Unconstitutional.

Letters to Lamar.

Dear Congressman Smith:

There has been lots of talk lately about increasing gas prices. Many Republicans have blamed higher gas prices on the Obama Administration. In fact, you did so yourself recently in your March 16th Energy Solutions column.

You wrote: "I will continue pushing for an energy approach that utilizes our own resources to protect Americans from surging gas prices in the future."

Here's the link to your column if you'd like to review it: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=229484

Today I ran across an AP article you might find interesting. Here's a link to the article from the San Antonio Express-News website: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/More-U-S-drilling-didn-t-drop-gas-prices-3425467.php

In short, the article says increased domestic oil production (as you've advocated in your Energy Solutions column) will not bring down gasoline prices. Here's a quote from the article: "That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline."

Do you agree with the conclusion of this article? Just answer YES or NO, and then you can explain all you want.

To be clear, I'm not asking if you favor increased domestic production. I already know you do, because I read the section of your website called "Energy and Gas Prices." Obviously, there can be benefits to increased domestic production even if the AP article is accurate, and it won't lead to cheaper gasoline. But that's not what I'm asking about.

What I'm asking is whether you agree with the AP article's conclusion that increased domestic oil production will not lower gas prices. If you answer NO, indicating you disagree, please tell America why you disagree.

I think intellectual honesty in our political discourse is important, and often sadly absent. I anxiously await your honest response.

Regards,
luridtransom

Letters to the Editor.

Mr. Pimentel:

I saw your recent column about Voter ID. Here's the link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_columnists/o_ricardo_pimentel/article/Voter-ID-just-another-21st-Century-poll-tax-3422620.php#ixzz1plYc9yws

You write:

Voter ID, according to its adherents' narrative, is all about protecting the integrity of the vote. There is little evidence of in-person voter fraud. Still, it sounds noble enough that it cancels out the 603,892 to 795,955 Texans without the required ID but still eligible to vote. They won't be able to if this law stands. And — surprise! — Democrat-voting Latinos, and undoubtedly blacks, have higher probability of being among those without the ID.

We agree the claim that Voter ID is intended to prevent in-person voter fraud is a sham. There's no actual in-person voter fraud to prevent.

Your claim that 603,892 to 795,955 Texans won't be able to vote if Voter ID stands is almost as far fetched. You assume ZERO ID-less voters will get an ID and continue to vote. Surely it's possible that at least some of these voters (perhaps the majority?) will make the effort to get an ID so they can vote. After all, voting already requires some amount of effort. Why do you assume the hundreds of thousands of ID-less voters will unanimously draw the line at getting an ID, and quit voting altogether? Is that in fact your assumption? Or are you just using the biggest numbers to make your argument more dramatic?

Also, do you have any demographic stats on the 603,892 to 795,955 ID-less voters? Perhaps it's in the DOJ filings, I don't know. I'd be curious to see how that number breaks down.

Regards,
luridtransom

luridtransom Mailbag: Letter to Joe Straus

Dear Speaker Straus:

Your GOP primary challenger, the "True Conservative" Matt Beebe, has this up on his website:

Casino Gambling and Expanded Gaming
The government, at its core, has a duty to protect its citizens, not exploit them.

Unlike traditional businesses which actually grow the economy, the money that gamblers devote to gambling is a net loss, a net drain on the economy. Gaming advocates attempt to expand gambling under the guise that it will generate more revenue for government. However, study after study shows that this just isn’t the case, and local residents and taxpayers across the state would be left with a net increase in costs, while big casino bosses and well-connected special interests will siphon off money from some of the most vulnerable among us.

As Republicans we shouldn’t be distracted by lure of new revenue in the form of a tax on the poor. It’s bad for Texas families, and it’s bad for the Texas economy.

Unlike my opponent Joe Straus who’s [sic] family stands to make millions with the expansion of gaming in Texas, I will oppose:

■Las Vegas-style hotel casinos
■adding slot machines to race tracks
■any expansion of state sanctioned gambling

Here's the link: http://www.votebeebe.com/issues/

Mr. Beebe implies that you support gambling expansion in Texas, and you are motivated by your own financial interest.

