Letters to the Editors

Wesch not keeping his end of bargain with public

Editor: Taxpayers wanting to get a more objective view of the debate concerning the performance of Citrus County Administrator Richard Wesch should take a look at the recently published 2002 Annual Report by the Board of County Commissioners.

Although it is not clear who "we" is, the decision to have the acting CEO of the county, responsible for a $134-million budget, respond to a question-and-answer format, rather than having him write a comprehensive report to taxpayers and other people interested in the county, has left taxpayers with very little to show for their investment.

Do we really need to know about Wesch's personal life when there are a few other pressing issues on his desk -- like bringing closure to the Halls River Retreat controversy, the extension of the Suncoast Parkway, county finances, the pending utility sale by Allete, the landfill, to name just a few?

I would think that Mr. Wesch, the only person addressed this way in the entire report, had some say in the drafting of this document. We are also provided with three photos of Mr. Wesch, versus one for all other department heads. Frankly, it looks like promo material for a person afloat in narcissism.

After all of the essentially useless comments by Wesch, he finally announces in response to the question, "What is your vision for Citrus County regarding growth?" that "It is inevitable. There is no legal basis to prohibit growth."

That statement alone is reason enough to fire him.

He obviously does not have the prerequisites necessary to deal with the most critical issue in Florida, let alone Citrus County, since he is blatantly unfamiliar with, or somehow missed the key component, point No. 1, of Florida's Growth Management Act and all its ramifications: the state Legislature finds that the rational planning of growth management and its impact on land use, the economy and natural resources needs to be legitimized by legislative enactment.

They did just that in 1985. Where has Wesch been all these years? I thought that he was a lawyer by training.

I understand further the frustration of commissioners Vicki Phillips and Gary Bartell when they are continually faced with what might be best called a stacked deck with Wesch dealing the cards and Development Services Director Gary Maidhof taking the bets.

I receive the BOCC minutes and agendas that purport to follow a systematic approach to governance in the sunshine. Recently, Wesch introduced another agenda format: the 'Oh-By-The-Way' format.

I am referring to his discussion of correspondence with the state Department of Community Affairs over the Halls River Retreat mediation; specifically, the idea of the county buying the property for a park that was not on the agenda.

Coincidentally, the developer, Blake Longacre, just happened to be in town that day and had stopped by to tell the BOCC during the public input segment that he would entertain selling his property to them for a park. Of course, he wanted to sell it for the price that it would be appraised at with the litigated multifamily development that he had proposed, not one home.

And who was all prepared and just happened to be privy to this item on the OBTW agenda, but Gary Maidhof? Thanks, Gary, for thinking the idea was great. That came as such a surprise.

Yes, if I were Phillips and Bartell, I would feel a little uncomfortable, especially when the other three commissioners chimed in that it was great, too. Who's kidding whom?

Wesch's response to the most recent accusations is that he must prioritize his time to advance the BOCC's majority opinion in light of the above is very interesting. Normally a public administrator's job is to present unbiased information, expert opinion, and research to the body for which he administers and then implement their directives.

Implicit in so many of Wesch's actions is a beforehand knowledge of what is going to transpire at the meetings. This back-room dealing is not what I want my tax money spent on nor does it advance a respectable image of the county.

Wesch must decide whether he wants to run for the BOCC or whether he wants to be the administrator. While he is making that decision, he should step down or the BOCC and taxpayers should make that decision for him.

I hope that Wesch can free up some of his and county legal and planning staff time by bringing closure to the Halls River Retreat by accepting the fact that the development order was inconsistent with the county's Comprehensive Plan and the state's Growth Management Act. Maybe then he could do his job professionally for all of his bosses.
-- Robert F. Roscow, Hamden, Conn.

Tree law should affect all residential lots

-- EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter was sent to the Board of County Commissioners and is reprinted here at the author's request.
--

One would wonder why the county maintains a Planning and Development Review Board. They have spoken out loud and clear that no residential lot be excluded from the proposed Residential Tree Ordinance. However, at the public hearing, it appears that the Citrus County Builders Association will actually decide how the ordinance will read. Since the commission chairman directed staff to meet with the builders, and no one else, I don't know what conclusion to draw other than the builders will get their way.

Does this mean that the public input is complete and no longer considered once the workshops and public hearings are completed, and now it's time for a special group to get another bite of the apple?

Staff has worked on this ordinance for a protracted period of time, perhaps more than two years, and has had numerous hearings prior to going to the commission for its endorsement. How many more times must the document be massaged?

Pine Ridge has a minimum lot size of 1 acre. The builders who want to take the time and effort have no problem erecting homes ranging as high as 2,400 square feet and leave trees. Of course, there are some who clear-cut lots with no regard to the natural habitat. Canopy that took 10-20 years to mature is destroyed, and we are deprived of the benefit it brings to the community.

We have to stop this rape of the environment now or we will look like our brothers in counties below us. There is absolutely no reason whatever to exclude 1-acre parcels from the ordinance. For the builders to claim they cannot work on lots smaller than 2 acres is ludicrous and an insult to their competency.

As to parcels of land smaller than 1 acre, it is doubtful that a builder will be asked to place a home on the property that will fill the entire lot to the easements. Even so, they don't have to clear-cut the easement as well as the lot.

That being the case, the ordinance is fine the way it came out of the Planning and Development Review Board. Include all residential sites and give us a Residential Tree Ordinance while we still have some residential property with trees.
-- Harry Wendler, Pine Ridge

We need more trees than proposed

Editor: The proposed tree ordinance that is being debated before the commissioners does not go far enough. One tree per 2,000 square feet is ludicrous. We are talking 22 trees per acre, which can hardly be considered environmentally sensitive. We need to retain more trees per 2,000 square feet.

With the tremendous loss of our tree habitat throughout the world, the greenhouse gases are increasing at a phenomenal rate. We need to protect what we have and not provide comfort to the moneyed interests that find it expedient to desecrate our land for the almighty profit.

As we know, trees are the cleansers of our atmosphere, absorbing the carbon dioxide, which is one of the ingredients of the greenhouse gases and, as an afterproduct, gives us that needed oxygen.

Of course, the moneyed interests will cry that the cost factor will be a burden on their businesses and/or the property owners. What a small price to pay to keep our environment not only pleasing to the eye, but also combating global warming.

At their next meeting, the county commissioners should consider the proposed tree ordinance, even though I still believe the number of trees per acre should be increased.
-- Frank DeLucia, Pine Ridge

© 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