Northpinellas: 'Waterfront decline' should be defined

To justify change, one must have a problem; but problems don't dangle from trees waiting to be picked -- people create them. Johnson attempts to do so with the charge that "development along our waterfront is generally in decline." What can he mean? Which waterfront? Private buildings or public infrastructure?

Decline is a slippery slope, starting the day after construction, so at what point does decline become serious? If decline only means that the previous development hasn't been maintained -- e.g., peeling paint -- then a solution would not necessarily involve new development but only finding ways to motivate owners to maintain their properties. Unless Johnson can come up with precise criteria for "general decline," we could go on guessing all day.

The only clue he gives is the implication that the state of decline has reached such a low level that Clearwater is or soon will be losing out in the "competition" with other destinations for "high-quality tourists." According to several recent articles in the St. Petersburg Times and Tampa Tribune, we have no shortfall of tourists. Apparently, they are not "high quality" enough for Johnson.

But how can one tell a "high quality" from an "undesirable" tourist? By his income? Wealth? Where would he draw the line? Between Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates? Does he mean the many fans of Hulk Hogan or the few aficionados of Bela Bartok? As a wild guess, I suppose people just like himself, as his tastes are implied in his writing.

I gather that as a lawyer who can afford a jaunt up the coast to Maine in his private boat, Tim Johnson is well heeled. He probably lives in a fancy home, drives an expensive new car, recreates at exclusive clubs, and shops and dines only in upscale shops and restaurants.

Like most boat owners, he probably seldom sets foot on Clearwater Beach and would prefer that the waterfront come to him with expensively inviting shops accessible from a dock and boardwalk. He would likely also prefer not to rub elbows with common folk (except, perhaps, as paying clients), whom he apparently believes should -- in serving high-quality citizens like himself -- be seen but make no "noise," even while He & Company conspire to steal the beach and other waterfronts.

Maybe the City Commission ought to clone Tim Johnson a million times over and populate Clearwater Beach with him. That way, we'd at least have a bird in the hand instead of the elusive butterfly he would lure here with taxpayers footing the bill.
-- P.A. and W.F. Vassar, Clearwater

Hoodlums should concern chief more than dogs

Re: State-owned beaches don't banish dogs, letter by Clearwater police Chief Sid Klein, Aug. 26.

It's too bad that Chief Klein is not as concerned with protecting our beach visitors as he is with spelling out the right and wrong areas of the beach for dogs.

He says the Clearwater Police Department and the city of Clearwater take utmost pride in providing citizens and visitors with a safe and enjoyable atmosphere. If this is true, why is he cutting the number of officers who control trouble on our beach? He says to save dollars, due to the cutback asked for by the city. But doesn't it make more sense to keep the patrols there and avoid problems, which would cost more dollars in property loss and lawsuits filed by anyone injured on the beach due to the lack of police in the area?

Dogs in the area would seldom deter anyone from the beach, but hoodlums and troublemakers certainly would. Most people go to the beach to relax and enjoy the water, and don't want that time interrupted with caring for their animal; so there are really not that many dogs to be concerned with in the first place. Protecting the people is much more important, and I hope Chief Klein reads what he wrote and returns the patrols to the beach.

Let's protect our citizens and our visitors, as he said that is his job.
-- Fran Glaros, Clearwater

Dogs need leashes, but also exercise and socializing

This letter is in response to the letter written by the woman who complained about the dogs on Clearwater Beach and the letters that followed.

When I read these letters I try to be objective and look at both sides of the story. It appears that perhaps this lady is afraid of dogs or has been bitten, or maybe she is just trying to create a problem for dog owners.

It was unclear whether the canine criminals were on or off leashes. If they were off leashes, shame on the owners. All dogs should be on leashes unless they are in their own yards, and pet owners should be aware that there is a leash law in our county.

I have been working to establish an off-leash dog park in Tarpon Springs for the past year. Since my project began, several dog parks have opened in St. Petersburg, Tampa, Bradenton and Sarasota. These parks are safe, fenced areas where you can take your canine pals and let them run to their hearts' content.

I am a firm believer that it takes only one irresponsible dog owner to create a problem for the responsible owners. In other words, if one unleashed dog bites someone, all pet owners will pay for it in one way or another.

On the other hand, if the dogs in question are on leashes, I feel it is a bit ridiculous to ticket folks for walking them. Dogs need exercise, socialization and lots of fresh air and time with their human owners to have some fun, just like kids. Many people who have dogs never give them the attention they need, which can also lead to problems. Anyone interested in learning more about dog parks can go to www.dogpark.com.
-- Nancy Dively, Tarpon Springs

Back to North Pinellas news

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

Special Links

Mary Jo Melone

Howard Troxler

From the Times
North Pinellas desks