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 am deeply concerned about the recent budget cuts in funding for public schools that have grown to be a problem and do not show any signs of slowing down. ["Texas Education Agency on the Money," News, Sept. 21.] The Texas Education Agency's responsibility is to ensure that the primary and secondary education system in Texas is well maintained and that students are getting the best possible education that they can receive. Cutting funds could hinder the growth of students and could have irreversible impacts on their academic development.
    By cutting funds by $3.5 billion for public schools over the span of the next three years, some possible repercussions could be teacher layoffs, technological downgrades, and overcrowding of students in schools. Laying off teachers would entail that class sizes would be bigger, meaning that there would be a lack of direct communication between teachers and students (negatively impacting students' academic performance). Budget cuts for public schools are additionally unprecedented because they can cause cuts in programs that require more funding to flourish, such as fine arts; as a result, these budget cuts have the potential to inhibit the creative side of students.
    I deeply encourage the Texas Education Agency to reconsider this movement to cut funding from the Texas education system, because it is imperative that our youth have the best access to educational resources to ensure further academic advancements.

Dear Editor,
    I am the great-grandniece of Helen Keller (1880-1968), and vice president of Education at the Helen Keller Foundation. I was saddened to learn Texas was considering omission of Helen Keller from the required curriculum for third-grade children – even as Time magazine recently named her one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century. [See "Rewriting History," Sept. 21.]
    Having lost her sight and hearing in infancy from an attack of meningitis, Helen first learned the power of words at age 7 (see The Miracle Worker). She then became the first blind-deaf person to effectively communicate with the sighted and hearing world.
    In so doing, she became an international celebrity from the age of 8, even before the era of mass communication. She was regularly on the front page of newspapers around the world almost until her death in 1968, as she met with every U.S. president and world leaders like Nehru, Churchill, and the Japanese emperor.
    Aunt Helen toured 37 countries on five continents promoting accommodations for disabilities by her own stunning example, well before others discovered that any one of us can suffer a disability and remain able in so many ways!
    For over two decades I’ve taught Aunt Helen’s story to elementary school children throughout the U.S., as a form of character education. I’ve often seen the amazing reaction a child has upon learning of little Helen breaking through her sight and hearing barriers with the help of “Teacher” – Annie Sullivan.
    It’s as if they were each with her at the well, when she learned that water had a name, W-A-T-E-R, as all things do. She later called it “the birthday of my soul,” and the children seem to gain from her experience a similar, soul-deep realization that with effort they too can triumph.
    Losing this lesson, within two or three generations – or less, children in Texas will have no knowledge of Ms. Keller, even as her remarkable story continues to be taught to children in schools elsewhere, around the world. Your children will become better citizens for taking that most difficult of journeys with Helen Keller in their classrooms to discover that they, too, can succeed in a challenging world. This is the quintessential Texas can-do attitude that other states and nations have come to admire. Please don’t do it. Don’t make this lesson optional. There really is no effective substitute for the children of Texas.

Dear Editor,
    I just read the article about Threadgill's – I am so heartbroken to hear that Threadgill's Downtown is closing! ["Threadgill's WHQ Will Close After Thanksgiving," Daily Music, Sept. 12.] I am an Austin native and grew up with Threadgill's and AWHQ!!
    Why can't this location become [a] historic landmark and therefore be protected from the rent gouging going on Downtown? [The] [c]ity of Austin should label it as an Austin landmark and take over the property to preserve its historical value!
    So sad ....

Dear Editor,
    I wanted to give you some feedback on your recent “Best of Austin” issue as I used to look forward to it and use [it] as a tool for dining choices.
    However, if the Chronicle was in a competition for worst “Best Of” issue with Austin Monthly magazine the Chronicle would have my vote.
    The issue used to have substance and somehow it has transformed into some poor attempt at a creative quick read with large pictures to just sell advertising.
    The Readers Poll categories for food and drink were adequate but you did not post any info on the restaurant just some lame quotes from customers with no insight into the winner's business.
    The Critics Picks are even worse, offering no traditional categories, only some poor attempt to be clever coming up with categories to feature only the establishments you want to promote. "Most Competition for Plant-Based Burger" … are you fucking kidding me?
    Please stop your hippie liberal journalism bullshit … you are not clever nor is any of this intriguing.
    p.s. … I am a Democrat myself so don't try to pass this criticism off as some old Texan Republican whining to make yourself feel better. Your publication is turning into garbage.

