The purpose of this letter is to correct a statement your recent article made regarding who would be entitled to be buried at the proposed cemetery at St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Carrollwood.
The article stated that Frank Murphy, representative of the St. Petersburg diocese, stated that only church members would be using this cemetery. That is not what Murphy and his associates told concerned Carrollwood residents at an “informational” meeting a few weeks back.
When the question of whether burials at the cemetery would be restricted to only St. Paul’s members, the answer from Murphy was a definitive “no.” He went on to state they weren’t allowed to restrict members of other Bay area churches from being buried at St. Paul’s as long as the members were in good standing with the Catholic Church and either a plot or a space in the Columbarium had been purchased. The analogy they used to explain this was that just as marriages of members of other Bay area churches are allowed at St. Paul’s Catholic churches, so would burials.
It is exactly this inability to restrict who would use the cemetery that all of us in this area are very concerned about the increased traffic that will result from long funeral processions from members of surrounding area churches. In addition, creating a new cemetery is not compatible in a well-established neighborhood.
I hope that anyone reading this letter understands that this proposed cemetery construction in an older and established neighborhood sets a dangerous precedent for all of the Hillsborough County area.
Frying pan to frying pan
Regarding “Back baseball enthusiasm with stats and transparency” (Our Views, Aug. 8):
I think you’re wrong about locating the Rays in downtown Tampa. I lived in Pinellas County for 16 years, until 2005. I know how people there feel about the location of the Trop. It can be summed in two words: “Forget it.” Put the Rays in downtown Tampa, and you get the same thing all over again.
Downtown business boys will be thrilled, but they won’t buy 40,000 tickets every home game for six months. Reasons? Laziness. Dislike of downtown streets and parking, etc. The bottom line is, if you build to satisfy the downtown business boys, you’ll repeat the failure of St. Pete. Why not build where people can afford to buy these high-priced tickets, and where there’s oodles of land (which is probably much cheaper than downtown)? It’s amazing that downtown Tampa could even be considered as a place for the Rays. To do that, they might as well stay where they are than jump from the frying pan in to another (similar) frying pan.
So we’ll just watch from the sidelines up here in North Tampa/Lutz and say, “We told you so”
The green grass out east
I wonder, with all the negatives surrounding a baseball stadium in downtown Tampa, why does it have to be there? Do city leaders really think another ballpark downtown would spur downtown development? And wouldn’t the traffic hinder spectators just as the masses are attempting to leave downtown for the commute home each evening, creating a real disaster? Interstates 4 and 275 are already a mess at the junction every afternoon, and God forbid it should rain.
Why not look to the green, green grass of east Tampa off either I-4 or I-75 south of Brandon for a spot to develop? There is ample land for parking, and it would be much more conducive to traffic arriving from parts north, east, south and even St. Pete via the Sunshine Skyway to avoid downtown Tampa. Who knows, maybe a whole new tax base would be developed around a stadium complex.
I just think a downtown Tampa stadium does little to encourage fans.
Lack of knowledge
Having been a veterinarian for more than 40 years, I believe I can speak with some knowledge on the feral cat situation.
I will admit that I am totally against the practice of allowing feral cat colonies. They do more harm to the ecology than any other exotic species to enter this continent, and they are more of a problem than the pythons in Florida. Just another example of the lack of owner responsibility. Wild cat damage in Australia is proof of the downside of free-roaming feral cats.
These misguided supporters think they are doing good by trapping cats, sterilizing them, and giving shots (vaccines), then returning them to the colony.
For these supporters to appear on the TV news stating the cats in these colonies are protected against rabies is at the least gross lack of knowledge. These sterilized cats have an ear tip cut off so the trappers know they had surgery; therefore, they are released and not brought in for any further treatment or more vaccinations.
Rabies vaccines are either a one- year or three-year type. So getting vaccinated one time is not lifetime protection for the cats or people who maybe bitten by a rabid feral cat.
William H. Shelton, DVM