Comments by Fossil

Written on Letter To The Editor: The future of our city:

Several of the above comments attest to the effectiveness of MITA and Dr. Biles. Why else would Issler and Ray even bother? Go girl.

Written on Anchoring debate to resurface on Marco?:

Issler: The city recently confirmed that the pipes serving Marco's sewer are the cause of the majority of Marco's pollution. As you know this confirmation came from an employee of the city and the evidence was a City Commissioned inspection of the pipes that showed pipe seperations, infiltration and breakage of the old clay pipes. Septic tanks have never been the problem you claim. There never was a study finding our septics were the cause of any significant pollution on the level that the sewer pipes were. Actually, the majority of owners replaced their tanks during the past 20 years. As for your attempt to deflect and falsly make accusations against a good citizen of Marco Island, you are a cad. If you cannot find evidence to prove your allegations, accept that such evidence may not exist. You are not entitled to your own facts and your speculation of unfounded wrongdoing may lead others to take a good look at you, so stay real and stop tilting windmalls.

Written on Anchoring debate to resurface on Marco?:

So how much of our tax dollars will we need to commit to the FWC? Thompson obviously has ordered Rony Joel to put crazy juice in Marco's drinking water. The city didn't care that the STRP was polluting our water and may have even broken Federal laws while doing so. Now Thompson wants to climb back in bed with the FWC to establish authorized experimental pollution fields in our waterways? These fields will be used by boat owners in SWF to moor their old leaky boats that they can't afford to store properly. Will they never learn?

Written on Letter To The Editor: The future of our city:

Mr. Issler, no one cares what you think.

Written on Updated POLL & BLOG: Marco City Council supports high school in the park:

If not for a school to teach our own, what may I ask can be a more important use for public land? A school with a strong academic focus is the greatest gift we can give to our children and our commuity.

Written on Marco to consider building a high school in the park:

getreak: I don't know why I bother. You are either a kid on the football team or the parent of one. Football is not a requirement to be accepted to a University. If that were true, Harvard whould have the best football team in the nation. The football program only benefits those kids who have extrodinary athletic ability. Less than 1% of any high school athletic program are so gifted. If you really believe what you say, then tell me why students who do not play football, belong to the cheerleader squad, movie club, yearbook club, etc., even get into a University? I'll give you a clue: It has something to do with hard work and using extra time to study so you may graduate at the top of your class. Attending school is not supposed to be fun, it's a place to work hard and learn how to surviive in a very competitive environment. Good luck to you.

Written on Marco to consider building a high school in the park:

Freedomofspeech: You are making stuff up. Name one University in the United States that denies entry to an applicant that graduated from a High School without a football team or cheerleader squad. As for Marco Island being a "retirement resort community"; talk to Councilman Popoff and he will tell you that is a myth. Open up your wallet and give our kids the school they deserve.

Written on Marco to consider building a high school in the park:

The comments above against building the high school are from people who do not care about our community. If they did, they would be working to support this effort not tear it down. Marco Island needs a high school for our children. The only "full-service" requirement is to give the school everything it needs to educate our children. All the rest is a waste of money and designed to entertain. There are thousands of communities throughout the U.S.A. the size of Marco Island, that are able to provide their citizens with a high school. Marco Island citizens have more wealth then most of them. It is a crime that this project was not already completed. Support this effort.

Written on Letter To The Editor: Rates seem fair:

marcoedeagle: Because it is the homeowners who have been forced on the sewer to purchase a brand new water treatment plant. This is necessary because the condos never paid into a maintenance fund all these years. Don't be so quick to claim this statement is false unless you can show that these funds exist. The entire STRP project was developed to supply the funds necessary to keep the hotels and condos on line not to give a sanitary system to the homeowners as the city claimed. The proof is that the city now is spending new found money from new homeonwer subscribers( not only to expand but to replace infrastructure used by those who have been on sewer for years. Now the condo owners want the homeowners to sholder an even greater burden?

Written on Letter To The Editor: Condos should be rewarded for efficiency:

If a dwelling unit is empty then they should be charged a basic fee. Individual meters permit the utility to charge only for usage. The condos may have been paying fees for years but it appears no money was collected for maintenance. Now that those old pipes are polluting our city, they want the homes who have been connectected for the most part to safe septic systems, to pay for the usage they enjoyed for so many years. Yes, Mr. Putnam, it is absurd and this fellow is spinning. As for using my money due from the electrict utility undergrounding, NO! That is MY money and it should not be used to help defray the cost of those who have enjoyed sewers for the past 20 plus years. How about the condos being charged a pro rated charge for reuse water? The difference between that charge and the full charge of home owners using drinking water to water their lawns should be collected from the condo owners to use for the maintenance of the pipes they have used. After all, they are both the product of a utility and drinking and reuse water are closer then water and electricity utilities. Sounds fair to me.

Features