Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Riverfront is appropriate place for Tampa Museum of Art

Re: Keep museum off the waterfront, editorial, July 25.

For the editor's information, the Tampa Museum of Art is already on the waterfront. It has always been on the Hillsborough River, and there is no compelling reason that a new Tampa Museum of Art shouldn't be constructed on the river, too.

One of the proposed sites would have the art museum built on Ashley Street on the present museum plaza and above the parking garage. This site presents a smaller footprint than the rejected Vinoly plan, and preserves most of the proposed park and river view. Constructing the new museum on this site makes the most sense and should get the approval of all interested parties.

Mayor Pam Iorio's initial downtown arts district also called for a history museum to be built on the northern portion of the riverfront park. Now we learn that commercial retail projects might be included in this mix.

Public support has always been with keeping the art museum on the riverfront and restricting retail development from the park area. The mayor and museum board should keep that in mind when finalizing museum plans.

Do residents really want a museum?

Re: Keep museum off the waterfront.

Your editorial raises the question of whether there is enough public support for an arts museum in Tampa. Other than a small group of people and a few politicians, where is the public outcry for such a facility?

My guess is that after a few years of being a drain on the public coffers, an alternative use for the museum such as an indoor flea market or a mega-bowling alley might seem like a pretty good idea to Tampa residents.

Anyone who thinks that an arts museum in Tampa would be self-supporting is being naive. Do Tampa residents wish to pay more in taxes to have an arts museum? Maybe it could be built in a section of Tropicana Field instead. There's plenty of room and little traffic.

A victory for everyone

Re: Museum delivers rare loss to Iorio, July 23.

When a mayor of a large city is willing to meet with the community and consider opinions that may not agree with hers, it seems to me it should be described as a "victory" for everyone. Tampa Pam Mayor Iorio has been consistent during her term to be open to all views, and her willingness to reach out for input from her constituents demonstrates her ability to consider a wide range of opinions, thereby making her a more effective leader. I can only view this as a "routine win" for Mayor Iorio, and all of Tampa.

Lightning rods work

Re: Lightning rods don't save home from blaze, July 25.

The article, in my view, was out of balance with reality. Lightning rods work! We have all seen pictures of tall buildings being struck by lightning with no damage. So your article should have asked: Why didn't the lightning rods work?

As an engineer, I can give you a number of reasons but the most obvious to me is that they may have been undersized, not installed properly or not recently inspected for integrity. Whatever the reason, the fire inspectors and insurance companies experts will have to sort that out.

Expert analysis and installation of lightning protection equipment that works is available to prevent against the tragedy that struck the Bennett home. To imply otherwise is irresponsible.

Signs of hope

Re: Pushing for peace, July 21.

Thank you for your article on the St. Pete for Peace antiwar protest group. I attended this group's BayWalk gatherings from March to May of 2003, during the initial invasion of Iraq. I am glad they are still active, and was pleased to see the group getting some coverage in the Times. (Unfortunately, I stopped participating because of the distance from my Riverview home: I figured I could also promote peace in my own small way by conserving gasoline!)

I applaud those who have kept the group going, in spite of hecklers, police pressure, and worst of all, the apathy of the general population.

I do remember, though, that even during the period when Americans seemed most gung-ho for war, reaction to the group's demonstrations was surprisingly positive. At least an equal number of passers-by expressed support as expressed displeasure, at least to my impression.

One of my favorite memories was a family who drove by in a minivan. The parents in the front seat were scowling and making an obscene gesture aimed at the protesters (in front of their kids, no less). But the kids in the back seat were smiling and waving the two-finger "peace sign." Who says there isn't hope for the future?

By May of 2003, after the capture of Baghdad, folks were yelling at the protesters, "Go home, the war's over!" I only wish they had been right.

There are alternatives to war

Re: Obfuscating for "peace," letter, July 23.

The letter writer claimed that "the peace movement, as usual, has nothing to offer in the way of alternatives" to war.

He is wrong. Many peace activists have outlined specific ways to address injustice without killing people. In his recent bestselling book, God's Politics - Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, Jim Wallis outlines a six-point plan to meet the threats of brutal regimes without going to war. His plan was published in the Washington Post March 14, 2003. He and other church leaders met with Tony Blair and his undersecretary of state for international development to discuss these alternatives to war. President Bush refused to meet with the church leaders.

Many peace activists know that protest is not enough. In his book, Wallis wrote that peacemakers "must not underestimate the problem of evil in the world or the threat of ruthless and dangerous dictators like Saddam Hussein," and that to offer an alternative to war requires more work, creativity and risk than the seeming quick-fix of war.

Holding up signs is merely a way of getting people's attention. Avoiding war requires intelligence, imagination, courage and perseverance.

The joke didn't go over

Re: Bombs away, July 23.

We couldn't believe how irresponsible you were to print this headline. There are people being killed every day by terrorist activity around the world, in London, Egypt and of course in Iraq.

While the article was about the relatively harmless use of water-filled balloons, it acknowledged that it could result in retaliation, which could be "assault with a deadly weapon."

If you'd joked about "water bombs" while going through security at the airport, you would have missed your plane and had a very serious discussion with ths TSA and local police.

Please think responsibly before publishing this sort of headline.

[Last modified September 13, 2005, 16:11:04]