Comments by LadueVGilleo

Written on PC technician calls computer virus 'the worst' he's seen:

If you are unfortunate enough to get hit with this virus, immediately power off your computer; do NOT try to close the window by clicking on the "X" in the upper right hand corner of the window. Clicking on the "X" saves the virus to your computer, and you are in deep do-do.

Written on Letter to the Editor: A change for the better!:

Having read Mr. Kramer's commentary in the Marco Sun Times, I came away with the impression that Mr. Kramer is using the Marco Island Golf and Garden as a way to "gut" MICA and the deed restrictions they enforce.

Let's not kid ourselves; Mr. Kramer built the golf course to make money. And if he succeeds in undermining MICA and the deed restrictions what other checks and balances will the city have to maintain what has made Marco so great?Please don't say the City Council.

Mr. Kramer questions Marco's being governed by 50 year old deed restrictions. I'm sure many citizens will agree that they have worked pretty well: Marco is a paradise. Will getting rid of the deed restrictions make Marco Island better or will it be the Marco Island version of Pandora's Box?

Mr. Kramer has a dog in this fight. Deed restrictions haven't helped him with his golf course. Undermining the deed restrictions will be a benefit to him, and he is working to do just that.

I must say I do have a problem with people who look to exploit the system to make money for themselves at the expense of others. If Mr. Kramer succeeds, won't the island suffer without deed restrictions?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the courts do their work:

in response to RayN:

It's nice that someone is trying to give MICA some coverage. But, it's also a little disturbing to hear what sounds like an obliviousness to what the deed restrictions actually say. Will Ms Sullivan acknowledge that the restrictions would allow Mr Kramer to put a "telephone station or telegraph exchange" on the property at issue? Will she at least acknowledge that the restrictions EMPOWER the MICA entity to amend the restrictions for "cause"?

If she will not, then she either doesn't know and should actually read the document or, worst case, she does know and is deliberately not being candid.

Well written laws, well written contracts, and well written deed restrictions allow for reasonable changes to be made on reasonable grounds. The Mackle/Deltona deed restrictions are well written. So, it's not a matter of ignoring the court, it's a matter of Mr Kramer doing the right thing, and in response thereto, MICA doing the right thing too.

Please be kind enough, as a past MICA President, to set the record straight because there are many people who don't seem to have grasped the real issues and what can/should be done.

Ray

What are you talking about? What letter are you responding to??

I have to guess that the former president of MICA didn't write her letter in a manner that fits your intended response. Her letter had nothing to do with what the deed restrictions actually say, it was about enforcement of the deed restrictions.

Twisting this letter's context and then taking a shot at the former member of MICA is, at best, low.

Ignoring the basic reality of this situation, and implying that is needed is for both parties to do "the right thing" is, at best, whimsical.

The golf course owner did the wrong thing; MICA did the right thing and tried to get the owner to comply. MICA had no choice but to litigate to get this owner's attention.

If they installed an asbestos dump on Winterberry Drive, everybody would be screaming bloody murder that it was allowed on the island. But they didn't build a dump; they installed a very nice miniature golf course and everyone wants it to be spared.

Have you ever seen the allegorical statue of Justice? It is a female figure traditionally holding scales in one hand, as a symbol of her weighing issues and arguments, and a Sword of Justice in the other. She also wears a blindfold to represent her impartiality.

You and many others who have responded to this issue have shown a tremendous partiality and selfishness towards how this issue should be resolved. If such partiality and selfishness permeated our legal system, then certain Americans would still be riding in the back of buses and others would never have been given the opportunity to vote.

Deed restrictions and the enforcement of deed restrictions protect everyone on Marco, whether the citizens like it or not, or if they agree with them or not. The deed restrictions are impartial as to who they protect.

MICA did the right thing by enforcing the deed restrictions. The golf course owner did the wrong thing by ignoring them. Now it is in the courts where it belongs, and I don't mean the court of public opinion which is ruled by partiality and selfishness.

There is a certain reality about this issue, and a lot of people can't handle reality. Most likely this issue will be resolved in a court of law. There will be people who won't like the outcome, but we live in a nation of laws.

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

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.

Written on Letter to the Editor: The MICA monopoly:

Jim

A lot of people are aware that you have been challenging MICA over beach access for over 20 years. Every lawyer who has looked at MICA's work has told you it's legal, yet you continue to call them an illegal monopoly.

