I see in the St. Petersburg Times "Standard of accuracy" that you endeavor to "get things right the first time" and where you fall short, your policy is to "correct factual errors promptly and prominently."
On an otherwise slow local news day, a Times editor decided to create, not report, a news story, and reported in bold print that "St. Petersburg leaders plan to charge performers in city parks for using profanity on stage." The writer went on to state that the city "plans to ask each promoter to put up a $10,000 cash bond for each concert at a city park." Short of a crystal ball, how did the Times come up with the policy? I only saw the proposed policy from our attorneys on March 18, and I know that no resolution has been passed. While some form of decency standard for park users, with corresponding penalty, may become policy, the article was written as if the policy was a done deal, and that is far from the truth.
In its current state, the policy being proposed is simply a memorandum from our legal department based upon a great deal of legal research on First Amendment issues. In deference to my colleagues, no one on the City Council has discussed this proposed policy, and no public debate or dialogue has begun. This is a memo, a proposal, to be discussed at length, and fine-tuned into a practical policy for use in open-air venues and public parks.
My comments in the article were general in nature, and not specific to this particular proposal. Constant vulgarity should not be tolerated in an outdoor venue adjacent to playgrounds, churches, recreational facilities, the Pier, the Vinoy and high-density residential buildings. And, yes, we can dictate what is allowed on city property. No, elected officials cannot be the constant saviors of the First Amendment. We need a little help from our citizens, our visitors and our promoters and park users to stop the abuse of our First Amendment. This council must still discuss this matter and hear from the public, and we must work out a practical solution to a problem that has only occurred once (with rapper 50 Cent).
Do I foresee posting a city employee with a profanity counter? No. Do I foresee an employee with finger on switch, ready to pull the plug at a moment's notice? No. We must come up with a practical solution in keeping with one's right to use a public park for First Amendment speech. We will do this with the help of our attorneys and the public, but please report what is factual and refrain from creating news. Your paper, and your editorial board, owe the city an apology for "falling short" on their otherwise "human endeavor."
-- Bill Foster, City Council member, District 3, St. Petersburg
Leaders standing for what is right
Re: Concert cursing fee.
The Times should clarify to its readers that the $500-a-word penalty was simply a proposal brought to the St. Petersburg City Council by city staff as a possible solution, not an idea that the council came up with.
Our City Council is right on target in its efforts to address this problem. These are city-sponsored events held in public parks. The words and music are amplified and can be heard for miles. By taking action on this matter, our city leaders are standing for what is right, moral and in the best interests of our residents. To spend taxpayer funds to support these groups without any rules condones behavior that is offensive to most rational people. I trust that the citizens of St. Petersburg would rather have their money spent elsewhere.
-- Ed Montanari, St. Petersburg
Vulgarity shouldn't be forced on people
Re: Concert vulgarity.
I am usually in agreement with your editorials, but not this time. This is in reference to the St. Petersburg City Council's actions in dealing with concert vulgarity.
Have you actually heard the words to some of this "music"? I am not just talking about a few four-letter words that begin with F or S.
While enjoying the convenience of downtown St. Petersburg, I decided to pick up a pizza after work. While waiting for my dinner, I walked a few blocks and was happy to see the city growing. As I was crossing First Avenue N and Second Street, a pickup truck stopped at the light, music blasting and the driver singing. I am by no means a prude, but what I heard coming out of that truck was nothing short of disgusting! I was embarrassed walking across the street in downtown St. Petersburg (my home for 25 years).
If this is what is played at a concert, I back the City Council 100 percent. No one should be subjected to this trash without consent. Downtown residents should not have to tolerate this abuse in the name of free speech.
-- Gail Rubinsky, St. Petersburg
Hybrids make sense for city fleet
Re: A drive toward dual fuels, March 18.
Whether it's phenomenal gas prices, dependence on oil, or the environment, we live in a world where it matters what we drive. St. Petersburg City Council members Jay Lasita and James Bennett, and other like-minded officials, deserve praise for proposing a plan to reduce our dependence on oil, save costs on fuel, and to reduce pollution. Let's have the city adopt a plan to phase in fuel-efficient hybrid cars as one way to make our city fleet greener.
Although hybrids do cost more in upfront purchase costs, the cars save money over the lifetime of the vehicle. Hybrids can be a major part of a laudable goal to increase the fuel efficiency of the city fleet because they have higher resale values, lower maintenance costs on oil changes and brake wear, and have lower fuel costs.
