Man, oh Man !!! It is hilarious and never ceases to amaze me how quickly people want to forget the TRUTH. The ONLY, I repeat ONLY Referendum we ever really had on the STRP issue (and one was never required) was the election where a slate of pro STRP candidates were running against a slate of ant STRP candidates. The pro STRP candidates won by a LANDSLIDE, the largest margin of victory in Marco Island Election history. Certainly not an "official" Referendum, but a great indicator of how the majority of voters on the Island felt about STRP.But enough about the past. There are those that want to languish in the past and do nothing but complain.We all should enjoy our Paradise.Ed issler
Mr. McMullan/Konfuzious: You, of all people, should know that the Marriott case has NOTHING to do with MICA. Rather it is a zoning and City requirements issue, along with a change to an existing PUD, which is also a City issue.There are no Deed Restrictions that apply to the Marriott's desire and request. MICA will not be involved and should not be involved.Here's hoping you do not lose too much sleep or enjoyment in life over the Marriott issue. I had only hoped that it could have been a referendum so that the few who oppose it would realize what the majority of our Islanders want. But I do not see it as being necessary or relevant at this point.Ed Issler
A great outcome. An excellent example of "If you can't win, buy the votes". Thank you to MICA for standing up for what WAS right. As a refresher, the property owner vote done earlier in the game was not valid as one of the owners had sold their property.Now, the process has been done correctly and congratulations to all parties for what has transpired.Ed Issler
2the moon: Just out of curiosity, why in the World would that make a difference as it pertains to this article.
One of these days you will realize that Mr. Pettricia won by 144 votes over a candidate who has only himself to blame for the loss as he did no campaigning at all.
Celebrate Marco, in concept, is still a majority opinion on this Island and only time will tell. I still think we should have a referendum on the Marriott !!!Ed Issler
All the Marriott has to do is make an arrangement with the Vacation Club that is where the Radisson used to be. There is plenty of space for Marriott parking (what they require) and they could buy some of the density if they need it. Thwe Vacation Club will not be using all the density that comes with that property, anyway. Joey's has leased additional parking and there is no reason why Marriott cannot do the same. With a Valet Shed and some Golf Carts, the Marriott woyuld be good to go.
So many solutions to what amounts to such a small problem. Let's all just enjoy all that the Island has to offerEd Issler
Someone above mentioned MIA using the New Life Church property for their temporary campus. Our neighborhood hired a lawyer and we met with Deltona and MICA. There are Deed Restrictions on this property prohibiting the property from being used as a school.Marriott is not violating any Deed Restrictions.Move on regarding that subject.Ed Issler
There are naysayers that beg for the Marriott to be "neighborly". This word carries with it many attributes. The Marriott, throughout their history on Marco Island, has been more "neighborly" than any retiree or neighbor on the Island. Whether it is supporting local schools or donating to charities or assisting charities and Marco organizations in the accomplishment of their goals, the Marriott has always been there !!!All while going about their business with minimal disruptions of our Island Lifestyle and lives.A few of those naysayers suggested a Referendum. I say go for it. The Marriott has been so helpful to so many that a vote would only reinforce how most of us feel.Ed Issler
Let's vote on the issue. All the school parents will vote for Marriott, all organizations, all charity people, etc. The Marriott is more "neighborly" than anybody posting on this site, all 20 of you.Ed Issler
Yes, it is about time. Referendum is the way to go. Finally the 20 or so bloggers on this site and the 2000 or so naysayers will see how the majority of Marco Island feels. It will be over the 61% that voted for the Park (all the above were against the Park and were convinced it would not pass) that will approve this expansion.It does not pay to argue, as we will never agree and will not know unless we all vote !!!Ed Issler
My wife has been at the Marriott going into her 21st year. Probably longer than many of you have lived here. The Marriott, according to the presentation, is looking for ADDITIONAL convention space, not a new convention center. The Marriott has been doing/hosting conventions since its' inception. To listen to the FEW this is a new concept. Not the case.And my wife's business will be just fine no matter what happens, thank you.Ed Issler
WMissow: My last comment will hopefully get you to get the facts straight when you blog in the future. There is an agreement in place that prohibits Marriott from constructing a parking garage, or any structure on the east side of Collier Blvd. That is the ONLY agreement in place. There are MANY options that are available to Marriott in order for them to get additional parking spaces and I have suggested some of them in an earlier blog. I do not know how long you have been blogging on this site, but you should have realized long ago that the majority of comments come from those that complain the most or want this Island to return to the old days. That just will not happen. We have a vibrant new family population with children who go to school and enjoy everything that the Island has to offer. There is a lot more commercial land zoned on this Island. You should worry about that and not so much about what happens at the Marriott. Heck, for all we know, you could have a hidden agenda as a neighbor behind the Marriott Parking Lot.Ed Issler
Boy, talk about being mis-quoted. It should be more like the accuser being misinformed. None of what WMissow has stated above is correct. None of it. Oh, except for the fact that our neighborhood banded together when the MIA was considering placing what is now on Sam Marco on a portion of the Church across from Veteran's Park. Yes, we hired a lawyer and found the Deed Restrictions and spoke to Deltona and MICA and got that idea halted. And good for us !!!
