In my commentary last week on the subject matter I mentioned the importance of candidates checking facts and being diligent before making statements that are untrue. In that commentary I stated that the City of Marco Island was not interested in buying the water utility from Florida Water Services (FWS) until FWS announced in September, 2001 that they were selling the utility. This left the City no choice but to pursue the purchase.
In response to my statement Mr. Sacher, after doing research, concluded that the city was, in fact, trying to take over the water utility for the two years prior to that announcement by FWS. Nothing could be further from the truth and another history lesson is in order for Mr. Sacher. The City decided in 1999 that it would be better to negotiate a long term rate agreement with FWS rather than take over the utility. Accordingly, they formed a committee consisting of myself, Councilman Glenn Tucker and City Manager, Bill Moss to negotiate a long term rate agreement with FWS. The city had no desire to take over ownership at that time. That agreement was presented to City Council in the summer of 2001 but, before it was finalized, FWS said they wanted out of the business.
As I said before, we should be concerned when candidates make statements without due diligence. We should be even more concerned when they do research and completely misunderstand or misinform what they find.
Mr. Sacher admits that he was never involved in the purchase process, had never spoken to anyone who was involved and is second guessing what was done. Despite this he continues to condemn what was done and offers no specific alternative as to what he would have done different. This is the essence of negativism.
In my opinion, failure to be diligent in your fact finding, failure to understand what you are reviewing and being negative are not qualities of a good candidate nor a good city councilor.
John Arceri
Marco Island
GoShots: Talk Derby To Me
May After Five, Marco Island Chamber
Debate over proposed community center…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 19
2themoon writes:
In my opinion, failure to be diligent in your fact finding, failure to understand what you are reviewing and being negative are not
qualities of a good candidate nor a good city councilor.
John Arceri
Marco Island
FACTS??? Aceri should know about facts..he bent enough of them to push threw HIS corrupt STRP project.
The nerve of this guy to use FACTS to put down an HONEST man.
1Paradiselost writes:
Part 2? You can't make this stuff up.....
This arrogant ****** guy trying to get the last word, what a joke you are!
The people on my block named the lift station after you!
John when we use the bathroom, We think of you!
ajm3s writes:
"Mr. Sacher admits that he was never involved in the purchase process, had never spoken to anyone who was involved and is second guessing what was done. Despite this he continues to condemn what was done and offers no specific alternative as to what he would have done different. This is the essence of negativism."
Interesting, the progression started with LTE's with the theme of misinformation to now negativism.
Let me add a thought on the essence of negativism. Based on your definition, all voters who cast a NO vote on a referendum for a 24hr health clinic is expressing negativism.
Given your attributes of negativism:
1. Process involvement: voters were not involved in the creation of a subsidy or involved in the process
2. Direct communication: voters did not speak to author (i.e. Mr Magel) when he proposed and crafted such a resolution
3. Second guessing/lack of alternative: voters did not offer any alternatives or options but to vote Yes or No.
Mr. Arceri (and I suspect Mr. Magel since the themes are closely matched) are doing a major disservice to this community by debating major issues on a theme of misinformation and negativism.
Well I am simply in awe. Truly in awe! To engage in a debate based on such themes is problematic, because it reveals a sense of arrogance. Why? Because it appears, if it is not their idea or if you may have an opposing view or perspective, or not directly involved, you are deemed misinformed and now negative or the term Mr. Magel loves to use naysayers!
Folks pay attention, those who calls you misinformed or a naysayer are now attempting to dupe the citizens into selling you on the "fact" as they present them.
Consider, the comment made in Mr. Arceri's earlier LTE that other municipal "buyers" would have purchased the water plant and created a cash cow for themselves at our expense.
Well I say that is quite a scenario that he presented given he was directly involved in the process, and the purveyor of "facts"; giving the illusion that the purchase by outside municipalities was a forlorn conclusion if no action was taken. Was Mr. Arceri, in fact, second guessing? If so, only those in the discussions can comment or second guess, or is it a fact as presented in the Mr. Arceri's earlier LTE?
I believe it was just another scenario in an effort raise fear then to now denigrating citizens with opposing views, as misinformed! With the intent to stifle?
Fear mongering has got to come to an end on this island especially as it applies to establishing and pushing through an agenda wrapped in "facts" as presented by Mr. Arceri et al. To now those running for a council seat, who question the wisdom, are negativists ( or naysayers).
My term for Mr. Arceri et. al. - MISGUIDED.
lauralbi1 writes:
These blogs should make up the comic section ofd the paper. They should be actually printed alonside cartoons to give everyone a good laugh, It is just amazing that anyone reading the above comments can easily observe that the blogs are emotional, biased andf totally based on fiction. Printed, they actually make good fodder for the candidates opposing Mr Sacher and some others and would certainly convince those on the fence to think further about a choice for the Sacher slate of candidates.
