Comments by MarcoDefender

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

in response to Northerner:

MarcoDesperate, I don't think mini golf is a good idea. I heard it's quite expensive and I don't think any taxpayer will foot your bill. Instead, take the skateboards with you to the golf center and skate for free in the the empty parking lot they have. Better yet, take the family to see the eagles at our big, beautiful sanctuary we have here...you know, the one over on Tigertail. It's free also.

Paradise has a great idea. Use YOUR money to start a building fund. Maybe Momface, Hascle and Genuine can help you out with that.

North - Thanks for the advice, but I'm all set, thanks. I was just pointing out that it's nice to be able to enjoy some family time at the mini-golf, now that it's open again. The family was there last Friday night, and luckily, we had little wooden coins and half the family got to play for free. Although it is a bit pricey, the market will bear what it can.

Looks like wisdom, and cooler heads prevailed, and MICA realized how silly they looked, and how much negative public feedback they caught from so many islanders for shutting down, and getting a judicial injunction against the landowner, for deed restrictions that officially no longer exist. What a joke, and a complete waste of time for so many parties involved.

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Momface

You are correct in your interest amount over the term. I'm sorry, I was wrong. But remember this is not a residential mortgage, It's commercial loan.... Commercial loans carry a higher cost both for interest & insurance.

However we are still waiting for your link on how may households are on Marco and the island resident population.

You also did not address the city employee salaries/pension or any other costs. Let alone the total debt this city is in?

So your project now costs the taxpayers 3.5 Million... It went from 2.2 million, now its 3.5 million + costs.

I bet your a renter and have nothing invested!

Hascle... As I said before "If you can't afford, or like whats here on Marco.

Then expect others to finance your wants & dreams, I suggest your the one who should move to a place where you and your family can be happy".

Glad you brought it up..... I hear the Villages is the perfect place for you! I also hear the venereal disease rate is above the state average. One would think from your blogs you have to much time on your hands?

The list is growing... Now we have 4 people who can go to the bank and take a loan for their pet project.

Anybody else?

Lost - Looks like your math skills are lost. Glad Mom was so cordial to you after you try to roast those you don't agree with, regarding a building which looks to cost $62 per family. Wow, what a stretch.

The problem here is that people like you and North are so stuck on principle, and it won't allow you to consider each potential situation on its own merit. Sure, the city failed in many past projects, some of which you listed. I agree with you on that. However, that doesn't mean all city projects now should be chucked, or are meaningless. You can't be that naive, and it's just silly to cry "financial foul" and then just stick your head back in the sand. If the need is there, the cost is justifiable, which I feel at $62 per HH it is, as do many others, than we should move forward. No sense in arguing about it, just agree to be a good community member and provide some outlet for what already is, a great community park and program at Mackle. Like I said, thousands of people show up there each holiday event, and hundreds are there each week with soccer, basketball, kids camps, park fun, etc. What will it take for you to see those "facts"?

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

in response to Northerner:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...too funny MarcoDesperate! You've really hit rock bottom. There's just no redeeming yourself on this one.
Why should tax paying citizens of MI pay millions and millions of dollars for a new community center so that your kids have a place to "hang out"! I and many residents I bet, have no problem with them "hanging out" at Dunkin, Starbucks, Burger King, McDonalds, skate away kids...

Marcoislander, you're right, MarcoDef thinks she's getting a free high school out of it. Not fooling anyone.

North - Why am I not surprised to read your comments.

I'm taking the family to mini-golf, maybe we can chat more later.

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

in response to MarcoCitizen:

Since when does a Marco Island committee get to spend our funds to mount a PR campaign for their unpopular recommendations?

Cit - You meant popular recommendation, right? There's significant support for this endeavor, and appears to be very few, but vocal minority, trying to paint this so negative.

I agree, the City has not be careful in the past, with the STRP and Utilities debacles, however, $6 per family is hardly an impactful cost.

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Having school age kids vote is just plain s-----! When kids can pay taxes and die for their country, then they can vote!

Having the taxpayers vote in a REFERENDUM is the best and only way to to settle the issue.

AS liberator100 says: "REFERENDUM is not only necessary, but it is mandated"!

"Let the Islanders vote before spending any money on this project. Let the private sector build a facility".

Marco Defender & Hascle... It's simple, Put your money where your mouth is..

Get an group together who feel like you do. Go to your local bank, take some cash out of your bank accounts and start the project.. Real simple

Several thousand island taxpayers are still paying their 20 year sewer assessments. I'm sure they feel as I do, and don't need another mandated debt from this city!

Who knows, maybe if you contribute enough money to the Mackle Park Building Fund, they will name the building after you.

Lost - Nothing s----- about a democratic process. Kids pay taxes, mine do, on their earnings and every time they make a purchase at the store. They are a large part of the target market and thus, an important voice to be heard.

