Letters to the Editors

Money spent on Seminole water tower had a better use

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 30, 2000

Re: Big birds add airy image to water tower, story, May 25.

One point left unaddressed in the article was the value, or lack thereof, received by the community for the $25,000 paint job on the Seminole water tower. The Seminole City Council could have spent that money far more wisely. Here's just one example of how:

Tuition at SPJC runs about $144 per three-hour class. Throw in books and call it $200 per class. A full-time student attends five classes per semester, two semesters a year, meaning a full year's tuition and books cost about $2,000.

Instead of spending $25,000 on a paint job that will last just a few years, that money could have been invested in 12 needy and deserving students, where it would have lasted 12 lifetimes.

A paint job on a water tower or a full year's college education for 12 students: Which is of more value to the community? Which is the better use of taxpayer money?
-- Joe Wisinski, Largo

Enjoy the water tower's new look

I want to thank the many people who showed their gracious support from inception through execution of the painting of the Oakhurst standpipe in Seminole. Thank you, Mark Higgins, Ron Mason, Bob Stewart, Pick Talley, Wayne Koch, James Rolston, the St. Petersburg Times, Mayor Dottie K. Reeder and the Seminole City Council.

A very special thank you to the students and faculty of the Bay Pines Lutheran School, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, the surrounding neighbors and all those wonderful folks driving by who waved, gave their "thumbs up," honked their horns and yelled, "Looks great!"

It was a great experience. Enjoy!
-- Tom Stovall, St. Petersburg

Keep Clearwater library on the bluff

My main concern about Clearwater redevelopment is keeping the library downtown and on the bluff, with its pleasant, open surroundings that give people a good feeling when entering and leaving.

After watching the May 18 commission meeting, I see that all nearby free parking will be replaced with parking garages, which means a charge to park. That will cause some people to rush their visit instead of taking time to check out what the library has to offer, thinking if they stay, parking will cost more.

Recently the Salvation Army Band got people outdoors to enjoy a nice evening in the park. It was a medium-sized crowd, but I wonder how many would have attended if the parking were not free. This goes for many other activities put on by local clubs and organizations. The same for the movies. Why drive some place where you have to pay to park, when there are so many other movie houses with free parking?

All this development sounds nice, but would it be for the local residents or mostly for visitors and their money? This is one item that we, the voters, will have a say in, so be sure to get all the facts and then get out to vote.
-- Richard L. Sadler, Clearwater

Redevelopment plan will bring area alive

As a Countryside resident, I have had little or no reason to go to downtown Clearwater. The shopping is non-existent, parking for concerts is poor and, overall, the place is depressing. I am supportive of the downtown redevelopment because I see the plans would mean a revitalized downtown area. With the plans for parking near to the bluff and concerts, I would be much more inclined to make the drive for an enjoyable evening on the water.

I believe it is important for all of Clearwater that the downtown becomes alive again. It will make a positive difference for all Clearwater residents, even those of us living in Countryside. I will support the referendum.
-- Robert Ramey, Clearwater

Save the Bayfront sticks to facts

Re: Downtown plan a no-go, poll hints, story, May 13.

From the beginning I have told people that I believe downtown developer George de Guardiola is an honest man, truthful to the extreme. I was astonished, therefore, to read the referenced story that he was paraphrased as saying "unchallenged" critical information put out by Save the Bayfront led to 2-1 negative results on a developer vote. Since the Times story did not add one example of this "unchallenged" information, I am at a loss to know what he was talking about.

De Guardiola is the one who said he needed a 99-year lease at $1 a year on most of Clearwater's bluff to make his efforts to redevelop downtown pay. He said it was because the downtown property owners upped their prices when they saw him coming. He is the one who said he wants to tear down the only civic center and convention center in town and replace it with a multiplex theater. It is his idea to put the library and city hall in one building, on top of some shops.

It was De Guardiola who said he would remove our showcase City Hall and replace it with a high cluster of rental apartments and a multistoried parking garage.

Save the Bayfront could not possibly have dreamed up anything like the plan to lease out the amphitheater on our "open" bayfront for commercial performances at least 60 times a year. What has been a pleasant, green, grassy place for 10,000 to 15,000 citizens to enjoy a free concert will become a place where you must buy a ticket to go listen to the music.

If there has been misleading information in this whole affair, blame the people who wrote the request for proposal. They indicated to de Guardiola that the majority of Clearwater citizens wanted him to commercialize the bluff. They told him the city was ready to move City Hall somewhere else.

As a spokesman for Save the Bayfront, I categorically deny we have put out any information except the facts, as de Guardiola and the written documents have demonstrated. Furthermore, I believe it is an insult to the voters of Clearwater to imply they cannot think for themselves and answer surveys accordingly.
-- Anne Garris, Clearwater

Back to North Pinellas news

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.