Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Land planning code needs more specific criteria, terms

Re: Planning code shouldn't be this flexible, letter, July 1.

I was appalled to learn that the recent 4-to-2 final decision of the Clearwater Community Development Board approving a controversial 71-foot condominium on Island Estates was determined by the board members who happened to be present to vote at the third meeting at which the case was heard.

Obviously, we have a serious problem here that calls for immediate action.

At the April 19 first hearing, the board continued the case so that the developer and project opponents could discuss possible compromises.

Then, at the next hearing on May 17, the board's 3-to-3 vote resulted in another continuance. (The vice chairman and alternate member were absent from this meeting).

Finally, the project was approved 4 to 2 at the June 21 third meeting, since the two opposing members were absent. I should point out that all the board members are appointed, not elected, officials.

This ridiculous and convoluted procedure would be laughable if it didn't involve an important land use decision that will affect the lives of many Clearwater citizens. A recent letter in the Times from the president of the Island Estates Civic Association detailed some of the problems he thinks the new condo will cause. I believe it is imperative that we quickly amend our Land Development Code so that all significant land use decisions are made by our elected City Council members, using a code that contains a maximum of specific land use criteria and a minimum of loosely worded flexible guidelines that are subject to interpretation.

Based on my 10 years' experience on the former Planning and Zoning and Development Code Adjustment boards, I contend that what happened in this condominium case, as well as in several other similar recent land use cases, could never have occurred under our previous Land Development Code, which was written in clear and specific terms as a good law should be.

Beer stand tactic seems intrusive

We were at the Clearwater Coachman Park concert Sunday night to proudly participate in our wonderful country's Fourth of July celebration, being a disabled infantry veteran myself.

May I add it was very enjoyable?

However, I was in disbelief when I went to purchase a beer. You had to present an ID before being able to purchase beer tickets. I had no problem with that even though I am 56 years old. The vendor specifically asked for your driver's license. I stood there and watched the people in line in front of me. To my surprise, the vendor never looked at the license, but took it and ran it through a card reader, which I assumed to be connected to some government agency.

I took this as a willful invasion of people's privacy. I told her I had left my ID at home. She asked me my birthday and I told her. I proceeded on and got my beer and enjoyed the concert.

However, during the entire evening this situation kept creeping up in my mind. That is why I am writing this letter. This does not seem right to me. It seems to be a singling out of people who like beer to collect data on them. You did not have to present your driver's license to purchase anything else.

I would really like to know what was going on. Did some overzealous person exceed their boundaries? If so, I would like to see them held accountable. This is still the land of the free, isn't it?

Residents still fighting Wal-Mart

Re: This time, they beat Wal-Mart, Diane Steinle column, June 19. Your column regarding the St. Petersburg residents' win over Wal-Mart was most welcome and timely; however, your comments about the Tarpon Springs Wal-Mart opponents' lack of success in a like cause left much to be desired.

We, too, met once a week from the time the Planning and Zoning Board edict came down allowing the petition of Wal-Mart to go before the mayor and commissioners in January 2005. I was one of many who sat through the 12-hour-plus session that night.

Our group raised enough money to start legal proceedings against the city, and in May we held a very successful benefit gala that raised a good deal of additional money to fund our legal fight. We continued to meet weekly until after this event, and we are now awaiting the outcome of our petition. Our legal representative is a Tampa firm well-equipped to take on this kind of situation.

So please don't count us out. As long as this matter is in the hands of the court, it is not a done deal for Wal-Mart in Tarpon Springs, and we are not some wild-eyed tree huggers. Wal-Mart has proved to be a giant corporation with deep pockets and little regard for the negative impact it has on communities.

[Last modified July 7, 2005, 01:01:15]