bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Aug 27, 2008 22:02:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by havetofish on Aug 27, 2008 22:23:38 GMT -5
Problem is the Piers are not considered an Historic site. Thats a whole other battle.
|
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Aug 27, 2008 22:37:36 GMT -5
Well ok then
|
|
Tommy
Rod Polisher
Hooked[Mo0:0]
Posts: 142
|
Post by Tommy on Aug 28, 2008 6:14:25 GMT -5
|
|
Tommy
Rod Polisher
Hooked[Mo0:0]
Posts: 142
|
Post by Tommy on Aug 28, 2008 6:54:47 GMT -5
|
|
Tommy
Rod Polisher
Hooked[Mo0:0]
Posts: 142
|
Post by Tommy on Aug 28, 2008 7:00:52 GMT -5
More
1000 Friends of Florida at (850) 222-6277
|
|
|
|
Post by havetofish on Aug 28, 2008 7:28:06 GMT -5
I downloaded the .pdf you listed Tommy and didn't see anything about the Piers being historic, just the old bridge may have been. I made my comment from this 2001 report. www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/SkywayFishingPierStatePark.pdfIn it, it makes the statement that Archaeological and Historical Features "Although the waters of Tampa Bay have played an important role in all phases of Florida’s past, there are no known archaeological or historic features associated with the Skyway Fishing Piers State Park." I hope I am wrong, maybe something can be done. |
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Aug 28, 2008 15:58:48 GMT -5
I sent the City of Tampa Florida Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program an email on the skyway fishing piers. I f i get a response i will let yall know. I have gotten a response from them but all they told me is that my email has been read.
|
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Sept 2, 2008 18:53:58 GMT -5
Still no response to my email to them. Mabey if several of send tham an email they might respond.
|
|
pascosal
Weekend Warrior
My Fear!!!!
Posts: 398
|
Post by pascosal on Sept 2, 2008 18:57:22 GMT -5
squeeky wheel gets the grease!!!
|
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Sept 2, 2008 19:01:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bill jacques on Sept 3, 2008 8:18:01 GMT -5
|
|
jab
Reel Serious
Posts: 543
|
Post by jab on Sept 3, 2008 21:01:35 GMT -5
that clearwater bridge is non sense! i go over it all the time when fishing at sand key they made it higher for no reason your only 200 feet from sea wall and water front homes it dpesnt need to be that high it was fine before.
|
|
jab
Reel Serious
Posts: 543
|
Post by jab on Sept 3, 2008 21:03:23 GMT -5
like they expect huge ocean liners to go under that
|
|
|
|
Post by filletnrelease on Sept 4, 2008 6:57:57 GMT -5
like they expect huge ocean liners to go under that BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER. $$$$$$$$$$$ A place for cruise ships perhaps. |
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Sept 18, 2008 22:43:36 GMT -5
I finally got a reply from my email sent to the City of Tampa Florida Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program. Here was there response.
9/17/2008 9:35 AM Closed
Historic Preservation Technician, Growth Management and Development Services
Email was directed to:
edward tocco (Requestor)
Other Actions:
- Message status changed to Closed
Message: Good morning Mr. Tocco, the Skyway Bridge is not in the City of Tampas' jurisdiction. But, you can call Elaine Illiese at (813)748-3376 who does a lot of work with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and may be able to provide with you some information on the Skyway Bridge. Also, you may want to go to Bridge Hunters.com where you can find info about bridges in the State of Florida. I can tell you that the north bound portion of the bridge open in 1954.
Thank you for using the City of Tampa Message Center.
They did provide a phone number( mabey somebody who hasent heard from us) and a website.
|
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Sept 19, 2008 18:41:02 GMT -5
Dont bust a nut with excitment skyjay!  |
|
|
|
Post by SkyJay on Sept 19, 2008 19:27:43 GMT -5
sorry
|
|
bcc
Reel Serious
[Mo0:16]
Posts: 595
|
Post by bcc on Sept 19, 2008 20:51:00 GMT -5
Well i pretty much felt the same way when i read the email. A whole lot of nothing again. At least were trying to get some attn. to it.
|
|
