Letters to the Editors

County's stand on big signs is welcomed

Re: County cracks down on big signs, Dec. 9.

It is about time our county commissioners took a stand for the residents of Pasco County and are making an effort to reduce the blight that is foisted upon them by the companies that are in the advertising and retail business.

I thank the commissioners for recognizing the need for some action, although it is long overdue. Of course, the more recently elected members of the commission cannot be blamed for the sins of the past, but perhaps they can attempt to correct those sins. Better late than never.

The retailers who claim to need ever bigger and brighter signs to catch the eye of the motoring public seem to fare just fine in other counties and cities in Florida where not only billboards are prohibited, but all free standing signs as well. In fact, these retailers gladly conform to local building codes that require that specific attractive facades be placed on these retail establishments so that they fit in with the surroundings.

The Super Wal-Mart on U.S. 19 and Ridge Road replaced an eyesore of the first degree, but it is still an eyesore. The same on State Road 54 and Little Road. Is it possible that unneeded concessions were made to the builders of these outlets so that the tax collectors could pull in a few more bucks? Amazingly enough, this ban on signage in those areas has significantly increased property values in those areas. In short, those residents are prospering.

Of course, the losers are the advertising and billboard companies. But, I didn't think that the residents of Pasco County had a responsibility to ensure that billboard companies were profitable.
-- Russell R. Suereth, New Port Richey

Anti-gun letter displays lack of constitutional basics

Re: Insurance could soar due to guns, Dec. 9 letter.

Editor: As a high school social studies teacher, I was shocked at the letter writer's lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. This is especially troubling given the fact that the writer claims to be a full-time anti-gun lobbyist. One would assume a competent lobbyist would have a basic understanding of our government and legal system.

The writer states that the City Council should "stop listening to statements about what is and is not constitutional. He must not know that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and has been since 1788. No one is above the U.S. Constitution, not the president of the United States, not the City Council, and certainly not anti-gun activists. The U.S. Constitution reigns supreme.

The letter writer then goes on to suggest that the city should circumvent federal and state laws when writing their employee manual. This statement as well as saying the city may be uninsurable if they follow the law is just unbelievable.

I would like to suggest that the letter writer seriously consider taking a basic government or civics class at the community college or adult evening school. I think he would find these classes to be interesting and informative. They may also prove to be a good occupational asset for this lobbyist. Good luck to him.
-- Eric Stallworth, Holiday

Destroying homes won't make residents go away

Editor: Seven years ago this month, we came here to retire. A city can illegally destroy homes, and if you complain, you will soon find what Seeberism (after New Port Richey's Gerald Seeber) is about. They start out lying to you, to make you go away. When that doesn't work, and you approach the City Council, you get the same thing.

Jasmine Acres was built on a natural canal, with gulf access, that also was a perfect drainage system. There was no flooding from rain, and only once would have flooded from the gulf in the last 50 years. When the city and county blocked this canal at Oelsner and again at Limit Street, the flooding started, and it has turned us into a flood-prone area. Although we have proof of this, anyone with a third grade education and common sense can see what caused this.

When we went to the City Council, members wanted the city engineer to do a study on this. For something so simple, I could not understand why. When he gave his report, then I knew why. He lied. He was told what to say. Seeber got fooled, as we were supposed to go away then, and they could finish destroying this area. We did not go away.

The DOT came and disagreed with what he told this council. Blocking people's drainage system and causing people's homes to flood is against the law. Even Seeberism can't do that. Then they started making false promises, that doesn't happen. Seeber is determined to destroy us. He knows we are right, and so does the City Council. Seeber contacted the Department of Community Affairs for help. That was another stunt by him.

The article saying homes must go because of flooding was caused by this city. We know developers are interested in Jasmine Acres. If they could buy us out cheap, they could build condos and have a beautiful waterfront area again. This could be the reason -- they are determined to keep us flooding.

The people that came to see this when they were running for office were amazed and really wanted to get this taken care of. What changed their minds after they were elected? Whatever it was, they are just as guilty of destroying people's homes.

Termination is too good for Seeber. We thank the people from other areas that are helping us with this, and we won't quit. When this city says the Pledge of Allegeance, it is a disgrace to democracy and the flag should be removed.

If the people are interested in seeing what has been done to us, I would be happy to show you.
Bill Langston, New Port Richey

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

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