Austinwater used for pet projects
Re: May 10 letter to the editor, “Texas homeowners paying all the bills.”
It is with interest that I read all these thoughts on property taxes. The letter to the editor I read today mentioned city taxes, county taxes, etc., but not Austin school district taxes. Am I the only one who has half of their property taxes going to the Austin school district? Of all the solutions to keeping Austin affordable, we are now in a good position to do something concrete to keep taxes down.
We are in the process of finding a new superintendent for the dis-
Re: May 8 article, “Austinites may face ‘drought fee.’ ”
One of the main reasons for the fee is the fact that the politicians have used Austin Water Utility as a “cash cow” to pay for pet projects like the $2.7 million for wildland conservation and the $4.8 million to help pay for affordable housing. That fact should have been in the first paragraph of the article and not the last. Having a reserve fund for times of drought when you would expect conservancy efforts to reduce income to the utility would have been too much good administration and competence to expect from our City Council. But, of course now that the well has run dry and the cow has gotten skinny, let’s have citizens pay a fee. Politicians in this city have made the idea of “Affordable Austin” an oxymoron. It is time to say enough is enough. trict. The primary qualification of the candidates to be considered is not how they will keep costs down, but how they will reduce costs. Why are we paying someone to help the district find a new superintendent? It’s not rocket science, people!
And what about all the managers who work in the downtown offices? The argument is that we need all these non-teaching professionals because other large cities have them. Yet smaller districts don’t have them and produce just-as-well-educated students as Austin. I urge anyone concerned about their property taxes to immediately contact their school district board trustee to let them know how they feel about how their property tax money is being spent.
Re: May 3 commentary, “President’s foreign policy is one of self-delusion.”
Charles Krauthammer’s recent column, using a 65-year-old analogy, urged that the U.S. should send weapons to Western Ukraine and NATO forces to the countries bordering Russia. Such action is unnecessary and would be foolish and counter-productive. Krauthammer seems overcome with envy of Russian President Vladimir Putin and hatred for President Barack Obama. Putin’s notoriety for annexing Crimea is fleeting. He will not invade Eastern Ukraine because: (1) It would spark a desperate conflict with Ukrainian partisans more dangerous than the Russian humiliation in Afghanistan; (2) The annexation of Eastern Ukraine would lead to the inevitable move of the remainder of Ukraine into the EU and NATO (bringing NATO troops to the border of Russia); (3) The annexation of Crimea by itself would prove difficult and costly for Russia. Obama’s thoughtful and steady hand in today’s turbulent international affairs is far better and more effective than the reactive, ham-fisted and primarily political approach of his critics.