Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published February 4, 2001
I have been a resident of Shore Acres since 1973, and I was pleased to see the introduction of the Neighborhood Police Program, which has made a considerable difference in terms of safety and protection. I am also very happy about the installation of stop signs at appropriate intersections.
I live near the intersection of Venetian Boulevard and Shore Acres Boulevard, where accidents were prone to occur. The incidence of accidents has decreased since the signs were installed. I would like to see exactly how many accidents have occurred prior to and after the stop signs have been erected.
Police officers along Shore Acres Boulevard have undoubtedly increased the number of speeding violations; however, it has been a successful effort because we seldom see any vehicle traveling over 30 to 35 mph along Shore Acres Boulevard, which is a main thoroughfare. In most instances we do not see vehicles traveling over 40 mph on 40th Avenue, or even on 62nd Avenue. Traffic is much calmer than it once was. If that is the major location of problems, concentrate only on that area.
I am absolutely opposed to the installation of speed bumps in our neighborhood. It would cost the city a great deal of money and may, in fact, produce adverse effects such as increased frustration for drivers who are not out sightseeing, but have a destination in mind such as timely arrival at work, school, etc. They might be inclined to really step on it once past the obstacle course. To date, we seldom see our children playing in the streets because the yards are ample. We also have new sidewalks on the main roads. Speed bumps will bring out the kids doing tricks on skateboards and scooters and may increase the number of accidents to children, even if a vehicle isn't involved.
I urge you to do a new study that will be relevant to current conditions.
-- M. Baecher, St. Petersburg
Re: Shore Acres traffic plan.
The plan voted on Tuesday night has a lot of bells and whistles but is mostly smoke and mirrors. Curvy Dover Street, for instance, despite its history of accidents and injuries, has nothing to slow speeders. Placing traffic circles at various points along Overlook Drive may slow some speeders down, but its main effect will be to funnel serious speeders coming off the Snell Isle bridge onto Bayshore Boulevard, where they can have an unimpeded sprint to the end of the street. Bayshore Boulevard has more than its share of these speed balls now.
What will it be like if this plan comes to pass? A yard full of bricks and a good throwing arm sounds like a good, if illegal, solution.
My grandson was struck by a van in front of my house 14 years ago. I don't want it to happen to another child.
To the traffic planners, the same ones who designed and implemented the little island structures on 14th Street and 14th Way NE, go back to the drawing board. Better yet, just go!
-- Robert Mann, St. Petersburg
In regards to the Shore Acres traffic calming, I recommend that the city hire two police officers to write speeding tickets. They could pay for themselves, and the city would not have to spend any money for unwanted traffic calming devices.
I bet that after a couple of tickets, those people would slow down. After Shore Acres speeders get the word, the officers could rotate to another part of the city.
-- Donald C. Golden, St. Petersburg
Re: To save water, start soaking wallets, Dec. 31.
In this guest column, professor Geoffrey Nunn suggests that the price of water should be raised in the Southwest Florida Water Management District to minimize demand and in this way equate supply with demand.
I lack his credentials: He's a retired economics professor; my experience is with city administration. Regardless, I feel that his thesis is flawed in several important regards.
His use of free market comparison is hardly apt when consumers really have no choice in purchasing water. If a grape costs a dollar, very few consumers would purchase grapes. If a gallon of water costs a dollar, they would still need enough to drink and flush a toilet. In a free market, entrepreneurs would rush to the grape business, increasing supply, thus driving down prices. This market does not exist in the water supply business.
Professor Nunn suggests that the excess profits derived from increased water rates could be returned to the ratepayers in the form of a tax reduction. Not everyone owns property. Would all landlords pass the tax reduction back to the tenants? Would all businesses pass on the tax savings to the consumer?
With unregulated growth in the area, the demand for water will increase. Supply will dwindle. Using professor Nunn's theory, we would then have to increase prices in relation to growth/demand. The consumers are then, in effect, being charged for land development. Would you want to pay more for your water because someone builds a golf course or new subdivision?
Shouldn't the philosophy of government be to provide quality service for minimum price, and to charge the taxpayer only for the cost of service? Using Nunn's theory, we could limit growth and thus maximize the water supply by raising the price of development, i.e., raise taxes. This would certainly compensate for the shortfall in planning for urban growth, but again, the consumer would pay the increased tax bill.
It wouldn't be fair to take issue with a valid proposition as advanced by professor Nunn without proffering alternatives. An appalling lack of planning, a lack of political courage regarding growth management, and an unwillingness to address a meaningful regulation and enforcement program all combine to bring about the current potential crises. Simply have enough courage to use the tools already at our disposal.
The socioeconomic impact of increasing water rates merely to equate supply and demand will wreak havoc on many families. Please, let's look for alternatives.
-- Howard Smale, Clearwater
Re: BayWalk and theater keep disabled in mind, letter, Jan. 17.
The letter writer thought BayWalk was so wonderful for the handicapped. That may be so for those pushed in wheelchairs. It is not so great for those who use walkers or canes.
The walk from the garage to BayWalk is very long, and there are three cement stairs to climb with no rails. There's another long walk from the BayWalk entrance to the theaters.
The theaters themselves have stairs with railings on only one side, and you can't always get to the railing side. The handicap seating is practically on top of the screen.
Also, I couldn't get to the second floor at BayWalk because no one seemed to know where they had hidden the elevator. (There is one, I guess.)
-- Virginia Seaberg, St. Petersburg