St. Petersburg City council member James "Bennett was contemptuous of the notion that citizens be allowed to choose a park. "I think the voters first have to say "no" to an airport, then the matter is open to debate,' he said."
The above statement from the Times editorial is a good example of just how this newspaper tries to belittle, intimidate and control city officials or anyone else with whom it disagrees. It is time the elected officials of St. Petersburg ignore the Times' attempts at social re-engineering and make decisions based on solid common sense.
The city already has several waterfront parks downtown. Just how much economic benefit will another park bring to the area? More than the millions of dollars a year in direct impact from the airport and its operations? I think not. Any time a government removes property from the enterprise sector and places it in a public trust such as a park, any economic benefit to the community disappears. Does anyone other than council member Bennett understand this? It's economics 101, for Pete's sake!
By the way, Bennett is right, St. Petersburg residents must first decide the fate of the historic airport, not the Times editorial board. The St. Petersburg Times has jumped on board any plan, no matter how ill-conceived, that would change the land use to anything but an airport for at least 25 years that I am aware of.
St. Petersburg officials have an opportunity to make history by standing up the socialistic pandering of the local paper and do the right thing. Allow the voters to decide if historic Albert Whitted Airport should remain an airport. It will always be a part of the city's history as the birthplace of National Airlines and of scheduled commercial aviation. Given the truth to digest, voters will realize that Albert Whitted is a gem worth polishing and it can generate even more economic benefit for all the people of the area. I can't help but wonder, would the Times be so adamant if it were a city marina or golf course it wanted closed?
-- Dennis G. Roper, Clearwater
Why support two airports?
We, the taxpayers of St. Petersburg, are supporting two airports. We only need one. We are not only paying for Albert Whitted (and being asked to pony up more), but also for St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport (note the name). One will forever be too small to serve as more than a private flying club. The other has room to grow, but remains greatly underutilized. As they stand, neither is a very good investment for our hard-earned cash.
Even if we should spend the considerable monies required by the so-called master plan, build new facilities, and fill in more of our bay to lengthen the runways, Whitted would never be able to serve all the needs of our city. If, however, we were to reclaim our publicly owned waterfront for parkland, we win two ways:
1. We gain waterfront facilities that can benefit all of our citizenry, not just the select few who enjoy our public largess.
2. By moving those few small planes, and our money, from Whitted to St. Petersburg-Clearwater International, we help to build its economic viability.
Supporting two airports simply doesn't make financial sense. Throwing our weight behind the one airport that stands a chance of growing and offering a return on our investment does.
-- Randall Luttenberg, St. Petersburg
Airport is a rare asset
We have just purchased a condominium at Bayfront Towers overlooking the marinas and airport. We chose St. Petersburg because it is a unique city, being the only waterfront city in Florida with numerous parks, marinas and its own airport downtown. Take the airport away and we are just another Florida city with parks and marinas.
Airports guarantee open space and prevent high-rise buildings. As downtown St. Petersburg expands, with new residences and businesses, the airport will become a more important asset than the marinas for "hobby" yachtsmen. Airplanes contribute to commerce; sailboats do not.
Most of the downtown waterfront is made up of parks and to lose the airport for one more park is shortsighted as it would foreclose St. Petersburg from participation in the unknown, unlimited future of aviation.
I own a sailboat, but please do not remove the airport. It is an asset that no other waterfront city in Florida possesses.
-- Harold H. Dean, South Pasadena
Give the land back to the people
Re: A true choice, editorial, May 28.
The problem with the St. Petersburg City Council and Albert Whitted Airport is that the council members can't see it for what it really is and they can't imagine something better. They are stuck with a vision of cute airplanes and romantic thoughts of flying like birds. They are stuck with visions that are nearly a hundred years old while encouraging the airport master plan that will bring in jets.
They don't understand the real history of the Bayboro area - how it was originally created for residential development but was sacrificed to become an industrial complex for the creation of the waterfront parks to the north.
They don't see the negative affect on the surrounding neighborhoods from the horizontal expansion that is forced on the institutions because of height restrictions in construction.
They don't see how the beautiful view along Bayshore Drive becomes the wasteland that is the airport and how this also has a negative impact on visitors to that part of downtown. And yet they struggle over finding complex solutions for Midtown while they ignore the simple ones.
There are many great reasons to give this land back to the citizens of St. Petersburg, but it is unfortunate that our City Council has too little vision to see how this land could benefit all of us.
