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.

Dear Editor,
    Two Things: 1) Recyclable bags: Sure, everyone pitching in to clean up the toxic waste. Back in the old days (2012), a leading grocery chain would offer the customer a choice between plastic and paper bags (paper is recyclable), both free – actually, the cost of bags was built in to the price of retail goods. Fast forward to now; bags are now a retail item, and there is no choice. 2) New area code: Austin is growing, and there aren't enough phone numbers to go around. The simple solution: Add a new area code. The not-so-simple solution: Make everyone with the old area code use the long distance format (one + area code + number) when calling within their own area code. That makes no sense at all. My next-door neighbor, the pharmacy, and the doctor – all within the 512 area code – are not long distance. Someone in Houston or New York City? Now that is long distance.
    Certain aspects of these new changes are good, while others are pure lunacy. Who are the lunatics responsible for these fiascos? Maybe we ought to send them back where they came from!

Dear Editor,
    “Austin is the live music capital of the world, and Sixth Street is where it's happening.” That's the message we – tourists from Charleston, S.C. – were getting from tourism promos and T-shirts [“The 'Dirty' Word,” Food, May 24] .
    So, on a trip recently, we hurried over to Sixth Street with high hopes. What a disappointment! It seems to us that Austin needs to improve Sixth Street big-time – or significantly tone down the hype.
    By the way, the city official in Ivy Le's story who said that nobody but reporters calls Sixth Street “Dirty Sixth” is wrong. The next morning we asked the waitress at the Marriott what was going on with Sixth Street. She wrinkled her nose in disgust and said that everyone calls it “Dirty Sixth.” We were relieved: At least Austin locals recognize Sixth Street for what it isn't.

Dear Editor,
    The article “Honk If You Prefer Walking” [“Then There's This,” News, May 24] reports a growing demand for sidewalks across the United States. I certainly see many people walking in my neighborhood. We walk in the street with the cars. There are few sidewalks, even near the elementary school and shopping center. This is not changing. Austin is not building many sidewalks.
    I do not drive a car. I walk and use a bicycle for transportation. Bicycling in Austin is so much safer and easier than walking, but I need to walk, so I walk. Most people I know drive to destinations half a mile away. This is because in order to walk anywhere we must walk in the street with the cars. Most people are afraid or unwilling to put up with this.
    It would take over 150 years to build out Austin's sidewalk plan at the present rate of progress. Bond elections come and go. There is never a big sidewalk buildout included, so nothing changes. Even Downtown is not fully equipped with sidewalks. That's pretty sad.
    Bicyclists get more attention than pedestrians. There are ghost bikes for cyclists killed on the street, but nothing for pedestrians. Motorists write angry letters about bicyclists. People on foot just get run over without fanfare.
    We need a big sidewalk buildout. Construct one-tenth of the sidewalk plan in a year, and we'd see big changes in transportation in Austin. Unfortunately, this is just not happening. To build out the sidewalk network, we would need to fund and build a big sidewalk project – not 50 yards here and 50 yards there.
    Transportation congestion in Austin will not ease until we fund and build an Austin sidewalk network. But city policy, alas, is to try everything else first.

Dear Editor,
    Upon reading Amy Gentry's article "Endangered Species Conservation" [Screens, May 31], I felt the need to say that The Last Unicorn appealed to at least one 7-year-old boy. When I was on the elementary school playground during recess and had not yet discovered Mad Max, I wanted to be either two things: the leader of the Jun horde from The Beastmaster or the Red Bull. Much to the dismay of a handful of perfect-looking little girls, I wanted to round them all up and drive them under the playscape. The more they ran, the more my fantasy was fulfilled. Childhood isn't always perfect and shiny for everyone, nor does it need to be. Some of the best stories have great villains as well as great heroes, and it's still fun to be both. So thank you, Mr. Beagle and everyone else that helped bring this film out. I enjoy it every time I watch it … even if my wife laughs at me.

Dear Editor,
    It is with great frustration that I write this letter regarding Steve Davis' review of Jen and Sylvia Soska's American Mary [Film Listings, May 31] .
    I completely believe that it is the job of any critic or reviewer to express their opinion of a work, positive or negative. There is little validity in doing otherwise lest they become a panderer. However, this duty is not grounds to lazily meander around a pile of half-formed thoughts and fling petty insults at a film, the filmmakers, and a genre Davis clearly has little regard for. He admits as much, noting “for those of us on the squeamish side,” as if that makes it okay.
    Further, the use of the term “WTF moment” and a reference to Tod Browning out of context suggest a quickly assembled but poorly arranged list of bullet points that amount to little more than smirking elitism. Worst of all, Davis seems to think it is appropriate to channel his inner hateful Rex Reed and insult lead actress Katharine Isabelle with an utterly classless line about Botox that speaks to a general lack of professionalism that should not be acceptable in any forum, let alone The Austin Chronicle.
    I would suggest Davis look up Andy Webster's review in The New York Times (of all places) to see how to apply more thought and less shallow vitriol to writing about the horror genre, should he, in the future, have to stoop so low again.