Guest Commentary: 'MICA Board of Directors would like you to know the facts'

Much has been written and commented upon in recent weeks regarding the Marco Island Civic Association (MICA) and the Deltona Corporation’s Deed Restrictions. Rather than rely on rumors, the MICA Board of Directors would like you to know the facts.

When the Mackle Brothers, as owners of the Deltona Corporation, purchased and developed most of Marco Island, they placed deed restrictions on these properties. The Mackle Brothers created a master plan for Marco Island. They laid out areas for single-family homes, multi-family residential, and areas for commercial use. They went so far as to specify uses for particular pieces of land. They also donated land for specific uses, such as churches, hospitals, schools, parks, and marinas, etc. The Deltona Corporation created the deed restrictions to protect the integrity of the island and to assure conformity of all construction and setbacks in those geographical areas covered by the restrictions.

In 1986 Deltona, as the owner, subdivider and developer of Marco Island, assigned MICA all the subdivider’s rights to enforce the deed restrictions on Marco Island. MICA has been actively serving the residents of our island informally since 1968 and formally since 1973. MICA has a 12 member volunteer board of directors which is elected by the members of the association. It is a job that board members accept and take seriously.

A condition of the turnover agreement was that MICA would form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC), which would act as an authority in the plan review process. The restrictions state that no new structure shall be constructed without a review of the design drawings and written approval by MICA. MICA’s ARC has met on a regular basis since 1986. MICA will review deed restrictions with any property owner, architect, or builder who has questions and will also help with the application.

Most property owners and builders are aware of the Deltona deed restrictions and 99 percent of construction plans are brought into the MICA office for ARC review without any prompting on MICA’s part. Recently a property owner knowingly chose not to bring plans into MICA’s ARC.

With regard to Marco Golf and Garden, we understand the confusion regarding the timeline and the perception that MICA waited until construction was finished and the operation was open. Nothing could be further from the truth. Beginning in December, well before the City of Marco Island issued its permit, and continuing until mid-January numerous attempts to speak with the property owner and builder were made and correspondence was sent to the property owner. A timeline for your review:

Weeks of Dec. 3, 10: MICA left telephone messages for Fred Kramer, property owner and registered agent for Donna DiPromessa, LLC. The calls were not returned by Kramer. MICA spoke to the builder several times who advised that Fred Kramer instructed him not to bring plans into MICA.

Dec. 18: MICA sent certified letter to Donna DiPromessa, LLC, requesting plans be submitted to MICA.

Dec. 28: City of Marco Island issued permit for Marco Golf & Garden.

Jan. 7: Letter sent to Fred Kramer, as owner and registered agent, giving opportunity to submit plans prior to lawsuit being filed, followed by emails urging compliance with deed restrictions.

Jan. 17: Lawsuit filed against Donna DiPromessa, LLC.

All attempts at compliance were ignored by the property owner and developer, Fred and Marianne Kramer of Donna DiPromessa, LLC, and as a last resort in January MICA was compelled to file a suit with the court which was our only legal course of action. We did not determine when the hearing would be held to hear the legal case. However, in June the court heard the arguments from both sides and concluded that the owner/developer was in violation of the requirement to submit construction plans and that the deed restrictions did not permit this use on the property. The owner was further ordered to cease and desist operations and within 60 days bring the property back to the condition it was in prior to construction. It should also be noted that Fred Kramer is a former MICA Board member and was MICA’s legal counsel.

What are deed restrictions?

n Deed restrictions are use and development restrictions placed on land by the original owner, Deltona.

n They are a matter of title, go with the land, and are recorded in county records.

n They stem from property rights rather than police powers, which are associated with a governmental body.

n They are enforceable in civil court.

n They vary from unit to unit on Marco, and often from lot-to-lot within a unit.

n They may or may not be changeable depending on how they are written.

n They are enforceable by owners within the particular set of restrictions.

n They are also enforceable by the developer or his assignee, MICA.

n They are created to enhance the value of the property and to protect each subsequent owner from adjacent development.

n Deed restrictions exist in addition to any zoning codes, building codes, development codes, etc.

