Letter to the Editor: On the proposed Mackle Park community center

I have been a skeptic on the new building at Mackle Park. The other day I had the opportunity to take a tour with Alex Galiana, recreation administrator supervisor.

I began to realize how popular the center is with not only children and teenagers but with adults. Actually almost 50 percent of the usage is with the adult community. What I saw impressed me. Most of the time the building is crowded and several groups have been turned away for lack of room. When the kids come home from school it is just too noisy for both the kids and the adults. I have to say the building is used to capacity. The teen agers are using a trailer that smells from mildew and is worse than some of the club houses we used to go to in New York City. The outside area is great but the center itself is over utilized and in terrible condition.

When we toured the building I was embarrassed to see how run down it really is. Ceiling tiles are coming down and they have water stains. The air conditioners are not adequate as they are all non-commercial. Most of the storage is put into outside trailers that are an eye sore.

Frankly I am ashamed that Marco Island could not do better. The building is 25 years old and looks it. Now that the cost is down to 2.3 million it has become much more realistic to replace and add another 8,000 square feet.

We the tax payers should write to our councilors and demand something better.

This is our Paradise and we should not be ashamed of our Community center.

Herb Jermanok

Marco Island

© 2013 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 15

harrisbill239#279036 writes:

I agree wholeheartedly that many of our buildings, bridges and other infrastructure are in dire need of attention. I cannot understand why anyone with any amount of intelligence is willing to let these facilities deteriorate into such bad shape. Why doesn't the Public Works department conduct regular maintenance, replacing damaged building tiles, doing the painting, cleaning, and other items of routine maintenance that are required? Why must we always wait until everything is "falling apart" and then yell and scream that we have to tear it down and replace it? These are the same kinds of people that buy a new car every year, or even sooner. What a waste of taxpayer's money!

Konfuzius writes:

It seems like part of the plan to let them deteriate.

Do you mean deteriorate? But you told me quite often that English s a very hard language!

Konfuzius writes:

"Frankly I am ashamed that Marco Island could not do better. The building is 25 years old and looks it. Now that the cost is down to 2.3 million it has become much more realistic to replace and add another 8,000 square feet."

I am agree. The community center is a good investment. How many consultancy companies are sucking on this proposal their honey?

captnjimbo writes:

Neglect is insidious and if that is the case the people should make sure the new one is carefully maintained...glad to see however there is growing support for a community center to serve us into the future...it is a different Island than 25 years ago...and in many ways better...make that in most ways better.

1Paradiselost writes:

Just my take... a few questions from a taxpayer....

1) Who is the person responsible for the buildings upkeep?

2) Why was the building allowed to get in such disrepair as described in the letter above?

3) How much money in each years city budget is allowed for the maintenance and up keep of the building in question?

Many years ago while at a party, the subject came up about buying new cars. During that conversation a woman told us she would neglect the maintenance of her car.
When asked why would you do that. She said the answer was quite simple. If I take care of the car my husband won't not buy me another. So I just let them fall apart.

4) This brings us to a different question, is a 25 year old building to old?

Before moving here over a decade ago, I moved from a suburban area. Many of the buildings in that area were over 125 years old. Only the buildings in the lower downtown ghetto areas were in disrepair, why.... maintenance!

Whoever is in charge of the maintenance of the building in question at Mackle Park should be fired ASAP, NOW!!

If we the taxpayers allow the city to build a new building, who will be in charge of maintenance of that building? And what will the costs be to maintain a much larger building?

5) Based on the city's past performance record. who's to say after another 25 years we won't need another building?

As a city we have many worthy projects, However this city is in debt for $250,000,000 dollars! With the highest water rates in the state of Florida.

Let's first make an attempt, a plan to cut that debt before spending anymore taxpayer money. Cost of living issues are much more important to any long term potential real estate buyers than any new community center.

Let's fix the building we have for $400,000 and prove to the tax paying public we can maintain such a building before spending 3.9 million dollars including interest for a new one..

mhs513 writes:

Fix the community center for the $400,000, I'm sure that won't be the final price, and find a separate location for a senior center.

mhs513 writes:

I also believe that the city should find and supply a free beach parking site for full time, year round , real residents before spending $4 mil on the community center. And I think the Marriott should help in this endeavour.

ajm3s writes:

in response to mhs513:

Fix the community center for the $400,000, I'm sure that won't be the final price, and find a separate location for a senior center.

Love it!

1Paradiselost writes:

BTW.. Why do they call it residents beach? If you don't pay the fees, residents can't use the beach!

tikihut2206 writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Just my take... a few questions from a taxpayer....

1) Who is the person responsible for the buildings upkeep?

2) Why was the building allowed to get in such disrepair as described in the letter above?

3) How much money in each years city budget is allowed for the maintenance and up keep of the building in question?

Many years ago while at a party, the subject came up about buying new cars. During that conversation a woman told us she would neglect the maintenance of her car.
When asked why would you do that. She said the answer was quite simple. If I take care of the car my husband won't not buy me another. So I just let them fall apart.

4) This brings us to a different question, is a 25 year old building to old?