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a good use of one's time. Could you work with MICA to determine how to create more beach access, or is the fight with MICA your thing?

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2004/n...

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

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.

Written on Police: Man threatened to blow up Coastland Center mall:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Yeah, Klaus, you're a winner all right! For once no one is going to argue with you about that!!

Written on Police: Man threatened to blow up Coastland Center mall:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

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

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?

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

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.

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

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

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

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.

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

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.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Putting MICA to a test:

Big "If". If the Queen had you-know-what, she'd be the King.

From everything I have read so far, it appears this is the only road MICA could go down.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA please, turn your tunnel vision into a wider view:

in response to RayN:

Kramers need to formally request an amendment to the deed restrictions to add "miniature golf course" to the allowed commercial businesses list, and submit plans for review. MICA needs to do its review and mediate with Kramers to address costs and loose ends. Again, if parties agree, I'll be happy to do the mediation at no cost.

Ray

Could you be any more self-serving?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Remove MICA from Marco Island:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Klaus, you are wrong.

This is not a case of sour grapes.

Written on Letter to the Editor: To fight and argue over deed restrictions and legal protocol is ridiculous:

in response to bondie:

The rulings made by MICA are no longer relevant. The gardens and trees were a bonus to the property along with miniature golf park. The ruling of Mica is out of date to the current city that Marco has become. From all I have and the picture I saw of the property now is an asset and improvement. We cannot continue to build more houses without giving the prospective buyers and current residents a good reason to invest their money in a home here on the Island. The naysayers of this remind me of those who buy a property somewhere and then want to close the gate behind them. Please reconsider what a positive addition to attract visitors to Marco where they will spend money for restaurants, drug stores, supermarkets, clothing stores, souvenirs, gas stations, gift shops, and so on. The local residents will also gain by the income of revenue to keep the island pristine

MICA doesn't make rulings; MICA enforces deed restrictions.

Prospective buyers and current residents will have a good reason to sell their homes and leave the island if businesses and others on Marco Island do not follow and adhere to laws and deeds already on the books.

If the owners had taken the correct and appropriate action, then this entire situation would have been avoided.

Written on Letter to the Editor: To fight and argue over deed restrictions and legal protocol is ridiculous:

Fighting and arguing over deed restrictions and legal protocol is important. It is what has kept Marco Island what it is, for better or for worse. Without deed restrictions and legal protocol, Marco island would most certainly be worse and none of us would live here.

The owners made a decision to ignore deed restrictions and legal protocol. That was a mistake and it may cost them their golf business.

What is most unfortunate about this situation is that it was avoidable.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA please, turn your tunnel vision into a wider view:

This is a most unfortunate situation; however, MICA is not the one to blame for the closing of Marco Golf and Garden.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA – Marco residents last line of defense:

in response to MarcoDefender:

Miss & MICA - OK, let's get past that both parties failed to do the right thing per the process. Now, let's deal with the situation at hand.

It's now clear based on the other paper's Guest Opinion from MICA, that MICA filed in court because the owner did not file plans for review. Considering where we are now, MICA should drop the sensationalized suit and evaluate the property based on its current physical merits. No need to look at plans, which are appropriate prior to construction, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) can go be onsite tomorrow and see it firsthand. It's built !!

I propose that MICA evaluate the the property now and let the MICA ARC make a ruling. It would appear to me that the result would be "PROCEED" with maybe the need to address some items to be in compliance. So, let's do that. It seems that MICA can do the right thing, even though the land owner did not. So, how about it? Since two wrongs don't make a right, let's see MICA drop the suit and rule on those precious deed restrictions for the mini-golf business, and do the right thing. I have a feeling, that everyone will emerge a victor in this scenario. How about it, anyone else think we can start focusing on solutions here, as opposed to how poorly each party behaved in this situation.

What you propose can be considered rewarding bad behavior; ignore the law, do what one pleases, and then later on get patted on the head like nothing happened.

What you propose would also set a precedent where other entities would simply build without prior approval, and hope that the city or MICA would cave in.

Your comment says two wrongs don't make a right; what you propose is the second wrong.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Remove MICA from Marco Island:

in response to bumom:

How about our elected officials? We are a city. Why do we need a civic association of "appointed" figure heads? We have a city council. I believe we are paying our elected officials to do this job.

