Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Letters rife with bigotry and hate

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published January 8, 2007

Re: Scientology must follow rules, too, and Scientology good at misdirection letters, Jan. 3

With every New Year we are presented a new canvas upon which we can create whatever it is we hope for our lives and those of others.

We can choose to be a positive force toward building a community that works together in building the services that will enhance the lives of citizens and businesses alike. We can choose to promote a brotherhood that respects others' beliefs and embraces the contributions and talents and diversity each of us adds toward the building blocks of a progressive community.

Unfortunately, the letters to the editor published Jan. 3 from Ann Salustri and David Rodman only serve as a reminder that bigotry still blinds many to the positive effect we would all benefit from in a united community. Mr. Rodman's bigotry was blatant throughout his letter; to the point that I wonder how it was even selected for print. Where does Mr. Rodman get his information that the Church of Scientology is on the decline?

I have many friends who are Scientologists. They own businesses, raise families and take pride in their accomplishments. They work hard at improving the well-being of everyone in the community by supporting numerous charities and public works programs.

I cannot help but wonder if Ann Salustri or Mr. Rodman are similarly involved, because if they were, they would probably be in the company of Scientologists.

Finally, I would ask that the St. Petersburg Times stand up and take a position against such devious bigotry based only on personal agendas. After all, today it is the Church of Scientology that is the target of their hate. Next year it could be my church that becomes the target of these two and others like them.

Bob Bush, Palm Harbor

How humane is this operation?

Re: Animal adoption is main mission guest column, Jan. 2

In her guest column dated Jan. 2, Barbara Snow, the new executive director of the Humane Society of Pinellas, states, "We give each animal every possible opportunity to be placed for adoption and find a new home."

I find this hard to believe after the killing of several adoptable cats at the shelter a few months ago. Ms. Snow told several volunteers at the time of the killing that the Humane Society was not a sanctuary and not a "retirement home."

Her article also points out the big success of adopting out 2,231 animals last year. The several years I was there as a volunteer prior to Snow's arrival, it was common for the shelter to adopt out close to 4,000 animals a year.

Hopefully, the seven new board members will actually get involved with the shelter so they can understand what the issues are and come up with new ideas to help the shelter and the animals.

Bob Bailey, Clearwater

Public's opinion was arrogantly dismissed 

Re: Council gives developer approval to build docks story, Dec. 16 and Critics line up against boat slips story, Dec. 15

So, has anyone else noticed a pattern here in Clearwater? City government requests citizen input and then consistently ignores that input when it runs contrary to city plans, regardless of the validity of the objections. Some members of the council, including our mayor, show much impatience with residents who cannot present detailed analyses in the few moments allowed to the citizenry.

We have had two recent glaring examples.

First, the City Council approved a lease with JMC, a local developer, for slips and docks on Clearwater Beach at the north side of the inlet adjacent to the city recreation center. This despite unanimous citizen disagreement and requests for additional study of the proposal for various reasons, including business and security matters as well as unhappiness with the actual percentage and location of the public slips, all of which related directly to the lease itself.

The council was not at all concerned that public notice of the lease of this valuable city property, which had become even more valuable when it was discovered the city owns the submerged land, had not been given.

This was because the original development agreement in January 2005 for JMC's Sandpearl resort had included a provision for this action, and this technicality allowed the City Council to approve the lease, which had just been negotiated, without public notice. Doesn't quite sound right, does it?

Then we had the 4-3 Community Development Board decision to amend Beach by Design for the Marina District on the beach to allow construction of structures as high as seven stories on the waterfront side of Eastshore Drive for as little as a half-acre of land consolidation. The incentive for the city was the problematic construction of a boardwalk, a potential maintenance nightmare, which no city residents who spoke felt was a priority.

Again, further study was requested by residents, since the decision would dramatically affect the future quality of life for beach residents, but those requests were denied by the majority of the CDB in a close vote.

Citizens do not expect that their opinions will always be heeded, but both of these decisions could have easily been delayed for additional study so that there would be no reoccurrence of some of the fiascoes that have already occurred during the beach redevelopment.

What's the rush? And do you really expect citizens to participate if their opinions are repeatedly and sometimes rudely ignored?

Martin L. Altner, Clearwater

Marina's effects were not fully examined

Citizens did not have an ample opportunity to actively participate in discussing either the desirability or viability of this project that is being fast-tracked by the parties involved.

I believe this is a familiar scene in our community. Another of the public's assets, which have been entrusted to the city for responsible stewardship for all of the people of Clearwater, is once again being considered available for the primary benefit of a private developer. By this I mean we are considering giving both the city's riparian rights to the harbor as well as the uniqueness of an unlimited access to the public's property (the beach recreation center) to a developer for the developer's private gain.

The benefits alluded to by this project on behalf of the citizens of Clearwater are being overhyped and oversold and are minimal at best. The stark reality is that this project will handsomely reward the developer. He gets the "steak," while the city and its citizens get the "sizzle." His gain is our loss.

Additionally, there may be extremely detrimental environmental impacts from the Sandpearl marina which are not being properly explored or thoroughly considered. By adding a large number of additional boats either moored, on lifts, or motoring in close proximity to one another in this narrow and shallow harbor, the proposed Sandpearl marina may negatively impact the water quality in the harbor.

The marina may also further endanger the safety of the manatees that leisurely swim in and out of the harbor, as well as impacting the maneuverability and safety of the existing boat traffic currently using the narrow harbor.

The Sandpearl marina's dock configuration impairs safe navigation within the channel because its extension into the harbor exceeds 25 percent of the width of the narrow waterway. The city's own development code limits dock construction to no more than 25 percent of the waterway width.

If the city of Clearwater truly believes it is in the best interest of its citizens to add another marina on Clearwater Beach, then let the city propose to build, own, operate and maintain a completely public marina here for the benefit of all of its citizens.

But first, let the citizens of Clearwater determine how many public marinas the taxpayers of this city, especially those without boats, are prepared to support.

D. M. Mestas, Jr., Clearwater

[Last modified January 8, 2007, 07:16:38]