The Dunes.

Tax Exempt Mennonites.

Here's an internet article with some facts about OBAMACARE.  In case you wanted to know anything more than it's SOCIALIST and UN-AMERICAN.

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

• A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)

• A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)

• Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)

• The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to $10,000. Right now, any medical expenses over $7,500 per year are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be $10,000. (ATR.org)

• The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)

• A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

• A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)

• A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)

• A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)

• A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.
Any big ones I've missed?

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You

Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.

Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

• The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
• The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
• The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
• No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
• The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
• The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
• However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

• Less than $9,500 income = $0
• $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
• $50,000 income = $1,000
• $75,000 income = $1,600
• $100,000 income = $2,250
• $125,000 income = $2,900
• $150,000 income = $3,500
• $175,000 income = $4,100
• $200,000 income = $4,700
• Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

• Those who make less than $9,500
• Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
• Those with "hardships"
• Members of Indian tribes
• Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites or Mennonites

More from The Daily Ticker

Meet Mr. Sullivan.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/gop-chairs-file-ethics-complaint-against-prominent-conservative-2281621.html

Get Ready for the Big Time, Sullivan Style.

From: luridtransom
To: Michael Quinn Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Two-faced Republicans and other pretenders

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

Do you follow our blog? It's called luridtransom. We think you'd really like it. Check it out. http://luridtransom.blogspot.com/

Let us know what you think. Maybe you can even post a link to it on your website. Thanks!

Regards,
luridtransom


From: Michael Quinn Sullivan
To: luridtransom
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 7:17 AM
Subject: Two-faced Republicans and other pretenders

Empower Texans Foundation | Texans for Fiscal Responsibility | Empower Texans PAC

May 2, 2012

QUOTING... "If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Must be close to election day, because we're seeing a predictable number of moderates trying to hide their records and flip-flop around the issues. And of course House Speaker Joe Straus and his friends are trying to pass off establishment drivel as conservative messaging.

Say Anything (Then Raise Taxes)
As a trial lawyer and politician, State Rep. Todd Smith says whatever people want to hear as he runs for the Texas Senate in district 9. Too bad for them, he’s saying different things. The problem now for Todd Smith is that folks are starting to compare notes about what he says.

In fact, Todd Smith apparently told the Dallas Morning News that if elected to the Texas Senate he’d support raising gasoline taxes.

Speaking to conservative voters in the district, however, we hear from a different Todd Smith. The campaign Todd Smith says he’s a conservative who opposes raising taxes and will control the costs of government.

Caught between a Dallas Morning News endorsement praising him for being a tax-hiker, and a speech to the Mextroplex Republican Women claiming he opposes a tax increase, Mr. Smith nonsensically explained the disconnect to the FWST by claiming he just wants to keep his options open, in case the economy improves.

So on taxes — like so many issues — there appears to be several Todd Smiths. One who favors the DMN hike-taxes-now-for-boondoggles program, and one who claims he opposes a tax hike — for now, while campaigning. Depending on who else he talks to, a few more Todd Smiths may appear.

Bottom-line: Todd Smith will say almost anything to get a seat in the Texas Senate. But he will most definitely vote to raise your taxes.

Establishment Bona Fides
Over the last few weeks, moderates and liberals have been launching groups with conservative-sounding names, even using conservative messaging, all to hide their grow-government agenda and promote liberal policies in the Republican Primary.

One such group is the Texas Conservative Roundtable. This group gave liberal Democrats higher ratings than some of the most established conservatives.

What a surprise to learn that "roundtable" board member has received thousands of dollars in payments from the campaign coffers of moderate House Speaker Joe Straus. (Remember, Speaker Straus has been speaking dismissively of the popular reforms in the Texas Budget Compact, and has absolutely refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.)

Another group, Texans for Individual Rights, has launched a smear campaign against Texans for Lawsuit Reform. What a surprise that the group's head has been a supporter of Joe Straus, and is being funded by liberal trial lawyer Steve Mostyn, the Democratic Party's sugar-daddy.

Finally, the fallaciously named "Parent PAC" is making a comeback. This group is actually the Bureaucracy PAC, even the Superintendent PAC. They work to undermine parents in the education process by promoting bureaucratic bloat, and endorse liberals at every turn.

Real Taxpayer Endorsements
Reading over the editorial endorsements from the Dallas Morning News, they have a very concise agenda for their candidates: opposition to the Texas Budget Compact, and a disturbing “flexibility” on raising taxes.

