A time for emboldened political correctness is with us, once again, as we anticipate January’s mail-in ballots for City Council members and a public referendum on amendments to our city charter.
Several of the declared incumbent-wannabe nominees, thus far, seem to qualify with a healthy mix of experiences, talents and ideologies that our diverse community so sorely needs and deserves today. The charter amendments, as suggested by a sincere and disparate citizen’s review committee, reflect an obvious need for change and adjustment to critical governmental processes.
Thus, this charter referendum comprises a very rare opportunity for our 13,000 registered voters to participate in our government’s decision-making process so outrageously ignored and patently denied by our City Council since 2002’s $10 million referendum on the Golan-Veteran’s Park property purchase. Yet, there’s more to our growing civic embroilment and fiscal debacle.
A startling public question is rapidly emerging during this election season as we measure our precarious financial future now growing darker each passing month. Last month’s revelation by Public Works Director Joel for a request of still another $6 million indebtedness for “emergency energy utility updates” requires more than a mere business-as-usual response.
As our city’s debt skyrockets and our credit sinks below the municipal A-rating radar, 13,000 registered electors should ask:
“Will the stimulus-inspired, shovel-ready President Obama/Governor Crist/Collier County/Marco Island Jolley Bridge parallel span boondoggle serve the best interests of Marco Island electors who pay most of the taxes, fees, utility charges and special assessments required by the city of Marco Island and the county of Collier in their annual budget allocations?”
As our Marco Island public debt exceeds $12,000 per resident man-woman-child and a sobering $19,200 per capita for 13,000 registered voters (mostly part-timers) that vital question is neither academic nor speculative when viewed in the context of the pretexts and contrived menaces used to launch a majority of our $200 million plus trifecta (high taxes, increasing operating expenditures and growing debt since 2002) in the complete absence of significant public referendums.
Need we review here the questionable rationales used to launch the STRP seizures, the purchase of our white elephant water-sewer treatment plant, the polarization of sewer-water-reuse water capabilities, rates and payments, the extravagances of Collier Boulevard, etc., etc. etc.?
It is too late to consider the inclusion of a Jan. 6 mail-in referendum on the proposed new Jolley Bridge span. Yet, couldn’t we have a poll-survey questionnaire so electors could finally express their views and opinions on the new Jolley Bridge project? Three years ago our astute county/city planners paid for a vehicle driver response survey to-and-from Marco Island including the Goodland span. As a result, visitors, guests, vendors, truckers and day-tourists dominated the results which were promptly sold as a resource treasure for marketing companies. Actual Marco Island resident and property owner replies were never revealed.
Thus, why have we left it to ex-Councilor Mike Minozzi and Councilor Bill Trotter to promote and pledge a $25 million plus public works project whose value and worth remain mysteries to Marco Island voters when we know another $5 to $10 million of local taxpayer funding will be required to finish the various lanes of the new span?
Likewise, no serious public discussion has been held about the continuing “toll-no toll-resident free” access to-egress from Marco Island.
Isn’t it time the voters of Marco Island be given a chance to express their views? Their future quality-of-life condition will be forever changed with the new Jolley Bridge span. Is this another case of dithering and delay by our elected officials afraid to really know what citizens honestly want and desire?
Why can’t we include a separate survey-poll sheet in our Jan. 6 ballot mailings to 13,000 Marco Island voters asking them as residents what their honest views, feelings and aspirations are all about as the new Jolley Bridge span is proposed, and whether it should be tolled or not?
Isn’t that what democracy and the American way are all about?
Sayre Uhler
Marco Island
Bonita Springs Prostitution Sting…
Fudge Carvings: Satisfy your sweet…
Buddy Day, 2012
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 7
lauralbi1 writes:
Sayre: If the results were as expected, that an overwhelming majority of the citizens want the additional span, would you promise to stop writing your verbose letters?? Many of us would pay for this survey on our own if we could guarantewe that it would silence you. For there is no doubt, no doubt at all, that a majority are in favor of the bridge, and we get it with no bridge toll ( yes there is a toll on our Federal taxes as a result of the Stimulus Package).
So in reading your long, long, essay, I still am left trying to figure out what it is that you are requesting.
Ed Issler
Fossil writes:
Issler, no one cares what you think.
MrBreeze writes:
Mr. Uhler, you are so right. It seems that I thought that I was the only one who see's this wolf in sheeps clothing known as the new bridge. I hope that when it does affect smart people as Mr. Issler who thinks it is all for free then we both can stand back and laugh. The problem is the island is FOREVER going to be changed by the bridge and people are just to clueless to realize it. Then one day when the toll's are in place or the taxes are imposed, or the bridge is sold to a private operator then and only then will your brillance be realized. I have said it before and will keep saying it "say no to the bridge". It is the beginning of the end of Marco Island as we know it.
jwputnam writes:
Dear Sayre,
I could not agree more. Your analysis is dead on.
lauralbi1 writes:
Dear Fellow Bloggers: I only wish that Mr. Uhler's request could be granted. It would provide a vehicle to show how out of touch you are with what the majority of Marco Islanders want. We can only hope that the future direction of the Island is not driven by you or your representatives.
Ed Issler
jwputnam writes:
Hi Ed,
How was your drive around the State seeking out nasty information about Marco citizens? Did you find some good dirt?
You know, you could have saved a lot of miles and time by simply stopping by Arceri's home prior to a council meeting and taking note of the vehicles there. Could it be a syndicate meeting or do Trotter, Gibson, Waldach and Arceri just play bridge for an hour or two before the meetings for recreation. One wonders....but then that nasty old Kiester was actually paying bills and writing letters to his family on his computer and secreting them away, right?
That reminds me Ed.....you never did tell us what terrible stuff was found on the computer files that Kiester so honestly submitted for inspection, UNLIKE the other councilors. Can you tell me? Do you know Ed?
kathleenfl9 writes:
I drive over the Jolley Bridge every day at least twice (sometimes four times) and I have never been stopped for longer than three minutes even in season. What is the reason for a new bridge? Do people just want to spend more money for something extravagant. We have a beautiful island and the future is about to change considerably with the addition of a new bridge. I say that people who feel the need for more bridges should move to a metropolis where they can take buses and trains to keep from driving in traffic.
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.