One of the subjects of concern as discussed in the DRCA board meeting last Monday was that concerning the mayor of St. Petersburg and his idea to bring the Pier closer to shore if not on shore. 

I am still cloudy on details, but supposedly this is to save money in the long haul, for one thing.  How spending tax payers' money to draw in a massive structure along Tampa Bay is somewhat beyond me, but okay, I'll bite.  This is not to say that this is the DRCA's opinion as apparently this was viewed as a legitimate reason to channel some millions of dollars to bring the pier closer to shore.  However, there was a concern as to how this might affect noise pollution in the downtown St. Pete area which the DRCA over-sees. 

According to the mayor, there are plans to bring the pier in for the sake of expanding on the pier: expanding to add the air of an amusement park, no less.  According to the official article on this move, it was said that there were plans to incorporate a ferris wheel on the pier in order to draw in families with younger children.  This remains the primary concern of the DRCA who* is battling noise pollution in the residential area and so are opposed to the potential use of the pier. 

However, this move to bring the pier to shore brings up concerns as to how this move might affect the environment by doing so.  Not only that, there is concern as to how the scenic parks along shore might be tampered with to where the parks, which give this residential area much of its beauty, will likely be eroded for the sake of the pier expansion or other building expansion which may well occur as a result of the pier's new location.

My personal thoughts:

Personally speaking, I cringe at the idea of ferris wheels or in amplifying a kiddie atmosphere on the pier.  The atmosphere the pier has is good enough for kids as it is.  If anything, they should expand the aquarium in the pier.  But the pier is a fishing pier and having a pier over deep water is more ideal for fishing than bringing the pier in over shallow water.  It sort of ruins the "on the water" atmosphere that the pier has; such is an atmosphere I fondly remember going there fishing after sailing practice at the nearby sailing center. 

Though I am still alluded as to why this move saves money when it costs so much money, as I pointed out already.  The only things I can think of are in regards to maintenance of the road suspended over water, which is something that can be very costly in the case of being slammed by a category four or five hurricane, and erosion.  I somehow doubt erosion is the issue as this shoreline is off of mainland and is not like a barrier island which is far more susceptible to erosion but which are maintained, nonetheless, by human intervention. 

I know nothing of the Navy Pier, but aesthetic reasons are largely my reasons for personally being opposed.  While I can understand that this move is intended to improve commerce and expand on tourism in the area seeing as tourism is an important element of the economy of this locality and of the state of Florida, but is this really the way to go about it?  Do those advocating for this move really think they are going to get a good return on the money invested in this action?  Do they really think they are saving money or are they just living in a dream land? 

----

* I am not sure whether I should use "who" or "which" when referring to the DRCA.  It is a legal entity, but I am not sure if "who" is appropriate.  -Heidi