Safety Harbor Can Save A Tree, Now Must Prove It Can Save Itself
By 
Safety Harbor’s downtown redevelopment district — a three-block wide ribbon running through the heart of town between the south side of 3rd St., North and the north side of 3rd St. South — has more potential than Evan Longoria going to bat in a Church League game. Yet, Main Street’s two most distinctive visual landmarks are a bare-dirt parking lot and a run-down, two-story business address that has been empty and ugly longer than a dog’s life.
What’s wrong with this picture? A helluva lot.
Downtown Safety Harbor is an urban planner’s dream. It has potential for character, comfort and convenience. It has raw ingredients for which a HDTV home-improvement show would hammer out a series. It has waterfront. And don’t forget the oak trees.
Managed correctly, it could accommodate the full “want list” of upward, mobile home-buyers with disposable income: the convenience of downtown living with a small-town feel, good schools, youth recreation and the ability to walk to vibrant eateries, watering holes and appealing shops. Not just hair salons.
So why does Safety Harbor leadership work so hard to continually paint mustaches on itself, now actually preparing to vote on an amendment that will devalue residents’ property values by limiting downtown density and making downtown less desirable to prospective new businesses and residents?
Easy. Because, instead of looking ahead and positioning for the future, this town spends too much effort holding on to the past.
We have finally reached the edge of a cliff with that thinking. Safety Harbor has proven it can save a tree, now it needs to prove it can save itself.
Otherwise, it will soon be too late and all that untapped potential will be left unfulfilled and Safety Harbor’s claim to fame can forever be “Conveniently located to Oldsmar!”
If not that, then maybe “Safety Harbor: Trees give us wood!”
“Regardless of the individual changes, the aggregate intention and result in every instance is to LIMIT, and/or reduce density,” architect Victor Curti says of Safety Harbor’s recent current leadership direction.
“The appropriate direction for the downtown district, according to researchers, urban planners and experts that have spent the last 30 years developing New Urbanistic Strategies would be to ENCOURAGE density.”
Curti’s knows of what he speaks. Before relocating from Pittsburgh to Safety Harbor two years ago Curti specialized in urban planning. His credentials include having worked directly with the City of Pittsburgh’s Housing Authority and City Urban Redevelopment Authority. Also, he volunteered time to serve as president of a citizens group working to revitalize Pittsburgh’s Alpha Terrace Historic District, an architecturally significant but neglected area. Currently, his firm specializes in high-end residential and small-scale community design.
Those credentials make his next observation extremely sobering.
“Safety Harbor is going backward,” Curti said.
Gaze no farther than the upcoming May 2 City Commission meeting to prove Curti’s point.
Because two new homes were recently built at the corner of 3rd St. and 7th Ave. South, on ground that many, many years ago was originally plotted as two legal lots but had previously been occupied by a single structure, the roadblock du jour for anti-grown will be a vote to eliminate that from ever happening again.
After a 6-1 recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Commission next month will vote on whether to automatically turn two legal non-conforming lots into one if a single existing home on that site is ever demolished.
All in the name of preventing an increase in downtown density and potential redevelopment.
Really? Other than increased density, what would be the first log on the fire to fuel a downtown’s redevelopment?
Instead, the city commission essentially will vote on whether to take money out of selected homeowners’ pockets by devaluing their property.
Since there appears to be no more than a handful of properties in town that would be effected by such a change in bylaws, to some it is “no big deal” — easy to say, unless, of course, you happen to be one of those property owners getting sucker punched.
But — Warning! Warning! — this is just another step in the direction Safety Harbor has been steadily moving. Only this one is a dandy, its unfairness obvious to anyone with eyes open — a misguided move that could cost a targeted homeowner as much as $100,000 or more in land value.
What’s next? Restrictions on the size of the home you desire? Increased setbacks designed to discourage new construction? Don’t laugh. Both ideas are being pushed.
Now, full disclosure: I am the previous owner of the corner of 3rd St and 7th Ave. South. I am the one guilty as charged of tearing down a insect-, rodent-infested, animal-urine scented hellhole, where the previous owners’ family had lived for the previous six months WITHOUT electrical power, and making room for two Bay To Bay Properties homes.
I think the new homes are beautiful. I think they are something downtown development could build on. I think they have drastically increased property values for my entire neighborhood.
And I know as fact that in the land’s previous state, it brought the city $800 in annual property taxes. The two new homes should generate about $8,000 for the city.
