Reply to a comment

in response to ajm3s:

As a quick rebuttal, I believe the argument is that if the MIA makes a claim to being environmentally sensitive you would think that they would adhere to such a commitment.

"The Marco Island Academy is excited to announce a partnership with Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society that will offer programs designed to emphasize the need to be better stewards of our natural resources. Additionally, it will teach us how to do a better job living a more sustainable lifestyle. The Marco Island Academy will be one of the first schools in the world to have this type of affiliation."

Reference: http://www.marcoislandacademy.com/abo...

Those who purchased a home or property, made no such commitment, at least I did not see a Marco Island Homeowners or resident website ever making such a claim, as to being environmentally sensitive to the standards espoused by the MIA.

As you are probably aware, the likelihood of any undeveloped barrier island being developed going forward is nil, but it was not so in 1960. Times have changed, but the MIA wishes to advertise its "green" awareness on its website and in public presentations. All I ask is relocating wildlife an example of "better stewardship" or "better job living a more sustainable lifestyle"? Their claim not mine.

But I believe there are more vacant lots than there were 10 years ago. Perhaps in aggregate, property owners are by economic default being better stewards.

So no kudos please.