Re: Park's defeat disappoints commission, story, March 16, and Coachman Park plan may return to ballot, story, March 11.
Where to start in my reaction to the Clearwater city commissioners' disappointment in the defeat of the Coachman Park expansion. The March 11 article suggests the defeat was because of a flier that exploited "lingering feelings of mistrust in prior city administrations." How about feelings of mistrust in the present administration?
What could have been an excellent source of city income as a conference center, the Harborview Center, was incomplete without any adjacent hotel/restaurant. Instead of adjusting and correcting that obvious lack of planning, commissioners instead built a huge library on the most desirable spot left on the bluff.
They approved an outdated architectural design of swoop and pipe crowned by a miniature Parthenon on the roof that doesn't relate to any other surrounding architectural design.
Did it ever occur to the commissioners that the majority of taxpaying citizens of Clearwater do not want Mayor Brian Aungst's "boat slips and a beautiful amphitheater" (in his mind) or turning Coachman Park into a theme park for boaters who would probably never venture downtown?
Downtown to what? Wasn't there a problem on the beach near Clearwater Pass with the combination of rock entertainment, alcohol, marijuana and boaters?
After hearing the roar of drum, guitar and screaming voice from the last concert at Coachman, we wondered how any of this could possibly "jump-start downtown revitalization" when all we wanted to do was to get as far away as possible.
And they want an amphitheater? Are they learning anything from the Vinoy Park rock concert experience? Isn't there a nearby vacant stadium with ample parking that would better accommodate rock concerts and other events, reducing gridlocked traffic downtown?
There are so many designs for the use of this beautiful waterfront land. How did they lock themselves into this narrow and unfortunate choice? What is the revenue from the concerts, and how does this offset the additional expenditures (insurance, extra police, cleanup, etc.)? What model of successful urban planning are they using?
We need a comprehensive urban plan that benefits all of us, and, believe it or not, we will support them when they demonstrate common sense and a true vision of the future for downtown Clearwater.
By the way, didn't the city fund a group to visit West Palm Beach to study what has become a successful downtown revitalization project? The similarity between the area of urban decay in West Palm Beach and downtown Clearwater is amazing. West Palm Beach's combination of high-end to moderate retail shops and restaurants in a parklike setting with ample parking is attractive to all of the area residents and was an excellent and creative use of the urban space. Why can't something as creative be done here?
-- Roberta B. Pioli, Clearwater
Next referendum put to vote should have more financial data
Re: Why did Clearwater voters turn on park plan? Diane Steinle column, March 21.
Diane Steinle's column was refreshing, although I don't agree with her conclusions. What I liked was her statement that the next time this is put to a vote, the city needs to provide a price tag, funding source and timeline for each individual project.
In the last referendum, I found the information available to the voters totally lacking. I will not give up my right to vote on individual issues to leaders who cannot or will not provide such information.
In addition, when such information is provided, it must show that each of those improvements will not cost the taxpayer any increase in taxes. In fact, I want them to generate a profit to reduce taxes, or I will vote resoundingly no again and again and vote out the leaders who continue to bring such referendums forward.
-- Robert Howards, Clearwater
Park defeat sends strong signal to Clearwater commissioners
Re: Park's defeat disappoints commission, story, March 16.
I read with interest the article on the Clearwater City Commission's disappointment over the defeat of the Coachman Park charter amendment March 9. But, please, did commissioners honestly expect it to pass?
The City Commission has been negligent with the city's funds and has attempted many failed projects. Why should we trust it at this juncture to actually be able to fix the problem of downtown?
I think it had little to do with the mailer sent to city residents but rather with the lack of trust city residents have in the commission. I think it was a strong message from the citizens of Clearwater to the commission. The citizens don't trust the leadership or direction the commission is leading the city in.
The citizens of Clearwater didn't just defeat the park; they defeated the commission. Maybe the commission will heed the message.
-- Matthew Stewart, Clearwater
Second-guessing about yes vote turns into sadness over defeat
Re: Why did Clearwater voters turn on park plan? Diane Steinle column, March 21.
I went to the polls specifically to vote yes on Question 2 (the Coachman Park improvement plan). While I did indeed vote yes, I left the polls wondering whether I had done the right thing. I'd been surprised by the wording of the referendum and was concerned about the boat docks. I envisioned more development, more dead manatees and a more congested waterway.
Now, after reading more published details about the downtown plans in the paper than I ever remember seeing before the election, I am happy I voted yes and sad it didn't pass.
My husband and I are not Scientologists. We enjoy Clearwater Beach on a regular basis. Every time we drive through downtown Clearwater to get there, we wish there were someplace fun and interesting to stop at.
We can't believe how badly the city needs improvements and what a great potential is going to waste.
-- Shannon O'Leary-Beck, Clearwater
Assistant city manager's actions embarrass Clearwater yet again
Re: Clearwater official sinks reputation with a send, editorial, March 18.
The headline should have been followed by a "Take 2." This time, Clearwater Assistant City Manager Garry Brumback didn't send inappropriate e-mails containing offensive sexual jokes or information on outside investments - he threatened and attempted to intimidate three firefighters via an anonymous e-mail. He said he was sorry and was suspended for only a week by City Manager Bill Horne, his "close friend," according to the article March 10.
Do our elected city officials feel this is okay? I do not feel it is appropriate to have a person in this capacity who cannot control his emotions. He sent an e-mail threatening three fellow city employees ("You're going down.") after reading the Draconian Times Web site. Mr. Brumback, if you can't handle it, don't read it!
You have embarrassed the city again and created a hostile working environment for those who work for the city. In the Times on Oct. 23, 2003, Mr. Brumback criticized firefighters for e-mails they sent. "They've been disciplined for using the e-mail system to send their whiny complaints to all of their fellow firefighters," he said.
It's no wonder the firefighters feel that they cannot get a fair contract, with hypocritical city leadership that attempts to intimidate co-workers in this way and then receives only a slap on the wrist and one week later will be back at it.
I am appalled by the actions of the city administration.
-- Carrie Reid, Clearwater
[Last modified March 24, 2004, 01:35:51]
