Letters to the Editors

Residents should stand firm against new taxes

© St. Petersburg Times, published February 17, 2000

Re: Tax may be a good idea, but rushing decision isn't, Feb. 15

Your editorial said one thing I can support -- Penny for Pasco won't be going to voters any time soon.

I urge all citizens to be wary. Your editorial was headlined, "Tax may be a good idea ... " which is newspaper-speak for "It is." People, never vote for a tax increase. The County Commission can raise taxes without any voter input simply by raising the millage rate, and if they think they need to, they will. A vote under "Penny for Pasco" or any other name allows them to avoid taking responsibility for a tax increase. Instead, we should hold their feet to the fire.

The county would like to have more money to spend? Exploding growth, and the property taxes that come with it, will provide it. We certainly don't need to raise taxes on ourselves.
-- Ernest Lane, New Port Richey

County courts disaster by manipulating land use map

Editor: Connerton is "weeks away" from development orders because the county commissioners passed the changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan on Tuesday, Sept. 28. Connerton is an amendment to the original 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Confidence that the revisions will be accepted by the DCA is running so high among county staff and developers that they're making groundbreaking noises before the changes become law.

If you ask where will the water supply come from, you must also ask where will the runoff go to? This development runs along a good deal of the northwest boundary of the Cypress Creek well field, an area already severely stressed from overpumping. Must we now add the risk of contamination to additional pumping damage? And where does Connerton sit in relation to aquifer recharge areas?

You mention that fire and police protection don't exist for a development the size of Connerton. There's a reason they're not part of the overall scheme. Our Comprehensive Plan doesn't require they be included in planning a development.

You say it's estimated that Connerton will provide 11,846 jobs, but that the bulk of workers may not be able to afford a Connerton home, most to be priced over $100,000. Shall we add insult to injury? Legitimate studies cited by our Comprehensive Plan indicate that "residential properties under $150,000 do not pay all of the costs for government services rendered." So why does Pasco continue to encourage the bulk of our building as residential rather than commercial and business?

The culprit in this scenario is our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There are hidden time bombs in this plan waiting to blow up into major problems. An example would be the very recent discovery that the desalination plant site at Anclote was changed to conservation land on the future land use map. This happened mysteriously in July 1998 during the height of the desal controversy. No one seems to know how it happened, but now it's supposedly fixed. I say, has anyone seen the real future land use map?

Speaking of the map, isn't it strange how land use designations so precisely mirror currently proposed and under construction developments? An example would be Lexington Oaks, already building at State Road 54 and Old Pasco Road. The new land use designation of Residential 3 outlines the boundaries of the development perfectly. Lexington Oaks is another amendment of the 1989 plan, also helped along by Tuesday's commission vote. We are mapping to accommodate development, not to plan growth. Perhaps we'll call it revisionist mapping or maybe retro-mapping. We're redrawing Pasco's map to suit present purposes. I say we have a classic chicken-and-egg conundrum here.

Our comprehensive plan changes must go through a Notice of Intent and then, if challenged successfully, a hearing before passing muster with the DCA. An organized challenge might derail this train at the state level. But if it can't be stopped there, a specific, well-aimed campaign at the county level can make it damn difficult to continue making development-specific amendments to the plan. Don't wait until development breaks ground next to your door; that's Nimbyism. Stand up for all of Pasco, get involved now.
-- Jennifer L. Seney, Wesley Chapel

Collins should focus on other issues, stop bullying sheriff

First let me say I did not vote for Cannon, but since he has been in office I don't think he has done too bad a job. At least he has not brought any scandal to Pasco County as the two previous sheriffs have done. He does not use his office to embellish his personal image by riding around in sports cars or placing personal acquaintances in plum jobs in his department.

It was nice when there was a lull in the scandalous name calling and accusations. Now Collins wants to put the people of Pasco through that sort of thing again to satisfy his personal vendetta.

Collins, grow up, and stop playing bully. There are enough other issues in Pasco for you to concentrate on if you want to get your name in the paper, like our filthy streets and intersections. Why don't you develop a sanitation department? Jobs and a nicer looking county would emerge. Do something besides working your mouth.
Eleanore Secor, Holiday

Player was one who suffered in playing time controversy

Sorry that my daughter came over and got kicked off the team because of it. She was caught in the crossfire and let go. Yes, it was a known fact she wasn't coming back next year as a senior, because of softball, but she was going to finish the season. Brandy had already gone to all of those 24.5 record games and was the leading scorer of the coach's 300th win.

She didn't deserve what happened to her, and I hope all the parents and coaches have learned from this. I'm sorry we ever got into the middle of this. Nobody won.
Lorie Kriey, New Port Richey

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.