If referendum was mandated, then it would have been offered for a vote already, but it hasn't, because it's not. Thus, the elected representative government must do their work.

There is a group of citizens who want this, so let's find the right solution and get it done. We're talking $6 per household, is that too much? Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean the rest of us should be locked out. Marco Island is a city now, and in order to be competitive and a sought after location, there needs to be valued and used city services and facilities, it's really that simple. If you don't believe the value is there, be sure to visit Mackle at some point over the next several weeks. You'll see 100 soccer kids, or basketball players, or kids playing at the park, people walking around the path, dogs running in the park, cards and clubs meeting in the rec room, residents playing ping pong and pool, little kids in the spray park, or one of another 10 different activities.

Are you ready to change your mind yet?

Written on 'Building' support: Parks committee will campaign on need for Mackle center:

Referendum? Sure, but each citizen votes, including school aged kids, who are the one of the biggest customers of the park. To lock out their citizen rights because of age would be unfair, dare I say...discriminatory, even.

We have a representative government (elected by vote) to address this. REFERENDUM is the waste of money and is outside the accepted process. If you don't believe it, visit Mackle twice in any one week period, day or night, and it will be busier than you could have imagined. An improved is completely warranted and already overdue.

You want to see some real patronage, visit Mackle during one of the holiday festivals, or on any Saturday during soccer season. A bigger, more outfitted part facility will keep the kids where they should be, in an area designed to maximize their health, outdoor time, skills in sports and teamwork. Otherwise, they will be hanging out with skateboards at Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks and other places. Is that really what you want?

Written on New Mackle Park Community Center heads for open workshop; lightning detection begins Monday:

in response to MarcoCitizen:

Is there nothing else the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee has to do besides mounting a PR campaign to sell us an unnecessary and unwanted Mackle Park facility? Get these guys something else to do that we do want or suspend the committee meetings until something comes up.
Let's take those City sponsored signs down telling us to speak out unless the City will listen to what we are saying - which is NO.

I am a full time resident and part of this community. I vote YES. If you're not in favor of it, don't go there when it eventually arrives. The cost per HH is small and the value huge. Don't presume that just your vote represents "the entire community".

Written on Letter to the Editor: Truth or consequences:

Dave - No thanks, no re-evaluation needed. Other than the beach, MICA serves a redundant function to our city, which wasn't in existence when Deltona and MICA put the deed restrictions in place.

On the other hand, we could use a few more telegraph offices and haberdasheries on this island, and deed restrictions look favorable for that. WTH ?? That's clearly the sign that MICA and the deed restrictions are outdated. I challenge you to reconsider your stance on MICA.

Is the mini-golf hurting your property value and living experience? I didn't think so.

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

in response to WMissow:

MarcoD,

What I think or what you think regarding this issue is not important.

How many times must one repeat that it is the law that MUST be followed.

Bottom line, if it doesn't follow the law it does not belong.

Too bad if the property has to be torn up. The Kramers knew that was a possibility when they made their decision to build it.

Just like any other gamble some you win and some you lose.

In regard to your attempt to "poll" me on whether I would wish for there to be a putt-putt course on this island, nice try on attempting to get additional support.

Miss - You may be comfortable with negating your view and value on this issue, but that's not acceptable for me and my input. As a citizen and Island resident, my opinion and input does count. You can dismiss yourself, and it's unfortunate, but that seems to say a lot about you. I may not agree with you on some of these opinions, but you do count. Don't sell yourself short.

I agree, the law must be followed, but there's no law that says the penalty for failing to submit plans for review results in the destruction of the property. Please, don't blindly follow the law, it may lead you right off a bridge.

As I've written, there is still no proof that the deed restrictions were even violated, which is why I am proposing that MICA ARC do their job, and make a ruling. That's the law, that the ARC enforce the deed restrictions, and we don't even know with any definitive fact that there's a violation. So, follow the law, make a ruling.

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

in response to WMissow:

The only procedure we should follow from here is to ENFORCE the deed restrictions that are on the property. We should have no sympathy for someone who deliberately thumbed their nose at the law just because the silly putt putt course looks pretty or is convenient for some residents.

The courts will make a final decision
on this issue, one way or another and not any of us layman who blog or sign petitions.

Miss - Do you really think the ruling of destroying this property and returning it to an empty field is the appropriate and prudent view of "enforcement"?

Miss - You used to be part time residents, and you've commented before that having activities for the visitors and tourists is a good thing? Outside of this situation, do you not approve of having a mini-golf course here on the island to provide some fun and activities for residents and visitors?

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

in response to LadueVGilleo:

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.

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.

