Rollins Studio Theatre at the Long Center
FEEDBACK
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.
Ick at the Intake
RECEIVED Wed., June 14, 2023
Dear Editor,
I just drove to the Austin Animal Center to drop off the two kittens we trapped last night only to learn they don’t open for intake until peak traffic rush hours and even then, only for four hours. I’m not sure what kind of devious Hell Spawn would come up with this kind of “Born in the Bowels of Hades” plan but it reeks of the sulphurous odor as the kind of thing only an attorney who “Met the Devil at the Crossroads at Midnight” early in their career and took the deal on their soul would come up with.
Just one more way for the city, its managers, its elected officials and management to cover its very, very poor planning when it adopted its deeply flawed “No Kill Resolution.” That Resolution was based on “reaction instead of proaction,” adoption over prevention, patchwork instead of a well thought out plan.
The Austin Neighborhood Council warned our elected leaders not just once but twice. Every large animal related group with the exception of Austin Pets Alive tried to warn our then elected leaders. A number of other organizations from Political clubs to neighborhood associations even the Austin Police Association tried to warn them but getting elected went to the then council members’ heads and all they could think about was getting reelected.
Council Member Ora Houston was the only one who put the good of the City and the good of the pets above her own political aspirations.
So here we are. We used to be able to surrender any animal 24 hours a day but with Austin Pets Alive running things back then and even now stacking our city’s Animal Advisory Commission, well here we are with a stitched together Frankenstein Monster of a No Kill plan that while it may get great headlines? No one ever talks about the true cost and the dumping of animals in the county or the free animals adopted out to anyone sober enough to stand up without falling over to fill out an application.
I just drove to the Austin Animal Center to drop off the two kittens we trapped last night only to learn they don’t open for intake until peak traffic rush hours and even then, only for four hours. I’m not sure what kind of devious Hell Spawn would come up with this kind of “Born in the Bowels of Hades” plan but it reeks of the sulphurous odor as the kind of thing only an attorney who “Met the Devil at the Crossroads at Midnight” early in their career and took the deal on their soul would come up with.
Just one more way for the city, its managers, its elected officials and management to cover its very, very poor planning when it adopted its deeply flawed “No Kill Resolution.” That Resolution was based on “reaction instead of proaction,” adoption over prevention, patchwork instead of a well thought out plan.
The Austin Neighborhood Council warned our elected leaders not just once but twice. Every large animal related group with the exception of Austin Pets Alive tried to warn our then elected leaders. A number of other organizations from Political clubs to neighborhood associations even the Austin Police Association tried to warn them but getting elected went to the then council members’ heads and all they could think about was getting reelected.
Council Member Ora Houston was the only one who put the good of the City and the good of the pets above her own political aspirations.
So here we are. We used to be able to surrender any animal 24 hours a day but with Austin Pets Alive running things back then and even now stacking our city’s Animal Advisory Commission, well here we are with a stitched together Frankenstein Monster of a No Kill plan that while it may get great headlines? No one ever talks about the true cost and the dumping of animals in the county or the free animals adopted out to anyone sober enough to stand up without falling over to fill out an application.
Delwin Goss
Reply to this | Comments »
Sidewalk Safety
RECEIVED Sun., June 11, 2023
Dear Editor,
If City Council would have eliminated the "fee-in-lieu" option that allows one to pay into a fund instead of installing sidewalks at construction sites, we could have had a sidewalk system that needed filled in, instead of hardly any sidewalks at all in interior neighborhoods. Think of all the new houses in the last 20 years without sidewalks. We would be dodging far fewer cars when we are forced to walk in the street.
Recently, Council directed the City Manager to work up a plan to eliminate minimum parking requirements. Single family residences, apartment buildings, and businesses wouldn’t have to provide parking or even build driveways. To reduce car-dodging in neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks, the city is planning to install physical barriers that would prevent vehicles from occupying or passing through protected sections of the street along curbs. These protected sections of shared streets would be reserved for transiting pedestrians and bikes.
A lot of the details are unknown, such as how many protected spaces there will be per whatever-the-metric-is, and will that ratio be dynamic? For example, suppose a particular block of the 'hood gets ten protected spaces and then a small apartment building(s) is constructed with little or no parking but whose residents still own the average 1.6 vehicles per dwelling unit. Would the protected pedestrian spaces for that block be increased because the new vehicles increased traffic congestion on that street?
It's odd that the Shared Streets program ends up removing street parking, which I assume is the opposite of what Council was thinking when they directed the City Manager to come up with a plan to remove minimum parking requirements, presumably to incorporate street parking as the alternative. I predict a showdown between density advocates and safety advocates. Care to bet who wins that one unless people emphasize pedestrian-safe, shared streets to Council?
If City Council would have eliminated the "fee-in-lieu" option that allows one to pay into a fund instead of installing sidewalks at construction sites, we could have had a sidewalk system that needed filled in, instead of hardly any sidewalks at all in interior neighborhoods. Think of all the new houses in the last 20 years without sidewalks. We would be dodging far fewer cars when we are forced to walk in the street.
Recently, Council directed the City Manager to work up a plan to eliminate minimum parking requirements. Single family residences, apartment buildings, and businesses wouldn’t have to provide parking or even build driveways. To reduce car-dodging in neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks, the city is planning to install physical barriers that would prevent vehicles from occupying or passing through protected sections of the street along curbs. These protected sections of shared streets would be reserved for transiting pedestrians and bikes.
A lot of the details are unknown, such as how many protected spaces there will be per whatever-the-metric-is, and will that ratio be dynamic? For example, suppose a particular block of the 'hood gets ten protected spaces and then a small apartment building(s) is constructed with little or no parking but whose residents still own the average 1.6 vehicles per dwelling unit. Would the protected pedestrian spaces for that block be increased because the new vehicles increased traffic congestion on that street?
It's odd that the Shared Streets program ends up removing street parking, which I assume is the opposite of what Council was thinking when they directed the City Manager to come up with a plan to remove minimum parking requirements, presumably to incorporate street parking as the alternative. I predict a showdown between density advocates and safety advocates. Care to bet who wins that one unless people emphasize pedestrian-safe, shared streets to Council?
Dave Piper
