marconews.com Accounts

186 days X 8 hours per day = 1488 hours. $50,000 divided by 1488 hours = $33.60 per hour. Add in pension and hospitalization. Union forklift operators can expect to make this much. So is it enough to attract the best and brightest to teach our children? I don't know the answer to that. But the premise was that the present cost of education is a bargain. I guess it would be if we were able to attract the best and brightest to teach.

Beucler returned to the police department as a senior community services officer. Given his past behavior I'm sure the female community will welcome his service. Maybe we better define "service".

Outwith theoldies is 100% right with the statement "I guess its all about the 'ME'". ME wants a new Mackle Park, ME wants a dog park, ME wants a museum, ME wants more bike paths, ME wants a makeover at Plummer Park, ME wants Marco Man in front of a new City Hall, ME wants you to pay for it.

Those pesky public records keep getting in the way of good spins on history. However, over the last 12 or so years the most dastardly of deeds were hatched well away from the public forum so public records shouldn't be able to wreck all the good spins.

"He chalked that violation up to getting greedy: 'We were young. We learned our lesson,' he said."

And he doesn't think 6500 lbs of mullet in essentially one haul is getting greedy?

If more people were to think like him our fisheries would be doomed.

So we may now call the individual mandate a tax. Social Security is a tax, Medicare a tax, Medicaid a tax, Food Stamps a tax. Just remember those that dream up these taxes and enact them into law specifically exempt themselves from paying them. So on page 113 of the "Obamacare" TAX, the President, Congress, and indeed the Supreme Court are all exempted from paying it. Indeed in the case of Social Security they collected enough tax that it should never be in dire straits - they just robbed it to pay for other government programs. They'll do the same with the Obamacare tax.

Consider this: In a perfect Obama/Pelosi/Reid world everyone who worked would send all their money to the government, which in turn would take its cut and redistribute the balance to everyone (regardless of whether or not they worked) as government would see fit. I fail to see the incentive to work very hard under this scenario. I also fail to see the point in me working to provide health insurance to my 45 employees when all I have to do is pay the fine/tax/whatever and the government will take care of it.

In short, everything this regime is doing just incents me to go on the dole (depression term).

To cite a more pointed example: The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever. They have distributed internal memos encouraging local offices to have parties to get more people signed up.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.

Well done. However you have two major obstacles: (1) finding anyone on Council who can actually understand what you have accomplished here, and (2) overcoming the predisposition on the part of the majority of Council to protect the current preferred classes of customers (Sneeches with stars).

Frank Recker: "Any city worth its salt should have adequate recreation facilities for its citizens."

Define adequate. The current facility serves the citizens well. Sure it would be nice to have a new multi-million dollar facility, but nice to have, need, and adequate are all key words that should be used appropriately in any discussion of huge capital expenditures given the current economic conditions.

Absolutely insane. Despite public rebuke and a call for referendum, this Mackle Park debacle continues on its merry way. Yet, true to form, they choose to abandon something that is already there and relatively inexpensive to refurbish and would last for years to come. Aaaaargh!

Unfortunately, to do as Ken asks would essentially undermine the "class system" of rate charges. It was never nor shall it ever be the intention of this Council to charge everyone the same for the gallons they use. There are those who benefit greatly by this class system and they control the Council. At the present time, under this Council, "completing the rate design the right way" just won't happen. Contacting Council and demanding the same will be an exercise in futility.

Here are the facts:

Single Family Residence using 1.667 thousands gal/month goes from $69.20 to $75.99 (+9.8%)

Condo with its own meter using 1.667 thousands gal/month goes from $64.79 to $47.22 (-27.10%)

Condo with master meter using 1.667 thousands gal/month goes from $46.17 to $47.02 (+.06%)

This is quite a difference among people all using the same water volume.

Suggested reading: Dr. Seuss's "The Sneeches".

Spin that at your next meeting appearance.

Build a parking lot and they will come. Can't say the same about the museum though.

This was preordained. They finally got the study they wanted to begin with.

Consider this: with STRP the capital cost (installing the pipes, plant capacity etc.) for each district was equally applied to all users. With the water rate structures being considered now the capital costs (plant aquisition, expansion etc.) are being built into the rates each class of customer pays. So why are capital expenditure allocations between the two programs different?

The answer is simple. When STRP went in it only affected one class of residents with no unified voice and certainly no representation on the council. The rate structure debate affects all classes and some have more unified voices and more representation on Council.

So if you define fair and equitable as everyone should share the burden of an over priced and overbuilt water infrastructure equally, and everyone should pay the same rate per unit for what they use, you will lose. This is all about who has the most influence with Council.

An argument could be made that the purpose of STRP was not environmental, but rather an attempt to expand the contribution base of an over priced, antiquated system used by some classes of users on the Island. What wasn't foreseen by the perpetrators, however, was this was not enough.

Now back to square one. How does the original influential user class mitigate their losses?
Smoke and mirrors of course. COS studies, M1's, M54"s, accept the first principles (see ajm3s comments above) make it look complicated and at all costs make sure you secure your preferred status.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with anyone's desire to preserve a preferred status. As one blogger on here often states: Council reflects the will of the taxpayers on Marco Island.

I for one can only hope for the day when Dr. Seuss's vision in the "Sneetches" comes true on the Island:

"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one... or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."

Rock swales clog drains, according to Mr. Pinter. How about all the mulch in the City medians? Point your garden hose at the mulched median, then the rock swale, and see which ends up in the street first. I Agree with AJM3S; this is about what some view as more aesthetic. Although I have a background in geology, it really doesn't take a scientist to refute Mr. Pinter's missive and discern what is really going on here.

For those who don't know yet, the estimated cost of this flag is $350,000.00. That would be almost 9 years of fireworks. A 50 ft. commercial pole will run about $3,400.00 with one 10x15 flag included. So that leaves $346,000.00 to install it. Wow.

I wonder why the County Commissioners have to give dollar amounts, but not City Councilors. When a guy puts down "stocks and bonds" under intangible assets, I wonder how that reveals if he has an interest in something that comes before Council. In fact, I wonder if this financial disclosure really serves any purpose whatsoever. If taken at face value, it would appear that more than one Councilor would qualify for food stamps! What a useless exercise.

Here we go again. ANOTHER group who wants my tax dollars to support their hobby. Look, I have no problem with someone wanting to play a banjo next to a gothic painting, just don't ask me to pay for it. I also doubt it would be supported by 51% of the taxpayers. Shouldn't it take a majority to impose upon themselves a tax for art?

"Improvements" seems to be defined differently by different people. I know that what some have described as "improvements" over the past 8 years I would certainly define as idiotic waste.

If I (taxpayer) am paying someone's salary, I have a right to know how much.

They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. With a pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot. Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got til it's gone. Did Joni Mitchell visit Marco Island?

Island - you have me mixed up with another poster. I never wrote what you atributed to me.

"The year-long debate over Jackson Lab is what spurred Kish, a pharmacist, to run for office in 2012." While we taxpayers screamed that this was a bad deal, he at least has the guts to run and try to make sure these types of ripoffs don't surface again. Good luck.

Mrs. Biles comment "A deal is a deal. An agreement was made and should be kept." while absolutely correct on so many levels, I'm afraid ignores recent Marco Island history. Remember Jack Antaramian and his deals? I would hope the present City Council would shun the ways of the past 4 Councils, but I doubt it. The groundwork has been laid and a convention center is coming.

With a budget sitting there showing increased spending for next year, Gibson is talking about the fireworks. Is it totally impossible to elect someone to this Council who has a reasonable clue as to what needs to be done?