What is your position on expanded gambling in Texas? Are you in favor of Las Vegas style hotel casinos? Slot machines at race tracks? Have you supported (or opposed) gambling legislation?

Also, what are your family ties to gambling that Mr. Beebe mentions?

Thanks for your straight-forward answer.

Regards,
luridtransom

NPR: Elite Media?

Yesterday afternoon (3/20) NPR ran a story about the Illinois GOP Primary. You know, Santorum vs. Romney and Chicago vs. Downstate Illinios. So the reporter asks a Man On The Street question to an Illinois lady. What motivated you to come out and vote in the primary today?

Her answer: "The most important thing to me is that we get back to the Constitution and stop fooling around with socialism and anarchy."

And then the story moves on. No follow up questions, nothing. Just moves on, like it's a totally reasonable thing to say you're dissatisfied with the country's direction toward socialism and anarchy. She doesn't like the government controlling all means of production and centralized management of the economy, when there's no government to carry out these functions. Is that what she means? On second thought, maybe she has a point. That sounds like a pretty stupid system.

Luxury Home Market Update.

Here's an excerpt from a SA Express-News article. At least some high-end homeowners have kept their heads and are still asking for Texas-Tuscan.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Contemporary-designs-starting-to-gain-ground-3413368.php#ixzz1phKZYDbJ

It's nothing that will set the world of modern architecture on fire.

But there's an ever-so-subtle shift toward modern design in San Antonio's luxury home market, and away from the Tuscan and Mediterranean look that had become so omnipresent in higher-end neighborhoods.

Custom builder Kyle Lindsey said people still are asking for styles such as French country and “Texas-Tuscan.”

“People are still in that market. I am starting to see more introduction into a more organic contemporary,” Lindsey said. “It's very clean and crisp and simple with straight lines. There are lots of light colors and earth tones. I almost want to say it has an organic feeling. The clients I see moving in that direction are over the Texas-Tuscan look, that really heavy look with lots of detail. They're over it, and they're very clear about being sick of it.”

Voter ID: You're all lying.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2012/03/voter-id-good-elections-or-a-mugging/

Voter ID is not about preventing voter fraud. Voter ID is not a racist disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Hispanics.

Nowhere else in the Elite Media will you see an honest framing of the issue. Only from this Elite Media bastion of truth. Here's the issue, honestly framed: Should we impose an inconvenience on elderly Hispanic Democratic voters, knowing it will likely keep some (maybe lots) from voting? The upside is that some of these folks won't show up to vote. The downside is that some of these folks won't show up to vote. So just answer the question, YES or NO.

Why do we keep talking about voter fraud, and protecting democracy, and the rest of the nonsense coming from Rick Perry and John Cornyn? Why does the rest of the Elite Media allow it? Why aren't they cross-examined about the evidence of voter fraud the Voter ID law would prevent? Is the rest of the Elite Media scared of Greg Abbott?

Why do we keep talking about disenfranchising minorities? You know what disenfranchises minorities? Jim Crow laws and Grandfather Clauses, that's what. How is anyone disenfranchised by a requirement to get a photo ID? Guess what - the DPS issues photo IDs to everybody, regardless of ethnicity. Save your disenfranchisement drama, DOJ and Charlie Gonzalez. (Gonzalez: "Millions of our fellow citizens might be disenfranchised." http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Voter-ID-laws-disenfranchise-Americans-3205446.php#ixzz1pOEa2Whi)
If the would-be disenfranchised voters can find out when the election is, get themselves to the voting location, and cast a ballot, they can get a photo ID. Sure, some voters may be inconvenienced to the point they won't mess with voting. But don't call that disenfranchisement, because that's not what it is.

Voter ID has nothing to do with voter fraud or minority disenfranchisement. Stop talking about it in those terms.

Questions for the True Conservative.

Below is our inquiry to Matt Beebe, the True Conservative taking aim at Joe Straus. Here's Beebe's website. http://www.votebeebe.com/ Check back for Mr. Beebe's response.

Dear Matt,

After reading the Issues section of your website, I have a couple questions.

