Letters: Ask questions anyway; keeping cars clean; protection vs. attention

05/14/2014 6:10 PM

05/14/2014 6:11 PM

Ask questions anyway

I am baffled at the lack of coverage of the District 1 council race in north Arlington.

The candidate was never asked his positions on many municipal issues.

Some of these issues are the completion of Viridian, the city’s portion of the beautification costs, the Lamar overlay project, road expansion or possible contraction for that project, cost absorption by whom, who is footing the tab for the beautification of North Collins Street toward Viridian, and basic issues such as sparse or slow enforcement of municipal codes.

As taxpayers, we have a right to answers. Yes, the candidate was unopposed, but the questions still should be posed.

— Thomas Lupinacci, Arlington

Keeping cars clean

Randy Geisel recently commented about water restrictions and car washes.

I share concerns about the drought, but the comments related to car washes were based on incorrect information.

Car washes use very little water. Self-serve washes use only about 12-15 gallons per wash, conveyors about 35 gallons per car.

Considering annual water use, car washes are not in the top 1,000 largest water users.

Many car washes recycle. All car washes have “grit traps” where wash water is returned to the sanitary sewer.

Another inaccuracy: “A dirtier car doesn’t cost a person any money.”

Accumulation of dirt and other particles scratches your car’s finish. Bird droppings, acid rain, industrial pollutants, sap from trees and insects also damage paint.

A regular wash prevents contaminants from damaging the finish and the most dangerous problem: rust.

Many have a large investment in their vehicles, and when that investment is damaged, the value is reduced.

Not washing your car does cost a person money.

— Chuck Space, Executive Director, Southwest Car Wash Association, Austin

Safety vs. attention

Help me out: If I hear gun rights advocates correctly, they want to carry guns to protect themselves in the event they are attacked or a shooter begins randomly firing.

That’s not totally logical, but I can see their thinking.

So tell me exactly why someone would carry a replica or carving of a gun (as several people did to Arlington council).

Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see protection applying here.

Their argument that they are just trying to get the public comfortable with guns is like walking around naked so people will get used to it.

Carrying fake guns in public places is nothing more than an attention-getting stunt. It’s just saying “hey look at me.”

It reminds me of a guy I saw walking without a shirt. He thought it was cool, but I suspect everyone he passed thought, “what a jerk.”

— David H. Towson, Fort Worth

UT Board of Regents

Your editorial today was excellent in advocating Regent Wallace Hall’s termination of service as a UT System Regent, by whatever means.

According to the Hardin Report to the Transparency Committee, Hall has repeatedly violated important standards of conduct for a fiduciary, having disregarded multiple warnings from many responsible sources.

Under these circumstances, in my opinion, a “no confidence vote” by the Board of Regents is, as you say, “the very least” that should happen.

I am concerned with your statement “if none of those things happen” (which I interpret to include the “no confidence vote”).

I submit that a vote of “no confidence” should not satisfy the Transparency Committee in lieu of impeachment, if Hall does not resign.

The Committee should “move forward with the impeachment” even if there is such a vote.

The only long term solution to this kind of problem, and others like it, is removal of the offender from office and denial of the opportunity to vote and to disrupt the orderly administration of an academic institution.

The specter of “chilling” legitimate exercise of good governance is a false justification for opposing impeachment in this case.

This is the easy case because of the extreme conduct.

This brand of conduct should, at the “very least,” be “chilled.”

The conduct of Regents Gene Powell and Alex Cranberg should also be examined closely by the Transparency Committee.

Thank you for speaking out on this issue that affects the governance of all of higher education in Texas and the appointive process, as well as excellence in education in Texas generally.

— Gordon Appleman, Fort Worth

Join the Discussion

Fort Worth Star-Telegram is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQ | Terms of Service