Opinion: City Council is maintaining airport's safety

A year and a half ago, we were asked to make a decision on the Albert Whitted Airport Master Plan revision. This was a revision of the 1993 Master Plan, which was never fully addressed. We have seen plans for development studies of sewage plant removal and even proposals for parkland. We can no longer delay our obligations to run our airport in a more responsible manner. Also, we cannot allow grant funding (which has a Dec. 31, 2002, deadline) to lapse.

The Master Plan revision was the result of a $250,000 state grant, which simply states ideas for the future of facilities. Even if we were to do all the suggestions (the city is only responsible for 20 percent of the cost for more than 20 years), each of these decisions will be voted on individually by council as to its worthiness and expense. Until the citizens tell us otherwise, the Airport Master Plan revision is an indication that we are accepting our responsibility to run this airport.

Airport supporters have never stated that they do not want a public referendum on closure and redevelopment. Airport supporters realize that the majority of citizens in this community enjoy having an airport and do not want to be heavily taxed to turn over city waterfront property to the development of condos. On top of all this, they know that redevelopment of this land is prohibited by virtue of its being a high hazard coastal flood zone and restrictions of our own city's Comprehensive Land Use plan.

The immediate concern is the $1.4-million of Federal Department of Transportation grant money that will be lost on Dec. 3, 2002. The money is for improvements to the airport for such areas as runways, lighting and radio systems. The gravity of this situation is that if we don't take advantage of these grants and they go away, we will eventually be operating an unsafe airport and future grants will be jeopardized. Utilizing state and federal grants is how airports and ports keep up with the cost of state and federal regulations. We have a real responsibility to maintain the safety of our airport.

This debate is both necessary and timely. St. Petersburg has been preparing for this debate for 40 years. This debate will be about the future safety and efficient operations of our airport and our port. This debate will address how we handle government grants and their funding cycles. This debate will be about our responsibilities in this long-overlooked corner of our city.
-- James Bennett, City Council member, District 5, St. Petersburg

Airport vital to Florida economy

Re: Don't rush a decision on airport.

Your Oct. 11 editorial pretends to make an impassioned plea for an objective assessment of the property. Instead, it misses the mark through faulty logic.

Your choice of words (for example, "clubhouse" for "terminal") makes it clear you have concluded the airport is some kind of taxpayer-financed country club that would only have redeeming value if it made a profit for the city. Sorry, but an airport is a part of the city's transportation infrastructure, and it certainly comes closer to paying its own way than, say, roads.

But suppose you are right, and that a housing development is a better use for the land. Hmm, upscale waterfront housing adjacent to a sewer plant? Better find some financing for relocating that plant, because that's the first thing the well-heeled buyers who choose such a housing site will demand. And get.

While I do not live in St. Petersburg, I fly into Whitted periodically when traveling for business or personal reasons. The facilities are spartan, but the location excellent for my purposes. You'd rather I add my car to the already overburdened roadways?

Don't be so quick to condemn the merits of a general aviation airport unless you bother to find out how it's used and by whom. Accommodating travelers is vital to the Florida economy, while creating yet more high-priced housing for a few dozen wealthy retirees makes little sense.
-- Ken Ibold, Orlando

Consider Grand Prix facilities

Thank you for your editorial urging careful consideration of the issues about Albert Whitted Airport and for publishing the numbers about what this facility costs the taxpayer.

Perhaps the city could modify its alternate use design to include more facilities for the St. Petersburg Grand Prix. That way auto racing fans could offset the loud noise from the pilots club, and James Bennett might get a more balanced picture of what the public wants.
-- Tom Ziebold, St. Petersburg

Airport debate shouldn't be stifled

In thinking about the future of Albert Whitted Airport, a number of possibilities come to mind. Redeveloping the airport with a mixed-use neighborhood could be an economic boon, one that would revitalize downtown and the surrounding area. Or, replacing the airport with a natural ecosystem could be the city's best ever chance to significantly expand an already good waterfront park system. Or, a combination of new development and new parkland could do both of those things.

But when City Council member James Bennett thinks about these grand possibilities, his response is to attempt to shut off any public debate or discussion. If there is talk about economic revitalization, he wants to put his hands over his ears so he doesn't have to hear.

Mr. Bennett is asking that the City Council vote now in favor of keeping Albert Whitted Airport. He doesn't want there to be any public hearings on the question. He doesn't want to wait until the city staff has the chance to look into the pros and cons of redevelopment. Albert Whitted as it stands is a private club that passes itself off as a municipal airport. The only voices that Mr. Bennett wants to hear come from the members of that club.