Deed restrictions are recorded in the Public Records of Collier County just like liens, judgments, claims, assessments, and other matters, and are not on your deed. When individuals and corporations buy a property on Marco Island, their attorney will typically order a title search. A title search will supply the property owner with a copy of the Deltona Deed Restrictions specific to the property.

Deed restrictions are a private contract and cannot be enforced by municipalities. The Deltona Corporation did this by design so the deed restrictions could not to be changed at the whim of a political force at any particular time.

For instance, the City of Marco Island and Collier County have rezoned residential properties to commercial. At the same time, the properties were still deed restricted as single family. Case in point: Mazzini properties on San Marco Road, east of Bald Eagle, and adjoining properties on Tahiti Road. MICA took this to court and prevailed, thereby protecting the sanctity of the single family neighborhood. The residents of Tahiti Road were ecstatic when MICA successfully prevented commercialism from creeping onto their residential street.

Deed restriction setbacks and uses may differ from the City of Marco Island’s zoning setbacks and uses, and in all cases property owners must meet the most stringent. Over the years MICA has continued to work with Collier County and the City of Marco Island to unify zoning and deed restrictions to help prevent confusion.

The Deltona deed restrictions protect us all, single family, multi-family and commercial properties. Those protections go with the property and not the political winds or the pressure from well-funded developers seeking to maximize profits and leave behind issues and problems we’ll have to fix later.

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

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 54

RayN writes:

Since this looks like a re-submission of an earlier blurb, two can play the game.

Speaking of "being ignored" the following email was sent to MICA on July 1, 2013 ... so far, not a peep back.

<QUOTE>
Hi, I've looked on the website, but can't seem to find the info.

I'd like to see the 2011 and 2012 annual reports (financial statements) for the association.

I'd also like to see the articles of incorporation and/or the by-laws for MICA too.

If the documents are available in PDF format, I'd appreciate getting the copies emailed.

Thanks!

Ray Netherwood
<UNQUOTE>

The most important take away from Mr. Adams' comments is that MICA is empowered to make changes when allowed by the deed restrictions. In the case of the property in question, they are permitted to do so.

I have no axe to grind with MICA or Mr. Kramer, and my interest is purely selfish and personal. I want to go, with or without family and friends, and play a round. My wife and I bicycled over once and found the course to be a welcomed joy to what is available to residents on the island. Now we can't.

I don't know about past differences, the need for chest pounding, or anything else hidden from open view. What I do know is that I wish Mr. Kramer and MICA would come to some type of a win-win for them and for the lowly citizens and members of MICA.

OldMarcoMan writes:

Didn't Deltona have a Putt Putt at the Voyager ?

happy6 writes:

it costs almost as much to play at the new putt putt as it does to join MICA...$15 for adults and $12 for kids...how many marco grandmas are gonna spring for that?

WMissow writes:

********MICA DISBANDED*********

**A HORROR STORY FOR MARCO ISLAND**

*WHAT IS COMING TO A LOT NEAR YOU?*

Mr. N. This is my way of being selfish and I think it applies to more than the small percentage of Marco residents who signed a petition.

Petitions are worthless when it comes to the law.

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

Now how many cases of sours grapes have you quoted? Maybe its time to make some of your screw top Boone's Farm.

marcofriend writes:

Mr Netherwood -- It seems that the Kramer's do not want to work anything out with MICA. As you can read above, MICA began contacting the Kramer's in early December (actually trying 4 times in the month of December alone). Since the Kramer's refuse to communicate, MICA did what they had to do and that was work the issue through the court system.

The issue is that we all know that living on Marco Island is great and part of the greatness is because we all had to adhere to the Deltona deed restrictions. If the Kramer's get away with this, Marco Island will end up being just another mediocre place as no one will pay attention to any rules in the future.

mahiman writes:

Always interesting to see the other side and how Kramer ignored MICA. Since the City ignored the concerns of the residents who live around the golf course, I applaud MICA. Netherwood wants to selfishly play golf...but like the city, fails to think about the residents who live behind or in front of the business while Klaus just seems to hate any form of authority.

MrBreeze writes:

Again, I believe that the Deed Restrictions are the safe haven for the Residents. They must stand and stand strong. Otherwise the Deltona Zone will be in trouble.

What I question if this guy Kramer was involved with MICA I see this as a venue either to grind an ax or to set a precendent in the courts. We shall see.