That’s a win. Maybe that money can help finish the Waterfront Park.
Except, not everyone seems to agree.
In response to Jeff Rosenfield’s Safety Harbor Connect report on the P&Z meeting in which the board endorsed the sucker punch to property owners, came this posted comment: “Most of us are not here to make money … only want to enjoy our quaint, small town without having it ruined by greed.”
To which I say, Michelangelo’s David has more legs to stand on than that argument.
So I repeat my original response.
In that case, to all who share such thinking, I make an offer: If benefiting from hard work and investment risks are not important, and you do not care about future property values, nor this town’s future prosperity, I will gladly buy your home tomorrow for $70,000 under appraised value.
Any takers?
It is not greed to have pride in ownership. It is not greed to care for property and improve its curb appeal for yourself and the neighborhood. It is not greed to seek planned growth that will benefit downtown merchants, attract additional shops, and bring new residents and money into city coffers (hence, improving city services and quality of living.) It is not greed to expect change with the times. It is not greed to want to see Safety Harbor improve itself.
It’s simply being sensible.
~~ by Mick Elliott ~~
Walt, Just in case I’d forgotten, you just reminded me that you were an old TV critic and never a business reporter.
Why do you have to get personal with that comment? Walt was simply giving his opinion. It is still ok to disagree…correct?
John K. Ask Walt why he had to get personal and call newcomers Stepford people. It was very rude
I don’t see where limiting density would help. The economic reality is that land values have increased and the homes that are on them. You can’t expect valuable land to go undeveloped in a residential area. That being said, I also think that there should be some architectural conformity as to what is being constructed in this district. My opinion only but the houses that were built on 3rd and 7th look like they belong in a subdivision. Within blocks of these homes, there are newer homes that are more in the feel of the area. Another example is the zero lot line homes on Iron Age, there is no consistency as to the appearance and it looks disjointed. A block away there are new townhouses that are more pleasing to the eye.
I think the commission should be more concerned about the aesthetic look of the area than density
Ever notice that most of the people supporting more development stand to profit from more houses, more business, more people?
Some who have moved here in recent years like this quaint little town but they think it needs some tinkering to make it into something they think would be bigger and grander.
Would it be better with more chain stores and chain restaurants; bigger homes replacing the older ones; a much less diverse community; higher taxes; fewer trees; more traffic; and less of a sense of identity?
The upside is some people will make more money and downtown might get all cleaned up and uniform like one of those shopping strips over in Westchase.
The downside is possibly unavoidable. As more people relocate here Safety Harbor will change. Those Stepford people will move into to those $500,000-plus homes and some of us will be squeezed out.
Who said anything about chain stores or strip centers? This is about having a vibrant, successful and appealing downtown. It is not about large homes. The idea is to have balance with mix uses. Read below to become a little more educated on Urbanization.
SOURCES: Budget Travel, U.S. Census Bureau
As the world continues to become more urbanized, it’s important that small towns keep up with these changes. Increasing a small town’s density to reflect some of the positives of a more urbanized lifestyle may be important to its future success. For many towns, population decline will continue to be a problem. But if increasing density in the core of the town becomes a priority of the community’s growth plan, the town may be able to decrease some of these negative effects of population loss by building up what already exists. Population density is not just an urban measurement; it is also important to the growth of many small towns. Density can help create a stronger and more accessible downtown core, increase economic productivity, lower infrastructure costs and help create a lifestyle that many people believe only urban areas can provide.
Here are a few strategies towns can implement to improve density:
• Create planning and zoning that specifically targets particular areas of a town for population, housing and/or business growth (and/or change ordinances to allow higher-density structures).
• Locate new or existing community services or institutions in a certain geographic area (schools, libraries, health care clinics, post offices, utility companies, other governmental institutions or services that people need access to).
• Offer housing options of different sizes and prices, a mix between ownership and rentals, and variances in styles that will appeal to a large cross-section of people (singles, young families, retirees, etc.).
o Types of housing to consider could include condominiums, cottages, town homes, single-family houses, cooperative housing, senior living facilities and other types that appeal to multiple generations and incomes.
• Utilize tax incentives to develop, redevelop or improve a specific geographic area of a community to entice more people to live there.
• Create shared amenities and public spaces for common use. These spaces should:
1. promote human contact and social activities;
2. be safe, welcoming and accommodating for all users;
3. have design and architectural features that are visually interesting;
4. promote community involvement;
5. reflect the local culture or history;
6. relate well to bordering uses;
7. be well maintained; and
8. have a unique or special character.
