Letters to the Editor for Longboat Observer

Don't replace one eyesore with another

"Typically, we balk and choke at the idea of government owning dirt and property. Governments at all levels usually are lousy property managers." (Longboat Observer, April 27, 2017)

Bravo! Except where was this position when the town used public funds to buy/build/maintain/operate the tennis center (at a loss) and where is this position when the town proposes to do all that for the "Town Center" (at a most likely loss)? Or, perhaps geography is the differentiating factor in that the town powers that be are divine stewards of our money when a project is on the south end vs. the north end?

The Observer's cynical view regarding the town buying the abandoned gas station at Broadway and GMD seems in direct contradiction to its past support of the south end projects. Of course the town should have bought this decrepit site years ago and created a well-landscaped park to accent the already gorgeous views of the Gulf waters as one crosses the north end bridge. Tropical flora at this location would have most assuredly proclaimed Welcome to Paradise! And all could have been done at a bargain price less half the $1.5 million wasted on the hole in the ground next to Publix shopping center, not to mention the $2.2 million generously bestowed on the owner of Amore Restaurant (that's a lot of lasagna) and who knows how much more to design, site develop, build and operate.

Having said that, I do not agree that this corner site should be anything more than a tropical park. Those who wish to move and maintain the "historic" Whitney cottage on this site are well-meaning and have good intentions. However, to the best of my knowledge neither Washington nor any other notable ever slept there, and Edison did not use it as his winter laboratory.

Even if repainted and fronted by palm trees, it will be viewed by visitors and prospective buyers as just another "old" house on LBK that needs to be torn down and may even reinforce a negative image that the north end itself is aged and in serious need of redevelopment.

Let's not replace one eyesore with another.

Joseph Iannello, Longboat Key

Climate consensus is not science

I was amused by a letter to the editor in the May 4 edition from William Cook, Ph.D., regarding an editorial on climate change. If there is a dumber word than "consensus," I don't know what it is. "Consensus" is not a word used by scientists -- it's used by wanna-be scientists trying to appear knowledgeable. 

Decades ago, the consensus was that we were entering into another ice age due to a few consecutive winters of below-average temperatures and double the average annual snowfall. A local Chicago newscaster asked a prominent scientist from Northwestern how we can tell if we're in another ice age. The scientist answered: "When it's July, and there's still snow on the ground." The newscaster was obviously looking for a more scientific answer, hoping to elaborate the "consensus" that the ice age was, if not here already, sure and soon to come.

One can get a clearer picture of how absurd "consensus" is by reading Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.'s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on May 3. Consensus is not science, and science is not consensus. Science is always evolving. It's not frozen in time just because someone discovered the "atom" as the smallest entity of a molecule. Later the atom was subdivided into electrons, protons and neutrons. Now we're looking at "string theory." And more. The scientific method is observation, hypothesis and experimentation. This obviously can not apply to speculating about future climate conditions. Predicting day-to-day changes in weather is tricky, but predicting climate -- weather -- decades out is futile. The just-recently-departed occupant of the White House fostered the current infatuation with climate armageddon as a diversion from the proven enemy -- ISIS. Let's worry about non-provable climate nonsense and nothing about attacking and defeating a proven enemy of humanity.

So-called climate science, and I hesitate to use the word "science," is a projection of a modeling -- that this is what will happen if our model(s) are correct. And we're then going to base modifying our behavior without cost-benefit analysis over something that is not provable now. This is an example of idiocy. And politics, not science.

As for Sarasota City Manager Tom Barwin, take a hike. We don't need you to cripple our local economy by idle conjecture about red meat, sea levels, travel methods, or anything else. The Sarasota City Commission should terminate your employment. This behavior is lunacy. 

Milan V. Adrian, Longboat Key