26yearsonmarco writes:

On and on it goes, when it will stop no one knows.

Once again, not one comment regarding our soon to be homeless Turtles and Owls (who?) that no one seems to give a Hoot about.

MrsT writes:

I have also wondered if the Deltona Corporation made provisions in the Deltona Deed Restrictions should Marco become a city as it did in 1998. There was a putt-putt golf course on Marco before it became a city. I have worked on Marco for 25 years and lived on Marco for 15 years. I wonder if the residents who live nearby and opposed the miniature golf course prefer the sounds of the other businesses with delivery trucks, patrons and music/entertainment over the sound of folks enjoying themselves playing putt-putt. If you live right behind a business zone you should expect to hear some noise.

LadueVGilleo writes:

Klaus (or is it Klutz)

People who read this blog and post to this blog put up with your opinions, no matter how ridiculous or asinine they may be. You need to be tolerant of the opinions of others. After all, we live in a democracy. Stop trying to be an Internet bully; you're lousy at it.

johnnycakes writes:

Why do we need two organizations that do the same thing? One must be redundant. I don't much care which one needs to go but one of them does. Otherwise we have an extremely inefficient development system on Marco.

Whichever one remains needs to have several characteristics to make it work in a democracy. Governance needs to be transparent and I need a say in governance. That is I need to vote for the governors. Finances need to be transparent. .. I need to be able to review them. Operations needs to be transparent. .. I need to understand both why and how decisions are made. There needs to be some kind of appeal process ... the organization making the decisions can't review its own decisions.

I own my property ... it is not a condominium subject to governance by a condo board. My take is that MICA is acting as a de facto condo board that isn't interested in subjecting itself to normal due process.

I do not know the Kramer's, have never had anything to do with MICA and do not play golf of any kind.

MarcoDefender writes:

It's good to have "the facts". Nonetheless, the only question that remains is... will MICA do it's job and evaluate the property on it's merits per the deed restrictions?

As we all recognize, the issue of submitting plans is moot. Do your job and evaluate the property. Make a ruling and lets move on. To have the court order fulfilled (destroy the mini-golf business) is completely wasteful, and not advantageous to ANYONE.

Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????

MICA - Here's your chance to rebuild some goodwill, and show that you are a beneficial organization here on Marco. What say you?

marcofriend writes:

in response to MarcoDefender:

It's good to have "the facts". Nonetheless, the only question that remains is... will MICA do it's job and evaluate the property on it's merits per the deed restrictions?

As we all recognize, the issue of submitting plans is moot. Do your job and evaluate the property. Make a ruling and lets move on. To have the court order fulfilled (destroy the mini-golf business) is completely wasteful, and not advantageous to ANYONE.

Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????

MICA - Here's your chance to rebuild some goodwill, and show that you are a beneficial organization here on Marco. What say you?

I do not understand your question "Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????".
The facts are that the Kramer's did not do "the right thing" by absolutely refusing to communicate with MICA. Why is that MICA's fault?
This whole mess would not even be here right now had they went in with their plans and discussed with MICA.
I am not against the Kramer's nor am I against the process. I am against what the Kramer's did by ignoring the process and causing such a problem.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Klaus (or is it Klutz)

Your response is typical and it is what readers expect from you.

You presented only one side of that story. There was more to this older post than what you presented here. But if you did present the whole story, then you would have no argument.

By the way the definition of an Internet Troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." I thought for sure when I looked the term up I would see your picture.

So I guess the use of distortion is another of your chosen methods of blogging.

And you are lousy at that, too.

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

Internet trolls?????? Stay on topic?????

Who are you trying to kid? Nobody here.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to marcofriend:

I do not understand your question "Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????".
The facts are that the Kramer's did not do "the right thing" by absolutely refusing to communicate with MICA. Why is that MICA's fault?
This whole mess would not even be here right now had they went in with their plans and discussed with MICA.
I am not against the Kramer's nor am I against the process. I am against what the Kramer's did by ignoring the process and causing such a problem.

Friend - We've established that the process wasn't followed by the owner. Recognizing that, what's important now is how we proceed from here.

