Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Santa and his helpers have a right to set a price for services

Re: Santa says, "Buy my picture," Dec. 21.

At this time of year when our hearts turn to family and celebration of the birth of Christ, some of our morals regarding private property in the pursuit of getting a picture with Santa apparently can go by the wayside.

Julie Cavoris, the mother from Largo incensed at the thought of paying for a photo-op with Santa, is teaching her child that theft of another's time and resources is all right simply because it's Christmas.

Paying for photos with Santa should come as no surprise to anyone as it has been going on for years. It would seem common sense to think that when a cash register is present that some sort of renumeration is due to the people providing the service. By being in Santa's presence, you agree to the terms he (or his company) has established for such a privilege.

Santa and his helpers at the mall are not likely to be volunteers. They spend countless and thankless hours dealing with our screaming kids probably for little pay. Then some people show up and add theft to the mix of insults.

Regardless of what your perception of how visits with Santa should be managed, your child's picture and lap time do not constitute a higher claim on the resources of Santa and his helpers. They have the right to set times, places, and yes, prices for the privilege.

At this time of year, the higher ideal is to show respect for the resources and property of others and not impart the ideal of thievery to our children.

Why is it all about money?

Re: Santa says, "Buy my picture."

Reading the story about the malls that won't let you take pictures because they want to make the money got me upset. Santa is a kid's thing, and I don't believe they should just think of another way to fill their pockets.

I worked at a mall in Connecticut for seven years as Mrs. Claus with Santa. The mall gave Santa coloring books and Santa rings plus candy canes, and Mrs. Claus had candy and small toys to give out. This was all free for the kids. We had no photographer, but you could bring your camera and take pictures at no charge.

When we arrived, we had a line waiting for us. People from all over came to see us. People who never had shopped there heard of us and came. While there, they did their Christmas shopping, and many told me they would now shop there, as the mall was so good to the kids. I would see the same kids year after year. We got to know them and they loved us.

Why don't the malls try to create goodwill and do the same? In the long run, they win. Why is Santa all about money? The stores make a lot of money on Christmas presents.

Cashing in on Christmas

Here's another example of how commercialism is taking over Christmas.

While visiting Santa at the Westfield Countryside mall, I was told by one of the workers there that next Christmas I would have to purchase pictures from them if I wanted a picture of my child with Santa Claus. We can no longer take pictures with our own cameras. I was told that this is Westfield's new rule. What about the families who may not be able to afford these pictures? I have a brand new camera, and can take as good a picture as they can. Why should we have to pay for this?

Come on, it's Santa Claus. Isn't Westfield mall already raking in enough money? Now you can't have your picture taken with Santa Claus unless you fork out some more! What's next, paying to sit on his lap? When will it ever end? Shame on you, Westfield!

The tales Santas could tell

Re: Irate dad gets look at Santa's bad side, Dec. 22.

I had to come to Santa's defense. He's not a bad guy. I think Santa and Mrs. Santa handled it very well in these days when everybody seems to have their guard up for whatever. Every Santa has a story to tell and reporter Rebecca Catalanello would find some very interesting tidbits if she interviewed some of the other Santas. There is more than one.

I'm talking from knowing. I was a Santa in a bank for a number of years, many years ago. And sometimes it was a grind. I've had the screaming, kicking child who didn't want to sit on my lap with a mother who was determined for him to enjoy what was to her this spiritual experience.

I was just another fat guy sitting on a bench with a costume that made me look something other than human, ready to bend to anybody's will. With the child's great lungs and kicking power, the kid and I won.

A child showing much consideration for my feelings once cuddled up to me and whispered softly in my ear. "Your breath don't smell too good."

But there's one I'll never forget. A lady with a little hand-carried dog wanted me to hold it and whisper in its ear. It had its lips tucked up so tight you could see all of its teeth. And through those teeth came a low growl that only I could hear. I stood up and with as much smile as I could get through the whiskers I said: "I'm so sorry but I'm allergic to animals." She accepted that.

Then almost sticking the dog in her ear, she said: "Come, Towser, we'll go find a healthy Santa."

Children need discipline

Re: Stop criminalizing misbehaviors, letter, Dec. 19.

The letter writer's response to an article about the girl who was handcuffed on the school bus after an episode of "misbehavior" missed the point. The problem is not with the law and the proper enforcement of it, but the kids who are out of control.

The letter writer's attitude of "protectionism" for kids is what is wrong to begin with. All too many parents no longer are willing to discipline or enforce rules. They lack skills in getting children to comply. They are happy to send their problem children to school and expect the school personnel to change them but don't want anyone to discipline them.

These children come in to kindergarten expecting every adult to give in to them. By the time they are in middle school, they are indeed out of control and do not know or respect any rules. They know nothing about consequences of actions and feel they are above criticism. Then parents and "do gooders" enhance this feeling by supporting them against the authorities.

Children need limits and discipline consistently applied. They need to recognize that bad behavior has distasteful consequences and learn to treat all people with respect. This is the basis for productive, successful citizens.

Where will the peons go?

Re: No one gets in for under $1.6M, Dec. 20.

As the number of poor to median-income families is far higher than the rich, how many more of these outrageously priced housing options will be filled? Even the wealthy will eventually saturate their need (desire) for another vacation home. After five or six different homes, how many more could they possibly want? Where will that leave the developers? Holding their overpriced accommodations in their greedy little palms, I imagine.