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

in response to marcofriend:

I do not understand your question "Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????".
The facts are that the Kramer's did not do "the right thing" by absolutely refusing to communicate with MICA. Why is that MICA's fault?
This whole mess would not even be here right now had they went in with their plans and discussed with MICA.
I am not against the Kramer's nor am I against the process. I am against what the Kramer's did by ignoring the process and causing such a problem.

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?

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

It's good to have "the facts". Nonetheless, the only question that remains is... will MICA do it's job and evaluate the property on it's merits per the deed restrictions?

As we all recognize, the issue of submitting plans is moot. Do your job and evaluate the property. Make a ruling and lets move on. To have the court order fulfilled (destroy the mini-golf business) is completely wasteful, and not advantageous to ANYONE.

Will MICA do the right thing, now that the facts have been shared?????

MICA - Here's your chance to rebuild some goodwill, and show that you are a beneficial organization here on Marco. What say you?

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

in response to WMissow:

I may be incorrect and unless I am posting to a person who is a professional regarding deed restrictions I believe you, too, are off base.

Deed restrictions can not be changed willy nilly by MICA. MICA's job is to enforce the restrictions which then, if necessary, leads to the courts to make changes as they see fit.

I do not believe that MICA has the authority to change deed restrictions.

It is not a simple Yes or No by a layman.

Miss - Yes, you'd be wrong, MICA does have the power to change deed restrictions. The question is...do they have the courage and common sense to do so, since the mini-golf course doesn't appear to be a blight on our community? I hopeful, but not optimistic that MICA has the guts to do what's right.

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

in response to OU8124me:

All attempts at compliance were ignored by the property owner and developer. Fred Kramer is a former MICA Board member and was MICA's legal counsel.He should have known better. Thank God for The Deltona Deed Restrictions protect us all and the fine work done by MICA.

OU812 - OK, I expect all can agree, compliance was ignored by the owner.

But thank God, for what, protection from joy and a nice time with friends and family on the mini golf course? Why do we need protection from good family fun? Help me understand.

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

in response to LadueVGilleo:

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.

Ladue - We already established lack of compliance by the owner, so, pay the penalty and let's solve this situation. Surely there's some remedy other than destruction of a business that is bringing positive results to this Island.

Why do you think there's been an outpouring of hostility toward MICA over this poorly handled situation. They may have the "deed restrictions" in their favor, but they are squandering the goodwill of the Islanders, and everyday, more residents recognize their complete failure and appropriately call for a change and the elimination of MICA as yet another "authority" on Marco.

Everyone is a critic. I have a novel idea, why don't your share your idea in how to move forward on this situation. We need more solutions on the table, not more critiques. Please, I invite you to be a positive addition to your community.

By the way, the second wrong was for MICA to keep the suit in place, so the judicial order to "return the site to it's original condition" remains in effect. MICA has a chance to do what's best for the community. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful they will come to their senses.

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

in response to WMissow:

Why does the question come up about liking or enjoying a miniature golf course? That question has nothing to do with the legal situation at hand. It has nothing to do with revenue for the city. City revenue should be made by those of us who follow the law.

Yes, many of Marco's citizens feel that there is plenty to enjoy around here and that is why they moved here in the first place. Not like those who wish to change things to satisfy themselves at the cost of others. The question should be, "why did these people move here" in the first place? Did the turn in the real estate market catch them by surprise?

I like roller coasters, I like zoos, I like many things that many other people like and others do not like. That is why there are rules and regulations and deed restrictions that we all must follow or have legally changed as the Kramers are now attempting to do. The court will decide.

That includes anyone who decides to go against deed restrictions, zoning restrictions, parking restrictions or anything else.

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.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Sign the petition to save the mini-golf course:

in response to WMissow:

It is interesting how many people will rally round someone who appeared to be cheating than one who plays by the rules just so they can get a momentary laugh without thinking of the long term consequences of their actions.

Sad to say this attitude has infiltrated our society and many accept it as the norm.

Miss - It's not the law, it's the ridiculous penalty. That's the real reason why people are rallying to support the business and criticize MICA's actions. Such a shame. MICA had a chance to be a good steward, but failed. We're a city now, time to do away with MICA. Just another redundant organization.

Written on Letter to the Editor: MICA’s day is long past:

Roger - Well written, thank you for the excellent perspective. I do agree.

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

Tony - Quick question...explain to me how a mini-golf course diminishes your quality of life? I definitely would like to understand this better.

Cityhood isn't cheap, what revenue the city doesn't collect from commerce (businesses) means that we residents will need to pony up more in the future. You may be loaded, but I'm a not-yet retired worker, so, if it's all the same, I would rather we spread the financial burden out a bit, and pull in some more city revenue while tourists and local enjoy the mini-golf course, just as they do at the Y, the local bars, restaurants, shops, beaches, theaters, etc. on our islands. Wow, our residents really have a lot to enjoy around here in this residential (beach & tourist) community. I would really like to know how you figure the math on your point of view.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Mini golf course good for Marco:

in response to WMissow:

I would like to clarify here that my agreement is with 2themoon as far as having Herb's name on City Hall in far larger letters than the one presently there.

