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 Thanks for your patience.
Browse by Week:

At What Cost?

RECEIVED Tue., Sept. 19, 2017

Dear Editor,
    In “Which Way to CodeNEXT?” [News, Sept. 15] you state: “… current code and policies are too restrictive … causing sprawl instead of the density that most people agree that we need …”
    Yes, greater density holds the hope for a more dynamic city, eventually. But at what cost? Increased density always leads to higher housing prices and worse traffic. Google “effects of density on affordability/traffic” and see for yourself.
    I think if you asked most Austinites if they’d like to pay MORE for their mortgage or rent, and sit in traffic LONGER, they’d say absolutely not. Given this, I’m not sure you can make the argument that most people agree we need more density. In fact, the only people who stand to gain from the increased density levels and relaxed parking restrictions found in CodeNEXT are real estate developers, who are understandably driven by profit.
George Bronner

Fighting Over Scraps

RECEIVED Tue., Sept. 19, 2017

Dear Editor,
    Kevin Curtin’s “Playback: Sizing Up Music's Bite of the Hotel Tax,” [Music, Sept. 15] got it backwards on Mayor Adler’s support for the so-called “Downtown Puzzle” and what it means for live music in Austin.
    The mayor fought aggressively against providing $3.2 million to fund promotion of live music in Austin in this year’s budget. That’s right – against funding for live music, not for it. At the same time he fought – and managed to reduce – funding for heritage preservation, funds which could be used to preserve our heritage music venues now, before it’s too late.
    So what’s really going on?
    The mayor has chosen to hold hostage funding for live music, local business, the arts, parks, preservation, and, most notably, addressing homelessness, unless and until he secures funding for expanding the Convention Center. He argues that expanding the Convention Center is the only way to fund these critical needs.
    Council Agenda Item 60, by Mayor Pro Tem Tovo and Council Members Pool, Kitchen, and Troxclair made clear that is not true. We can re-prioritize our hotel taxes right now rather than being thrown a few scraps later, when over a billion dollars of future revenues are locked up in expanding and servicing an enlarged center.
    The fundamental fact is that Convention Center visitors constitute 2% or less of Austin visitors, yet the Convention Center is consuming 85% of our tourism revenues. Even if an enlarged Convention Center were wildly successful, it would only increase visitors by another percent or two.
    By contrast, the people, places, and activities that make Austin exciting to visitors and residents alike must fight over the remaining 15% of the hotel tax dollars. Many of these – live music, unique Austin business, our natural and cultural heritage – we are losing because of hyper-growth and decades of neglect from City Hall.
    At its core, the mayor’s “Downtown Puzzle” would lock in this funding mismatch for the next 20 to 30 years. This blow to live music, arts, parks, preservation, and local business is softened a bit by increasing the hotel tax and promises of a “growing pie,” so that all the scraps get bigger. The mayor’s one-time goody-pot of $50 million divided among various projects further obscures the truth about the real, long-term costs.
    The Chronicle owes its readers and the community the whole truth about how an expanded Convention Center would consume close to $100 million every year, much of which could and should be spent on what residents and visitors love about Austin.
Bill Bunch

On Altering Headlines

RECEIVED Mon., Sept. 18, 2017

Dear Editor,
    Just wondering why the print article titled "Club Kids" has a different title online ("Austin’s New Batch of Supper Clubs" [Food, Sept. 15]). This made it hard to find and frustrating in light of the note at the end of the print article to see the story online for more details.
Patience Worrel
   [Web Editor James Renovitch responds: Altering headlines between print and online is relatively standard practice these days despite the confusion it causes, but we definitely could have been more helpful in getting you to the story online. We should have sent you to and you wouldn't have been able to miss it. Apologies for the vague directions.]
AC Daily, Events and Promotions, Luvdoc Answers

Breaking news, recommended events, and more

Official Chronicle events, promotions, and giveaways

Updates for SXSW 2017

All questions answered (satisfaction not guaranteed)