Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

ajm3s writes:

in response to silverpalm26:

Whether this be a personal vendetta or not there is no difference in the two theories that you speak of Issler. First of all there were months of publicity about this property being developed and even publications in the paper AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT. If your new city council is willing to stick new and up coming companies out to dry with their less than knowledgeable information about their own so called city than MICA should not have the ability to stop this production.
On a second note the horse and carriage company was never even allowed on the streets, however had to spend thousands of dollars just for council and city officials to be able to "see the product" that they were wanting to put on the streets. Your theory of horses living on this island is far from the truth that you speak as did every other old hag on this island. They had a fully enclosed trailer to transport the horses off the island every day/night. Not have them living here!
Property values will only go up the more that this island has to offer and less non-tourist residents live here. Only the dying generation will ever be able to keep this island the same, however life has a toll and the majority of people on this island are close to it. Who do you think will run this island once they are gone?? Will Deltona still rule or will we be able to over come an idea that has long outlived its presence?

"Property values will only go up the more that this island has to offer and less non-tourist residents live here. Only the dying generation will ever be able to keep this island the same, however life has a toll and the majority of people on this island are close to it."

Wow! The dying generation? Well, I will disagree with your thesis "Property values will only go up the more that this island has to offer and less non-tourist residents live here."

If you allow that as your guide, then I can surmise you would place a check mark in the YES column for the establishment of a casino and/or convention center on this island and displace private homes to support such enterprise.

Property values are influenced by a host of conditions and to simply make a claim that limiting non-tourist (ie. part-time and full time residents) would lead to increase valuations is quite a position and oversimplification. I would argue such an approach would actually contribute to creating an atmosphere of commercialization that quite frankly, would change the character of the island, and diminish the unique qualities that attract tourist. And those tourists that eventually come to reside here, as they drive around the island on a leisurely tour falling in love with the homes and condos.

Good land planning and zoning administration are key, as well as protecting those features that contribute to making Marco Island unique, which includes a wholesome residential community. I suggest you look at communities with high property valuations, and you will find exclusiveness NOT commercialization at the expense and displacement of non-tourist residents.

The secret of Marco Island is creating the right balance, and that is quite a challenge in a world with changing demographics, but to simply displace non-tourist residents is quite an approach and from my perspective, an extreme position.

I will put a check mark in the NO column for displacement of the dying generation. In fact, I will support the dying generation as well as the non-tourist resident because for the most part, they contribute to the ambiance that attracts tourist to consider living here as residents. Is that wisdom or a dying idea?

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