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,
    As a recent "attendee" of the supposed Levitation music festival, I felt that I should let the good people of Austin know how I (and thousands of others) feel about the last-minute hysterical cancelling of the long-planned event just a few hours before it was due to begin.
    After months of planning and anticipating this world-class event, I arrived to find that a timid little man in a high office had decided to cancel it because it might rain (it rained for about 30 minutes). This left thousands of people from around the world stranded in Austin with no place to stay and no place to go. Many of us spent our hard-earned time off and money on this trip only to find that the host city was hostile to us and our type of music. That's right ... Austin invited us to visit, then slammed the door in our faces and ignored our plight. I met a couple who traveled from Turkey and had to sleep on the streets because no provision was made for campers. No hotel rooms were provided. No refunds. The few "make-up" concerts that were scheduled were sold out to local people before any of the out-of-towners could get tickets.
    Austin should remove the motto "Live Music Capital of the World" from its moniker and add "Haughty Rude Hippie-Hating Capital" instead. I suspect that future promoters and artists will avoid Austin because of the callous way that this was handled. I know that I will avoid future events in Austin.

Dear Editor,
    I strongly agree with Amy Kamp ["Notes on Kamp: Will Austin Ever Get Smart About Public Transportation?" News, April 22] and Mary Lou Gibson ["Start Smart Now," Feedback, April 29] that Austin should prioritize improving our public transit. The Smart City grant application, available online, is focused on high-tech apps and data centers. The references to transit involve improved software and apps; circulators at the airport; electric, and possibly automated, buses; and park-and-rides or “hubs” designed primarily for suburban commuters. While these measures may be helpful, they are by no means the top priorities for improving transit.
    The grant application claims that it will address equity, but there are no specifics, and, as Kamp says, people with less money often don't have smartphones and can't afford TNCs or higher-cost transit. Early adopters of high-tech are people of means. I encourage the Chronicle staff to read the application and ask for details on how it would impact transit and equity.
    There are a number of things the city can do to improve transit, including transit priority lanes and signaling, improved access and shelter at stations, land use designed to improve transit access, bond measures for capital projects, and direct contributions to Cap Metro operating costs, which we did briefly for the Red Line. Directing time and resources toward the Smart City grant (the application includes hiring new staff) would not be the best way to improve transit or transportation affordability.

Dear Editor,
    I voted "no" on Austin's Proposition 1 yesterday. Super easy, too! Just showed up at Randalls and cast a ballot.
    Voting no means the existing law remains in place and Uber and Lyft have to actually abide by a sensible regulation our elected officials approved. The Austin Chronicle echos my sentiments completely in their Endorsement. I do not tolerate bullying. And that is exactly what Uber and Lyft are doing to all of us. They are sending false information by mail, email, phone calls, text messages, online advertisements – every possible channel you can imagine. Spending tremendous amounts of money to threaten us that if Prop 1 is not approved they will leave town.
    Here's what I say: "Leave town." Do you really think it will have an impact?
    Sure, for a few months perhaps ridesharing is unavailable, maybe. Is that the worst thing in the world?? It's only been around a few years so obviously we did fine without it!!
    Within a few months Uber and Lyft will adjust to the regulation or another company will enter. Frankly the market is ripe for a competitor to swoop in and beat Uber and Lyft by partnering with government agencies. There are several other companies operating in major cities. What if one of the them has political connections and works with each municipality to craft fair regulations that work for everyone and most likely put that company at an advantage over Uber and Lyft because they are at the forefront of the regulation?
    In summary, Uber and Lyft: Since you won't stop sending me false information, and because you keep threatening to leave town, then go ahead and leave town and watch as your empire begins to crumble one city regulation at a time.

Dear Editor,
    I picked up the April 29 issue of the Chronicle, turned to the Editorial, and imagine my surprise to see the subheading first: "When someone is lying to you about something, it is usually best not to endorse and empower them" [“Page Two: The Problem With Prop. 1”] Wow, I thought, an article about Hillary, and the stories she's spun about a nasty video causing the Benghazi attack, and her cluelessness regarding the coming and going of her email.
    Nope, no such luck. It's another in an apparently unending line of articles urging us to vote against Uber/Lyft and for the local taxi monopoly. Oh well; maybe next week.

Dear Editor,
    The Chronicle has maintained a strong stance in favor of Proposition 1, which would increase regulation on ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft. Though the Chronicle has offered some compelling arguments in favor of regulation, it has not adequately addressed what I see as the strongest argument against regulation: Ridesharing saves lives by decreasing drunk driving.
    Increased regulation will likely lower the availability of ridesharing services, and, at worst, will drive them entirely out of Austin. While allowing these companies to “regulate themselves” may have its own disadvantages (be it driver quality or labor issues), isn’t it possible that these are outweighed by the potential of these services to save lives? Last year over 1,400 lives were lost on Texas roads as a result of drinking and driving, and evidence suggests that ridesharing programs have significantly decreased the death toll percentage in Austin. I would be curious to hear how the Chronicle addresses this aspect of the issue, as without doing so, the Chronicle’s current stance in favor of Proposition 1 appears to be irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

   [Editor-in-Chief Kimberley Jones responds: Afraid you're misinformed, Mike. The Chronicle has maintained a strong stance against Proposition 1 – see our Endorsement – and in fact, in his April 29 "Public Notice" column, Publisher Nick Barbaro looked closely at ridesharing advocates' repeated claims that transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft "save lives." To echo statistician Matt Hersh's recent study: "[T]aking into account that DWI-related accidents were on the decline before Uber started operating in any meaningful way, there is no evidence of a correlation between TNCs and DWI-related accidents or DWI arrests in Austin."]