Letters to the Editor

Fee at Fleet Peeples Park was a substantial election issue

William Shallcross (“Substantial issues only, please” published in Letters to the Editor on March 16) claims not to care about Fleet Peeples Park, while contradictorily stating that he’d like to “chain the place so no one gets to use it.” Mr. Shallcross fails to disclose that he cares so much about FPP that he wrote a letter to the Observer in May 2009 advocating banning off-leash dogs at FPP — the same position advocated by trounced City Commission candidate Bonnie Jackson. I responded to Mr. Shallcross’ prior letter, and what I said then applies more so today in light of the decisive election results: “Most Winter Park residents are proud that we have a wonderful dog-friendly park for people.” And I would add that they don’t think Winter Park residents should be double-taxed to use it. New Commissioners Steven Leary and Sarah Sprinkel get that.

Mr. Shallcross asserts that FPP should not be considered a pressing or substantial issue. Maybe he should have given that memo to outgoing Commissioner Beth Dillaha, who obsessively pushed her anti-FPP and anti-dog agenda during the past year to the point of delirium. The dog park was a non-issue in the 2010 election because Tom McMacken and Carolyn Cooper came to the park and promised voters, among other things, that they would oppose charging fees at FPP. They casually broke that promise at the first opportunity, despite overwhelming citizen outpouring against the proposed fee, thereby assuring that the park would be a pivotal issue in this election. Well, Beth Dillaha’s gone and her candidates lost. So, after the Commission repeals the fee, I don’t think the dog park will be taking up much of their time.

—Joseph Brock

Winter Park

This change is good

In the March 17 issue, Mr. Shallcross states that the local political process has him worn down, tired, angry and disgusted, and he wishes “newbies” would not attempt to undo what the last Commission accomplished because, “… That leaves us in the same place, which right now, is not a very happy place for many of us.” And while only he can quantify “many of us,” I on the other hand can say that “many of us” are happy to embrace the change our new commissioners have promised. Yes, the dog park issue deserves some pooh-poohing; however, a 500 percent salary increase deserves serious thought. Unfortunately, as Mr. Shallcross admits, he did not pay any attention to the election, yet he claims the dog park issue continues to dominate the process. I can understand his throwing out of the Carlisle and Fleet Peeples Park mailers, however, had he listened and participated more closely, he would have heard commissioners Sprinkel and Leary addressing those “pressing matters” or “substantial issues” he longs for, such as a more balanced 60/40 tax base, commercial development on Lee Road and Fairbanks Avenue, not Park Avenue, as well as establishing a more inviting business environment for merchants and developers. To Mr. Shallcross I say, “Change is good!”

—Ed Sabori

Winter Park

Outgoing officials not ‘leaders’

The article about the outgoing two Winter Park city commissioners was titled “Farewell to two leaders” (March 17). In my opinion, Winter Park said farewell to two city commissioners, not leaders.

Beth Dillaha was not a leader. Examples of her lack of leadership are the following:

1. She ran for election stating that she would abide by the wishes of the voters on SunRail. She spent three years doing all she could to stop SunRail even though the voters said yes.

2. She ignored the voters again when she and her allies on the City Commission approved a city ordinance to require a supermajority on changes to the comprehensive plan after the voters voted against the proposal.

3. She was a leader in the fight against the dog park and for dog park fees even though a majority of people spoke in favor of the park and against the fees.

4. She led the fight to increase the salary of commissioners by 500 percent despite city workers being laid off and high unemployment in the state and country.

These are but a few examples of her lack of leadership. As the Orlando Sentinel so appropriately pointed out, she was a divisive city commissioner pushing her agenda, not the citizens’ agenda. Leaders don’t act against the will of the people, especially when they ignore the people’s desires as evidence by referendums.

As far as Phil Anderson being a leader, I do not know of any issue where he was a leader and not a follower.

Hopefully, our new city commissioners will be leaders.

—Charles E. Gordon

Winter Park

Take preservation seriously

My daughters and I sell parking spaces for the Winter Park Sidewalk Art Festival. It’s a tradition. Twenty-five cents a space did the trick in 1968. Twenty-five cents went the way of the horse and buggies tied up on Park Avenue. Today’s dollars in a tax-deferred college account may transform the fruits of today’s labor into a tidy sum, easing mom and dad’s burden on college essentials such as i-somethings!

My wife and I try so hard to make the right calls, eerily calm while exhibiting the fallacies intrinsic to us humans, yet we muddle forward, hoping our mistakes don’t overwhelm our better calls.

Communities are like this. The mayor and commissioners are the parents, nudging the city in one direction or another. I hope 20 years from now, we’ll all look back and say: great nudging! I think it will be so if we value and preserve what we have.

To value and preserve a place so unique seems pretty straightforward. It’s not. It takes active citizens standing up when things go awry. Consider Casa Feliz pushing up daisies in a landfill, a massive structure overshadowing Central Park or selling the golf course for development. Can anyone possibly argue today that any of these three near-misses would have been good for our city?

So let’s take historic preservation seriously. Let’s take village scale seriously. And let’s fluff the pillow, turn down the bedspread and gingerly place the mint so as to protect this old bird for what she is: a golden egg-laying goose. E-mail me at [email protected]

—John T. Skolfield III

Winter Park

Great experiment in merit pay

Claiming that “good teachers should be rewarded” and “student achievement will increase,” legislators are racing to implement merit-pay plans for educators in K-12 classrooms across the nation. Fed by the Race to the Top criteria and the obvious effect of bonuses on the performance of the nation’s top CEOs, this experiment in merit pay has gained recognition. So, if merit pay will solve the problems in education, on Wall Street and in the Ford showroom, why not use it to solve the problems in politics?

A great experiment in merit pay for politicians could easily be implemented at both the state and national levels either through legislation or through constitutional amendments. Only good public servants deserve taxpayer dollars, and the fact that it is high time for state and federal legislators as well as governors and the president to be accountable to their constituents is rationale enough. All merit pay, of course, derives its value through numbers. Therefore, the performance of elected officials shall be measured on an annual, independently administered survey. Funding for the program will come from the politicians themselves as each will take a salary reduction of 40 percent. Furthermore, only those deemed highly effective by at least 51 percent of at least 90 percent of constituent responses will receive any extra cash. Because salary incentives are tied to a fail-proof mathematical formula for gathering data (i.e., the scientifically constructed and validated constituent survey), elected officials will clearly work harder to please the people and not the party. Those that fail to achieve “highly effective” ratings within the first term shall be forever barred from running for political office again.

Yes, this great experiment in merit pay will surely solve all of the nation’s problems! If this sounds preposterous, that’s because it is. Applying merit pay to force teachers to work harder and students to learn better is about as logical as expecting politicians to legislate better based on cash incentives tied to constituent surveys. Yet, in spite of the recently released results from districts in Tennessee, New York and Chicago indicating that merit pay has not led to higher test scores, legislators continue to pass laws forcing school districts to adopt merit-pay plans that are often impossible to fund.

Experimentation has resulted in many great discoveries and cures, but this one will leave in its wake a decimated system. More importantly, this great experiment will rob the nation’s youth of talented and committed individuals who are unwilling to be guinea pigs in an experiment gone awry.

—Robin Grenz

National Board Certified Teacher

Social studies teacher at

Hagerty High School in Oviedo