Comments by Avenger

Written on New face on the dais: Bob Brown selected to fill Magel's City Council seat:

In the January 4, 2010 City Council meeting agenda, one of the business items was: “DISCUSSION – Naming of City Facilities or Rooms.” At the meeting itself, what was supposed to be the creation of a policy to rename city buildings (other than parks), turned into a motion by former Councilor Gibson to name City Hall after the late Councilor E. Glenn Tucker. Former Chairman Popoff aided and abetted Gibson; and there just happened to be a number of Tucker’s friends and associates at the meeting who spoke in favor of the action. Voila—done deal, 6-0 vote to name City Hall after Tucker. Much talk later of Sunshine violations, but no investigation.

Fast forward to Aug 19, 2013. Listed on the City Council meeting agenda is “Process for the appointment to fill Council vacancy per City Charter, Section 3.05.” At the meeting, there was no discussion of process, instead Councilor Sacher made a motion to appoint Brown; Councilor Petricca seconded it. When Councilors Honig and Kiester tried to bring the others back to the process discussion, Councilor Honecker barked that they had to appoint someone right away (ironic, because Brown is out of state, and won’t be back on Marco until mid-Sept.) Then all these folks got up to praise Brown. Chairman Batte praises Brown, calls the vote. Vote 4-2; Brown is appointed. Déjà vu?

As I watched, I thought that this thing was wired a little bit too tight—there had to be some “cloudy” collusion going on. And what a disservice to the other citizens who had volunteered. Wonder why there wasn’t even a list of those who did?

Written on Two Marco Island employees accuse Councilman Wayne Waldack of sexual harassment:

Whenever I read anything purportedly by Mr. Waldack, and the writing is coherent and logical, I know Wayne didn’t really author it. I then google a phrase from the article, and usually find the original from which he plagiarized. I recall posting a couple of times on some of Wayne’s past commentaries. I went back, and found the comment I left on the now deleted article that Mr. Foster referenced:

Written on None:
Don’t blame Mr. Waldack for the content of “his” commentary! Seems that he may have again used other people’s words without attribution:

http://mopsonthehill.wordpress.com/20...
http://christianity.about.com/od/holi...

Noting that I used the word “again,” I checked back a little further and found another of his LTE’s that he had lifted from someone else:

http://www.marconews.com/news/2009/ap...

Let’s see how long this article remains on the Eagle site.

Written on Marco Island City Council fires City Manager Steve Thompson:

You are wrong, Monte. The 4 Jan 2010 agenda lists the following item under business: “(C) DISCUSSION – Naming of City Facilities or Rooms.” No mention of naming city hall after Tucker in there!

Given that Popoff presided over that “naming” charade, I find his expressions of dismay in this article quite disingenuous. And according to Thompson’s rebuttal last night, he did inform the previous CC chair (Popoff) about the EPA inquires, and was told NOT to tell the rest of council. Not very open or transparent of Popoff.

Written on Letter To The Editor: Sadly laughable:

Issler, your 10:41am post is even more illogical than usual, and may have set a record for spelling and grammatical errors. Hitting the sauce a little early, are you, in anticipation of your candidate’s victory?

Marco97—good point about the 2006 election, and Tucker’s vote switch!

Written on POLL/Fiscal conservatism: What does it mean for Marco candidates? :

Actually, Issler, you and your bosom buddy Joe Granda started the negative campaigning with your 17 December letters to the editor. Rather than talk about how great and qualified your boy was, you two went after Chuck Kiester. And you never did explain how you and Granda just happened to have the identical 32 word phrase in each of your letters.

There are only four men running for three council seats, and you feel your candidate is so weak that your only recourse is to demean the incumbents.

