I am shocked and outraged that the city would even consider a plan that forces property owners to remove the “drainage rock” from their swales when the State of Florida along with many other state governments across the country continue to recommend using eco-friendly xeriscaping.
There is a large amount of material on the benefits of eco-friendly xeriscaping available online – too many to include in this letter. When I built my home 22 years ago I was encouraged to xeriscape, in fact, at a much higher cost to me at the time.
What is xeriscaping and why use it?
-- Lowers consumption of imported or ground water. More water is available for other domestic and community uses and the environment.
-- Less time and work needed for maintenance effort, with gardening simpler and less stressful. Little or no lawn mowing.
-- Xeriscape in appropriate planting design, and soil grading and mulching, takes full advantage of rainfall retention.
-- When water restrictions are implemented, by municipality or water costs, xeriscape plants will tend to survive and thrive, while more ornamental plants may be unable to adapt.
Benefits of xeriscaping
-- Saves water. For most of North America, over 50 percent of residential water used is applied to landscape and lawns. Xeriscape can reduce landscape water use by 50 percent to 75 percent.
-- Less Maintenance and watering requirements are low.
-- No Fertilizers or pesticides. Eliminates the need for chemicals.
-- Improves property value.
-- Pollution free. Fossil fuel consumption from gas mowers is minimized or eliminated.
The reason presented for the rock removal is completely false. What is the purpose of “drainage” rock? Why would they call it “drainage rock” if it’s not used for drainage purposes? Why is “drainage rock” installed behind seawalls if it isn’t used for drainage purposes? Landscapers and seawall companies use drainage rock since it “drains” better.
It would actually make much more sense for the city to mandate all swales to be drainage rock.
Granted the swales are owned by the city. So if the city adopts this ordinance then I propose the following on their city owned property:
1. Reimburse all property owners for the cost of the rock we installed in good faith and per governments recommendations.
2. City to absorb all costs to remove the rock and redistribute per owners specifications.
3. City to replace the rock with their choice of product at city’s cost.
4. City to fully maintain city swale owned property to their specifications.
Which raises another point. Since the city owns all the swales then the city should maintain all of them including installing their preferred product, mowing, fertilizing, and watering. Why are homeowners footing the bill for city owned property in the first place?
Well over 50 percent of homeowners don’t maintain their grassy swale properly. So many of them are unsightly and a disgrace to the island. If the city maintains all island swales this would solve that problem. The city could install irrigation down all Marco streets and water at their cost. The city could have its own swale department for mowing, weeding and fertilizing the swales. Think of the jobs it would create in an economy where jobs are hard to find. I bet folks would come from all over the country for one of these jobs on Marco Island.
I encourage City Councilors to stop the attack on xeriscaping, unanimously reject the proposal to remove rock in swales and continue to encourage eco-friendly xeriscaping on Marco Island. Passing this ordinance would be a step backwards.
Patricia L. Berry
Marco Island Resident and Homeowner since 1975
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 3
happy6 writes:
patricia...you're wasting your breath on these characters...this discussion has come up time and again...they don't care about the state of florida...nor do they care about the citizens...they only care about their self-serving interests.
the city is broke because they're losing their rears on the water plant that the city mgmt insisted we purchase...so they ain't got the money to buy the grass///ergo...you buy 'em.
ajm3s writes:
I know there are some on Council and city managers that like to use the term "misinformation" as a means to stifle discussion and broadly paint the public as misinformed.
I find it amazing that as a city, one important role of managers is to inform. So if there is "misinformation", I believe we can all claim a role in its genesis.
But I encourage all readers to listen to the testimony of Mr. Pinter at the last Planning Board meeting and judge for yourself if there is "misinformation".
http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndex...
I am not hear to discredit Mr. Pinter, but I wish to make citizens aware of his testimony, and perhaps he can explain. As an example, the Planning Board did not raise a concern when Mr. Pinter claimed that the 300-400 vacant lots had no measurable impact vs a developed lot vis-a-vis its impact on gravel swales, or for that matter swales in general. [time stamp 14:00]
Well folks, I think Marco Island has a problem if you believe that is true! Sstormwater management is essentially dealing with the deleterious effect of impervious surfaces. So vacant lots actually enhance the overall perviouslnes thereby reducing the stormwater load to swales and eventually to canals.
The function of swales is to retain water diverted from impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, driveways and, yes, houses with rooftops. So if a 10K ft2 lot is vacant, I think it does have an beneficial impact relative to developed lots.
I could go on....... please listen to the video tape provided by the city and you ask who is "misinformed".
For the record, I am trying my best to get a handle on this contempt by the city for gravel swales. On a spectrum of all BMP's (Best Management Practices) utilized to deal with stormwater runnoff, the difference between gravel vs vegetative swales of the scale/size typically found on Marco Island is negligible if in fact, measurable.
And for those of us, that are concerned so early in this discussion of ROW standards, again from the meeting, Mr Pinter states quite clearly that the ROW standards as currently amended and under review, "this a recommendation... this is our recommended solution at this time."
So an amendment to add language for the removal of gravel swales is the stance of the city, is in real time the latest and greatest city recommendation.
Under the current recommendation by the city, folks with gravel swales will be forced to replace with sod, etc.
Are we "misinformed", again?
I cringe when I hear the government is here to help me!
Help! Help!
KlausStoertebeker writes:
Help! Help!
Waldi is listen to your crying. But is not believing!
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.