Today's Letters: Nature getting short end of deal

Nature, "progress" collide at creek Feb. 12 column

Thank you to Andrew Skerritt for another great column. I always enjoy the way he approaches issues and the Times is lucky to have him.

The ongoing follies at the construction site for the Cypress Creek Town Center would be somewhat amusing if Cypress Creek were not getting polluted in the process.

This creek, an Outstanding Florida Water, feeds the Hillsborough River and provides drinking water to Tampa. It deserves better treatment than unacceptable permitting and failed regulatory oversight from state and federal agencies that have left the creek with little protection. Who is looking out for our drinking water and wildlife here? Not the Army Corps of Engineers or the Southwest Florida Water Management District, both of which permitted this disaster and then looked the other way until local citizens pushed them to finally take some steps to protect the creek.

The Army Corps of Engineers and the Southwest Florida Water Management District should be ashamed of themselves. They have violated the public trust and fundamentally failed to protect Florida's water and wildlife again.

Commerce and nature are usually incompatible only when the government agencies charged with protecting our drinking water, quality of life, and natural resources spend their time granting bad permits due to political pressure, instead of ensuring that the commerce in question is not at the expense of the greater good.

Building a mall is a construction project and it can mean jobs and tax revenue. Building a mall on top of pristine wetlands and wildlife habitat that provide clean drinking water to the region is unacceptable. At the end of the day it is the taxpayer-funded government agencies that are supposed to make sure the commerce and nature are balanced. We sure don't seem to be getting our money's worth.

Joe Murphy, Ridge Manor

Democrats don't need 2nd primary

On Feb. 9, the Pasco Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly to support the Florida Democratic Party in its decision to honor the results of the Jan. 29 Presidential Preference Primary, which was set by the Republican-controlled Legislature. No other realistic option exists that could replicate this open and fair election.

Florida Democrats reported a record turnout of 1.75-million Democratic voters on Jan. 29, a higher number than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and New Hampshire combined.

Turnout includes a 41.59 percent Democratic voter turnout in Pasco County, and record numbers of military, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, veterans, seniors and youth.

As this vote was made possible by a state-run primary system that allowed every registered Democrat in Florida to vote, the Pasco Democratic Party feels it would be a disservice to Florida Democrats to discount the primary results by holding a second, smaller and exclusive election of any type.

A second primary or a primary caucus would not only be cost-prohibitive, but it would also be debilitating to the Democratic Party in Florida.

We support the decision of the Florida Democratic Party to move forward with the Congressional District Caucuses set for March 1 when Florida Democrats will select the representatives to the Democratic National Convention in August.

Alison Morano, Wesley Chapel

A check's nice, but not the best idea Feb. 9 column

Good idea then, maybe not so now

I really enjoyed Barbara Fredricksen's column about using some pre-World War II programs to stimulate the economy. For me, it brought a lot of memories since I was a member of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) before the war. The thousands of projects not only helped to create a work force for the unemployed, but also resulted in building and upgrading much of our national park system. Many ranchers in the West benefited as well in the development of soil conservation, water resources and land management programs. I am not sure a modern CCC could build crumbling bridges or construct roads, but they might be a great help to some young people today.

I served for a year and my camp was located in the mountains about 20 miles north of Ely, Nev. Our camp was administered by the U.S. Army, but all of the work details were under the aegis of various government departments, i.e., Forestry Service or the Grazing Service in the Department of the Interior. Our work involved building corrals, water reservoirs, footbridges, small dirt roads, campground benches and shelters. We also were called out quite often to fight forest fires and provide backup fire equipment.

Yes, it was quite a place for a young man to work hard and in many cases, learn a trade he could carry with him in the future. For me, as Barbara said, the training and following orders was a bonus because I went in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1942 and served until late 1945. It was like going from one barracks to another.

The CCC gave a lot of young people a chance to work and make it through the Depression era from 1929 until World War II. Our government has looked at many similar programs for young people, but nothing has been developed because it would have to be on a national scale and things just aren't the same as what we faced in the Great Depression. (Thank heavens.)

No, for all the good it did in the 1930s, it just wouldn't work now. So I guess the best thing for us is the rebate check.

Clint Thaxton,Hudson

[Last modified February 14, 2008, 21:18:33]