Written on Commentary: A political Canine Cove:

Issler, how long is your nose now? Here you go telling another bald faced lie about Chuck Kiester. Come on, there are four guys running for three council seats! You must have very little confidence in your candidate, since you and Granda have “gone negative” against Chuck from the start. You exemplify exactly what Curle and Farmer said was wrong with politics in this town.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

in response to Avenger:

Issler, I challenge you to explain how you and Joe Granda just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

And I don’t buy that it’s just a coincidence.

Yo, Issler--why don't you respond to my challenge?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

Oh, and now let’s talk about Issler’s infamous analytical ability. He states that Chuck “was originally elected by only 2,838 votes (22 percent of the voters on Marco Island)….” Knowing Issler’s past history with statistics, I checked the Collier County Supervisor of Elections website for the 2006 election results:

http://www.voterfocus.com/hosting/col...

Now some context--in that election, seven men ran for three City Council seats. There were 13,207 registered voters on Marco Island, but only 6,443 actually voted in the 2006 election. Chuck did get 2,838 votes, which was only 138 fewer than the candidate with the highest number of votes, Ted Forcht. Below are all the candidates’ results:

Ted FORCHT..………2976
Robert POPOFF….…2944
Charles KIESTER……2838
Stef STEFANIDES...…2714
Joe BATTE …….….…2655
Joseph SIMONS.…….1788
Heyward BOYCE.……1784

So once again Issler uses “s----- stats” taken out of any context related to reality in order to bolster his fabrication about the results of the 2006 election. What else has he twisted, exaggerated, or made up in this letter?

Written on Letters to the Editor: Is size important?:

Granda, I’ve already asked Issler this question, and now I’d like to hear what you have to say. How did you and Issler just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

Issler, I challenge you to explain how you and Joe Granda just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

And I don’t buy that it’s just a coincidence.

Written on None:

Don’t blame Mr. Waldack for the content of “his” commentary! Seems that he may have again used other people’s words without attribution:

http://mopsonthehill.wordpress.com/20...

http://christianity.about.com/od/holi...

Written on Letter to the Editor: Healthcare bill misleading:

Well, John, you didn’t give me any page numbers, but you did admit that the bill doesn’t say that you will “need to visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory) once I reach ‘old age’.”

Now, let’s assume that the part of the bill from which you pulled your “interpretation” is Section 1233, on pages 425-430. That “legalese” says Medicare will pay for — not mandate — "advance care planning consultations" between individuals and their physicians every five years. So what do I think section means? That Medicare will pay for the counseling, so that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. Doctors, John — not bureaucrats. And the language clearly states that this counseling is voluntary.

Not wanting to take any chances in post- Schiavo Florida, a few years ago, I paid several hundred dollars for my living will, durable power of attorney, and advanced directive.

And let me refresh your memory about previous legislation related to this issue. Last year (during the Bush administration), Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. A 1992 law passed under President George H.W. Bush already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support.

Your twisted distortion about “visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory),” is relatively mild compared to Palin’s “death panels” and Grassley’s “pull the plug on grandma” but you join them in being unhinged from the reality of the actual legislation. Too bad that ideology and Obama bashing is more important to you than the truth.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Healthcare bill misleading:

So what you’re saying, John, is that you read the 1000+ pages of the House’s proposed health care bill, H.R. 3200. In all those pages, the one item that most concerned you is that you will “need to visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory) once I reach ‘old age’?”

I’ve read portions of the bill, and have been unable to find this “mandatory” requirement. So I challenge you to post the page number(s) where this “visit with a bureaucrat” is mandated. Better yet, copy and paste the section that contains this requirement so we can read what has you so concerned.

Written on Letter to the Editor: City leaders - Stop spending!:

Goodness gracious, you boys are so brave, ganging up on a woman, with your ALL CAPS yelling, incorrect spelling, and crappy grammar. Have another bourbon, boys, and write some more! Your class is certainly showing.

