Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Today's Letters: Why no property inspection first?

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published September 6, 2007

Re: Largo Hotel days numbered story, Sept. 5

Common sense dictates that before purchasing a house, one hires a professional to examine the property thoroughly to ensure it's a sound investment.

Why, then, did Largo officials not do the same before buying the Largo Hotel?

Did no one think that determining the feasibility of its restoration first might have been the responsible thing to do? Or is it simply that "common sense" and "responsible" rarely play a role in governmental decisionmaking?

Perhaps if everyone who voted to acquire the Largo Hotel were forced to share the cost of its demolition, similar unwise moves might be avoided in the future.

Thomas C. Rizzo Jr., Largo

Re: Pat-downs are just too much letter by Henry Berolzheimer, Aug. 22

WWII veteran says freedom lost

Yes, Henry, we had to take off our shoes at the airport. After having our IDs checked three times in the airport, I asked the woman inspector, "Does my 85-year-old wife have to take off her sandals and me, an 84-year-old World War II hero, have to take off my tennis shoes?"

She said she "had orders from above that all had to take off their shoes." And she took a recently purchased tube of toothpaste that she said "would be destroyed."

I wonder, of the thousands of shoes that are inspected today, how many had explosives? And how many tubes of toothpaste were destroyed?

"Junior Bush" took away a freedom that his dad and I fought the Japanese so they wouldn't do so.

Yes, Henry, we will be safer on our return trip knowing that the elderly people and women carrying babies will have their shoes inspected and will have their toothpaste destroyed.

Bert Hanson,Largo

Re: Pit bulls are a danger; ban them now guest column, Sept. 4

Plenty of goodpit bulls out there

When are people like the guest columnist Mary Kousathanas going to get it through their heads that pit bulls are not born aggressive! They become that way due to being taught, abused, neglected and/or unsocialized.

Ms. Kousathanas cited a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that pit bulls were responsible for 32 percent of the fatal dog attacks in the United States from 1979 to 1998. But she did not mention what breeds were responsible for the other 68 percent.

I invite Ms. Kousathanas to come to the SPCA of Tampa Bay to watch the many pit bulls owned by loving, responsible families who are tested and pass the AKC-certified Canine Good Citizen test we give. Pit bulls are not lions and tigers, which she compared them to in her article. They are domesticated dogs, who deserve to be loved like any other dog.

By the way, in the five years that I have been a volunteer canine counselor at the SPCA and have handled hundreds of pit bulls, I have only been bitten by one dog, a chihuahua.

Dayle Burger,Tarpon Springs

Re: Pit bulls are a danger; ban them nowguest column, Sept. 4

Pit bull switches from friend to foe

My former neighbor had a pit bull and it was fine for the first five years. Then one day it snapped and climbed a chain-link fence and attacked another neighbor cutting his lawn.

The next day the dog went after my mom who lived across the street from the dog. Lucky for my mother, the dog got hit by a car while charging toward her. The dog owners never abused the dog. I believe it's in the breed to get more aggressive as they get older or if they are abused when younger.

Paul Campbell, Palm Harbor

[Last modified September 5, 2007, 22:22:30]