Letters to the Editors

Thanks, Sheriff Rice, for offer to protect Largo residents

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 7, 2000

Bravo to Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice! As a resident of the city of Largo, I commend Sheriff Rice for his wisdom in offering us residents of Largo an alternative to our current police protection. Increases in population, recent aggressive annexation, daily rise in crime, coupled with recent concerns regarding inability to fill vacant certified police positions, make me as a taxpayer welcome the opportunity to have Sheriff Rice and the 2,000-plus members of the Sheriff's Office assume the law enforcement for our city.

In 1999, according to Florida Department of Law Enforcement figures, Largo had a population of 68,372, plus the additional 15,000 winter residents. This population figure has no doubt increased substantially due to the annexation, additional births and new people moving into our community. With population figures like that and only 124 officers to offer us police protection, each officer would be responsible for 564 people -- an impossibility!

Recently, I had several occasions to have interaction with the Largo Police Department. The response time took hours. I was forced to call them several times, only to be told that they had no idea when they could respond as they were very busy.

Twice, I went to the police station where no one was available. A "red phone" and a sign were the method of contact. Others were waiting in the lobby, too, and had not been acknowledged. More than a half-hour later, someone came to the lobby to acknowledge our presence. This was in the late evening and if someone had fled into the police department to avoid bodily harm, there would have been no one there to assist them.

Largo City Manager Steven Stanton and the city commissioners need to realize they work for us, the taxpayers. We deserve to have our voices heard.

Why spend a year or more trying to get a police chief (Largo's next step: Select temporary police chief, June 23)? Why spend more of our taxpayers' money for the search? Why, when we have an excellent, well-organized Sheriff's Office willing, able and ready to offer us full, complete protection and offer a great savings to each of us?

Largo taxpayers, don't you think our voice should be heard? Don't you think this should be on the ballot? Don't you think we deserve to save $4-million to $5-million per year?
-- Rosalie Martin, Largo

Maybe it's time for new blood on Safety Harbor's Commission

Re: Eleven apply for vacant seat on Safety Harbor Commission, story, July 2.

It interests me that in choosing a replacement for Commissioner Rollin Yanchar on Safety Harbor's Commission, Commissioner Keith Zayac is torn between voting for the only former commissioner, Don Fletcher, and "someone new to city government."

Mr. Zayac's memory must be short. In the same city election in which he was re-elected to his seat, Mr. Fletcher was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It wasn't long before that that Mr. Zayac himself was newly elected.

Maybe now is an ideal time for new blood in city politics. Then the voters have an opportunity to test the wisdom of the present commission in its selection as well as the effectiveness of their choice.
-- Rick Stutzel, Safety Harbor

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letters address the Tuesday referendum on a proposed redevelopment plan for downtown Clearwater.

Not enough taxpayer money to fix bayfront sans developer

The park expansion and other public improvements proposed in the master plan will cost more than $40-million. That increases the park area to approximately 14 acres (the entire bayfront below the bluff and the area now occupied by a surface parking lot between the library and Harborview Center), replaces the current surface parking and adds another 2,000 to 3,000 parking spaces within 5 minutes of almost anywhere in the bayfront area, creates the grand stairs from the bayfront up Cleveland Street to Osceola Avenue, and streetscapes Cleveland east to Station Square. We have $2-million in the Penny for Pinellas sales tax budget for the bayfront. That simply won't buy much in the way of park expansion or improvements. It is a far piece from $2-million to $40-million. Especially when it is taxpayer money, when the total annual city revenue from real estate taxes is less than $30-million per year, and when there are pre-existing legitimate constituencies for stormwater management, neighborhood recreational facilities and improvements in emergency services.

Yes, it is true that we could do it ourselves, but it does not seem likely that Clearwater taxpayers will approve spending money in any significant way to "save the bayfront." It seems more likely that absent the master redevelopment, what we see is what we'll have.
John Doran, Clearwater

99-year lease will outlast all buildings and developers

Why would we want or be required to lease public land to a developer for 99 years? The current developers will be dead in 30 years and the buildings will be ready for replacement in 40 years.

