 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Letters to the EditorsTrash collection can be mandatory and multichoice© St. Petersburg Times published February 13, 2003 Editor: Having just returned from a ham radio confab in the Orlando area and noticing no shortage of litter and trash strewn about, I seriously doubt if mandatory garbage collection will work here, but the politicians seem determined to do what they deem is best for us, like it or not. Here's a suggestion that might be considered for the mandatory trash collection plan dogging the County Commission. If the Department of Motor Vehicles can keep track of vehicle owners' insurance to enforce the laws, why can't the same system be used on trash collection? Make trash collection mandatory, but instead of granting a franchise (read monopoly) to a few of the favored corporate "big guns," let it be with any current or future company, regardless of size. All each collector would have to do is send monthly a list to the county of any additions or cancellations to their customer base. This would prevent signup to get on the list, followed by a cancellation to get a refund, and return to dumping in the woods (which would be prevented by the DMV computer system). This data could, in turn, be easily run through a computer sorting program with cancellations being flagged. Those preferring the landfill could enroll with them as their service and have the use of an ATM-like card to prove usage. This would maintain the desires of those preferring the smaller independent haulers, maintain those haulers in business and keep competition in the system, allowing residents to continue to select once or twice a week service, and permitting those who prefer the landfill to continue doing so. Families using a joint disposal scheme, such as two residences splitting the bill due to small quantities, could register as such. A program such as this would basically maintain the status quo and maintain the current pricing structure. It should be acceptable to all, including the County Commission unless, of course, they have ulterior motives for steering business to their favored companies.
Clubhouse unwanted, unneededEditor: There is a plan afoot by a small group of people in Sugarmill Woods to foist a multimillion-dollar clubhouse for their entertainment on the rest of us. Current monthly estimated operating cost is $27,500 for the building, in addition to the yearly assessment fees. Most of the people I know will have no use for this Taj Mahal now or ever. The cost of construction and the eventual cost of maintainance will be excessive. The reason we purchased here many years ago was because we liked what we saw. It was very nice. If this group is or was so desirous for an entertainment center, they should have been smart enough to purchase in an upscale community with all the amenities they seem to need. I will not underwrite someone else's fun and games. Someone said in the Jan. 16, Greenbelt Gazette "this could be an alternative to a country club." The truth is, that is what it is. A very, very expensive country club. The predicted cost of $2.219-million is the committee's estimate. How and when did a predicted cost ever come true? This is a nice area with a lot of nice people. Lets keep it this way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Share your viewsThe Citrus Times welcomes letters from readers for publication. Because of space limitations, letters should be of reasonable length. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. All letters must be signed and must contain the writer's address and telephone number. Addresses and telephone numbers will not be printed. Send your letters to Greg Hamilton, editorial page editor, Citrus Times, 301 W Main St., Inverness, FL 34450. To fax a letter, call 860-7320. Send letters by electronic mail (in text only format) to Hamilton@sptimes.com.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Citrus Times |
