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.

Michael Ventura did his usual fine job blasting away at the pinata-load of oddball 9/11 conspiracies ("Zelda's Law and 9/11") ["Letters at 3am," Sept. 23], but he is factually incorrect on two points.
    New York in the 1970s may have had the most corrupt construction inspection system in the nation, but no New York City inspector ever inspected the World Trade Center site. The World Trade Center was constructed by the Port Authority of New York, a 1920s, two-state entity set up under federal law which reports to neither state. The city had no legal right to determine how the Port Authority constructed any facility. New York City building authorities didn’t OK the plans or inspect the construction site. If the plans had been submitted, they would have been immediately rejected because the unique and highly unusual design met neither NYC nor state building codes.
    This design problem seems to have been well understood in the aftermath of the attack. The federal agencies responsible for investigating airplane crashes and building failures were kept away from the scene. Almost all of the bent and broken, individually numbered structural steel pieces that would have made an investigation possible were sent to Staten Island and melted down. Nobody wanted the issue raised. The first act of Congress after 9/11 was to pass a law making all 9/11 costs the responsibility of the federal government, lifting the potential burden of the flawed design from the Port Authority.
    Second, almost all U.S. construction steel contains 90% recycled material. Any impurities in the old car fenders, structural steel, and tin cans being recycled are burned off when the old steel is melted down. To my knowledge there has never been any suggestion that defective steel caused the collapse of the World Trade Center. The steel was fine; the design was not.

Dear Staff:
    What happened to the formerly reliable inclusion of Click and Clack? Each week that was one of the first articles I turned to, along with Barbaro's soccer column and Jordan Smith's reports.
    Does my question need more exposure in your letters to the editor?
    Also, it seems that you have added more color printing.
    And, perhaps I am mistaken, but didn't you several months back add saddle stitch?

