Reply to a comment

For right now, this issue is null and void. Please read the letter I just e-mailed, together with the recorded Deed Restrictions, to Council, below.

Gentlemen: The foresight and competence of the Mackle Brothers and their staff is beyond reproach. Once again, their vision has been expressed with no possibility for mis-interpretation. Even a simple citizen, such as myself, does not need a lawyer to understand what the original Developers wanted this land to be utilized for.

But all is not lost for the Marco Island Charter High School, that many of us support (personally I support the school, just not in the Park). But first we must all read the enclosed Deed Restrictions that dictate what can and cannot be done within that land referred to as Mackle Park.

As you can all easily see, Paragraph 1, on Page 1, clearly states that said property or any building constructed thereon may ONLY (emphasis added) be used for the following purposes: outdoor playgrounds; playfields and tot lots; service buildings for rest rooms, storage and equipment, when used in conjunction with park activities;........

So, based on these land use restrictions, which are non-negotiable, the Letter Of Intent that the Council approved at the 09 November meeting would appear to be inappropriate and non-enforceable. In my opinion, the Charter School people need to be informed as soon as possible to avoid any committments or applications they might make based on that Letter Of Intent. I would hate to see any costs or time be incurred on their part based on a non-valid Letter Of Intent.

But, as I stated above, there is a possible salvation. As you can see in paragraph 10, on Page 4, the timing for this request happens to be excellent. For 30 years these restrictions are fixed and not changeable. But that 30 year period ends on 10 January 2010. Now without any action, the restrictions continue in force for 10 year periods of time. But with a "vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots and tracts in the subdivision, it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part" (emphasis added).

My interpretation is not important as to who this represents. Since the City owns this property, does this mean that we all vote (as we are all owners) on changing the Deed Restrictions ?? That would be my interpretation. Obviously the neighbors to this property must also have their say (vote) on allowing this use for a school, which I believe was the intent of the Mackle Brothers on this option.

But action must be determined quickly. We have an election coming up early next year and the Charter School Committee must have some result so they know what their options are. This issue must be on the Ballot. Giving away a part of a City Park (physically or by use) should be voted upon by the entire City. It would seem that the Mackle Brothers agree and wanted it this way, also.

Respectfully submitted,
Ed Issler