Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published February 23, 2000
Editor: The Pasco water workshop on Feb. 15 was a historic occasion. For the first time in all the long years of abuse, the board, of its own volition, gave recognition to the serious implications for this county and its residents. A strategy was sought to address Pasco's needs.
It was historic, too, in that it was recognized that this vital and only natural resource is now virtually gone. We do not have sufficient water for our own development; all our water goes to support the enormous development of Pinellas County.
Most of Pasco is on domestic wells and septic tanks, a fact never mentioned when Tampa Bay Water and the media regularly proclaim that the regional system serves the population of Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough. Although Pasco is usually listed as the first recipient of that water, the fact is that our share from the regional system is very small in comparison with the others. Also, Tampa Bay Water's management strategy of well field pumping under the consolidated permit reduces Pasco's share while increasing the quantities taken out of Pasco.
The workshop also marked the first time that the board recognized that its representatives on Tampa Bay Water can commit them to courses on which the board as a whole would disagree. This marks a welcome departure from the old way of doing business -- other members of the board ignoring what their representatives are doing and not being sufficiently interested even to ask about this most important issue.
I look forward to regular workshops and sound long-term evaluations on the future of Pasco County. My grateful thanks to Commissioners Steve Simon and Pat Mulieri. Pasco has long been in need of making improvements in government.
-- Silbourne Clarke, Wesley Chapel
Editor: County officials are once again talking about "double dipping" the public treasury. The County Commission and the sheriff of Pasco County are once again demonstrating a propensity to double dip the public treasury by hiring expensive consultants to do what we pay county officials to do.
We pay the sheriff and his administration hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to run the Sheriff's Office in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We pay the county administrator and his staff hundreds of thousands of dollars for consultants to tell them how to run county government and the Sheriff's Office. This is absurd and a waste of tax dollars.
Pasco County residents should elect political leaders who know how to get the job done so there would be no need to hire consultants and waste public money. Sheriff Lee Cannon's misleading the public to try to get his municipal service tax passed is not sufficient reason to spend unnecessary tax dollars. The Board of County Commissioners should halt further consideration of this matter and let the issue be decided in the fall election by whom the public elects to keep the public trust. Any public official currently in office who persists in wasting public funds on consultants to tell public officials how to do their jobs should be considered incapable of keeping the public's trust.
Maybe the money would be better spent if we hired consultants to examine political candidates and public officials for qualifications to perform the jobs they seek.
-- Lee O. Henley, Hudson
Editor: Why is New Port Richey trying to block the sale of Lindrick utility to Port Richey? Money. Lindrick Service Corp. buys about half of its water from New Port Richey at 89 percent over what city residents pay. If Port Richey buys this utility and its new additional wells, New Port Richey stands to lose about $300,000 in revenue.
If New Port Richey has the option to buy, why is it accusing Port Richey of driving the price higher? Port Richey did not set the price; it hired outside consultants. Could it be that New Port Richey's water rates would not support a bond issue to pay fair market price? It appears New Port Richey would require annexation to do it.
Port Richey wants to buy the utility for stabilized rates and independence. With added customer base, Port Richey will better serve its customers, old and new, and develop the city free from possible outside constraints. Port Richey buys about half of its water from New Port Richey at the same inflated rate that Lindrick does. Port Richey is drilling its own new wells and hopes to produce all its own water soon. Another big revenue loss for New Port Richey.
The issue is that Port Richey might buy Lindrick. If it does, it will save the Lindrick users from going it alone with Joseph Borda or another private owner. It seems that Port Richey offers a lifeline, and New Port Richey stands to lose two cash cows.
-- Judith A. Christenson, Port Richey
Re: Collins should focus on other issues, stop bullying sheriff, Feb. 17 letter
Editor: I agree 100 percent! Former County Commissioner Ed Collins needs to zip his lip, grow up and get a life!
With the obvious fast-paced expansion of Pasco County, we not only need more deputies now, but most certainly will in the very near future. It is not fair that they have to work long hours and overtime to fill the void for officers out sick, or at an incident requiring more than one or two deputies for several hours, leaving a void elsewhere. This is how it is now. Sheriff Lee Cannon is doing the best he can as are his deputies.
This letter writer also mentioned our filthy streets and intersections. Her idea of developing a sanitation department to take care of it is an excellent one. With so many people moving into this area (seemingly non-stop) there will be plenty more money to pay for it and more deputies. How nice it would be if Collins could use his energy in areas such as these!
-- Linda L. Haugh, Port Richey
Editor: Amendment 3, the additional homestead exemption for seniors over 65, has been ignored by the County Commission. In 1998, the voters of Pasco County overwhelmingly voted in favor of this amendment. This was a mandate by the voters to be acted upon and not ignored. Why are the commissioners afraid of voting for this amendment?
An increase in impact fees would make up for any lost revenue and not deter people from buying homes in Pasco County. I wonder if the commissioners are being influenced by the home builders and real estate lobbyists in this respect since they certainly donate money toward their campaigns. Fifty percent of Pasco seniors probably will not benefit from this amendment because they would not qualify. It is the widows and widowers and those not making over $20,000 that need this exemption. The commissioners seem to overlook that the assessments on our homes continue to rise every year and that represents a tax increase.
I call on all seniors of Pasco County to call and write to the county commissioners stating they want action on Amendment 3. It is time the commissioners represent the voters of this county and not special interests.
-- Carlo Damico, Wesley Chapel