Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Mr. Uhler - I understand your letter, and agree that fiscal responsibility is critical, but don't presume to consider that all "The People" of Marco are opposed to this improvement in our park facilities. Despite that poor decisions that have been made in the past to balloon the city debt service to an extreme amount, we shouldn't be so careless to just throw out the baby with the bath water. Any appropriate decision should be based on its merits, and if the business case and requirements of compliance are justified, then the direction and action will be appropriate. The research and validation of the information continues and I would have expected that you would approve of the due diligence, as the city staff works actively to ensure all the necessary data and information is fully vetted and shared with "the people". It would appear that just because you don't agree with the facts on the status of the site and center, you are negative about the direction. Please, I urge to you evaluate the facts here, which is surely you would have expected to have happened years ago when the purchase of the Utility was being considered.
As someone who utilizes the Mackle Park facilities frequently, anyone who visits would see how inadequate it is for the current needs, as well as future needs.
Be reminded that if the city and community wishes for Marco to be and remain a premier area, investment in actively used facilities for recreation, learning and community engagement are not just convenient but necessary. Let's start to judge this program on it's merits, as opposed to just the few, most vocal, senior resident constituents wishes. The community is not just made of seniors, but children, parents and visitors, who typically walk away with a very favorable opinion of Mackle Park. I know, because I ask many of them. And remember that many of those demographics wouldn't be represented in a referendum. Now imagine how much more value and outlook there would be with some improvement and prudent expansion to the facility and grounds.
Bottom line, I advocate a fiscal responsible direction that is justified by the needs, and abilities of the city. That is what investment is about, and the return should be justified. I'm sure you would agree that is a fair, prudent and appropriate path of consideration when it comes to this project.
If there are other "pragmatic alternatives" that haven't yet been shared, I suggest you share them with us. I for one, am ready to make considerations based on the facts, objectives and abilities, just as we should expect from our local government. Surely there is a compromise somewhere.
Thank you for your comments. I know you are active in your communication on civic issues and it truly enhances the value of our conversations and reflects that we are a community who shares the same goals, but may sometimes disagree in how to reach those goals.
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: 70°
Feels Like: 74°
Feels Like: 69°
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.