You state that you "will seek to end the business margins tax." As you know, that tax (also called the Franchise Tax) makes up an estimated 9% of state revenue for 2012-2013. https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/com/research/reg_reports/Texas-budget_06242011.pdf
You're certainly not alone in you dissatisfaction with the tax, but how would you replace it? Or would you replace it at all? In other words, are you advocating ending the tax altogether and forgoing all revenue it generates, or changing the tax to a more desirable form?

On illegal immigration, you state "we must get serious about interior enforcement, and end the miscarriage of justice known as 'sanctuary cities.'" What do you mean by that? What specifically should the state of Texas do with respect to immigration enforcement? An Arizona style law? Laws aimed at "self-deportation" like those enacted in Alabama? Would you go after employers of illegal immigrants? Organize task forces to arrest illegals en masse for deportation? Obviously there are many options and many different ideas being debated across the country. When you talk about "get[ting] serious about interior enforcement," what do you have in mind?

Thanks in advance for your substantive and straight-forward answers.

Regards,
luridtransom

REI Sucks. Sent via snail mail.

Dear REI,

The Express-News is reporting that REI is opening a store at Heubner Oaks Shopping Center this fall. Here's the link to the story:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Outdoor-retail-REI-to-open-S-A-store-3387054.php

I've suggested many times over the past couple years that REI open up a San Antonio store. And I've been very clear about NOT choosing a location way up in Northside Suburbia. And what do you do? You pick the Heubner Oaks Shopping Center, a frontage road strip center way out I-10. Hey look - your neighbors are Bed, Bath & Beyond, California Pizza Kitchen, and The Gap. And don't forget about Pier 1 Imports and Saltgrass Steakhouse. Neat. The only reason I know what's out there is I just looked it up on the intertron. I'm not going out there. Ever. Shame on you, REI. You've become just another national big box retailer, no different than the rest. So now it's official - REI sucks.

Regards,
luridtransom

P.S. - I was going to email you this letter, but you don't have an actual email address on your website. Just a crappy email form that you can't even copy and paste into. I guess you got that idea from Starbucks? Whatever.

Are you really a "professor"? No way.

Listen up, international blog audience. This is a three part post. Part one is Prof. Heywood Sanders's SA Current article about the streetcar plan. Part two is my e-mail to Prof. Sanders. Part three is Prof. Sanders's "response" to my email. I hope you don't like straight forward responses. Prof. Sanders must have his eye on Lamar Smith's House seat.

For the record, luridtransom is FOR the Broadway Streetcar.

http://sacurrent.com/arts/visualart/city-streetcar-plans-represent-another-developer-fueled-heist-1.1271883

City streetcar plans represent another developer-fueled heist

By Heywood Sanders

Published: February 15, 2012

"GO BY STREETCAR" reads the big neon sign on the Streetcar Lofts in Portland's Pearl District. And in Portland, you can go by streetcar. From the busy, active downtown complete with Macy's, Nordstrom's, H&M, and host of other stores and businesses leading into the booming Pearl District with its lofts and townhouses.

You can go by streetcar right to the Piazza Italia restaurant (been there) and Cool Moon Ice Cream down the block (it's great!). The streetcar can take you to the Whole Foods Market in the Pearl District. You can go right past Powell's "City of Books" Bookstore, covering an entire square block with more than a million new and used books on the shelves. You can go back to downtown, past the public library, the Portland Art Museum, and to Portland State University. It serves lots of places, places where Portlanders naturally go.

Soon, if our city and county politicos have their way, you'll be able to go by streetcar in San Antonio too. And where will we be able to go?

You'll be able to go from the Alamo up Broadway to the Pearl Brewery, right past all the now-shuttered car dealerships. You'll be able to go by thriving Rivercenter Mall, through HemisFair Park, and to the Robert Thompson Transit Center next to the Alamodome. Or you could go through downtown, all the way to the new West Side multimodal transit center in Cattleman's Square.

The promises sound great. The San Antonio Express-News offered the editorial judgment that the streetcar could be "a game-changer that sparks inner-city growth and slows the culture of sprawl."

Is that "inner-city growth" around Pearl Brewery and the Alamodome? Are we slowing a "culture of sprawl" along Broadway? I don't think so. All those with jobs downtown, who live along Broadway or in HemisFair Park, raise your hands.