Dear Mr. Black,
    I have read closely the Jordan Smith article in the Sept. 2, 2011, Austin Chronicle, "Poison in the Park," and I wish to tell you that you and your publication must immediately cease printing the defamatory and libelous statements about me and my actions that this article contains.
    The following statements are errors of fact that could have been easily prevented if your reporter had bothered to take the time to interview me or interview the appropriate Parks & Recreation Department personnel:
    Column 1, line 13: "… the park is a mess." This statement is false and cannot be supported by the facts and can easily be disproved by on-site inspection of the park.
    Column 1, line 14: "Trees are dying." While numerous chinaberry trees have died and numerous woody annular small trees/large shrubs like waxleaf ligustrum are dead or dying, there are no trees of size or import that are dying or affected from my actions in Stacy Park. All of the plants that I sprayed in the park (with the exception of two catalpas growing in a power line easement) are trees and shrubs that PARD, Watershed Protection, and Austin ISD agreed to have killed. I refuse to take seriously any complaints about my killing these two catalpas in a powerline easement, as my doing so now makes Austin Energy's necessary line-maintenance work easier.
    Column 1, lines 15-17: "… residents are concerned about the possible effects of the chemicals on the area wildlife, as well as on children and pets." By implication this statement implies that the chemicals I used, Remedy and Garlon 3A, as well as methylated seed oil, are dangerous to human or animal health. This statement is false, and these chemicals would not be on the market, as over-the-counter products, if they had such dangers. Additionally, triclopyr, the active ingredient, has been OTC since its introduction in 1978. Furthermore, if there was any significant health danger from triclopyr, it would have been listed under California Proposition 65 as a hazardous chemical, and despite the best efforts of various parties to do so in as environmentally conscious a state as California, these parties have been unable to do so.
    There is also the issue of statements like this having the potential to promote individuals to take unlawful actions against me and my property. In a city like Austin, this is a real possibility that cannot be disregarded. While this statement is itself not an incitement to violence, a factual misstatement of this magnitude does put me at some risk, particularly when it is combined with the other numerous misstatements of facts in this article.
    Column 1, line 24: I am quoted as saying that poison ivy is invasive. This is not something I have ever said. Poison ivy is and has always been a native plant to North America. Using the term "invasive" implies that it is a non-native invasive plant like chinaberry or waxleaf ligustrum. Your reporter's putting her or some other party's words in my mouth in this manner implies that I lack basic botanical knowledge.
    Column 2, lines 7-8: This statement is taken out of context from the IPM plan. The EPA has always certified Garlon 3A, the salt formulation of triclopyr, for direct application to bodies of water to control aquatic weeds, anywhere in the country, any time. Therefore, there is no need for any sort of buffer zone when using it near any body of water. All of my foliar spraying in Stacy Park was done with Garlon 3A. As far as the basal spraying of targeted species with the methylated seed oil/Remedy mix, all of the spraying was done with a solid stream from a handheld spray unit from a range of one foot or less. The amount of skill necessary to hit the target at this range is most modest, hence PARD and Watershed Protection's agreement to this use here and elsewhere in Austin.
    Column 2, lines 15-16: "… after swaths of vegetation in the park began to die." The only "swaths of vegetation" that died was vegetation that needed to be removed for health and safety reasons. There were in fact swaths of poison ivy along Alta Vista Drive and Sunset Drive that grew out into the street and sidewalk, posing a clear and inexcusable safety hazard to any passerby. The undercanopy trash trees growing in the triangular area immediately north of Travis Heights Elementary could perhaps be called a "swath." By agreement with Austin ISD and the Travis Heights Elementary PTA, the undercanopy brush/non-native invasives/competing undesirable species of inferior trees that were growing in this location were killed for safety reasons to remove the wino nesting areas therein. The ligustrums and other non-native invasives selectively and individually killed cannot reasonably be called "swaths."
    Column 2, lines 17-20: The quotations from unnamed neighbors about how other plants have been damaged from my actions, including box elders, cedar elms, and mustang grapes is false and defamatory. Mustang grapes are a targeted species per orders from Troy Houtman, PARD operations manager, and this matter would have been easily verified had your reporter asked him. Anyone with a modicum of landscaping or plant biology knowledge is aware of how mustang grape vines choke and kill the trees they grow in, and the choice has always been trees or grapevines. Both your reporter and the South River City Citizens Neighborhood Association complainants lack this elementary knowledge.
    Column 2, line 45: The statement that I performed my work without oversight overlooks the useful direct oversight John Estrada of PARD provided on several occasions. This statement is therefore false.
    Column 3, lines 4-8: Again, the falsehood is reported about lack of oversight. An additional falsehood is made from your unnamed neighborhood sources and printed about my failure to provide adequate signage.
    Column 3, lines 12-17: The statement that I was spraying mustang grapes and thereby putting people and animals at risk from eating "poisoned" grapes is false. Furthermore, it is even more easily refuted by noting the ripening dates of mustang grapes this year and comparing those dates with my spraying dates.
    The photo caption as well as the photo itself are misleading to the point of being false. The caption reads "Plants and trees in Stacy Park began to die after a Parks and Recreation Department volunteer sprayed herbicide to eradicate invasive species." This caption makes the clear false and defamatory inference that I injured trees and plants from overspray. This statement is substantially false. There is exactly one instance of significant overspray damage in the park, to a live oak bent into a semicircle whose canopy is on the ground, and I have done my best to alleviate the overspray damage by watering and fertilizing the tree. The same people who are complaining to you in this article have objected to my use of fertilizer on the tree and have objected to my watering the tree and have, in consort with PARD, kept me from any additional watering, which, in my professional opinion, is necessary and is not being done by PARD or any other city of Austin agency nor by any of the complainants in the article. I cannot account for the unwillingness and failure of these parties to do this necessary work. If this tree dies or suffers significant injury, I cannot be held responsible because I have been prevented from performing my professional tasks and duties here for no good reason.
    Mr. Black, I have been doing poison ivy control for various nonprofits here in Austin since 2004. I have a great deal of experience in performing the necessary tasks in herbicide application in urban/suburban areas. I have, through my experiences in dealing with a wide range of city of Austin agencies and AISD, discovered that my level of professional knowledge about herbicides and invasives control and poison ivy control exceeds any city or AISD employee's that I have come across. There is just a terrible lack of professional knowledge and skill on this essential subject here in the city and AISD bureaucracy. Poison ivy can be successfully controlled and largely eliminated with efforts like mine using the same safe chemicals I used. Non-native plants require the use of these same chemicals in the manner I applied them if they are to be controlled. The various city and private parties' past efforts at non-native invasives control have almost entirely failed when herbicides were not used, and questions must be asked about the seriousness and sincerity of these agencies' past efforts at this task. And there is the question of how trash tree invasion, damage, and destruction of expensive public works is supposed to be stopped without using herbicides. This problem is endemic throughout Austin and requires our attention, now.
    While I may have done this work as a volunteer, I resent the article's overall implication that I am any sort of amateur, or that my work efforts are anything less than professional. The city of Austin and its residents are fortunate that someone as skilled and able as I did this job. There simply isn't a single city employee currently in the picture who could have done as good a job.
    Mr. Black, the article's factually incorrect statements, by themselves and in sum, portray me as an unskilled chemical applicator who commits damages to valuable property from a lack of skill and a lack of professional concern. This is defamatory to myself personally and to my ability to conduct business in this city and, since your magazine is widespread on the Internet throughout the entire U.S., any other part of the country. You must cease and desist printing them, or any other such defamatory falsehoods from whatever sources your reporters use, in the future. This is in particular to any statements that numerous SRCC persons and other persons have said about my having a lack of professionalism that have circulated on their internal emails. I will in particular regard such defamatory falsehoods as requiring the appropriate legal action should I see them printed in your magazine.
    And a note on the professionalism of your reporters is due. I made a genuine, bona fide effort to give timely notice to Michael King about this story. I stated to him that the story required three hours in the field to get adequately explained. This is my expert opinion based on the fact that all my Duncan Park field trips ran at least 90 minutes, and to explain the story requires field trips to Duncan Park, to Stacy Park, to Red Bud Isle, to ACC Riverside, and to the Hike and Bike Trial along Lady Bird Lake. The more I think about it, it is four to five hours out in the field, particularly since the waters have been substantially muddied by the factually incorrect statements circulated by your reporter's sources. Mr. King's response is that he never leaves his computer these days and therefore can't help me, sorry. In my conversation with Jordan Smith, I reiterated the need for three hours of her time out in the field to explain the story. Ms. Smith's response to me was that she didn't spend three hours on any City Hall story, so she couldn't be expected to spend that much time on this story. Mr. Black, Ms. Smith did a terrible job on this story and the fault clearly lies with her and your magazine's inability to devote sufficient research time to a story that involves major issues of several branches of science, Austin history, and public policy. I must ask you why you bother to print stories if you don't, won't, and can't be bothered to do the necessary research they require.
    And a final note, Mr. Black: I would find it completely unacceptable if your magazine, after doing such a bad job on reporting this story, were to run this letter in any edited manner that reflected poorly on me. I suggest that you either run this letter word for word as written or not run it at all.

