Posted on May 4 at 11:28 a.m.

MarcoFacts,

You're simply trying to divert attention from Arceri to Kiester. And, you're wrong that Kiester was "sentenced to the highest penalty allowable by law." Quite the contrary. He was not charged with any criminal action whatsoever (and Sunshine Law violations can be criminal). He was not even charged with a Sunshine Law violation ... merely charged with deleting e-mails from his personal computer which is not against the Sunshine Law but the Public Records statute. It is only the attorney general's OPINION that e-mails on a councilor's personal computer are public records and deleting them constitutes the destruction of "public records." Mr. Kiester defended himself rather than plead "guilty" to violating the OPINION of the Attorney General because he did nothing wrong. A county judged ruled that he had no right to delete ANYTHING from his PERSONAL computer and imposed the MINIMUM fine possible.

The most unfortunately thing about the whole case is that it was brought by one vindictive citizen supported by the two arch-villains of the island, John Arceri and Monte Lazarus, to embarrass a councilor before an election. Nothing more, nothing less, and Sal Sciarrino admits it. The aftermath is that a county judge has now set a precedent that a councilor has no control over his private communications simply because he/she is a councilor. That violates MY right to private communication with my councilor and I submit that is a violation of MY constitutional right to privacy.

If you wish to call yourself "MarcoFacts," get your facts straight.

Ed Foster

P.S. The sheriff was able to reconstruct many of the e-mails Kiester deleted and, guess what, they had no sinister implications at all.

On Marco leaders want to look at city-run electricity

Posted on May 3 at 8:34 p.m.

Leslie,

Unfortunately, we have never met. We might have learned something from each other. Your good-bye treatise is touching and I wish you well at the NDN and in your future endeavors. I am sure you learned a lot at the Eagle, but you have much more to learn. You need to question, and question, and question. You need to stop taking what someone in authority tells you as gospel and do your own research. Why do you think a fresh-out-of-school aspiring journalist was given the city beat? Why do you think the previous editor and experienced reporter who had covered the city beat suddenly disappeared? Do you think your vast experience and innate ability made you more qualified than they? Why do you think this occurred right before a very important election? Why do you think it occurred despite Scripps backing of the previous editor and reporter? Until your nose learns to sniff out such smelly oddities and you question them, you will never be a real reporter.

You are young and I wish you well, but you must learn to question everyone: the city administration, opponents such as me, advertisers and, yes, even your employer if you wish to be truly great. This is not a "snarky" blog and I always sign my blogs.

Ed Foster

On Editorial: Time after time

Posted on May 3 at 4:11 p.m.

Verdicus:

It seems you cannot read a blog and understand the point. Fossil and Marcoite got the point I was making but you're so fixated on name calling that you've lost all reason. All I said was that, using the figures given in the article, those who choose to follow Mr. Harrison's suggestion and "settle up with the city" in 20 years will pay close to a hundred grand at settlement time. There's nothing magic about these calculations; numbers are numbers, formulae are formulae. Any accountant or mathematician will come out with exactly the same numbers as I did if he/she starts with the same premises. The only thing that will change the final numbers is a different initial cost (unknown until the sewers are completed in the district) or a different interest rate. I used the worst-case figures in the article.

Verdicus says you should have locked in the 2006 figures by paying your assessment by March 31, 2007. If you want to play Russian Roulette as Verdicus seems to, that's fine. Personally, I wouldn't pay in 2007 for something I might not receive into 2010 or later if ever. Furthermore, anyone who did that paid for an "estimate," not the real thing. As the city says, no one will know what the real cost will be until they complete the project.

Those who "locked up" the 2006 estimates by prepaying in 2007 were gambling that the city knew what it was doing in 2006 and that construction costs would rise in the future. That's risky for two reasons: one, the city has never known what it was doing when it comes to finances and two, construction costs are dropping, not rising, because of the housing slump. I wouldn't take that gamble and most people seemed to see it the same way. Relatively few took the city up on its offer. Verdicus apparently did. Good luck to him! He used to be a friend of mine until he lost his marbles.

My real objection is that Harrison advised people on low incomes to "settle up in 20 years" without telling them how much that will cost them. How many people in smaller inland houses (like many in the Sheffield District) and are living on Social Security will be able to come up with 100 grand without being forced to sell their homes. I think it is immoral for Harrison to advise them to "settle up" in 20 years without telling them the risk.

The city says they'll give you a 6% discount if you pay in advance and that would be my choice. However, the city says it doesn't know what the cost will be until the project is completed so how can anyone pay in advance? Speak about financial morons!

Ed Foster

On Sewer construction begins in Sheffield and Lamplighter districts on Marco

Posted on May 2 at 4:55 p.m.

Mr. Harrison, I'm touched that you don't want "elderly people on social security" ever to have "to choose between putting food on the table and sewer" so you recommend that they opt for the "deferment plan" and just "settle up with the city in 20 years." Did you tell them what that will cost? Did you bother to calculate the cost before making your recommendation? Do you even know how to calculate the cost? You didn't 2 years ago when you published your absurd figures on the city web site.

Well, I've done it for you using the figures given in the article for the Sheffield District. Admittedly these are supposed to be "maximum" figures but we ought to err on the side of caution shouldn't we? The cost to run the sewer lines is given as $23,000 to which we add $4,600 for "improvements" to the treatment plant and $2,000 to hook up to the line. That comes to $29,600. Follow me so far, Bill? Haven't lost you, have I?