• Ensure connectivity and accessibility to population center (walking, biking, driving).
Hopefully this helped you understand a little more how business operates.
Good Morning Walt, I moved here and saved my little house and fixed it up. Unfortunately there is misinformation out there which it appears you are following “more development to stand to profit”. I did not move here to make profit. I plan to live here forever. People are just trying to help the businesses on Main street and other side streets survive and thrive and make it a more urbanized, walkable town. No one is requesting chain stores and chain restaurants. Remember if you own your property and have a homestead, taxes can only go up to a certain %. Based upon your comments it sounds as if individuals out in the community are spreading wrong information. I encourage you to get educated on what is truly going on instead of listening to a few residents who appear to be misinformed. Thank you for considering. Best Regards, Susan
Walt, it’s time to sell the 1971 Ford Pinto!! With proper planning and a strong administration we can all get along and have a downtown to be proud of. How many small towns have the amount of hair salons , professional offices i.e. Law offices, mortgage companies, CPA’s etc AND a city financed empty lot all located on a Prime retail Main Street…so many businesses come and go because Main Street is nothing but a thru street to get to somewhere else…not smart planning. In 2007 the city spent a lot of tax payer money and hired a consultant to develop a plan for downtown check it out
http://www.cityofsafetyharbor.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1225
A vibrant downtown with a mixture of old and new, big and small, stepfords and the entitled can be had with strong leadership!
Together we can make it happen!!
Good Morning Jaxson, Thanks for your insights and sharing the link to the plan that was developed for Safety Harbor by a group of citizens, etc. I don’t think our current Commissioners and Mayor may be aware of all the work that went into this document and all the good ideas. I encourage them to read what was previously developed instead of following a few local downtown citizens that don’t have any vision for Safety Harbor. Best Regards, Susan
Thank You Walt, I would like to inform you I am not a Stepford person. I am a person with feelings . That is a very rude comment about people moving to SH who are wonderful people. Besides your lovely comment , I have heard tenements for rich people, and who do these Iron Age people think they are they will expect to park on the street and probly walk their dogs on other peoples property to poop. Let me inform you I have worked two jobs all my life, I do tons of charity work and I would drop whatever I am doing to help a neighbor in need. Yes I will be paying higher taxes about 10 thousand a year which by the way helps support the city. I was told by the city our street is in a special district that more off our taxes go to Sh than the other streets. I have the right to live anywhere just like you, and no-one is squeezing you out. Sorry that you hate me already without ever meeting me.
I have been in Safety Harbor 25 years. This town is a mishmash of businesses with an empty trolley going through the it. Professionals need to be consulted in order to move forward. OWNERS of properties have the right to make money on their investments – it’s the American Dream! Dunedin has done a fairly good job with mixed use and development. Some of our prized residents have even relocated there. There are many other towns that have been successful with change and hopefully we can too.
Well said Mick. Although some may not be a fan of what people do with their property, it is in fact their property and ultimately should be their decision as long as it is within reason. As a city we can’t continue to be reactive to every single complaint.
Just heard about this blog. I’m glad I was told to check this out. I looked at two homes in the area last year. I love the quaint neighborhood and the little seafood place on the main street. I love the old with the new. Large and small homes as long as they are maintained make your community welcoming. I don’t want a lot of yard so I would love a townhouse.
I moved here after living in the DC area for years….the DC area, southern MD, and Virginia shores are full of small quaint villages with old homes tastefully updated that are intermixed with well planned new development (St Mary’s, Annapolis, Old Town Alexandria to name a few). Those small villages and towns have been successful in large part maintaining their charm while providing for revitalization that compliments the old charm of the town. I say well managed progress can only enhance the community. I look forward to a positive outcome on May 2.
Excellent article! As a homeowner and business owner in Safety Harbor, these facts scare the bajeebers out of me! Best statements: “It has potential for character, comfort and convenience…”, “Safety Harbor is going backward,” and “this town spends too much effort holding on to the past”…all so sadly true, but hopefully not for long! This town can stay sweet and quaint while moving with the times!
Personally I love the townhouses and would really like to see more retail move in too. People love options.
The challenge is that there are a lot of very old, very small houses, in poor condition that are on very valuable lots because they’re in the downtown area. Most homeowners are not going to pump $100K+ into renovating a small 80 year old house.
