Project a bad idea
I’m amazed the city of Marco Island is considering approval of a “nautical garage.”
It’s already passed by the planning board. Ed Issler cast the only sane vote against it. I can only guess the owners and developers of the proposed home there have
some influence with city government, the planning board and the City Council since our council chairman has already given his verbal approval.
What really amazes me though is that, if I’m not mistaken, the Army Corps of Engineers, in April 1976, decreed that no further dredging and development of canals is allowed on Marco. That decision was upheld through the court system and was the reason for the Mackle brothers’ Deltona Corp. collapse.
How does the city plan to get around those restrictions? Do members of the planning board and City Council think they are above the state and federal courts and Corps of Engineers? Has a Corps of Engineers permit been issued?
Read the history of Marco; read the dangers to the environment and wildlife as to the reasons for blocking further dredging. And if the developers think they can make that nautical garage without dredging and creating a new seawall, I’d like to see how they plan to accomplish that magical feat.
Bill Harris, Marco Island
Deficits decreased under Obama
Impacts of any economic policy linger over a long period of time. Thus, yearly deficit, and hence debt, which is the accumulation of deficits over a number of years, is a result of not only the current but also the past policies.
However, current policy effects can be assessed by yearly changes in deficits.
Growth in debt results from deficits. An increase in deficits accelerates debt growth and decrease retards it, due to current policy.
The Congressional Budget Office data, as reported at usgovernmentdebt.us, show that deficits decreased by 58 percent, more than halved, during former President Barack Obama’s terms (2009-2016). Thus, growth in debt was slashed by more than half during the period.
Letter-writer Jeff Carrier alleges that a 58 percent decrease in deficits during the Obama years was my spin. But fact is fact.
Apparently, facts mean little to Carrier. He seems to be failing to grasp the fact that deficits decreased by 58 percent, while the debt was almost doubled during the same period. If it is any help, decrease in deficits reduces debt growth, not debt. Had the debt grown at the pace of the pre-Obama administration (under former President George W. Bush), the debt would possibly have tripled or even quadrupled during the Obama years. It may be worthwhile to remind numerous letter writers like Dave Stauffer, who wrote a March 17 diatribe, that debt growth was slashed by more than half during the Obama years. In contrast, debt growth was almost doubled (97 percent increase) during former President Ronald Reagan’s terms (1981-1988). Since Reagan is considered by some (mostly Republicans) to be the most successful president in the modern era, it should not go unnoticed that Reagan is the godfather of the current Republican policies.
Mukhtar M. Ali, Marco Island
DAS policy questioned
I have six dogs, all currently licensed in Collier County.
The licensing procedure in the past has been a simple and convenient process as part of the annual exam of each dog. The veterinarian office would prepare the triplicate form and issue the license (on the back of which they engraved the dog’s name and phone number), for which the cost for an altered dog (spayed or neutered) has been and is currently $10.
For providing this service, the vet office would retain $1 and forward $9 to Domestic Animal Services (DAS). This year the procedure was changed by DAS. The new procedure is for the vet to provide this service for free and send the entire $10 fee to DAS. The vet office can include a surcharge on the bill for the service, making it appear that the increase was the idea of the vet office, not DAS.
My veterinarian refused to participate in this new plan, so my options are going to DAS or the tax collector’s office with six rabies vaccination certificates and completing paperwork there for six dogs and paying the fee of $60; renewing each by mail which would cost DAS 48 cents postage (net increase for DAS now 52 cents), or not renewing the dogs’ licenses. The latter would require DAS staff time to enforce the licensing requirement with the possibility of no positive result. I could simply claim that the dogs were lost or given away or had died.
I will be very curious to know the decrease in pet license fees this year. I would also like to know how some idiot imagined that inconveniencing pet owners in this way to gain an additional
$1 per license would result in an overall increase in revenue for DAS.
Jerry K. Lang, Naples