Letters to the Editors

Working mothers deserve respect

Re: Frazzled mother finds peace of mind, by Donna J. Bear, Sept. 18.

This letter is not intended to be yet another entry into the tedious competition between mothers who work outside the home and mothers who do not as to who is doing better for their children.

This is my way of honoring and showing respect for all of those women who need to work outside the home to provide a decent quality of life for their families, all the while missing their children and receiving regular guilt reinforcement from the media, from "experts" and from women whose circumstances permit them to downsize their careers or not work outside the home at all. Such fortunate women should be grateful for their situations, not proud.

The writer of the guest column is indeed fortunate, because she has a supportive husband whose salary is adequate for a family of four; she has a supportive employer who is willing to let her work from home; since she had a "corporate career" and has "professional contacts" she no doubt has a good education; and she lives and works in St. Pete Beach, so she no doubt has a good quality of life.

Her column made me think of my mother, who was the only mother in our neighborhood at the time who had to work out of necessity. I still remember how she looked when people remarked that she was not putting her child first or that the only reason married women worked was that they were not satisfied with what their husbands brought home.

My mother did not work because she wanted the good life or because she wanted the intellectual challenge. Neither was provided by her job. There were no "dance lessons, soccer games and cheerleading practice." However, there was a roof over our heads, three nutritious meals a day, clothing, health insurance, and doctors and dentists. After working all day, she would then come home in the evening to her second job: all of the cooking, sewing, housework and homework other women did during the day.

Most parents do their best for their families, given their circumstances. I want to commend all of the working mothers out there who work what constitutes more than one job every day to provide their families with the things they need for a decent quality of life. Be assured that while you cannot be there with your families every minute, like my mother you are showing your children a fine example of hard work, self-reliance and self-sacrifice that will follow them throughout their lives. Do not listen to people who try to make your burden heavier. Let the competition end.
-- Heide Ulmer, Seminole

Blame builders, architects, not LDRs

As far as the future land development regulations, it appears the people of Sunset Beach have drawn their line in the sand and no one dare cross it. No high-rises allowed on Sunset Beach. Well, that makes sense (though it's somewhat elitist), given that our precious sunset views are eroding quicker than our beach after a late summer storm. However, 10-story hotels and condos versus more of the foreboding, massive, nonvernacular homes and the increasingly popular row-homes on barren lots don't offer much in the way of an option, either.

The crux of the problem is, if you happen to be a land speculator/developer/builder/bar manager/restaurateur/small hotel manager and you control millions of dollars worth of prime property and your options for your land are limited, sooner or later you just pick from the allowed alternatives. Case in point: bulldozing two of the last three free-standing Treasure Island beachfront bars (Beach Nutts and Nick's) to make way for more multimillion-dollar beachfront private homes. It's a no-brainer, as the bars couldn't physically serve that much draft beer to keep a bar as a viable economical alternative for the land.

So neighbors and the many regulars who visited Sunset Beach say goodbye to the communal sunset toasts at our local watering holes.

LDRs weren't the enemy. LDRs don't mandate ugly anti-human architecture. Greedy builders and bad architects do.
-- Dan Helton, Sunset Beach

Progress: tall hotels, crowded roads?

We are 12-year property owners and registered voters on the beautiful Isle of Capri on Treasure Island. We do not believe that progress is measured by how many 10-story hotels line our beaches. We do not want a major increase in tourism or more traffic on our crowded roads. Our island appears to be doing quite well with our current tax base.

More than 2,000 property owners and registered voters asked Mayor Atkinson and our commissioners, through a signed petition, to allow the people of Treasure Island to vote.

All we ask is that the City Commission's vote not be held until the registered voters have a voice in this issue with their vote on Nov. 5.
-- David and Mary Lou Tyndall, Treasure Island

Pavilion indeed is a waste of money

Re: Critic: Pavilion wastes funds, Sept. 25.

Dan Calabria does know government waste when he sees it. And shame on Linda Hallas for her obvious lack of fiscal understanding.

Yes, the Galatea Gardens park is nice, and Mrs. Lebus was thoughtful in her bequest. Of course, city staffers should also have had a better handle on the ongoing costs of maintaining the park so that taxpayers wouldn't be stuck with those costs.

Whatever his motivation, Mr. Calabria is right; there is no need for the proposed picnic pavilion. And shame on the city for even asking for the grant.

The biggest raspberry goes to Ms. Hallas, who should really understand that the citizens of South Pasadena, along with the other citizens of the state, will pay for the grant, since it's our tax dollars that fund the grant. It's her kind of thinking that creates fiscal problems for all of us, especially when combined with the kind of bumbling that made the city ask for the grant in the first place.

Keep your eyes peeled, Mr. Calabria!
-- Charles Nivens, St. Petersburg

Ask taxpayers if grants are "free'

Re: Critic says pavilion wastes public funds, Sept. 25.

So the tax-paid city attorney of South Pasadena thinks an activist who opposes using a government tax grant for what appears to be an unnecessary project is "over the edge" and "just tiresome" and indicated the money is actually free. Alas, this is more common than you might think in Pinellas County, where at agencies like the PSTA, officials will "explain" using unnecessary grants (such as two bus shelters a block apart on the same street for the same route) with the same ludicrous defense -- that since the funds are not derived from the agency's local budget, they are "free."

Of course, all grants come from tax funds. For bureaucrats to propose that Santa Claus or the tooth fairy left the money is an insult to our intelligence, not to mention the fact that future maintenance will come from local funds.
-- John Royse, 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