Login | Contact Us | Feedback | Customer Service | Site Map | Archives | RSS | Subscribe to the paper

Home › Island News › Local News

Marco City Council candidates answer questions from the Eagle

By LESLIE WILLIAMS (Contact)
Originally published 03:34 p.m., January 10, 2008
Updated 12:00 a.m., January 15, 2008

Many readers have asked for a simple run-down of where the eight City Council candidates stand on the island’s big issues.

In the interest of making you, the voter, as informed as possible, we asked the candidates to answer 10 yes/no questions we thought were some of the biggest on the island.

Knowing that some things require a little elaboration, we allowed the candidates to expand their answers to just two questions of their choosing.

1. Do you support completion of the city’s sewering program?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: Yes

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: Yes, considering the costs associated with stopping that would be paid through increased sewer and water rates and the likelihood it would be mandated at some point in the future.

Bill Trotter: Yes

Wayne Waldack: Yes

2. If the program were stopped, would you require homes with access to sewer lines to connect anyway?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: Yes

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No, they would not be required to hook up, that would be voluntary.

Frank Recker: Yes

Bill Trotter: Yes

Wayne Waldack: Yes

3. Would you support attempts to expose the position of city manager to a referendum, in effect removing him or her if a majority of voters feel that he or she has done an unsatisfactory job?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: No

Andrew Guidry: No, A new, strong City Council will have the responsibility of guiding the city manager.

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: No

Bill Trotter: No

Wayne Waldack: No

4. Would you support continued defense in court of the city’s waterways ordinance, which was declared unconstitutional by a district judge in November?

Joe Batte: Yes, City ordinances must be defended if challenged. However, future ordinances must conform to state and federal law and receive thorough legal review prior to passing.

Jerry Gibson: No

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon If the city loses this appeal, I would end it here. If the city wins the appeal, and the defendant moves it to the supreme court, I would have to think long and hard about continuing.

Frank Recker: No

Bill Trotter: I initially supported this to uphold our ordinance. However, if it appears that success is unlikely, I will vote not to continue.

Wayne Waldack: No

5. Do you support the possible doubling of Florida homestead exemptions?

Joe Batte: Yes

Jerry Gibson: Yes

Andrew Guidry: Yes

Roger Hall Yes

Butch Neylon Yes

Frank Recker: Yes

Bill Trotter: Yes

Wayne Waldack: Yes

6. Would you support, under any circumstances, a toll on the Jolley Bridge?

Joe Batte: No, Spending has been out of control with no attention to real needs of the people, like repairing infrastructure. Creating new assessments is not the answer.

Jerry Gibson: No

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: No

Bill Trotter: No

Wayne Waldack: No

7. Do you believe city spending over the last two years has been reasonable?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: Yes

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No, In the two years I have been going to council and budget meetings I have never seen any effort to curtail spending for any project.

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: Yes

Bill Trotter: Yes

Wayne Waldack: Yes, exceptional and necessary health and safety infrastructure needed to be completed because of 30 years of neglect that some homeowners seem unaware of.

8. Would you support a special assessment for fire services?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: Yes, As long as there is no increase to taxes

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No, This is another attempt to circumvent the CAP and raise our effective taxes 10 percent. It creates a new unregulated tax burden on our citizens.

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: Yes, provided it is offset by a tax reduction.

Bill Trotter: Yes, Provided it does not result in an overall increase in taxes. This is an important step to help prevent cuts in our essential services.

Wayne Waldack: Yes, by referendum only.

9. Should the city do away with its police force?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: No

Andrew Guidry: No

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: No

Bill Trotter: No

Wayne Waldack: No

10. Should the city consider un-incorporating?

Joe Batte: No

Jerry Gibson: No

Andrew Guidry: No, But if this tax and spend council is not replaced by the voters, Marco City may run out of funds.

Roger Hall No

Butch Neylon No

Frank Recker: No

Bill Trotter: No

Wayne Waldack: No

Comments

This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.


Nice email compliments of the HATE SLATE. They know they have no facts and they know their candidates are liars. Neylon can only make up data so long before he'll actually have to provide proof!
____________________________________
I can hardly type this I am so angry. First, the Eagle only endorses one of our guys, Batte, then I heard that the other night at the MICA meeting Butch tells everyone he has only been a resident for 3 months, the same day that the other side runs an ad they have lived on Marco for over 50 years! Who is in charge of timing on our side, no one? Ted practically endorses Recker in the paper, someone needs to tell him this a war for the future of our Island and no time to be open-minded. Both papers print Woodward’s stuff about Butch’s facts not really being facts and it has been a week since that letter has been on line and still no rebuttal from our side! The LTE are running 2 to 1 against us, who told Sayre he could go on vacation? What is going on? How tough is it for Butch to take the press out to the leak and get photos of the 170,000 gallons of sewage pouring out? Or do we need to start praying for rain to prove the million gallon figure? I looked thru Butch’s website and can not find any proof or data– get on the ball and update your website!