Before moving here over a decade ago, I moved from a suburban area. Many of the buildings in that area were over 125 years old. Only the buildings in the lower downtown ghetto areas were in disrepair, why.... maintenance!

Whoever is in charge of the maintenance of the building in question at Mackle Park should be fired ASAP, NOW!!

If we the taxpayers allow the city to build a new building, who will be in charge of maintenance of that building? And what will the costs be to maintain a much larger building?

5) Based on the city's past performance record. who's to say after another 25 years we won't need another building?

As a city we have many worthy projects, However this city is in debt for $250,000,000 dollars! With the highest water rates in the state of Florida.

Let's first make an attempt, a plan to cut that debt before spending anymore taxpayer money. Cost of living issues are much more important to any long term potential real estate buyers than any new community center.

Let's fix the building we have for $400,000 and prove to the tax paying public we can maintain such a building before spending 3.9 million dollars including interest for a new one..

finally someone I can agree with and has some common sense on this island....

tikihut2206 writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

BTW.. Why do they call it residents beach? If you don't pay the fees, residents can't use the beach!

1paradiselost, agree with you again on the subject of Residence Beach..maybe I found a friend on this crazy comment page!!!!!

ajm3s writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Just my take... a few questions from a taxpayer....

1) Who is the person responsible for the buildings upkeep?

2) Why was the building allowed to get in such disrepair as described in the letter above?

3) How much money in each years city budget is allowed for the maintenance and up keep of the building in question?

Many years ago while at a party, the subject came up about buying new cars. During that conversation a woman told us she would neglect the maintenance of her car.
When asked why would you do that. She said the answer was quite simple. If I take care of the car my husband won't not buy me another. So I just let them fall apart.

4) This brings us to a different question, is a 25 year old building to old?

Before moving here over a decade ago, I moved from a suburban area. Many of the buildings in that area were over 125 years old. Only the buildings in the lower downtown ghetto areas were in disrepair, why.... maintenance!

Whoever is in charge of the maintenance of the building in question at Mackle Park should be fired ASAP, NOW!!

If we the taxpayers allow the city to build a new building, who will be in charge of maintenance of that building? And what will the costs be to maintain a much larger building?

5) Based on the city's past performance record. who's to say after another 25 years we won't need another building?

As a city we have many worthy projects, However this city is in debt for $250,000,000 dollars! With the highest water rates in the state of Florida.

Let's first make an attempt, a plan to cut that debt before spending anymore taxpayer money. Cost of living issues are much more important to any long term potential real estate buyers than any new community center.

Let's fix the building we have for $400,000 and prove to the tax paying public we can maintain such a building before spending 3.9 million dollars including interest for a new one..

The Fire Station on San Marco can be included in the list of building assets that are not properly maintained yet currently before council for a major renovation that is an expansion beyond the major problems that are primarily due to maintenance issues. Note: a recently recommissioned fire station on Elkam (in 2010) is older (built in 1965) than the San Marco fire station which I would suspect would be more in need of updating/expansion. Note: recent repairs to roof and mold issues were addressed on Elkam; however, today the San Marco facility built in 1992 is deemed inadequate. I guess timing is everything.

The San Marco Fire station is primarily a HVAC issue that can be repaired without the need for an expansion that I would have suspected was more needed at the Elkam facility since 40% of the calls are now handled by this older facility.

But on Marco it is all about maintaining an image rather than assets!

1Paradiselost writes:

in response to tikihut2206:

1paradiselost, agree with you again on the subject of Residence Beach..maybe I found a friend on this crazy comment page!!!!!

This is from the MICA website...

"MICA offers two annual memberships: Marco Island Civic Association at $35 and Marco Island Residents’ Beach at $130. The membership year runs from September 1 through August 31".

We should call Residents Beach "Members Beach" As it requires "membership". If I were an attorney I would force the issue.

Property owners/Residents of Marco Island,

"Residents Beach" is NOT for "Non-Paying Residents/property owners"! MICA your lying to the visiting public, time to change the name!

This is no better than the Mob charging for protection to belong to the club!

tikihut2206 writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

This is from the MICA website...

"MICA offers two annual memberships: Marco Island Civic Association at $35 and Marco Island Residents’ Beach at $130. The membership year runs from September 1 through August 31".

We should call Residents Beach "Members Beach" As it requires "membership". If I were an attorney I would force the issue.

Property owners/Residents of Marco Island,

"Residents Beach" is NOT for "Non-Paying Residents/property owners"! MICA your lying to the visiting public, time to change the name!

This is no better than the Mob charging for protection to belong to the club!

wow u lost me on the mob comment..really...

Konfuzius writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

This is from the MICA website...

"MICA offers two annual memberships: Marco Island Civic Association at $35 and Marco Island Residents’ Beach at $130. The membership year runs from September 1 through August 31".

We should call Residents Beach "Members Beach" As it requires "membership". If I were an attorney I would force the issue.

Property owners/Residents of Marco Island,

"Residents Beach" is NOT for "Non-Paying Residents/property owners"! MICA your lying to the visiting public, time to change the name!

This is no better than the Mob charging for protection to belong to the club!

It is just a simple subject:
How can I bamboozle my dear citizens!

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.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features