Want to find out who is standing strong on taxpayer issues? Check out TaxpayerPledge.com to see who has promised their constitutions that they will oppose new and higher taxes.

For Texas,
Michael Quinn Sullivan & the EmpowerTexans.com team

Seniors Demand Preferential Tax Treatment.

We received this email from Bob Jackson of AARP Texas:

There's some incorrect information going around about what's on the ballot in May 2012. An email has been circulating warning voters that the homestead tax cap for people 65 and older is up for a vote. This isn't true.

The May election will not include a repeal of the homestead tax cap for seniors.

Here are the facts: In 2006, The Texas Legislature passed a law reducing property taxes for all homeowners. However, the legislation left out senior and disabled citizens whose property taxes were already "frozen." As a result, seniors and people with disabilities didn't receive the same reduction until, with your help, AARP Texas urged the Texas Legislature to fix this in 2007. That May, Texas voters passed an amendment extending property tax relief to seniors and disabled Texans.

This problem was solved five years ago. There’s no constitutional amendment election scheduled in Texas next month. Seniors and disabled Texans can rest easy, knowing their homestead tax cap is not at risk.

Please help us fight the misinformation. Forward this to ten friends or family now.

Here's luridtransom's response:

Dear Bob,

Thanks for passing this along. We believe the homestead tax cap for those 65 and older should be limited to the first $500,000 of a homestead's appraised value. Do you agree? Look, we don't want to force seniors out on the street. But at the same time, it makes no sense for the rest of us to subsidize the opulent mansion lifestyles of Millionaire Seniors, does it? Please let us know if you agree. And feel free to explain your position all you want. America's blog audience is waiting anxiously for your reply.

Regards,
luridtransom

I rolled down the window and told the man, "50 cents worth, please."

luridtransom is FOR turning 281 and 1604 into toll roads. Use the toll revenue for the streetcar.

Sports Talk Radio.

Arkansas was stupid to fire Bobby Petrino. Enough fake moral outrage already. He's a football coach, not a televangelist. Public apology, a big donation to the Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club, and move on. Don't you Ozark Moral High Grounders know the Razorbacks have a real shot to win the SEC this year for the first time EVER?

It's a simple question.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.

1) luridtransom is FOR the Keystone XL Pipeline. Look, don't give me this crap about cheaper gas or energy independence. You're looking for the Koch Bros. blog. Building the Keystone XL Pipeline is the least bad choice. The other choice is not building it, and the tar sands oil gets piped to a port in British Columbia. Sorry tree huggers, not producing the tar sands oil isn't an option. Those money-grubbing Canucks don't care about driving the polar bears to extinction.

2) luridtransom is FOR opening up Hobby to international flights.

Consumer Watchdog Blog.

Here's an Open Letter from Norv:

Don’t ever buy a watch from Luminox. I have owned my watch for 6 years. It is a complete and total piece of crap. The following is a timetable and outline of the hassles presented by this watch.

1. Butterfly clasp on watchband started popping loose about six months after I got it. Like, I’d move my wrist a certain way and it would pop open. I had it repaired by a jeweler 3 times before giving up and buying a new watch band.

2. The pins that hold the watch and the band together were always popping loose, which caused the watch to fall all the way off my wrist. This has happened with both the old band and the replacement band. Super aggravating. And if it happens when I’m over concrete, you have to deal with what happens when the watch hits the concrete.

3. Six months ago, the second hand came off inside the watch face. It’s just floating around in there. Thanks, Luminox.

4. Yesterday, the pin popped out and the watch fell on the driveway while I was cleaning up my fishing gear. This time, the glass broke.

5. This son of a bitch has never kept good time. It randomly stops whenever it wants to.

I called Luminox USA and told them I thought they made shitty watches, and needed to convince me I was wrong. The best they will do is a 40 percent discount on a new watch, or repair it at my cost. So basically, I can pay to have a shitty watch repaired, or I can buy another shitty watch for $200-300. I am tempted to just write them a letter, watch enclosed, and tell them they can have their shitty watch back, and there will be a dude in South Texas telling everybody he knows how shitty these watches actually are. From here, I’ll either wear my old Orvis watch that I’ve had since college (like Matt’s Fossil watch) or buy a new Timex Ironman.

To recap, Luminox sucks bigtime. THANKS A LOT, Luminox.

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