Northpinellas: People who enjoy senior center should pay, not taxpayers

In the 2000 election, the only referendum that was defeated was the one that asked for more money for the Palm Harbor Senior Activity Center. Apparently, enough of Palm Harbor realized that the Senior Center was not important enough to them to raise their taxes even though the Senior Center had signs all over the place asking them to vote "yes" on the referendum.

Now the salaried director of the center is discussing the need to raise more money again by possibly putting on another referendum. The center has been told that it can't make the money from bingo, and it is not getting enough from paid activities, so it wants to again try to raise our taxes.

The director admits that activity has slowed down at the center but she says that more than 36,000 people used it last year. If that is the case, then they can easily support the $200,000 budget the center requires. Why should the rest of us pay for something we don't use?

The county population is continually getting younger, and the county already is looking for more money for parks and recreation facilities for its children. The children can't pay for their facilities, but the affluent seniors for the most part can and should.
-- Roger W. Gambert, Palm Harbor

Palm Harbor doesn't need senior center

Re: Senior center reshuffles bingo plans, story, May 7.

The Times wrote a very nice article on the Palm Harbor Senior Activity Center, but let's put a few more cards on the table. We were never told at the last referendum how many people this would benefit. Instead we got pie-in-the-sky, passed-through-the-door figures.

And we were never told how many people made up the senior organization which has existed since the late 1950s.

County Administrator Steve Spratt told us last week that the population of Palm Harbor is getting younger, so do we need this $600,000 tax drain? A quarter of a mill raises at least this amount. Their platform was that they would use only part of the authorized millage; but still they had plans for a nature walk, a theater, more parking spaces, very reduced fees for seniors and zero membership fees. When have you seen government not use the full allocation and not ask for more?

How many homes in Palm Harbor fall into this mystical $125,000 valuation? How many households will only pay $25?

There also seems to be another point that needs adding. It's my understanding, when last I checked, that the Senior Activity Center is one of the members of the very silent board that makes up the unelected Palm Harbor Community Services Agency, which spends your tax dollars. But the Senior Activity Center doesn't share in this quarter-mill that the PHCSA distributes.

So we get to the hub of the discussion. Does Palm Harbor need an organization that doesn't have enough members that are willing to support it? Does growing Palm Harbor need to be taxed to maintain a club for a limited number of affluent senior members?
-- Bob Clune, Palm Harbor

Tax billboard owners to rein them in

Re: Proposal accelerates billboard removal, story, May 8.

The county commissioners, in their deliberations about billboard removal, have neglected to use taxation as a tool for negotiation.

In their defense against removal, the billboard companies keep on citing their potential loss of income and also the value of the billboards themselves. It would only be fair for commissioners to tax the billboard sites at their claimed value, which I believe is around $120,000 or more each, in addition to yearly revenue.

As the owner of an advertising firm, I have purchased billboard space for my clients; however, I recognize that billboard proliferation blights the urban and suburban landscape and will continue to do so, unless properly controlled.
-- Nicholas Mathios, president Advertising Consultants Inc., Belleair

Back to North Pinellas news

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

Special Links

Mary Jo Melone

Howard Troxler

From the Times
North Pinellas desks