Letters to the Editors

Pinellas voting system worked like a charm

Re: Pinellas County voters should be proud.

I feel the need to offer a different perspective on the primary election Tuesday. This is the first time I have volunteered to work within the election system, mainly to see if it was broken, as so many have been saying. I am happy to report that Precincts 167 and 168 had no problems that couldn't be fixed by a quick call to the supervisor of elections office. I understand there were problems in South Florida, but they generally stemmed from human error and/or incompetence. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Deborah Clark, supervisor of elections for Pinellas County, and her staff who worked so hard to make everyone's vote count.

The system only works as well as the people in whose care it has been placed. We turned away no one at our precinct, and everyone with whom I came into contact was pleasantly surprised with the ease of use of the new touch screen voting machines. I would heartily recommend the precinct experience to anyone who believes that every vote makes a difference. Without individuals working together for a common goal, the system will fail, but I am happy to report that the voting system in Pinellas County is alive and well.
-- Frank Shaver, St. Petersburg

Not against progress, just 10-story hotels

Re: Ballot item may be roadblock to development, Sept. 1.

The article is correct that the November referendum, if passed, would mean that any time the land development regulations come up for review (generally every 10 years), another vote of the people of Treasure Island would be needed if any increase in height or density were proposed. More than half of the registered voters would need to approve or reject these height or density changes at that time. However, the wording of the article confused some of our neighbors. They thought it meant that developers could continue to propose height and density changes and that a vote would have to be held every time this happens. They were worried that they'd have to get out to vote many, many times. This is not true. The November referendum would ensure that no height or density changes to the LDRs could occur without a vote of the people of Treasure Island.

The article says the coalition members who forced this referendum now realize that they are asking for more than they intended. The petition signers know exactly what they were stopping: the development of mega-hotels, up to 10 stories high, on their island. They believe that Treasure Island does not have to be a large-hotel tourist destination in order to survive. They signed the petition to stop this kind of development.

They believe that the future of Treasure Island is in its continued progress as a residential community, one that preserves the small-town ambience so valued by residents.

The headline Roadblock to Development implies that the residents who signed the petition are against progress in our city. This is not true for the majority of us. We support progress in the form of new single-family homes, condominium developments that are governed by the city's current development regulations, remodeling of homes throughout our city, and upgrading of city properties and businesses.

The only thing we want to block is the building of huge hotels on the west side of our town and parking garages on the east. This is not a group against progress, only against 10-story hotels that some seem to believe are the only way to measure progress.
-- Catherine J. Rezak, Treasure Island

© 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