Copyright 2002 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company The Houston Chronicle
November 02, 2002, Saturday 3 STAR
EDITION
SECTION: A; Pg. 41
LENGTH: 2724 words
HEADLINE:
Viewpoints
BYLINE: CRYSTAL BROWN, GERALDINE
ALLEN, JOHN KORMYLO, BETTIE COTHRON, RONALD VEST, MAUREEN MANCINI, K.M. CASEY,
DAN BOREN, A.C. BURKHALTER JR., DEBORAH ORTIZ, C. DEMARCO, THOMAS IOCCA, KEVIN
ROSS, JERE LOCKE
BODY: Sick of
mudslinging? Hang on a few more days
Nasty - not
Texas-friendly
It looks like voters will have to choose
between the lesser of two evils next week. This year's gubernatorial race is one
of the nastiest ever.
Ironically, Texas derives from
the Spanish tejas, meaning friends or allies; but neither one is being very
friendly in the bid to lead the state. Both campaigns are screaming "liar" in
response to opponents' ads. Mudslinging is all too common for Texas politics
and, not only embarrassing, it demoralizes the political process.
As a single mother, I want to know the candidates'
positions on education, gun control, public assistance, health insurance and
penalties for sex offenders.
As the campaign has gotten
nastier, I am losing trust in the candidates and interest in their campaign.
They say everything in Texas is big, and it looks as if politicians' egos rank
among the biggest.
Crystal Brown, Houston
Fort Bend shows problem
It was heartening to read Fred
Lewis' Oct. 27 Outlook article, "Justice Tainted," and learn that at least one
state (North Carolina) has resolved the problem created by preferences for
electing vs. appointing judges, as well as problems caused by partisanship and
special interest money. Wisely (and I hope not futilely), he advocates for Texas
to spend some energy eliminating "partisanship and special-interest money from
judicial elections."
Fort Bend's election ballot has 21
judicial positions that carry only the Republican incumbents - no opposition.
Why bother to vote? This is like "electing" Saddam Hussein.
Lewis claims it's clear that voters want to elect judges, not accept
appointments. But in light of Fort Bend's apparent partisanship (surely not
unique), the unresolved philosophical debate over election vs. appointment is
not all that is keeping Texas in the "judicial backwater."
Geraldine Allen, Sugar Land
Chosen long before Nov. 5
The problem with election reforms is that they are written by
incumbents. So far, every reform has made it easier for incumbents to be
re-elected. It is unlikely that any future reforms would have any different
results.
The area where big money has its greatest
effect is in the primary races, so that only those Republicans and Democrats who
are approved by big money ever make it to the general election. After that, it
doesn't really matter which of the two wins.
John
Kormylo, Houston
'Pappy'
O'Daniel's race
As a child in
the late 1930s, I remember seeing W. Lee ("Pappy") O'Daniel in Sherman making a
campaign speech for his gubernatorial race. This year's race reminds me of what
he said, which I've never forgotten: "He who throws mud loses ground."
Bettie Cothron, Galena Park
Rick Perry stooped too low
I have been having a great deal of trouble deciding who to
vote for in the gubernatorial race. TV ads from both camps have been pretty
dirty, and have failed to tell me anything about what the candidates will do if
elected.
But my mind was made up by a Rick Perry ad
which crossed the line. It featured two Drug Enforcement Agency people trying to
lay the blame for the death of a fellow agent at the feet of Tony Sanchez.
Dirty politics seems to be the norm in this campaign, but
I was totally disgusted by this, and I feel I have no other choice than to vote
against the candidate who stooped so low.
Ronald Vest,
Houston
Voting appeals vs.
grim ads
The usual and
appropriate election calls to "get out the vote" are here once again. But why
must they always go hand in hand with political advertising so repulsive that
one can hardly bring to vote for anyone?
Maureen
Mancini, Houston
Our
well-being over wealthy
Voters may wonder whether the Bush administration, filled with
corporate insiders, is truly looking out for the public interest any better than
it looked out for stockholders' interests. On Nov. 5, we should support
congressional candidates who will put the nation's well-being ahead of the
well-being of wealthy contributors.
K.M. Casey,
Houston
Where's
bipartisanship?
Reflecting on
the political climate in our country and how it got the way it is, I see that
the two major parties - Democrats and Republicans - have a virtual stranglehold
on all elected offices.
These two parties have become
so hostile toward the other that government is routinely gridlocked by their
war. The No. 1 objective of the Democrats is to ensure the Republicans don't get
what they want, and the No. 1 objective of the Republicans is to ensure the
Democrats don't get what they want.
What's best for the
community gets lost in the vicious backstabbing of rivals. Candidates routinely
claim they are bipartisan and will work to help end gridlock, but it doesn't
happen.