By the by, who will be here to cater to every little whim of the wealthy? Not the working-class people. They can no longer afford to live in Pinellas County. Do you think the wealthy would want to live here when there are no longer peons (like myself) to wait on them? Grocery clerks, gas station attendants, clothing clerks, receptionists, etc. I personally know several families who have already moved and several others that will be moving because of the high housing costs. Beware, Pinellas County. In this case, greed comes before the fall.

Preserve St. Pete Beach's character

Re: High anxiety in St. Pete Beach.

After reading your Dec. 17 editorial about the development plans for St. Pete Beach, I wondered if we were talking about some other city's plans. My views on the plan and the way I understand it differ from yours in some important ways.

First the plan does not build hotel rooms. It proposes to build condominiums, thousands of them, with only a very small percentage designated for "transit accommodations." The balance would be for private residential use. Your equation of the bigger the building, more rooms, etc. simply isn't at play here. It's the bigger the building the more condos can be installed and sold.

The so-called four years in the making plan was scrapped in January in favor of the current plan. The plan developed by the consultants is on the city's Web site and anyone can go in and compare the two.

It is not clear why you would consider a mile of tall buildings up and down our main roads as relatively modest and reasonable. Come over and take a look at what is already being built (without infrastructure studies). These buildings are not as tall as what is being proposed to be built along the east side of Gulf Boulevard and up and down Corey Avenue and elsewhere.

Another problem I have with this plan is that the residents were not considered in the plan presented in January. We are expected to just put up with and learn to live with the gridlock, congestion and reduced services because it is good for the developers. No one with whom I have talked moved here to be part of what the city manager referred to as a compact urban environment. Even plan supporters don't want to lose the small town feel and atmosphere we have here.

I say if you want to promote tourism, build hotel rooms, not condos. I understand condos pay more to those few who build them, but they do not make my city a better place to live. And I totally reject the idea that if we don't build this plan we are doomed.

A greed for development

Re: High anxiety in St. Pete Beach, editorial.

It seems that miscommunication continues even in your editorial. The "fight" in St. Pete Beach is not about hotels. The City Commission's plan does not call for hotels, but rather condo/hotels, and those are different. The commissioners are talking about units that are 850 square feet or bigger, hardly the size of a hotel room.

But more important, within two weeks of gathering signatures, 16 percent of the registered voters clearly stated that they wanted to vote on the massive changes to the city. It was not until February that 20-story buildings were disclosed, despite citizen involvement during the four-year planning process. It should also be noted that the city consultant's report did not endorse 20-story buildings. Citizens were blind-sided and felt deceived. And despite your comments about the city not wanting to "wall off the waterfront," the city has done just that with the current buildings under construction on Gulf Boulevard. And despite a requirement for infrastructure studies, none was asked of the developers of these current projects. And they were granted variances to build higher than zoning allowed as well. Let's see what happens to Gulf Boulevard when the "season" begins.

Your editorial states that "the plans are relatively modest and reasonable." By what yardstick is this true? It is no more than a standard of greed for the developers at the expense of the citizens. We are talking about multiple 20-story buildings along Gulf Boulevard, density of 90 units per acre, and all without any analysis of the infrastructure impact to the community.

Madeira Beach announced a new project of condo/hotels of four stories. Apparently those developers can build at that height and still make money, assuming that they didn't overpay for their building sites. And if the developers in St. Pete Beach did overpay for their building sites, that is their problem and not the citizens'.

The Times should be investigating why the commissioners are fighting so hard for a redevelopment plan that so many citizens do not want.

Citizens should be heard

Re: High anxiety in St. Pete Beach.

The editorial states that the issue of development in the city "is less a legal fight than a political one." By virtue of what intellectual alchemy can two lawsuits filed by the city of St. Pete Beach seeking to prevent its own citizens from voting on petitions which the city has certified to be validly submitted be converted from a legal issue into a political one?

I represent the Citizens For Responsible Growth and certain voters of St. Pete Beach in their attempt to amend the city charter. Some 1,100 voters, more than 40 percent of those who voted in the last general election, petitioned their government to give them the right to approve certain development ordinances. The city filed two lawsuits against its citizens using taxpayer dollars in an attempt to prevent city voters from exercising their rights to petition the government as guaranteed under the Florida and U.S. constitutions (and a circuit judge so far has sided mostly with the city).

The Times also made a judgment call that the plans for development are "relatively modest and reasonable." By what subjective parameters was that conclusion derived? Would the majority of residents of the city call a mile of tall buildings modest or reasonable? Shouldn't they have the right to decide that fundamental change in their community for themselves?

In addition, how could a conclusion be drawn as to whether or not the city is "proposing to wall off the waterfront with hotel towers" when the regulations dealing with hotel development have not even been adopted?

Furthermore, for the Times to imply that citizens' voting rights should take a back seat to governmental regulation seems to contradict the editorial philosophy that has made the Times a nationally respected voice of citizen rights.

Quality of life is at stake

Re: High anxiety in St. Pete Beach

I am one of five citizens of St. Pete Beach who collected signatures recently to stop the city from going ahead with its land development plan. We had to do this because the city sued Citizens for Responsible Growth and its officers over the first set of petitions that the city admits in its suit were validly collected in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter.

Who is going to speak up for the little guy?

A sight to behold

Scenes we would like to see: Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern shipwrecked on a desert island with one microphone.

[Last modified December 24, 2005, 01:09:13]