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,
    Austin Sanders does not understand the issues in the Acuna hearing this week, and as a result is misleading Chronicle readers ["Homeowners Sue to Block Code Changes Meant to Increase Affordability," Daily News, Aug. 25]. The Acuna plaintiffs' motion isn't about affordable housing but the rule of law and due process. Travis County Judge Jan Soifer ordered the city of Austin to notify homeowners and businesses before rezoning their property; the city simply refuses to follow her final order. After losing its appeal, the city rezoned 50,000-plus properties in 2022 without providing the court-ordered notice. The city has to follow the law like the rest of us, and notice is just basic fairness.
    Your attempted slur that Community Not Commodity is anti-growth is simply false. I co-founded the group, and we support due process, including all stakeholders, and a reasonable, balanced land development code. That you and your density uber alles allies don't understand due process and the rule of law says a lot.

Dear Editor,
    Of all my first world problems, my most vexing is the loss of the "Road Shows" sidebar in the music listings. After getting my kicks with Tom Tomorrow and the Luv Doc, my next stop in each issue has always been that invaluable gray box. What gives?

Dear Editor,
    I was disappointed both with Nick Barbaro’s Aug. 11 [“Zilker Revamp Plan Dead in the Water(shed)”] and Lina Fisher’s Aug. 18 [“No Plan, No Action on Zilker”] articles concerning the Zilker Park Vision Plan (ZPVP). For years I have valued the Chronicle’s investigative reporting, but this time it feels you were either lazy, or the nonprofit groups that were pushing the plan had your ear.
    Neither article examined the most troubling (and somewhat obfuscated) aspect of the plan, which proposed creating an umbrella nonprofit that might move into the position of managing the operation of some of the park activities, and work to implement future modifications to the park. I expected the Chronicle to investigate whether our city government, in this case the Parks and Recreation Department, should delegate to a third party any aspect of management of the crown jewel that is Zilker Park. Comparisons with the “improvements” and the operation of Waterloo Park (especially their 5,000-capacity amphitheatre) would be appropriate.
    The ZPVP envisioned a park that contained a large amount of new infrastructure compatible with massive additional commercialization (including a 5,000-capacity amphitheatre on the great lawn, the 3 parking garages, at least 3 additional bridges over Barton Creek and Lady Bird Lake). Once that multimillion-dollar infrastructure was built, it would become a compelling argument that we should have more and bigger commercial (and moneymaking) events in the park, easily managed by this new umbrella nonprofit (again, the comparisons with Waterloo Greenway are appropriate). Many of these events would then fund the nonprofits that were behind the ZPVP.
    Perhaps the Chronicle is so enmeshed in the Austin entertainment sector that the idea of a new commercial venue (the amphitheatre) blinded you to the negative aspects of this plan. To simply say there were “misleading” arguments put forth by people opposed to the ZPVP does a disservice to the many concerned Austinites who value Zilker Park as place for outdoor recreational activity.

   News Editor Maggie Q. Thompson responds: The umbrella organization, Zilker 351, is discussed in the Aug. 11 story mentioned. Lina Fisher’s May 19 and May 26 pieces examined the model in more detail: t.ly/J9-gd and t.ly/Q880l.