Re: Critic of airport plans ousted, story, Nov. 13.
The Pinellas County Commission has again demonstrated that public opinion is an annoyance and definitely not a thing to be tolerated in government. County Commissioner Ken Welch has informed Ava Van Nahmen that she will not be reappointed to the county's advisory park board, a position she has held since 2000. Her sin is that she vocally protested and organized against the commission's plans to expand St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport. She fought for her principles.
Citizen positions on advisory boards exist for the very purpose of allowing concerned citizens to participate in government. It is a way for citizens to express their concerns, issues and positions and for the government to hear their voice. Well, at least that is what I believed and probably what Ava believed as well.
Not so. It appears that citizens on advisory boards are there to give government the appearance of citizen involvement, and a citizen's right to serve exists only as long as they do not disagree with the commissioners. So much for citizen government.
Pinellas County residents who care about citizen government need to speak out. If we want socially active, environmentally concerned citizens to have a voice in our government, then each of us must stand up against this tyranny. We must flood the office of the county commissioners with mail and phone calls. Go to the commission meetings and tell them what we think.
If Ken Welch and his comrades do not want to hear the voice of our activist citizens, then maybe they no longer need to be our leaders. Let them know that while they replace Ava with a more compliant voice, they cannot silence Ava nor any of us who love green spaces and citizen government.
-- Mark S. Kamleiter, St. Petersburg
Commissioner, Times are doing a disservice
Re: Critic of airport plans ousted, story, Nov. 13.
I am appalled at the small-mindedness of certain of our county commissioners - no less, a commissioner whom I've respected and even agree with politically. And I'm disappointed again at our hometown newspaper.
It takes no rocket science to see that Commissioner Ken Welch chose to get even with Ava Van Nahmen by kicking her off a volunteer park board because she disagrees with the ambitious plans to expand the airport. And he chose to do so in a particularly ugly way.
He sent his letter of dismissal to all commissioners, the county administrator, county attorney and park director and talked about a negative impact. This is hardly a civil way to thank someone for three years of unpaid service.
In fact, Ava has played a very positive role by alerting citizens and keeping them informed about the airport plans.
Without Ava, many neighbors would have only realized what the airport was up to once bulldozers started razing Airco Golf Course. Of course, even with all the community resistance, it looks like our commission will still proceed with these ill-advised plans.
Ava has certainly behaved in a civil manner throughout the airport debate - although she does associate with those of us who do not feel or act very civil about the commission's handling of the airport issue.
I fail to see why Mr. Welch took offense at Ava's tuning him into the public antipathy by forwarding someone else's e-mail to him. And contrary to the Times article, Ava was not even in the August meeting that turned into chaos.
Mr. Welch has done a disservice to the County Commission, which has tried to rectify its underestimation of the public's resistance to the airport expansion. And the St. Pete Times has done a disservice to its readership by not questioning an elected official's effort to reprimand a private citizen for speaking out.
While we're at it, why doesn't the Times do a serious investigation of the supposed economic argument for extending the airport's runway, or the impotence of the airport to implement noise abatement in the shadows of Tampa International Airport, or the inherent conflict in expanding an airport in such a congested residential area?
Thanks for the opportunity to disagree.
-- Deborah Van Brunt, Feather Sound
Was it a sense of guilt, or a gift to voters?
Re: Bus plan for renters takes a new route, story, Nov. 6, and Hazy sense of guilt prompts $5,000 gift, story, Nov. 7.
"Hazy sense of guilt" or Voter Appreciation Day?
Let me see if I can figure this one out. Since I have no way of knowing how many registered voters live at Westminster Apartments in Oldsmar, but can assume it is not very many, then, of course, it doesn't make sense to spend $3,810 to make their commute easier when it is better invested in a precinct that historically has the largest voter turnout in every city election.
I am sure the voters in the precinct north of Tampa Road have not forgotten the contentious memory of the last mayoral election and the promises made and the promises broken.
I am also sure the folks over at Gull Aire Village are still wondering what happened to their traffic light. I also know if the fine people in the Village were shorted $5,000 sometime in the past 10 years, they would be filling the Oldsmar City Council chambers as they have been known to do many other times on issues important to them. As it is, they cannot seem to figure out what this money is for. I think this falls into the category of plausible deniability.
It couldn't happen here, could it? We all know you cannot buy votes in America, but you can show voters how much you appreciate them with, as City Manager Bruce Haddock said, "simply a solution to a problem for a relatively small amount of money" and as Mayor Jerry Beverland said, "The goal is to correct a decade-old mistake; this has been on my conscience since (then)."
I would have thought those should have been quotes applied to the (creation of a) cul-de-sac at Westminster Apartments, not this one: "If they want it," said Vice Mayor Don Bohr, "they can pay for it."
Ah, the re-election season, isn't it wonderful?
-- Dale A. Renbjor, Oldsmar
Beach Walk concept could hurt businesses
The Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce fully supports the Beach Walk concept as a much-needed and welcome improvement to the beach. However, we also believe that the changes have to be implemented with great care and consideration in order to minimize the impact to the existing business.
In this regard, the suggested changes to Coronado Drive would cause extensive damage to the businesses along the street by eliminating back-out parking utilized by these businesses. This would cause most of the businesses to be forced out of existence.
Consequently, the chamber feels that the city of Clearwater should revisit this issue in all fairness to the business owners. Improvements should not be done at the cost of serious harm to those who have been a mainstay of our tourism industry.
-- Marysia Coates, president, Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce
[Last modified November 18, 2003, 01:33:59]
