Letters to the editor

Ravaudage will shine

Thank you for the article concerning the Winter Park Commission meeting in reference to the Ravaudage development (“Burn 54 acres, save $1 million” published March 29). I am one person living close to the area and have been looking forward to its completion for years. It would be a positive improvement for that area of Winter Park and would provide many job opportunities for citizens.

Accordingly, I don’t understand why commissioner Carolyn Cooper “said she was worried that the rights of nearby property owners weren’t being respected in terms of impact to their properties and businesses by the large development.” As one of the citizens affected, I’m sure that the long term “impact” will be positive, not negative, as her thinking seems to indicate. When the project is finished, home values in the area will increase, shopping will be well within walking distance, and the area, which is now not eye-pleasing at all, will basically “shine” in comparison.

I researched the air curtain burner proposed by developer Dan Bellows. It’s an excellent solution. I suggest that all Commission members research its use and affects. I’m sure no one will then have reservations and will do what must be done to allow Mr. Bellows to use the machine to eliminate debris. The million dollars saved could then be used to make the development even better in some way. One million dollars saved could translate into many employment opportunities. Even if burning does cause some temporary smoke conditions, it should be well known by our community leaders that true progress does not come without some short-term inconveniences. To think otherwise would be tantamount to living in Florida and thinking one would never suffer the inconvenience caused by a hurricane.

One more thing… its being catty-cornered to our present successful area, the Winter Park Village, will be a great expansion of that type of shopping and living area. In the future I can even foresee funds being allocated to build a walkover bridge at the intersection of Lee Road and U.S. Highway 17-92 to allow free and unencumbered access between the two without the hassle of trying to cross heavily travelled roads.

—Donald E. Long

Winter Park

Reasons for apathy are obvious

Mr. Mayor (Howard Schieferdecker):

This is my first letter or contact with the Maitland City Council in two years for reasons that I won’t go into, but at least a number of you are aware of why.

As some of you may remember, the Council passed an ordinance to allow seven-story buildings within the CRA (community redevelopment area). There was a large petition, I believe over 800 signatures, whatever was required, to not build above four stories and have a referendum. The council relented and removed the ordinance rather than have it go to referendum, which they knew the petitioners would prevail. I now see that you’re trying to go to eight stories in the CRA. So what you are basically saying is, we thumb our nose at the public and do what we want. You now have only 20 people comment on the CRA and you wonder why!

Prior to the petition, the city had to hold a council meeting at a basketball court arena because there were 500-plus people that came out to protest not only the height, but also the general CRA debt that the city would incur and their whole CRA methodology. After that meeting it was like all of the people who made presentations could have been talking to a wall. The message received by the public was, we will do what we want, and you, the public, have no say. The same could be said for all of the fake workshops the city held, a sham. You now have only 20 people comment on the CRA and you wonder why!

During that time period, there were citizens who came to speak to the council. One was a city planner who does work around the USA, another a shopping center expert and the list goes on. They all had the same message: the CRA will be a fiasco. (Orange County Property Appraiser) Bill Donegan came down on at least three occasions to inform the council that his staff performed an analysis on the CRA and found it to be financially unsustainable. In any event it didn’t matter who came to the Council, it had the same effect as talking to a blank wall. Today with as little as has been done, the city has to put in about $1 million/year from the general fund to cover the $24 million ($40 million with interest) debt that the city took on. On top of that, the city put a tax on everyone to cover a shortfall. I’m sorry, I called it a tax, the city called it a “fee”, my checkbook doesn’t know the difference, and you wonder why only 20 people show any interest.

During all of the years that the CRA has been around, the city’s once-a-month newsletter, never, maybe once, mentioned the issues of the CRA. Has anyone ever told the public in a newsletter how much debt the city has? The booklets that the city puts out on finances were very clear on what it takes in, but you needed an accountant’s degree and calls to the city to get the real numbers, and you wonder why only 20 people show any interest.

At one point there were a group of CEOs and director-level people that wanted to help the city and advise on the CRA, another blank wall of hearing. I was the Orange County representative member of the three-person CRA advisor board. I quit after a year because the mayor refused to call a meeting, and you wonder why only 20 people show any interest.

In the final analysis, there is no unfettered discretion for the council to make decisions and spend money and pass it off without being held accountable; there are limits.

I would ask that this letter be read at the next council meeting before you take any vote, or if you don’t want to read it out loud, at least read it into the record and provide all members of the council with the text. 

—Bill Kahn

Maitland