But what takes the cake was my reading the Eagle article on everyone's position. Only two of is sticking with Bill? He spent hours and months ahead of the election sending out selected articles and creating PR with his Eye on Marco and only half of us can stand by him and his waterway ordinance? We discussed many times that the only way to win this election is to keep the core and expand it to include others – now we are losing the core!

#1 Posted by Montel on January 11, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking about that can’t any of you see the trick question regarding the POP amendment? Unbelievable! Now that Moss is gone 100% of us say there is no reason for it? What? Butch, Roger, Joe remember you are all on record supporting Russ and saying that the amendment was not political but really needed. Now you turn on all loyal supporters who Colombo got to sign it (further dividing the core) and by rejecting the need for the amendment you are saying in essence it was all just politics to get rid of Moss! If CM gets their hands on your old quotes we are dead, what happened to campaigning as "men of integrity", why are we abandoning that? At least Andy is clear on that account since he never publicly supported POP. But frankly I am sorry that we let Godfrey talk us into him, we should have kept Allen – at least he would have done well in the forums and has some brains.

The only guy looking good this week in the paper is Chuck. This is too important an election to keep messing up – we don’t want Chuck stuck there for two more years alone and looking foolish! We only have a couple of weeks left – I am giving one more week before I pull the signs out of my yard and start telling my friends to do likewise, this is getting too embarrassing – we might only get 30% of the vote the way this campaign is being run. I lost the money I gave Foster for the litigation now it looks like I am going to lose the donation money I gave you guys. Add that to the sewer bill I am going to be stuck with and I am going to have to give up golf and retirement! John & Bryone please forward this on, as when my computer crashed I lost everyone’s email addresses. Thanks, Joe

#2 Posted by Montel on January 11, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what is it about loud, angry, obnoxious, power hungry attorneys on this island, Tucker, Recker and Monte Lazarus.

#3 Posted by lowus on January 11, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Montel/Monty potty mouth. Is "Joe" a figment of your imagination? Are you now writing emails for imaginary people? Or perhaps he is your alter ego. You need counceling soon.

#4 Posted by Lolala on January 11, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it out loud, obnoxious, bald Welshmen, a lying New Englander and a liberal Californian who will do anything to stop a necessary project. Accept the fact that sewers are coming to your nieghborhood REAL SOON!

#5 Posted by Montel on January 11, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it about the truth that you folks don't understand. The fact is that Batte on 8/7/06 and Hall on 8/9/06 signed the POP petitition in 2006 and Neylon on 6/28/07 and Hall on 6/27/07 signed the POP petition in 2007 and then they lied to the public and turned their backs on POP and Russ Colombo, because of political necessity and said they wouldn't support such an issue, liars and parasites the lot of them.

The only honest one of the bunch on this issue is Dr. Guidry, he told the truth

Nothing imaginary about that lolala, just a plain honest fact.

#6 Posted by PetePan on January 11, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PetePan, your focus is too limited, your comprehension too wishful. Read the question carefully and you will see that all responded truthfully. You sir, are a muckracker! A frustrated one at that. Be careful of who you allege are liars. That accusation fits a few of your favorite sitting Council members. That is a fact that you cannot deny. Just a plain fact.

#7 Posted by Lolala on January 11, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey monte....you are the biggest idiot i have ever read....where in the world (what state or province) are you from. i would love to meet you eyeball to eyeball and see a real moron....please, please, let me know where we can meet each other....hate slate? you are the hate slate...you rip everyone on this blog that has a right to post their opinions....kiss my a--.

#8 Posted by shadow on January 11, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

van: are you threatening montel? i don't believe you want to come eyeball to eyeball with anyone let alone montel.
be careful what you wish for.

#9 Posted by patton1 on January 11, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The candidates that voted NO for questions 2, 7 and 8 are the only candidates that thought about the questions prior to responding. Or, they responded as their sponsors directed them to. Question 2, the only logical response is NO when one considers that this utility expansion was built with no proven justification. Why should residents be required to hook up to something they do not need? The only known purpose of forcing residents to hook up is to ensure that growth on Marco Island may continue. Who in their right mind other then those investors who own commercial property without access to a sewer line wants to see or vote for mixed use condos on Bald Eagle, North Barfield and San Marco? Question 7, you have to be blind and deaf to not believe our city has been on a spending spree for the last two years. Time to control and reduce spending so that our middle class can remain here. A NO vote will inhibit unbridled growth designed only to pay off investors and slow down construction. Question 8, This is just another scheme to subvert the CAP. It will result in increased taxes during it's second year. No tax break here, just more revenue to spend. It also will reduce the amount of money one can deduct from their federal taxes. Federal tax deductions of state taxes are really an indirect subsidy of our city's expenditures. Who in their right mind would vote other than NO and volunteer to pay more taxes?

#10 Posted by bbyrone46 on January 12, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)



Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn: