Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published March 2, 2002
Your Feb. 26 editorial Florida's toll enterprise presents your readers with misleading and inaccurate information that leaves a false impression about the Florida Department of Transportation's proposal to convert the Turnpike District into the Florida Turnpike Enterprise.
First, our flexible funding provision will give the turnpike the flexibility to meet the transportation needs of our growing state by providing additional sources of funding. In order for a turnpike expansion project to be considered, it must be a good transportation project supported by the local communities, environmentally sound and economically feasible.
Second, our proposal still requires all turnpike construction projects to obtain the appropriate environmental permits prior to the beginning of construction. This would not only save time, but also put the turnpike in the same position as the other seven districts of the department and expressway authorities.
Third, we believe in developing other business opportunities on the turnpike system, because it will allow us to broaden and enhance the turnpike's revenue base. Such ventures would benefit all turnpike users by raising additional nontoll funds and leveraging the assets of the turnpike.
Finally, your editorial also implies that South Florida motorists are not getting their fair share of turnpike funding. However, current language in the Florida statutes mandates an equitable share of turnpike funds be spent on projects in the South Florida counties of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade. To date, the turnpike has exceeded the requirements of the statute for projects in those counties involving capacity improvements and new access.
Despite the editorial's claims, Florida's turnpike enjoys a high bond rating (AA) which reflects the sound financial plans in place. The proposed legislation would run the turnpike more like a business by maximizing its financial capabilities and producing much needed, locally supported, economically feasible, and environmentally sound transportation projects for all of Florida's citizens and visitors.
-- Tom Barry, secretary, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee
Re: Experts contend racial profiling at airports works, Feb. 28.
Regardless of what the ACLU and certain politicians say, it should be obvious that racial profiling works. The classic case is that of the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid. Even the simplest "racial profiling" system would have popped him out like a big red flag. But for a fortunate blunder on his part, we would have had another jet drop out of the sky, killing nearly 200 people, and we'd still be wondering why. But, no, we hear that racial profiling "cannot be defended under any circumstances," according to Rep. William Pascrell, and "is ineffective and a violation of civil rights," according to the ACLU.
I suspect that Rep. Pascrell has more than a few people in his district who might be the "victims" of racial profiling, hence his statement can best be explained by the need to please constituents. It certainly cannot be explained by common sense.
The real criteria here are what have other, intelligent people done over the years. And the answer, without equivocation, can be seen in Israel's use of profiling. After all, the Israelis have been dealing with terrorism for years, and they have to come up with realistic (not politically correct) answers to the problem. Otherwise they measure their failure in dead bodies -- not lost votes or popularity.
Finally, I will not regale the readers with parallels of "racial profiling" used during World War II; I will only note that regardless of whether we now look back and doubt its justification, we did win that war.
-- Jack E. Willer, Safety Harbor
Re: Experts contend racial profiling at airports works.
For those who are in favor of racial profiling at airports, please think about this scenario. One day the tables may be turned and your ethnicity may be questioned. Subsequently, you may fall victim to racial profiling and screening. You may then have the humiliating experience of being asked to step out of line or to leave the airplane and strip down to your underwear. At this point, you may be so angry that you are rude to the security agents. At that vulnerable moment, when your human rights and dignity have all been snatched away, racial profiling will cease to be the panacea you may once have thought it to be.
-- JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater
Re: Plane truths about flying, Feb. 27.
Christopher Elliott's column talked about air travel not being a thrill and the flight attendants being rude, vindictive and not fun. Unfortunately, the events of Sept. 11 changed the airline industry. A flight attendant's job is no longer what it used to be. The No. 1 priority is safety. It encompasses a wide variety of responsibilities. Once the cockpit door is closed and locked, the flight attendant is the sole security coordinator. As a flight attendant, I don't look at the passenger as the "enemy," however, I do need to be cognizant of everyone's actions and surroundings. I commend the flight attendants on that Paris flight who were so aware that they apprehended the shoe bomber before the situation escalated to a catastrophe.
In response to Elliott's comment about "second-guessing their absolute authority to rule the cabin," the flight attendants need to abide by FAA regulations. We are not trying to be "abusive" when we ask a passenger to place a bag in the overhead bin instead of a closet. An attendant could be fined up to $10,000 for having bags stacked in a closet. In the event of an emergency, you may need to get out the door and it may not be a usable exit if there are bags avalanching into the aisle.