-- Kai R. Warren, St. Petersburg
Let's make a commitment
Re: A true choice, editorial, May 28.
As a pilot and aircraft owner who keeps his plane at Albert Whitted, I would like to personally applaud City Council member James Bennett's attempt to put the never-ending airport/condo/park debate behind us. This issue has been hanging over our heads for many years now, and it's time to move on. Let's either make a commitment to keep this land an airport or not so some of us can make long-term decisions.
I for one recently passed on purchasing a home in St. Petersburg because of the current uncertainty over the airport. And I can't begin to imagine what this has all done to the many who actually try to plan their lives while making a living at the airport. So why don't all the sides in this debate make an agreement that win or lose, the decision is final and we will finally make a long-term commitment. Don't forget, once the airport is closed that decision is permanent, so why should a decision to keep the airport open be any different? It's only fair.
-- Tom Clark, St. Petersburg
Hillary goes too far
Re: Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to wring Bill's neck," June 4.
It never stops does it? Anything for the almighty dollar. Why would any woman and especially a wife (she said she chose to stay with Bill) want the world, or anyone other than her physician, to know the unholy and intimate details of the marriage? As long as people are married and living with their mates, they should never expose them to public ridicule. When we marry, we take a vow to love, honor and obey, and even if one mate is no longer an honorable person, it doesn't give the other one the right to expose those actions to the public, not even in a book for big bucks. But like everything else, as long as it makes a buck, anything Fran Glaros, Clearwater
-- The liberal double standard
Re: Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to wring Bill's neck."
In the story about Hillary Clinton's new book, it says, "She concludes that what her husband did was morally wrong but not a betrayal of the public."
This is another example of liberal double standards. Bill Clinton's sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky were indeed morally wrong. However, his lying about them under oath was a crime (perjury) and was indeed a betrayal of the public. The liberals to this day continue to say that his impeachment was about sex. The fact is, his impeachment was about committing a crime; a crime for which he lost his right to practice law.
Our Constitution provides a government of laws, and no man (not even the president) is above the law. By pretending that Bill Clinton's acts were only immoral and not criminal, the liberals have and continue to erode our Constitution.
-- Arthur M. Richard, St. Petersburg
Going to bat for cheating?
Re: Good, old-fashioned cheating, editorial, June 5.
Who are you kidding? Does the Times now justify certain types of cheating because they are, "as old as baseball itself"? Are America's teachers supposed to feel a sense of honor that their students "cared enough to cheat against them." What is "acceptable," cheating? That which the Times condones?
Your lofty sense of acceptable moral attitude is lost on me.
-- Nancy Hart, Clearwater
Judge works for the Everglades
Re: Sugar companies want judge off Everglades cleanup case, June 5.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why the sugar companies want Judge William Hoeveler off the Everglades case. Judge Hoeveler is trying to save this wonderful piece of nature from years of destruction and pollution. We can only hope that more people become active and stop this destruction.
We are caretakers of this planet and man's greed and irresponsibility are destroying it. Unless we start to take care of God's gifts to us, we will eventually destroy the ecosystem. Judge Hoeveler, please persevere in this worthy cause.
-- Anne Layton, St. Petersburg
Give consumers safe sugar choices
Judge William Hoeveler is my hero! Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature are bought and paid for with our money! We subsidize sugar production that pollutes our ecosystem, and that money goes to buy a lobbyist for every legislator in the state! We store mountains of sugar to keep the price high. Gov. Bush admitted he signed a flawed bill. Why? Our own money is turned against us.
My solution: Give me a choice to buy sugar products that do not include Florida sugar. Everglades Safe Sugar, Everglades Safe Cola and Everglades Safe Ice Cream would be my choice as is Dolphin Safe Tuna! Publix, Albertsons, Pepsi, anyone? Please give us a chance to vote with our purchasing power.
-- Al Zimmerman, Clearwater
Can you go it alone?
Re: In solitude, clarity, June 3.
With my first cup of coffee shortly after 5 a.m., alone on our porch except for the concert of the birds, I enjoyed reading and reflecting on Jeff Klinkenberg's wonderful column. As noted, "true solitude would scare most of us to death." It has also been observed that if a person doesn't enjoy being alone, then maybe he can't stand the company! Think about it . . . if you can stand doing so.
-- Kenn Sidorewich, Oldsmar
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
