Letters to the Editors

Political attacks sidestep the issues

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 4, 2000

As a Clearwater voter attempting to get the facts on the Clearwater downtown referendum, I have reacted negatively to the tactics of the Save the Bayfront organization.

I received a mailing from Save the Bayfront which belittles our City Commission and subjects our city manager to gross ridicule. It does not address the issues in the referendum. I am really disappointed that the Save the Bayfront group is using these questionable political tactics, rather than explaining the issues so voters can make an informed choice.

As a previously uncommitted voter, I have decided to vote yes, partially as a protest to the abundance of sleeze promoted by the Save the Bayfront group.
-- James B. Watt, Clearwater

Save the Bayfront misleads the city

At a recent forum, Save the Bayfront's spokeswoman hugged respected developer George de Guardiola and spoke of having the "highest regard for him." Yet just weeks later, she cowardly betrayed him with a mailed litany of lies. Unapologetic, she promises more ugly and sneaky "surprises."

Potential voter Marian Ekin wrote of "giving away our beautiful bayfront." Tragically, Marian is ensnared in Save the Bayfront's barbed-wire deceit. Fact: Our Coachman Park bayfront lands will remain public property. From the city attorney's office via the www.clearwater-fl.com city Web site:

"A yes vote allows the development, use and maintenance of the bayfront park, amphitheater, Cleveland Streetscape improvements, Osceola Place, Botanical Gardens and other improvements shown in the Downtown Master Plan of Development. These improvements and properties will be public and not leased to the Master Developer."

Does Clearwater have the resolve to reject the false message of the dishonest Save the Bayfront? Does Clearwater have the passion to restore our downtown to former greatness? "Yes" must be the answers for our city.
-- William Blackwood, Clearwater

Former politician has unique insight

Years back I remember a Clearwater city commissioner named Fred Thomas pushing through the Maas Bros. department store deal and developing the property for the sake of redevelopment at a cost that was a runaway train.

Now another man named Fred Thomas with the "Save the Bayfront" group is saying that theresidents of Clearwater can't trust the politicians and is opposing redevelopment.

How many Freds are there?

If, as I suspect, there is only one, he should change his soundbite to, "You can't trust politicians. After all, I should know, look what I did."
-- Scott Armstrong, Clearwater

Why put our trust in the commission?

Three years ago the Clearwater City Commission told residents that city infrastructure needed massive repairs, and unless residents voted "yes" to $100-million of new Penny for Pinellas sales taxes, the commission might have to increase taxes.

The commission announced "One City. One Future." It shelved many city infrastructure repairs and spent $30-million on state (not city) infrastructure: median islands, a new bridge and a roundabout on State Road 60.

The commission sold residents' $1.5-million City Hall Annex for $10 -- to the Downtown Development Board.

The commission passed an ordinance allowing it to force a resident to sell his home, if a developer bought a slightly larger parcel next door and said he needed the resident's property.

Now the commission is asking residents to vote "yes" to building their new City Hall, library and civic space on top of a developer's new store, and then paying the developer to park to visit them, rebuilding their Coachman Park and then giving the developer control of it 60 days per year. The commission says, "Trust us."

What has the commission done that would make residents trust it?
-- Early McMullen Sorenson, Dunedin

Clearwater deserves real answers to issues

The information meeting sponsored by the city of Clearwater at the Sailing Center was more of an infomercial. Carefully crafted answers to simple questions sidestepped the real questions.

When asked if there would be a performance bond to the city on this project, the answer was, we furnish a performance and payment bond on every building we build. The question addressed the lease/development agreement, not the buildings to be built.

When asked who would ultimately pay for the $40-million or $50-million of public improvements when the CRA won't have enough to pay the interest on a bond in that amount when all of phase one and two are in place, the answer was he was going to "front" the costs.

Why are the financial aspects of this deal being avoided? Why isn't our government up front with us?
-- Lee Regulski, Clearwater

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.