Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Remember folks, shell driveways were a safety hazard as stated by Mr. Murphy several months ago. Remember, the gurney demonstration. Is this another NEW recently developed safety hazard?
To keep this discussion in focus please review Uniform Fire Code (UFC). I do not want misinformation to be spewed about and risk the ire of some bloggers.
To make the claim that the city was poorly planned is to cast judgment on Fire Safety professionals in the past. If I could review the files of years past, I suspect the city council would claim they had the best professionals as we have today. In the past 50 years, have fire hydrant specifications and spacing changed? I understand that Marco Island is a "home rule" charter and can adopt ordinances that it deems necessary for the benefit of its residents.
So I ask, is Marco Island embarking on another "improvement" that will "enhance" safety?
This additional cost without a true evaluation of risk is tantamount to the most blatant disregard to fiscal responsibility.
There are many issues that play into safely protecting a home. Currently under review by Uniform Building Code review committee is the inclusion of fire suppression systems for single family homes. But with the variable pressure, as experienced by citizens last summer, I suspect hydrant spacing is not going to solve the issue.
I challenge the belief that the city of Marco Island was poorly planned. I believe certain areas were not provided with standard 500ft spacing of hydrants was a function of the larger sizes of the lots. The city compensated for hydrant spacing by having an adequate amount of pumper trucks to transfer water from pumper to pumper.
We keep evaluating safety without any regard for the cost especially on an island that is dependent on expensive RO water. We should be evaluating ways to conserve water not more access points to distribute water.
Is this another attempt to expand the city water supply in an envoronment in which there are more vacant lots than 10 years ago, to the point that it is cost prohibitive for existing users?
There are many alternate means to reduce risk of fire to outlying areas and an interim tanker is costly and not needed. If you did not need it in 2000, why do we need it now? Why is this a safety issue today.
Again, there is something going on just like the shell driveway debacle that is not apparent to those of us who do not walk the halls of City Hall. To claim safety now is dubious.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.
Feels Like: 78°
Feels Like: 68°
Feels Like: 77°
View popular webcams in our area.
Sign up to read an electronic replica of the Marco Eagle newspaper.
Get your local news anywhere you go from the Marco Eagle. Download app »
See photos from local anglers with their biggest catch of the day. Submit your photos.
Our radar shows current conditions and possible severe weather.