Our elected officials? Do you mean the group that comes under fire for:

The Collier Blvd. upgrade with its asbestos issue?

The Smokehouse Bay Bridge Project?

Our Water utility ( I won't even go into water rates)?

The Mackle Park Superdome?

Oh, I almost forgot: STRP?

And I'm sure there are others; you think MICA ought to give the responsibility of enforcing the deed restrictions to this group?

You must be kidding.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Herb Savage needs to enter this Blog and explain what Deltona's original design criteria was given to MICA to enforce.

If MICA was doing it's job all these years, every building on Marco would have the Polynesian look, so it should be pretty obvious that MICA screwed up, and needs to go away.

I'm sure Herb Savage has better things to do than join this blog.

Do you think home design was a main concern when the deeds were drawn up, or do you think the framers were maybe concerned about things like adequate plumbing and whether items like raising pigs and chickens on one's property should be allowed?

MICA didn't screw up.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn:

in response to batorsin:

"The MICA Board of Directors is a volunteer
board with a goal of civic improvement of our
beautiful island," as written in the MicaWave. If that is their goal, why would they want to raze a beautiful miniature golf course? It will bring in revenue to the city. Children want ice cream so they go across the road to the Plaza. They want hot dogs or lunch, they go across the street to the Plaza. There are more plusses to having the golf course remain than negatives. The owners and MICA must come to some sort of agreement so that it remains open. The golf course is certainly a beautiful additon to Marco and an asset to the businesses as well. This is my last word.

batorsin

These owners intentionally bypassed the proper legal procedures for getting their golf course built. It wasn't because they didn't know what the procedures were; they made a conscious decision to ignore them.

There are a lot of businesses on Marco Island that bring in revenue to the city. I'll bet every on of them who built on Marco Island went before MICA with their plans. What makes this golf course so special that it doesn't have to go before MICA when every other business has?

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn:

in response to batorsin:

According to Mr. Kramer, he "maintains that the Deltona deed restrictions were extinguished years ago and MICA has no right to try and enforce them. He also stated that despite having collected possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, MICA has never had the right to charge any fees to any property owner for its architectural approval." (Quoted from the Sun Times). Some people who signed the petition to have the golf course reopened have stated MICA has an agenda and are waiting for a payoff. That seems logical. Why would they wait until it was in operation for two months before taking it to court? Perhaps Hayes does not have all the proper information from MICA. I still say there is no reason that a civic association should have any power to oversee the city's deed regulations. The City Council should jump on this.

batorsin

Your comments contain errors. This action began back in January while the course was under construction. MICA didn't wait for the course to begin operations to sue them. And you think Judge Hayes is uninformed?

I've read what Mr. Kramer has said, and I have also read what MICA Legal council has said:

"Like many developments overseen by homeowner associations, much of Marco Island is a deed-restricted community governed by MICA, which in 1986 took over old Deltona Corp. deed restrictions set up to protect the island's integrity, preserve property values and ensure new construction conformed to the original 1965 restrictions.

'It's a deed-restricted island,' said Naples attorney Jeffrey Fridkin of Grant, Fridkin, Pearson, Athan & Crown P.A., which represents MICA. 'The deed restrictions matter because fellow property owners have rights under the deed restrictions.

'The government doesn't have the power to change the deed restrictions,' he added, noting that he and MICA have won this legal battle before, including a case decided nearly a decade ago by a Florida appellate court."

Looks to me like this civic organization has all the power to oversee the city's deed regulations.

The City Council should jump on this? Highly unlikely.

If the owners, the judge, and MICA can come to some sort of an agreement, then that is great. But if the final decision goes against the owners, then the course is going to get razed.

This has been quite a gamble for the owners; ultimately, it will be a lesson for all of us.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn:

in response to batorsin:

So does that justify returning the property to its original plot? Destroy the beauty the golf course has given to Winterberry Drive? Rip up the parking lot? That doesn't sound very civic minded to me. They should get together to make a reasonable outcome.

Welcome, batorsin. First day on the blog and you were very busy, weren't you?

Ask the judge who issued the order if his action is justified, not me. I would imagine the owner is facing a sizable financial loss if his golf course gets razed. And who gets the blame for this situation? The owner. I would think a judge is not too impressed with an attorney who made a conscious decision to circumvent a legal entity like MICA. Perhaps a judge would not be this harsh with you or me, but he may be holding the owner to a higher standard due to his position in the legal community.

