causing municipal headaches and unnecessary expense over other projects (i.e., projects other than the Domain), while eliminating a useful city tool that can and has worked well.” A couple of days later, I get a letter in the mail from Will Wynn in which he emphatically states that “Proposition 2 would not change the City’s current or future incentive policy in any way,” citing this as a reason we should oppose Prop. 2. Can you people at least get your stories straight? It’s insulting to Austin voters that you seem to believe that you can get us to vote against Prop. 2 for mutually exclusive reasons! Louis Black tells us the decision to oppose Prop. 2 was a difficult one ["Page Two,” Oct. 24], with “even more division than usual, even among Chronicle staff.” If that’s the case, then why the uninterrupted stream of anti-Prop. 2 articles? How about giving 1,000 words of column space to someone who supports Prop. 2 and letting voters think for themselves? That might allow someone to respond to Katherine Gregor’s Chicken Little assertions about how Prop. 2 would kill the Mueller deal ["Developing Stories: Controlling Developers,” News, Oct. 24], not to mention end affordable housing forevermore. Let me use my remaining 100 words to take a haikulike stab at responding to Gregor: If the city had simply blanketed Mueller with CBD-CURE zoning and sold it to the highest bidder, they would have been able to build at least 10 times as much affordable housing, with plenty of money left over for libraries, parks, and infrastructure. Instead, they decided to basically give the land to an out-of-state developer. If there’s any deal that needs to be carefully looked over again, it’s Mueller!
Patrick Goetz