The proposed interest rate could be 5.9% per year but the article doesn't mention how it is compounded. If it is compounded annually (unlikely), the multiplicative factor is 1.059 raised to the 20th power or 3.14716275 and when the 20 years are up and the homeowner "settles with the city," he'll have to come up with a cool $93,156.02. If the interest is compounded monthly (as are most mortgages), the multiplicative factor is 1.004916666667 raised to the 240th power or 3.24497817 and our shocked homeowner will be hit with a bill of $96,051.35 . Did you make this clear at the meeting, Bill? I don't know; I wasn't there.

In addition, the city proposes to charge $600/year to carry away the poop ... and that's just for starters. We all know the costs will rise immensely over the 20 year period. Look what you did to our water rates after promising not to raise them for 8 years after buying the utility

Methinks Ms. Houghtaling would be far happier paying $12,000 for a new onsite treatment system (if it really would cost that much) and pay $300 annually to have it inspected, serviced and guaranteed against mishap. I know I sure would be! Unfortunately, that is no longer a possibility! So sad! And you're shedding crocodile tears over choosing between food and sewer! For shame!

Ed Foster

On Sewer construction begins in Sheffield and Lamplighter districts on Marco

Posted on April 30 at 9:19 a.m.

Verdicus,

Are you purposely dense or is that your natural intelligence showing? The question is not who won and who lost the election; the question is WHY those who won won. To respond that they won because they got more votes is to say that they won because they won. That's a tautology, not an explanation.

Byron, you know as well as I who most likely initiated the idea of buying the electric company: Mr. Sewer, John Arceri. Why else did he attend the secret meetings between LCEC and the council chairman? Say "utility" and up pops John. Terri DiSciullo told me once: "John was our utility guy. He had worked for Con Ed. When it came to anything to do with utilities, the council believed him and went along. We trusted his judgment." I've been led to believe he was a personnel manager at Con Ed and had nothing to do with technical matters. If that's true, he might as well have been personnel manager for Burger King for all he knows about operating a utility.

Ed Foster

On Marco leaders want to look at city-run electricity

Posted on April 29 at 3:20 p.m.

Verdicus,

I rather doubt that the candidates for change were defeated because they had "nothing intelligent to say." They were the only ones with ANYTHING to say!

It seems apparent to me that the pro-change candidates were defeated because more than twice as many people voted in this election than in past elections. For the most part, I believe these were probably condo dwellers who did not live year-round on the island, had not followed what was going on, and were misled into believing that central sewers were safer for the environment than on-site wastewater treatment. They were also misled into believing that they would be hit with an horrendous bill if the STRP were stopped.

This effort to mislead obviously cost a lot of money and entailed considerable pressure on the press. Do you not find it passing strange that the editor and the lead reporter on the Marco Island Eagle were summarily dismissed just before the election and that the Eagle did not hold a public forum before this election as they had traditionally done in the past? Here we had the most important election ever to be held on Marco (other than the one for cityhood) and the paper of record does not hold a debate, the only councilor running for re-election refused to attend more than half the debates that were held, and "Mr. Sewer" organized a concerted effort to "blitz" the condo owners with scare tactics.

The tactic was successful and you got the council you deserve ... including an uneducated golf-bum bartender and a bankrupt refrigerator salesman who claims a degree from a college that does not offer a program leading to that degree.

You elected them. Good luck with them!

Ed Foster

On Marco leaders want to look at city-run electricity

Posted on April 28 at 2:04 p.m.

I can just see it now. A half dozen cherry-picker trucks complete with drivers and trained electrical workers sitting idle 95% of the time because they might be needed when a tropical storm blows through. Rony Joel rushing generators from lift station to lift station to keep the poop flowing (hopefully underground). Storm surge threatening to inundate the sewer plant. Get real people; Marco Island doesn't have the population to support its own electric company. We'd have to farm everything out and we all know that Marco Island does NOT farm out work. City Hall is devoted to empire building. Buying out LCEC's investment in Marco is the most absurd idea ever floated on this island.

Ed Foster

On Marco leaders want to look at city-run electricity

Posted on April 28 at 12:14 p.m.

Mr. Issler,

It is you who is amazing. No one on this island has spread more misinformation than you with the possible exception of John Arceri himself. If John Arceri is a "Licensed Professional Engineer in Florida" as you say, why does his name not appear in the official listing of Florida Professional Engineers? My understanding is that Mr. Arceri was a personnel manager at Con Ed although I have not been able to verify that. He certainly is not a Florida P.E. so cut the crap and check the facts.

John Arceri duped the people into buying a decrepit worn-out water/wastewater utility without adequate technical inspection, overpaid for it, and saddled us with a massive expense. You want to let him do it to us again through his hand-picked proxies: an uneducated golf-bum bartender and a bankrupt refrigerator salesman who claims a degree from a college that doesn't offer courses in that discipline. Shame on you!

Ed Foster

On Marco leaders want to look at city-run electricity

Posted on April 28 at 9:43 a.m.

Sunnycity,

Council Chairman and management consultant extraordinaire, Bill Trotter, PhD, negotiated this deal. You guys elected him, not me, but it's not that different from what Moss was getting. Of course, when Moss headed over the bridge to Naples, he had to accept a benefit package less that what he had been originally offered to get the Naples council to approve it! But then we all know that Marco is much wealthier than Naples! After choking on the water/wastewater utility purchase, our councilors now want to take over the electric company! What's next? Our own missile defense system? We are an island; why not declare independence from the United States?

Ed Foster

On New Marco city manager contract approved at $160,000 yearly

Posted on April 28 at 8:11 a.m.

Gernblanstone,

Any time, but this time let's have it at a Subway that doesn't use "agressive" corrosive water to make its soda.

Regards,

Ed Foster

On Marco council approves small mixed use development, multiple water facility upgrades