Opinion: Court was right in Pinellas case on term limits

Troxler takes issue with the fact that a majority of the Florida Supreme Court struck down the Pinellas voter initiated term limits. He tries to place the blame on the "principles" of the sheriff and clerk of court. The truth is that, as the court states, the provision that was voted on is contrary to the Florida Constitution, and as such, the question never should have been on the ballot in the first place. For the Supreme Court, it was a matter of following the state Constitution and not a matter of any official's "principle." Term limits could be imposed on the county officers by a citizen initiative but only if the ballot question was approved by the Legislature and properly drafted to also abolish the independent status of the offices.

As the instigator of the original legal challenge to the ballot initiative, I believed that the five constitutional officers could not be affected by a simple charter change. It seems that a majority of the Florida Supreme Court agrees. To avoid any appearance of having a personal stake in the litigation, I have gone on record numerous times since 1996 stating I would respect the voters' will and not seek re-election in 2004. However, I could not stand idly by and have an illegal amendment, in derogation of an important county office, added to our county charter. My purpose was to protect the integrity of the constitutional office of sheriff.

Troxler seems to be disturbed that a court would set aside the will of the voters. Fortunately we are a nation governed by law, and we are not governed by what seems to be popular for the moment. If the will of the voters could never be set aside by a high court applying the Constitution, then where would this country be in the area of civil liberties?
-- Everett S. Rice, Pinellas County sheriff, Seminole

All power to the court

Re: Pinellas officials can run and run, May 24.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision abolishing term limits further documents the futility of voting. If the courts can overturn a voted mandate by the people, why bother to even hold elections?

The courts should decide who will be in office and for how long. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money doing something that the court will only rule against. It's now, power by the court, for the court, of the court.
-- Tom S. Brown, Largo

Midtown lacks amenities

Re: Stretching the reach of Midtown, May 21.

Living in the Midtown section of St. Petersburg is akin to living in a home with an outhouse versus living in a home with an indoor bathroom. All the amenities common to most neighborhoods are lacking in Midtown. No stores, banks, even the Times has very few newspaper stands in that area. To annex Historic Kenwood and other sections of south St. Petersburg does a great disservice to all of the involved communities.

It is as if the powers that be have all but given up improving the economic development in Midtown. They tried throwing money at Midtown several years ago via low-interest loans for people to start their own business. Few applied. More resources were given to that area to improve employment opportunities by having Enoch Davis Center house job-search computers. There is also a representative from Work Net to help those with their transition from receiving AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and food stamps to becoming self-reliant with education and other valuable resources. These services are at no cost, yet few take advantage of these opportunities. You'll most likely to see more people walking about on Ninth Street than at Enoch Davis Center.

No one has been able to solve how to motivate the economy for Midtown. More jobs? Not many jobs would yield an income above $23,000 without some education beyond high school. How do you motivate those who six years ago cared so little about their own neighborhood that they caused horrible destruction? The characteristics of that kind of personality aren't fitting with those of other neighborhoods.
-- Sonja Summers, St. Petersburg

Smart growth is good for downtowns

Re: Making a strong downtown, May 25.

As this editorial alludes, a strong residential component is absolutely essential in order to ensure the integrity and future viability of any downtown redevelopment initiative.

In recent years, we have witnessed a positive trend taking place in numerous cities throughout America. This trend is defined as "new urbanism." Historically, a clear separation was maintained between commercial, retail and residential zoning districts, often leading to urban sprawl. In contrast, new urbanism has provided for mixed-use zoning environments, resulting in vibrant downtown areas.

Our organization advocates a concept Realtors refer to as "smart growth," which means limiting urban sprawl and the negative environmental implications associated with it by redeveloping areas currently served by existing infrastructure. Smart growth includes revitalizing our downtown areas and creating an attractive, livable environment within the downtown urban core that is defined by a mix of residences, green space, commercial enterprises, retail establishments and recreational amenities. Obviously, smart growth is also designed to render people less dependent upon the automobile.

There is a historic renaissance taking place in downtown St. Petersburg, and city leaders and staff should be commended for their vision, hard work and vigilance. In the Tampa Bay area, there are a number of other cities whose downtowns are prime locations for such revitalization, particularly in densely populated Pinellas County.

