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,
    Reading the debate between CMs Casar and Tovo, I was glad to hear CM Tovo mention the East Riverside fiasco ["Which Way to CodeNEXT?" News, Sept. 15]. It broke my heart to see all the cheap housing that area offered torn down in order to make room for more expensive housing. The problem is that the market will not produce housing people can afford. This is proved by the fact “affordable housing” and “market rate housing” are not the same. We must do whatever possible to restrict the right of people to cash in on their property. We must unabashedly declare owning land is not the same as owning a nice boat. What people do with land affects everyone, and real property ownership cannot be an unbridled right but an agreement between owner and community. This of course raises all the problems with people who believe housing is not a right but making a profit is. A great idea I heard years ago, back when it really would have made a difference, was to cap property taxes for the long term (15 years? 20?) with a balloon payment (difference between market rate taxable value and frozen value) due if someone sells. I am not sure what happened to that idea. In a state which private property rights are up there with Friday night football as foundations of a civic religion this is difficult, but we must find a way to make it more expensive to tear down old, reasonably priced housing, and cheaper to repair and hold on to same. I am an East Austin landlord and have given my tenants a rent decrease. (Every landlord should try it!) I do not want to hear nonsense about envy and ponies and the Real World. I have watched gentrification since its beginnings in 1980s Manhattan. Housing and “The Market” are not a good match and it is the job of government to ameliorate the destruction caused by our present housing/price insanity. Bravo to the Chronicle and CMs Tovo and Casar for bringing this debate public.

Dear Editor,
    In response to the article "Rebel Girls" [Food] in the Sept. 29 issue.
    I was sorely disappointed to see the new bakery Zucchini Kill described as "Austin's only dedicated vegan and gluten-free bake shop." C'mon. Capital City Bakery (which I would describe as an Austin staple) is an entirely vegan bakery with many gluten-free options. It was a bummer to read that, and I hope more research is done in the future before such a definitive claim is made in your articles.

   [Food Editor Jessi Cape responds: To be clear, we were trying to convey that Zucchini Kill is currently Austin's only 100% vegan and 100% gluten-free bakery. Capital City Bakery is, as you mentioned, an Austin staple, but they only offer some gluten-free options (as do a few other spots in this realm). We're sorry for the confusion.]

Dear Editor,
    I laughed when I read the phrase "prohibitive" renewal cost of $495 ["A Nightmare for DREAMers," News, Sept. 29].
    I paid close to $600, just to get a nursing license transferred from Nebraska to Texas. Wow … so, for less than $500 I could have become a citizen? Let them use some of the money they saved on education, and housing, etc. which I have never had, to apply to begin the LEGAL process.
    Please remember, this was set up to be a "temporary" fix, and taxpayers supported it for years. Time for them to apply for the correct papers, and be legal, and they will be welcome, and embraced.
    Try to tell all sides of the story. There are many. I would never hold citizenship against anyone, but it is a process. I have to do it, and all of us do. Even if I'm a good driver, and don't break the law, I still need a license or I can't legally drive. It is the law.
    I don't like many of the laws, or taxes. I live in this country though. No one lets me write the rules either.

   [Staff writer Mary Tuma responds: Ms. Chenell seems to perpetuate common DACA myths. For one, DACA does not allow an individual to "become a citizen." In fact, DACA is not even a pathway to citizenship. It is a two-year renewable protection from deportation with strict eligibility requirements. (Congress is now trying to craft a legislative solution for DREAMers that includes this pathway to citizenship.) Many have implied or stated that DACA is illegal, when in reality it is a wholly legal process, instituted by the executive branch under President Obama, that has never been found unconstitutional by a court.]