We have virtually no buildings in Pinellas County that are 99 years old. By the time the lease is up, we will have had three or four sets of developers and several changes of buildings or uses. What will the next several groups of developers and city officials have in mind for this property? I don't want to saddle my great-great-grandchildren with this problem, do you?
-- Bill Freeland, Clearwater

Clearwater officials, developers applauded for staying course

I've attended two town meetings. Read the materials. Talked to my friends and neighbors. Walked the streets of my neighborhood. Now read the Times. Being from Houston, I've also seen generous civic benefactors and elected leaders attacked by vicious special interest groups with no other interest than to turn off the lights on downtown.

Both Houston and Dallas ignored these naysayers and now have unbelievably thriving downtowns. I applaud the developers for their patient and professional approach to this project. I applaud Clearwater's paid and elected officials for suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous libel and slander.

Now, let's just get out and vote.
Tom Wright, Clearwater

Amend City Charter to make city leadership full-time job

I can honestly say that I do not trust any of the decisions being made by the individuals controlling our city's government. I also believe that the residents of the city are being sold a big mess where developers will control and benefit from our most valued piece of property for 99 years, and the residents will eventually have to pay for it through higher taxes.

I think it is time that the residents of Clearwater think about changing our City Charter. Our city has grown too large to be run by part-time politicians and city managers who are outside of the voters' control. Pay the mayor a decent salary and get rid of all of these high-priced managers. We need to adopt a city government that puts all of the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the mayor, who is elected and controlled by the residents.
John Blechschmidt, Clearwater

Pull together, say "yes,' make our beautiful world even better

For Clearwater residents, it boils down to a choice between saying "No" and "doing nothing," thereby continuing a long tradition of "doing nothing" incredibly well.

Or saying "Yes" to improving the library, Coachman Park and downtown. Saying "Yes" will make our small part of a beautiful world not just a little better, but a great deal better.

Practice talking up the positives to your neighbors, your co-workers and your friends. If we pull together, it is our city and it is our future. Opposition to a 99-year lease or to Scientology are just excuses, not reasons.
-- Nicholas Fritsch, Clearwater

25-year-old ideas to save bayfront have gone nowhere

Art Deegan, a former Clearwater city commissioner, makes it very clear in his June 18 letter 1) why he is a former commissioner, and 2) who is responsible for the decay of our downtown.

He is part of a small group of former commissioners leading the so-called group Save The Bayfront. This group paved over the bluff initially with parking lots. They and their small band of followers keep insisting downtown does not need to be redeveloped by a professional developer. Their pride is more important to them than what is best for all the citizens of Clearwater.

Mr. Deegan claims that Citizens for a Better Clearwater mailings are full of inaccuracies but fails to name even one. The remainder of his criticisms blindly meander around the issue: how to revive a dying downtown.

Who will benefit from downtown redevelopment? It is mind-boggling and frightening to hear someone who used to serve the city speak so ignorantly about economics. Our downtown is unable to support itself and is mostly useless to its citizens and those in the surrounding towns. In the present proposal, the library, movie theater, retail and restaurants located on and about the bluff will have full public use and enjoyment. Coachman Park, greatly expanded and beautified, will always and forever be owned by the city, with maintenance paid by the developer for 45 years. A leading economist has forecast conservatively that this redevelopment will pump $99-million in sales revenue and $4.5-million in new taxes into our city each year. How can there be any opposition to this?

Does Save the Bayfront have any constructive agenda at all? Their thinking is so small and fragmented, totally devoid of any professional urban planning advice, that they believe the city and its taxpayers should all get together themselves and fix the park and the Harborview Center and Cleveland Street at public expense. They've been working on this idea for the past 25 years, and we say we have waited long enough. It's time for a change.
-- Duane and Jill Rommel, Clearwater

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.