Written on Marco council unanimously approves tax relief:

NtJstUrMarco wasn’t the first poster to bring up national politics in this tread, although he was the first to make any sense. Why aren’t you telling van (#16), ejburger (#17), and playballonK (#22) to go elsewhere and get a grip, Issler?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Attacked:

WW,
Get real—“Nothing was said by me to identify her.” Ha! When I listened to the council meeting live, I knew immediately to whom you were referring.

You know they record these meetings, right? So if anyone is interested in what WW said, check out this link from the City of Marco Island web site:

http://ecweb4.ecstreams.com/public/dy...

-Click on City Council meeting 9-15-2008, then click “View selected program”
-In the viewing window that pops up, select item 6, City council communications…
-Fast forward to about 10:47 into that segment

WW talks about

-A letter to the editor that “ripped us (city council) very hard…”
- “by a young lady, won’t use her name…”
-“She had claimed City of Marco Island had caused her real estate taxes to go up $300…”

Now, that description pretty much narrows the identity of said individual down to one person only, to anyone who reads the newspaper. When she happened to be there, and spoke up, Trotter cut her off by saying “I don’t think we need to continue the discussion.”

At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that your actions were unseemly and contrary to civility and good government. Shame on you.

Written on Guest commentary: Tax rate falls and the quality work of the city continues:

Steve, that first paragraph of yours is BS, and I don’t mean “before Steve.” Spin what happened all you want, but the BL (bottom line) is that Marco’s millage rate last year was 1.2084, and for the upcoming property tax season it will be 1.3917 mils. Only in the alternate universe of Marco Island could both the City Manager and a newspaper reporter call that “tax relief” and “tax rate falls."

Written on Marco council unanimously approves tax relief:

Geez, Monte—among other reasons, your posts linking to that inflammatory website that further links to copyrighted material are violations of the marconews Terms of Use. That’s why they’re taken down.

And we’re not falling for your ridiculous tactic—dredging up 20 year-old allegations to distract from the real issues of today. To quote somebody: “It’s the economy, s-----.”

Written on Marco councilor rejects committee member’s allegations of impropriety:

Yes, Fossil, I think you’ve nailed it. Monte and his bois must really be worried about what Bill has uncovered to go after him the way they are doing.

Written on Guest commentary: Tax notices should be reviewed carefully, thoughtfully:

Waldack,

What you did at the last council meeting was unseemly and contrary to civility and good government. Shame on you. Your attack during council communications on a citizen whom you condescendingly referred to as “young lady” speaks volumes about your character.

And then you felt compelled to further beat a dead horse by writing this commentary. When I read this sentence, I nearly fell off my chair:

“My prior involvement with the League of Florida Cities provides me a vast understanding of the budget process, further how a well run city should be funded.”

Funny how you never mentioned this “involvement” during your interviews with the newspaper or talked about it at the candidates’ forums before the elections. I would characterize the “understanding of the budget process” that you demonstrated during this recent budget cycle as very little, and nowhere near “vast.”

By the way, there is no such entity as the League of Florida Cities, although there is an organization called the Florida League of Cities, of which Marco Island is a member. Maybe you should try to study the reams of paperwork that Marco Island produces during the budget process, instead of playing Gestapo agent against Marco Island citizens.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Please wait for the facts:

My goodness, Leroy, you certainly are even more venomous than usual today! But thanks—by posting the data from the link in my comment #5, you’re just proven my point that either:

Sailor doesn’t know how to subtract. 5008 – 3322 does not equal Waldack receiving “over 3000 more votes than neylon” as Sailor asserts in post #4.

Or Sailor does knows how to subtract, but for some odd reason felt compelled to nearly double Waldack’s spread.

That’s what I’m curious about—the fab four councilors were elected by a substantial margin, yet folks like Sailor and Issler have some weird compulsion to exaggerate those numbers.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but making up numbers? Some would call that lying.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good hate!

