Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Condos can help us conserve
By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published January 16, 2007
Recently there have been more than a few "condo bashing" letters printed from proud owners of single-family detached homes. "The greedy developers are ruining everything!" Developers build places for people to live. If people didn't buy the homes that the developers build, then there would certainly be no "greedy developers" - including the developer who built the home these condo-haters live in. The facts are that the population continues to grow and people have to have places to live. If you don't like that, then your issue isn't with developers - it's with parents. Condominiums have a much lower environmental impact per capita than a detached home. Most studies show that a condo dweller uses about two-thirds as much water as a traditional home dweller - mostly due to the fact that the condo dweller has no lawn to water. The condo dwellers also use less electricity and generally drive many fewer miles. So maybe these people who are worried about the per capita consumption of natural resources will show us their true level of dedication to the cause and move out of their water-, electricity- and gas-wasting homes and into one of those environmentally friendly condos. Gary Grooms, St. Petersburg Growth in homelessness comes as no surprise 5,000 sleep in streets Jan. 13, commentary by James Bennett Thank you for St. Petersburg City Council member James Bennett's enlightening article on Saturday's Opinion page about the homeless people in Pinellas County. I was one of those sheltered citizens who erroneously thought that most homeless persons were alcoholics or drug addicts. I was alarmed to learn that many of the homeless consist of families, including infants and children, and that almost 40 percent of the homeless surveyed were homeless for the first time this year. I was also dismayed to learn that most of the homeless families were employed in the last month, but could not afford a place to live - dismayed, but not surprised. Considering how much property taxes and property insurance have escalated in the last few years, which has resulted in higher rents and higher prices on food and other basic necessities, nobody should be surprised that many people are losing their homes and cannot afford a place to live. No doubt the problem will get worse if the Florida Legislature does not reform our ridiculous property tax laws and find a solution to our current property insurance crisis. Taking too much money out of taxpayers' pockets can actually create additional financial problems for government, as evident by the rapidly growing group of homeless families. Henry J. Weese, Palm Harbor No sympathy Let me see if I have this straight. If I park my car next to Williams Park in St. Petersburg longer than two hours, parking services will hassle me and give me a ticket. If I park my body in Williams Park for two weeks, not only is it okay, but someone may actually bring me food! If the current plethora of homeless articles in the St. Petersburg Times was to elicit sympathy, they have missed the mark. I am dismayed at the incredibly poor choices and behaviors made by those whose plights were described in the articles. The tent city folks seem to think that handouts are some kind of right. The people who have written to the paper supporting the homeless should feel free to take one of these unfortunates home and take care of them. Do not tend to them and feed them in my neighborhood. Do it in your own. It is obvious that the homeless need some kind of help, but not by breaking the law. Kudos to St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker in dealing with this situation. Barry Koestler, St. Petersburg Pinellas can do more The latest debacle concerning the tent city in St. Petersburg has brought again to the forefront a concern I noticed upon moving to Pinellas County in 2001. When I moved to Largo from a small Southern city, I expected at least the same level of community awareness and programming dealing with such issues as hunger, homelessness and health care for those in need. In my former home, a small city in North Carolina, there were numerous local programs and facilities for those in need. Upon moving to Pinellas County, however, I noticed right away that there was not the same level of activity in those areas, especially homelessness. Pinellas County, where the average cost of a home ownership has increased drastically over the past 10 years, has fewer facilities for the homeless than a community where the average cost of a home is a stable $102,500? That does not make sense. I do not see why, in this wealthy county, that to 200 churches, individuals and other organizations could not put together an average of $10,000 each to build a $2-million facility on the empty lot where the tent city was to provide temporary housing. I do not see why government grants and funds could not be tapped as well, and other money be allocated for the operation of such a facility. It would not solve the problems of homelessness in our county, but such a project could make a dent. At least the tent city situation has shown us that homelessness is not "their" problem, it is our problem too. The Rev. James Welch, Christ Presbyterian Church, Largo Negative impacts I live three blocks from the tent city site, and my neighbors and I are negatively affected by the city's homeless every day. Let me offer some words of advice to those self-righteous individuals who drive downtown to offer clothing and food to the homeless: You are just perpetuating the problem! The city needs to group the homeless into four categories: the insane, the handicapped, the temporarily homeless and the lazy. Put the insane and handicapped in state-run medical facilities, provide temporary shelter to those genuinely trying to get back on their feet and buy bus tickets out of town for the lazy, drug-using, burglarizing bums. The sad thing is, my neighbors and I know firsthand that the latter category describes the vast majority of St. Petersburg's homeless. Scott Smith, St. Petersburg Florida doesn't pay I share the frustration of other letter writers about the pitiful wages in this state. I relocated here two years ago from the Northeast. I have over 30 years' experience in two different trades. It seems the employers here do not want quality personnel. That would mean paying a decent wage. They want low-skilled employees who can do the job just well enough to get the product out the door, so to speak. I am routinely offered starting wages equal to what I was making 25 years ago. As a result of this, plus the high cost of homeowners insurance and electricity, I will be moving back to the Northeast, where both the wages and the intelligence quotient of the employers are much higher. Vincent Catalano, Spring Hill Stupid subsidies Federal insurance program under fire Dec. 30, story Are we just stupid? Why are we allowing the politicians to get away with this "extending the taxpayer-subsidized coverage (for hurricanes, flooding) for some of the riskiest ... properties in the country"? These include Jekyll Island, Ga., and a 10-lot subdivision in Grayton Beach in the Florida Panhandle. According to the item, Congress passed two bills adding hundreds of high-risk properties and paved the way for new construction on vulnerable land. If people want to build there, then let them be self-insured. Why are we paying for it when we can hardly make our own individual insurance payments? Is there no way to stop these power-hungry madmen? Why are they still in office? Glennis Williams and John Edwards, St. Petersburg A winning page Sports overload Jan. 11, letter For the state of Florida, winning a national championship in any sport is a great thing, and you have to admit, it surely beats the rotten news we have to endure day by day. It's depressing to say the least, and it's about time the "Bad News" took the "Back Page." That was an excellent front page on Jan. 9, St. Petersburg Times. Keep up the great work. Vern P. Morneau, Spring Hill
[Last modified January 15, 2007, 23:47:19]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Carol
|
01/17/07 03:30 AM
|
|
To make the assumption that condo living is environmentally saner is ridiculous. There are more people who use water, electricity and drive cars. It is like an ant hill.The queen bee rules.
