Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn

Dear Editor: The judge who ruled against the Putt-Putt Golf course must be out of its mind. MICA is out of date and needs to get in touch with reality. This is 2013! MICA is grumbling (as they do when they can’t have their way) because it wants to rule. The law is 40 years old! Because MICA is acting childish, it is cutting off revenue that Marco Island has an opportunity to receive. The Putt-Putt Golf course is a beautiful addition to the city. I would like to start a petition to have that law reversed and the golf course remain open. Is anyone with me?

As an aside, MICA has a useless parking lot on Swallow Avenue. I seldom see more than three cars parked there even during season. If MICA was smart, it would lessen the spaces and put in more of the paid parking spots by simply moving the fence and putting in the meters. That would bring in revenue to the city. Oh, MICA has so much to learn! Time to get rid of those who sit on the board and put in real people who understand what this city needs. I’d be willing to serve!

Respectfully submitted.

Phyllis (Bator) Sinoradzki

Marco Island

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 34

lauralbi1 writes:

Dear Phyllis: Always great to see a new opinion or LTE. But as someone who has expressed an interest and opinion about MICA, I highly recommend that you become informed about MICA, the purpose of MICA, the LEGAL obligation of MICA and lastly, you should review the some Deed Restrictions including the Deed Restrictions of the Putt Putt Golf property. Then, and only then, should you comment on MICA. You can still say the same thing you said above (after all it is a free Country), but at least you will be better informed.
I am just a member of MICA, but MICA has the LEGAL obligation to enforce the Deed Restrictions created by Deltona Corp., the developer of Marco Island.
Ed Issler

LadueVGilleo writes:

All the owners of the miniature golf course had to do was present their plans to MICA. MICA made requests to the owners and to the builders to have them provide the plans to MICA, and they did not comply. The owners have no one to blame but themselves. It should be obvious to everyone that MICA still has some teeth. We live in a nation of laws; these owners fought the law and the law won.

JohninMarco writes:

in response to LadueVGilleo:

All the owners of the miniature golf course had to do was present their plans to MICA. MICA made requests to the owners and to the builders to have them provide the plans to MICA, and they did not comply. The owners have no one to blame but themselves. It should be obvious to everyone that MICA still has some teeth. We live in a nation of laws; these owners fought the law and the law won.

Well maybe or maybe not. The coarse is still open and the owner got a court ordered injunction. lets wait and see.

WMissow writes:

Phyllis,

If it is the time to change laws they should be changed legally going through the proper channels.

Does you really think because as law is 40 years old it serves no purpose? I bet you are over 40 and still serve a purpose and just because your roots may be gray they just don't dispose of you.

If the owners of Putt, Putt prove their case in a legal way, great for them, but as it now stands the judge acted under what he believed was correct under the laws as they now stand. It is not up to the judge to change laws it is up to him to interpret laws. Would you want anything different, be honest now?

I don't think that MICA would want anyone on its board who thinks that "beautiful" supersedes legal.

2themoon writes:

Ok ...once again, all Kraemer has to do is find one instance..ONE! Where MICA gave preferential treatment or MICA looked the other way when it should haveapplied one of its "Golden deed restrictions" to anyone else on this island...slam dunk, shut case ...
P.s. are we all in agreement on this?
Please post "yes" Or
Please explain why if you post "No".

WMissow writes:

26,
I do not think it is as simple as that.

2themoon writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Lol..no worries ive devised an elaborate scheme to get by the guards at Residents beach.
By the way if i dont post in 4 days call the cops...

mahiman writes:

What if they built a go-cart track there? How about a nudy bar? Maybe a bungee jump area. I'm glad MICA is looking out for the residents. It's apparent over 70 residents had issues with the potential noise and lighting...and Kramer didn't care!

WMissow writes:

Be careful what you wish for folks who are in favor of testing the deed restrictions. You may be opening a can of worms that will turn Marco into Virginia Beach or worse.

If that happens Kramer may make a lot of money but the rest of us will lose what Marco Island has been, forever.

How about a roller coaster, next?

WMissow writes:

Hascle,

The issue whether you believe it or not is NOT miniature golf. It is someone trying to sidestep the law of deed restrictions.

All else about being sad, being beautiful, being the best thing since Swiss cheese means nothing when it comes to the law that this issue is attempting to override.

Please, nobody needs to be insulted or put down, told that they belong somewhere else or whatever demeaning comment to make a point.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to WMissow:

Phyllis,

If it is the time to change laws they should be changed legally going through the proper channels.

Does you really think because as law is 40 years old it serves no purpose? I bet you are over 40 and still serve a purpose and just because your roots may be gray they just don't dispose of you.

If the owners of Putt, Putt prove their case in a legal way, great for them, but as it now stands the judge acted under what he believed was correct under the laws as they now stand. It is not up to the judge to change laws it is up to him to interpret laws. Would you want anything different, be honest now?

I don't think that MICA would want anyone on its board who thinks that "beautiful" supersedes legal.

Miss - Sorry, you're wrong...I would support Phyllis.

As I've written, both parties have fault and responsibility here, but the tear down decision is horrific and completely excessive. Surely there's a compromise, for the benefit of our city.

The age of the deed covenants was pre-cityhood, which is where that comment really applies. Now that we're a city, MICA can step back and turn over the reins to the city, who has legal and vested interest in it's future. MICA needs to do the right thing, and transfer that responsibility to the city, just as Deltona transferred it to them before they went bankrupt.

batorsin writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Dear Phyllis: Always great to see a new opinion or LTE. But as someone who has expressed an interest and opinion about MICA, I highly recommend that you become informed about MICA, the purpose of MICA, the LEGAL obligation of MICA and lastly, you should review the some Deed Restrictions including the Deed Restrictions of the Putt Putt Golf property. Then, and only then, should you comment on MICA. You can still say the same thing you said above (after all it is a free Country), but at least you will be better informed.
I am just a member of MICA, but MICA has the LEGAL obligation to enforce the Deed Restrictions created by Deltona Corp., the developer of Marco Island.
Ed Issler

MICA should not be allowed to make decisions on deed restrictions. They have too much power. As a civic association, they should stop acting like babies having a hissy fit, but should take into consideration the beauty of this golf course and the revenue it will bring into Marco. So they weren't shown the plans. Big deal. Business people have enough to deal with. If it was approved by the city, that should be good enough for MICA. I say take that privilege away from them. BTW, the Residents Beach was donated to Marco, so why did MICA take it upon themselves to charge residents to use it? You can explain that one to me. Thank you.

batorsin writes:

in response to LadueVGilleo:

All the owners of the miniature golf course had to do was present their plans to MICA. MICA made requests to the owners and to the builders to have them provide the plans to MICA, and they did not comply. The owners have no one to blame but themselves. It should be obvious to everyone that MICA still has some teeth. We live in a nation of laws; these owners fought the law and the law won.

So does that justify returning the property to its original plot? Destroy the beauty the golf course has given to Winterberry Drive? Rip up the parking lot? That doesn't sound very civic minded to me. They should get together to make a reasonable outcome.

batorsin writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

I don't have a MICA pass nor do I want one. The property was donated to Marco Island. Residents should not have to pay to use it.

batorsin writes:

in response to mahiman:

What if they built a go-cart track there? How about a nudy bar? Maybe a bungee jump area. I'm glad MICA is looking out for the residents. It's apparent over 70 residents had issues with the potential noise and lighting...and Kramer didn't care!

Apparently 70 residents with issues just didn't cut it. I live across the street. In the 2 months they were open, there was no noise and the lights didn't bother me. What DOES bother me is that now that it is finished and they won the Marco in Bloom award, to destroy it completely is a travesty of justice. I'm sure there have been plenty of exceptions on Marco. This should be one of them. It's an asset to Marco Island and a beautiful one at that. I just think it would be a crime to destroy something that is not only beautiful but great for Marco Island.

batorsin writes:

in response to WMissow:

Be careful what you wish for folks who are in favor of testing the deed restrictions. You may be opening a can of worms that will turn Marco into Virginia Beach or worse.

If that happens Kramer may make a lot of money but the rest of us will lose what Marco Island has been, forever.

How about a roller coaster, next?

Don't be ridiculous! The whole city would object. You are going a bit overboard. This isn't Atlantic City! No roller coasters or Go Carts. The miniature golf course is a quiet relaxing business that might even help to keep kids out of trouble. Are you one of the 70?

batorsin writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

I agree with you 100%!

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to batorsin:

So does that justify returning the property to its original plot? Destroy the beauty the golf course has given to Winterberry Drive? Rip up the parking lot? That doesn't sound very civic minded to me. They should get together to make a reasonable outcome.

