Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Scientology, not Times, must change

Re: Newspaper is stuck in past over Scientology, letter by Steve Sigal, June 24.

Mr. Sigal and others complain that some who dislike Scientology after all these years are "stuck in the past." The issue is Scientology being stuck in unacceptable policies.

Scientology sneaked into Clearwater and immediately started infiltrating agents into government and newspapers and started harassing critics. It never apologized for these actions. And later the same infiltration tactics popped up again in Canada and Greece. In Greece, it got Scientology shut down.

The same "fair game" tactics are still used. Critics are swarmed with private investigators, harassing lawsuits, libels, smears and dirty tricks to this day.

To get over the past problems, Scientology needs to change. It needs to openly cancel "fair game" and similar policies loudly and openly - not for public consumption, but to set an example and new course for Scientology and Scientologists. It needs to implement new guidelines and policies.

Scientology never apologized for its bizarre "fair game" tactics against people like former Clearwater Mayor Gabe Cazares or author Paulette Cooper.

This is an organization that has argued in two major court cases that "fair game" polices are a core practice and should be constitutionally protected. (These cases were Scientology vs. Lawrence Wollersheim , 1989, and Scientology vs. Gerald Armstrong , 1984.)

An organization with that outrageous attitude and its history is an organization that is not trustworthy. You cannot trust its good judgment, goodwill or intentions. It would be foolish to trust it in anything until major changes are made in management and real policy changes are implemented.

Until changes are made, the attitude of government and government personnel should be that Scientology is just a dangerous cult and any dealings with it should be at arm's length - not as punishment, but to force real and deep change on Scientology. Make Scientologists change, not governments or communities, and let them know that without change they will never be acceptable.

Thanks for support of small motels, but may be too late

Re: Small hotels could become endangered, story, June 14, and Hotel-to-condo change will be tougher, story, June 3.

Thank you, Clearwater councilman Hoyt Hamilton, for your support of the small motel owners on the beach. My family has been on North Beach as long as your family has, and we have both witnessed the boom and now the bust of the smaller, older motels. It is no longer financially possible to maintain these properties and compete in a market that demands bigger and better amenities while taxes on the land they sit on rise almost daily.

We have watched as the South Beach has enjoyed a progressive renewal of projects aided by the extra density pool of motel units and many other amenities offered to developers as incentives to build.

The city watched as motel units turned into more profitable condos. The Community Development Board could not seem to get enough large condo projects.

Now, after all these big developments have gotten established and the South Beach is fairly well spoken for, the city claims that the small motels that are left are the only salvation of our tourist industry and must stay as small motels or lose extra density if they convert to condos. It is not a well thought-out plan of action to save the tourist industry with incentives, but a hasty knee-jerk reaction four years too late to do much good. A plan to protect tourism should have been incorporated into the Beach by Design document when it was written.

I am having a hard time understanding what this ordinance will accomplish other than hurt people who have given a large part of their lives and money to the small motel industry. With the standards of both the American and European visitors rising in what they are looking for in accommodations when they come to Clearwater, we may very well find that the condos we are building today are the small motels of tomorrow.

So again I say thank you, councilman Hamilton. I am sorry that others are so busy trying to figure out what a consultant might have meant four years ago when he wrote Beach by Design that they cannot hear someone who has lived Beach by Design his entire life.

Having Hamilton on council a plus for Clearwater property owners

Re: Small hotels could become endangered, story, June 14.

Just because Hoyt Hamilton and his family own beach property is no reason he should be excluded from being a Clearwater City Council member. In fact, I think it's good for all of us if council members have property in Clearwater and know what property owners have to deal with on a daily basis.

As an owner, he may need to abstain from voting when the vote would profit him or his family, but there are many more plusses than minuses that he owns property in Clearwater.

[Last modified June 30, 2005, 00:59:15]