And if the court's final decision is to raze the golf course, then it will get razed. There is a lesson to be learned from this individual's mistake.

Written on Marco miniature golf course shut down, owners vow appeal:

in response to condoseller:

It is a shame the minature golf course won't be available to families over the 4th of July weekend; be they residents or visitors. MICA had every opportunity to petition the court during construction. Why wait until the course is open and enjoyed by our neighbors and visitors? It feels ill timed and mean spirited. Since my family is visiting it would have been nice to suggest they enjoy the minature course here on Marco. Instead, they will travel to Naples where I'm sure they will also dine. Their time and money could have been spent on this side of the Jolley Bridge.

Agreed; this is a shame. But in a previous article it was stated: “The property owners are responsible for bringing in the construction plans,” McCann said. “MICA contacted the Kramers through a letter and the builder several times, but no plans were given to MICA.”

The owners had the opportunity to avoid this situation; instead they shot themselves in the foot.

Written on Marco miniature golf course shut down, owners vow appeal:

All I've said is if the owners of the miniature golf course had sent their plans through MICA, none of this would have happened. MICA is what it is. They have job to do. I'm sure a lot of people don't like MICA; I'm sure a lot of people do like MICA. But if you have plans for something like a miniature golf course, then you need to deal with them. If you don't deal with them, them this is what happens. Life could be a lot simpler for people if they did what they are suppose to do.

I also read some incredible claims in this site; I try to see if people can back-up what they claim; 99% of the time they cannot, making their claims BS. Such is human nature.

Finally, I enjoy reading 2themoon's comments because they are so funny.

Written on Marco miniature golf course shut down, owners vow appeal:

in response to 2themoon:

LadueVGilleo wrote..
"It is difficult to believe that all these events were taking place and laws were being broken right under our noses, and nothing was done."

OUR noses??
I do believe LadueVGilleo is code for Ruth McCann..

You would be wrong. I'm not surprised.

Written on Marco miniature golf course shut down, owners vow appeal:

in response to marcosandflea:

Yes, MICA is the law and is there to uphold the law and the deed restrictions. Right - just like when they ignored the illegal crushing of asbestos (guess that doesn't violate the law) - just like when they ignored the millions of gallons of toxic acid that was dumped into the waterways (guess that doesn't violate the law) - just like when plumes of lethal gas was covering neighborhoods (guess that doesn't violate the law) - just like when the STRP cost $400m and tore up the city without a vote (guess that doesn't violate the law) - just like their illegal restriction to beach access (guess that doesn't violate the law) - just like how lift stations were installed curiously not on the city managers or city public works director plethora of properties (guess that doesn't violate the law)- just like esplanade and towne centre and Marriott expansion and beach restriction (guess that doesn't violate the law) ... infested by the syndicate whatever does not go along with syndicate plans (such as the water plant and deep injection wells that are causing the red tide) then they will fight and fight and fight!

marcosandflea, MICA is responsible for enforcing the original Deltona deed restrictions. They are a non-profit organization, not a government agency responsible for protecting the public and enforcing local, county, state, and national laws. There are other government agencies with those responsibilities.

I must say that I am interested in the events you mention; do you have information that corroborates your claims? It is difficult to believe that all these events were taking place and laws were being broken right under our noses, and nothing was done.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA has so much to learn:

All the owners of the miniature golf course had to do was present their plans to MICA. MICA made requests to the owners and to the builders to have them provide the plans to MICA, and they did not comply. The owners have no one to blame but themselves. It should be obvious to everyone that MICA still has some teeth. We live in a nation of laws; these owners fought the law and the law won.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

Looks like MICA still has some teeth!

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

Prof

If you are still following this thread, there are those of us who think you can tell who the real clowns are.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

Moon, if there is to be more massive building on Marco, let's hope the builders present their plans to MICA before they begin their projects!!

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

in response to MarcoDefender:

Time for a referendum...to eliminate MICA.

We're a city now, how many organizations do we need to "ensure" the right things happen? The golf course is thriving, it's more income for the city and other local businesses and the city approved it. Let's move on, surely there are larger problems this island must deal with. Why is this even an issue now?

Good luck with your referendum; do you really expect to get rid of a non-profit corporation serving over 20,000 residents?