If the purpose of MICA is to evaluate and approve plans and ensure they are compliant, then, do that. No need for plans, you can take the ARC right down to Winterberry and evaluate the site in person. Based on that evaluation, ARC should make a ruling, like it typically would. I would expect it would be objective and based on the merits of the site. If there are deficiencies, then let the owner rectify them, as the process dictates. A teardown of that site is not the answer. That may be the court ruling, but it's not what's best for Marco Island, the residents and the visitors.

So, will MICA do the right thing (recognizing the owner did not)? Again, making a right out of this wrong situation.

Anyone else agree that this is the prudent next step? If not, what are your suggestions to resolve this?

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to MarcoDefender:

Friend - We've established that the process wasn't followed by the owner. Recognizing that, what's important now is how we proceed from here.

If the purpose of MICA is to evaluate and approve plans and ensure they are compliant, then, do that. No need for plans, you can take the ARC right down to Winterberry and evaluate the site in person. Based on that evaluation, ARC should make a ruling, like it typically would. I would expect it would be objective and based on the merits of the site. If there are deficiencies, then let the owner rectify them, as the process dictates. A teardown of that site is not the answer. That may be the court ruling, but it's not what's best for Marco Island, the residents and the visitors.

So, will MICA do the right thing (recognizing the owner did not)? Again, making a right out of this wrong situation.

Anyone else agree that this is the prudent next step? If not, what are your suggestions to resolve this?

This issue is in the court system; let it play out there where it belongs. Some of the individual suggestions being presented only introduce "grey areas" that don't solve this problem and they will only mean new and bigger issues for somebody else somewhere down the road. The "solution" presented here is nothing more than a suggestion for looking the other way. There are deed-restriction issues at stake here, and deed restrictions protect Marco Island. Individuals may not like MICA, but MICA protects them the same as everyone else.

marco97 writes:

I don't think anyone would have a problem with MICA if they enforced deed restrictions on a go cart track, the problem is I believe most people think the mini golf is a good use of the land and an asset to the Island. What they are doing may be legal but it makes them look bad and puts them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

WMissow writes:

The only procedure we should follow from here is to ENFORCE the deed restrictions that are on the property. We should have no sympathy for someone who deliberately thumbed their nose at the law just because the silly putt putt course looks pretty or is convenient for some residents.

The courts will make a final decision
on this issue, one way or another and not any of us layman who blog or sign petitions.

WMissow writes:

The one poorly reasoned point with your post that means anything, is that you are saying that city council has or should have the final say on deed restrictions.

How wrong you are! In this democracy deed restrictions are changed by rules of law not some group of layman or others with petitions. Anything less, as you support, is just plain nearsighted and could easily be controlled by favoritism or cronyism.

Greed, selfishness or ignorance of the law is no reason to violate it.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to marco97:

I don't think anyone would have a problem with MICA if they enforced deed restrictions on a go cart track, the problem is I believe most people think the mini golf is a good use of the land and an asset to the Island. What they are doing may be legal but it makes them look bad and puts them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

This situation may make MICA look bad and they may be on the wrong side of popular opinion. But their job is to enforce deed restrictions.

Asking MICA to look the other way on this issue can only lead to future incidents with business people asking MICA to look the other way for them because MICA set a precedent with Marco Island Golf and Garden.

"Looking the other way" by MICA will create a slippery slope for Marco.

The courts have this issue before them; let it play out there. If the courts determine that the golf course is to be razed, it gets razed. If the court determines that the golf course owners need to address MICA and accept a compromise, so be it.

This issue must follow rules of law, not the rules of a popularity contest.

If the owner had followed proper procedures (and he knew what they were; he chose to ignore them) this would not be an issue.

My builder had to present his plans to MICA's ARC; what makes this individual special that he didn't have to do the same thing?

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

So if, by chance, what you say is true, does doing it again make it right? Of course not!

What Ladue says above is all we need to do.

This will surely help us owners of homes no matter where they are located.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to LadueVGilleo:

This issue is in the court system; let it play out there where it belongs. Some of the individual suggestions being presented only introduce "grey areas" that don't solve this problem and they will only mean new and bigger issues for somebody else somewhere down the road. The "solution" presented here is nothing more than a suggestion for looking the other way. There are deed-restriction issues at stake here, and deed restrictions protect Marco Island. Individuals may not like MICA, but MICA protects them the same as everyone else.