Dear Editor,
    As the Chronicle reported ["Council Opponents Concede on WTP4," News, Sept. 23], at last week's City Council Audit and Finance Committee meeting Council Member Bill Spelman announced that the "numbers" showed it was cheaper to finish the only 15% complete Water Treatment Plant No. 4 rather than mothball the project for five or 10 years. Accepting Spelman's analysis, Council Members Laura Morrison and Kathie Tovo agreed.
    The surprise announcements were made based on a city auditor's report that was handed out during the meeting and had not been read by anyone besides perhaps Spelman.
    Neither the auditor's report nor the WTP4 consultant report that the auditor reviewed in part managed to "show their work," making it impossible for informed comment without filing public information requests that now require two to six weeks or more for the city to fulfill.
    What the reports do reveal is that the WTP4 consultant reported "shutdown" costs of $79 million, while the auditor found only $7 million of reasonable shutdown costs. The consultant report also shows that, even if we needed expanded treatment capacity in the five, 10, or 15 years ahead, the Ullrich water treatment plant can be expanded by 25 million gallons per day for $103 million vs. $320 million to $365 million to finish the 50 MGD WTP4. Austin Water documents from 2001 estimated that the "green" WTP could be rebuilt Downtown at 90 MGD for $122 million (using only a small fraction of the site). The water utility estimated in 2006 that building a new 50 MGD plant in the Highway 130 corridor would cost between $212 million and $262 million.
    None of those numbers consider the high risk of severe damage to the Bull Creek Preserve from WTP4 tunneling or the sky-high opportunity costs of tying up $350 million for something we don't need for years, if ever, while sacrificing immediate, critical needs for fixing aging infrastructure and building a water-efficient economy before its too late.
    Throwing good money after bad on WTP4 is neither fiscally nor environmentally responsible.