Voters must reclaim our government from the two
parties and return it to the people by taking a serious look at third-party
candidates.
We need to vote for candidates who want to
represent the people instead of a political party. Elect the peoples'
representatives.
Dan Boren, Bay City
Preserve Texas' beauty? Yes, but preserve
homeowners' dreams, too
In
response to C.E. Hunt's Oct. 27 Outlook article, "Wake up Houston / Make
developers pay to preserve Texas beauty": Like Hunt, I'm also a native
Houstonian. But the difference is that I still live here.
Hunt wants developers to pay for preservation of urban, suburban and
rural open space and scenic areas. I agree that is a worthwhile objective, but
we differ on how best this can be done.
Land or
property rights for these purposes should be acquired by donation or purchase;
and, for purchase, all it takes is money.
Hunt
proposes, instead, that legislation be enacted to preserve the Texas landscape
and that quasi-governmental nonprofit organizations be established to acquire
land, grant easements, impose and enforce land-use restrictions and otherwise
manage and maintain these properties. Doesn't he know that such organizations
already exist? Their sole purpose is to acquire land (or property rights) for
preservation of open space, historic sites, wildlife habitats, wetlands and
similar worthwhile land uses.
The federal government,
all of the states, most counties and cities have parks, recreation areas, nature
reserves, forest areas and other tax-exempt land and all welcome the donation of
private land for these beneficial uses.
Many of the
properties donated can carry the family name of the original donors, (such as
MacGregor Park and Hermann Park).
Hunt's theme of
"making the developers pay," overlooks a basic tenet of the free enterprise
system: The consumer - the end-user - is who pays all costs in the price of a
product. Land developers' products (residential lots and commercial tracts of
land, complete with utilities) are priced according to competitive market
prices. Building developers' products (homes, apartments, office buildings,
warehouses, shopping centers, etc.) are also priced according to competitive
market A fair rate of return on the investment is the developers' goal.
Property taxes paid by homeowners and commercial property
owners are based on: (1) the value of the property; and (2) the tax rate imposed
by the tax entity. When land is acquired for "preservation" purposes, it is
removed from the tax rolls and becomes tax-exempt. This also happens when land
use is restricted by a "conservation easement" or a similar covenant. So how do
tax entities make up for losing this tax revenue on these properties?
You guessed it: They increase the tax rate levied on all
other properties.
I agree with Hunt that for Houston to
continue to grow and prosper, we need to have a balance between preservation and
development. But I disagree with him that the way to achieve this is by
legislating more restrictive laws, rules and regulations that will just add more
costs to be ultimately paid for by the consumer.
You
don't do it by "making the developers pay."
Added costs
for new homes - whether they be in the form of higher taxes, greater development
and construction costs - or added costs for acquisition and preservation of
"Texas' beauty," only penalize those attempting to achieve the great American
dream of home ownership.
A.C. Burkhalter Jr.,
Houston
Don't lock doors (or
wallets) against the needs of our children
The destruction wrought by Tropical Storm Allison, the
collapse of longstanding corporate institutions and the precarious positions of
several insurance companies have had a sobering effect on millions in our
region.
These combined catastrophic events have driven
home just how vulnerable we are to the ravages of floods and to the greed and
hatred of men.
One positive result was the immediate
and generous response of thousands who felt the need, heard the call and
responded wholeheartedly.
Sadly, the initial generous
outpouring of time, money and energy has dwindled and nearly stopped. These are
difficult times, but instead of trying harder, many people are just giving up.
Instead of helping, we're turning away when our neighbors need us the most.
However, as a community, we can't really afford to lock
our doors and pretend that evil and danger don't exist, nor can we leave
society's ills for someone else to address.
Charities
are on the block, along with government and big corporations. By association,
through financial support, they are being dragged down, too.
For those on the front lines, this is disheartening. Whether it is Big
Brothers/Big Sisters or any other United Way agency - we can't do our work by
ourselves.
Many people have the ability to give, yet
close their eyes and harden their hearts. They deny that they have any
connection with humanity in need.
We must replace
apathy with understanding and empathy; replace violence with respect for human
life.
All reasoning falls flat in the face of children
who have had the light in their eyes snuffed out long before adolescence. Many
youngsters are having to skip their childhood and go straight to adulthood.
The children who are neglected and who lack role models
today may well become your and your children's enemies tomorrow.
We need to open our eyes and our wallets - if for no other reason than
to avoid having to suffer the consequences. It's time to rekindle our kind and
generous spirits.
No one can afford to shun personal
responsibility because of a false hope that "someone else will do it." We must
all do our part.
Deborah Ortiz, Big Brothers/Big
Sisters, Houston
School bond
debate
Tour the schools and
see their needs
I know $
808.6 million seems like a lot for the Houston Independent School District to be
asking for, especially since Houstonians just passed a $ 678 million bond issue
in 1998. But before voting, please consider that HISD has shown it can be
fiscally responsible with taxpayers' money.