Herb, I would like to differ with you on your opinion. One can not go around ignoring regulations that have, for the most part allowed Marco to be as wonderful as it is.

There was a violation of these regulations by the Kraemers and they should be held accountable.

Being insulted because somebody did not know a person such as yourself is also no grounds for ignoring the rules that the Mackles set up for all of us.

I would never believe that a person, such as yourself, would wish to have those rules ignored because of a, mostly likely, unintentional personally taken insult. You are much bigger than that!

Miss - We get it, you're not a Kramer fan.

Now, let's make amends and move forward. A tear down of the golf course is not just. MICA has distorted their authority on this one, and the right result will eventually come.

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

in response to WMissow:

Phyllis,

If it is the time to change laws they should be changed legally going through the proper channels.

Does you really think because as law is 40 years old it serves no purpose? I bet you are over 40 and still serve a purpose and just because your roots may be gray they just don't dispose of you.

If the owners of Putt, Putt prove their case in a legal way, great for them, but as it now stands the judge acted under what he believed was correct under the laws as they now stand. It is not up to the judge to change laws it is up to him to interpret laws. Would you want anything different, be honest now?

I don't think that MICA would want anyone on its board who thinks that "beautiful" supersedes legal.

Miss - Sorry, you're wrong...I would support Phyllis.

As I've written, both parties have fault and responsibility here, but the tear down decision is horrific and completely excessive. Surely there's a compromise, for the benefit of our city.

The age of the deed covenants was pre-cityhood, which is where that comment really applies. Now that we're a city, MICA can step back and turn over the reins to the city, who has legal and vested interest in it's future. MICA needs to do the right thing, and transfer that responsibility to the city, just as Deltona transferred it to them before they went bankrupt.

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

in response to Pursuit:

MICA has rules and procedures to legally protect the ambience of this small community. They have done and continue to do a great service to protect the interest's of the resident's who chose to live here. Most chose to be here as Marco offered a haven away from commercial glitter
Mr Kramer chose to not comply with the procdure's layed out by the original concept of a residential community He will now have to deal with his arrogance.
Although he did a beautiful job with his creation it set's a precedence for future encroachment of Beach town type venture's
Sorry but that not what most Marco taxpayer's want & that is why MICA is so important to this Island

Ben - Is a mini-golf place near the resort and hotel section an impact to our ambiance? Really? Is that what you mean when you write "commercial glitter"?

A small correction, one input (yours) here does not make a "majority of what taxpayers want in this scenario". If that were true, there would have been outrage when the City Council voted to approve the business. Since that didn't happen, evidence that your comment is unsupported. Heck, the City approved two mini-golf businesses.

True, I think both parties have culpability on matters to date, however, that doesn't make it right or appropriate to do a complete tear down, that's just silliness.

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

in response to LadueVGilleo:

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.

Since when do NFP's (and other Non Government Organizations) have the ability to enact "law" as stated by some on this comment forum? Pretty far stretch of power!?

I predict it here and now...MICA's position of authority is in serious question, (highlighted by the well documented selective enforcement of various projects) and I expect that they will eventually lose what little (perceived) authority they have. It may have been appropriate for the 60's and 70's, but it's tired and now, with city hood, completely unnecessary. Eliminate the redundant, let's think of Marco's future and how to embrace it, while protecting it. Balance is possible, but we have to challenge ourselves to think objectively and not hold on to tradition for just the sake of tradition. I'm happy to pay the $160 per year, for beach access, and a concert once a year, but they are not elected representatives for our Island citizens.

-- DISCLAIMER - No Gopher Tortoises or Eagles were harmed in the drafting of this contribution.

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

in response to WMissow:

MarcoD,

You just do not see it the legal way. How about trying this one out. "Gee officer, everyone else was speeding, why are you giving me the ticket?" Is that how you look at things?

They ignored and broke the law. It is too bad that they thought that they were above the law.
They took their chances and lost.

Miss - Let me slow this down for those who need it....it's one or the other.

I repeat, the question is...do you think it's appropriate & beneficial to Marco Island, to have the mini-golf business close, and restore the lot to it's original condition (an empty grass field) ? Yes, or No? Please feel free to share your feelings on your choice.

OK, I agree with your comment, it appears they didn't follow the "approved MICA process". OK then, I would think it would be more effective to pay a fine and let's get back to business of public enjoyment and tourism. I don't think a complete tear down is the ideal result. Do you...do you really think that's best for our Island. Be objective, let your grudges take a back seat for a minute.

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

in response to WMissow:

MarcoD,

Some of us live in a world in which the end does not justify the means. Too bad that is not your way of thinking.