The only way redevelopment is going to happen is if developers do it. And the only way developers are going to do it is if they can earn money on the projects. There’s no money to be made by renovating an 80 year old 1500 sf house or replacing it with a new but equally small house. The only way to make money on these projects is to either put a big, expensive home on the lot or to put multiple units on the lot (townhouses).
If the city prevents large homes or townhouses to be built on lots where old, small, run down homes are now, those homes are just going to get older and more run down, hurting property values and business in downtown Safety Harbor.
I also understand the concerns that we don’t want to give developers free reign to build anything they want and ruin the character of our downtown.
So, we need to find a way to come together to get the best of both worlds – redevelopment that allows some increased density and home sizes so it’s financially feasible for developers while still consistent with the character of Safety Harbor.
Exactly!
The flippers seem to be doing ok renovating older homes in Seminole Heights but that’s beside the point. The topic at hand is whether we want to be able to demolish a single small home on two lots and replace it with two larger homes. The reason I moved to Safety Harbor was for the small town feel, no traffic and quiet neighborhoods. If the people of Safety Harbor would prefer a DTSP or South Tampa feel and the associated traffic then either they should move there or continue to push against legislation like this. I personally DONT want to live there and that’s why I moved to SH. I will continue to renovate my old home and support legislation like this.
Another comment on preserving quaint atmosphere. Look at historic Charleston or Savanna. They have successfully maintained the feel and vibrancy of a walkable quaint town and many,maybe most, homes are anything but small. They have a mix of very large and small homes, enforce maintenance codes and promote care and pride in the appearance of well cared for properties.
I moved out of South Tampa because it’s lost it’s charm and is overrun by traffic, ugly homes and concrete jungle. Sorry for not wanting the same thing to happen to Beautiful Safety Harbor.
And to say that limiting density will limit properties is false. Decreasing supply will INCREASE demand. So what if it takes a few more years for homeowners to renovate and/or build beautiful homes, it beats the alternative of a quick flip to make a buck while using shoddy construction or cutting corners.
Can’t Safety Harbor use the rest of Florida as an example of how NOT to build? If you don’t like it feel free to move to suburbia, we don’t want your tax dollars here.
Not sure where you lived in S Tampa but it will never lose it’s charm and Safety Harbor will never be S Tampa. If you don’t like density then why live downtown? Downtowns are supposed to have density or it just becomes another neighborhood with a few shops:( Can you say Dunedin? They have done it right. Lots of activity, shops, restaurants/bars, new and old homes mixed together and they kept the small town charm. Safety Harbor can have all of that plus more since we are so close to both airports making it easy for travelers.
Have you drove down Westshore/Dale Mabry/Bay to Bay/Macdill/Kennedy lately? The traffic is horrendous. I moved to SH’s downtown because I like it as is, a quiet, tree filled area with good restaurants and plenty of options for parks/boating/biking. I like the density as it is. I would prefer it without the “luxury” apartments and McMansions.
I agree with you Mick. I love our downtown but a thriving downtown needs people to support the businesses. Let’s not scare away homeowners!
Good Afternoon Ann, Yes, I agree with you but I’m not sure these same homeowners are even supporting the downtown businesses. The businesses in downtown cannot rely on seasonal people to stay open and a few downtown homeowners who support. The entire community needs to support these businesses. Locals who even live in the downtown district don’t come to our downtown because years ago it was designated as “dead” and they still believe it. I have lived in the community for a few years now and the big vacant two story building still stands vacant next to the Boutique Shop. I’m wondering how many years is it going to stand empty? I am also concerned about the businesses that come and go. It’s not their fault that they leave because their savings are gone. A business can’t stay open without frequent and regular customers. Best Regards, Susan
The tourists come here because of it is a quaint town. As the tourists are walking through tey are not looking at your new home but the older cotttages. I do History tours of the harbor so I know what the tourists are telling me. They dislike the new homes, and feel they are out of place in the downtown area. i am proud of the owners in the downtown area that has kept their “OLD” homes. My house in the downtown area is over 100 years old and as long as I am alive will NEVER come down. We have two McMansions on our street. They stick out like sore thumbs. We need to take lessons from Pass A Grille and fight harder for our downtown area. In the end the homes will INCREASE in value because the area will be unique not a cookie cutter home. if you want a HUGE home, build in a sub division!
