Re: For a better St. Petersburg, editorial, Oct. 21.
>-- Your editorial talks about "the council, which has always tilted toward Albert Whitted interests."
Which City Council? The present City Council or all the City Councils that preceded it? Does it ever occur to the editors of the St. Petersburg Times that elected City Council members generally reflect the views of their constituents or they do not get re-elected? Consistent, long-term support for the airport by City Councils, reflecting the views of those who elect them, certainly has not made an impression on the myopic thinking of the editorial board on what's "better" for St. Petersburg, or with those two developers who are providing 80 percent of the funding for the so-called grass-roots park initiative. Wake up and smell the coffee, or whatever the odor!
-- Tom Begley, St. Petersburg
City benefits from the airport
Re: For a better St. Petersburg, editorial, Oct. 21.
Allow me to briefly respond to a couple of quotes from this biased article.
"Probably because taxpayers are starting to wake up to the sacrifices they make so that 177 owners can park their airplanes on the downtown waterfront."
This makes is sound as if the city is supporting an airport for less than 200 people. Good grief! There are hundreds of other small aircraft owners that would love to hangar their planes at Albert Whitted, but there is no room. The airport is responsible for 300 jobs in the area.
"The estimated cost of airport expansion is $38-million, with city taxpayers picking up at least $7-million of that tab . . . And by accepting grants from the FAA, the city gives up control of the property to the federal government for 20 years at at time. Even now the FAA is interfering in city plans for the Bayfront Center and is threatening to charge taxpayers more rent on that site."
Most likely expansion and improvements over the coming years will probably amount to well over $38-million, most of it coming from the FAA. The $7-million you mention would be spread out over those years. It is only natural that the FAA wants "control" of the airport property since it has so much invested. The "control" you mention is simple. The FAA wants the property to remain an airport.
The article goes on about "the noisy airport," incompatible use of the land as a park and an airport, and what a deal it would be to make the property a park and tear out the airport rather than upgrade it. Personally I've never been bothered by the noise, and I fail to see how an observation area (park) would be an incompatible use of the land. While I enjoy the use of a couple of the 137 recreational parks we have in our fair city, I don't consider removal of the single airport we have and replacing it with yet another taxpayer-supported park much of a deal.
Neither would the Civil Air Patrol, the employees at Bay Air, the flight instructors and their students, the aircraft mechanics, or the many companies in the area that find Whitted convenient for corporate travel. Bayflite air ambulance service is based and maintained here. Albert Whitted attracts tourism. Every week, pilots from all over the country land here to enjoy the many recreational benefits of our area, and to support our local businesses. The airport is extremely valuable for attracting commerce to the heart of our downtown.
The airport and the benefits the city receives from it should by all means be retained and allowed to grow with our city.
-- Floyd Reed, St. Petersburg
How much income will a park generate?
Once upon a time I was led to believe that USF would benefit from eliminating Albert Whitted Airport by allowing the St. Petersburg campus to expand. That never materialized, and along came the park proposal. Talk about low income from the airport - how much income will a park generate? Having no affiliation with pilots or aircraft, I had the narrow point of view that only a few benefit from the existence of Albert Whitted, however, the letters and comments of supporters brought to light the other side of the story. The airport generates more than monetary benefits. The business aspect is important to the city, and the occasional air show is a definite crowd pleaser. Once the airport is gone, it's gone forever.
The subsidy to sustain the facility is a small piece of change and is a far more substantial expense than the money the city throws away on artwork around town at something like $125,000 apiece. Check out the "stack of flower pots" at the fire station at 49th Street and 9th Avenue N, or the "sheets of steel" nonsense at Sunken Gardens. I rest my case.
Another downtown park is surely not needed, and neither is the threat, real or imagined, of condos or more shops. I'm convinced the airport should stay.
-- Lawrence A. Fisher, St. Petersburg
Expanding the city tax base
I can imagine how many growing cities would love to have an airport in a downtown location. St. Petersburg is no longer a city of green benches, and I, with many other citizens, appreciate the increase in the worth of property ensuing from the growth of downtown business. Let us, then, accommodate the people who brought and will bring businesses here by keeping the airport and expanding the city tax base.
Perhaps then, just for starters, the city could pave dusty, health-hazard alleys, provide living arrangements for some of the poor folks who occupy the benches for sleeping in our otherwise unused parks during the day and jobs for people to redevelop already-existing, inadequate housing in the area. The recent air show was a terrific way to acquaint more people with the unique resources of this great little city.