Due - Looking at the Mini-Golf property and evaluating the premises based on the deed restrictions is actually not "looking the other way" it's doing exactly what MICA should be, which is to evaluate the property and present the results. Some of you are too tied to the principle and not opening your mind to the fact that this needs a solution. Each of you is making the large assumption that this business is violating the deed restrictions, but the fact of the matter is... that has not be proven. The only thing we can say for sure, is that the owner didn't file the his plans with the MICA ARC. And, in my view, the ruling for not following the process, of having to destroy the entire site, is just s-----. We have a beautiful place here, destruction of the business is NOT in the best interest of Marco Island.

Yes, the owner was at fault by not following the process of pre-build review, now MICA needs to step up and do their job, as opposed just only the path of legal action. Take all paths, and let's see this business deliver some value to this island.

Yes, the issue in the court system, however, it doesn't mean we should close our eyes and our minds to searching out new potential solutions for this... in the best interest of the and protection of the residents, which I thought was the purpose of MICA anyway. We need to keep looking and not allow the court to dictate the only path to getting this resolved.

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to WMissow:

The only procedure we should follow from here is to ENFORCE the deed restrictions that are on the property. We should have no sympathy for someone who deliberately thumbed their nose at the law just because the silly putt putt course looks pretty or is convenient for some residents.

The courts will make a final decision
on this issue, one way or another and not any of us layman who blog or sign petitions.

Miss - Do you really think the ruling of destroying this property and returning it to an empty field is the appropriate and prudent view of "enforcement"?

Miss - You used to be part time residents, and you've commented before that having activities for the visitors and tourists is a good thing? Outside of this situation, do you not approve of having a mini-golf course here on the island to provide some fun and activities for residents and visitors?

WMissow writes:

MarcoD,

What I think or what you think regarding this issue is not important.

How many times must one repeat that it is the law that MUST be followed.

Bottom line, if it doesn't follow the law it does not belong.

Too bad if the property has to be torn up. The Kramers knew that was a possibility when they made their decision to build it.

Just like any other gamble some you win and some you lose.

In regard to your attempt to "poll" me on whether I would wish for there to be a putt-putt course on this island, nice try on attempting to get additional support.

WMissow writes:

Hey Klaus your references to senior citizens on this island is both uncalled for and disgusting.

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to MarcoDefender:

Due - Looking at the Mini-Golf property and evaluating the premises based on the deed restrictions is actually not "looking the other way" it's doing exactly what MICA should be, which is to evaluate the property and present the results. Some of you are too tied to the principle and not opening your mind to the fact that this needs a solution. Each of you is making the large assumption that this business is violating the deed restrictions, but the fact of the matter is... that has not be proven. The only thing we can say for sure, is that the owner didn't file the his plans with the MICA ARC. And, in my view, the ruling for not following the process, of having to destroy the entire site, is just s-----. We have a beautiful place here, destruction of the business is NOT in the best interest of Marco Island.

Yes, the owner was at fault by not following the process of pre-build review, now MICA needs to step up and do their job, as opposed just only the path of legal action. Take all paths, and let's see this business deliver some value to this island.

Yes, the issue in the court system, however, it doesn't mean we should close our eyes and our minds to searching out new potential solutions for this... in the best interest of the and protection of the residents, which I thought was the purpose of MICA anyway. We need to keep looking and not allow the court to dictate the only path to getting this resolved.

Principles are important; so is responsibility.

What has been proposed is to essentially reward this owner's "bad behavior". It certainly was bad enough to have a judge shut down his business, and it may be bad enough to have a judge order its razing. MICA is suppose to "step up" here?

MICA has acted responsibly, sending letters to ensure the owner followed the correct procedures. They did their job. When does the owner take responsibility for his actions (or inaction)?

There are plenty of people with open minds who realize how important these deed restrictions and MICA is to keep Marco Island the way it is.

The stupidity behind destroying the golf course is exceeded by the owner's stupidity for not fulfilling his responsibility for filing his plans with MICA's ARC.

WMissow writes:

It appears that some posters on this site are renters, condo owners and not homeowners.