Miss - Appears a little hypocritical. Do you not eat in restaurants on this island? Shop for your groceries at Publix? Go to the movies, or visit friends in your neighborhood? How can prudent development be wrong, when you are a consumer of it, every single day you live on Marco? Those in glass houses...

My whole point of my original comment was... the costs of MICA (how they limit others) are greater than the benefits of all the good things. How about you, same question I asked North. Do you think the mini-golf place should close and have to restore that lot to it's original condition? What's the value in that?

Please, you consume, therefore you are, so tell us what's right in this situation? How can I join your "better world of righteousness"?

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

in response to Northerner:

MarcoOffender, Did you conveniently forget to mention the gopher tortoises you and Jane slaughtered to make way for your trailer park? Is that what you mean by "ensuring equality?"

...and is this what you meant by "descriptive words that are adjectives that aid in framing and sharing the facts" when you wrote, "Those nuts they call eagle conservationists were selfish and crooked." Such abusive and belittling words from someone who claims to have their humility in check.

North - Let's not get off track. I know you're pro-MICA. So, the question is...do you think it's appropriate & beneficial to Marco Island, to have the mini-golf business close, and restore the lot to it's original condition (an empty grass field) ? Yes, or No? Please feel free to share your feelings on your choice.

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

in response to Northerner:

Wow MarcoOffender, name calling...a sure sign of defeat and desperation. I didn't think it was possible but you've sunk to a new low. Is name calling and arrogance the "favored behavior" we should all follow or is killing endangered animals to satify ones selfish needs the "favored behavior." It is quite disturbing that you think killing animals and their habitat for a trailer park is a balance with nature...scary, really! If you want a big concrete city, move to Manhattan and take your self centered twin Jane with you! Do yourself a favor and humble yourself. Volunteer your time at a nursing home, childrens cancer unit, homeless shelter or even the humane society. Do something to bring yourself down off your high horse.

North - Descriptive words are adjectives, they aid in framing and sharing the facts, nothing more. You're reading too far into it. Balance is not about killing anything, just ensuring some equality. Eagles are not endangered, by the way. None would have been hurt or killed with some high school buildings, that's for sure. In fact, the conservation probably would have gotten a nice boost, instead of the deserved scorn for those crooked conservationists, who selfishly didn't want a school on school district property. What a shock.

My humility is in check, thank you very much, I just want to see some common sense and equitable behavior in my home neighborhood, and home city, I think you would agree that is a reasonable expectation. We are a city, with residents and visitors of all ages, and if the leadership here isn't cautious, including MICA, then we all will eventually suffer. Seeking a court injunction to destroy the mini-golf to "restore the location to it's original condition" (an empty grass lot) benefits absolutely no one. Doesn't appear MICA cares about that. What a shame.

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

in response to Northerner:

Why don't all you anti-MICA folks just build a giant circus tent over the island and get it over with already! Don't you want to preserve what's left of MI's natural beauty. Convention centers, destroying wildlife to put up unsightly trailers they call a high school, mega community center, horse drawn carriage, mini golf, parking garages...give mother nature a break! Thank god for those that fought for the Eagle Sanctuary. MI and the world for that matter needs more people like that!

North - Why can't MICA hand the reins over to the city, where deed limitations can be inclusive of the existing approval process? MI is a city, not a Sierra Club Park. Cities need schools, community centers, places to park and entertainment businesses, like min-golf. Give me a break, does the mini-golf place really disturb the nature of an empty field, which it was it was before? Those nuts they call eagle conservationists were selfish and crooked, particularly in the manner to which they leased Tract K. Let them not be used as an example of favored behavior. We do not need more people who put animals before people. If that's what you prefer, time to make the move to the Glades, where you can have all that. In the meantime, let's start forward progress, with diligent consideration for balance, which is really what nature is all about anyway!

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

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?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Just say no:

Agreed, say no. You may be on to something. I live on the east side of Marco and I never use the Smokehouse Bridge, so I say no to that. In fact, the west and south side resident of Marco should pay for that bridge. However, you may apply my millage to the Mackle Expansion. I use that park everyday and I know my money will be well spent.

I think this city services a la carte might be just what we needed. Come to think of it, I don't play tennis, or go to Sarazen park, so you I'm due for some millage refund there.

Not reality, but at least opinions were shared.

Written on Letter to the Editor: The people have spoken:

Sal - We the People seem to be limited to the membership of those few organizations.

For most who use the Mackle Park Rec center, parents, with young kids, don't have the time, opportunity or ability to participate in these organizations, much less belong to all three and create the "unscientific and a-statistical" result of this "majority". Don't assume that this majority is representative of this island. Your intentions are good, but if you spent any time at Mackle Park, you would understand first hand the value of this proposal for an updated, safer, hurricane-code compliant, increased space for recreation, learning, playing and enjoyment. Time for some more homework before all the ostriches decide spending money is just bad for Marco Island, without some reasonable due diligence of the value.