In addition to FAA regulations, we're dealing with occasional unruly, hostile passengers, medical emergencies, security issues, and of course making sure everyone gets his beverage of choice.
I agree Southwest is "a well-run airline." It is a "fun" leisure, domestic airline. However, United and American have been victims of terrorism. Yes, I am angry. I lost some members of our airline family. I do not consider myself or crewmembers "angry and vindictive" toward passengers. I look at passengers as part of my team, because I may need them on my side if there is a terrorist incident on my flight. These are some of the realities of the job.
We empathize with what passengers have to go through; we also are subject to search and have to show our IDs several times. Most passengers are wonderful, and it is easy to have fun on an uneventful flight. We try to keep our attitude up. Sometimes it is reflective of our passengers' disposition. Maybe Mr. Elliot should consider what kind of attitude he is reflecting.
-- Joan Tobiassen, Clearwater
Your Feb. 23 item Florida airport security lacking, reflects the same tenor of incredulity as previous media items on the subject. It is noted that "more than 70 percent (of small airfields) didn't require pilots to secure their planes from theft" and "Almost 60 percent did not have fences surrounding aircraft or fuel storage areas."
Airport security, such as it may be, has always been oriented to minimizing theft of expensive electronics equipment and vandalism. Aircraft (and automobiles) have been stolen ever since they were available to steal. No amount of locks and fencing will deter an irrational person with literally nothing to lose. In this context, the indefinite imposition of costly and burdensome "security" measures on pilots and airport operations is without merit.
-- R.J. Lewis, Madeira Beach
Re: Weaknesses in airport security better left unsaid, letter, Feb. 26.
In response to your article, Florida airport security lacking, letter writers worry that terrorists will use this information to launch new attacks. Their concern is understandable, but not justified. The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon already knew enough to infiltrate the country, mingle with the citizenry for several months or years and penetrate the security in place at large airports. We know that some of them had spoken with owners of crop dusters, small airfields and the like.
I'd say that the information uncovered by the FDLE and reported on by the Times was probably old news to them.
The real value of an article such as this is that it enables members of the public to know where they stand as far as security goes, and to ask intelligent questions of those charged with safeguarding our airports. Not publishing this information won't keep the bad guys from discovering it on their own, any more than closing your eyes will make them go away.
-- Benjamin Robinson, St. Petersburg
Re: No way, no okay, no bras over bay, Feb. 27.
Congratulations to Pinellas County Commissioners Barbara Todd Sheen and Karen Steel for standing up to such an absurd proposition. The emotional turmoil that breast cancer patients experience is more than can be imagined, and this plan to raise money is nothing but insensitive. Worse yet is your reporter's attempt to make the situation humorous, which is insulting to those who have been touched by this serious and fatal illness. Apply this model to other illnesses and the public would be outraged: String condoms across the bay for HIV awareness? Or perhaps jock straps for testicular cancer. I am sure you get the idea. There are many successful fundraisers for breast cancer that do not use such tactics. I encourage Tammy Beardsley at STAR-FM 95.7 to look to the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation for guidance. While your intentions are good, your methods are offensive.
-- Melissa Schultz, Safety Harbor
Re: No way, no okay, no bras over bay.
I am appalled at the decision by the ladies on the Pinellas County Commission.
The days of breast cancer being whispered about in the restrooms are over. People are talking about it openly. This talk is getting results.
To talk about sensitivity, ask a survivor, or a family member of a survivor, how happy they would be to see something like this rather than to know the effort was thwarted. Ask the widowed husband or the motherless child how their mom or sweetheart would look at it if she had survived.
The level of political correctness has gotten so intense that it is stifling the very efforts to make a difference for others. We must remember that we are still individuals. We still think for ourselves and do so independently. We look at things differently. But in spite of how we see things or choose to bring attention to subjects such as this, the important thing is that we bring attention to it.
Okay, so it's a little bizarre. Bizarre gets attention, though. Some people may not be comfortable with it, but it will make them think about it. If it saves one life, then it's worth it. If you don't think so, ask one motherless child.
-- Al Moutrey, Davenport
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.