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,
    I lived in Houston while their rail system was under construction [“A Great Big Bundle of Rail and Roads,” News, Aug. 8]. Much of downtown was a huge mess from 1999 to 2004. Many businesses closed because customers had too much difficulty reaching them during construction. When the rail was completed, every bus that ran through downtown had to be rerouted to accommodate the rail. Trips that used to be possible on one bus now require multiple buses, or a bus and a train. Hundreds of collisions occur annually between cars and trains. When Houston voters later approved an expansion route on Westpark Drive, Harris County Metro ignored the ballot language specifying a route. Only massive public opposition stopped the new rail line from being built on Richmond Avenue instead of Westpark Drive. As someone who rides public transit daily, I think Houston was a better place to live before it had a rail system. Austin City Council now wants to force rail on us by structuring the ballot so that to oppose urban rail one has to vote against all transportation bond funding. They are cynically counting on the fact that because of Austin's traffic congestion problems, many people who are not rail supporters will support the bond package anyway. Capital Metro went from having $200 million to being too broke to pay its debts to the city of Austin mostly because of a relatively modest commuter rail. What do we expect to be the financial results of a much more ambitious urban rail system?

Dear Editor,
    The Chronicle’s support for the rail/road bonds is unfortunate [“Point Austin: More Connected Than Thou,” News, Aug. 8]. This project is designed for development interests and out-of-town commuters (who would not pay either the property tax or the sales tax for operations). Current ridership does not justify it, so they estimate 2030 ridership, which would be moderate at best. It is not cost-effective to build for future ridership – it takes money from other transit projects that would better serve current and long-term needs.
    The transit advocates who oppose the project are volunteers who are concerned about transportation in Austin. Most of us have some technical understanding, and a couple are professional transportation planners. Paid staff and consultants can use data to come to a conclusion that is desired by those in power. Mr. King criticizes transit advocates for questioning the outcomes for that reason.
   The Chronicle has criticized Mayor Leffingwell's support for developers and lack of concern for affordability, but Mr. King mocks opponents' concern that the project is designed to serve developers.
    To suggest that only a small group of transit advocates oppose the bond measure is inaccurate. Council candidates have told me that the vast majority of people they meet oppose it. The supporters listed are mostly business interests and UT, which will directly benefit, but is not contributing a dime. The Sierra Club endorsement was made without outreach to the community; many environmental advocates oppose it.
    It is not right for the government to spend money to promote a project (as opposed to education). The Lege passed a law making it illegal, but Perry vetoed it. Mr. King says that transit advocates are "anti-tax," but we understand that transit requires an investment and would not oppose a tax for a worthwhile project. Mr. King would be happy if the bond measure passes. But developers and out-of-town commuters would have the last laugh.

Dear Editor:
    Wild elephants coexist with human beings mostly out of necessity and primarily for human profit. Prior to purchase, many of our pets experience restrictive confinement in cages and pens. Once bought, they generally transition into a home that affords them a greater range of movement, although many pets still end up miserable in tiny quarters. Many consider such tight pet enclosures cruel. Clearly, financial interests often dictate the size of animals’ enclosures. The circus is a profit-driven endeavor that uses tight enclosures for elephants and employs painful techniques that deprive them of free movement.
    Baby elephants experience horrible privations and restrictive disciplinary techniques to make them perform better for ticket holders. Samuel Haddock, a former elephant trainer at Ringling Bros. Circus, made a notarized declaration about how elephant calves were “forcibly separated from their mother.” He outlines how restrictive training sessions were and how handlers “tugged on ropes to make babies lie down, … salute, do headstands.” During these sessions, elephants’ basic freedom of movement is deprived, not to mention their freedom to reunite with their mothers. It is no wonder that elephants exhibit neurotic behaviors such as repetitive head bobbing and swaying in captivity. Ironically, such behaviors may seem endearing to the uninitiated spectator at a circus.
    Animals are nonprofit beings with the right to enjoy dignified, natural lives. Ringling Bros. makes almost no attempt to accommodate elephants who need intricate social interactions in their own expansive environment. Therefore, I wholeheartedly refuse to support animal exploitation for profit, even if, as Ringling claims, they would never harm elephants because “these things are worth a tremendous amount of money. They’re irreplaceable.” Financially irreplaceable or not, the circus is neither an elephant’s place nor mine. Let’s make Austin an ethical city in regards to elephants, as well as all animals.