|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Redington Shores meeting report partial
Article published on Friday, Oct. 28, 2005 |
Editor:
I was extremely disappointed in the reporting made of the Redington Shores meeting of the town commissioners to address the four appeals about the blocking of the variances for the Palms of Redington Shores.
The meeting began under very strict rules of order laid down by Commissioner Lee Holmes. These rules were followed with respect and courtesy by all who participated. The meeting also included a public apology on the part of the commissioners for not notifying one of the appellants of the setback changes that drastically affected their property. In fact, this failure could be a cause for legal action.
At the end of the appeals and the defense by the builder, comments from the floor were to be allowed for one minute. Unfortunately, the commissioner allowed a
resident to deliver a five-minute rant against the four property owners that had appealed giving the impression that they were the only residents who were concerned by what many label as a “rush to building” that is establishing precedents that might be harmful to the town.
The commissioner said that he was “mesmerized” by the presentation and therefore did not keep the rules that the others had been respecting. The spirit of the meeting deteriorated quickly as the resident did not address the property issues but the character of those who made the appeal questioning their dedication to the community.
The impression was given that the residents of Redington Shores had been canvassed and were all in favor of what is being done. As one of the appellants, I have received many comments from other residents saying that they too were concerned but that they were afraid to voice their concerns because of intimidation. It is a “done deal” anyway, was the frequent comment. Once again I think it is important that we remember this is a town which should reflect our democratic principles where all sides are free to debate and that public input is important.
In the visioning process, there was much discussion of development on Gulf Boulevard. But now the building is beginning on two streets that are the only connectors to a large residential area that is behind the Parsley development.
On these streets there has been a rapid purchase of duplexes and building proposed that will create a “cement canyon” about a block long into this area. This is where the variances and setbacks were being questioned. In addition, many of us are concerned that the impact of the Parsley complex, the buildings on Gulf Boulevard and now the buildings on 175th Avenue and Terrace will not be a positive thing unless carefully planned for. They bring a tremendous impact on the infrastructure and environment, as well as traffic patterns of this area.
We are asking for caution in granting all these changes of code and variances until we can see what the impact actually is. Of course, the tax base increase is attractive and these figures seem to blind any careful consideration of their enormity. Sadly, the impression was given that there is unanimous agreement about this haste and many investors are enthusiastically jumping into the picture.
There are questions of conflict of interest and ethics that also need to be addressed and even more importantly the hope we all have for proper growth management so that Redington Shores will grow to be a healthy reflection of the best of a beach community. We all want a community that includes responsible citizens who feel free to take part actively in the many facets of our life here.
I was very sorry that the Beach Beacon article by Wayne Ayers reflected none of this.
Susan Guise
Redington Shores
|
Article published on Friday, Oct. 28, 2005
Copyright © Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tampa Bay Newspapers
9911 Seminole Blvd.
Seminole, FL 33772
(727) 397-5563
Open Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
|
|