These are the people who have supported a putt putt course because they have nothing to lose.

I would be very suspicious of any petitions going around. Sure condo owners have a say in what is on this island but the negative effects of improperly placed construction will not effect them as much as a land or homeowner.

I would check those so called petitions both for legitimacy of the signatures in addition to the kind of ownership represented by each.

marco97 writes:

in response to WMissow:

It appears that some posters on this site are renters, condo owners and not homeowners.

These are the people who have supported a putt putt course because they have nothing to lose.

I would be very suspicious of any petitions going around. Sure condo owners have a say in what is on this island but the negative effects of improperly placed construction will not effect them as much as a land or homeowner.

I would check those so called petitions both for legitimacy of the signatures in addition to the kind of ownership represented by each.

Are you smoking crack, please tell me which posters on this site you believe are renters, condo owners and not home owners? and why should that matter? I have lived on the Island since the eighty's and own a home. I know many people who own condos or rent homes that have lived here longer then I have and to say they do not have a vested interest in the community is total BS.
I guess you feel only home owners like you and I should be able to sign petitions since renters and condo owners have nothing to lose, did you really say that?.

WMissow writes:

First of all lets not turn the discussion around in order to suit your wants and please do not put words in my mouth that were never there.

Please read my post again, before you attempt to accuse anyone of anything.

What I said is a mere suspicion due to the fact that there have been other petitions that were signed by supposed Marco Island people which turned out to be people who do not live on the island. All the signatures should be verified for proof of residence.

If all of the signatures are legit you have nothing to worry about....or did I hit a nerve for which you found it necessary to belittle?

I have as much right to not want something near me as much as you wish to have something near you, but I will not ignore the law in order to have that happen the way you wish to have it happen.

RayN writes:

Sigh. Mr. Kramer should do three things, at least with regard to resolving this problem. If there's an additional or different hidden agenda involving MICA, that will come out into the open soon enough.

He needs to simultaneously submit a request to MICA for it to amend/update the deed restrictions to, let's say for example, add "miniature golf courses, and internet cafes" to allowable businesses and remove "telegraph exchanges and haberdasheries" from the list; submit the as-built plans to the MICA AR person/committee; and, agree to mediate any issues MICA presents.

Also, in the multitude of posts here and to other letters, not a single person actually living in the vicinity of the course, has commented negatively ... the earlier "fears" would not seem to have been realistic.

WMissow writes:

Ray,

Do you not think that Kramer was not smart enough to know what he might be able to do after he ignored the law in the first place?

This might have been his plan to begin with and now do you suggest that the court lets him get away with his actions?

Do we now slap him on the hand for ignoring the law?

Are you suggesting that it is OK to break the law and then hope to attempt to make good after the fact?

Whether there are people around the course who want it or not has nothing at all to do with the law as do any petitions by anyone else.

The deed restrictions are for "all" of us to obey.

RayN writes:

WM ... actually, I think that Mr. Kramer believed that he was going to "win" with his argument of MICA's expired control. Obviously didn't work.

Where in my post is anything about "the court letting him get away with anything"?

Please, unless YOU have actually read the deed restriction language, what it allows, doesn't allow, and other fine points, don't talk like you actually know anything about them.

If you want to review them, and I'd be happy to provide them, and THEN have a discussion fine. Otherwise ... you're flailing at the wind.

WMissow writes:

Ray,

Quite interesting "flailing in the wind".

In my opinion there is nothing to negotiate other than a reasonable time table to tear down the illegal project.

I have had to deal with deed restrictions several times in my life both in personal construction projects and town planning, unlike yourself who appears not to understand their status in law.

You say that you would volunteer to mediate negotiations after you admit to want the golf course on which you have played and wish to stay as it is.

What is that supposed to mean? It means that you already have an opinion and are leaning in one direction. For you to mediate???? Who are you trying to kid or convince?

Good luck, though, in your attempts at election. I for one will not be voting for you.

WMissow writes:

What is 16 out of over 250,000?

Boy would I call that flailing in the wind.

RayN writes:

in response to WMissow:

What is 16 out of over 250,000?

Boy would I call that flailing in the wind.