Many areas have taken this step to adopt hybrids. Miami-Dade just ordered 50 hybrids as part of its plan to reduce 20 percent of its fuel consumption in the next five years. King County, Wash., has purchased 62 hybrids and plans to buy 20 more. King County's fleet manger has projected that a hybrid like the 2003 Toyota Prius represents a $2,660 lifetime savings over a 2003 Chevy Malibu, even though the Prius is more expensive in upfront acquisition costs. The city of Chicago has also ordered 50 hybrids. Many more cities have a smaller number of hybrids, and many of them are here in Florida.
The concern over Florida's environment, clean air and community solutions to our dependency on oil warrant a strategic, creative, and thoughtful look at ways we can save oil in our government fleets. These concerns also warrant a demand for more fuel efficient cars made in Detroit, as well as a rejection of the Bush administrations' policies that give away mammoth tax incentives for Hummers, but only a paltry tax deduction for fuel efficient cars like hybrids.
-- Darden Rice, associate representative, Global Warming and Energy Program, Sierra Club, St. Petersburg
Happy Prius owner
Re: A drive toward dual fuels.
Thank you for the article on the green, clean driving machine, the Toyota Prius. I bought a Prius in 2001 and promptly drove across the country to Wyoming. I toured many other states and worked in Yellowstone National Park for two months. The Prius performed like a champion. It has loads of power and is wonderful to drive, especially cross-country with the high price of gas. The exceptional mileage is not exaggerated. The car has more than enough power and has no problem with mountains.
As an owner and user, I want to clarify that the battery never ran down when the car was parked for as long as a week, as it often was. It started up with the first turn of the key each and every time. The only snag came the day in mid-September when I left the park. We had an early snow. The Prius was totally covered with snow. When I started it, the "check engine" light came on. There was nothing wrong with the car, but the engine light did not go out until I was about 50 miles south of the snow. The park rangers had a great laugh over that. They said Florida cars were just not made for the snow up there.
All kidding aside, this is one great vehicle and no one could ever pry it out of my hands. It is now 2004 and the only maintenance I have had is the 3,000 mile oil changes and very recently, a new set of tires. That is it! How can the city of St. Petersburg go wrong with these vehicles?
-- Mary Mac Kenzie, Pinellas Park
Saving lives and money
Re: A drive toward dual fuels.
It seems to me that buying cleaner, more fuel efficient cars for St. Petersburg is an investment that should be measured beyond the impressive gas savings. Since hybrid cars emit up to 90 percent fewer smog-forming pollutants, this is also an investment for our public health. According to the EPA Web site, children and people with respiratory illnesses are most affected by automobile pollution and more likely to suffer from asthma. Cleaner, more fuel efficient cars are more than a money saver, they can be a lifesaver for so many people in Florida.
I encourage the City Council to adopt this forward-thinking measure and show that St. Petersburg is part of the growing number of cities on the cutting edge of clean cars, clean air and cheaper fuel bills. Florida can a have a clean, healthy image that we are proud of. Today is the 15th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a reminder of what the other side of the coin looks like.
-- Joshua Magee, Tampa
Put spotlight on mercury pollution
The subject of mercury pollution is not new. The public has shown overwhelming outrage against this pollutant from power plants and what it does to children and families.
But why in the world is so little being done about the cleanup of this horrific pollutant? It's as if the public gets outraged, then the government stalls for time and nothing gets done. And then the government asks for more "stall" time.
Please let's put the spotlight back on the mercury pollution cleanup before it's too late. And let's not give the government another 10 years to just "think about" the cleanup!
-- Diane Diamond, Holiday
Confronting prejudice
Re: Sometimes, merely living feels a little like a crime, by Mary Jo Melone, March 22.
Mary Jo Melone comments on an aspect of the black experience that few people outside the African-American culture can identify with: That is dealing with prejudice and discrimination against one's very self and its effect on one's life.
As a white person who has close friendships with many black persons, I have frequently heard my friends talk of the sickening feeling that comes over them when even the possibility of prejudice raises its head. Most African-Americans must awake each morning and steel themselves for the possibility that they may face some form of discrimination that day.
People can raise their sensitivity by asking themselves to consider what they would do in similar circumstances. Prejudice can occur without regard for who you are, what you do, what you have done or where you are at any given time.
The threat of random prejudice and/or discrimination is a phenomenon that few white people have ever had to face. Thus, they may be forgiven their insensitivity. But to remain insensitive is not forgiveable once good information has become available. Melone's column says clearly and convincingly what a human being must feel in the face of discriminatory behavior from people who do not know you.
Prejudice and discrimination and their ultimate companion, hate, do not have to be a given in relationships between people of different cultures. Think about it, folks. You are fully capable of understanding this issue, and can take corrective action.
-- Doug Nessle, Dunedin
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 through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
