Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
From Ms. Upham of the Community Affairs Department:
"If anyone knows Deltona's plan for seawall replacement, please let us know,"
Let me make an effort to review history and offer an answer that appears to be self evident: Deltona Plan required property owners to maintain their properties including seawalls since they are included in scope of ownership.
Owners are responsible! And Owners of vacant lots are offering their lots for pouring of panels on a temporary basis in keeping with city ordinances.
Do you want the government to take over your seawall through imminent domain, the 6" of wall thickness on our lot; then pay for a "government maintenance/insurance" program to maintain the wall. Under this scenario, I predict the property owner will receive no compensation for the land the government took from you, especially those property owners (majority) who responsibly maintain or replace their seawalls.
As a property owner, am I looking at this from a warped perspective?
The article continues:
"With some 50 miles of seawalls likely to fail without replacement or repair over the next 10 years, the problem goes back to the original development of the island."
The counter argument is vacant lots are not to be used as "industrial processing sites" in areas zoned as residential; to that I say is the residential community up in arms?
I hope the boards and council are not lead to yet to be determined crisis and pressured into crafting more ordinances or changes because:
".... a handful of vocal complaints on Marco have been allowed to drive the issue."
And Ms. Carr gave the numbers, "six complaints total in the past year, and four of those were directed at one specific instance."
I think I know where I stand, and in reference to a characterization of "industrial processing sites" to a slate of candidates according to Mr. Granda in a related OpEd is quite a stretch as a secret menace to single family homes.
Mr. Granda why?
Again,from Ms. Carr: "six complaints total in the past year, and four of those were directed at one specific instance"
I would have expected an outrage from residents if "industrial processing sites" were invading the island. I believe Mr. Granda is again, being petulant. If he was on the boards currently reviewing the seawall issue, he may have walked out, if Ms. Carr made such a comment before him.
Although, in fairness, the four complaints at on specific instance may qualify or rise to the hyperbole as an "industrial processing site", although only one site.
Property owners PAY ATTENTION! Is this another Mr. Magel agenda that needs attention? PAY ATTENTION!
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: 87°
Feels Like: 73°
Feels Like: 89°
Share your photos and videos with our online community. Take a look »
View a webcam of the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge and other places on Marco Island.
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.