Down the Drain
To the editor: Loved the Weekly’s front-page story (“Has Fort Worth Lost its Moral Compass,” Sept. 22, 2010) and headlines devoted to city hall and its elected officials — a comprehensive report by veteran journalists Jeff Prince and Betty Brink.
The incumbents in the city hall wolf pack never had a compass — maybe we should buy one and send it to them. They couldn’t pass any test for integrity or honesty but would set new records for avarice and corruption.
Voters need to call Roto-Rooter and remove all those who aren’t working in the interests of the citizens.
Terms of Undearment
To the editor: Political journalist Dave McNeely (“Coming to Terms,” Sept. 22, 2010) offered some enlightening perspectives and a political primer on term limits. He is on target on all counts, particularly on how certain politicians will advocate term limits right up until it affects them, then begin baying a different theme.
State Sen. Jane Nelson has come to her constituents’ aid many times, and she maintains a good track record. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has fared pretty well with her constituents; no doubt she’ll run for a fourth term. As the person quoted in the story said, “We already have term limits. They’re called elections.”
TIFs and Trusts
To the editor: Dan McGraw’s “Which Ox to Gore” (Sept. 15, 2010) is well written and works in tandem with other recent stories about the gas drilling industry. Money and greed are the prevailing themes in Fort Worth right now.
Initially, voters were assured that all revenue generated from gas leases would be spent on essential services, like building and maintaining roads. That idea has landed in File 13. Now the money is placed in a trust fund, with the proposal that the city lend itself those funds. Eliminating city jobs to save money is just going to worsen the unemployment situation.
We should band together and vote out the whole lot of incumbents who are so tied to money.
To the editor: The real problem with the Fort Worth budget is that the mayor and council have protected their pet projects from discussion. They purposely pay for these types of projects with funds from tax-increment financing (TIF) districts, which are siphoned from the top of the general fund before the budget process begins. Police, libraries, and parks never get discussed. These TIFs need to be dissolved and no future TIFs generated.
To the editor: Regarding the guardianship story (“In Whose Best Interest,” Sept. 8, 2010): Almost exactly the same thing happened to us eight years ago here in California, and we are still fighting it without success. (See www.freenancy.com.) We know of many similar cases. What in the world is going on here?
Jeffrey R. Golin