Welcome, batorsin. First day on the blog and you were very busy, weren't you?

Ask the judge who issued the order if his action is justified, not me. I would imagine the owner is facing a sizable financial loss if his golf course gets razed. And who gets the blame for this situation? The owner. I would think a judge is not too impressed with an attorney who made a conscious decision to circumvent a legal entity like MICA. Perhaps a judge would not be this harsh with you or me, but he may be holding the owner to a higher standard due to his position in the legal community.

And if the court's final decision is to raze the golf course, then it will get razed. There is a lesson to be learned from this individual's mistake.

WMissow writes:

Batorsin,

It does not matter how beautiful the property is. It does not matter that it won a nice award. What matters is that there are people saying that the end justifies the means and in legal terms that just does not hold water.

This is a legal contest, like it or not, and not a beauty contest.

batorsin writes:

in response to LadueVGilleo:

Welcome, batorsin. First day on the blog and you were very busy, weren't you?

Ask the judge who issued the order if his action is justified, not me. I would imagine the owner is facing a sizable financial loss if his golf course gets razed. And who gets the blame for this situation? The owner. I would think a judge is not too impressed with an attorney who made a conscious decision to circumvent a legal entity like MICA. Perhaps a judge would not be this harsh with you or me, but he may be holding the owner to a higher standard due to his position in the legal community.

And if the court's final decision is to raze the golf course, then it will get razed. There is a lesson to be learned from this individual's mistake.

According to Mr. Kramer, he "maintains that the Deltona deed restrictions were extinguished years ago and MICA has no right to try and enforce them. He also stated that despite having collected possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, MICA has never had the right to charge any fees to any property owner for its architectural approval." (Quoted from the Sun Times). Some people who signed the petition to have the golf course reopened have stated MICA has an agenda and are waiting for a payoff. That seems logical. Why would they wait until it was in operation for two months before taking it to court? Perhaps Hayes does not have all the proper information from MICA. I still say there is no reason that a civic association should have any power to oversee the city's deed regulations. The City Council should jump on this.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to batorsin:

According to Mr. Kramer, he "maintains that the Deltona deed restrictions were extinguished years ago and MICA has no right to try and enforce them. He also stated that despite having collected possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, MICA has never had the right to charge any fees to any property owner for its architectural approval." (Quoted from the Sun Times). Some people who signed the petition to have the golf course reopened have stated MICA has an agenda and are waiting for a payoff. That seems logical. Why would they wait until it was in operation for two months before taking it to court? Perhaps Hayes does not have all the proper information from MICA. I still say there is no reason that a civic association should have any power to oversee the city's deed regulations. The City Council should jump on this.

batorsin

Your comments contain errors. This action began back in January while the course was under construction. MICA didn't wait for the course to begin operations to sue them. And you think Judge Hayes is uninformed?

I've read what Mr. Kramer has said, and I have also read what MICA Legal council has said:

"Like many developments overseen by homeowner associations, much of Marco Island is a deed-restricted community governed by MICA, which in 1986 took over old Deltona Corp. deed restrictions set up to protect the island's integrity, preserve property values and ensure new construction conformed to the original 1965 restrictions.

'It's a deed-restricted island,' said Naples attorney Jeffrey Fridkin of Grant, Fridkin, Pearson, Athan & Crown P.A., which represents MICA. 'The deed restrictions matter because fellow property owners have rights under the deed restrictions.

'The government doesn't have the power to change the deed restrictions,' he added, noting that he and MICA have won this legal battle before, including a case decided nearly a decade ago by a Florida appellate court."

Looks to me like this civic organization has all the power to oversee the city's deed regulations.

The City Council should jump on this? Highly unlikely.

If the owners, the judge, and MICA can come to some sort of an agreement, then that is great. But if the final decision goes against the owners, then the course is going to get razed.

This has been quite a gamble for the owners; ultimately, it will be a lesson for all of us.

WMissow writes:

Batorsin,

Your quote: "I still say there is no reason that a civic association should have any power to oversee the city's deed regulations. The City Council should jump on this."

This is why there are laws, which are in effect in which MICA does have the rights which in you "opinion" do not exist. It is not at all up to a city council to usurp those laws.

Judge Hayes on the other hand is quite familiar with these laws and has given his opinion based upon facts not suppositions.

Telling people to move elsewhere because they disagree with you, or in this case the law, is not only rude but mean spirited.