Written on Letter: What a bargain:

A famous saying..."Price is what you pay, and value is what you get." Don't just look at cost, you need to look at the value (or results). If we (the U.S.) weren't ranked in the bottom portion of most major global academic performance stats, cost could easily be justified, but that is not the case. I don't think it's appropriate to place the burden on teachers alone, but the system as a whole is not working well. It's time for a new approach. Yet, it doesn't appear we're collectively smart enough to recognize that, and/or do the right things to make a change happen.

Written on Letter to the Editor: The Mackle Park civic travesty:

AJM - Thanks for the reply, but let's be sure to stay focused. The question that remains is...is the proposed Mackle Park expansion justified? Bringing up off site vacant strip malls & city center locations is taking this off the path. The current park has space, there are obvious advantages in considerations for expanding on-site, so let's evaluate what's on the table based on the factual information.

I take issue with the referenced link on the single role of government, it's myopic and limited, which is far from "great". If we lower the bar on what our government should provide to it's citizens for our taxation contribution, we will surely be delivered a poor result. Don't fall prey to this limited perspective. Raise the bar, expect more, and recognize that a community and city will draw in residents and visitors based on what it offers beyond just "protection", so if we wish to keep this city and area in demand, retaining the value of our community, homes, residents, we need to expect more, not less.

Granted, I think there are aspects of the proposal that may not be justified, but that shouldn't mean the whole proposal and consideration should be axed. Let's consider this on its merits and evaluate what works, what doesn't and where the compromise resides.

Again, although I may not agree with all your inputs, I'm glad to see the engagement and discussion. Thank you.

Written on Letter to the Editor: The Mackle Park civic travesty:

Mr. Uhler - I understand your letter, and agree that fiscal responsibility is critical, but don't presume to consider that all "The People" of Marco are opposed to this improvement in our park facilities. Despite that poor decisions that have been made in the past to balloon the city debt service to an extreme amount, we shouldn't be so careless to just throw out the baby with the bath water. Any appropriate decision should be based on its merits, and if the business case and requirements of compliance are justified, then the direction and action will be appropriate. The research and validation of the information continues and I would have expected that you would approve of the due diligence, as the city staff works actively to ensure all the necessary data and information is fully vetted and shared with "the people". It would appear that just because you don't agree with the facts on the status of the site and center, you are negative about the direction. Please, I urge to you evaluate the facts here, which is surely you would have expected to have happened years ago when the purchase of the Utility was being considered.

As someone who utilizes the Mackle Park facilities frequently, anyone who visits would see how inadequate it is for the current needs, as well as future needs.

Be reminded that if the city and community wishes for Marco to be and remain a premier area, investment in actively used facilities for recreation, learning and community engagement are not just convenient but necessary. Let's start to judge this program on it's merits, as opposed to just the few, most vocal, senior resident constituents wishes. The community is not just made of seniors, but children, parents and visitors, who typically walk away with a very favorable opinion of Mackle Park. I know, because I ask many of them. And remember that many of those demographics wouldn't be represented in a referendum. Now imagine how much more value and outlook there would be with some improvement and prudent expansion to the facility and grounds.

Bottom line, I advocate a fiscal responsible direction that is justified by the needs, and abilities of the city. That is what investment is about, and the return should be justified. I'm sure you would agree that is a fair, prudent and appropriate path of consideration when it comes to this project.

If there are other "pragmatic alternatives" that haven't yet been shared, I suggest you share them with us. I for one, am ready to make considerations based on the facts, objectives and abilities, just as we should expect from our local government. Surely there is a compromise somewhere.

Thank you for your comments. I know you are active in your communication on civic issues and it truly enhances the value of our conversations and reflects that we are a community who shares the same goals, but may sometimes disagree in how to reach those goals.

Written on Paul Meyer drops out of Marco Island City Council race:

Paul - I voted for you because I know you would have done a great job for this city. I know my vote WAS NOT wasted, as it's a voice for the strong representation of a large part of this island. You will still earn a great many votes, as you will still be on the ballot. I respect your choice and support you. You've chosen family first, and it's the bold and correct choice. Well done!

Written on Manta Rays upstream swim Marco Academy begins first football season :

in response to eaglepalooza:

Every single one of them absolutely sucks!
No one from any of these programs will "be seen". Also, kids that attend these school like the MIA, are kids that are not good enough to play for REAL public schools like the NAPLES GOLDEN EAGLES! I can assure you that not one player on MIA would be a starter at Naples High. They would rather play for a lame school than sit on the bench playing with and against REAL competition.

Eagle - What would you prefer, to play the bench or to play...and gain experience, develop your skills and be an active part of the fielded team? Don't begrudge their choice, at least they can choose to play a position on the field as opposed to the "left out" position. Give the kids a chance.