The Rebuild
2002 bond program (which built 11 new schools and renovated 78 others) was
completed on time and under budget. With the money saved by careful management,
HISD was able to build an additional elementary school and repair nine
others.
The taxes required to support this bond are
marginal ($ 38 per $ 100,000 in value).
Some are saying
HISD is at fault for not keeping facilities in better shape, but no matter how
well facilities are maintained, buildings age, paint peels and systems break
down. And, after all, the average age of HISD schools is 45 years old.
For any who need convincing that the bond is necessary, I
invite them to visit the schools listed for repair or replacement and ask
themselves if they'd want to attend that school. That should be their guide when
they go to the polls.
C. DeMarco, Houston
'Haves' beating out the
'have-nots'
It should be
quite clear to taxpayers that the upcoming school bond election is about
politics, not about children. The Houston Independent School Districts's board
has a well-documented history of being self-serving - not serving its public, so
I resent the district's motto, "Children First."
In
fact, the board often operates with complete disregard for students, teachers
and parents. I have been teaching in the district for 22 years, and I know our
schools need the money. Our children, too, deserve better than what the district
has given them.
It is unfortunate that the children's
needs have been clouded by arrogance and greed. The HISD bond issue is simply
another battle between political "haves" and "have-nots." Guess who's
winning?
Thomas Iocca, Houston
Opponents fixed on wrong target
In their haste to beat down the
proposition for the school bonds, opponents of the Houston Independent School
District bond issue fail to answer the fundamental question: Are the students of
HISD better off with or without passage of the bond?
While opponents complain about political favors and conflicts of
interest, they fail in their argument that students would be worse off if the
bond passed.
The bond issue seeks to raise and level
the playing field for all of HISD's students. If opponents want to hold HISD
(and its board) accountable, there are other, more productive, means by which to
do so. Held every two years, school board elections provide the most democratic
way to create change within HISD.
Failure to approve
the bond issue hurts the district's most valuable stakeholders - its
students.
Kevin Ross, Cypress
NAFTA's little more than a direct assault on
our democracy, sovereignty
The North American Free Trade Agreement and future trade deals (such as
the Free Trade Area of the Americas) are really a blatant attack on our
democratic system, local sovereignty and public services such and water and
education.
These so-called "free" trade agreements have
had devastating effects on the lives of people in all sectors of the economy -
from farmers to teachers and small business owners to doctors.
The Chronicle's recent series on NAFTA, ("NAFTA at a Crossroads") did a
good job of covering the negative impact that NAFTA has had on jobs in Texas,
but failed to mention the many other ways in which trade agreements are
destroying our communities.
NAFTA and FTAA are trade
deals written by corporations and for corporations, giving no benefit to 98
percent of the population, and we need to know why.
NAFTA is already undermining our democratic system by giving foreign
corporations more rights than domestic companies or even our local and national
governments.
Under Chapter 11 of
NAFTA, foreign corporations can overturn our health and safety laws if they
are deemed to be "barriers to free trade."
These
disputes are decided in closed tribunals without the public, media or elected
officials in attendance.
Methanex Corp. (a Canadian
manufacturer of the gasoline additive MTBE) is suing the United States for $ 970
million in "future lost profits" after the state of California banned MTBE from
gasoline because it was contaminating the water supply. This case will set a
precedent for any other state that attempts to pass similar regulations to
protect ITS citizens.
The Free Trade Area of the
Americas will be an even more devastating attack on our jobs, environment and
democracy. It is an expansion of NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere (except
for Cuba) and is being finalized now after a seven-year process.
Again, these negotiations are being carried out behind closed doors by
trade representatives who have not been chosen by the citizens of the countries
they represent.
FTAA will not only expand the
geographical reach of NAFTA, but will include new regulations on trade in
services and non-tariff barriers to trade.
Local
governments will be restricted from establishing living wage standards,
set-asides for women and minority owned businesses, environmental protections
such as zoning and pollution laws and public health regulations.
Finally, FTAA will intensify NAFTA's "race to the bottom," as those
workers exploited in Mexico will be forced to compete against even more
desperate workers in Haiti or Guatemala.
We must ask
questions about how our trade agreements are negotiated and who will really
benefit from them. We must also have our congressional representatives educate
themselves and stand up for democracy and people instead of corporations.
GRAPHIC: Drawings: 1 - 3. (b/w); Photo: 4. Nate Woody and Sarah
Sides enjoying the late afternoon sunshine at MacGregor Park. MacGregor Park was
named for the family that donated the property to the city. (b/w); 4. D.
Fahleson / Chronicle
Document 4 of 112. 