Written on Letter to the Editor: Please wait for the facts:

Well, Sailor, I guess you were educated at the Edward Issler Institute of Neo-Mathematics, and can’t subtract one number from another correctly. Don’t take my word for it; go to the Collier County Election website and look up the results of the January 2008 election. Here’s the link:

http://www.colliervotes.com/results.a...

I’m still wondering what drives you supporters of the fab four councilors to consistently exaggerate the margin of victory…

Written on Letter to the Editor: Do it different:

Well, Mr. Waldack, it’s clear you don’t understand what I’ve been saying, and I shall waste no more of my time. By the way, you should learn how to post the URL of the site with the info you’re citing. That’s really the only way to assure readers that you haven’t made up or edited the data.

Speaking of data, you never did answer the questions I asked after your “makes cents to me” LTR.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Do it different:

Mr. Waldack, please pay attention. Tomorrow you will be voting on the resolution shown at this link:

http://www.cityofmarcoisland.com/Publ...

RESOLUTION NO. 08-______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR THE TIGERTAIL, SOUTH BARFIELD, NORTH BARFIELD, WEST WINTERBERRY, NORTH MARCO, OLD MARCO AND PORT MARCO ASSESSMENT AREAS; APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL PERTAINING TO CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS WHO VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO DEFERRED PAYMENT AGREEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.04(B)(2) OF CITY RESOLUTION NO. 06-46; DIRECTING CERTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Reads a lot like the Lighthouse Point resolution, doesn’t it? Following your logic, (and Issler’s), this resolution must mean that this will be the first time that all those listed areas had to pay non-ad valorem assessments. But wait! Go to this link, which shows a very similar resolution from September 4, 2007:

http://www.cityofmarcoisland.com/Publ...

RESOLUTION NO. 07-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS; APPROVING AN ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR OWNERS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO DEFERRED PAYMENT AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR IMPOSITION OF A CONSENSUAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UPON SUCH PROPERTY; CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR THE TIGERTAIL AND SOUTH BARFIELD ASSESSMENT AREAS; DIRECTING CERTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF ASSESSMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

As you can see, the Tigertail and South Barfield assessment areas had to pay those non-ad valorem fees in 2007.

So you can cut and paste from 2008 Lighthouse Point resolutions all you want. It will not change the fact that Lighthouse Point has had a fire assessment in place for 10 years.

I recommend you devote more time to reading City of Marco Island resolutions. Or, better yet, concentrate on all the material you have for the upcoming September 2, 2008 City Council meeting.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Dead horse alert:

In post #1 above, Mr. Waldack writes:

“The surcharges you describe and are paying for on your water utility bill is a.) The 8% subsidy for the STRP is a cost which should have been billed separately; b.) (4) two percent charges are being added to your water bill are for repaving streets. 2 of the two percent are currently on your water bill. Another two (the 3rd of 4) percent is scheduled to be added in October. This is also a cost that should have been billed separately.”

Do the logic and writing ability evident in that paragraph scare anyone else?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Do it different:

It appears to me that Issler, and now you, are both saying that Lighthouse Point, for the first time in its history, just recently established fire assessment fees, to begin 1 Oct 2008. (By the way, neither of you posted a link to backup what you say.)

I guess you think the words you posted above mean that Lighthouse Point just started such an assessment. I think that those three paragraphs you supposedly “quoted” are standard government boiler plate to announce public hearings each year on that topic. You know, like the Marco Island administration does every year for the upcoming fiscal year’s millage rates, for example.

Anyway, if you go to the link which I posted, you will see that Lighthouse Point has had a fire assessment in place for 10 years, since Fiscal Year 1998-1999. I make no judgment about whether that is good or bad. I do make the point that it is quite different from what you and most of your fellow councilors want to do—raise the ad valorem millage rate and add on a new non-ad valorem fire assessment.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Makes sense (cents) to me:

Mr. Waldack, your post above is so illogical that it’s scary. Why use 2007 data when we have 2008 numbers available? Why blame the county for assessments mandated by state law or the South Florida Water Management District? What “figures” show that Marco Island was a “donor on SWFMD and mosquito control?”

