Comments on: In government as in tennis, play by rules on Key Biscayne The Newspaper for the Future of Miami Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:17:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: BRUCE MATHESON Sat, 02 Nov 2013 04:40:41 +0000 MR. LEWIS, Your insightful editorial explains the situation completely.

By: John P. Bell Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:32:39 +0000 the above comments have stated what needs to be recognized by our elected representatives including our major. Crandon Park is a public facility and should be for public use. Not only will the public loose courts but will no longer have the variety of surfaces.
contrary to the ad campaign of the promotors the expansion will cost us all, the people of Miami-Dade county the park as we now have it. It was obvious last year that there was indifference to the village with the change that one could no longer leave the grounds and return as in prior years during the tournament. If county officials truly believe that the tournament is a great asset then let the promoters pay for the cost of relocating it to another county space such as the fairgrounds and thus leave Crandon Park for the use of the people as intended by the donors.




By: Michael Greve Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:31:46 +0000 I am a regular player at Crandon. I voted for the referendum in support of the the facilities for the professional tournament– but that referendum language did not say that clay and grass courts would be eliminated, or that the total number of courts available would be reduced.

The writer is correct: “a deal is a deal”. Equally importantly, our county should not subsidize the tournament promoter- particularly at the expense of the “paying” and “playing” public!

A negotiation needs to take place whereby these clay and grass courts are kept even if relocated elsewhere on site. Tennis courts themselves are not expensive to construct. If proper motivation exists, a solution can be found.

By: rose haney Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:56:30 +0000 We need to remember that Crandon Park is a public park for all the people. Eliminating the clay courts is kicking the seniors out of the park. It is also denying the juniors a chance to develop a clay court game in a public facility. If this park is indeed a public park then all of the stakeholders should have input in the plan. The current plan has IMG’s name all over it and it is developed for their intrest-a private corporation looking for a way to make money out of using public land. We need to remember that Crandon Park was donated for public purpose and it is time to consider the needs of all users and people impacted by the tournament.