Written on Marco Island City Council opens with Marco Island Academy report; close with advisory committee selections:

in response to MrsT:

Are all these students living on Marco Island? I didn't realize there were that many kids living on Marco in that age group. It was more of a retirement community when I moved here and that's what drew me here.

Time for you & Mr.T to get out more.

Last report was near 1500 child residents here. That's substantial considering full time residents are around 13,000.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Utility rates: Why?:

in response to Ocram:

Fair and equitable have not been part of our Councilors actions for many years. What makes anyone think that they are going to change their ways now?

Homeowners have been subsidizing Condos and Hotels.

Do condo owners pay a lower kwh rate structure for individual units than homeowners pay? I do not know the answer to this. If they don't and I do not believe that they do then why are they paying less for water?

Oc - Well put, we finally agree on something important. This election will give all Islanders a great opportunity to make some positive changes.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Our_world_according_to_zookeeper:

Marco Defender, Now it's a conspiracy?

It is really a shame when someone blames everyone else for their unproductive efforts. Sometimes wisdom comes with experience. Hopefully!

Zoo -the MIAHS is here, ergo, efforts were completely productive. But we agree, shameful behaviors remain. There's absolutely nothing wise or noble about corruptive behavior. Proof that age and wisdom do not have an equal relationship to each other.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

Zoo - If you read the news, it's easy to see how prevalent it is. Now we apparently have US Secret Service agents conducting themselves in a corrupt manner. Here on Marco, it's non for profit leaders conspiring with county officials. I don't declare it, it just is. No declaration needed.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Our_world_according_to_zookeeper:

marcodefender.

As empty an apology as could be sent ALONG WITH JUST ANOTHER MEANINGLESS RANT JUSTIFYING YOUR LACK OF FEELINGS FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Now you have your follower coming in again with his name calling and you still have nothing to say about that, as in the past. You have to live with yourself.

Zoo - I'm good and can live with myself just fine. I have very little to complain about, here in beautiful SW Florida & MI. Of course, as with others in this blog tool, I've stated my views on this particular situation. It's a crying shame how it worked out, but what can you do. Corruption is everywhere.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Our_world_according_to_zookeeper:

What an example some people are making for their own schooL age children. It is ok to lie, exagerate and make claims that do not exist or cyber bully. It is ok to ignore the feelings of others. It is ok to cry over spilled milk, as though that does any good. It is ok to hurt small animals in various ways.

AS LONG AS SOME PEOPLE FEEL THAT THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES, THIS WILL CONTINUE. HOW TOTALLY SAD.

Zoo - Yes, very sad. By the way, a great description of Carl Way and Track T neighbors who support the Sanctuary. Talk about personal and selfish interest.

As for me, the extent of my personal interest is to have seen Tract K used what it was intended for, by the Mackle organization, when they donated the land to Collier Country School District. There was a plan to address the eagle protection. Funny how that was never in the news. It could have been a win-win situation.

As for cyber bullying, I don't see where the dots are connecting on this. Please, educate me. I'm expressing my opinion here, just as many others are doing. I'm open to your inputs.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Northerner:

MarcoDefender,
Your passive-aggressive attitude is insulting as is your distortion of our words. If I, Mr. Way or Joe Schmo want to use the analogy "like losing a child" to express immense grief for the loss of something...anything, that is our right. It does not make us "harsh and inappropriate" people. It does not mean we put animals before people. Go eat your sour grapes. I'm done with you.

North - I'm not trying to insult you, and they are your words, they don't require distortion. They are poor on based on their merit. You have a viewpoint and so do I. The only think immense here is the travesty of the Sanctuary's behavior, in making a closed door deal with the school board to make Tract K a non-solution for the MIA High School (which is a public school - contrary to the content in other blog postings). That behavior and action was immense. They did whatever they had to do. It's really shameful behavior.

There we go, another example of harsh and inappropriate behavior from the same source. I'm starting to see a trend. It's concerning. I worry for our future, but hey, at least we can enjoy some eagle watching nearby. Just don't park too long near Tract K, the local residents will get angry. How interesting.

I'm sorry you're done with me. I was hoping we could have some more discussion here. I'm sure there are aspects of this whole mess that you are very unaware of, that you might find disturbing, just as I did. It's amazing what $30,000 can buy nowadays.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Our_world_according_to_zookeeper:

I would still trust someone who respects animal life over those who deliberately set out to hurt anyone that stands in their way.

Once again the name calling and internet bullying has reared its ugly head. I sincerely hope that youngsters are not reading these blogs and taking to the same behavior since adults are doing it.

Zoo - What name calling are you referring to? Are you still hung up on my comment from a year ago? If so, let me apologize.