Good Evening Laura, I’m not sure you really get it. No one is asking you to take your 100 year old house down. I moved into a house in downtown Safety Harbor that was built in the 1960’s. I love my “little cottage” as I call it and am passionate about the community. But I also love what others are indicating “Change can be a positive for a community when citizens agree it is progress”. Yes, we all value the downtown area because it is not a cookie cutter home approach, no one wants to change that. I’m not sure you really understand the issues. Call me and we can discuss over a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Best Regards, Susan
Call me Laura so we can be on the same team!!!!!!!!
Laura,
Our home was originally built in 1928 and we have no plans of taking it down but do I love the new homes going up around us? Absolutely! Downtowns are diversity and density with charm. I bet in the day they called your 2 story home a McMansion. The mix between old and new can be a great thing as long as the older homes are taken care of which sadly most are not. And when you have old run down homes, neighborhoods start to deteriorate and new people do not want to invest and live in the area.
Laura, you mention Pass a Grille. First, that is a mostly waterfront beach community, only one block wide with more vacation/ tourism than Safety Harbor. Also, it has over 16,000 occupants in one third of the space of SH. So it is 3 times as dense as Safety Harbor. We are speaking here about density not about home sizes. If you take some time to read up on New Urbanism, you will better understand the proper strategies for community planning. Our point is that there needs to be designated districts in the walkable neighborhoods surrounding our ” downtown” that focus on increasing density. This does not necessarily mean increasing home size. At the same time, you have to admit there are many homes in “historic” downtown that are neither historic nor are they a jewel of the city. There are many dilapidated properties like the one Mick had to tear down, where new development is required to save the property. And maintaining the two lots, at that location is exactly what experts would recommend. We don’t need more empty lots or green space downtown. Empty lots don’t support our merchants or our city services. The experts found that successful communities need mixed income, and homes that range in type, size and price -in closer proximity
We shouldn’t discourage investment. Our focus needs to encourage investment, repair and maintenance, welcoming mixed income and variety in housing. Just because something is old does not mean it is worth saving. A community cannot survive on the attitude ” as long as I am alive” nothing with change.
You say buy a house in a subdivision, but that does not support our downtown. They don’t walk to town. The are gated and not connected. The growth of the subdivisions caused the decline of small downtowns across the country. People moved to them because the housing stock in town did not meet their needs, were too small, poorly maintained neighbors, costly to repair and bring up to current housing standards. People moved to the subdivisions for protection of deed restrictions when maintenance codes were not enforced and these properties tarnished the “quaint” neighborhood pulling down values. Look around at the recent investments in Safety Harbor. I don’t see a lot of reinvestment or development of small quaint homes. If you stop the development you don’t want, then what reinvestment will there be? The quant feel of our town is driven by the footprint, the layout, and walkability of our neighborhoods’ proximity to downtown- NOT just the home sizes. We are NOT fighting for huge houses in town, we are fighting to NOT obstruct reinvestment and sensible development.
We speak to visitors and tourist also. The feedback we get is “cute town but Mainstreet is really struggling and there are lots of properties that really need help”. Last summer we overheard a conversation among some runners on the linear park on S. Bayshore. These are their words not mine. One runner was describing ” this is Safety Harbor, a little town great location but unfortunately an old hick town”. That’s not what I want to hear about Safety Harbor. We are better than that. Our status quo is not good enough. We need to embrace healthy thoughtful progress and improvement. We cannot do that by telling people to go somewhere else.
WOW Laura , Last week I ran into you at Paradise Cafe, you were wearing your Sh tours shirt and when you were booking a lunch for your tour group I asked you if you were going to skip the tour of my street since you have such a dislike of the homes. I see your posts but wasn’t sure it was you till I read your shirt. I mentioned to you how upsetting it was to me that you have so much to say on the internet about us on multiple sites . You gave me that shocked look while saying you would never do something like that, oh no not me (exact quote from your mouth) Well what do you call this paragraph here that you have posted above. I could ride around town and take lots of pictures of properties that are horrible, but I don’t do that because I know it would hurt the feelings of the property owners. Do you think that raises property values? I wonder why you have so much hate in your soul especially for someone who lectures about anti -bullying . I am now so scared to even say high to people because I don’t know if they are people who hate me without even getting to know who I am, and the whole reason I built a house with a front porch was to sit outside and meet new people. Multiple times people walk buy with cameras to take pictures of my neighbors tree saying he is killing it and sometimes shoot pictures of the other houses, I asked one why one day and they said to me so they can show friends how Safety Harbor is getting ruined . I find this kind of creepy myself. Its upsetting to my mom and daughter when we are in our home and someone even had the nerve to walk between the houses to shoot pictures and was on our back patio after our wall went up. How surprised they were when I approached them since they knew no one was living there yet. My neighbor paid extra money to have a large crawlspace built above the roots, if you look on the street corner side you will see the lattice. You may not know him but I will tell you this he loves that tree and it was the reason he picked that lot. I am wondering if the day came for some reason you have to sell your home and someone offered you 100thousand more than you have invested are you going to refuse to sell to them ? I would highly doubt it but I could be wrong. I looked at multiple properties before I built and they needed so much work it would not make sense to remodel. I will never forget when I looked at the old oak tree at the library all lit up for the first time. I was standing next to residents from the assisted living facility , what a smile it put on their face. However you are the only one I heard about being against it,( I believe it was you holding a sign) but I could be wrong because I do not know everyone in town. I am just wondering is it your goal to take away other peoples happiness? You must be really upset with all the Christmas lights on Main and maby we should call Duke energy to shut off the street lights. I n closing I would like to say I have no ill will toward anyone even though it has been directed to me. I am just heartbroken my family does not want to move into our new home that I have spent so much money and time on because of all of this . But I guess you dont really care about our feelings, yours and all the other anti-growth people is all that matters.
