+ Editorial was not a smart critique on current issues
Shame on your newspaper for publishing the clearly racist and insanely stupid article, “What would the state of the union in 2017 be?”
There is nothing wrong with a news outlet promoting conservative ideals and ideas. As a “progressive,” I rejoice in the battle of ideas and our Constitution enshrines your right in its very First Amendment. However, Adams’ article, while similarly protected, is an affront to your readership and your editorial oversight. A full two-column, quarter-page rant, right out of the John Birch Society, is worthy of editorial glorification?
And what is Adams’ message? That a black president would deign to place his face on our currency and erect a statue and a Mount Rushmore likeness in “our America”? Really, how absurd is that. Or that the government will go “door to door” to confiscate all the firearms in the United States. Or conservative voices will be silenced based on “congressional authorization.” Or a suspension of our Constitution will be sanctioned by a “packed” Supreme Court? This is a thoughtful and sober analysis of our future? This is a view of such importance to your readers that it merits a prominent place on your editorial page?
Let’s just briefly examine what Adams is postulating. First, that President Obama will be so popular that he will be able to do all these things. Second, members of Congress will be elected to support such a course, thus reflecting, apparently, the will of all Americans. Third, that government will become incredibly capable of achieving all of Adams’ nefarious ends (hey, I thought government was totally inept at achieving anything. Gee, was I wrong). Finally, a “progressive supermajority” in 2012? You mean Adams thinks that the Democrats will be so successful over the next two years that they will overwhelm those poor Republicans all across the country?
At least do your readership one favor. Publish honest and intelligent critiques on pressing issues of our day. Don’t speak down to your loyal readers. We aren’t that stupid.
Longboat Key; Canton, Ohio
+ In the past, Longboat has been a well-controlled town
I wish to express my concern regarding the proposal by the Longboat Key Club to redevelop its property. I do not wish to bore you with all the pros and cons that each side is putting forth, except to say that I agree with most of the reasons I have heard that are not supporting this enormous project. What I would like to express is my concern if the politicians on this island take it upon themselves to disregard the codes by which we all have to live.
This project is hardly a little bending of the rules, and if this radical change to Longboat Key is to take place it needs to be accomplished in the traditional democratic way, which is to let the elected officials run for their positions based on what they feel is their future vision for the island. Longboat has been a well controlled community, and I believe most residents appreciate this style of government. I can’t help but think back to several years ago when Lynches’ Landing was forced to cut off one leaf of its shamrock sign to comply with the town’s stringent sign code. Are we still on the same island?
+ Longboat should continue to move toward its future
I am a longtime property owner in both counties of Longboat Key. The Key is dying, in many ways, because its life-support plan began decades ago. Progress has occurred. The plan (insular dream?) no longer works, if ever it did. To ignore this obvious change and to claim decay as preservation and vitality is futile. Let the dead bury the dead, and those of us, the living, move toward the dawn of the new day.
Longboat Key has a future (undeniably an insular future) that the “guardians” of Longboat Key cannot begin to understand. We can change, yet maintain the basic principals that the “guardians” found so dear to their hearts, by modernizing and prospering.
Robert C. Hutchinson, M.D.
+ Longboat Key Club could open Islandside to all residents
It would be nice if the town could somehow work into its negotiations with the Longboat Key Club a way that a certain percentage of the tee times at the Islandside golf course could be made available to the public at a fair and reasonable greens fee throughout the day year-round. This certainly would help its cash flow and help it in its expansion endeavors by being good neighbors to island residents who are not members of the Key Club but wish to stay on the Key for golf. From driving by the course, it does not appear to get much usage and this might be a win/win for all parties. We could even let those Key Club residents behind the gates have preferential tee times to appease their opposition.
Paul B. Ahern
+ The results of the Key Club project would benefit Key Club
Editor’s note: This letter was sent to town commissioners and The Longboat Observer
Please take a stand on the only guaranteed benefit to the people of Longboat Key as a result of the Longboat Key Club and Resort’s project.
As a pre-condition to approval of this project, require the Longboat Key Club to obey Florida Statute XXIII, paragraph 316.1995 and Longboat Key Ordinance 73.05. These laws oblige the Key Club to keep its golf vehicles off the sidewalk/bicycle path that runs between the Moorings Marina and the flagpole near the Bay Isles north gate.
The project is being sold as a boon for all residents of Longboat Key. Yet the probable results of the project are:
1. Massive traffic jams at the south end of Gulf of Mexico Drive — does anyone believe the additional one car per hour fairy tale?
2. Increased property values — only for the Key Club.
3. A boost for island businesses — for St. Armands Circle, maybe.
4. Increased town taxbase — likely to be entirely consumed to provide increased services to the Key Club.
In short, the only guaranteed benefit to Longboat Key would be to require the Key Club to obey the law.
Scofflaws make bad neighbors.
Dr. Robert J. Tata