Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Unity of cities raises questions

Re: County charter fight.

It certainly raises my curiosity when politicians all rally to the same side on any issue. So I was particularly inquisitive regarding the seven proposed Pinellas County charter amendments that have politicians in every city rallying for a "no" vote.

This usually means it is such an overwhelmingly popular and helpful issue for all constituents that no self-serving politician would be caught dead on the wrong side. Or, it means someone wants to constrain or rein in the unbridled power of office.

My city politicians and those from about 21 other cities all banded together, used our local government resources and optimized their political offices to voice their own personal opinion as to how we should vote on these charter amendments. That by itself should garner your attention.

The Charter Review Commission's purpose, as I understand it, was to make the county charter work better for all of us who live in Pinellas County. Now the cities want to secede from countywide rules and call foul for some alleged reduction in their ability to rule.

I have read the proposed amendments and, for the life of me, I do not see where the smoke or fire is. The primary amendment seems to be No. 4, which wants to delete the never used provision of dual voting on proposed rules affecting the entire county.

The cities would have us believe the county is in a struggle to take over every city in the county. They cite the prospect of the county taking over some local fire department. Now I ask you, would you vote to, say, take over the Clearwater Fire Department, regardless of what city you live in, especially if it was going to increase your taxes for the county to take it over? Of course not!

Well, each of these cities is trying to sell that "pig in a poke" by every available means necessary. St. Pete Beach even put "No" signs on the sides of police cars and fire vehicles. Does that sound like the best use of city resources?

I can't get my city commissioners to help me with issues directly affecting our city now, much less some perceived issue that may or may not ever come up. Where's the outrage and banding together on poverty, homelessness, health care, education, insurance costs, health benefits and a host of other issues that face us every day? Did you see any ads on the side of police cars or fire trucks that said, "If you don't drop your rates, we will force you out of insuring anything in Pinellas County"? Have you heard any city politicians saying that if an extremely profitable business doesn't offer affordable health care insurance to its employees, then the city will tax them so the city can assist them? Have you heard any city ban CVS, Walgreen's or Wal-Mart because their profit on prescription medicines is too high?

Of course not! What's the difference? The difference is the charter would limit some local maverick politicians, who may have their own political agendas.

Charter amendment 4 (the dual vote) specifically says it will follow the state Constitution, which requires a dual vote on items affecting the transfer of power or function from a city. So even if all of Pinellas County wanted to have a city's fire department, the city voters themselves still get to vote on it.

Amendment 5 restricts cities from annexing property without the owner's consent. City politicians have a problem with that? Oh yeah, it will increase the tax revenue for them and decrease the county's. Do we see any conflict here? The county actually wants the cities to inform you if they are going to annex you. Oh, alas, alas, let's run to the polls and defeat that violation of our liberties!

I will not ask you to vote a specific way. I will only ask that you read each charter amendment and understand what it says. It's pretty straightforward. And just ask yourself, why would all the city officials band together for any reason?

Robert Prescott, Tarpon Springs

Leadership void obvious in fight

Re: Charter skirmish lands in court, story Oct. 20

Your article regarding the legal battle pertaining to the proposed Pinellas County charter amendments ignores that our local officials are using city taxpayers' money to oppose the changes and the county officials are using the county taxpayers' money to promote the changes. In reality, a municipal taxpayer is paying twice - city taxes to oppose the issue and county taxes to promote the issue!

This is utterly stupid.

You would think that somebody in government would develop a process to provide voters with the pros and cons and let them decide the issues.

Because of a lack leadership at the local and county level, the lawyers are the only ones who will benefit. The taxpayers should be enraged by this lack of leadership, especially when large numbers of taxpayers are voicing their displeasure about our city and county taxes.

If our public officials can't figure this out, we need new public officials.

Jim Harpham, Palm Harbor

Bigger can be better in county

Re: Pinellas County charter amendments.

I have lived in Pinellas County for more than 42 years. I saw this county grow from a small town with farms to the most densely populated county in the state.

Our crimes cross all borders, including counties, but more specifically, cities. It makes too much sense to consolidate certain public service agencies to capture, prevent and identify the criminals in our county. Many city leaders may not want to admit consolidation of law enforcement may be valuable to all of the residents of the county. They are only concerned with their empire.

The Largo city manager, Steve Stanton, told me in 2004 that he envisioned all of Pinellas County with no sheriff's patrol as we know it today. He is determined to diminish the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office to only road patrol in Palm Harbor, as it is too hard to annex, and maybe the jail, forensics and the bailiff section.

Wake up, Pinellas. We seceded from Hillsborough County many decades ago to be free from too much government control. The cities may vow their best interests to you, but what do they really want? Your money. Many aspects of our county can be more efficient at less expense under one entity.

Sometimes bigger is better. I feel this could be one of the cases by consolidating certain government functions.

Larry Weglarz, Tarpon Springs

Property rights key in Nov. 7 vote

Ask a city official if he/she is for or against property rights and you will get an effusive answer on the sanctity and importance of those rights.

It just so happens that the Pinellas County Charter Review Commission addressed property rights with proposed charter amendments No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7 on the Nov. 7 ballot.

No. 5: This addresses notification procedures prior to referendum annexations and protects a property owner from repeated referendum annexation attempts by excluding the property, if it is not annexed, from being included in another referendum annexation attempt for seven years. In other words, no means no, so quit bothering me for seven years.

No. 6: This amendment says that no city shall spend public money as an annexation inducement unless the annexation serves a paramount public purpose. In other words, cities can no longer bribe people or businesses to annex into their cities with taxpayers' money unless it significantly benefits the public in general.

No. 7: This amendment addresses the annexation of property without the consent of the property owner. Yes, cities have annexed property without the owner being aware of it. One day you are in the county, the next you're annexed into a city.

These amendments offer some basic property right protections, so why are 21 cities spending your tax dollars to defeat these amendments? And to rub salt in the wound, they now are telling us to vote no to protecting our own property rights? Amazing!

Ray Neri, Lealman

EDITOR'S NOTE - The following letters refer to a scheduled Nov. 7 referendum on seven proposed amendments to the Pinellas County charter.

The amendments were proposed by the Pinellas County Charter Review Commission, a citizen committee appointed every six years by the Pinellas County Commission to review the charter on behalf of Pinellas residents and suggest possible changes to the voters.

City governments in Pinellas oppose the amendments and have banded together to sue the Charter Review Commission. In a trial that started Friday, the cities have asked a judge to nullify the referendum. As of press time Friday, the trial was still under way.

Readers who would like to check out the proposed county charter amendments may go to the county Supervisor of Elections Web site at www.votepinellas.com. Click on "Sample Ballot" and scroll down to the county amendments.

Diane Steinle, North Pinellas editor of editorials.

[Last modified October 22, 2006, 08:56:24]