Or how about this assessment of the coming West Side multimodal center offered by Henry Muñoz, chair of the VIA board: "This facility will not only enhance the visual appeal of the immediate vicinity, it will also result in increased development and redevelopment."

That's the reality of the planned streetcar "system" as well as the multimodal center. It's about development. That in turn means land and building. And it's not really about serving the transportation needs of San Antonians, even those in the inner city.

It's about moving tourists, getting them quickly to Pearl Brewery and to a host of development projects planned along Broadway and in HemisFair Park. It's about making new apartments and lofts more saleable. And it's truly about making some developers real money.

We've long worshipped development in San Antonio. Around downtown that's meant trying to lure tourists to projects like the "Pink Elephant" of Fiesta Plaza, where the downtown campus of UTSA now stands. Or putting brick sidewalks and tall palm trees along Houston Street in the belief that "major retailers" like Barnes & Noble or Bath & Body Works would soon follow. Even building a glass-enclosed elevator from the Riverwalk to a trolley stop near Alamo Plaza to lure tourists to the "$52 million entertainment and retail complex" at Sunset Station on the Near East Side.

Somehow these "development" things didn't work out. I suspect it will be much the same fate for the "game changer" of the streetcar and multimodal center. A big part of the problem is that we're not Portland. Unlike that Oregon city, we've spent decades supporting and subsidizing outlying growth. Our big department stores aren't downtown, they're at La Cantera. Our new jobs and employment centers aren't downtown either. Instead they stretch out I-10, I-35, and 281.

The streetcar works in Portland because it serves places Portlanders want to go, places that were already hubs of activity. It built on Portland's planned approach to growth and transportation.

If we're really serious about dealing with sprawl, or improving the environment, or getting people out of their cars, we need a set of projects and policies that work together.

In San Antonio, the streetcar smacks of yet another "deal," one designed and engineered by the builders and developers. Perhaps it will work for them, although I doubt it. It certainly won't work for the rest of us.

Heywood Sanders teaches public administration and public policy at UTSA. His column appears monthly.

-----Original Message-----
From: luridtransom
Sent: Tue 2/21/2012 1:01 PM
To: Heywood Sanders
Subject: Streetcar.

Mr. Sanders:

I read your column in the SA Current about streetcars. I don't disagree with your premise that the streetcar is about development, not solving transportation needs. Still, I'm for the streetcar. I'm for development downtown and along broadway. So, the streetcar works for me.

I take it you're against the streetcar. What kind of "projects and policies that work together" would you rather see?

Thanks for the interesting column!

Regards,
luridtransom

From: Heywood Sanders
To: luridtransom
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Streetcar.

luridtransom,

It's not a matter of being "for" or "against" the streetcar.
Just as it was not, some years ago, a matter of being "for" or "against" the Alamodome.
It's a matter of what the larger public purpose is, how the public investment is sold, and what it's likely to do.
I can certainly understand if you'd like to see "development" downtown and along Broadway.
But the real question is whether a streetcar will produce that "development," in the absence of other public policies and planning.
For SA, the simple answer is pretty much no.
Take a look at what is now at Pearl Brewery, and where it came from.
Look at Il Sogno, and Sandbar, and LaGloria and where the used to be.
And note that much of the office activity used to be downtown.
As were many of the events.
And then recognize that there is a difference between "building" and "development"

hs

Letter to Senator Jeff Wentworth.

Sen. Wentworth:

I read in the Express-News that you signed a letter asking Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff to reconsider using advanced transportation district ("ATD") funds for a downtown streetcar system. Here's the link to the article: http://www.mysanantonio.com/traffic/article/Officials-challenge-streetcar-funding-3374642.php

You are quoted as follows: "We believe that addressing the issue of congestion is a more pressing issue and the money should go toward solving that problem — congestion — rather than using it for something that's really more for downtown development,” Wentworth said.

Are you saying you'd rather build more roads and highways to relieve commuter congestion from the suburbs than build a downtown streetcar? Or do you have another congestion solution in mind?

Also, where exactly is this congestion problem you'd like to solve?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Regards,
luridtransom