|
|
by Carol
|
01/17/07 03:27 AM
|
|
Condo living is NOT a more environmentally sane way of living. I have seen more waste living in this condo than a home. People do not necessarily walk. There are other issues such as living with HOARDERS that are difficult because they have rights.
|
|
by Dylan
|
01/16/07 10:32 PM
|
|
Hey, Vincent, maybe you wouldn't have to deal with low wages and low IQ's if you weren't living in Spring Hill. Try out what urban Florida has to offer, you may like it.
|
|
by lew
|
01/16/07 08:54 PM
|
|
Jack, I said it before and now I'll say it again,When the homeless BUMS quit pissing on the alley side of my house, Is when I might decide to help!!!!I bet if I spray them with my hose,they will try to have me arrested for assualt! Good use of tax $$
|
|
by jack s
|
01/16/07 04:23 PM
|
|
To Mr. Smith and Lew, i am not sure how having mercy and compassion for folks less fortunate than myself is perpetuating the problem of homelessness. Please explain what you are doing to help. Oh, thats right you dont care about anyone but you.
|
|
by Jason
|
01/16/07 01:31 PM
|
|
Gary,
Ever think that some people don't want to live in a city crowded by hi-rises? YOU'RE the interloper, not people that live in single family homes. Condos are not what gave this area the charm that it once had. Condos are what have taken it away.
|
|
by Kay
|
01/16/07 11:47 AM
|
|
Mr Smith, I beg you to do your homework. There are waiting lists for state run med facilities as well as for affordable housing. Public assistance practically requires you to be homeless to be eligible for benefits. Walk a mile in my shoes....
|
|
by Heather
|
01/16/07 10:41 AM
|
|
Gary, why would I want to own only the inside of a building? If I want a donut hole, I will buy a donut.
|
|
by Dean
|
01/16/07 10:37 AM
|
|
Hey Gary--explain how condo owners use less water, electricity, and gas than homeowners. That's what a thought. Try thinking for a change.
|
|
by Rob
|
01/16/07 10:02 AM
|
|
Consider the alternative to condos. Instead of 100 people on '1 lot' you'd have 100 people on 100 lots. The alternative to condos is more suburbs, more destruction of permeable land, more roads and more lost greenspace.
|
|
by Sue
|
01/16/07 09:30 AM
|
|
In response to Mr. G regarding condos. ONE condo may be environmentall friendlier than 1 home. 100 condos on same lot as 1 home is NOT. #'s. 200 condo people vs 4 single home people on one lot is NOT! 100 toilets flushing vs 1 or 2 is worse.
|
|
by Rich
|
01/16/07 09:04 AM
|
|
Everyone should read and get behind what Glennis Williams and John Edwards are saying. How can developers keep building on water's edge and expect the average citizen to pay for the increased risk!! If you want to live on the water, YOU pay for it.
|
|
by Linda
|
01/16/07 08:59 AM
|
|
Environmental sensitivity is not a per capita issue. A condo puts 40 or 50 consumers of resources on a parcel that formerly had 1 or 2 families. That's 50 cars where there used to be 3 or 4. Do the math, condos are a scurge, condo buyers are idiots.
|
|
by Frank
|
01/16/07 08:57 AM
|
|
Mr. Welch, there are plenty of programs in Pinellas County to help the homeless. Just read Mayor Bakers commentary from a few days ago. You can get a hot meal,shower,bed,job,etc... But you have to want to be helped.
|
|
by Lew
|
01/16/07 08:30 AM
|
|
I fully agree with Mr. Smith, I really don't care what they call themselves! In my neighborhood,they are called bums!!
|
|