Reply to a comment

Mr. Honig:

Are you seriously asking the folks of Marco Island for your vote based on hitching your wagon to two incumbents because, in your words:

"...I’m not a well known person on the Island, and because I share their positive outlook for all citizens. But make no mistake: I’m an independent voice, and I will always do the homework, study the issues, listen to input, and explain my decision."

Ironically, I believe you should have hitched your wagon to Mr. Petricca, Mr. Sacher and Mr. Honecker based on your comments, in fact some have made their own detailed analysis while making repeated request for information from city management and council only to be dismissed on several occasions during the public comment segment of council meetings.

The slate of Honecker, Petricca, and Sacher are actually citizens that have coalesced NOT for name recognition but to provide competency against incumbents with solvency issues and candidates that appear to be single issue driven, i.e. advocate of youth on the island. You were a hope to consider, but hitched your wagon to maintaining to a slate for name recognition thereby endorsing the status quo. And that platform is getting old because I want an efficient government to serve the COMMON interests of ALL citizens. [I believe that is a positive statement].

Again, you would have more credibility if you did you homework with regard to the incumbents because, Mr. Recker, a professional lawyer just used the city website to promote his candidacy only to be quickly reminded by individual members of MI Property Owners, MI Taxpayers Association and MI Civic Association that this is against the law!!!!!!!!!

Imagine, citizens of various civic associations had to inform the city manager as well as Mr. Recker to remove the contents. So if the folks are paying attention, it is apparent, competency may be lacking.

The folks do NOT need a positive approach to governance, we need competency. Since you do your own homework, I would ask that it be returned with an incomplete grade, for an incomplete review of candidates in establishing a slate.

Your next assignment, if you choose to accept it: When can we get a response to Mr. Magel's endorsement of your slate while condemning a citizens organization that he references with obsolete information and projections of dire consequences? Not a positive approach.

Are the citizens merely being negative for pointing out inconsistencies amongst those candidates and a chairman that claim a positive and professional platform both present and past respectively.

For the record, I do not anticipate agreeing with every position of the Honecker, Petricca and Sacher slate, but as a start, I have to at least review platforms for credibility.

Again, I believe you may need additional study before submitting your homework and a seat on council. If you wish to earn the credits, start with credibility.