- November 23, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
+ Negative letters are usually uninformed and self-destructive
Dear Editor:
After reading Saturday’s letters to editor, I’ve finally had it with all the negative comments. This is the last time I will look at that section of the paper. It is too upsetting reading all those hyped-up and many times unsubstantiated complaints about our city. Here is my final rebuttal:
It seems common practice that the people who criticize the most are the ones who are the most uninformed. First of all, to cut down a tree does require a permit; however, that costs zero dollars.
Second, why not have a beautiful City Hall in Town Center? At least we would have a good grip on where our money went.
I am so tired of the grumbling. Maybe it’s the struggles everyone seems to be going through because of the economic environment. But, that is no cause to dis on the city as some very unhappy folks continually do. Get a life, people!
And, maybe you should consider relocating if Palm Coast annoys you so much. Again, stop the complaining. You are giving the rest of us a big headache. And this is something all you negative residents might want to consider the next time you send in a complaint: If someone from another part of the country is considering moving to Palm Coast (and relieving you of that big home mortgage you have), they won’t consider it after reading all the negative comments you complainers send into The Observer. Duh!
Luca Rezia
Palm Coast
+ Buy City Marketplace, don’t build a new City Hall
Dear Editor:
I agree with Ray Thomann and Ralph Moniello that if the city officials feel that they have to have a new City Hall, why not buy City Marketplace or any of the other vacant pre-existing buildings available?
In these hard economic times I am really tired and frustrated with some people and their attitudes. I look at the Taj Mahal and think, Haven’t we learned anything? Let’s not go down that road again. I am urging that before any ground is broken this be brought back to a vote for the citizens to decide if they want to pay for a new building in the Town Center. Was building there ever promised to anyone as a ploy to get others to build there? Apparently, the 80% of Palm Coast residents who were against it in 2005, when times were better, doesn’t count.
Annie Badger
Palm Coast
+ City should find a less expensive option than building City Hall
Dear Editor:
After some time, I have been snapped out of apathy to take on a letter regarding a City Hall for Palm Coast. I agree with just about all the letters in the May 16 edition of the Palm Coast Observer.
We’ve got enough large, empty buildings that are suitable for city offices; for instance the “yellow castle,” as someone called it, that sits near Kohl’s in the median between Palm Coast Parkway east and west.
City Marketplace hasn’t exactly been booming, so what’s wrong with staying there and helping them out? Oh, and yeah, forget about moving down to State Road 100. Palm Coast Parkway is Palm Coast and has been for years!
But does anyone wonder why we build such grand edifices that have such high domes and ceilings? They cost so much to heat and cool.
Then we hear about the expense of utilities and how we have to increase the water and electric costs? It’s a vicious cycle! And, does anyone care about the elderly on fixed incomes or those who cannot afford any more taxes? Our officials are servants of the people. Spend our money wisely.
Elizabeth Williams
Palm Coast
+ County v. city on interchange: who’s in charge here?
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to Mayor Netts’ question to Mr. Coffey about the Matanzas Woods and Interstate 95 interchange. He asked, “Why build it in the first place?”
To save lives, mayor.
I thought that this interchange was mandated by the Department of Transportation. It is an evacuation issue. Exit 289 will not be able to handle all the traffic.
I bought my house almost seven years ago knowing that Palm Coast was going to get another exit north of Palm Coast Parkway. I also knew that they were going to do the Old Kings Road extension also, but since the county is “hostage-taking and holding our assets for ransom,” there is no telling when that is going to happen.
The citizens of Palm Coast need to vote very carefully at the upcoming election. There seems to be a $2.1 million difference in how much money is in the “pot of impact fees.” The mayor says that there is twice as much money in this fund than the county reports. Who is in charge here?
Art Frost
Palm Coast
+ More objectivity needed in discussion of elderly driver safety
Dear Editor:
The May 9 Michael Nishti Jr. letter is fine for Christians, I guess. However, it doesn’t help atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. I suggest Mr. Nishti check out the Insurance Institute of America, which compiles all types of driving statistics. They are used extensively by insurance companies to guide them in the rates to be charged.
This doesn’t require anyone to have a particular faith, and it is much more objective.
Richard G. Smith
Palm Coast
+ Don’t cut costs by failing to maintain city’s clay courts
Dear Editor:
Clay tennis courts take a lot of maintenance, including watering the courts twice a day, rolling the courts and taking personal care of a few rough spots.
Some of the pro players for the Futures event held here in January claim that they could not slide well on the Palm Coast Tennis Center courts. On clay, you have to slide and then load for the shot. If you can’t do this, your timing is off.
If the city wants to save money, this is not the approach to take. Find other ways to cut overhead. Watering the courts is the last thing you want to cut off.
Joe Sheldon
PTR AA Certified Tennis Teacher
Solution to pay for stormwater is still leaky
+ New fee system is unwise, prohibitive, regressive
Dear Editor:
Replacing of the stormwater maintenance fee in Palm Coast with the recent proposal by the City Council to put a 6% tax on the electric utility rates for homeowners isn’t a wise idea.
The 6% tax on utilities is a regressive tax on the citizens of the city. The mayor and the two other council members who voted for this are retreating from their prior positions and their campaign promises. The reasons it is a prohibitive and regressive tax are as follows:
1. Because they don’t have any utilities yet, owners of undeveloped land will not contribute. However, they are all benefiting from the protection of the swales runoff system.
2. It taxes communities that have their own stormwater facilities.
3. It is an excessive penalty to year-round residents.
4. You will discourage businesses from coming or staying here if the electric rates get too high.
5. Government and education expenses will go up also.
6. Undue burden on local churches and nonprofits in the area.
It is the wrong time and the wrong place. With a large number of people unemployed and foreclosures and bankruptcies, it puts an undue burden in an economic time of distress.
This is a utilities electric tax, which has nothing to do with the runoff swale usage. Find another way to raise the funds needed that is more equitable to all residents of Palm Coast and somehow includes the landowners as well.
Charles J. Trautwein
Palm Coast
