Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

ajm3s writes:

in response to mrz333:

Well again ajm3s reads without ‘reading’. Might I ask what makes you think I’m unconcerned with the city’s operating costs because I became an owner in ‘2009’? I think not!
Boutique style services and businesses, now-a-days, usually refer to a small and locally owned and operated business that may or may not have the outward appearance of a traditional street front business. I don’t think you’re grasping the concept, being defined as we speak, that the ideas of retirement and retirees are changing! With these changes comes a new set of standards and services one looks for in a community. Communities which offer a certain charm with modern infrastructure and amenities will be in the forefront. The natural ‘charm’ of Marco is evident. The integration of this ‘charm’ with a responsible development process is not. And, since there seems to be plenty of vacant land here for the having, you’d think that a ‘responsible’ plan for further development would already be in place.
Now, just for your information ajm3s and not in any way offering support for a plan I did not see, many large corporations and universities operate solar power generating stations. With current Federal Tax incentives, Grants and Regulations and required utility ‘buy-backs’ it has become very profitable to operate one. The plants offer reliable clean energy, reduced utility costs for their operators, and, an investment in the future. Wouldn’t just the possibility of cheaper electricity that could potentially power a desalinization plant for cheaper water be worth looking into? Universities have built these to fund, in part, their endowments instead of more risky market investments.
These are all just ideas and no one is opening their checkbooks! Marco has a unique opportunity to look at the future with the wisdom of our collective experience if its residents would just try to think a little out of the box built in the 50’s.

It's not that you are not concerned, it's your analysis that make me shudder. Consider your own words.

You are correct, "many large corporations and universities operate solar power generating stations. With current Federal Tax incentives, Grants and Regulations and required utility ‘buy-backs’" But where you fall off the edge is when you continue on with "it has become very profitable to operate one".

If you are concerned then you lack the concept of operating and capital costs. Because if you really understand the economics of solar plants they cannot exist and compete with current energy sources without "current Federal Tax incentives, Grants and Regulations...".

Do not get upset, just do not lists all these subsidies and then claim they are profitable....if you need subsidies and grants to support and compete against traditional coal, nuclear, hydro and gas fired generating plants.

And of all things, you do not consider high value land in a resort community for solar collectors to further exacerbate the cost/benefit ratio.

Which brings me back to the point I raised in my initial comment; not all change is effective, and to use property valuations as a metric to promote redevelopment, dismisses the fact that depressed market valuation may be more a function of lending practices and other factors, which lead to the eventual bursting of a bubble.

I guess from your perspective, we need to redevelop a town instead of maintaining one, especially considering the age of Marco Island as a development. A plan (Deltona plan) that is 50 years old. In fact, I believe you and I are older than this development. Do we need a makeover, as well?

And for the record I am a retiree as well, but I do not see a need for redevelopment.... abandoned homes and vacant lots are a function of a host of issues, of which the city was indirectly promoting just a few years ago with excessive code violation fees, especially on foreclosed homes. To the point prospective buyers and sellers were led away due to code violations that sometimes exceeded the cost of the homes, especially in a depressed market. Thereby promoting more distressed property going into decay.

Yeah, I may not be able to read, But I sure can see, and the forces of change are not solved with redevelopment and a new look! Did we not like what we saw when we first crossed the bridge and decided to buy homes on this island.

So what is the problem? It may boil down to the fact that I do not see what you see. I do not hear the roar of business owners wanting to change their storefronts to "boutiques" unless of course there is a subsidy to pay for it.

And I will say it again, if you really want a dramatic change, consider the collective maintenance of condos and single family homes with no derelict properties. If we maintained our own properties, we would have more impact than a facelift of storefronts.

Share your thoughts

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.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features