Letter to the Editor: Remove MICA from Marco Island

Referring to the Judge’s decision on the putt-putt golf course, I suspected nothing less from Collier County, after all the county helped MICA block five beach parking lots the Deltona Corporation wanted to install along Collier Boulevard and Seaview Court back in 1976.

In doing so, MICA denied 90 percent of the population of Marco Island convenient beach parking and beach access. The beach parking lots were the solution to Marco’s beach parking problem.

Mrs. Kramer should take her case to Miami, where she will get a “fair” trial and with her reputable “Miami” law firm, Mrs. Kramer can win this case.

Remove MICA from Marco Island … end of problem, end of MICA, end of lawsuit.

Jim Ciolino

25 year Marco resident

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 26

WMissow writes:

Good luck trying to remove valid deed restrictions. Miami lawyers stand little chance of getting a Collier County Judge's decision overturned.

The Kramers should have done what was right from the beginning or at least when they were notified back in January by Mica that they were in violation of the deed restrictions. But somebody thought they were bigger than the law.

Pammyj614#273374 writes:

Good letter Mr.Ciolino Agree completely.
All you have to do is drive by the golf course to see why it won the Chambers Beautification Award. It is a wonderful place for families to go. A few years ago I was diagnosed with MS, severely limiting my ability to walk long distances and enjoy much that Marco has to offer. The compact putt putt golf course provided for me a chance to participate and enjoy an outdoor activity. Shame on those that would deprive the Island of this beautiful family oriented entertainment. I guess going to a movie, drinking wine and beer is better for the community. Bah humbug. MICA wishes to have the property returned to its barren state providing zero value to "us", the people. MICA has outlived it's usefulness and needs to turn it over to those elected to serve "us".

2themoon writes:

Dump MICA!

czar227 writes:

Get rid of MICA...no way. Who would watch over and protect what is left of our island.

bumom (Inactive) writes:

in response to czar227:

Get rid of MICA...no way. Who would watch over and protect what is left of our island.

How about our elected officials? We are a city. Why do we need a civic association of "appointed" figure heads? We have a city council. I believe we are paying our elected officials to do this job.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to bumom:

How about our elected officials? We are a city. Why do we need a civic association of "appointed" figure heads? We have a city council. I believe we are paying our elected officials to do this job.

Our elected officials? Do you mean the group that comes under fire for:

The Collier Blvd. upgrade with its asbestos issue?

The Smokehouse Bay Bridge Project?

Our Water utility ( I won't even go into water rates)?

The Mackle Park Superdome?

Oh, I almost forgot: STRP?

And I'm sure there are others; you think MICA ought to give the responsibility of enforcing the deed restrictions to this group?

You must be kidding.

marcofriend writes:

in response to Pammyj614#273374:

Good letter Mr.Ciolino Agree completely.
All you have to do is drive by the golf course to see why it won the Chambers Beautification Award. It is a wonderful place for families to go. A few years ago I was diagnosed with MS, severely limiting my ability to walk long distances and enjoy much that Marco has to offer. The compact putt putt golf course provided for me a chance to participate and enjoy an outdoor activity. Shame on those that would deprive the Island of this beautiful family oriented entertainment. I guess going to a movie, drinking wine and beer is better for the community. Bah humbug. MICA wishes to have the property returned to its barren state providing zero value to "us", the people. MICA has outlived it's usefulness and needs to turn it over to those elected to serve "us".

Unfortunately you are missing the issue as most have..........
1. MICA has never asked for it to be torn down and put back in the original state. The judge ordered this.
2. Had the owner brought his plans in and got MICA's approval (which he had many opportunities to do), this would have never went to court and everything would be fine.

It is not wise to just go out on the island and build whatever you want, however you want and not to expect repercussions.

I personally like the course, but it appears that the owner would rather lose his investment rather than admit he made a mistake and try to resolve the situation.

MrBreeze writes:

People this is just a test to see if the island can be changed. It is not about the golf course it is about the "bigger picture" of commercial and residential future re-development.

Mr.Ciolino I would agree that parking on the beach would have been nice if it was designated for the residents of Marco Island with some for visitors. I find it hard to believe that Deltona would have given up prime Collier Blvd. property for parking. The issue at hand is a power struggle against those who believe that Deltona's Deed Restrictions are outdated and need to go. The other side the MICA supporters want the island to remain with the origional Deltona theme thus holding back on development/re-development. The golf course is just the "tool" being used for the challenge.