As a member of the City Council, Mr. Bennett is of course free to support whichever side of an issue he chooses. But he should not be allowed to stifle public debate, especially on something as far reaching as the future of the airport.

The City Council has agreed to Mr. Bennett's proposal for a three-hour discussion of the airport on Nov. 12. The public, by the way, is not invited to speak at this meeting.
-- Timothy J. Baker, president, North Downtown Neighborhood Association, St. Petersburg

The "Amistad' an asset to St. Petersburg

Re: Officials say "Amistad" replica will come, Oct. 13 and Organizers cancel visit of slave ship "Amistad" replica, Oct. 9.

The Amistad is a great opportunity for the Tampa Bay area. It's a fine ship with a huge potential to educate about American and international history. Tampa Bay has welcomed tall ships, the Venezuelan Navy vessel, and it even identifies itself with the pirate ships. I would hope the Tampa Bay area would want to follow the precedent with a vessel of such great historical significance.

As popularized by several books and a movie, the Amistad was the site of a slave mutiny in 1839. Led by a Mende man named Sengbe, from what is today Sierra Leone, the mutiny was one of the great African-led slave revolts in American history. Acquitted in the United States, Sengbe and the other Mende mutineers became part of this long legacy which includes the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia in 1831, the mutiny on the American slave ship Creole in 1841 (en route from Virginia to New Orleans), the defeat of slave catchers in Christiana, Pa., in 1856 and, at the least, elements of the U.S./Seminole Indian wars in Florida that were fought by Africans who had escaped from slavery.

The Amistad provides city and council officials a positive opportunity. Don't let it go by.
-- J. Weinzettle, Tarpon Springs

McBride remark a nonissue

Re: McBride remark led to apology, Oct. 11.

Bill McBride tells an off-color joke about a colleague and his wife in front of a bunch of lawyers 10 years ago, and we're supposed to equate that with remarks made by Jeb Bush, the sitting Florida governor, about "devious plans" to circumvent the will of the voters and "juicy details" concerning an ongoing criminal investigation, made to a group of Republican state lawmakers and would-be lawmakers just days ago? I can't for the life of me imagine how any editor at the St. Petersburg Times thought this was in any way newsworthy.

There are only two things about this article I find at all worth noting. The first is that Bill McBride's off-color remarks about one woman pale in comparison to the opportunities he gave women at his law firm. The second is that McBride apologized, in writing, to everyone in his firm immediately after making those remarks.

The people of Florida are still waiting for an apology from Jeb Bush. But I, for one, am not holding my breath.
-- Bill Hirschi, Ocala

Perpetuating gossip

Re: McBride remark.

I can't believe that you would use the front page of your newspaper to bring up something that happened 10 years ago and has no bearing on anything, especially since the joke was about a friend. Political correctness is out of control in this country. We have all made an inappropriate joke at one point or another in our lives.

The fact that these comments were made so long ago and at a time when the candidate wasn't running for anything make me believe that you are trying hard to find some dirt on McBride. Is that the best you could find?

In contrast, Gov. Bush's derogatory comments on the homosexual nature of the two South Florida women were made by an elected official, and he has yet to apologize to those women. His comments on the class size amendment are very significant because it shows that he is the kind of person who would scuttle the public's decisions and do whatever he wants.

I have noticed the St. Petersburg Times' reporting has become comparable to that of the tabloids lately -- lots of juicy gossip that has no bearing on the real issues. Shame on you.
-- Carlos Milan, St. Petersburg

Don't knock Yu-Gi-Oh!

Re: Dad, have you seen my Yu-Gi-Oh! CARDS?, by Mike Wilson, Oct. 11.

I used to think Pokemon was bad because I thought the little creatures appeared evil. This, until I talked to little boys and saw their fascination and the games they played. Well, I now have three 9-year-old grandsons who love Yu-Gi-Oh!, and I actually play with them. It is very complicated, and they are pretty smart guys. They have to read the very complicated details on each card and remember them. They do math in their heads, adding and subtracting the defense and attack points. Sometimes you just have to play the game before passing judgment.

So what if the cards cost a few dollars? It's a good time to teach the boys to save their pennies to get the card they want or to trade with another boy. This is a hobby, not a vice, and it is a trading forum for little boys learning to give and take among their peers.

Talk to the kids and find out what it is all about.
-- Judy Barker, St. Petersburg

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 e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

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