Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Today's Letters: Why scan driver's license to vote?

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published April 16, 2007

Let me thank our election poll workers who work long hours for small paychecks. They serve us all well and we're fortunate that they are there to help us elect our representatives.

On Tuesday, April 10, I went to my local polling place to vote in the New Port Richey election.

As usual, I was asked for my driver's license. The poll worker (a longtime activist in voting issues and a great gal) told me she was going to scan it into a database. When I questioned this, I was told by another poll worker that this was new technology which would cut down on long waits to vote.

Brian Corley, Pasco's supervisor of elections, was present and gave further details. He told me that each polling place would have two of these scanners and that they cost between $3,000 and $4,000 each. He said funding was from a federal source "so it's not really costing us anything." With 153 precincts we must have (conservatively) 100 polling places. That estimate translates to about $700,000 in real tax dollars.

He also told me that early voting had been heavy and these machines had proven to cut the time needed to vote. Previous to the three city elections held that day, a total of 73 people voted early over 12 days of eight hours each. That's 96 hours. How long were the lines?

Mr. Corley said that the scanning technology would do nothing to further Gov. Crist's and the Florida Legislature's stated goal of moving toward a "paper trail" for voters.

Regarding the scanning, I was wearing a school ID, had a Florida driver's license and personally knew the poll worker who did the scanning. Also, it didn't work the first or second time and the poll worker ended up manually entering my information, which took somewhat longer than I'd ever waited to vote in 30 years. Further, I am very uneasy about what information is transferred during magnetic scanning due to identity theft.

It seems to me that having aroused mistrust among voters due to recent unusual election outcomes, the last thing our election officials should do is to increase the use of invasive technology over a paper ID system that seemed to work just fine.

Ginny Lane Miller, New Port Richey council member

Developers need to be accountable

Andrew Skerritt's wonderful column about water restrictions on April 8, ended with a quote from a Swiftmud water use director, which went: "We are all in this together." To which Mr. Skerrift added: "Yes, we are." I ask: Does this mean the association of developers, too?

After a few moments of thought I have come up with a few simple questions for the powers that be:

What good does it do for the Southwest Florida Water Management District to impose tougher water use rules for east and north Pasco when cities and counties rubber stamp mega permits to allow developers to build large tracts of housing before a study of water availability is made, and how that will impact existing homeowners?

Why is there no state requirement that forces developers to coordinate their requests or mega permits of housing with Swiftmud to assure that the developer will not aggravate existing water shortages?

Why, in Pasco, Pinellas and Hernando counties, where there is an existing sinkhole problem, does Swiftmud allow unrestricted development before determining the connection between groundwater depletion and development?

Why is there no requirement for the area's builders association to confer and reveal with Swiftmud how much of a demand their projects will place on water usage in the locations they request permits for?

A quick drive around west central Pasco is a real eye opener. The amount of projects that demand heavy water use is mind boggling. If Swiftmud's only course of action is to curtail lawn watering, then we need someone in charge who has the insight and foresight to chart another path, another solution to an impending disaster. And, lastly, the annual drought, a given, should be factored into all future construction.

Let's spread the pain around more evenly, to include developers.

R. Annan, Hudson

Residents carry builders' burden

The citizens of Pasco must wake up to what their county commissioners are doing to them and to this county. A recent headline states the county rejects huge fee increases. At first blush, you think they are protecting the citizens from losing our already diminishing incomes. Not.

Not only have our commissioners promoted the rampant growth of this county, but now they are going to make us, the citizens, pay for this growth instead of where the bill belongs - with the developers.

There is a proposal for the commissioners to raise our property taxes and raise gas taxes to 11 cents a gallon to pay for roads for this development. Their theory is that making builders pay for these things would be too great a burden on builders. Can you believe it? How about the burden on the ordinary citizens of this county?

The county hired an economist and formed two committees in order to determine that taxing citizens was the way to pay for builders' needs. It is because of the rampant home building that we are in the mess that we are. Funds for roads and schools are the responsibility of the builders.

In the long term, if they do not listen to us, vote them out at the next election. In the short term, call them immediately and tell them: "Don't dare increase our property taxes or gasoline tax." Tell them, since they cannot figure it out for themselves, that if a builder cannot afford to pay for infrastructure then they cannot build here. They should go somewhere else.

Let's go back to logical thinking. If you cannot afford something, you cannot have it, and this includes builders.

Patricia Monte, Hudson

Control gun sales, and control crime

Council member Danny Burgess wants to do something about crime in Zephyrhills. Good luck Mr. Burgess, but you need a short history of crime control in Florida. For the most part, the county is unable by law to provide the police in Zephyrhills with legislation needed to control crime if it involves firearms, and most serious crimes do. Our state government has refused since 1985 to provide law enforcement with a single statute that would suppress crime of any kind if they are tied to firearms.

Is it really that bad? The governor thinks everything is just fine as he was quoted in the April 5 Tampa Tribune that, "Thankfully, crime in Florida is at an all time 35-year low, and no state has been tougher on crime than we have."

Is crime really at a 35-year low in Florida? Well, yes it is, if you avoid any comparison and the governor and our Legislature always do. When you compare Florida crime rates with all other states, prepare yourself for a shock!

Morgan Quitno Press, using FBI UCR data, rated Florida the second most violent state in the nation from 1997 to 2002. We have averaged between No. 5 to No. 6 to date.

You would think alarm bells would be going off at our state capitol, but all we hear is that tough on crime is working. Well, it isn't working and the numbers conclusively prove that "tough on crime" is a spectacular failure!

Local crime watch is always a good idea, but there is something county commissioners can do to help Mr. Burgess. They have the authority, given to them, not by our Legislature, but by we the people from a ballot initiative passed in 1998 by 69,171 to 25,916, which allows them to require background checks before all gun sales at Dade City gun shows. To date they have not enacted this life saving ordinance. I would suggest Mr. Burgess urge them to pass this ordinance as soon a possible!

Arthur C. Hayhoe, Wesley Chapel

Get timers for alarm klaxons

The problem is a lift station alarm klaxons that ring without end in the night. One night around 11 p.m., the one near intersection of Pegasus and Hyperion in Holiday Hill sounded off for at least one hour and later, around 4 a.m., it came on again.

As can be expected at this time, no one can be reached at Pasco Utilities. Police offered no direct help getting it turned off; I suggested they shoot it!

Now, if I had an alarm connected to my car, there is a timer which shuts it off after a short time. If I owned a business with an alarm I am required to have a shut-off timer on the alarm.

Why can Pasco County Utilities escape this requirement in their operations? They should spend some of that Penny for Pasco tax to allow the public to get some sleep. Bill Little, Port Richey

[Last modified April 15, 2007, 22:59:50]