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 firstname.lastname@example.org
. Thanks for your patience.
I wrote last year of the problem of the mobility bond for renters’ affordability [“Vote No on Bond
,” Postmarks, Oct. 26, 2015]. Renters comprise 55% of the population in the Austin area. All tax increases go directly into the rent. Renters never vote, and they certainly do not understand what a bond is in light of AISD’s trickery (and the mobility bond’s $56 per year “tax bill impact” trickery), in using the phrase, “no tax rate increase.” Compare to Travis County endorsement with a “repayment number.” I have looked at the District’s materials and it does not seem like we need to borrow a billion dollars to take care of some of the more pressing problems at the schools (they have a fairly large reserve). Move the boundaries and move the students to the underenrolled schools and save us renters the huge rent increase expense of shiny new empty desks. Renters Unite. VOTE NO.
I am writing to correct some misinformation reported in the opening sentence of Mary Tuma's article [“Judge Grants Abortion to Undocumented Minor Held 'Hostage'
,” News, Oct. 20]. The minor undocumented alien is not a "hostage," but is a detainee being held by the federal government due to her status. She is neither a Texas resident. She has no constitutional rights, as the U.S. Constitution only extends rights to citizens of the U.S.A. All laws covering aliens of any status are found in Title 8, U.S. Code/8 Code of Federal Regulations. They are derived from the Immigration Nationality Act of 1952. ACT 208 covers asylum. Please advise Ms. Tuma to perform better research before publishing false information.
Michael King, once again, has nothing to report but insinuations and lies ["Point Austin: The Amazon Invasion
," News, Oct. 20]. He is a hack reporter with no basis of fact. I resent that I have no rebuttal to slanderous comments he makes in the Chronicle
– since he didn't interview me about my comments at the ZAP input meeting, I don't think he really understands my "Calcutta" reference. Instead, he attributes innuendo of a racist comment to my words? I have been to Calcutta – I know what I was referring to – but Michael King does not. He needs to stick to the facts and not engage in character assassination – that is what a real reporter would do!