Dear Editor,
    On behalf of Meals on Wheels and More, thank you for your recent coverage of the proposed rate increase for Austin Energy customers. We at Meals on Wheels and More are very concerned this proposal, if approved, would place a heavy burden on the most economically vulnerable in our community. As Amy Smith points out in her excellent article ["Point Austin: Electric Shock," News, Sept. 23], under the proposed hike, utility consumers who use the lowest amount of electricity would wind up paying the largest rate increase. Most of our Meals on Wheels and More clients live on a fixed income. Some must make ends meet on no more than $600 a month. Imagine for a second if you were in their shoes. How would it feel to open your utility bill only to find out your electric and water rates have both gone up? When $600 has to last an entire month, even a $15 rate increase can be crushing.
    These members of the "greatest generation ever" labored long and hard as carpenters, cooks, and domestic workers. They don't have 401Ks – they invested their money in their children. These senior citizens paid their taxes and played by the rules. It seems wrong to now make them bear more than their fair share of any rate increase. As the Austin City Council reviews the proposed increase, we sincerely hope they will keep our clients, and others like them, in mind.

In Thursday's (Sept. 22) Republican debate, Rick Santorum again stoked partisan fires by claiming that the repeal of discrimination against gays in the military was "social experimentation" which injected "sex activity" into the military. What? Removing the Catch-22 that forces soldiers to lie about sexual orientation actually eliminates sex as a consideration for battle readiness. 
    Even more bizarre is Santorum's final solution: "Reinstitute that policy" of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at some unknown date but don't "throw out" the thousands of military professionals who took the government at its word, placing their careers – and their lives – on the line. Whether it be our international debt obligations or agreements made with our citizens, Santorum hasn't put much stock in the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. in recent months. In 2010, the Pentagon reported that more than 70% of soldiers accepted the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Finally, we have progressed from a Third World social policy of sexual prejudice to join the elite fighting forces of Israel, Britain, Sweden, and Germany in renouncing arbitrary discrimination in our ranks. The "experiment" is finished; the findings are in. Santorum should join the march forward.

The article on "Zelda's Law and 9/11" by Michael Ventura ["Letters at 3am," Sept. 23] left out the most unbelievable part of the story. This is what happened after the hijacked planes hit in particular the towers of the World Trade Center, despite the FBI's and CIA's advance warning that it was going to happen.
    What happens to each of the towers that had been hit by planes? Why, they stood less than two hours and then fell down. The National Institute of Standards and Technology says the fires from the plane crashes up top causes their destruction from gravity downward. That's why the first evidence of the South Tower falling was sizable stuff being forced out everywhere horizontally, followed shortly by huge dust clouds and stuff shooting out in that same direction. The top of the tower starting falling downward about five times as fast as gravity could bring it down, right after a huge horizontal force broke the tower in two. This rapidly collapsing top looked like it was about to fall off the tower. But it just vanished into thin air. Poof! But then the bottom part came down too, all smashing into rubble on the ground (fires didn't touch it).
    Shortly afterward the other tower fell, showing similar squibs and dust clouds shooting out horizontally. Several hundred other big pieces came out horizontally, and the lower 70% of the building came down too, all smashing into rubble on the ground (fires didn't touch it).
    Don't you believe this story? Then you will find my online book National Swindle of the World Trade Center interesting. With seven chapters, 37 color photos as the figures, a glossary, and an index, you can download it for a small fee from SeaLane.org. It corrects the science that is all wrong in the government reports. (There's a bunch.)

