Review board's role is debated | Feb. 17, article
Citizens needed for oversight
There is already enough that goes on behind closed doors in our county without public input or participation.
As to this proposal to eliminate Development Review Committee oversight, what happens when the developer does not agree with the streamlined land development rules? Will this as well be addressed behind closed doors? Who is the one to determine if the small projects have limited impact? In what forum will those who feel these limited impacts address their concerns?
Never thought I would say this, but I agree with County Administrator John Gallagher, at least regarding a public benefit that shouldn't be dismissed — the public's input and participation in the DRC's oversight.
The notion that a rewrite of the rules to eliminate ambiguity and speed up the approval process could possibly be accomplished forgets that whenever developers' attorneys are involved ambiguity will be found.
Let us face reality here in debating the DRC's role; even in the process presently employed, the major decisions have already been made without the benefit of public participation or input into that process. The deals are done and the best those negatively impacted can expect is a hair cut, development speak for minor changes.
If you think the process cumbersome for the DRC, try being a citizen attempting to protect your own property rights and quality of life.
Our only Democrat on the commission thinks the governance of the Sunshine Law makes things very cumbersome. It is interesting this would be motivation for eliminating DRC oversight. Government is always cumbersome, especially when you let the pesky little citizens see what you are doing and participate in the process as required by that law.
Clay Colson, Land O'Lakes
Quit wrangling and legislate
To U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, I was disappointed by your recent letter that was apparently in response to my correspondence to you of several months ago concerning health care issues. I especially regret your lack of interest to put aside bipartisanship and work with all your congressional colleagues to pass a suitable health care reform bill, the focus of my correspondence, which you did not address at all. I also regret your lack of specifics regarding your nonsupport of the bill currently under negotiation in Congress.
It appears that the sole purpose of your letter was to point out to me your accusation that President Obama broke his promise to televise heath care debates/negotiations on C-SPAN, since you provided me with a Web site where I could see a video of him making his promise. After accusing President Obama of not televising the hearings, you said, "I'm keeping count, are you?"
What are you counting? Is it the money put into legislators' coffers by insurance companies to fight reform?
Your letter is a prime example of the misrepresentation and partisanship that is stifling progress in Congress and fueling nationwide confusion and anger.
You surely realize the importance of health care reform. Both our citizens and our country will go broke if Congress cannot find agreement, as these ever-rising costs are unsustainable. Well documented is the human tragedy of Americans losing everything, sometimes even their lives, through no fault of their own because of inadequate or no insurance.
I do appreciate that you don't agree with all aspects of the House and/or Senate versions of the bill, but neither do I, nor does anyone else. However, spewing forth inflammatory rhetoric and skewed information will do nothing to reach a critically needed agreement.
So once again, I ask you to please put your partisan politics aside and work with your colleagues in Congress to get the job done. You owe it to your constituents and to our country.
Nancy Kost, Homosassa