Letters to the Editors

Why can't we leave Albert Whitted as it is?

Much as I can see the excitement and possible new tax income for the city of St. Petersburg in having 4,000 new living units built on Albert Whitted Airport ground, I wonder if the city is well served by putting these added living units in the Tampa Bay flood plain. Wouldn't these new uses increase taxpayer cost for sewer, water, schools, access roads and other infrastructure? The question "who is benefiting from current airport services?" should be followed by, "what commercial interests are going to benefit by adding these new housing, commercial and USF construction projects?"

Also, with highway congestion increasing, wouldn't it be good planning to have alternate in-town air services available 20 years from now, such as an economical helicopter or air taxi service to Orlando, Sarasota and other nearby cities?

Let's leave Albert Whitted as is, and concentrate on redevelopment incentives for older housing areas on higher ground.
-- Larry Osterman, Kenneth City

'Submayors' are a waste of money

Re: City has $548-million to spend, Aug. 21.

I note in the entire article that there is not one item listed to cut the waste of having so many extra submayors. I thought Rick Baker was elected to be mayor. If we do away with Goliath Davis' salary, there would be money to at least teach something about nature at Boyd Hill Nature Park.

Oh, well. The city will do as it pleases, comments or not.
-- Louis Van Roy, St. Petersburg

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

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