Letters to the Editors

New tennis stadium would not benefit average residents

© St. Petersburg Times,
published July 12, 2001

Re: Officials: WTA is economic win, July

Editor: Here we go again! In spite of just about all the evidence from independent economists nationwide that the government financing of sports stadiums and facilities simply does not benefit the average person, we have the local politicians all giddy about spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a tennis stadium.

Absurd comments such as "money will flow into the county" simply have no basis in fact. Probably the most ridiculous of all these comments is the one by Chairman Simon who says, in part, "The WTA's announcement could not only bring major tennis tournaments to Pasco but also the Olympic games in 2012." I won't digress into the argument as to whether Tampa is a suitable site for the Olympics (it isn't) but even if it were, a tennis site would rank about 96th in the criteria the Olympic Committee uses to grade prospective cities.

Let's take a look at how the "money will flow into the county." Once the stadium is built, how many major tournaments do you think would be held there every year? One, maybe two? Assuming there would be capacity crowds of 5,000, how many would be locals who would be simply diverting the dollars they would spend here elsewhere to the Saddlebrook complex?

The impact of the comparatively few out-of-towners who would drive in for the event so minuscule that it isn't worth of mention.

I would suggest to the County Commission that before it rushes into commiting the county to millions of dollars, that it seeks the advice of outside, respected, independent economists to determine what the true economic impact of this venture would be.

I would further suggest that if the county has "$5-million stockpiled," there are far better ways to spend it.

Don't pander to the folks at Saddlebrook, they've got plenty of money. If they want a tennis stadium, let them build it themselves.
-- Bill Bravick, New Port Richey

Don't label breeds "vicious"

Re: When a vicious dog bites, owner should be punished, June 29 Jeff Webb column

Editor: The outrageous article Jeff Webb wrote on vicious dogs is the second most asinine article I have had the misfortune to read regarding vicious dogs, the first was the Dog World article about Germany's vicious dog law.

Jeff Webb's article only shows how vicious the power of an editor who has no knowledge is and the danger he presents to hundreds of thousands of good dogs. The only part of his article that is correct is: "Dogs don't kill people, people allow dogs to kill people."

No breed of dog has any more or less ability to be vicious. I work with every breed of dog and in any given day handle several pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German shepherds. The rare dog in these breeds that causes a problem does not warrant these breeds being labeled vicious. On the other hand, it is the rare chihuahua that does not attempt to tear one to shreds.

Dogs that kill are owned by irresponsible people, and the breed has no bearing on this fact. Put an end to irresponsible dog owners, don't label breeds. The law should be very clear on correct confinement of animals. A farmer can't own cows, horses, pigs, etc., without a proper fence to confine such animals. Why are dog or cat owners not required to confine their animals in the same fashion? All owners of animals should be required by law to have a fence (cyclone) constructed to contain the animal, no exceptions.

Jeff Webb states that reasonable care would be to chain the dog. This is inhumane treatment of any animal and in fact causes frustrated-aggression response from dogs.

Let us look at senseless deaths and injuries, and the cause of all of them: irresponsible people. This is the answer to every death and every injury from dog bites to other animal attacks, car crashes to drowning, shootings to stabbing to bombings; humans are the cause, not "menacing mutts." Let us fill in and tear down all the swimming pools; they have been the cause of more deaths and injury than dogs. Let's ban all cars and travel, far more deaths and injury caused here. Let's ban all guns and the right to bear arms. Let's have the Jeff Webbs in the world make a safe world for us and our children. Of course, he would have to start by eradicating all irresponsible people from the face of the earth. I don't believe this will leave any one of them to euthanize the menacing mutts because all of us have at one time done something that could have been considered irresponsible.
-- Sylvia Brlecic, Hudson

Gun shows, shops not the problem

Re: Pawn shop loophole: victory for criminals, June 29 letter

Editor: The writer has offered numerous letters on the subject of gun show loopholes, now he's into pawnshop loopholes. This person is still harping about laws that exist that he does not like.

First it was the gun shows, and how criminals and mental patients would purchase guns at Pasco County gun shows! First statement of correction: Pasco County never has had a gun show. The National Instant Checking Systemthat took effect Nov. 30, 1998, creates a national database containing records of persons who are disqualified from receiving firearms. Under NICS, dealers must clear every firearms purchase through a background check of the prospective buyer by the FBI. It requires a dealer to contact NICS and provide an operator with: (a) his FFL number and required password; (b) the buyers name, date of birth, sex, race; (c) and the gun information. That operator checks all given information against NICS database of prohibited persons; and then if all's well, the sale is approved.

The studies by the National Institute of Justice showed that criminal purchases of firearms at gun shows was so rare and insignificant that those purchases were not worth reporting as a separate category. When they were measured, it was learned that the percentage was 1.07-percent from gun shows and the same for flea markets! The real source was friends and families with that number at 35.4 percent.

The writer goes on to claim that the chief commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, James T. Moore, "caved in to a demand by the NRA to destroy all pawnshop transaction data in 48 hours." Chief James Moore did not cave in, he just followed the law! And, yes, the NRA did call it gun registration and that was the opinion of the courts, too, as this is when this correction was made.

The claim that this data will allow police to catch criminals is truly overstated. At best the remaining information will allow the police to recover stolen property (guns).

Last, he continues to credit the NRA and, at a local level, the Buntings and their Spirit of '76 Republican Club, formerly known as the Second Amendment Republican Club, as the spearhead for this action. Yes, we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment. This is not brought on by paranoia about gun registration but by freedom!
-- James W. Coakley, New Port Richey Spirit of '76 Republican Club member

More sales tax? Forget about it

Editor: This is my answer to the Pasco County commissioners proposed additional one-penny sales tax. Forget about it.

The majority of Pasco residents do not want the burden of additional taxes. Our parks are empty a good portion of the time and are used by a select portion of the population. It is unfair to tax all of the residents for the benefit of a few or to fuel the ego of some of our commissioners. We cannot live with more taxes. So forget about it. We will not vote for more taxes.
-- Mariano Aleci, Port Richey

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

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