User profile: epdoc74
Joined: June 26, 2006
Comments posted: 11
Contact epdoc74 (log-in required)
Comments by epdoc74
Page 1 of 1
3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 27 at 2:29 p.m.
My numbers came from:
http://www.colliervotes.com/results.asp
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 7) . . . . . . . . . .7....100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . .13,918
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . . 5,889
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 42.31%
QUESTION 1
Vote for 1
YES, FOR Amendment..............2,585.....44.26%
NO, AGAINST Amendment.......3,256.....55.74%
QUESTION 2
Vote for 1
YES, FOR Bonds.......................2,564.....44.21%
NO, AGAINST Bonds................3,236.....55.79%
Since the "biggest" of the wins was 55.79% , the margin was 55.79% minus 44.21%, or 11.58%.
Therefore if 5.8% of the voters (5,889 voted) voted YES instead of NO, the YES votes would have had a majority (>50%), and reversed the results of this election.
5.8% of 5889 votes rounds up to 342 voters, so my rough estimate of 348 was too large, and I take blame for that.
My comments otherwise still stand.
Exactly 342 voters determined the results of this election
I'm a retired full time resident, certainly not "Issler".
Pete Foster, MD
Retired Cardiologist, Electrophysiologist
On Marco referendum: Pay for sewers with utility rates, not taxes, voters say
3 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 27 at 11:58 a.m.
It's finally over!
But I don't know that 348 votes was "overwhelming".
That is the number of swing votes it would have taken to change the results to "yes - yes".
What this really means to me in the long run, is that most people are apathetic - since only 42% of those who could, voted.
And with a magin of 348 votes making the difference, perhaps we are divided closely enough that we would really be better off to pull together and try to work out a solution that benefits everyone.
Or is that really possible?
On Marco referendum: Pay for sewers with utility rates, not taxes, voters say
3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 9 at 10:35 a.m.
BTW, I tried to use the term "en ma sse" - without the space - instead of "in droves" and was censored that the word a-s was a no no and I should be ashamed. I guess the wise acres who think they are being cute and try to push the limits in terms of what they they think they can get away with saying are making it difficult for people with an actual vocabulary to post messages.
5 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 9 at 10:30 a.m.
My wife and I were lucky enough to have saved our money and purchased land and built on Marco Island 11 years ago. We were "honest" and did not declare Homestead until we actually retired and moved down here full time. Our property taxes increased by 200% to 300% during that time, but we accepted that and pay about $10,000 a year. On retirement income it makes things a little tight, be we can afford to stay because of the 3% cap Save Our Homes provides. We intend to live and die here on Marco Island, because it it our HOME, not an investment waiting to be cashed out.
If Save Our Homes is repealed, in spite of an initial "tax cut" we will be quickly be in a situation of ever increasing taxes to fund the avaricious political agendas of Local, County and State governments. Because the Baby Boomers are coming in droves and want THEIR "Place In The Sun", the Real Estate Market will quickly escalate home prices to ridiculous and exorbitant new heights which, of course, are MEANINGLESS unless you want to sell your home and "cash out". With no protection from the relentless upward spiral of higher taxes, it won't be very many years until we won't be able to afford the taxes to simply stay in our own home. Since the MEDIAN Price of homes for sale on Marco Island is currently calculated at between $700,000 and $800,000, I am sure their are many other people in the same situation as we are.
Even the Federal Government doesn't tax Investments on "Unrealized Gains", so why should we be taxed on the ARTIFICIAL gains in our home's value.
Posted on May 9 at 10:02 a.m.
My wife and I are great fans of Gino’s Olde Marco Trattoria, and were delighted with your review. We agree wholeheartedly that it is one of the best Itallian restaurants in South West Florida - nothing fancy, just food like grandma Sciallis would have cooked. They only downside of fame and recognition is that those of us who have been fans from day one will find it harder to get seated as it gets more popular.
By the way, you misspelled the URL for his web site. In the article it was listed as:
www.marcobestitalian.com
However you left out the "s" after "marco", so it really should be:
www.marcosbestitalian.com
But it would be faster to go directly to
http://marcosbestitalian.com/gmenu.pdf
and bypass the page that only says, "Click Here".
Pete & Jean Foster
Posted on August 23 at 10:45 a.m.
I think the pate recipe omits cooking the mushrooms.
On Cuisine: Some recipes that call for your favorite kitchen gadgets
Page 1 of 1
Posted on November 14 at 8:46 a.m.
Several people I've talked to didn't get their paper delivered this morning (as of 8:45 AM). Hiccup?
On It’s only the beginning: Marco Eagle gets new redesign