Re: Judge faces suspension, fine, story, April 30.
The last thing needed by our much-maligned judicial system is a prevaricating judge. The courtroom has always been and must continue to be a bastion of fact-finding and truth-seeking, or at least a close approximation thereof.
It is therefore totally unacceptable for Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge John Renke III, a self-confessed misrepresenter of the truth about both his own and his opponent's qualifications in the 2002 campaign, to continue holding the position he has held since then. To be a bit less politically correct: His honor is a liar.
There were additional violations of the judicial code of conduct regarding his support from the Republican Party in a supposedly nonpartisan campaign. Still another complaint is currently being investigated by the Florida Elections Commission.
Even his mea culpa before the Judicial Qualifications Commission was less than forthcoming when the 34-year-old jurist qualified his stipulation to wrongdoing by claiming that to do otherwise would have "hampered his current duties on the bench."
A fine and one-month suspension will do nothing to compensate his losing opponent who perhaps, except for the misrepresentations, would himself now be enjoying the comfortable salary, perks and prestige of a circuit court judgeship.
True justice requires nothing less than Renke's removal from the bench. The Florida Supreme Court should reject the wrist-slapping recommendations of the JQC and in so doing take one small step toward restoring public confidence in our third branch of government.
-- Phillips M. Evans Esq., Largo
Clearwater council must stop wasting our money
Re: Delay leaves city with camp bill, story, May 4.
It's described as a 20-minute delay that cost the city of Clearwater $52,200. The city's Park and Recreation director, Kevin Dunbar, calls it a mistake caused by an unintentional oversight. A staff member misplaced the grant application under another pile of paperwork.
Call it whatever you want, it's still not excusable. I, a taxpayer, will in the long run end up paying for the error. Shame on the City Council for agreeing to pick up the tab at a time when the city has a freeze on hiring due to budget cuts. Shame on myself and everyone else that voted them in.
My question to the council is: Do we need a funded camp program in the North and South Greenwood neighborhoods when there are existing state-of-the-art recreation complexes nearby? I don't think so. Quit wasting our money and understand that you are accountable.
-- J.J. TenBieg, Clearwater
Walkover bridges may save lives of pedestrians
Re: Pedestrians rejoice: Where cars rule, feet find way, story, May 3.
I am happy to see that efforts are being made (to provide for pedestrians) along U.S. 19. For years I have heard county commissioners saying that Pinellas County must be more pedestrian friendly. The construction of these sidewalks is a great start.
However, sidewalks do not help people cross U.S. 19. The county really should look into having walkover bridges along U.S. 19. Having them on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is needed as well. I can't tell you how many times I have sat at a stoplight on Gulf-to-Bay and watched as an elderly person tries to cross the street on foot. They barely make it.
Pedestrian bridges would not only make our streets safer for pedestrians, they could also improve the look of our roadways in these busy, sometimes ugly parts of our county. These bridges could be dressed up to look good and to match the surrounding area by using plants, lights and a little imagination.
To encourage people to get out and walk and bike ride, the county needs to provide the infrastructure for us to do so. This would definitely help reduce traffic congestion.
-- Bob Padgett, Clearwater
All drivers should pay to park in metered spots
Re: Rules make parking tougher for disabled, story, May 2.
The sympathy begins with the headline and grows with the story. Disabled and elderly citizens were being forced to "wheel" and "hobble" across a parking lot at the Clearwater marina in order to avoid being given a parking ticket.
This, however, is not entirely true. Those wishing to are more than welcome to park in metered spots without being ticketed - as long as they put some change in the meter. Why shouldn't someone pay for using the spots? The idea of handicapped parking is not to allow people a free place to park, but a larger, closer parking spot.
Yes, complain that there are not enough handicapped spots. And, yes, park in the metered spots and pay for it.
-- Victoria Johnson, St. Petersburg
[Last modified May 11, 2004, 01:50:32]