What is your source or reference for all the numbers you quote in this last post? You can toss around all the “figures” you want, but without a link or reference that can be checked, those numbers are worthless.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Do it different:

Geez, Issler, you’re not very good at research, are you? Or else you chose to lie by omission. Here’s a quote from “City of Lighthouse Point, Florida Resolution No. 2003-1300” at http://www.lighthousepoint.com/images...

“WHEREAS, since Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the City has levied and collected a non-ad valorem special assessment within the City to fund its fire protection services…”

So Lighthouse Point has had this assessment for 10 years. You make it sound like Lighthouse Point was trying to pull a Marco slam—raise the millage rate and add a new assessment.

By the way, what is the “mileage rate” you reference in your post? Anything to do with Waldack's "employees per square mile?"

Written on Letter to the Editor: Makes sense (cents) to me:

Mr. Waldack, you failed to answer my questions:

--Where did you get your data that you quote in this letter to the editor? When I review my 2008 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes, I cannot come up with the percentages you quote.

--Did you include the tax for Public Schools mandated by State Law in your county figures?

--Did you also include South Florida Water Management District and Mosquito Control under your Collier County figures?

Again, I challenge you to post your references and data that would substantiate your 89% vs. 11% comparison.

Every single assessment on my proposed property tax notice has decreased from 2007 to 2008 EXCEPT for two—the two controlled by the Marco Island City Council. My City of Marco Island Property tax increased by more than 17%, and the Veterans Park Bond Debt increased by more than 5%.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Do it different:

Mr. Waldack, what in the world does “employees per square mile” have to do with Ms. O’Connell’s request that the Marco Island City Council and staff stop their tax (or special assess or PILOT) and spend ways? Maybe you should ask Chairman Trotter to explain valid performance measures at the next city council meeting. After all, one of the agenda items is the second reading of the resolution for the 2008 Level of Service report. Pull out your copy of the report (you’ve read it, right?) and see if the metric of “employees per square mile” is listed anywhere.

Keep up the good fight, Ms. O’Connell!

Written on Letter to the Editor: Makes sense (cents) to me:

Mr. Waldack, in a post to letter you wrote back in July, (http://marconews.com/news/2008/jul/08...) I asked you for the source of the derogatory comment you make about LCEC’s response to Everglades City after Hurricane Wilma. You did not answer my question.

Don’t worry, though, because after reading through the Arceri collection of emails at this site: http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com/, especially batch 1, I found my answer. Arceri “suggested” the topic for your LCEC commentary, and clearly “helped” you write it. He told you to put in that defamatory statement about LCEC’s response, and you did—I would be willing to wager large dollars that you did nothing to verify the veracity of his hearsay statement.

Speaking of large dollars, where did you get your data that you quote in this current letter to the editor? I recently received my 2008 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes. No matter how I crunch the numbers, either the 2007 or 2008 set, I cannot come up with the percentages you quote. Did you include the tax for Public Schools mandated by State Law in your county figures? Did you also include South Florida Water Management District and Mosquito Control under your Collier County figures? I challenge you to post your references and data that would substantiate your 89% vs. 11% comparison.

With that said, I do note that every single assessment on my proposed property tax notice has decreased from 2007 to 2008 EXCEPT for two—the two controlled by the Marco Island City Council. My City of Marco Island Property tax increased by more than 17%, and the Veterans Park Bond Debt increased by more than 5%.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Who’s running Marco?:

Issler, as Ronald Reagan once said, “There you go again.” In post #3 above, you lied about the 70% (yet again). So in post #9, you respond to me with this: “8000 or more (out of 12,000) that voted in the current Council.” That works out to 66.7% and so is another lie by you.

There were 34,109 votes cast in the January election. The four guys elected received 20,598 votes. That works out to 60.389%, if ya take it to five significant figures. My source:

http://www.colliervotes.com/results.a...