Uhhhh, let's see after officially endorsing Mr. Southerland and withdrawing, and asking supporters to please NOT vote for me (even my wife and I voted for Mr. Southerland), some 16 kind souls had to physically write my name on their ballots ... no little block to check. What would I call that, "remarkable." I had hoped for ZERO.

Also remarkable is your input here is as bereft of knowledge as all your preceding stuff. We'll have to deal with that.

WMissow writes:

Once again we are dealing with your quote above as being unbiased to place yourself as a mediator.

Your quote: "don't know about past differences, the need for chest pounding, or anything else hidden from open view. What I do know is that I wish Mr. Kramer and MICA would come to some type of a win-win for them and for the "lowly" citizens and members of MICA.:

Your dare to call the people who have lived here on Marco for many years "lowly citizens".

Buddy, what holds you higher than those lowly citizens? Maybe because you drive around with a luxury Mercedes with and specially installed bar setup. I hope that all those as you call them "lowly" citizens get to see you as you are.

You gave those votes to Mr. Sutherland because you saw that you had no chance to win an election. Trying to BS your way from that is not needed from any elected official. Lets see how many votes you will garner from those "lowly" citizen now. Big Man!

RayN writes:

Now, to strike a blow for truth and accuracy against the pompous and perhaps illiterate, we'll try to make it simple.

1. Who cares about "WM's" opinion ... what Marco residents should be concerned about are "facts". Seems as doing one's homework, is not the strong suit for WM. The mentioning of some deed restrictions, and implying that therefore all must be the same, is foolish and more importantly, inaccurate. Deed restrictions are like fingerprints, every one is a little different and apply to very specific properties, and the attributes are likewise specific and unique.

2. WM's "dealing" with deed restrictions is also no big whoopie. It's obvious that he either had help with their interpretation or that those restrictions essentially were without any impact on him. (In addition to about 10 years of contract interpretation, in Kentucky I, myself, yours truly, had deed restrictions removed by a vote of property owners, as the instrument allowed -- and, I actually wrote the document that was signed, filed, and rescinded them. I'm offended when those who know nothing or very little, somehow become self proclaimed experts and hurl stones at those who would disagree with them.)

3. If WM can follow ... the types of businesses permitted on Mr. Kramer's property (provided I was supplied with the correct instrument) are shown on page 229 of the restrictions; the duration and renewal of the restrictions is on page 233, and on page 234, para 16, is the language that would allow MICA to make reasonable amendments to the restrictions. Shock, it's a living document, kind of like the Constitution.

4. For those that vote straight "R" or "D" tickets because their mommy or daddy did, or they always have, I guess what we have in DC is the government we deserve. I assert that it's time for something different. WM your "vote" threat is kind of meaningless, you've proven your colors and ability to think, and you probably never would have anyways. Your loss.

So, I can take my lumps when I'm wrong about something, and when I am there is no doubt that a chorus of voices will be happy to point out my failing. But, I do not have to accept bullying by the blind who will not see, the deaf who will not hear, and the occasional windbag who "thinks" that somehow his "opinons" trump reality. Sorry. It's there in black and white.

WMissow writes:

Oh excuse me. Rolls Royce not a "lowly" Mercedes. Always check, verify and confirm.

WMissow writes:

in response to RayN:

Now, to strike a blow for truth and accuracy against the pompous and perhaps illiterate, we'll try to make it simple.

1. Who cares about "WM's" opinion ... what Marco residents should be concerned about are "facts". Seems as doing one's homework, is not the strong suit for WM. The mentioning of some deed restrictions, and implying that therefore all must be the same, is foolish and more importantly, inaccurate. Deed restrictions are like fingerprints, every one is a little different and apply to very specific properties, and the attributes are likewise specific and unique.

2. WM's "dealing" with deed restrictions is also no big whoopie. It's obvious that he either had help with their interpretation or that those restrictions essentially were without any impact on him. (In addition to about 10 years of contract interpretation, in Kentucky I, myself, yours truly, had deed restrictions removed by a vote of property owners, as the instrument allowed -- and, I actually wrote the document that was signed, filed, and rescinded them. I'm offended when those who know nothing or very little, somehow become self proclaimed experts and hurl stones at those who would disagree with them.)

