Comments by lauralbi1

Written on State Attorney: Marco City Council did not violate Sunshine Law during anchoring case’s closed sessions :

There is no victory here !! The sad thing is that Lee Oldershaw was of the mentality to file this with the State Attorney in the first place. I do not know who this person is, but am asking why ?? To have a subject that would be devisive to the Community ?? To create a Political/Campaign issue ?? After all, what would have happened if it had been a violation of the Sunshine Law ?? Maybe, eventually, Mr. Kiester would have had company with Council members that may have been convicted of a crime ?? To get to that point, the City would have spent hundreds of thousands of precious tax dollars defending the Council members in Court. So again, I ask, what was citizen Oldershaw trying to accomplish ?? This is the attitude and issue that citizen Oldershaw and all the "followers" of this mentality need to ask themselves, why?? I can certainly say that the candidates that appeal to these citizens have no chance to represent the majority of Marco citizens.
What was to be gained by this effort?? If someone can answer that below, I will certainly be on the lookout. Honesty and openess in Politics is always mandatory, but this incident happened so far in the past and was already over with.
Ed Issler

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

For right now, this issue is null and void. Please read the letter I just e-mailed, together with the recorded Deed Restrictions, to Council, below.

Gentlemen: The foresight and competence of the Mackle Brothers and their staff is beyond reproach. Once again, their vision has been expressed with no possibility for mis-interpretation. Even a simple citizen, such as myself, does not need a lawyer to understand what the original Developers wanted this land to be utilized for.

But all is not lost for the Marco Island Charter High School, that many of us support (personally I support the school, just not in the Park). But first we must all read the enclosed Deed Restrictions that dictate what can and cannot be done within that land referred to as Mackle Park.

As you can all easily see, Paragraph 1, on Page 1, clearly states that said property or any building constructed thereon may ONLY (emphasis added) be used for the following purposes: outdoor playgrounds; playfields and tot lots; service buildings for rest rooms, storage and equipment, when used in conjunction with park activities;........

So, based on these land use restrictions, which are non-negotiable, the Letter Of Intent that the Council approved at the 09 November meeting would appear to be inappropriate and non-enforceable. In my opinion, the Charter School people need to be informed as soon as possible to avoid any committments or applications they might make based on that Letter Of Intent. I would hate to see any costs or time be incurred on their part based on a non-valid Letter Of Intent.

But, as I stated above, there is a possible salvation. As you can see in paragraph 10, on Page 4, the timing for this request happens to be excellent. For 30 years these restrictions are fixed and not changeable. But that 30 year period ends on 10 January 2010. Now without any action, the restrictions continue in force for 10 year periods of time. But with a "vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots and tracts in the subdivision, it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part" (emphasis added).

My interpretation is not important as to who this represents. Since the City owns this property, does this mean that we all vote (as we are all owners) on changing the Deed Restrictions ?? That would be my interpretation. Obviously the neighbors to this property must also have their say (vote) on allowing this use for a school, which I believe was the intent of the Mackle Brothers on this option.

But action must be determined quickly. We have an election coming up early next year and the Charter School Committee must have some result so they know what their options are. This issue must be on the Ballot. Giving away a part of a City Park (physically or by use) should be voted upon by the entire City. It would seem that the Mackle Brothers agree and wanted it this way, also.

Respectfully submitted,
Ed Issler

Written on Anchoring debate to resurface on Marco?:

Fossill: I think your facts are reversed. The Septic Tanks are the devices that have been polluting our waters for years. And your speculation about Federal laws shows your propensity to expound on misleading and inflamatory misinformation. But, keep up the blogs like this. We are collecting them for publication for the upcoming election.
By the way, can you assist in finding the Miami Grand Jury Indictment and/or the Court Case against Bill McMullan from the mid 1980's that led to his Real Estate License revocation ?? It would be appreciated. I searched the Internet, but the case may be too old. I will look for your response with the information on these blogs.
Ed Issler

