Letters to the Editors

Don't drain funds from program for land preservation

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 31, 2001

Last week, the state Senate Appropriations Committee voted to take $100-million in funds from the Florida Preservation 2000 Program to pay the state's share of Everglades restoration in fiscal year 2002. The committee then took the general revenue that had been set aside for the Everglades and allocated it to other government purposes. This action has placed Florida's environment at even greater risk at a time when the state's unique natural systems are under acute stress.

For 10 years, the P-2000 program has financed the acquisition of conservation, recreation and water-resource lands throughout Florida. Many of the outdoor places that Floridians value most have been protected through this program.

The choices of land to be purchased with P-2000 money have been made in a careful and scientific way. P-2000 is widely accepted as the most successful state land-acquisition program in the country -- so successful that a successor program, Florida Forever, was approved by the Legislature in 1999 with only one dissenting vote in both houses.

If $100-million is withdrawn from P-2000, many of these projects will never be completed. Or, if the cost of these lands is pushed into the new Florida Forever program, then other pending acquisitions will be lost. Buying land in Florida to protect water resources and to save habitat for plants and animals cannot be put on hold. Failure to act means that opportunities for conservation will be lost forever.

Using P-2000 funds to support the state's share of Everglades restoration reverses the commitment Florida made last year to fund most of the state's share of that restoration from general revenues for 10 years. Based on this commitment, Congress passed the historic Everglades Restoration Act. How can Congress and federal agencies have faith in Florida's funding plans if the state uses a one-time fix to cover its failure to deliver on its word in the very first year of the Everglades agreement? The Senate action could jeopardize billions of dollars in federal funding for the Everglades.

Showing a laudable concern for Florida's environment, Gov. Jeb Bush has spoken out strongly against the decision of the Florida Senate. A few courageous senators from both parties have likewise stood up for conservation, but the final decision lies with the state's House of Representatives and then with the Senate, House and governor when they approve the budget. Hopefully, the governor and Legislature will conclude that the action of the Senate Appropriations Committee last week was a passing misunderstanding and that Florida's government will, in the end, continue its longstanding bipartisan tradition of saving the natural resources that are so much a part of our state's character and of its lasting value as a place to live.
-- Robert Bendick, director, Florida chapter, the Nature Conservancy, Altamonte Springs

In the election, money spoke

Re: St. Petersburg's mayoral election.

Once again it is the money that buys the office.

Good luck, voters and taxpayers. We'll have more years of the same old policies and lack of neighborhood improvements. Too bad the voters are so afraid of a candidate who dares to question "Why?"
-- Louis Van Roy, St. Petersburg

Was this really a race card?

Re: Baker's ace was city's too familiar race card, by Mary Jo Melone, March 29.

What is it Mary Jo Melone would like for Rick Baker to have done? Why is going after the black vote defined as playing the race card? Perhaps he should have just ignored African-Americans altogether in his campaign. I wonder if Melone would have found fault with that. And perhaps Baker should have made his last stand on the corner of 22nd Avenue N and Tyrone instead of 22nd Avenue S and M.L. King Street. Then her column would probably be questioning Baker's intelligence.

Melone says in her column that someday black and white won't matter in a St. Petersburg election and that the race won't be used to divide and confuse. I'm all for that and hope it happens in my lifetime (although I highly doubt it). But did Baker really get this ball rolling? Does Melone think Kathleen Ford would have been a better choice for blacks? One of her first acts as mayor would almost certainly have been to get rid of Goliath Davis.

Is keeping Davis as police chief really a loud message from Baker to the police union and concerned neighborhood groups that there will be no change, no compromise, no discussion and no way to the middle ground? That seems highly unlikely to me. Would Melone have us believe that Baker will just ignore problems within the Police Department regardless of their severity? And just how severe are they? She says, "The combat within the Police Department will continue. And its ripples will continue to be felt in neighborhood after neighborhood." Really? Maybe I'm just fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood where the ripples haven't struck yet, but I spend very little time discussing the internal affairs of the Police Department with my friends and neighbors.

Perhaps black voters simply listened to Baker and Ford and voted according to their individual judgments about the candidates. Is this so hard for Melone to believe? Both candidates campaigned in black neighborhoods. Melone asks if there is something wrong with the 17 percent of blacks that voted for Ford. My question to her is this: Does she assume that Baker duped the other 83 percent by playing the race card? Or did they, just like white voters, listen to the candidates and vote for the one they felt would best represent St. Petersburg?
-- Shay Routh, St. Petersburg

Developing doubts about Baker

After months of belittling and berating Kathleen Ford, the Times (our only newspaper) finally convinced enough people that she was a villain.