I'm sorry that so many people (sanctuary supporters) behaved selfishly to eliminate a school board owned and sanctioned plot of land, intended for school use, under the guise of a bird protected zone, in an area of the state where there are thousands of square miles of bird habitat for our eagles. What a sham. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting that facade organization. It's a good illustration of what money will buy.

So again, I'm sorry...about your poor choice in supporting wild birds, in lieu of local community student children, who represent one of the top 6% performing middle schools in the entire state of Florida. Get a clue, Zoo.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

So we have a story in the paper. The story seems harmless enough; just information that may or may not be of importance to you. You either have empathy for the feelings of others, or you don’t. What a surprise that so many of you have decided that this story would be such a great launch pad for your judgmental reflections! I guess no one can express his/her opinion any more without saying something nasty about someone else. I believe they have commercials about that now, trying to teach kids not to cyber-bully. The commercial states that if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, then why write it?

Paradise - Point taken, however, my comments are directed toward Carl Way's behavior, not him. In my view, he made poor choices here, but he has a right to share them.

At the same time, so do others, even if we disagree. You can agree with me or not, you have that right. However, to allow the slant of this story to go unanswered, would not be democratic or american. I stand behind my comments on expressing my feelings on the statements in the story. His statement was harsh and inappropriate. I'm hopeful that he would consider his choice of words more carefully in the future. After all, with great power, comes great responsibility.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to Northerner:

To Mr. Way,I'm so sorry for the loss of your child... or should I say everyones child. Please accept my heartfelt condolences. I and many others are so saddened by the loss of this beautiful babe.

...and to you MarcoDefender, you are a callous, self rightous piece of dirt!!!!Why don't you practice what you preach and teach yourself a little about humilty,discretion, freedom and respect for ALL life. How dare you sit there with your holier than thou attitude and pretend to care about the conservation of nature. If I remember correctly, you and your buddy Jane had your bulldozers warmed up and ready to destroy this beautiful sanctuary for your own personal agenda. Why don't you go crawl in a turtle hole off of San Marco rd...there are plenty of vacant ones. Oh and by the way, I have 3 children, 2 dogs, a cat.

Northerner - Thanks for your input. I do care about conservation, but it starts with human rights first, animals second. Do you really feel differently? If you had to choose, wouldn't you attend to your child first, over your 2 dogs and a cat. I thought so. That's for making my point.

Your history is accurate, however, this isn't about MIA, this is about perspective and consideration for those that can do the most good for this island and community. It's not my personal agenda, it's the agenda of the school board, city and dedicated people who know that human contributions can far exceed that of local animal life.

Again, thanks for your input.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

in response to skulljockey:

Wow, like losing a child?!?! It's a bird! Why the emotion over a bird? It's amazing to me that people can become so emotionally involved over a very insignificant animal. Where's the empathy over the species that are devoured by that bird? How do these people choose what species they will endear? All of this emotion over a bird, but these same people will defend their "right" to kill a baby human.

Jockey - Well put. Perspective is definitely necessary in this situation. Odd that this common sense view isn't that common.

Written on Death of bald eagle on Marco Island ‘like losing a child,’ sanctuary founder says:

This is a tragedy, no doubt. At the same time, the comment by the founder about the death of this eagle is pathetic and heartless. To equate the loss of an animal in any way, with a human being, much less a child, is harsh and grotesque. I support the efforts of conservation, but under a premise where it's acceptable to equate the life of an animal to a human child, the line must be drawn.

Respected and a strong symbol of freedom and our country, this is an eagle. Despite the tragic death, the symbolic appreciation carries on. To equate an animal to a child, a child who was born to and physically nurtured and raised by birth parents, is a world away from comparison. The supposed leader of this organization needs to get some perspective. This appears to be a pathetic attempt to sensationalize the story to aid in fundraising.

You want to do some real good in the community, create an Eagle Sanctuary Foundation Scholarship, which can be offered to promote conservancy by young students, who truly represent the future. While you do that, teach them about humility, discretion and respect for human life. Please allow Carl Way to sit in on that lesson. I would hope he may learn a thing or two.

Written on Quinnipiac poll: Obama ahead of Romney, Santorum in Fla. :

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Stoerte - At first I thought you were kidding, but now it appears you're pretty serious.

Do you not recall that Clinton was impeached while in office, for perjury. You're right, America does need a president with dignity and integrity, but by the record of facts, it's certainly not Clinton or any recent Democrat.

We through with democratic opportunity, it's only getting us in more debt. Pretty soon we'll be in the same situation as Greece, is that really what you want? No I'm not telling you that Republicans are the answer, but they are much better than the current problem, called Obama and a democratic senate.

Please, breathe for minute and put the kool-aid cup down.

In the meantime, live it up, only a 9 more months until Hope & Change take a trip back to Kenya.

Features