Letters to the Editors

Airport okay; jets and night flying, no way

© St. Petersburg Times, published November 5, 2000

Re: Residents knew of airpark when they moved there, Oct. 26 letter.

Yes, this subject has come up before about us homeowners knowing about the Clearwater Airpark when we bought our homes here.

I bought my home in the same subdivision where my grandparents settled. I enjoyed many vacations here for more than 20 years, and yes, I knew the airpark was here.

What I didn't know or count on was the volume of traffic that has been increasing the past few years and the repeated infractions of night flying. On Oct. 21, my entire household was awakened by the rumble of what I assumed to be a double prop plane taking off at 3:20 in the morning. Supposedly, the airpark has hired security guards to curtail this.

Another concern is the use of the airpark by jet airplanes. Just this afternoon, Oct. 26, at approximately 1:15 p.m., a jet plane took off, causing the windows in my house to rattle and my neighbor's car alarm to go off, not to mention causing a ringing in my ears. I called the airpark and they confirmed that a jet had just taken off from there. Now we are going to allow jet planes to use this airport in close proximity to homes?

These were things I never counted on or expected when I purchased my home here. These are the concerns the residents of this area are trying to get addressed.

I believe the airpark should remain open and be upgraded, because as another letter writer expressed, in the event of a major hurricane, it may be the only way on and off this point in Pinellas County. I don't find the present level of traffic to be more than a simple annoyance at times. I find the ambulance sirens on Sunset Point to be more annoying.

But what I and my neighbors do not support is the expansion to allow more traffic, especially jet planes, or the continual violation of the night-flying rules.
-- Nanette Angelone, Clearwater

Activity Center needs money, more support

Re: Palm Harbor Senior Activity Center.

The Palm Harbor area has been in need of a facility to meet the growing needs of the community. It has started by replacing the old senior center with the new one to add programs for senior citizens. The operating costs and the problems arising from the lack of capital were not addressed by the county.

Our organization, the Bay Area Bridal Association, has referred many a bride to this beautiful facility to have her reception. But this only covers some of the revenue needed to maintain the senior center.

Director Irene Rausch and her staff and volunteers have done an excellent job, but the solution is more community awareness. The center should be expanded to include recreation facilities, workout rooms, volleyball and basketball courts, cheerleading and other youth-oriented programs. Change the name to the Palm Harbor Community Center and ask for more money from the citizens and everyone will support the center.
-- John Wiser, Clearwater

Seniors didn't ask for this crisis

Re: Future of senior center rests on quarter-mill tax, Oct. 29 editorial recommendation.

We did not need this crisis forced upon us, and crisis is exactly what this proposed tax is because we now have a new building, the Palm Harbor Senior Activity Center, with insufficient funds for its operation. Does this smack of a plan?

In lieu of this tax, why not share the proceeds of the Palm Harbor recreational tax with our senior citizens instead of allowing the lion's share to be used primarily for youth programs? Share and share alike seems fair for all.

Let us vote no on this new tax proposal.
-- P. Romano, Palm Harbor

Planning council biased toward cities

Eleven of the 13 members of the Pinellas Planning Council are mayors and officials of cities. They definitely are biased in favor of the municipalities. They refuse to try to understand the concerns of the people in the unincorporated areas.

If the annexation ordinance is approved, it will replace part of Florida Statute 171 and give the county a blank check to set all rules, guidelines and geographic boundaries for annexations. This severely restricts the rights of the people in the unincorporated areas. This is not government by the people, for the people.
-- Betty Bootier, unincorporated Pinellas near Seminole

© 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