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

in response to ProfZed:

Thank you to all for the interesting responses to my above comment. I have read in previous blogs about a Marco Island "Homeowners vs. Condo-owners" situation going on. I'm curious to know more about that, but I suppose this really isn't the place for that. My wife says I need to stay away from all politics! I am curious as to who has actually seen the miniature golf course. Is it nice? (My above comment was based on the photo which accompanied the original article.) Does it add to Marco Island? Or does it not really belong where it's located? I have to say that other than articles such as this, pretty much everything I've experienced about Marco Island has been positive.

I think the golf course is quite nice and should be a welcomed addition to Marco Island; however, the owning group should have played nice with MICA. If they had, there would have been no problems, no article, no blog, and you would have had no concerns about your future on Marco Island. But they didn't, and we know the rest of the story.

The miniature golf course will survive, but only after the owners put on a very pretty dog-and-pony show for MICA. It could have been avoided: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. This is a classic.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

in response to 2themoon:

ProfZed,
Check out this website put together by aconcerned Marco citizen
http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com/

Are you kidding me? If that blog was offering investment advice, don't tell me you would follow it??

Only one person contributes to the blog; how many people do you think actually read it?

Looks to me like someone's glorified hobby...

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

Prof

You know what they say about opinions. They are like you-know-what; everybody has one.

Marco Island is a great place to live; talk to homeowners and don't believe everything written in this blog.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

in response to ProfZed:

It seems that Marco Island is a nice place to visit, but to live there or do business there is a nightmare. Last week there was an article about the town council wanting to "get tough" on residents who have code violations, big and minor. Respondents to that article wrote that the plan is to get rid of older homes in favor of brand new houses on those lots. (We would be looking to purchase one of those older houses.)

Now, what looks to be a very nice, pleasant miniature golf course might be forced to close. Anyone have good things to write about concerning living and doing business on Marco Island? We've been thinking of making the permanent move there, but now we're a little bit worried. Perhaps I just shouldn't read these articles!

There is more fiction in this blog than you will find in the Marco Island Library.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

Read the article: “The property owners are responsible for bringing in the construction plans,” McCann said. “MICA contacted the Kramers through a letter and the builder several times, but no plans were given to MICA.”

It sounds to me like the Kramers and their builder were the ones who were asleep.

Written on Marco Island miniature golf course closed; judge orders its removal:

The Kramers fought the law and the law won.

All they had to do was the right thing; apply with MICA. MICA gave the Kramers several opportunities to do so, and they chose to ignore them. Now they have to pay the price.

People may not like the idea of having to apply with MICA, but until it changes that's the way it is.

Written on Cracking down: Marco Island Code Enforcement Board signals new 'get tough' attitude:

in response to RayPray:

Some of our friendly local REALTORS are going around now to older homes and telling their owners that they are are working closely with the Code Enforcers, and hinting that, unless the owner chooses to list their home with the realtor, they will become target for a barrage of expensive charges and fines.

Please provide us with the source of your information.

Written on Letter to the Editor: My position on the Smokehouse Bay Bridge:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Written on Letter to the Editor: My position on the Smokehouse Bay Bridge:

in response to WizeOlMarco:

"in response to WizeOlMarco:

"Not to make this a political statement, but the election and re-election of Obama is a perfect example, and it will require many years to correct the wrongs he is imposing on this Once Great Nation."

Political statement.

Can you think of a better example???

If so, lets hear it."

President Bush policy to deregulate and not enforce laws of the financial industry.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but what is the source of your information?

This is one source of my information:

http://www.cato.org/publications/comm...

Written on Letter to the Editor: My position on the Smokehouse Bay Bridge:

Not looking for a fight, but for the sake of accuracy the Winterberry Bridge was selected for replacement in 2005. After hurricane Wilma, the Florida Department of Transportation determined the bridge was structurally deficient, and closed the bridge to commercial traffic. The Coast Guard held up the permitting process after that, and the new span didn't open up until 2008.

To me, this doesn't sound like a perfectly good bridge was torn down to be replaced by a prettier one.

I do believe Mr. Honig is correct in his approach to replacing the bridge. Analyze all possibilities and come up with the best solution.