Here’s the issue, Issler—when you lie about things like this, for whatever twisted reason, you lose credibility. I believe little of what you post. You’re on the Electric System Municipalization Study Committee. Whatever sub-group you work with will need big-time accuracy checks because of your lack of trustworthiness as evidenced by your pattern of serial exaggerations and outright lies.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Who’s running Marco?:

Issler, you know and have admitted that the 70% crap you keep espousing is wrong. I had asked you before how you came up with that number—was your math ability that poor, or were you basically a dishonest guy? Since you have started spouting 70% again, I vote for “dishonest.”

And you have often bragged about the “machine” that was making things happen the way you wanted for Marco. Your most recent “machine” quote: “The next election will yield the same results, as the machine is still in place to get the message out and voters to vote.”

Now, after reviewing the Arceri email collection, I see what you mean by the machine. And the master mechanic is Arceri, with all his little cogs like you busily whirling around him.

Written on Discussion on Marco takeover of electricity opens Monday:

Issler, you have often bragged about the “machine” that was making things happen the way you thought was so wonderful for Marco. Your most recent “machine” quote: “The next election will yield the same results, as the machine is still in place to get the message out and voters to vote.”

Now, after reviewing the Arceri email collection, I see what you mean by the machine. And the master mechanic is Arceri, with all his little cogs whirling around him.

MarcoObserver is pretty astute in his assessment; your response makes it clear that he’s hit very close to home. Funny that you would brag about the machine, then insist it doesn’t exist when the hundreds of pages of Arceri emails show his behind-the-scenes machinations.

Recommend you read Fossil’s post above. He’s done a great job in articulating the problems with the machine and its methods.

Written on Congressman Connie Mack talks politics on Marco:

Yes, Cornelius is following in the fine republican marital footsteps of Newt Gingrich and John McCain. Family values, indeed!

Written on Marco Island to raise taxes, add fire assessment, increase staff :

I’ve asked Issler this at least twice before, and still no answer. So let me ask again, Issler, how do you calculate that “close to 70% majority?” As Observer says, it’s really 60%; 60.389% if one takes it to the thousandths place. But keep on spouting your fake figures because you completely shot any credibility you had long ago, and this just reinforces your lack of honesty.

Written on Water: What you pay depends on where you live:

Observer, I live in a single family residence, too, but am not yet on sewer. So my Water - Sewer bill shows just two entries under "current charges"--Water Base and Water Usage. The Water Base has been $27.86 since October 2007, as I mentioned earlier. Wonder why your Water Base is so much higher? You need a refund!

Written on Water: What you pay depends on where you live:

This article says Marco's “Base Rate” for water is $41.81.

City manager's July 23, 2008 update lists the Base Rate as $27.80, but chart does say as of April 2008.

Let me throw in a third contender--my June water bill! (Don’t have July’s yet.) Base rate on it is $27.86. And looking back, the Base Rate listed on my water bills has been $27.86 since October 2007, when it was increased from $24.59.

The Marco sewer Base Rate listed in the article and in the manger’s update agree; both state that it is $22.72.

Written on Guest commentary: A rose by any other name is still a tax:

Issler, you stated above that “almost 70% of the electorate voted for a majority of our newest Council make-up.” I’ve noticed that you use that particular number “almost 70%” in a lot of your posts recently.

I said before that I didn’t know if your calculation of “almost 70%” is an example of your poor math ability and analytical skills, or of your basic dishonesty. So let me be explicit this time—how do you calculate that “almost 70% of the electorate voted for a majority of our newest Council make-up?”

Here’s what I calculate. I went to the Collier County Election website and found the results of the January 2008 election here: http://www.colliervotes.com/results.a...

