Our coronavirus coverage is free for the first 24 hours. Find the latest information at Please consider subscribing or donating.

  1. Archive

Readers respond to "dam'

Last week's column about "that dam" _ Dunedin Causeway _ brought forth several folks who wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and one who said the column was nothing but an underhanded way to "further your crusade." The column quoted a 38-year resident and Clearwater Harbor fisherman who firmly believes that the harbor started to go to pot when they built the Dunedin Causeway _ because it blocks the "fresh" water flowing down the Florida coast east of Honeymoon Island.

One caller said he was working for a citrus processing plant in Dunedin in 1964 when the causeway was opened.

He said the city had allowed the plant to dump its effluent into the bay because it was nothing more than "moisture" produced during the making of orange juice concentrate. He said the strong currents carried it away.

But the water became stagnant after the causeway was built, he said, and bayfront residents began complaining about the "odor of oranges." So the city ordered the plant to divert its effluent to the sewer system.

The causeway definitely was the culprit, he said. "That damn dam is the big problem!"

George Robert of Clearwater wrote: "I am convinced that your "old-timer' is 100 percent correct. I have heard that same thinking (logic) expressed a number of times before.



. When one takes the time to stop and consider the winds, the currents and how the water moves down the coast, his reasoning makes a lot of sense.

"The dam, as he refers to the causeway, has turned Clearwater Harbor into a backwater."

But Hal Ebersole of Clearwater sees it differently: "I am surprised that you, as an editor, would resort to anonymity and "true' fish tales to further your crusade against city and county efforts (to dredge Dunedin Pass or dig a new channel) to assist boat traffic and the quality of water in Clearwater Harbor."

Teens get their say

Speaking of hot issues, that's what some of today's music lyrics have become. Just ask Diane Steinle, our editor of editorials.

She coordinates our new, increasingly popular and very well-read Teen Opinion Page. She asks a question on the first Saturday of each month, waits for the letters to start pouring in _ many from students in high school classes but a growing number from individual young people writing on their own _ and then publishes a sampling of the responses on the last Saturday.

Here's what she asked in her February question: "Is all this concern about music and its effect on the morals of today's teen-agers warranted? Do you find the lyrics in popular music offensive? Should recordings be labeled and the sale of certain albums restricted to those age 18 and over?"

Hundreds of letters have come in. This was our fifth question. The only one that prompted more interest was the one about whether parental consent should be required for abortions.

Since Diane will be able to use a very limited number of letters Saturday, I'm going to make an extra effort to use additional letters in the coming weeks.

I'm also waiting to see if we get any letters about last Saturday's guest column in which a mother of teen-age sons described what her family went through in dealing with some of the frightening aspects of heavy metal music versus the negative aspects of censorship.