Baker, with the Times' support, also made police Chief Goliath Davis the race trump card. Baker promised to keep the chief. My question is: In doing so, have Baker and the black majority decided the chief is above the law, and is Baker now stuck with keeping hands-off?

I attended several of the debates. Baker came across as willing to listen. Always very sensitive to the other point of view. Non-confrontational. Wouldn't hurt anyone. In other words, gentle and very much the good guy.

The day before the election, Baker's election mailer contained a scurrilous "personal" attack on Ford. The mailer called her divisive, a rabble-rouser, nasty, suspicious, abrasive, etc. That kind of personal defamation said to me that Rick Baker may be as kind and gentle as a junkyard dog. If this is any sample, he may turn out to be more divisive and vicious than what he claims Ford would be. One thing is for sure: He will do or say anything to get elected. As a result, there are now many of us who have serious doubts about Rick Baker.
-- Al Brown, St. Petersburg

The bottom of the barrel

Re: St. Petersburg's election.

Well the sad news is official. We have a Bush in Washington, a Bush in Tallahassee and now a Bush in St. Petersburg. It's a shame we've reached the bottom of the barrel.

I've been a resident of St. Petersburg for more than 40 years. I really don't know if I can live here and feel confident with a Bush wanna-be.
-- Gilbert A. Sullivan, St. Petersburg

This is not news

What possessed your "news" paper to headline an item such as that of March 24: WTSP's new sports director has DUI record? What possible relevance do those events (one apparently 21 years ago!) have on this man's ability to perform as a sports director?

This is not "news." You should be ashamed for printing it.
-- James B. Thompson, St. Petersburg

Priorities were distorted in obituaries

On March 14, the Times, in its column devoted to the obituaries of famous people, printed three items. The first was regarding a "drifter who once claimed 600 murders." Also, the headline for the obituaries that day was Drifter who once claimed 600 murders dies. He not only gets his death announced in headline form but also 10 paragraphs.

The second obituary that day was for Rep. Ryan Shealy, a South Carolina legislator. He received one sentence. Last was S. Dillon Ripley, who headed the Smithsonian Institution for 20 years and founded eight new museums, among them the Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. Mr. Ripley received one paragraph consisting of three sentences.

This distorted presentation, in my opinion, is a blatant and atrocious example of tabloid journalism and an insult to the readers of the Times who have their priorities straight. Unfortunately, the Times placed its priorities in reverse and should be ashamed -- but likely is not.
-- Peter L. Richard, Clearwater

Bubba is welcome to leave

Re: State goes after radio shock jock, March 30.

Bubba the Love Sponge Clem said that he is "so ready to leave this town." Please let me be the first to contribute toward the ticket to get you out of Tampa. I will also look for the rail, feathers and tar to help your welcomed exit.
-- Terry Tucker, Palm Harbor

He spoils our community

The best news I read Friday morning was the arrest of that disgusting radio jock, Bubba the Love Sponge. He says he wants to leave town. I hope he means it and the sooner the better -- right after he spends time in jail.

Our community is a beautiful place to live in, and people like him with a warped mind can move out.

I will follow this case closely. As long as that radio station keeps employing people like him, I will boycott the sponsors and not listen to that station.

Wild animals feel pain even if they are a nuisance. They don't deserve to be tortured. My husband and I will not spend any money on services or products that sponsor that type of gross, rude, mean individuals.
-- Anne Ryan, St. Petersburg

Prank wasn't a criminal act

Re: State goes after radio shock jock, March 30.

I am not a fan of Todd Clem. But for him to be charged with a felony is so ridiculous. Was his prank in bad taste? For most of us, yes. But criminal?

Do the residents of Tampa ever think about how their meat gets on their tables? The answer is no. People don't want to know. They just want to eat their nice bloody steaks and not be bothered about the details. Hunters have come out and said that it is wrong to kill a pig for entertainment purposes only. Are the hunters saying that they hunt just to feed their families and get no enjoyment out of it? Does anybody believe that?

Would Clem's prank have been okay if the pig was eaten later on? For all we know, it was. Or was his "crime" broadcasting the event? And to think, some people want to broadcast executions! Todd Clem: publicity whore? Yes. Criminal? Only if we start arresting the entire meat industry butchers.
-- Joe Murgia, Tampa

Share your opinions

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
--

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

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