Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: Clearwater must enforce law in all parts of city, editorial, June 29.
Well, well, well. Bravo to the St. Petersburg Times for a well-written article that hits the nail on the head!
I have personally e-mailed the city commissioners, city manager and mayor on two different occasions and received a response from only one of the commissioners. I wrote them concerning the lack of funds for the Clearwater Police Department and the officer safety issue because my husband is an officer for the city of Clearwater.
I'm not one to sit back and wait for disaster or keep my mouth shut until things go from bad to worse. And the answer I got was, "Oh yes, we support the police, blah, blah, blah." Well, put your money where your mouth is!
Public safety, i.e. Police and Fire departments, should be the city's No. 1 priority, as stated in the city declaration. Then why is the Police Department understaffed? And yes, it is understaffed.
I have begged and pleaded with the city. Do they listen? Do they care? Something will happen and who will be blamed when a beach is closed because of the lack of officers or if there aren't enough officers to respond when something terrible happens? The Police Department and the fine officers, of course!
They want more officers; they need more officers. Find the money. Make cuts in departments that are not essential. I'm sure I could name a few. Hey, we'll have a new library and bridge, who needs a well-equipped Police Department? When drugs are totally out of control, car thefts, robberies, rape and murder plague our city, then we'll have to get our priorities straight.
When there aren't enough officers to cover the city and all of its areas, then you obviously need more officers. The Police Department is not to blame, but the mayor and commissioners who give the department its budget, or lack thereof.
Another issue is the hiring of police officers. It's hard to attract good employees if the pay and benefits are not up to the standards of other local departments. Several years ago, Clearwater was one of the top departments to work for, pay and benefit-wise. It had one of the top starting salaries and pretty decent retirement benefits. Officers would leave departments like Largo, Pinellas Park and the smaller beach towns to work for Clearwater. Sadly, that is not the case anymore.
Being a police officer is one of the few jobs where you go to work every day or night and know that you may not come home. The bad guys detest you and dangers are everywhere, even at a traffic stop on the side of the road. How do we reward our men and women who serve and put their lives on the line for the public? Their profession is one the most scrutinized, yet underpaid and underappreciated.
People dread those lights flashing in their rear-view mirror when they are caught speeding, yet when the crash of glass is heard in the night, the police can't get there soon enough to save them and their families from harm. The time has come for the city of Clearwater to make a decision. The public needs to make its voice heard.
Things won't change unless you do something. The officers and their families deserve to know that the city of Clearwater is doing everything it can to ensure that the Police Department is well equipped, well trained, sufficiently staffed and given the best pay and benefits that the city can offer.
Re: Stage set for dramatic dialogue on rights in Largo, Diane Steinle column, June 22.
I applaud and support Largo City Commission member Charlie Harper, City Manager Steven Stanton and the entire commission for its foresight and moral thinking in its efforts to provide antidiscrimination protection for all of Largo's residents. To me, including everyone is an indication of true justice and compassion.
It hasn't been so long ago that we legally discriminated against black people, and then women. Slowly and surely, we are all realizing that when the Declaration of Independence stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," it meant, literally, all of us.
Our country is based on the principle of equality for all - not just white people, or just men or just heterosexual people, and not just Christians, but for all people. Furthermore, these rights are fundamental and not dependent on meeting any religious tests!
And most importantly, I believe that each one of us, man or woman, black or white, gay or straight, wants to be treated fairly and lovingly and wants to treat each other the same way. I'm glad to see that the city of Largo is joining the city of St. Petersburg and hundreds of cities around the country in working to guarantee "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all of its citizens.
I would like to comment on the recent tragic group bicycle accident in St. Petersburg.
I have been an avid cyclist since 1990, and have ridden on the road as well as on recreational trails. The Florida statute on cycling states that bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as vehicles on the road.
I have tried my best to obey the law by riding on the right side of the road, using hand signals and yielding to the right of way; however, that behavior has not been reciprocated by motorists. I have been run off the road, cursed at, had vehicles drive head on into me (they were driving against traffic), have received broken bones, a concussion, emotional distress and damaged property (my bike and equipment).
One of my constitutional rights is the pursuit of happiness. When a motorist runs me off the road, whether I am on a bike or jogging, he is taking my constitutional rights as well as using his vehicle as a deadly weapon.
The gentlemen (I use that word loosely) who hit those innocent cyclists needs to be punished by both the criminal and civil court system. The public needs to be informed that this conduct will not be tolerated. In our justice system, you cannot run someone down with your car and treat it like you ran over a bug. Those cyclists are human beings!
Re: No need for costly full-color report, letter by Mike Warda, July 10.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that all utilities publish an annual Consumer Confidence Report. The rules under which each utility must comply are very specific as to the content of the report and the time of year it must be mailed to each customer of the utilities system. And since we publish one of these annually for mailing to everyone, the format, type of information, creative work, etc., needs to be done just once. Each year we modify it somewhat to give it a fresh appearance so that our customers might find reasons to read what we have accomplished in the past year.
Since we have to provide a mailing anyway, we felt it would be beneficial to include other parts of our public awareness programs. The success of these programs over the years has saved several hundred million dollars in infrastructure costs. Our water customers have reduced their water consumption from 153 gallons per day per person in 1991 to 106 gallons per day per person last year. Our total water use is less today than it was in 1991.
Our public outreach in connecting with our customers to focus their willingness to be good stewards and to be conservation-oriented when it comes to our public drinking water supply has been chiefly responsible for the success of this reduction in use.
The report itself does look professional. It is printed on recycled paper at a cost of 29 cents per copy. It is mailed to each customer at an average cost of 23 cents per copy. Our production cost for this year's edition is $2,875. We use in-house staff to prepare this publication in the performance of their conservation-oriented activities. Total cost of the program including mailing, printing and production costs is $63,537 (53 cents per copy) for the 2003 edition.
Our total operating budget for water, wastewater and solid waste disposal is $150-million annually. We allocate approximately $1.5-million for conservation, recycling and reuse.
In spite of growth in this community, we actually use less water and wastewater services than we did in 1991. We have not had to expand our solid waste disposal facilities since 1988. Had we not had customer acceptance of conservation and recycling, we could easily have spent $200-million to $300-million in infrastructure expansion. A comparable annual cost would be $15-million to $25-million per year.
We could choose a number of different strategies to accomplish this objective and we do value your input and recognize the choices we make may not be to everyone's approval. Please be assured it is with the best intentions that we have chosen the Consumer Confidence Report format, the subject of your letter. We are very cognizant of keeping costs to a minimum in order to have the least rate impact possible to our customers.