Dear Editor,
    [Re: “Council Opponents Concede on WTP4,” News, Sept. 23]: The study on the costs of postponing completion of Water Treatment Plant No. 4 was fatally flawed. Virtually any ongoing construction project, regardless of how ill-conceived it is, will be cheaper to finish immediately than to finish it after mothballing it for several years.
    The fatal flaw in the study is that it did not consider abandoning the project completely.
    The supercollider north of Waco is a good example of deciding that a project, already well under way, was not worth completing. In 1993, Congress decided that project, conceived during the Cold War, was no longer justified, even though almost $2 billion had been spent and 14 miles of tunnel had been dug.

Mr. Editor,
    The Chronicle Quote of the Week [Sept. 23] is, "If the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over," by James Hansen. Referring, of course, to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Port Arthur, Texas. Since there has not been a recent story on it in your paper, readers in Austin might not know that they have an opportunity to turn words into actions by attending a public hearing on the subject and voicing their opposition. (It will be held in the Ladybird Auditorium at the LBJ School on the UT campus on Sept. 28, from noon to 8pm.) Secondarily, I'll add that one needs not believe in climate change to know that this pipeline is bad for Texas. Considering that the pipeline will pass through many of our state's freshwater sources including aquifer recharge zones and near lakes and rivers, and considering that as much as 1.7 million gallons could spill before pipe operators would know there was a leak. Do we in Texas want to run the risk of permanently contaminating our water supply when we've seen the results of trusting oil companies in the Gulf and Michigan oil disasters?

Dear Editor,
    Troy Davis was not executed because he was guilty. Troy Davis was ritually killed by the state as a scapegoat because a police officer had been slain. Someone had to pay, didn't matter who. When a police officer murders, however, the courts are much more lenient. For the crime of cruelly and viciously beating to death an unarmed, mentally ill, homeless man named Kelly Thomas, two Fullerton, Calif., police officers may spend only up to 15 years in prison. Four other officers who were there, who also bear culpability for not stopping the horrific beating, may not be punished at all. Go figure. True evil can be defined as the refusal, sometimes of individuals, sometimes of authority, sometimes of entire communities or nations, to bear the consciousness of their own wrongdoing. On the same day Troy Davis died, a man named Lawrence Brewer was executed for his involvement in the horrific dragging death of James Byrd Jr. Brewer admitted in his only interview that he found prison intolerable and that death would be a welcome "out" for him. Brewer never admitted any remorse for his infamous crime or for his hatred. A more appropriate punishment would have been to force him to suffer incarceration and contemplate his guilt for the rest of his life. The death penalty is an absolute punishment meted out not just by a flawed, but oftentimes downright corrupt, system of justice. The real truth is, we tend to project our guilt onto others and punish them for our own crimes. In fact, that pretty much sums up the history of the whole human race.

Hi,
    Just wanted to say thanks for including a photo of my daughter in the Sept. 16 issue [“Perry the Executioner,” News]. That's her – Laura Quenon – protesting the death penalty! She said the photo was an oldie but a goodie! Anyway, I've taken issues all over town proudly showing off my kid! The liberal hippie apple does not fall far from the liberal hippie mama tree!
    Thanks! Keep doing what you guys do … it's great!