Letter to the Editor: MICA – Marco residents last line of defense

Thank you MICA for holding the line on the recent decision not to allow mini golf course to operate on the island. Contrary to popular belief Marco Island is and always has been a residential area.

Business and real estate interests on Marco would like nothing better than to alter the Island’s original charter and turn it into a money making tourist machine. That money would flow into to pockets of business and not do much for full time residents, except for diminishing our quality of life.

Tony Costantino

Full-time resident of Marco Island

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 9

MarcoDefender writes:

Tony - Quick question...explain to me how a mini-golf course diminishes your quality of life? I definitely would like to understand this better.

Cityhood isn't cheap, what revenue the city doesn't collect from commerce (businesses) means that we residents will need to pony up more in the future. You may be loaded, but I'm a not-yet retired worker, so, if it's all the same, I would rather we spread the financial burden out a bit, and pull in some more city revenue while tourists and local enjoy the mini-golf course, just as they do at the Y, the local bars, restaurants, shops, beaches, theaters, etc. on our islands. Wow, our residents really have a lot to enjoy around here in this residential (beach & tourist) community. I would really like to know how you figure the math on your point of view.

20andout writes:

Marco defender...........WELL PUT!!!!

WMissow writes:

Why does the question come up about liking or enjoying a miniature golf course? That question has nothing to do with the legal situation at hand. It has nothing to do with revenue for the city. City revenue should be made by those of us who follow the law.

Yes, many of Marco's citizens feel that there is plenty to enjoy around here and that is why they moved here in the first place. Not like those who wish to change things to satisfy themselves at the cost of others. The question should be, "why did these people move here" in the first place? Did the turn in the real estate market catch them by surprise?

I like roller coasters, I like zoos, I like many things that many other people like and others do not like. That is why there are rules and regulations and deed restrictions that we all must follow or have legally changed as the Kramers are now attempting to do. The court will decide.

That includes anyone who decides to go against deed restrictions, zoning restrictions, parking restrictions or anything else.

2themoon writes:

Can anyone shed some light on how MICA came to own and operate Residents beach?

ClickonMarco writes:

Tony,
I am wondering what led to your conclusion that, "Marco Island is and always has been a residential area." The first three things the Mackle Brothers built were a hotel, a golf course and an airport.

Their plan, from it's inception, called for mixed use of land. Anyone familiar with the subject matter will quickly tell you that a purely residential community can not sustain itself.

marcobeachlover writes:

I rode my bike past the miniature golf course today and I commend its design and construction. It looks great!

I have to say, though, that that begs the question. You see, my house is not on Winterberry or adjacent to it. Would I want such an enterprise to pop up on my block. Surely not and I'm confident City code - as well as MICA restrictions - would not permit it.

The issue of what is allowable on a main thoroughfare is a complex one that I don't feel qualified to judge. Whether a miniature golf course on Winterberry is considered appropriate use requires judgements from City code authorities as well as the enforcer of Marco's deed restrictions. It's my understanding that the former was provided by the appropriate authority within Marco Island but Mr. Kramer chose not to seek MICA's approval.

I can tell you that when I built my house on Marco, I understood that MICA was legally vested with the authority to enforce our deed restrictions and it never occurred to me to leave them out of the loop.

Did any of you who built homes here on Marco not seek MICA's approval before breaking ground?

I'm listening if someone wants to tell me what I'm missing.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to WMissow:

Why does the question come up about liking or enjoying a miniature golf course? That question has nothing to do with the legal situation at hand. It has nothing to do with revenue for the city. City revenue should be made by those of us who follow the law.

Yes, many of Marco's citizens feel that there is plenty to enjoy around here and that is why they moved here in the first place. Not like those who wish to change things to satisfy themselves at the cost of others. The question should be, "why did these people move here" in the first place? Did the turn in the real estate market catch them by surprise?

I like roller coasters, I like zoos, I like many things that many other people like and others do not like. That is why there are rules and regulations and deed restrictions that we all must follow or have legally changed as the Kramers are now attempting to do. The court will decide.

That includes anyone who decides to go against deed restrictions, zoning restrictions, parking restrictions or anything else.

Miss & MICA - OK, let's get past that both parties failed to do the right thing per the process. Now, let's deal with the situation at hand.

It's now clear based on the other paper's Guest Opinion from MICA, that MICA filed in court because the owner did not file plans for review. Considering where we are now, MICA should drop the sensationalized suit and evaluate the property based on its current physical merits. No need to look at plans, which are appropriate prior to construction, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) can go be onsite tomorrow and see it firsthand. It's built !!

I propose that MICA evaluate the the property now and let the MICA ARC make a ruling. It would appear to me that the result would be "PROCEED" with maybe the need to address some items to be in compliance. So, let's do that. It seems that MICA can do the right thing, even though the land owner did not. So, how about it? Since two wrongs don't make a right, let's see MICA drop the suit and rule on those precious deed restrictions for the mini-golf business, and do the right thing. I have a feeling, that everyone will emerge a victor in this scenario. How about it, anyone else think we can start focusing on solutions here, as opposed to how poorly each party behaved in this situation.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to MarcoDefender:

Miss & MICA - OK, let's get past that both parties failed to do the right thing per the process. Now, let's deal with the situation at hand.

It's now clear based on the other paper's Guest Opinion from MICA, that MICA filed in court because the owner did not file plans for review. Considering where we are now, MICA should drop the sensationalized suit and evaluate the property based on its current physical merits. No need to look at plans, which are appropriate prior to construction, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) can go be onsite tomorrow and see it firsthand. It's built !!

I propose that MICA evaluate the the property now and let the MICA ARC make a ruling. It would appear to me that the result would be "PROCEED" with maybe the need to address some items to be in compliance. So, let's do that. It seems that MICA can do the right thing, even though the land owner did not. So, how about it? Since two wrongs don't make a right, let's see MICA drop the suit and rule on those precious deed restrictions for the mini-golf business, and do the right thing. I have a feeling, that everyone will emerge a victor in this scenario. How about it, anyone else think we can start focusing on solutions here, as opposed to how poorly each party behaved in this situation.

What you propose can be considered rewarding bad behavior; ignore the law, do what one pleases, and then later on get patted on the head like nothing happened.

What you propose would also set a precedent where other entities would simply build without prior approval, and hope that the city or MICA would cave in.

Your comment says two wrongs don't make a right; what you propose is the second wrong.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to LadueVGilleo:

What you propose can be considered rewarding bad behavior; ignore the law, do what one pleases, and then later on get patted on the head like nothing happened.

What you propose would also set a precedent where other entities would simply build without prior approval, and hope that the city or MICA would cave in.

Your comment says two wrongs don't make a right; what you propose is the second wrong.

Ladue - We already established lack of compliance by the owner, so, pay the penalty and let's solve this situation. Surely there's some remedy other than destruction of a business that is bringing positive results to this Island.

Why do you think there's been an outpouring of hostility toward MICA over this poorly handled situation. They may have the "deed restrictions" in their favor, but they are squandering the goodwill of the Islanders, and everyday, more residents recognize their complete failure and appropriately call for a change and the elimination of MICA as yet another "authority" on Marco.

Everyone is a critic. I have a novel idea, why don't your share your idea in how to move forward on this situation. We need more solutions on the table, not more critiques. Please, I invite you to be a positive addition to your community.

By the way, the second wrong was for MICA to keep the suit in place, so the judicial order to "return the site to it's original condition" remains in effect. MICA has a chance to do what's best for the community. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful they will come to their senses.

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