Renters scattered in small scale housing developments are generally not a problem. There are many renters living in single family residences and duplexes that keep their properties looking good and they respect their neighbors. However, a problem often occurs when a developer puts up large scale rental developments with hundreds of rental units in a single building. I grew up near such rental apartment buildings. I saw that rental apartment buildings and the surrounding neighborhood usually started to decline within a few years after the apartment building was built. I saw moving trucks constantly going in and out of these apartment buildings and a large number of renters who rented for no more than one year. There were increases in crime, drug dealing, and kids hanging out together causing trouble outside of the building. With the transient nature of most renters, apartment buildings often experience a rapid decline. We should not encourage these large scale apartment buildings in Safety Harbor. We should keep all of our apartment buildings small and in scale so that they fit in with the rest of the neighborhood that they are located in.

As a new resident in Safety Harbor, and a renter, I find Fritz's comments a bit insulting and very unwelcoming. Yes, our family chooses to rent, for our own personal reasons, but we are also very involved in the community we "temporarily roost in" (and we are not some sort of bird as this comment would suggest). I volunteer at our children's schools, our children are involved in local clubs and sports, we support community events and business as much as possible and do all that we can to make the community we call home a great place to live. We chose Safety Harbor for its community feel and to be told that as renters, we are a detriment to it, is disheartening. We may only be here for a few years or we could be here for much longer and we want to do all that we can to make this the best possible environment for our children. Although we have only been here a few months, from my experience in our last community, our family did much more to support and grow the community than many of the people who had lived there all their lives. It's a shame we aren't the kind of people the residents of Safety Harbor are looking for.

I, too, am a renter and new to Safety Harbor. I have a child in kindergarten and we are active in his school as well as in the community. We chose Safety Harbor for the reputation it has with the small-town feel and community involvement. We are renting a single-family home and take great pride in its upkeep and appearance. I do not consider myself a transient and find the association with renters as troublemakers, or temporarily roosting, offensive.
In the current market, renting seems more of a wise decision. After all, someone who owned my current home, presumably one who had permanent ties to the community, has left. What his reasons were, we don't know but I'm here and he's gone. I guess all homeowners arent as deeply rooted in the community as Mr. Kirsch would like to believe. I love this town, despite what people like Mr. Kirsch may think. My husband and I plan to stay here and raise our child, and when the time comes for us to buy a home, Safety Harbor will be our town of choice. We chose this town for a reason and we are here to stay.

Kathleen, Welcome to our community and live here as if you owned, but remember people who are homeowners are more than just emotionally invested. Some of us have invested our life savings and don't want wild development and possible undesirables destroying what we consider our own. I have also seen what too many renters can do to a very good street, block, complex or subdivision. Too much development is not a good thing. Hurt feelings are a small thing to endure. Think about possible crime that too much development can bring into your child's life and don't think too unkindly about those who are concerned about our welfare.

I agree, Michael, that too much development is not a good thing. I'm from New York. I know what its like to be crowded. But to lump all renters into a category described as undesirable offends many. Some renters may never have the privilege of homeownership for whatever reason. What are we then to do? Live as second-class citizens, never fully accepted by our neighbors and fellow community members? Or keep moving until we find a town where we "fit in" thereby perpetuating the transient stigma?
Homeownership does not indicate possession of integrity, pride or character.

Excellent points on both sides. And we appreciate the fact that you are keeping the discussion spirited but dignified!

I also agree that development needs to be carefully and thoughtfully planned and that this development is most likely not a good thing for Safety Harbor. (I haven't done enough research yet to have a definitive stance.) My issue is not with Fritz's lack of support for the proposal. My issue is with the tone of the posts regarding renters in general. And as far as rethinking our goals to be homeowners, that is not a financially sound decision for us given my husband's career. That does not make us less desirable. While we may not contribute to the property tax base, we do all we can to contribute in other ways, in ways that, to me, matter as much if not more. Which is better, a renter who maintains their property, is active in, and contributes to, the community or a homeowner who pays their property taxes but does not maintain that property and doesn't have a clue about what's going on in the community they are "invested" in? The fact that Kathleen and I are both paying attention to this issue and trying to become more informed should speak to our desire to become invested. Simply being a homeowner does not make you a community member in my eyes.

I for one am willing to give Fritz a pass for his opinion of renters and move onto the real point, which is whether the project is good for everyone in the community. My hope is that our Mayor and Commissioners vote to not allow the project to go forward with no assurance that our schools and infrastructure will not be overburdened and create an environment that is less desirable to the existing residents. Be they invested renters or homeowners. As we have seen recently elections have consequences. I hope the leaders of our small community remember their sworn duty to the electorate not companies or individuals with no skin in the game. I recall growing up in the outskirts of Detroit in the 40's & 50's with my parents deciding to move to the suburbs, because of the creep of crime and undesirable elements. It doesn't need to be that way. Safety Harbor is rich with cultural diversity and My wife and I prefer to live in an environment without gates, but we are fortunate enough to be able to choose with who and where we live. If this project goes through in it's current structure we will probably choose to move on before Safety Harbor loses it's charm and becomes just another Detroit with all of it's sad political issues of division. Culture of free stuff and reality show mentality. Now is the time to stop unwise development, not go into damage control (increasing taxes) after the fact.

Well said, Jamie. The issue is not renter vs homeowner, but overdevelopment and its effect on the town. And it affects everyone-- renter and homeowner, alike. We all have a voice and a place in this town and our goals are hopefully the same.

I loved reading the back and forth from all. Good points all around but the fact is that this development is way to large and does not fit with the character and charm that many of us (renter and owner) in Safety Harbor have come to love. We need to make sure the Mayor and Commission understand no Height in the Harbor. There are no other 3 or 4 story apartments, condos or townhomes in the whole city so why now? There are only 3 areas in the whole city that are zoned for light industrial and this is one of them. Has anyone considered where some permanent jobs may be able to be created instead of paving over for more people to live.