Letters to the Editors

Lake Maggiore plan raises questions

Re: From Junky to City Jewel? Jan. 8.

St. Petersburg already has a "city jewel" surrounding the "jewel in the rough" described by Mayor Rick Baker: Boyd Hill Nature Park and its Environmental Studies Area. It is a quiet corner in a cacophony of city sounds.

Mayor Baker is proposing a recreational area, not "parkland" for the "jewel in the rough." I am not against recreational areas. Neither am I convinced that increasing the activity around Boyd Hill is the best use for the area. I agree there is a better use for lakefront property than dump sites, training complexes and the like. In fact, a Master Plan was created several years ago to restore the area back to a natural state. Mayor Baker is proposing major modifications to that Master Plan.

The article fails to mention that the proposed road from 31st Street S would cut through the Environmental Studies Area, home to several varieties of endangered plant and animal species, and the site of summer camp for hundreds of children. The ESA is Boyd Hill's major source of revenue. Instead of adding restored lands to Boyd Hill, this proposal would actually reduce Boyd Hill's parklands and income.

No mention is made of feasibility studies indicating a need for the road. Roads already exist to the proposed recreation area. In an era of "belt-tightening" it is fiscally irresponsible to spend a significant amount of money building a road that is not required. Why create access over a half-mile away when there is already convenient access in the neighborhood?

The map of the proposed recreation area shows boat rentals and a fishing boat dock. Lake Maggiore is home to a healthy population of reptiles and waterfowl. Any plans for increasing lake usage must consider the effect on this population: Anything more powerful than a canoe should be avoided.

The current uses of the area surrounded by Boyd Hill Nature Park are certainly not the best. However, before we rush to destroy native habitat by building roads to a recreational area, we need to consider the best use of that land: to restore it back to a natural state, and incorporate it into Boyd Hill Nature Park. Minimally, any other uses should be consistent with the preserved lands it is adjacent to. Any recreational uses need to be thoroughly reviewed not only for societal and economic impacts, but also for ecological impacts.

Let's hope our city officials recognize and consider the wants and needs of all residents, including those who consider preserving the environment more important than recreational desires.
-- Pam McGuire, St. Petersburg

Eliminating a back yard requires another

Re: From junky to city jewel?

As wonderful as Mayor Rick Baker's plan sounds, it is disturbing that this report of the effort to convert "St. Petersburg's waterfront back yard" on Lake Maggiore to a 40-acre park contains not one mention of what should be a key element in any such project: Where and how will the new "back yard" be located?

". . . Mounds of mulch, stacks of bleachers, rows of trash bins, mulching machines, drainage pipes . . ." These sound like the kinds of things every city must store. Cities, like residences, need back yards. That is not to say that the current usage at this particular location cannot or should not be changed. But careful study and reporting of replacement sites for that usage must be included in any discussion of such a change.

The city's residents deserve to be fully informed of the process and rationale regarding alternative site choices. What sites are available? How will expanding existing "back yards" or creating new ones to handle the overflow affect the environment in the chosen areas? Or the traffic patterns?

There are a great many potential problems involved in eliminating necessary working/storage areas. In fact, they cannot be "eliminated," even though the news story, by omission, intimated that is what will happen.

I note the same lack of alternative planning in the big push (which the Times supports and extensively reports) to change the usage of the Albert Whitted Airport and Bayfront Center waterfront areas. How about some responsible reporting of all the consequences of changed usages in our city.
-- James Seymour, St. Petersburg

Kudos to a well-rounded strong mayor

Re: From junky to city jewel?

I have lived in St. Petersburg for 17 years and it is refreshing to finally see a truly "strong" mayor. Do we possibly have a mayor who does not shirk from his duty even when there is controversy? A mayor who has a truly diverse administration? A mayor who is environmentally savvy and yet business oriented? A man whose promise to "build on (former Mayor David) Fischer's successes except with renewed focus," and then keeps this promise by unveiling an ambitious, expensive and far-reaching plan to clean up Lake Maggiore?

Let's hope we can keep this guy in office for a while. As an environmentalist, I applaud him!
-- Jeffrey P. Hess, St. Petersburg

Skate opponents: Wake up to the times

Re: Neighbors turn out to derail skate park, Jan. 13.

Indian Rocks Beach commissioners need to awaken Scott Shapiro and inform him:

1. This is the 21st century.

2. Skateboarding is an international competitive sport.

3. The only "gang" in Indian Rocks Beach is the geezers with their black socks, pasty white legs and plaid shorts.
-- Bill Calhoun, Treasure Island

Moratorium on liveaboards is troubling

Re: Newcomer ban worries liveaboards, Jan. 6.

Many of us love the water and boats so much that we like to dream about someday living aboard a boat. We stroll along the waterfront and are envious of those we see living aboard. We examine boats that we see for sale, and talk to liveaboards. It is therefore sad to read that Michael Perez, marina and port director for St. Petersburg, has ordered an indefinite end to new liveaboards at the St. Petersburg Marina.

There is a nationwide problem with municipalities causing trouble for liveaboards. It is difficult to know what the motivations of the critics are, although they usually claim to be concerned about the environment. (Boat owners probably have a higher percentage of environmentally concerned people than the national population. I say this out of personal experience with them.)

The fact is that there is a nautical world that is a world unto itself, a world where a boat owner, millionaire or otherwise, may live on his boat while he dreams of cruising to Tahiti, or even around the world. And he knows that wherever he stops, he will be able to live on his boat.

I hope the Times will rise to the defense of these boat owners. As a regular visitor to the St. Petersburg Marina, I know that there are no problems caused by liveaboards.
-- John Elvin, St. Petersburg

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright