Re: Sept. 16 article, “Round Rock boy selling soap to help Hurricane Harvey survivors.”
What an inspirational young man Ezekiel is!
In the midst of hurricane tragedy, I hope that survivors will hear the story about Ezekiel’s compassion for them and how it led him to selfless action on their behalf. They aren’t just getting soap; they’re also getting love. Now, where can I get a bar of that “monkey fart” soap?
EDWARD R. KIRK, AUSTIN
Re: Sept. 14 commentary, “11 reasons Austin will lose the affordable housing battle.”
In his editorial on affordable housing, Dick Brown states: “Neighborhood associations may undermine CodeNext, whose main purpose is to increase central city density.”
You’re darn right we oppose CodeNext. Density has never lowered housing prices. In fact, in every instance, housing prices increased with density. Don’t take my word for it. Spend two minutes online and see for yourself. Simply Google “effects of density on affordability.”
The only people to benefit from increased density and reduced parking restrictions would be real estate developers. They’re not bad people — but they’re driven by profit, not a desire to maintain family-friendly neighborhoods. If you love Austin, email Mayor Steve Adler and tell him you don’t want Austin to be ruined by unchecked development. Remember: We don’t get to vote on CodeNext — and once our neighborhoods are ruined, there’s no going back.
GEORGE BRONNER, AUSTIN
Re: Sept. 14 commentary, “Before Austin offers tax incentives, let’s see if they work.”
Kudos to Bill Aleshire for his column regarding local tax incentives to big companies. His article should be framed and hung in City Chambers.
He asks: “How have tax incentives and the resulting growth benefited common folks who lived here already?” Can our city leaders answer that question?
Then, he notes that the cost of living for current residents is driven up when corporations are given tax breaks. It is so true that inflated real estate values and the associated tax increases are creating hardships for us. We are not benefiting from the vaunted “livability” index, but instead bravely endure the ever-increasing traffic, persistent homelessness, mediocre public schools, increasing property crimes and then, of course, fear of the annual property tax bill.
I join Aleshire in rejecting the pro-growth-at-any-cost position of many of our leaders.
CHRISTINA JONES, AUSTIN
Re: Sept. 17 commentary, “Sanders’ drug plan puts Texas patients, companies in peril.”
Russell Withers’ editorial is biased, full of half-truths and outright lies. Most importantly it turns a blind eye to how much of big pharma’s research is funded by the American taxpayers — and yet they overcharge the same public for the medications that the taxpayers have paid for already.
Withers condemns Bernie Sanders’ complaints, but totally ignores Sander’s truth of how big pharma’s research is funded. “Under this insane system, Americans pay twice. First we pay to create these lifesaving drugs, then we pay high prices to buy those drugs,” wrote Sanders in a New York Times op-ed. “Our government must stop being pushovers for the pharmaceutical industry and its 1,400 lobbyists.”
TERRY J. DUBOSE, AUSTIN
Re: Sept. 14 letter to the editor, “DACA foes’ rule of law claims are laughable.”
What’s laughable is the author’s knowledge of what constitutes a law. She mistakenly believes that an executive order is a law, which is not true. It is just a proclamation by a “dictator in chief,” which the next president can change on his or her first day in office, which President Obama did for almost all of President Bush’s executive orders.
Only Congress can enact a law that’s designed to stop the possibility of a runaway president, like Obama, from making laws that are not for all the people.
ROBERT LINDQUIST, GEORGETOWN
The first question to ask any politician regarding climate change is: “Sir. Define aeolian processes.” The answer you will most likely get is: “Say, what?”
Aeolian processes were hard at work in the midsection of the U.S. during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s when, after the farmers raped the land by not using any soil conservation techniques, the land raped the farmers. Sounds like a perfect example of man-made “climate change.”
DAVID HOGAN, GEORGETOWN