Dear Editor,

I live in Dunedin , but I attended the Clearwater planning board meeting to lend my support to the Edgewater Neighborhood and just to see what would happen. All I could think of when it was over were the works from the Pretenders song, " ... but my pretty countryside was paved down the middle by a government that had no pride."

People of Clearwater : You missed your wake-up call and unless people from the other neighborhoods call your commissioners NOW and protest this travesty, the "precedent has been set."

  Here's what I saw happen: The city planner and the project's attorney presented their "scaled down" version of the condo project. Several residents got up in support, their reasoning summed up as, "Hey, I live closer to it than you do and I don't mind," and "It's better than the rundown hotels that are there now."

  Then dozens of residents got up and stated their objections to the project. Their major point was clear - that this condo is far and away too tall for the existing character of the neighborhood. They asked that the condo be kept to the current zoned, LEGAL limit of 50 feet. They asked why there was any reason to grant an exception allowing the building to go to a full 9 feet above the limit. They showed graphic portrayals, as shown in the newspaper, of just how HUGE this monstrosity is going to be.

  That was when the sham and the shame began. First the attorney was given the final word, during which he presented NEW evidence and statements, but the residents who had qualified as "party" in the issue were adamantly denied the right to cross examine him. Then the board members spoke. Neither the attorney for the project, nor the board members who then stated their positions EVER gave any justification for allowing the 9-foot code variance. The best they came up with was, "They could have asked for 100 feet!" To which I respond, "Yeah, they could have asked for a gorilla farm, too, but it would have been no more absurd or within the allowable zoning." The other justification was "Look how much they've scaled back!" Yes, from a plan that was ridiculously outside of the current land-use zone. When did presenting a less ridiculous plan become the proper way to do business? OK, instead of my gorilla farm, let's just allow monkeys.

  So why did the board vote to approve this giant condo? According to the attorney, a man should be able to do what he wants with his property. Yes, I agree. WITHIN the limits set down in the zoning codes. That's all the neighbors asked for. The only answer I can come up with is, "To let the developer maximize his profit on the project." As the board pointed out, without the 9-ft. variance, the developers would have to "spread the project out" on the property, and bring it closer to the neighbors. Folks, don't let that fool you for one minute. They don't want to do that because then they would have fewer waterfront windows to sell.

  These 62 condos are projected to sell starting at $450,000. That computes out to 24 million dollars. If they were forced to comply with zoning they might have to sacrifice profit, my gosh, they might only make 20 million! Here's the scary part you all missed ... the Comfort Inn, at 43 feet, was claimed by both the citizens and the board as having "set precedent." Now, their 59 feet has set a new precedent. And maybe the next project will be another 16 feet over THAT.

  Most confusing to me, since I was somewhat unfamiliar with the details of the case, was when Mr. Dennehy left his seat at the board table, and moved back into the audience. As I found out later, it's HIS project. Gee, THAT wouldn't make me suspect nepotism. Especially since the board blatantly rejected what was clearly the majority wish of the citizens to vote in favor of nothing less than to boost the profit of their own fellow board member.

  There was ONE good thing about the vote. It cleared up something that had bothered me the whole meeting. J. B. Johnson had opened the meeting with a prayer that was nothing more than a lecture on how the crowd should behave during the meeting (I assume God didn't need the reminder, so it must have been for us). While closing his prayer, he prayed for God to "forgive our sins in Christ's name." As a Christian, his theology confused me; I thought we were supposed to pray for our OWN sins. As a citizen, I could only think, "Is this really the year 2004?" But then they voted. Then I at least understood what sins they had needed forgiveness for.

                                                                                          Janine Byrd