Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
The concern is the increase municipal spending each year, in light of citizens dealing with an economy over the last 4 years, that is sluggish at best. Is it too much to ask the city and our representatives to curb growth to match what citizens are experiencing?
Marco Island claims to be a city with families and retirees, yet the official government number keepers show a slowdown in GDP in the last 2-3 years, middle class losing ~4K in average income, while increase in cost for staples to raise a family.
Yet, the city wishes to expand services to increase the burden on taxpayers, with no regard to reviewing what would best benefit the citizens. Is raising the flag against an expansion model based on "more is better" mentality, a bad thing.
Sorry if I am skeptical of incumbents acting as cheerleaders; I tend to like candidates that are problem solvers. And from my experience, problem solving begins with identifying real problems NOT rah rah chants. In my professional life, it is what drives innovation!
I tend to look at those exclaiming there is a problem, as harbingers to a better Marco Island. However, to your point you must first start with a clear problem and perhaps some problems are not problems at all, and/or rise to a level of hyperbole.
Under that scenario: I ask you to be discerning as to what constitutes a valid problem. Consider the recent issue of sea walls and vacant lot staging, that in my estimation is a solution LOOKING for a problem. Or will it burgeon into a more costly approach to seawall maintenance under the auspices of a city managed program? Is this another council induced problem? Similar to a 24/7 urgent care resolution again under citizenry outcry, or lack of?
I ask for a fair review of all the candidates as well as what the problems are. Seawall staging or government expansion and unintended consequences are both perceived as "problems". Yet which are now considered by the city and council?
I am for a quality of life NOT a quantity of revenue from tourism or more costly city programs from expanded services at the expense of residents. Should I be silent as I view density transfer, CRA/TIF, larger public facilities, proposed parking transfer sites for trolleys, convention center on east side of Collier, etc as to the impact of residents.
Limited growth is NOT a bad idea for an island with a defined shoreline!!!!!!!
I believe some representatives are more sensitive to city managers/directors than residents. But ironically, the city expands and buys more stuff, i.e more police personnel, fire boat, recommissioning Station 51, while non-union rank and file employee incomes were frozen......and hazards remain essentially unchanged.
Just my opinion, is it too negative? Even the Planning Board is dismissed by council on several occasions, so the citizens are clamoring.
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: 85°
Feels Like: 68°
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.