Extracting Marco’s results:

Candidates-------Votes----% of Votes
Joe Batte--------3625--------10.628%
Andrew Guidry--3231---------9.473%
Roger Hall-------3333---------9.772%
Butch Neylon----3322---------9.739%
…..Subtotal-----13511-------39.611%

Jerry Gibson------5062-----14.841%
Frank Recker-----5352-----15.691%
Bill Trotter--------5176-----15.175%
Wayne Waldack--5008-----14.682%
…..Subtotal------20598-----60.389%

So the group of elected councilors polled 60.389% of the vote; the other four candidates polled 39.611%.

Issler, did you round up 60.389% to 70%? No wonder people don’t take you up on your offers to help them “analyze” things!

Written on Marco police try to ID body found in Factory Bay:

Lorenab,
I think you confused my post (#12), where I expressed condolences to Ms Metts’ friends and family, with the ugly post (#13) by Jadip811. That's understandable, as my screen name is right in between the two posts. I was trying to change the tone of the comments, as was jaguar in post #8, because a human life had been cut short, and people were really missing that point. Ms. Metts deserved better; she will be missed. Again, my condolences for your loss.

Written on Combination of heavy rain, high tide caused extreme flooding on Marco on Wednesday:

dc5799,

Oh, yes--I remember the recount. Just for grins, here are the 2004 results, sorted by number of votes:

....Candidate.........Votes......Percent

Terri DiSCIULLO.......2951..... .17.18%
Mike MINOZZI..........2682.......15.62%
Bill TROTTER...........2443.......14.23%
E. Glenn TUCKER......2300.......13.39%
Paula CAMPOSANO-.....2215.......12.90%
ROBINSON
Heyward E. BOYCE.......2101.......12.24%
Steve STEFANIDES......1495........8.71%
William MARKIE..........985........5.74%

Written on Combination of heavy rain, high tide caused extreme flooding on Marco on Wednesday:

Issler, you state that “…Mr. Gibson was elected by close to 70% of that majority.” I don’t know if that calculation is an example of your math ability and analytical skills, or of your basic dishonesty. Regardless, either should disqualify you from the City of Marco Island Electric Municipalization Committee.

If one goes to the Collier County Election website, the results of the January 2008 election can be found here:

http://www.colliervotes.com/results.a...

Extracting Marco’s results:

Candidates Votes % of Votes
Joe Batte 3625 10.63%
Andrew Guidry 3231 9.47%
Roger Hall 3333 9.77%
Butch Neylon 3322 9.74%
Subtotal 13511 39.61%

Jerry Gibson 5062 14.84%
Frank Recker 5352 15.69%
Bill Trotter 5176 15.17%
Wayne Waldack 5008 14.68%
Subtotal 20598 60.38%

So Mr. Gibson received 14.8% of the vote. Or one can say the group of elected councilors polled 60.38% of the vote, compared to the 39.61% of the vote by the other candidates.

Not too many 5th graders would round up 60.38% to 70%--just Issler!

Written on Letter to the Editor: I see a pattern:

Gee, happy—don’t you recognize satire when you read it? In regards to correcting Mr. Diebler’s grammar, he may have had “propose” in his original letter, and the Eagle’s staff may have changed it—who knows? I will say that this sentence from your post absolutely begs for a grammarian to correct it!

“By the way it is propose not purpose, if you are not going to make any sense at all, at least use proper grammar.”

Written on Marco police try to ID body found in Factory Bay:

My condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Metts. May she rest in peace.

Written on Marco committee on electricity has robust membership:

I think that Issler is being too kind to say that a consultant has “studied the figures.” I guess he’s referring to the May 2007 report by WHH Enterprises, which can be found here:

http://web.naplesnews.com/media/pdf/2...

WHH Enterprises was hired by the Marco Island Finance Director to review LCEC’s cost estimate to underground its overhead electrical distribution system on Marco Island. The consultant produced a nine and half page report. Most of the report is a review of what had already been done by LCEC and the Marco Island administration. There were only a couple of pages of analysis, mostly on how to charge taxpayers for the various undergrounding options. I want to emphasize that the discussion and lackluster analysis were specifically about undergrounding the overhead electrical distribution system on Marco Island.

