Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Without parking, visitors stay away

Re: Deal for beach parking in reach Feb. 2 story

Let me see if I understand this "deal" correctly: The city is removing more than 500 of the 755 public parking spaces on Clearwater Beach to make way for a "revitalization" project. If we wait two years (perhaps riding bicycles to the beach in the meantime), we might be allowed to park in some of the spaces to be built for a Hyatt hotel.

Now, the city is ready to commit "up to" $9-million for "up to" 300 spaces in a garage to be built more than a block from the beach for a condo project. That garage might be available in two years, if all goes well. We are asked to be grateful because the city has set aside more than $12-million from Penny for Pinellas money for a parking garage, and the leftover cash can be spent on other "big-ticket city projects."

Am I the only one who thinks this is lunacy?

The city calls "Beach by Design" (the city's formal plan for redevelopment of Clearwater Beach) revitalization. I call it slow death. Hundreds of hotel rooms have already disappeared. The parking will all but disappear just in time for spring break and the summer tourist season.

My cousin in Kentucky likes to come to Florida in the wintertime. They used to enjoy staying at a hotel on the beach. Last year they couldn't find a room on the beach so they stayed on the mainland. This year, they will spend a month in another county.

Their behavior is representative of a vast horde of winter (and summer) visitors who no longer patronize shops and restaurants on the beach because they cannot stay there. I fear that their absence will be construed as meaning the beach needs less parking - a vicious cycle, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My plea to the city is this: Please do not begin removing parking spaces from the beach until the voters have had their say on renewing Penny for Pinellas. I predict the tax will be trashed by voters who are tired of seeing vast sums of money spent on big-ticket city projects such as the "beautification" of what should now be called the "historic former downtown of Clearwater."

If you remove the spaces now, you run the risk that the beach will be left in the lurch with totally inadequate parking, no money in the slush fund and no relief in sight.

Al Galbraith, Clearwater

Impact of marina not considered 

Re: Boat slip position is tough to believe Jan. 22 letter by William Blackwood

As background, four owners residing at Belle Harbor Condominiums joined a number of other concerned Clearwater citizens at December's Clearwater City Council meeting to speak against the proposed marina at the city's recreation center and boat basin on North Clearwater Beach.

Interestingly, other than the parties to the lease, no one was present at that meeting who spoke on behalf of the proposed marina development or the lease agreement.

The main points of our opposition were the lack of responsible business stewardship in the proposed lease agreement; the insensitivity of the city in putting the lease on the fast track for approval on the presumption that owners at Belle Harbor somehow knew all the elements of the development agreement with Sandpearl resort, despite the fact that there were few if any residents at Belle Harbor at the time of that approval; and, most importantly, the impact that the proposed marina, over-sized for the inlet, would have on Belle Harbor and its residents.

Mr. Blackwood cites as fact that the speakers were "inflamed and encouraged" by Anne Garris. In fact, the first time that three of the speakers living in Belle Harbor met Mrs. Garris is after they had concluded making their comments and were leaving the meeting. The views they expressed were their own, but at the same time represented the sentiments of many other Belle Harbor residents. We take great exception to Mr. Blackwood's portrayals, insinuations and personal deprecation.

He also stated that the "free boat slips were already approved two years ago, in public." I am not aware of one purchaser at Belle Harbor that was made aware of this approval when they asked JMC sales representatives what developments were planned on the north side. To the contrary, anyone who asked was told that there would be no development because it was city-owned land.

Mr. Blackwood cites recent personal experience with demand for slips that was "beyond expectation," yet implies that there is minimal value in water and upland rights - the very problem that Belle Harbor has with the city's due diligence and oversight.

We understand that Mr. Blackwood is now on the city Charter Review Committee as an appointee of the City Council. If his opinions, attitudes and means of self-expression in his letter, creating "facts" intended to attack, anger and demean those with whom he disagrees, mirror his future activities on that committee, what an open-minded, citizen-friendly forum that will be.

Ken Robulak, president, Belle Harbor Owners Association, Clearwater

Concrete barrier should come first 

Re: Another death on our 'pretty' Memorial Causeway Bridge

In one shift of work, we can have a temporary concrete barrier erected on that deadly curve of the bridge, then sit down and come up with the long-term solution. This is looking, at best, like negligence.

Mike Hayes, Dunedin

Frank's views get at least one vote 

Re: Mayor wants more power, will he get it? Jan. 18 editorial, and Current council a hardhearted lot Feb. 5 letter

Based on JoAnn Lee Frank's letter regarding Clearwater Mayor Frank Hibbard's request to move to a strong mayor form of government, and based on Ms. Frank's frequent letters on other important city matters, I have but one comment:

How do we convince her to run for City Council?

She has my vote and support. I'll volunteer for her campaign.

Jen Kalan, Clearwater

[Last modified February 7, 2007, 06:40:05]