Letters to the Editors

Development of waterfront requires referendum

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 27, 1999

Re: Rebuilding public trust key to decision on bluff, column, Aug. 17. The reader cannot help but feel sorry for Jack Reed's "sadness" at viewing Clearwater's waterfront. If a picture like this makes him sad, I hope he never suffers any real personal misfortune.

This editorial was 11 paragraphs too long. In the 12th paragraph we read advice well worth heeding, not only by residents and city officials to whom it was addressed, but also by editorial writers. Putting aside the paternalistic style always used by the press (You need to do this; you should do that), it is probably good advice that all concerned "keep an open mind ... share all the information they have ... and make decisions that are good for the overall city."

If the writer of this piece had an open mind, he might realize that city officials over the years have left the bayfront as dictated by the city charter -- for open-space recreation purposes. If he shared all the information he has, he would not say, "Development of public land may require residents' approval in a referendum," but that it does require a referendum -- because he knows that the land from the water to Osceola Avenue is so protected by the charter.

Finally, I would invite the Times to print this same photo (sad as it may make some people feel) next to a copy of an artist's rendering of what the proposed new bridge will look like and ask the readers which picture causes more sadness.
-- Arthur X. Deegan II,
former city commissioner, Clearwater

Don't let Save the Bayfront derail waterfront development

Re: Clearwater ready to seek proposals for bluff project, story, Aug. 21.

Echoing Ronald Reagan's "There you go again," Clearwater's old-guard and former city bosses formed Save the Bayfront to thwart Clearwater's renaissance. No surprise here: These champions of malaise vie to smash more improvement proposals.

Disposition of Clearwater's bluff will occur through a referendum. Ironically, former city lords who spoke of "the people's bluff" failed to include "the people" when ramming Harborview down the taxpayers' throats.

Clearwater's mayor, commissioners and Times editorial editor Jack Reed agree Clearwater's bluff is sad and ugly. Commissioner Bob Clark bristled with appropriate disgust at the deceptive Save the Bayfront ad campaign. The Bayfront crowd could do Clearwater a favor by nixing the propaganda and working constructively with the city of Clearwater.

Mayor, commissioners and city manager: Stay the course.
-- William Blackwood, Clearwater

Clearwater can do without Scientologists or their money

Leave Clearwater alone. If we need any improvements, we'll do it when it's necessary. It's bad enough that that roundabout is absolutely a nothing -- just a waste of taxpayer money.
Irene Foley, Clearwater

Support for Roberto is really Scientologists returning favor

Does it really surprise any thoughtful reader that there has suddenly developed an "outpouring of public support" for (Clearwater City Manager) Mike Roberto by Scientologists in the form of "spontaneous" letters and e-mail directed to the Times?

Add those letters to the few other "spontaneous" letters from allegedly disinterested readers supporting Roberto and were it not for the perceptive analysis of the "spontaneity" by a discerning and informative Times, there would be created an illusion of a growing ground swell of support for Mr. Roberto by the general citizenry of Clearwater.

Since the apparently collusive Clearwater commissioners have empowered him as city manager, given him the key to the vault and turned him loose, Roberto has directed every effort toward extravagantly spending the taxpayers' money on people and projects that are intended to increase the wealth of downtown property owners and business interests.

There is probably no more successful or larger property owner in downtown Clearwater than the Church of Scientology. Rather than resent it, we should admire the old-fashioned American business acumen of Scientologists if they have in fact orchestrated "spontaneous" support for a city manager who clearly works so diligently on their behalf.
Anthony J. Wickel, Clearwater

Roberto, Scientologists share goal: squeezing Clearwater

Why don't we just buy up all the beachfront property and hand it over to Scientologists so we'll have less property on the tax roles. Then we can raise taxes to make up the shortfall.

Seems like that's what we are doing now. Roberto and the L. Ron Hubbard crowd need to go.
Scott Maurer, Clearwater

Officials should listen before spending tax dollars

Who benefits from this building? It will be the builders, lawyers and consultants whose pockets will be lined with silver. Certainly it will not be the citizens of Clearwater. The commissioners and mayor are risking our money in this venture. It will no doubt be brought to litigation. Placing the city in the position of being a partner to private enterprise is risky in itself.

I am also appalled at the decision of the mayor and commissioners to open doors to serious redevelopment of our downtown bayfront. A nice marina with a restaurant and enlargement of the existing Coachman Park would be wonderful. But I think that there is a great deal of distrust of city government at this point.

One last concern. Why would we allow Scientologists to begin to build a massive building downtown without addressing their parking needs? Would you have allowed any other commercial or religious organization to build without a parking plan? What promises have been given to this group?

Please, mayor and commissioners, listen to what the taxpayers are saying about the irresponsible ways in which you are spending our hard-earned dollars.
Pat Dowling, Clearwater

Freedom Park deserves support and appreciation

I choked on my breakfast when I read the tirade on former commissioners' Bayfront efforts. To disagree over public policies and political efforts is everyone's right. However, I am appalled at the attack on Freedom Park in downtown Clearwater.

Several years ago Fred Thomas, a private businessman, took a ragged piece of property that he could have used to expand his thriving business and decided to use his own funds to give something back to the city. He chose to remind us of the principles on which our country was founded and the people who gave the ultimate sacrifice so we may still enjoy those principles (yes, even the freedom to write the letter of Aug. 23).

At the dedication of the park, we were honored to have Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, give a speech celebrating our freedoms and remembering the very high price that was paid for them. I am sure that he and all the veterans who fought so that we have those freedoms today would hardly feel that Freedom Park is an eyesore.

What has the letter writer done lately for the city with his private funds, and what is his next target? The Vietnam Wall?

I hope he is as ashamed of himself as I am of him.
Suzanne Boschen, Clearwater Beach

Redevelopment would only add to beach clutter

Revitalization in its broadest interpretation is disturbing. In my Naked Truth Dictionary it is listed as a synonym for destruction and disappointment.

The roundabout is bad enough. The current proposal to establish certain Clearwater Beach property as a "revitalization/redevelopment area" is one step more in the transformation of Clearwater Beach from what attracted so many beachgoers to just another gaudy, unattractive, pseudo-grandiose blunder. There is already too much clutter on the beach resulting in a rapidly disappearing view of the gulf.

While on the subject of beaches, publicity should be given to the terrible mess being made of local beaches through so-called renourishment. Dirty, coarse bottom sand full of rocks and sharp broken shells has degraded Indian Rocks Beach and given new meaning to its name, Indian Rocks Beach. This mess was bad enough, but the results on Indian Shores and southward is absolutely the worst example of such ill-conceived and totally misguided projects. The fact that this disaster is receiving no publicity and is being allowed to continue is beyond my understanding.

My guess is that the explanation for such situations is power-play and the almighty dollars that go with it.
James W. Kiehl, Largo

Back to Tampa Bay area news

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.