I am not a MICA supporter but I do believe that the island needs to be protected as there are those who would bulldoze it in a minute for profit. So some "neutral" party needs to oversee the Deed Restrictions and apply them with common sense not profit.

captnjimbo writes:

Mica performs a great service to us. They may have been behind the curve on this...could have protested before approval.

Want to see what elimination of Mica would do to our paradise? Go to Ft Myers beach or South Beach Miami.

As for the parking lots...look what unrestricted parking on Swallow brought us.

I would not judge Mica on one misstep and believe they must go forth with this action or be guilty of selective enforcement which would erode their authority for the long term.

Perhaps they should have the courts rule in their favor, then give a conditional approval for a fixed period of time and review periodically and renew or revoke at their discretion.

dwbadger writes:

MICA serves a purpose on the island. I don't believe you can leave it up to the council to enforce deed restrictions when they have demonstrated an inability to follow them in the past.

On this subject MICA asked to see the plans for the mini-golf facility. The request was ignored. The owners certainly new the process that was to be followed. If they would have followed the process, this mess could have been avoided.

WMissow writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

YAWWWNNNNNN!

captnjimbo writes:

Those that can not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana)

Marco-Bob writes:

Deed restrictions had their place back when the island was under development. Marco residents and visitors are not the same now as they were back when Deltona developed here. We are a city with paid personel to govern the city. We don't need MICA to pick and choose what gets enforced.

Northerner writes:

in response to WMissow:

YAWWWNNNNNN!

Too funny WMissow! He did say that yesterday though...

MrBreeze writes:

Marcobob. Do you not think that if the Deed Restrictions were dropped that the island would run crazy with development?

Klaus, as a man that has owned here for 40 years I agree that the development you see may have been one sided. I believe that "any and all" projects should be treated the same. All the same rules and regulations need to apply be it a Putt-Putt or a hotel or ampa theater. The rule book should not respond to the size of the checkbook. But please do not push for development on the island as you might not like the results. I live in once was a nice farm town. Development came and ruined the quality of life from what it was. The people who made the big money left and moved on to the next circus to repeat the same thing.The people left behind are the ones who suffer.

lauralbi1 writes:

Please go to Miami !!! Deltona, a very valid, operating, politically powerful Corporation, still exists and is headquartered in Miami. I have spoken to them on many occasions with regard to Deed Restrictions. Especially when MIA was considering placing their temporary school on the New Life Church property across from Veteran's Park.
Having the case heard in Miami would allow Deltona to testify on their own behalf (and validate MICA's role) and the Kramer's would not stand a chance.
Better that they, the Kramer's, sit down with MICA and come to some sort of compromise.
Ed Issler

WMissow writes:

Yesterday, all their troubles seemed so far away
Now the putt, putt course is fighting to stay.

Yesterday, all their troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks like MICA won't let them get their say.
Oh, I believe in yesterday

Suddenly, there's a shadow hanging over them. Oh, yesterday went suddenly

Why they wouldn't go the righteous way.
They did something wrong and can not stay.

Yesterday, putt, putt was an easy game to play.
Now they need another attorney to make it stay.
Oh I believe in yesterday!

Credit to the Beetles and re-written by a yesterday man.

RayNetherwood writes:

WM .... catchy. :-) See the Letter to the Editor: "To Fight ..."

islandgma writes:

I have been a MICA member since 2001 and I understand and appreciate the care you take with keeping our beach access clean and enjoy the entertainment they have arranged. I do however also feel that it is time for MICA to realize the Deltona idea of keeping Marco Island strictly a community of residents has already "left the barn." Maybe it is time to step up and truly try to enhance the quality of life of those of us living full time as I do. I would love to be able to take my granddaughter to a nice family venue to enjoy and step across the street for an ice cream and some nice family time. I also recall there once was a mini golf on Marco...it is good family entertainment and would be enjoyed by all - visitors and residents alike. This only feeds the Marco naysayers when they paint Marco with the wide brush of being elitist old grumpy people....the fact that a new High School was built here should be reason enough for you to step up - the times they are achanging....

OU8124me writes:

All attempts at compliance were ignored by the property owner and developer. Fred Kramer is a former MICA Board member and was MICA's legal counsel.He should have known better. Thank God for The Deltona Deed Restrictions protect us all and the fine work done by MICA.