Written on Code Compliance: Replacing more than three boards on a dock requires a permit :

McBreeze, typical flame. You try to defend your attacks on others when you don't like their comments or opinions. Next you insult others to deflect
attention away from what must be your weak personality. It is the weak mind that uses vulgarity to express itself forcefully; such is your bullying
in this post. I think you need to rethink your approach for posting, rather than going off and insulting someone whose comments you don't like.
Try posting comments without going after somebody personally. Try to follow your own advice: stay on topic and try to educate yourself with the facts
rather than insulting others. Many folks find this to be a matter that is taken serious, and nobody should have to face your personal comments.

Written on Code Compliance: Replacing more than three boards on a dock requires a permit :

in response to MrBreeze:

Laduev, We can argue all day long but I still do not agree with your position.

Homeowners have rights to work on their own property I am sticking with that. I see the greed of the City and the Contractors on the island and believe this it is not getting better.

McSneeze

What is a matter with you? I don't have a position; I stated the obvious. The attorney "fought the law, and the law won"!

Why don't you go have some fun and stick your hand into a fan.

Putz.

Written on Code Compliance: Replacing more than three boards on a dock requires a permit :

in response to MrBreeze:

Laduev, So in your wourld being an attorney the man shold have "known" to call the City of Marco Island and ask if he needed a permit to repair/refinish his dock.Correct?

If the answer is yes, where does this end? Do you call the City and ask to paint your house? Service you HVAC system? Replace a sink,faucet,toilet? Run a outlet for a tv on the wall? A new cable line ? Garbage disposal or dishwasher? My bet is the "City" would tell you those are all "permitted jobs" meaning you need a permit and maybee a contractor to proceed. Is this the same as crossing the street? Is this the concept you want me to accept?

I think the man did nothing wrong. He took pride in his property. He excerised is property rights to better his home. If I were him being an attorney I would challenge this in the courts and he would prevail as the ordinance is flaued due to involving electrical inspection in dock repair or refinish.

The only way they can do this is through ordinance. This would be like saying if you were to paint your home it would then be subject to any other inspections they deem necessary to "attach" to the ordinance, This is how they get more fees and control of the homeowner. I hope you see my point on this issue.

McBeenz,your posts state you've done contractor work. Did you ever rush into a job without adequately preparing for what needed to be done? I doubt it; I'm sure you followed policies/codes/laws/etc., to ensure the success of your endevors. This is a good working practice and common sense. The attorney in the story did not follow policies/codes/laws/etc. He now faces fines if he doesn't comply. There is a lesson here for all of us.

And this is the end of the discussion between you and me.

Don't try to twist my posts so you can try to engage me in an argument over some foolish logical extreme.

Good day.

Written on Code Compliance: Replacing more than three boards on a dock requires a permit :

in response to MrBreeze:

Laduve, You are so misinformed. You say "does the dock meet electrical requirments so some guest do not get electrocuted?"

The homeowner replaced boards and refinished the dock. Who said anything about "Electrical" other than the Building Offical. Now think about this.What would happen if the homeowner did nothing to the dock? He left it alone, it was in compliance as far as anyone knows. He left it to rot did no repairs. Again no Code violations. You as a guest come over trip on bad wood get injured, sue homeowner.

Where is in your logic that preventing your potential injury is "shooting himself in the foot". Would you rather live next door to the dock falling in the water in disrepair or the "pristine" dock that the man was penelized for.

Wake up, you must work for the City.

McBreeze, let me explain my post to you. My post says that one would think an attorney would have taken the steps necessary to ensure he was within compliance with the city before beginning his project. It is simple enough to do. If he had, none of this would have happened. He didn't, and what we see here is an attorney shooting himself in the foot. This approach is similar to looking both ways before crossing a street, or looking before you leap; I think you get the concept.

I never said anything about the gentleman leaving his dock in disrepair; it should have been fixed, but the way he went about fixing it was wrong.

And I do not work for the city.

Written on Code Compliance: Replacing more than three boards on a dock requires a permit :

Amazing. As an attorney, one would think he would be thorough enough to ensure he was within the rules of law. If he had made the phone calls, got the permits, followed simple procedures, made the necessary inquiries, and lined up the required inspections none of this would have happened. None of it. Did his dock work meet requirements? Nobody knows. Does the dock sealent meet the requirements so it doesn't polluted the water? Nobody knows. Does the dock's electrical meet requirements so the perhaps some guest doesn't get electrocuted? Nobody knows. Only children should be allowed to be this irresponsible. Wouldn't it be something if the city makes him tear down his dock? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Too bad he is not a doctor, because he just shot himself in the foot.

Features