Dear Editor, 
    Certain legislators have been suggesting that birthright citizenship as addressed in the Constitution is not applicable to children born to noncitizen parents.
    However, the 14th Amendment that granted birthright citizenship was created to offer citizenship to slaves, people here without protection as citizens under the law, enacted in 1868. The 15th Amendment, only a couple of years later, granted African-Americans the right to vote. Both amendments very deliberately offered rights to disenfranchised persons in America.  
    I see significant parallels.

Dear Editors,
    I was very disappointed to read, in your "Best of Austin" award for Pool Burger, an exhortation to "Get pitted on a boozy hurricane before hitting up Deep Eddy pool."
    Patrons who have been drinking are not permitted in city swimming pools; consumption of alcohol in these facilities is a violation of city code and of common sense. Alcohol is detected in the blood of up to 70% of adult drowning victims, and is directly responsible for up to 30% of drowning deaths each year (statistics easily available online from many sources). Heat and sun exposure only amplify its negative effects on coordination and judgment. Why are you using a platform like “Best of Austin” to encourage illegal and dangerous behavior? You do a disservice to your readers, to law-abiding citizens, and to the lifeguards and medics whose job it is to deal with drunk, belligerent, injured, and drowning pool patrons all summer. Please consider correcting your review, or at least choosing your words more responsibly in the future.

Dear Editor,
    Austin residents who plan on voting for both Beto and Proposition J should reflect on their priorities. Hyde Park has 1-2 houses per block with yard signs supporting liberal or progressive candidates placed alongside anti-CodeNEXT signs for “Yes on J.”
    Proposition J would limit the city of Austin’s ability to pass comprehensive zoning code rewrites in the future without subjecting them to a popular vote. [See "Chronicle Endorsements: City Propositions," Oct. 19.] It would make it much more difficult for Council to do the work needed to fairly and affordably accommodate future population growth in the city.
    Despite the heated rhetoric on all sides of the CodeNEXT debate, the proposal sought to stop regulating what land can be used for and to start regulating the look and feel of structures so that the street supports a vibrant walking and bicycling culture. Additionally, CodeNEXT would have increased allowable densities in certain Austin neighborhoods (notably not Hyde Park). Increasing density allows developers to build more units on a site for the same fixed land cost. It’s one easy way to build affordable units.
    Despite no proposed changes to zoning in their neighborhoods, wealthy homeowners in neighborhoods like Hyde Park and Tarrytown were some of CodeNEXT’s most vocal opponents, arguing that it would affect “neighborhood character” or “charm.” Lurking beneath this sentiment is the fear that the presence of affordable housing would affect their property values. Academic research has repeatedly debunked this notion. A more sinister motive is related to fears about precisely who lives in affordable units. Wealthy liberals support progressive candidates like Beto and pro-poor policies until those policies put them in closer proximity to those who are less wealthy.  
    That conservative homeowners would want to protect their property values above all else is not surprising. But Beto supporters should have a heavier conscience. Measures like CodeNEXT would allow low-income families to improve their quality of life by shortening their commutes and giving them easier access to quality schools and other urban amenities, while allowing Austin to retain some of its diversity. Without measures in place to increase housing affordability, Austin’s rich cultural heritage could be lost.
    For examples of what can happen without aggressive measures to increase housing affordability, Austin need only look to San Francisco, Seattle, and New York. Timid or nonexistent affordability policies have driven up housing prices in those cities to such an extent that only the very wealthy can afford to own property there.
    We acknowledge that CodeNEXT wasn’t perfect, but city staff and elected officials have learned much from that failed effort. Tying Austin’s hands so that future attempts to increase density are stifled is not the way forward. Liberal and progressive Austinites should vote “No” on Proposition J.