RayN writes:

OU ... on the MICA Board? Not sure MICA has done "fine work" ... it has skated out on paying millions in property taxes, but that's neither here nor there. The issue is the miniature golf course, and the fact that MICA is empowered to actually approve it IF it waves the magic wand.

How about focusing on the question of SHOULD the MICA Board come to a mediated compromise with Kramer?

WMissow writes:

Ray,

No matter how much you try your best there is no mediated compromise to be had. That is the reason why deed restrictions are placed on real estate in the first place. MICA does not have the power to change the deed restrictions they are obliged to enforce.

Due to the Kramers attempt at superseding MICA's authority either:

1. An additional court action must be executed. 2. The Kramers will have to perform the actions mandated by court order handed down by Judge Hayes.

There appears to be no middle ground that is allowed under the, existing, deed restrictions.

For those who think otherwise please post where the permission to mediate or change deed restrictions are written.

If the deed restrictions are legal restrictions and not discriminatory or other protected variances under the law of the land, the Kramers stand little if no chance on changing them.

Petitions or hoping will not make any difference.

RayN writes:

Wm, since it seems to have gone unread, here it is again;

Here's my two cents after researching the matter. On page 229 of the deed restrictions, some five dozen possible types of businesses that can be put on Mr. Kramer’s lot are listed, to include: bicycle shops, private clubs (like in dry counties where one used to be able to buy a daily membership -- hint), pool rooms, bowling alleys, sporting good stores (they could sell putters and balls) ... and "telegraph stations" and "haberdasheries" ... the list is thus clearly dated/outmoded and really could not be all inclusive. Miniature golf course is not listed, but in my experience the back sides of bowling alleys are much louder than any miniature golf course.

Thus, it would seem to be an oversight or error. How is a miniature golf course markedly different from those businesses specifically listed? It wouldn’t be. This would be borne out by the language in the deed restrictions, on page 234, paragraph 16: "Additional Restriction" ... amend any of the restrictions ... where, in the opinion of the subdivider, great harm, injustice, or damage would result ... or where error, omission, or mistake has occurred in these restrictions ..."

Since the subdivider exists no more, MICA stands in its place. That's what MICA contends, so there is language which would seem to allow an owner to request the "subdivider" to amend the restrictions to remove things like “haberdasheries” or "telegraph stations" from the list and to add something like "miniature golf courses" or “internet café”.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Klaus, you are wrong.

This is not a case of sour grapes.

WMissow writes:

in response to RayN:

Wm, since it seems to have gone unread, here it is again;

Here's my two cents after researching the matter. On page 229 of the deed restrictions, some five dozen possible types of businesses that can be put on Mr. Kramer’s lot are listed, to include: bicycle shops, private clubs (like in dry counties where one used to be able to buy a daily membership -- hint), pool rooms, bowling alleys, sporting good stores (they could sell putters and balls) ... and "telegraph stations" and "haberdasheries" ... the list is thus clearly dated/outmoded and really could not be all inclusive. Miniature golf course is not listed, but in my experience the back sides of bowling alleys are much louder than any miniature golf course.

Thus, it would seem to be an oversight or error. How is a miniature golf course markedly different from those businesses specifically listed? It wouldn’t be. This would be borne out by the language in the deed restrictions, on page 234, paragraph 16: "Additional Restriction" ... amend any of the restrictions ... where, in the opinion of the subdivider, great harm, injustice, or damage would result ... or where error, omission, or mistake has occurred in these restrictions ..."

Since the subdivider exists no more, MICA stands in its place. That's what MICA contends, so there is language which would seem to allow an owner to request the "subdivider" to amend the restrictions to remove things like “haberdasheries” or "telegraph stations" from the list and to add something like "miniature golf courses" or “internet café”.

Ray,

Maybe it is time for you to stick to what you are doing which is campaigning for a political office.

Please leave the interpretation of the laws to the judges.

If by chance you win you can proceed in attempting to make new laws according to your opinions.

Good luck!

RayN writes:

Would seem to be the greatest of ironies, that I'm supposed to leave education and experience at some imaginary door. Reading and literacy, thinking too, are hopefully required. I can't ignore what I know, nor what I read. And, perhaps unlike some folks, I actually live some five or six blocks from the Putt Putt and have played it. So, everyone, including me, is entitled to his or her interpretation of reality. Sorry, can't play ostrich.

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