Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Condo project will threaten more wetlands

If you moved to Florida to enjoy the flora and nature of this state, a person might as well move back to the concrete jungle of Manhattan or Chicago. What I am referring to is the unabated, uncontrolled and inexcusable building being done on Florida's wetlands.

For a very recent example, look no further than Port Richey. A large track of registered wetland with three large open water ponds and lots of trees and wildlife is soon to be the new home of a large condo project, Avilla Bay by Lennar Homes Inc. If you try to stop a development like this, you will be laughed at when you tell the City Council that they should not rezone this area because it is a wetland. You will receive the run-around from Southwest Florida Water Management District, which is supposed to protect against building in such areas. A spokesman for the agency informed us that it is very expensive to build on a wetland. It will cost the developer money to create wetlands elsewhere. Not too bad when you stand to profit by millions of dollars on your development.

By the way, how do you create a wetland with ponds that go down to the aquifer? If you are looking to find those remanufactured wetlands, you will have to look long and hard and will most likely come up dry. Shame on Lennar and anybody connected with this project!

New gun law won't make Florida less safe

Re: Fear breeds fear; guns breed death, Oct. 17 letter

The letter from the Colorado woman about the Castle Doctrine law and the death of her son was a tear jerker. But it was also misleading, inaccurate and incomplete.

She left out perhaps the most important fact. The shooter pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He got what many might consider a light sentence, a year of weekends in jail and probation, but he was punished for his crime. More important, the new law wouldn't have made a difference. It specifically refers to using force against persons "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or (who) had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling." Simply, shooting at a someone running in your yard is not covered. Just feeling threatened is not enough.

The opponents of this law make it sound like everyone is going to go around packing a gun and will shoot if someone looks cross-eyed at them. Actually, the law doesn't address having or carrying weapons; the rules on registration, permits and so forth still apply. All the law does is make some actions no longer criminal.

In my view, this law won't have any effect on the use of deadly force. People disposed to carry guns, and use them, will continue to do so, law or not. People who aren't, won't. More important, people who have guns for protection in their homes won't be more or less inclined to use them. If they do, depending on the specifics, what was - or might be - a crime before isn't now. That's all.

PETA's methods of dealing with ducks are humane

Re: An issue for lawmakers to duck, Oct. 16 column

Please allow me to address and correct an incorrect statement made about PETA in a recent article about the Muscovy duck overpopulation problem.

We do not agree with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and have never and would never recommend that citizens decapitate, neck-break or shoot these or any other birds. We believe in humane methods of resolving clashes between human and duck populations. They include habitat-modification, repellents, fencing, frightening devices and reproductive controls, such as egg-addling, which should be done by a professional.

We'd also like to remind residents once again, that if they resort to any of the killing methods mentioned above, they will violate Florida's anticruelty statutes and will be subject to prosecution.

For more information about coexisting peacefully with wildlife, call 757-622-PETA or visit PETA.org.

Disbanding Port Richey won't work; it's here to stay

Re: Disbanding Port Richey

Well, I see the do-gooders are at it again. What part of "Move out if you don't like Port Richey" don't you understand? As one of those who love Port Richey, all I can say is mind your own business and stop trying to take Port Richey away. It's not going anywhere and that's a fact. It's been tried and tried.

They just want to save themselves money; they don't give a hill of beans about anyone else.

If you're so hard up for money, then the only thing you can do is sell your home and move somewhere else.

I want to live in Port Richey, not the county. I know I'm being double-taxed, but it's my money not yours.

Springer Drive needs traffic signal installed

The traffic at U.S. 19 and Ridge Road is already burgeoning. If vehicles leaving the northern exit of Wal-Mart at Springer Drive are allowed to make only a right turn to the light, traffic will be so backed up in the left-turn lane that cars will always sit there through several signal changes.

And what about the danger to drivers who still must cross three lanes of traffic in a relatively short distance to get in that left lane to make their U-turn to U.S. 19 northbound?

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to install a traffic signal at Springer Drive to alleviate traffic at Ridge Road and allow for safe left turns?

[Last modified October 20, 2005, 01:19:18]