Northpinellas: With all the beach traffic, we're prisoners in paradise

Commissioner Jonson, on the other hand, "wants to consider the results of an ongoing city traffic study of south Clearwater Beach before he approves giving away parts of beach streets for the development" of the Marriott resort, according to the story.

Commissioner Jonson's concern is the ever-worsening beach traffic jams.

Mayor Aungst favors redevelopment and additional high-rises on the beach, which would result in even more traffic jams.

Between the over-building of Clearwater Beach, the non-workable roundabout, the spring breakers and poor traffic management, those of us who live on or visit the beach have become virtual prisoners in paradise. New commissioners, please take note.
-- Fred Nassif, Clearwater

Why is public paying for defense?

Re: Llama case defendant eligible for public aid, March 16 story.

I find it a pathetic commentary that we taxpayers are having to foot any part of the legal bill to defend Robert Pettyjohn in the vicious attacks on the llamas or any of the other charges filed against him.

Although I find no fault in Judge Richard Luce's ruling (since his decision is based on a matter of law), I do find it despicable that the parents of Pettyjohn -- both doctors, mind you -- can stand by and refuse to participate in the cost of their son's defense.

What comes to my mind is this: If it is indeed their decision not to help their own son (and society) at a time like this, then both of these parents must have been equally unavailable to help their son long before he got into this kind of trouble.

Although neither of my parents were doctors, they certainly knew the difference between right and wrong behavior when it came to their responsibilities in raising their 15 children.
-- John Dufek, Seminole

Some just don't like high-rise buildings

Re: Pillage of waterfront must be stopped, March 14 letter.

Where to start? Well, since the writer started with the downtown plan, so will I.

The downtown plan would have built a new library where the new library was planned to be and will be built. It would have converted the Harborview building or site to a stadium-style cinema. It would have converted the Baptist church to an upscale hotel. It would have replaced City Hall with apartments. It would have replaced the Baptist church education building with condominiums.

No additional "development" so far. But, aha, it would have redeveloped all that bayfront parking as -- oh no! -- additional parkland and botanical gardens. And it would have allowed a restaurant and kiosks on the stub of the old bridge left after the new bridge is completed, and two other restaurants adjacent to the library on the bluff.

To sum up, the additional "development"' would have been substantial new parkland and botanical gardens (incorporating the entire bayfront), three restaurants and some kiosks.

The referendum failed, in no small measure because it was portrayed as "giving away the bluff and bayfront" to a developer under a 99-year lease for $1 a year. That overlooked the $30-million or so of public improvements that the developers were going to outright pay for or finance for the city, to be repaid only from incremental taxes, largely paid by the developer, and it overlooked a buyout provision available to the city.

That is all water under the bridge, obviously, but I feel obliged to revisit it from time to time, in this case, because the writer stated that the developer was back "virtually the next day" with alternative plans, and frankly, I'm wondering what downtown redevelopment the writer is seeing that I don't.

My understanding of Beach by Design (the letter writer's apparent "Assault II") is that high-rise redevelopment will be limited to the area between the Hilton and the Clearwater Beach Hotel and the area along Gulf Boulevard across from the public beach, and that the character of the areas north of the Yacht Basin and south of the marina (other than the gulf-front Beach Walk) will be preserved as they exist. And a principal objective of Beach by Design is to rescue the beach, the sandy beach, from the automobile, putting people on the beach instead of cars.

The writer seems to sincerely believe that redevelopment at the beach (and maybe even downtown) benefits no one but the developers and other "business" interests. I beg to differ. One condominium project under construction on Mandalay Avenue is increasing the tax base from $7-million to $70-million, and increasing the tax throw-off by a factor of 10.

I accept and even respect the opinion of those who don't like high-rise buildings, but let's be straight about it. It isn't about density; you can only build so many units on a particular parcel, whether you build a tall narrow box or a shorter, wider box. It isn't about water; it isn't about the view. It is just about not liking high-rise buildings. That's okay, but that's what it is.
-- John Doran, Clearwater

Spend on necessities, not luxuries

Government is spending tax money on luxuries instead of necessities. We have a water crisis. Solutions include filtering saltwater to make drinking water, using recycled water for landscaping and refilling our underground water wells and streams to help stop sinkholes. We need so many upgrades on sewers, flooding, schools, etc.

Our money needs to be spent on these items, not private companies like the Philadelphia Phillies. Our government doesn't have the right to spend our money on their friends, hobbies or special interests, but on us, the taxpayer.

We are being railroaded by the city of Clearwater to have the city, county, state and federal government pay for a privately owned baseball team that isn't even ours!
-- Bonnie Conn, Clearwater

Back to North Pinellas news

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

Special Links

Mary Jo Melone

Howard Troxler

From the Times
North Pinellas desks