Signatures 141 total
-
51
Name: Janet Miller on Oct 17, 2007Comments: When considering where to put this line, SMR only cares about FUTURE development, not the quality of the lives who have to live with the lines now. They can easily rearrange their plans for development, but my family has owned this 1,000 acre piece for over 40 years and we treasure what we have and don't want to see it ruined with ugly and possibly dangerous power lines. Thank You.Flag
-
52
Name: Lisa Dufresne on Oct 17, 2007Comments:Flag
-
53
Name: John Clement on Oct 17, 2007Comments: SMR greed for future development does not outweigh the significant negative impact this proposal invokes on countless EXISTING homeowners. I am convinced that any politician who supports this proposal is receiving kickbacks from SMR. The corruption makes me sick!Flag
-
54
Name: Lilianne Raud on Oct 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
55
Name: Raymond Raud on Oct 18, 2007Comments: In its depositions SMR is misrepresenting the cost of alternative routes as not requiring FPL to aquire additional land. This is incorrect. Verna Road is private road part of private properties. Current 20' easement along Verna Road is insufficient to accommodate 230-kv Transmission Line. A sufficiently wide easement will encroach on existing improvements to the properties next to the road and in some instances impossible to accommodate on the same side of the road without demolishing the houses.Flag
-
56
Name: Caroline Resnick on Oct 18, 2007Comments: SMR is only worried about THEIR bottom line and THEIR profits. They could care less about the environment and the existing homes.Flag
-
57
Name: Gary & Donna Wendell on Oct 18, 2007Comments: Fully in support FPL's route for transmission line placement, and no other route.Flag
-
58
Name: Linda Goodwyn on Oct 18, 2007Comments: I oppose the alternate routes for the Bobwhite-Manatee Major Transmission Line as proposed by SMR. They want to destroy the beauty of our neighborhoods, but protect their new development -- and this new transmission line is required because of their proposal of 5,000 new homes. This is an outrage!Flag
-
59
Name: Bill Kleiber on Oct 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
60
Name: Anonymous on Oct 18, 2007Comments: If FPL can manage to plan a route that impacts about one dozen of existing homes, it would be an outrage to allow SMR to negatively impact the lives of many, many times that number of homeowners NOW. The property values of existing residents would go down dramatically. And for what Only so YEARS FROM NOW, SMR will be able to profit from future developments where they themselves do not want 100-ft utility poles to impact their new-home sales.Flag
-
61
Name: Donna on Oct 18, 2007Comments: I've just moved here and bought a very expensive home off fruitville, if I knew any of this idea about the power lines, I would not have chosen to buy this home, knowing the health consequences that could happen to my family. Me and my husband are very upset and concerned.Flag
-
62
Name: Bob on Oct 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
63
Name: Michael Reynolds on Oct 19, 2007Comments: This is about fairness and doing what is right. Existing homeowners should not suffer for the benefit of future homeowners that SMR hopes to attrach and profit from. FPL is suggesting what if fair to all parties involved. SMR will benefit from this new line so they must be willing to accept the FPL route in the interest of fairness and what is right. Greed should not win out over what is right and fair.Flag
-
64
Name: Keith Gillies on Oct 19, 2007Comments: I whole heartedly agree with the above statement, and particulary: "We believe that EXISTING RESIDENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SMR'S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PROFITS. " Keith GilliesFlag
-
65
Name: Julie Gillies on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
66
Name: Heather Chaney on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
67
Name: Michael Chaney on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
68
Name: Felix Landrau on Oct 19, 2007Comments: SMR's effort seems like a malicious attempt at devalueing our area!Flag
-
69
Name: Pete Swanney on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
70
Name: Jackie Swanney on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
71
Name: Schreyer Guenter / Ursula on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
72
Name: Gary Lowman on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
73
Name: Anonymous on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
74
Name: Heather Jacobson on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
75
Name: Stephen E Woeber on Oct 19, 2007Comments: Existing Residents are more important then SMR future developments.Flag
-
76
Name: Chrstine Wood on Oct 19, 2007Comments: We bought our homesite due to the absence of high voltage powerlines. We had a choice, the same as the lwr residence whom have not purchased their homsites yet. I understand value, but don't take it away from someone already living in their home.Flag
-
77
Name: Christopher Wood on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
78
Name: Anonymous on Oct 19, 2007Comments:Flag
-
79
Name: Francis J.Wojdyla on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
80
Name: Lynne Goneau on Oct 20, 2007Comments: The original route proposed by FPL is fair and adequate in terms of the effects on existing residents and homes. The concerns of a DEVELOPER should not supercede the well-being and financial security of PEOPLE.Flag
-
81
Name: Patrick L. Goneau on Oct 20, 2007Comments: The original route proposed by FPL is fair and adequate in terms of the effects on existing residents and homes. The concerns of a DEVELOPER should not supercede the well-being and financial security of PEOPLE.Flag
-
82
Name: Lily Behrends on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
83
Name: Keith Behrends on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
84
Name: Martin Monsky on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
85
Name: Michael Garland on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
86
Name: GLORIA WITHERS on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
87
Name: John Sego on Oct 20, 2007Comments: We own LOT 21 in Sarasota Ranch Club Home address is 14555 Mossy Hammock Lane Myakka City, FLFlag
-
88
Name: Ronald W. Powell on Oct 20, 2007Comments: We strongly support the FPL desired rout and object to SMR's proposals. Their concern is for less impact on their bottom line in their future developments and not the negative impact their alternative proposals would have on existing homeowners.Flag
-
89
Name: Jack Blessee on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
90
Name: Bernard A. Wagner on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
91
Name: Michael Crosby on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
92
Name: Jeffrey Smith on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
93
Name: Garrett Cantrell on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
94
Name: Kurt Crist on Oct 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
95
Name: Paula Lengacher on Oct 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
96
Name: Larry Lengacher on Oct 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
97
Name: Eileen Joan Watts on Oct 22, 2007Comments: I do not want the powerlines to be located down CR675. Leave at present propossed location.Flag
-
98
Name: Paul Rostowsky on Oct 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
99
Name: Jo-anne Bond on Oct 22, 2007Comments: A year ago we emigrated from the UK to improve the lifestyle/environment for primarily our two children. We spent time and effort selecting the right home which is 9 miles east along Fruitville. A very rural area. The quality of life is tranquil, lots of wildlife,its peace ful and a wonderful place to bring up my childdren. If SMR's altrnate routes were imposed it would change our lives dramatically and also the people around us. The wildlife would be effected. I have Bald Eagles land on my front grass. We also have private air stripes near our land and if this SMR's proposed route/s went through it would change this and could be potentially dangerous. The impact on us and our neighbours would be devastating. We live here for a reason please dont allow SMR to change our quality of life and impact on our health.Flag
-
100
Name: John North on Oct 22, 2007Comments:Flag