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

The Deed Restrictions actually prohibit this from happening. The problem is that the President of MICA is a big proponent of this Charter School and has two kids that he wants to go to this future school. Let's see if MICA does their job and really stands up to what the Mackle Brothers wanted for Mackle Park. It may actually take a citizen to file a lawsuit, if MICA does not do their job, to enforce the restrictions in the long run. There is no "gray area". A School is not a Park or a recreational use, no matter what you do with the buildings after school or on weekends.
I support a Charter High School on Marco, I do not support using a Public Park to do it.
Ed Issler

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

Actually, DC5799 has really put this into perspective for me. As a result, based on the outcome and numbers from the last election, and the mood of the majority, I would encourage MITA and yourself (Faye) to endorse the candidates of your choice. It will actually help those not normally in tune with Island Politics and issues to decide who they do not want to vote for.
Thanks DC5799.
By the way, I'm certain if I look at past blogs, which I do not have time to do, that I would find you front and center on Sunshine Law issues, not far removed from what Dr. Biles did. Do not minimize the importance of State Laws and their application to MITA and the like.
Ed Issler

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

You know, DC5799 really put it into perspective for me. Actually, based on the last election and the mood of the majority, I actually encourage MITA and yourself to endorse candidates. It worked for us before, why not again.
Ed Issler

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

Faye: Yet another example of telling the landslide majority that we are "stupid" and "ignorant". Yes, I guess the MITA's and JW's are the only ones that know what is going on and what is right. I keep saying this and I cannot say it enough. Please keep writing these gems of LTE's. They make for great campaign fodder when your candidates are trying to get more votes than from your 100 supporters. I'm sure that the voters will be excited to listen to someone that calls them ignorant.
You just do not understand that this Island is not being run by you or for you, Faye. It is being run for all of us in the manner in which we desire it to be run.
If the majority votes to change the language in the Charter, so be it. If not, that will be the judgement for the majority of voters. That is how it works.
And this time if you publicly endorse candidates or election issues, MITA and you WILL be reported to Tallahassee. You got a pass card in the last election for violating State Laws as they apply to MITA and Politics and Endorsements (your signed LTE as President of MITA supporting a slate of candidates that appeared in the Sun Times to be specific).
Ed Issler

Written on Deja vu: Contention arises as city petitions for storage zoning change to help a Marco business :

We need to oppose this request for all the right reasons. There is not even parking available for this to be a storage area. This is C-4 not C-5. Granting a variance will cause inverse condemnation to many properties that are C-5. When someone else with C-4 makes a similar request and it is turned down, the City will be very liable.Planning Board Friday morning !!!!
Ed Issler

Written on Letters to the editor: Merry Election Day, 2010:

You know, I don't understand most of what Sayre said or what points he was trying to make. I can only say that the more people that vote, the more meaningful the results are. I hope that Marco Island can get more voters to the polls than even in the last election.
Just an FYI, the more people we get to vote, the less chance there is for a (or any)smaller minority, that includes Mr/Dr Uhler and MITA, to elect candidates of their choosing.
So if anything comes out of this LTE, let it be that we all have to make certain we express and cast our vote in the next election !!!! I do not think that even JW can argue that fact.
Ed Issler

Written on Letter to the Editor: Broken pipes, broken rates:

There is no "Dirty Little Secret", Butch, that is just one reason why you lost the election, along with your slate. Actually, the "leakage" of concern with our sewer system, where they may find leaks, is infiltration, not outgoing leakage. Stormwater getting into the system, not sewage leaking out. Maybe a little more research on your part would help you arrive at some truths instead of quoting figures that come from California sewer systems.
The majority of voters on the Island are smarter than you think and will not be swayed by McCarthy like tactics. I would have thought you saw that from the results of the last election. Mr. Hall, Mr. Honicker and others should learn their lesson.
Oh, and please, please continue to associate yourself with Mr. McMullan.
Ed Issler

Features