To you cowards above that con tinue to refuse to put your name to your opinions, I say that your rants are worthless.
And, if you think I am wrong, look for your blogs in some upcoming Political Ads in support of candidates you want nothing to do with. Great stuff!!! Keep it coming !!!!
Ed Issler
ajm3s writes:
Ed:
I believe you are now part of the negativism. Welcome.
LOL
Oh I forgot my name,,,,, PUBLIUS
Our_world_according_to_zookeeper (Inactive) writes:
John Arceri are you now fearing that the present candidates and public have got your number? What about the lies connected to the STRP, the divide and conquer tactics used by both your puppets and Moss when it came to pushing the STRP, the unethical bullet voting used by one of your puppets? Does none of this matter? Think again, your days are numbered as Master Puppeteer and it about time for true transparency when it come to our city council.
JohninMarco writes:
Its hard to watch as an angry man just impodes in front you. This bully brought us Celebrate Marco and some of the most devisive years this island ever saw. Both you and Issler are begging for attention. It now has just become sad. I guess even Gibson and Waldack don't return your calls.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
Waldi and Gibbon will do it. They are on godfathers pay roll. Eddi too.
Who cares. They are lame ducks anyway.
This time Marco Islander will vote for quality, skills, class and independence.
That's all folks.
1Paradiselost writes:
People should check the voting machines count before anyone votes. I don't know anyone who voted for our $10,000,000 dollar park that's now worth $3 million.
Our_world_according_to_zookeeper (Inactive) writes:
Lauralbi1,
Do you know what the name Ed Issler means to people on these blogs? It means nothing more than "Charlie McCarthy" for John Arceri the Master Puppeteer.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
That is correct!
PBH writes:
Whenever I see an article written by John A., I smile because I know I am going to be entertained. John...you need to come to grips with the fact that people just don't care about what you have to say anymore.
marcosandflea writes:
I agree with John Arceri because the city councilor must be prepared and well informed to make the good decisions. John Arceri's good councilor examples: the councilor that lied about having pictures of citizens planting asbestos, like the councilors that knew the QE and the City were crushing asbestos near two schools, like the councilors that allowed citizens to be gased, like the councilors denied that toxic water was being pumped into our waterways, like the city councilors that knowingly lied about the septic tanks, like the city councilors that have created over $400million in debt, like the city councilors that lied about the STRP providing reused water, like the city councilors that covered for the city manager and the public works director as the city was violating the Clear Water Act and the Clean Air Act (asbestos), like the city councilors that violated the sunshine law and renamed city hall without notice, like the city councilor that does not pay his mortgage. These are the good informed councilors that John Arceri likes and recommends that all new councilors follow.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
Do you know why a lot of Marco Island city councilors are recalled by the great Lord so suddenly?
They made enough damages to the people of Marco Island.
The Lord said: Enough is enough! - and takes action.
So be careful. The great Lord is watching you.
Our_world_according_to_zookeeper (Inactive) writes:
Very well said MarcoIslandflea,
The honest citizens of Marco have to know truth to what has been going on behind their backs and vote in people of integrity, honesty and those who listen to the wants of the citizens.
Tucker's name on city hall was done in a sneaky way and must be re-thought with citizen input. It is repulsive to many because it honors a man who lied to the citizens regarding a dangerouse health issue and who showed contempt to citizens who questioned him regarding it. City Hall is not a place to honor such a person.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
All this not very great and bright city councilors are recalled by the Lord.
And Wald got a warning ticket on his bike accident.
Listen to the Lord, and ------- don't run anymore Waldi and Gibbon.. John is send by the other party. Very hot!
So follow my advise. I am serious.
Our_world_according_to_zookeeper (Inactive) writes:
"As I said before, we should be concerned when candidates make statements without due diligence. We should be even more concerned when they do research and completely misunderstand or misinform what they find."
The above being said by J. Arceri. Where were you when your earlier puppets outright lied to the city while sitting at council meetings or running for the council seat? How disingenuous can you be and have to nerve to call someone who is campaigning against your puppets as being misinformed when questioning previous lies.
Our_world_according_to_zookeeper (Inactive) writes:
Another issue: Why is it that we have councilors who have not or have recently not paid their fair share of city taxes still being allowed to continue to sit on council?
My first thought is that there should be a clause in our City Charter to somehow disallow such behavior OR if this should be the case than that councilor should NOT receive their stipend from the city until that councilor's taxes are properly paid up. Thoughts?
Seawaller writes:
" they formed a committee consisting of myself, (John Arceri) Councilman Glenn Tucker and City Manager, Bill Moss".
That says it all. We're still paying for their shenanigans. Those were the days before few on this Island paid much attention to what these three guys were up to. Glad to see some candidates come forward willing to represent those of us who should have been more involved back in the day but were too busy trying to make a life here. Arceri can write as many letters to the editor as he wishes, but I doubt he can convince very many we are better off because of his "stewardship".
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.