Historical Landmark or Not?

"Westgate might be historic, but it shouldn't get tax breaks," reads the headline of an opinion article written by the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman. The article argues that the Westgate Tower, a condominium high rise in Austin, should not get tax breaks as a historical landmark because the people living there don't need the tax breaks, and because the private residence has nothing to offer to the public as a historical landmark. It states that the Westgate Tower would be the youngest of all of the Austin historical landmarks and would get the highest tax breaks.
The intended audience of this article is the general public that shares the belief that the building should not become a landmark. The author attempts to strengthen his intended audience's belief by saying that "private residences, such as the Westgate, that are off limits to the public offer little value to the taxpayers that are subsidizing tax breaks."
Credibility is gained when the author references a recent article by Brenda Bell, stating that the Westgate would be the youngest of the 575 Austin landmak structures, and would also "enjoy" the largest tax abatement. With the average Westgate condo valued at $325,586, the average exemption would be $4,693 on a tax bill of $7,330.
After reading the article, I would say that if the Westgate Tower is eligible to become a historical landmark, it should. Just because some people don't think that the residents don't need the tax break doesn't mean that the building shouldn't become a historical landmark in an attempt to preserve the history of Austin architecture. This article has brought to my attention the fact that a fight must sometimes be put up to maintain the Austin architectural history, and in my opinion, I don't think it should be so difficult.

Relief from prison health care costs

"Texans deserve relief from prison health care costs," an article by the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman, argues that prison inmates who require a substantial amount of medical care and who pose no threat to society anymore should be released on parole to a medical center that could take better care of them so that Texas tax-payers will get relief from the health care costs.
Because of the nature of the argument, the intended audience would be anyone who does not believe in "do the crime, do the time" notion. The author is aware that anyone who does believe in the notion would completely oppose the argument as he states, "That kind of move may go down hard with Texans who subscribe to the 'do the crime, do the time' notion of criminal justice."Because the audience is so specific, the author provides several solid facts to back up his argument, quoting multiple inmates racking up over $150,000 of health care costs in just one year.
This author gains credibility by citing a report in the Statesman by Mike Ward which covered the topic.The facts are there; statistics indicate that the 8 percent of the prison population that are 55 or older are responsible for 30 percent of the state's health care budget.
Based off of the article alone, I would have to say that I agree. If such a small percentage of people are responsible for such a large percentage of the budget, and there is a way to change that, I think we should. This article has convinced me that it would make sense to allow some of these inmates to be released on parole to a medical center to take care of them if it is going to cost me less money.
Before the article, I was unaware of the problem, but like the article says, the legislature should craft law and policy that would allow the sickest inmates who are least likely to return to crime to be transferred somewhere that would cost less for the Texas citizens.