Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published April 22, 2001
I would like to state my support for the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter's application to demolish the former First Baptist Church sanctuary to provide parking.
As a member of the cathedral, I was aware of the First Baptist Church move to Gandy Boulevard. Its purpose was to have more parking as well as physical expansion and to be more centrally located to its members' homes. The cathedral purchased the sanctuary and the education building to provide more space for the parish and social ministries. We have diligently sought utility or sale for the sanctuary for more than 10 years to no avail.
Meanwhile we have been unable to afford maintenance for the 1920 masonry-and-frame structure. The First Baptist Church was also not motivated to maintain the structure as it debated its future and then prepared to move. Having owned four frame houses of the 1920s era, I am certain that without major structural work, the termites and rot will cause the building to fail an occupancy inspection. As a graduate engineer with more than 40 years of facility maintenance experience, I seriously doubt that such work would be economically feasible.
A house is not a home without a family. In the same way, a church building is without spiritual value short a congregation. The former First Baptist Church sanctuary is a ghostly monument to a decaying inner city without occupants. Having been a resident for nearly 20 years, that is not what I understand to be the will of the people of St. Petersburg.
-- Frank W. Turner Jr., St. Petersburg
With a choice to live just about any place in the world, my wife and I elected to relocate to downtown St. Petersburg from the northeastern United States. We recognized the positive growth planned downtown.
Now we learn there is a possibility that another church could move from downtown.
To continue operating, St. Peter's Episcopal Church urgently requires additional parking. To obtain it, the former First Baptist Church -- closed, dead and vacant for 10 years -- is to be razed. The facade would be replaced with tasteful and very elegant landscaping, thus adding to the beautification and enhancement of downtown as it strives toward the goal of continued improvement.
Along with its many daily services. St. Peter's -- open every day -- sponsors more than 50 ministries. These ministries, for all sorts and conditions of people, provide help and services to the less-fortunate in our area. Services and help are given without financial costs to the taxpayer. Should some ministries be forced to cease, the burden of all costs would shift to and be paid by taxpayers.
Tragically, an excessive number of churches have closed and abandoned the downtown area. Negative action by the city could compel the cathedral to move out of downtown and relocate elsewhere. The cathedral does possess this capability. Think of the horrible implications.
Do we want to be partner to the death of a solid, vigorous and growing church, no less a cathedral? Do we want to participate in its murder?
Here is a splendid opportunity to help St. Petersburg and its citizenry by doing what needs to be done.
-- Donald Jenkins, St. Petersburg
Re: Mayor: Alter rules for truck parking, April 15.
Pinellas Park is not one large gated community. This is the real world.
A lot of people depend on their trucks to make a living. That living includes paying income taxes that help support a lot of the people doing the complaining. We're not talking about old junk cars up on concrete blocks, so please give it a rest. Live and let live.
-- Joan E. Bretherton, Pinellas Park
Re: Mayor: Alter rules for truck parking.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the reason the Mainlands and Pinebrook look better than the rest of Pinellas Park is that they have association rules, and residents are expected to abide by them. Why then is the mayor so intent on removing the code that restricts parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods?
Contrary to what the mayor thinks, there are those of us who care very deeply about the reputation of Pinellas Park. It's not necessary to have a lot of money in order to have a respectable-looking neighborhood. All it should take is a little pride, common sense and elbow grease. But because too many people don't know how to exercise good judgment, we do need code enforcement, and we need the ordinances to stay as they are currently written.
Why doesn't Mayor Mischler request that the City Council members figure out a way to fund more code enforcement officers? Let them perform their jobs and make Pinellas Park the beautiful little city we can all be proud of.
-- Peggy Duncan, Pinellas Park
Re: Top job's allure can't trump her need for a life, April 7.
Charles Rainey and Fred Marquis ran Pinellas County for more than 30 years. It seemed most commissioners were proud of the fact that they usually voted unanimously. One was left to think that they were "rubber stamping" the dictates of Marquis. The Times reported Marquis' shoes would be hard to fill.
As a resident taxpayer since 1972, I certainly don't want another county administrator to fill Marquis' shoes. I wanted someone with a little more fiscal responsibility (Penny For Pinellas), someone that might weed out some of the "Good Ol' Boys" and enhance the quality of work and life for this community.
Thus, I am truly disappointed that Gay Lancaster withdrew her name from consideration for the Pinellas County administrator position. It certainly is Pinellas County's loss; however, it is reassuring and rewarding to know Lancaster plans to continue as assistant administrator.
-- R.M. Kafer, Seminole
Re: State may relax its control of beaches, April 11.
According to the story, a "first-of-its-kind compromise between the state Department of Environmental Protection and Pinellas County's beach communities could leave control of beach development in the hands of the county."
Why would any state agency give complete or any control to a county that does nothing more within its own area than condone slums? Take a look around at the county properties and how the residents are allowed to keep them up -- or better yet, the slums within Pinellas County. Pinellas County has no regulations as to how property should be maintained -- and doesn't care.
The state should reconsider giving any control to Pinellas County commissioners or Pinellas County environmental agencies. It should keep control of the beaches.
-- Karol A. Singleton, Pinellas Park