I’m new to Florida, just moved down from the north. In fact, I lived near Pittsburgh, and I love what Pittsburgh has been doing with their downtown area. Most of my friends and relatives love living downtown and being able to walk to grocery stores, restaurants, yet still having all the advantages of small city life. I would think Safety Harbor would be the ideal place for improvement in housing to draw more people to move there. I love your quaint area, and it should be a no-brainer for housing development, renovation, etc. to move forward……just as Mick has stated.
If they continue to build HUGE homes it won’t be quaint anymore and will become like Pittsburgh.
I agree with this statement too. Have you been to Westshore district with normal (older) one story homes and mega houses next to them? NO? Well, ask the neighbors if they are happy with these mega houses right next to them. There has to be a balance among land owners. Yes, we have all the makings of being a really cool hip city, but again, we need balance. The old house shown in the picture is really bad. The new house built on this spot? Not really balanced. Just say’n…sometimes money gets in the way of what is balanced.
BDuse,
Lived in S Tampa (Westhshore area) for 26 years and loved it. Loved the old, new, small, and huge homes. Popular Hyde Park Village has residential apartments above the retail shops, townhomes, old homes and new homes. The mix is wonderful and the area is thriving.
I used to live in South Tampa when it was affordable. My former 1938 cottage one block off the Bay was torn down and replaced by a three story home. You might get an apartment there but a house was be too costly not to mention the taxes you would have to pay.
And your point is? Some people do not mind paying top dollar for the area they want to live in. And I have yet to meet a homeowner selling their home that did not want to make a profit. That is what you call a wise investment.
Thank you Erica, Lucy and Steven. We are all passionate about where we live and what it can be like. I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to meeting you in town and shaking your hand!! Thank you for your comments. Best Regards, Susan
As a local downtown business owner AND a local resident, I am very much in favor of improving the density of downtown in the Harbor, making it walkable and, most importantly, enjoyable for locals as well as tourists and snowbirds (both of which we have an abundance of, due to the location of the Spa, and all of the lovely and lively amenities of Safety Harbor).
I want both my own business and ALL of the Harbor’s local businesses to thrive and add to the pleasurable experience if living in the “Jewel of Tampa Bay”. Growth is a part of the cycle of life, and those who fight it are hurting themselves as much as those of us who want to see a continued upturn in foot traffic and the ability to totally immerse one’s self in the wonderful living experience that is Safety Harbor.
I would definitely listen to the advice of Victor Curti who is a professional on the subject of Density of a community. Any homeowner wants the value of their home to increase so making progress with a town’s ability to attract business is always an asset. Safety Harbor’s charm is having attractive places to shop and quaint restaurants available with homes and condos within walking distance to these businesses. Change can be a positive for a community when citizens agree it is progress.
Yes, Mick, I agree with you fully on this article:
It is not greed to have pride in ownership. It is not greed to care for property and improve its curb appeal for yourself and the neighborhood. It is not greed to seek planned growth that will benefit downtown merchants, attract additional shops, and bring new residents and money into city coffers (hence, improving city services and quality of living.) It is not greed to expect change with the times. It is not greed to want to see Safety Harbor improve itself.
Please attend the City Commission Meeting on Monday night, May 2 at 7:30pm. Help our city move forward instead of backwards. “Making sensible decisions for Safety Harbor!”