WMissow writes:

Batorsin,

I just had the opportunity to read that you repeated yourself regarding the mental capacity of Judge Hayes in the Sun Times.

I suppose you have had years of experience in law and how it is dealt with. Maybe a degree in psychology to go along with calling somebody out of his mind.

Judge Hayes has presided over hundreds if not thousands of cases in which he has followed the letter of the law to the "T".

Do you think in any way your opinion which seeps of lack of knowledge of the law will mean anything except to make yourself look as an ill informed, over opinionated person?

WMissow writes:

A bit of informative reading that may help with future opinions. The rules are essentially the same in all states.

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/_blog/Municip...

WMissow writes:

A bit more information does not hurt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12137...

batorsin writes:

"The MICA Board of Directors is a volunteer
board with a goal of civic improvement of our
beautiful island," as written in the MicaWave. If that is their goal, why would they want to raze a beautiful miniature golf course? It will bring in revenue to the city. Children want ice cream so they go across the road to the Plaza. They want hot dogs or lunch, they go across the street to the Plaza. There are more plusses to having the golf course remain than negatives. The owners and MICA must come to some sort of agreement so that it remains open. The golf course is certainly a beautiful additon to Marco and an asset to the businesses as well. This is my last word.

26yearsonmarco writes:

Herb Savage needs to enter this Blog and explain what Deltona's original design criteria was given to MICA to enforce.

If MICA was doing it's job all these years, every building on Marco would have the Polynesian look, so it should be pretty obvious that MICA screwed up, and needs to go away.

WMissow writes:

Batorsin,

But, just like you are me the laws have to be followed in order to protect us all not just a few interested parties. None of us would like it any differently. That is why we have judges in order to interpret the law and not laymen like you or me.

WMissow writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Herb Savage needs to enter this Blog and explain what Deltona's original design criteria was given to MICA to enforce.

If MICA was doing it's job all these years, every building on Marco would have the Polynesian look, so it should be pretty obvious that MICA screwed up, and needs to go away.

26,

Please tell us where your information regarding the responsibilities of MICA is taken from? Please post. Thank You

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to batorsin:

"The MICA Board of Directors is a volunteer
board with a goal of civic improvement of our
beautiful island," as written in the MicaWave. If that is their goal, why would they want to raze a beautiful miniature golf course? It will bring in revenue to the city. Children want ice cream so they go across the road to the Plaza. They want hot dogs or lunch, they go across the street to the Plaza. There are more plusses to having the golf course remain than negatives. The owners and MICA must come to some sort of agreement so that it remains open. The golf course is certainly a beautiful additon to Marco and an asset to the businesses as well. This is my last word.

batorsin

These owners intentionally bypassed the proper legal procedures for getting their golf course built. It wasn't because they didn't know what the procedures were; they made a conscious decision to ignore them.

There are a lot of businesses on Marco Island that bring in revenue to the city. I'll bet every on of them who built on Marco Island went before MICA with their plans. What makes this golf course so special that it doesn't have to go before MICA when every other business has?

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Herb Savage needs to enter this Blog and explain what Deltona's original design criteria was given to MICA to enforce.

If MICA was doing it's job all these years, every building on Marco would have the Polynesian look, so it should be pretty obvious that MICA screwed up, and needs to go away.

I'm sure Herb Savage has better things to do than join this blog.

Do you think home design was a main concern when the deeds were drawn up, or do you think the framers were maybe concerned about things like adequate plumbing and whether items like raising pigs and chickens on one's property should be allowed?

MICA didn't screw up.

WMissow writes:

Ladue,

Why is it that your comments are so difficult to understand by those who you are attempting to educate? Right or wrong people will believe what they want until proven one way or the other by the courts.

What matters is the law will, eventually, be followed.

MICA will stay alive.

26yearsonmarco writes:

in response to WMissow:

26,

Please tell us where your information regarding the responsibilities of MICA is taken from? Please post. Thank You

Two clues are the Marriott and Herb Savage's first home design on Barfield.

I also recall the original McDonalds was forced to alter their standard design, compared to the ugly thing that recently replaced it, and apparently approved by MICA..

WMissow writes:

26,

I do admit that Mickey D's is rather ugly, but most of their new buildings are similarly ugly and MICA had nothing to do with those.

The Polynesian look was to be a way to get buyers down here but very few of the original homes were of that style. They were simple and compact in design.

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