-- Mary J. Chubaty, St. Petersburg
Think about future of transportation
I'm not a pilot and don't own a plane, but I have read quite a bit about the massive changes coming in transportation in the next 50 years.
The highways are overloaded (think I-4) and there is no plan to expand them at the exponential rate of population growth. The glutted airline hub system is only effective when traveling from one major city to another, frustrating travelers and hampering growth in smaller urban areas. As part of the solution, NASA has been developing the Highway In The Sky, or HITS. NASA is fostering new technology in aircraft construction, engines and electronics to make safe, efficient air taxi, charter and commuter service a reality.
This process has been accelerated by 9/11. An increasing number of corporate heads are unwilling to have their valuable employees waste days in lines at "hub" airports far from their ultimate destinations. They have turned to aircraft ownership or charters to get the job done and are snapping up the next generation of high-tech planes now reaching the market.
In the near future, our city leadership will be able to use this fabulous downtown asset to lure large tax-paying corporations with good jobs to the city. It will be central to creating a new level of prosperity.
In the near future, many more of us will be traveling "point to point" in small aircraft. (Several years ago, I chartered a plane from Albert Whitted to Key West with two others, costing less in money and time than an airline.) Small-plane travel is for everyone, not just the wealthy.
Let's save Albert Whitted and put St. Petersburg in the center of the coming transportation revolution.
-- Jonathan Micocci, St. Petersburg
Airport adds a unique charm
Although I have no personal interest in flying, I join those St. Petersburg residents who want to preserve Albert Whitted Airport.
This airport is part of St. Petersburg's culture and history and adds a special dimension to our recreational opportunities. Watching the small planes take off and land is a source of entertainment even for those who do not fly.
We currently have ample waterfront park space as long as that land remains protected and is not opened to development. Perhaps the users of Albert Whitted could reach out to the community with more open houses and air shows, but it would be a loss to St. Petersburg if we eliminated this facility which adds a unique charm to our community and represents a past that dates back to the first commercial flight in aviation history.
-- Carol Berends, St. Petersburg
Voters deserve an honest debate
I have been, until now, a silent supporter of the movement to replace Albert Whitted Airport with a waterfront park. My business partner, Tim Clemmons, is the better known principal of Loftsville, the corporate name under which Tim and I have completed one project of 14 townhomes (Straub Court) and are currently developing another 19 (Charles Court).
While I value my privacy, I can no longer sit by and observe the nasty accusations that the pro-airport supporters are directing at the pro-waterfront-park "developers." As far as I can tell, Tim and I are the only "developers" in the park effort with projects on any scale, and, I think most folks would admit, our scale is pretty puny.
The latest handbill from the airport folks accuses us of plotting to build "Miami Beach style" condos on that portion of the airport property that would not be reserved for park use under the Citizens for a Waterfront Park proposal. Besides being insulting, this attempt to demonize us is just plain silly for a number of reasons. One, under the CWP proposal, it will require a citizen referendum to determine acceptable use of that land, and any developer who wanted to commit such an atrocity on our beautiful waterfront would have a pretty big battle to fight. Two, the land is in a flood zone that already strictly forbids residential construction. Three, I sure don't want to build any such project, and I don't know of anybody who does. This whole issue of developers scheming to take over the land for their own nefarious purposes is a fabrication, designed to take attention away from what should be the real issue: Do the citizens of St. Petersburg want to have a downtown airport or do they want to convert the property into a waterfront park?
Many citizens of St. Petersburg (almost 15,000 of whom signed the CWP petition) believe that the greatest good for the greatest number would be to replace the airport with a public park. On the other side, many citizens of St. Petersburg believe that the airport should remain. There are arguments for both sides, and that's why we need the voters to make a decision. This issue is too important to be obscured by invective and innuendo. Can't we have an open and honest debate that airs the real differences between the positions and offers the voters a chance to make a considered decision at the polls?
-- Dorothy "Dar" Webb, St. Petersburg
Outside interference
Re: Pledge to Whitted flies in from afar, Oct. 23.
I see we now have out-of-state interference in the vote on the Albert Whitted question. The Aircraft Owners Association will pump $100,000 into print and television ads to push their side of the issue. I for one am going to e-mail Greenpeace right away so we can muddy the waters even more with ever-growing outside interference in making even the most mundane decisions.
What has happened to fair play? No decision that goes against anyone goes unchallenged even to the extent of hijacking the courts (Terri Schiavo Law) to force their will upon us. Florida is trying to win back the dubious honor, from California, as the most joked-about state. It's time we made our own decisions, not let them be made by outside influence.
-- Arthur G. Kirchheimer, St. Pete Beach
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.
