If city charters fell under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security, the highest level of alert would be assigned to Clearwater due to the proposed city charter changes.
Irrespective of the issues, voters should always be suspicious of any issue placed before them on primary voting day other than candidates for office. The proponents of these issues rely on a low voter turnout, typically 20 percent or less of the registered voters. The general election in November would ensure greater voter participation.
The language chosen in these charter changes is designed in such a manner that objective discourse is difficult, if not impossible. The process in this case deserves more attention than the changes themselves.
The resounding defeat of previous development plans at the hands of Clearwater's voters casts a very dark cloud over prospects for even grander plans. The Times has repeatedly reported this when anyone with enough money in his pocket to present a computer-generated drawing throws that first image on the wall. The initial waves of joy by the planners and commissioners are followed by concerns over a referendum. It's as if "referendum" were some fatal disease rather than a means for citizens to express their will.
I, for one, am underwhelmed by the proclaimed 30 hours of labor spent (by the Clearwater Charter Review Committee) on reviewing a document meant to guide the city for future generations. Fourth-graders spend more hours preparing for the FCAT.
The charter changes may have some merit, but the sleight-of-hand presentations, thinly veiled intent, as well as questionable timing, have made it difficult to support these changes.
-- D.F. O'Neill, Clearwater
Re: Defeated Clearwater charter changes.
We have elected Carlen Petersen to the Clearwater City Commission and have immediately told her that we do not trust her to make important decisions. Maybe Question 1 on the charter amendments should have been to disband the commission/council and run everything with a committee and by popular vote. It would then take a year to buy a pencil.
We elected this commission/council to represent us and make the decisions to move our city forward. Now, we tell them to ask us before they make any important decisions. If we don't trust them to make these decisions then we should have voted for someone who we do trust. I, for one, think they do a superior job and deserve the tools to do the job that we elected them to do.
We made a serious mistake last Tuesday.
-- Ron Barnes, Clearwater
Re: Clearwater charter referendum Question 2.
If the city commissioners want to turn the Harborview Center parking lot into parkland and build a compensating parking garage to the south, let them ask. If they think a harbor-front marina would be a wise addition, let them ask. If they want to build a new Coachman Park bandstand in a different place, let them ask. They might be surprised to get most or all of what they desire because the citizens have the same desires.
But the citizens don't want to buy it wholesale. They like retail better. Each item deserves separate citizen consideration. It's harder to be fooled if we get to analyze each pitch before we decide whether or not to swing.
The former city commissions have squandered the trust of more than half of us voters. Hubris will not regain it.
-- Bud Tritschler, Clearwater
Re: Defeated Clearwater charter referendums.
How many times does Clearwater City Hall need to be hit over the head with a 2 by 4? To blame Save the Bayfront for the March 9 defeat of critical charter amendments is shortsighted.
The city had four years to cultivate the last group of "no" voters to downtown development. There apparently was no public relations lesson learned. The negative ballots this time were probably from the same folks.
These are residents from long-suffering, neglected neighborhoods on the edges of the "condo complex/parking garage on every corner" syndrome the city has been forcing on us.
Commissioners apparently couldn't find time to get out into the neighborhoods (beach and Countryside excluded) to see if we needed anything - like traffic calming sooner than eight to 10 years, code enforcement for property blight and police officers extending their service areas to combat rampant speeding and noise pollution.
These are simple things, probably costing much less than grandiose projects developers have proposed. Residents will overlook ill-fated projects like the roundabout, Harborview Center, the new bridge and even squeezing together lanes on Fort Harrison Avenue for just a little help in their back yards. Stevenson's Creek winds its way through some of those areas, and look how that amendment did.
Turning votes around is not as tough as it seems, but in 30 years in this community, I cannot recall a city administration that figured out the simple process. Review boards are always stacked with the same establishment names, and the whining about Fred Thomas has gotten old. Take a look around our downtown with its sullen, tax-free populous, then drive to Dunedin, Palm Harbor and Safety Harbor to see what fresh, innovative voices and ideas can accomplish.
Court our votes out here. You may be surprised at the ballot box next time.
-- Steve Guss, Clearwater
Re: Coachman Park plan may return to ballot, story, March 11.
You have to give the Clearwater City Commission and the city manager an A for perseverance. According to this article in the Times, they want to ask the voters "one more time for permission to redevelop Coachman Park." Before this can be done, City Manager Bill Horne said the city needs to know why "the voters didn't demonstrate "full faith and confidence' in the city's plans."
For several weeks, there have been letters to the editor by citizens expressing their disapproval of the concession and naming rights to the stadium, the ambiguous phrasing of the charter amendments and the safety of the causeway bridge. Yet, City Hall would prefer to blame the proposal's failure, "in part," on a flier produced by Save the Bayfront.
Surely, the commissioners are not questioning the constitutional rights of a civic-minded group to express its interpretation of the amendments and to encourage taxpayers, if they agreed with this interpretation, to vote "no."
There was also a postcard mailed to voters by another civic-minded group expressing its views and asking citizens to vote "yes." If everyone has the right to state his opinion on the future of downtown, why are some taxpayers being chastised for campaigning for their issues and others are not? This could be why there is a lack of "full faith and confidence."
-- Patricia Bates Smith, Clearwater
Clearwater citizens do not want to throw our money away on downtown redevelopment.
If an enterprising company wishes to do business and profit in downtown, let it put its money where its mouth is. The city should not support such an endeavor in any manner. Can you say CGI? And by the way, stop spending our tax dollars on propaganda campaigns to push for something no one needs or wants.
We do not want anymore city revenue or staff time spent on downtown that will only benefit the pseudo-religious sect that occupies it. No one goes there for a reason. Yes, once in a while, the city is gridlocked when Drew Street is blocked off for concerts, but on a day-in, day-out basis, downtown is dead, and the nail in the coffin will be the opening of the new bridge.
Take all the profit-making concerts to the new baseball stadium. It's actually more centrally located to all of Clearwater and Pinellas County. There'll be no parking or traffic problems, and attendance at these city-sponsored events will skyrocket.
-- Paul R. Koenig, Clearwater
[Last modified March 16, 2004, 01:05:31]
