|« Back to Article|
Letters: Luring businesses, faux concern, honey treats
Copyright 2013: Houston Chronicle | April 25, 2013 | Updated: April 25, 2013 7:29pm
Regarding "Neighbors fearing density could apply for protection" (Page A1, Tuesday), I am opposed to Chapter 42 until the law requires that the true costs of the added infrastructure for higher density living are paid for by the developer.
This is how it was in the olden, golden days. The developer paid for the streets, the water lines, the electricity and all those costs were factored in to the building costs.
If Chapter 42 passes, this is what will happen: The developers will be happy, the city of Houston will be happy with a higher tax base as a result of denser population, and the mayor will believe she will be guaranteed re-election because the developers will be generous to her campaign, and the city will become temporarily solvent.
However, the sewer lines will plug up, the water pressure will go down, the electrical grid will be strained, and Houston will flood more and in areas that never flooded. Then the city will say we need to improve the infrastructure and we need a bond to float all this debt for increased infrastructure costs, and the poor taxpayers will have to pay for what should have been paid for by the developers.
It is not fair for the taxpayers who have lived in a neighborhood for years to absorb the increased infrastructure costs for the newcomers of "high density units." The developers will be long gone.
Dolley P. Madison, Houston
Regarding "House flip-flops in lottery drama" (Page A1, Wednesday), I am both surprised and perplexed about the concern for the poor that was expressed by legislators.
The article quotes Rep. Scott Sanford referring to the lottery as a predatory tax and a tax on poor people. Rep. Steve Toth is quoted as having stated: "This [the Texas Lottery] was nothing more than a tax on the poor."
I was blown away by their concern for those who are less fortunate and almost applauded those legislators who came out and openly exhibited concern for the poor.
Then, I remembered "Payday loan bill clears Senate" (Page B1, Tuesday). Some of these same legislators are pushing a bill to pre-empt more stringent local ordinances in the cities of Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso for two years, which will allow the payday loan industry to continue charging as much as 500 percent annual interest rate on their loans to the same poor people of Texas.
So I wondered if, in fact, there was truly concern for the poor regarding the Texas Lottery? Or were those legislators simply playing politics with their constituents and showing how conservative they can be by opposing "evil gambling" in the state of Texas?
I believe if the legislators were truly concerned about the poor, one of the first things that they could do would be to pass really stringent legislation regarding payday loans.
That, however, would have them going against a very strong special interest. It is much easier to go against the poor.
Jose Rodriquez, Huntsville
Regarding "The buzz is all about honey in the Heights" (Page D1, Monday), as a beekeeper myself, I was pleased to see that the Zelko's Heights Honeybee Project is being promoted to your readers.
As I tell my friends who ask about bee colonies and beekeeping: If you like to eat food, you will support pollinators. Houston's climate and varied plant life offer a strong and consistent environment for bees and their handiwork. Here's hoping that more Houstonians will establish a colony in their backyard. After all, the bees produce (although they surrender it very reluctantly) the sweetest and simplest reward for the humans who nurture a queen and her colony - honey.
Kathleen Dawson, Houston