In addition to St. Petersburg, the smart growth, new urbanist approach is being utilized with great success in a variety of communities throughout our nation. Clearly, it is prudent for cities such as Tampa to study, even emulate, the conceptual new urbanist, smart growth framework that has resulted in such remarkable progress and success in downtown St. Petersburg. It is also important for citizens to understand the importance of revitalizing downtown areas, which increases economic development, enhances the tax base and improves an entire community.
-- Michael A.J. Bindman, chairman of the board, Pinellas Realtor Organization, St. Petersburg

Don't reinforce social decay

Re: Welfare mothers don't work at home? May 23.

As usual, Ellen Goodman's liberal emotions got in the way of rational thought processes. Her point (apparently) was that if full-time mothers are in fact "doing the hardest job in the world," why aren't they appropriately recognized by being awarded generous grants of taxpayers' dollars to help them pay their bills? The answer is, because a devoted, loving, considerate, full-time mother and homemaker is "paid" by the love of her family, and by a sense of job satisfaction available nowhere else. Her "bills" (groceries, rent, medical, insurance, utilities) are paid from dollars earned by the caring, loving, full-time husband and father of their legitimate children.

When a society accepts promiscuity, careless cohabitation and the resultant birth of legions of unwanted children, that society is also accepting an inevitable plague of broken families with mothers unable to support those children. When we make routine use of tax dollars to support the undesirable results of such antisocial conduct, we further reinforce the accelerating state of societal, and thus national, decay.

We, as a society, will not begin to reduce the burgeoning number of illegitimate births, broken marriages and dysfunctional families until we make such conduct both socially and financially unacceptable. Yes, that's harsh and bitter medicine, but the disease it fights needs such.
-- John G. Nash, Homosassa

Governor's response is disappointing

Re: Governor vows to act on reforms, May 29.

Gov. Jeb Bush's reaction to the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection is disappointing if not willfully negligent. He claims "we know we can do better, and we have to," but refuses to commit to calling a special legislative session or giving more money to the Department of Children and Families.

He refuses this just after having given out $262-million in corporate tax breaks. Meanwhile, Rilya Wilson remains missing along with hundreds of other children placed under DCF's care. Gov. Bush may speak passionately of Rilya's case, but until he shows appropriate action, voters can only gaze while tax cuts fill corporate bank accounts and the children of DCF linger with no one to care for them.
-- Alexander Ives, Palm Beach

Feminism is the cure, not the disease

Re: Feminism spreads disease through its women's studies, by George F. Will, May 19.

I thought dinosaurs were extinct, but George F. Will's column invites doubt even as the title invites giggles. Feminism is spreading disease? Feminism is an antidote to the disease of patriarchy. In his column, Will relies heavily on Christine Stolba's report, "Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students," published by the (in Will's opinion, "indispensable") Independent Women's Forum. Personally, I find the IWF wholly dispensable. The IWF's mission statement says its purpose is to "affirm women's participation in and contributions to a free, self-governing society" but adds the caveat that the IWF speaks for those who "respect and appreciate the differences between, and complementary nature of, the two sexes." How can that be? NOW's statement of purpose is clearer: "To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men." I'll choose equal over complementary every time. The IWF is also critical of Title IX, the legislation that increased women's participation in college sports fivefold and raised girls' participation in high school sports from one in 27 to one in three -- all within 30 years of its passage. The IWF must find women's sports uncomplementary and perhaps a bit too sweaty.

Stolba's report accuses women's studies of anti-intellectualism and instigating dissatisfaction among women. When did examining the nature of knowledge become anti-intellectual? It merely constitutes an entire branch of philosophy and has engaged the best minds of our time. Women's studies doesn't make women dissatisfied; rather it provides factual information that results in finding one's situation inherently dissatisfying. Don't kill the messenger because the message is true.

Will cites a variety of Stolba's claims that the women's studies textbooks she examined are biased and unfactual. According to Stolba, issues such as the wage gap, educational bias, bias in medical research, and the status of contemporary women are exaggerated and misrepresented. The very gains she cites in her argument are the direct result of feminist activism.

Stolba then claims women's studies doesn't include dissenting thinkers in its curriculum. Also untrue in my experience. I read Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in a women's studies class, and she is on the IWF's National Advisory Board.
-- Denise Goodner Brown, member, West Pinellas Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Seminole

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

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. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page