Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

A fair settlement from Aloha? Seems unlikely

Those who are as optimistic (not) as I am about Aloha Utilities coming to any accommodation with the "disgruntled few" in further negotiations ordered by the Public Service Commission, please raise your hands.

I know one should go to the negotiating table with an open mind, not prejudging the outcome, but I couldn't help but smirk when reading Aloha president Steve Watford's prepared statement that followed the PSC's decision to defer voting on a settlement for 90 days. This delay was mandated so that the two parties could meet again to try to settle their differences. Mr. Watford said, "We (Aloha) will enter the next series of discussions in good faith, with every hope that they will be fruitful." After more than a decade of stonewalling and denial, this monopolistic provider of foul-smelling, sometimes discolored water who no longer has any goodwill left among the 2,000 customers petitioning for deletion of territory, is now talking about good faith! How ironic!

Contrast that with the July 24 column by C.T. Bowen, Pasco editor of editorials for the St. Petersburg Times , titled, "It's a little late for Aloha to show good faith." Apparently, Mr. Watford's speech writer doesn't keep up with current events.

Whatever the outcome of these mandated negotiations, we must impress the PSC that until Aloha publicly admits it has problems with processing procedures that apparently allowed distribution of a substandard product and not continually blame our in-house piping systems as the culprit, a resolution to the situation will be difficult to come by.

Whoever sits on the customer side of the negotiating table (hopefully, it's those same knowledgeable individuals who are on the previously elected ad hoc committee), I wish you patience and fortitude. Heaven only knows you'll need it. I'm just sorry I can't be more optimistic, but as the saying goes, "A leopard doesn't change its spots."

If a fair compromise or settlement cannot be reached, I'd be willing to bet that most of those who signed the deletion of territory petitions would be willing to see this through to the bitter end, even if it extends another 10 years down the line. Let's face it, sooner or later Aloha will run out of legal options and delaying tactics.

Townhome story left news unreported

Re: Townhome hearing becomes heated , Aug. 12

The article regarding the Aug. 11 Development Review Committee meeting contains faulty declarations and misconceptions that are simultaneously unfair to me and misleading to the readers of your newspaper. Containing mischaracterizations and using such terms as "mistakenly," "pretending" and "confused," the story paints me as irrational and rude, suggesting that I understood neither the purpose, rules, procedures nor even the outcome of the DRC meeting.

With all due respect, by concentrating your story on my antics, quirky style and willingness to take on County Administrator John Gallagher's apparent authority, the Times left unreported the real newsworthy story of the event, and your subtitle should have been "to be continued."

Your story leaves out that while pretending to be conducting a trial, I managed to point out on the record that neither the development director, zoning director nor growth management director could vouch for the findings of fact necessary for the board to give approval to the project. Your readers may also have been interested to know that none of these upper-level managers whose decisions affect our day-to-day lives could define multiple-family dwelling or duplex under the land development codes they are allegedly administering. Local developers would certainly have been surprised to find out that the county administrator and his minions knowingly have allowed the developer of this townhome project to proceed without subjecting them to the county's stringent tree ordinance. Environmentally conscious people would be shocked to find out that the county biologist stood mute as the engineer in charge of the development, Robert Fudge, explained to the DRC that the parcel "may have a couple of pine trees on it."

Your assertion in the article that the DRC approved the preliminary plans of the Bayonet Point Townhomes project leaves me as dumbfounded as when your reporter first suggested it to me after the DRC. To suggest that the matter was decided is not true under any normal definition of the term. And by not telling your readers that the project was approved "subject to proving Growth Management verifying finding of fact number 1," which is reprinted below, I suspect your piece has managed to "confuse" many more than just me.

The finding of fact states: "The preliminary plan has been reviewed by the Growth Management Department, and it has determined that the proposed use is consistent with the MF-1 Multiple Family Medium Density Zoning District Permitted Uses and Chapters 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Plan."

If you must develop, do so wisely

Re: Leaders reject two proposals for homes , Aug. 18

King Helie is quoted in this article as saying Evans Properties is "left with 964 acres of citrus trees that are dying, with growth all around them, and people are saying, "Leave it the way it is."' He implies that people should simply accept the reality of change. I think all of us who have spoken out against granting the requested change on the more than 1,200 acres involved know that some kind of development is inevitable.

