Scientologists do not operate in the city's best interest
Published June 1, 2003
Re: Scientology sells downtown to retailers, story, May 29.
The headline should read, City of Clearwater sold downtown to Scientology.
The idea that anyone would be shocked by a brochure being distributed by "The Church of Scientology" is, in itself, shocking. The city of CLEARwater has long since been handed away bit by bit to this church by ill-informed and misguided commissioners and a few mayors, most recent being the ever-so-eloquent Brian Aungst. A quote from him on the matter reads, "It's probably helpful, but we'll find out, I guess." Bravo, Mr. Mayor.
It does not bother me that the "The Church of Scientology" operates in the city; it has a constitutional right to and I believe it should. However, do not think for a second it has the citizens of Clearwater in the forefront of its mind.
The church operates and caters to a transient population that, for the most part, is crammed into motels and apartment complexes throughout Clearwater and Pinellas County and is clothed and fed by the church. How is this helpful to a once thriving city? It is not.
I challenge the City Commission to research the legal term ad valorem, and try to enact a bill that would restrict any tax-exempt entity from owning a certain percentage or dollar amount of property within a single city limit.
Help save our city.
-- Paul Hodges, Clearwater
In-depth research on a few e-mails? Give me a break
Re: City e-mail humor not humorous at all, editorial, May 28.
There it is again: the need to be politically correct under any circumstance - and at all cost?
The editorial writer complains about e-mails with "questionable" humor being sent back and forth and in a Safety Harbor government facility and (no, really, it gets worse!) on government-owned equipment AND on government time. Luckily, though, a reporter was using his rights and uncovered this scandal. Anyone could have done that. However, most of us are too busy with real issues to complain, let alone write, about a few individuals sending some jokes around to a limited number of recipients.
So what? Think about it. The time it takes to read and forward an e-mail is, what, one minute? So fine, they wasted a few minutes. Unless they sent out 480 e-mails (or eight hours' worth) every day, I can't say I care. Is there anyone out there who does not once in a while chat with the co-worker, call his mom, make dinner reservations, read a non-work related article, etc., during work hours? The emphasis here is on once in a while.
The editorial writer's second point, the offensiveness, well, that is subject to interpretation. In my opinion, the writer is simply applying too rigid a definition of "offensive" and seems to have problems with it: "what if" someone who is the butt of the joke hears/sees/gets a hold of it? Those are simply vague possibilities, mere "what if" scenarios. And even if a person with the religious, sexual, etc. background sees the joke, I am still not convinced that the statement that it would be offensive would be necessarily true. There is a fine line between taste (and I agree, the jokes may very well be tasteless) and offensive.
In my mind, this is nothing more than a sad attempt to find something wrong and a great deal of overzealousness as the defender of political correctness.
I do agree with the editorial writer on one point, though: what a waste of time - the writer's time for researching this article, our time for reading it. I was offended, though, by the writer to even suggest that my tax dollars should be used to pay supervisors to exercise parental control over their staff and read through their e-mail. After all, it is water cooler-type talk.
Maybe we should hire the Gestapo to listen in on those, too - just in case.
-- Karin Armero, Palm Harbor
Great deal for restaurant, terrible deal for citizens
Re: Restaurant, city plan public dock, story, May 27.
The restaurant came first in the headline, as it does in the transaction. It is a sweetheart of a deal, indeed, for the Island Way Grill, but it is a total loss for the citizens of Clearwater.
Who but Grill patrons will go out of the way to dock briefly in that spot? The Grill will have perpetual and virtually exclusive use of the dock without the obligation to pay property taxes on the improvements or added insurance premiums for the risks entailed, or to see to the day-to-day care of the dock. On the other hand, increased trade - upscale yachting trade at that - may well encourage the Grill to raise its prices.
As for insurance, the harbormaster has missed the point. True enough, as he said, premiums will not rise because the city is self-insured, but he should be aware that insurance costs to Clearwater will nevertheless increase in direct proportion to hazards inherent in the dock.
At the outset, the city will have contributed the waterfront rights, and henceforth the city will have ongoing expenses for maintenance of the water approaches and of the dock, just to keep it clean and in good repair for customers of the Grill. Pinellas County and the state will presumably lose the property taxes that would otherwise have been paid.
The Island Way Grill seems to have very good friends in City Hall.
-- Seymour S. Bluestone, Clearwater
[Last modified June 1, 2003, 02:05:26]