Then in the second to last paragraph, “WHH suggests that the city also consider the formation of a municipal utility.” The consultant “estimated” that an additional $5 million annually could be available if the utility was formed. There was absolutely no analysis to show how this annual “profit” would be realized. I wonder how many of our tax dollars were spent on this shoddy report?

Written on Letter to the Editor: The message: No negativity:

P.S. I think it’s a hoot that you charge me with spreading misinformation. All I did was note that there was a big disconnect between the commentary by the Marco Island Public Information Coordinator at

http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/ju...

and your commentary. People should read both commentaries and make their own decisions about who is spreading disinformation!

Written on Letter to the Editor: The message: No negativity:

Nope, not a super hero, though I look dynamite in tights. “Righter of wrongs”—I like that. Or maybe I’m just one of the masses that won’t be quelled. That said, Mr. Waldack, you and I are probably the only two people on Marco who, after reading the first couple of paragraphs of your LTE, would understand your references to “Avenger.” Most others would think you that you’ve really gone off the deep end this time.

Now, getting back to your triple repeat that you have “no negativity towards LCEC.” Your assertion reminds me of the 16th century English proverb: "There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Your comments, which you have published in both the papers, and repeated in this LTE, are very negative. I printed out just the paragraph about LCEC from your letter above (with no attribution to you), and asked some of my neighbors to rate it on a 5 point scale from “very positive” to “very negative.” All rated it either “negative” or “very negative.” Those who experienced the aftermath of Wilma were actually rather upset and wanted to know who had written that paragraph. I told them to check out the Waldack commentary in either of the two local papers.

Now I challenge you to post references to back up this portion of your commentary: “…feedback from areas harder hit than Marco during Hurricane Wilma, such as the Everglades City area, indicated some very serious hurricane response deficiencies by LCEC.” I googled Everglades City Wilma LCEC and found nothing negative. I did find lots of articles about LCEC’s outstanding pre-hurricane prep, and praise for their employees’ rapid response. There was even a photo of a helicopter that LCEC had hired, spraying down transformers along 951. And did you know that LCEC had a rep in the Marco Island EOC?

Again, I challenge you to post any verifiable references that would substantiate your allegation.

Written on Guest commentary: Fast facts on the electric service discussion:

You say “There is no negativity regarding LCEC” in “fact” #5. But then read City Councilor Wayne Waldack’s recent guest commentary in this same paper, which he titled “Being misled by misinformation.” His comments about LCEC, especially paragraph 4, seem very negative. Guess the Marco Island city administration needs to get the story line ironed out among all the various players.

Written on Letter to the editor: Another outrage:

Semper_Fi,

I almost got a tear in my eye reading your post about how destitute poor Glenn Tucker has become in service to Marco Island.

But then I went to the Collier County Property Appraiser Site, and did a search for “Tucker.” On the list that popped up, there were five properties that had Tucker, CO-TR E. Glenn” or “Tucker, TR E. Glenn” listed as the owner, in a couple of different land trusts with the same person, Donald W. Rhodes. One of these properties is homesteaded. Total “just value” of these properties is $6,487,947.

Further down the list were entries for “TUCKER, E GLENN=& BONNIE,” where he was listed as the owner, along with Bonnie Tucker, of five other properties. None was homesteaded. Total “just value” of these properties is $2,104,368.

And finally there was an eleventh, homesteaded property which listed “Tucker, Glenn” as the sole owner. This location is the same address shown for “E. Glenn Tucker” in the Marco phone book. “Just value” of this property is $651,967.

Grand total of the “just values” of these 11 properties = $9,244,282.

So I dried that tear, and wondered why you would make up that story you posted. Or did you hear it from Glenn?

Features