3. If WM can follow ... the types of businesses permitted on Mr. Kramer's property (provided I was supplied with the correct instrument) are shown on page 229 of the restrictions; the duration and renewal of the restrictions is on page 233, and on page 234, para 16, is the language that would allow MICA to make reasonable amendments to the restrictions. Shock, it's a living document, kind of like the Constitution.

4. For those that vote straight "R" or "D" tickets because their mommy or daddy did, or they always have, I guess what we have in DC is the government we deserve. I assert that it's time for something different. WM your "vote" threat is kind of meaningless, you've proven your colors and ability to think, and you probably never would have anyways. Your loss.

So, I can take my lumps when I'm wrong about something, and when I am there is no doubt that a chorus of voices will be happy to point out my failing. But, I do not have to accept bullying by the blind who will not see, the deaf who will not hear, and the occasional windbag who "thinks" that somehow his "opinons" trump reality. Sorry. It's there in black and white.

What a pompous A**!

RayN writes:

WM: Please stop, you're embarrasing yourself. It's clear more homework is called for. What's a "mediator" and what's an "arbitrator"? I could easily be a mediator ... but in this matter probably shouldn't be an arbitrator. The mediator simply gets parties together and tries to get them to .... get ready .... think about trying to resolve something. Not so with an arbitrator where objectivity would be a criteria, especially if decisions were binding on the parties. WM, please stop me if this is over your head.

Parody, sarcasm, and HUMOR apparently are also just not in your repretoire. Shame, you make a great straight man. I too, am a "lowly" citizen of Marco, who has to endure babbling from the uninformed, meanspirited, and humorless souls. That's okay, I forgive you.

My my all the pent up hostility, must have hit a nerve somewhere. When the little petty mudballs get thrown, it's easy to see who has cast them.

You've asked questions, I've answered them. You've made grossly incorrect claims, I've rebuffed them. Your attempts really are unimpressive. The voters of District 19 deserve someone who can determine right from wrong, who will be loyal to them and not "party bosses", and who will fight the good fight when that time comes. WM, everything else aside, I would even work hard for you if you came to me with a problem. So ... unless there's something factual, let's just call the discussion on this over. It's not fair to you, me, or the other folks on here who may want to comment on the topic. Okay?

WMissow writes:

Boy are you good at the political "two step".

Let's see if the Marco "lowly" residents forgive you!

MarcoDefender writes:

in response to WMissow:

MarcoD,

What I think or what you think regarding this issue is not important.

How many times must one repeat that it is the law that MUST be followed.

Bottom line, if it doesn't follow the law it does not belong.

Too bad if the property has to be torn up. The Kramers knew that was a possibility when they made their decision to build it.

Just like any other gamble some you win and some you lose.

In regard to your attempt to "poll" me on whether I would wish for there to be a putt-putt course on this island, nice try on attempting to get additional support.

Miss - You may be comfortable with negating your view and value on this issue, but that's not acceptable for me and my input. As a citizen and Island resident, my opinion and input does count. You can dismiss yourself, and it's unfortunate, but that seems to say a lot about you. I may not agree with you on some of these opinions, but you do count. Don't sell yourself short.

I agree, the law must be followed, but there's no law that says the penalty for failing to submit plans for review results in the destruction of the property. Please, don't blindly follow the law, it may lead you right off a bridge.

As I've written, there is still no proof that the deed restrictions were even violated, which is why I am proposing that MICA ARC do their job, and make a ruling. That's the law, that the ARC enforce the deed restrictions, and we don't even know with any definitive fact that there's a violation. So, follow the law, make a ruling.

WMissow writes:

Def,

Bottom Line: It is in the hands of the lawyers and courts.

I am sure the court will listen to all opinions before another decision is made.

I do not expect anything, or anything significantly, different than what Judge Hayes has already decided.

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

I am sure Ray will be happy that you are one of his supporters and then again he should be careful what he wishes for.

LadueVGilleo writes:

It appears that Klaus Stoertebeker is no longer with us. There is no active link and no listings for him. I guess he can be found at the Internet Troll graveyard.

R.I.P. Klaus; you won't be missed.

WMissow writes:

Ladue,

Should we play Taps or is that too "yesterday"?

LadueVGilleo writes:

No, that would be "sour grapes"...

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