The question is: Must the type of development be driven only by consideration for maximum profit to the landowner? Or have we reached a time when the county can no longer afford to allow landowners that amount of freedom? I say the time when we can allow profit to be the only consideration has passed, just as the days of agriculture in this area seem to be passing.

In the Pasco County area, as in much of Florida, there is a growing problem with inadequate water supply. Superimpose a map of the proposed Evans development, whether at three houses per acre or at one house per acre, on this picture of already critical water shortage, and it simply makes no sense to approve this change in the land use plan. Even if our supply of water were infinite, we should figure out the cost of accessing that supply (desal plants, for example) and determine growth impact fees accordingly, before we allow the growth. If our water supply is finite, then we've no business allowing growth, or certainly no more than minimal growth, when that water is often insufficient for the already existing population of Pasco County.

As a teacher recently retired after 25 years in the Pasco County school system, I also would cite the critically crowded condition of our schools.

Compliance with the recent class size amendment to the Florida Constitution will require an addition of seven to nine new schools in Pasco County just to accommodate the current population. That's before you even consider the intended capacity of each school and its current population load. As of the second week of school, 25 of the 37 elementary schools in Pasco County reported enrollments over their intended capacities, including the two elementary schools that just opened this year.

To say that this level of overcrowding is detrimental to the effectiveness of the school system is an understatement. If agricultural land is no longer viable as such and owners wish to develop it, then the county must insist that they develop in 5- or 10-acre tracts, as is happening with other land near the two Evans' parcels.

All of this land had been used previously for agricultural purposes.

Killing ducks sets a bad example

For all the people who want to kill the ducks in their neighborhood, all I can say is that you disgust me. What kind of people are you that the only option would be to kill them? What a good example you must be to your kids and grandchildren.

What if these people decide they don't like cats, dogs or horses? Why don't they set up duck cage traps? If the only thing they have to worry about is cleaning a little duck feces out of their yard, I think they have too much time on their hands.

They need to get out of the house and volunteer somewhere. Preferably, not with animals.

Article didn't advocate killing ducks

Re: Killing Muscovy ducks is the wrong solution , Aug. 18 letter

The letter writer apparently misinterpreted the article that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times regarding the killing of Muscovy ducks in Jasmine Lakes.

This article did not advocate killing Muscovy ducks but did advise people that, according to experts, it is wrong to feed the ducks; their feces are unhealthy and a public nuisance. People do not seem to understand this and put a different spin on what is really the problem. If the Muscovy ducks are not fed in people's yards, they will eventually go to the lake and find the food that they should be eating.

For some reason, people think they are doing these ducks a favor when they are actually doing them harm.

It is very simplistic to say, "What happened to the days of sitting on a bench down by the pond and feeding the ducks?" That is exactly where Muscovy ducks should be - in a lake or pond, not on people's property.

The advice that was given about killing Muscovy ducks was to advise that it is not illegal to kill them on your property and the humane way of doing this. Unfortunately, this is the last resort for people to consider as they are at their wit's end with the ducks that have overrun their property with feces all over the place. I think the best solution would be to let nature feed the ducks in their natural habitat, instead of people messing things up by feeding them.

We shouldn't pay to keep Citizens afloat

Citizens Property Insurance Co. wants to charge us and all homeowners in Florida another 7 percent on top of the 90 to 110 percent increase we have already. My rate went from $700 last year to $1,450 this year, and now they want an extra $100.

They claim to be losing money. I know of five people who had claims with them from last year's storms, and all were extremely overpaid for the damage they had. One had a 15-year-old roof that got a few shingles torn off and received more than $5,000. This person already had an estimate to replace the roof for $2,300. Another had an outside shed that was falling down when the house was purchased and received $2,500 on top of the damage they were claiming when the agent noticed the shed and added it without questioning the damage.

From the people I have talked to, Citizens has paid double what any thought they should get. This tells me that Citizens is a poorly run company, that we as homeowners are going to pay to keep in business.

Wouldn't everyone want to run a business that, if it loses money, someone will give it back to them? The problem with Citizens is the people in Tallahassee who are in charge.

[Last modified August 23, 2005, 02:45:30]