The issue here is that the Marriott can do whatever is permitted on their property (or Mass Mutual's property) as long as it meets zoning and Deed Restrictions. The Marriott is the largest supporter of charities, is thre main reason MIA exists today, and has done nothing but good for the Island and its' citizens since its' existence.The only item holding the Marriott back from doing what they desire is PARKING !! The new Convention Center, new Rooms, new restaurant and whatever else is planned is all within zoning regulations. And there are many avenues available to the Marriott to overcome the parking limitation.The City has another Hotel planned for the Marco Town Center area and I would think you all would be much more upset and against that concept than this one.Let's not complain just for the sake of complaining. Let's move on to something more relevant. By the way, Frank Recker lost by 144 votes. We have 2 (two) term limits for Council. That is why we have rotation, not because of any particular ideology. I guarantee that Bill Trotter would have won if he had been allowed to run again, as an example.Ed Issler
All of the above comments are hilarious, as they actually represent a point of view that would have some citizens changing the wzoning regulations on their own. The Marriott has always been a good neighbor, and again, was here long before many of you that are complaining.If the Marriott can build what they are looking to build within City guidelines and zoning, then they will build it and you will not notice any difference. And my bet is that it will be built. The ONLY item holding up this project would seem to be parking. And since the only future parking will be Valet parking, according to the presentation, there are many ways for the Marriott to accomplish that. They could buy another lot close by, they could lease spaces from another property close by (as Joey's did), or they could do something like the solution below:
So you can keep crying and complaining which many of you do on a regular basis, but based on ingenuity and aggressiveness, this expansion will most likely happen.Ed Issler
Over 90% of Marriott guests do not arrive via individual automobiles, so any reference to increased car traffic is not a valid one. The Marriott,as far as rooms are concerned, runs 100% during season right now with the conventions they have now. The new Convention space, according to the presentation, is to assist in building up the off season occupancy. Some of you are painting pictures that just are not so. The Marriott Hotel, as a structure, was here long before many of you, in fact most of you. It is funny that so many of you arew complaining. Redviewing old blogs, it was the same group of people that complained aboyut the Collier Storm Drain project and made comments like "we don' care about flooding and traffic", "we want to keep Collier Blvd the same". Now the same people are blogging about that traffic that they did not care about before.Give it a rest. The Island is growing and schools, parks, commercial and infra-structure needs and will grow with it.Very few are interested in your "Retirement Community" and your doom and gloom !!!Ed Issler
Dear Bonnie: Please get specific on what impact you, as a Island resident, will experience from this expansion. I have only been here 14 years and I cannot come up with any impact that I will see other than a loweruing of my tax bill due to an increase in the Marriott's contribution.Ed Issler
To AJM3: I just want to make certain that you are aware that the "City of Naples" is the same size, 20 square miles, as Marco Island. many of the buildings you are so paranoid about lie outside the City and are serviced by County Services or are paid to the City of Naples by County Taxes. If you are not happy using the City of Naples, I suggest you refer to information from the City of Venice, which yields the same conclusions/results.Ed Issler
Bill: Your conclusions are not based on any designs or engineering assumptions. Are you part of the Architectural team ?? We alol know you have an agenda. Why not just wait until a design is put forth and if your questions are not answered, ask them at that time. I am certain that all the concerns you express will not be an issue in the final product.Ed Issler
Dear Marriott: I have a much better idea to rectify all of these issues. We start with the concept that the additional parking spots are a requirement for City Codes due to a new restaurant, new rooms, etc. and are not an actual requirement for the operation of the Hotel. Except for a few times a year, for local conventions, MOST guests do not have cars at the Hotel as they come in via Airport Bus or Airport Services. Transient guests will go down due to an increase in Convention bookings. This will reduce parking requirements even further.So how to create the spaces you need ?? My suggestion is to purchase and install the two level parking devices that are used throughout the City of New York. These are set in place (no construction) and depending on how many you install, can meet all the requirements for parking. You can install these across the entire rear of the property, sides of the property, on the west side at each end of the property. This would be MUCH more reasonable than construction, would get around your restriction for construction on the east side of Collier Blvd and since you will have only Valet Parking, should be good to use to park cars. You can buy a lot close by, if needed, for employee parking and run a shuttle. When someone enters the employee lot, a signal tells the shuttle driver that someone needs pick up.Again, the second level of parking should not be needed that often. But it creates the spaces required in order to meet code.I am assuming that these are permitted fro use in Marco Island. Landscaping can hide these totally from anyone's view.Anyway, that is my thought.Ed Issler
Herb: The Master Plan for Marco Island, designed by the Mackle Brothers, is MUCH more development oriented than what our Island is today. Veterans Park was destined to be Hotel and Commercial, IAW the Master Plan, but thank Glenn we have a Park. As you drive Collier Blvd. you will see parcels of vacant land that would have high rise condos and/or hotels if not for the economic turndown. These lots will most likely have those high rises one day, thanks to the Mackle Brothers. They did a GREAT job creating Marco island. But let's not kid ourselves just for the sake of a golf course or parking garage. Somebody should do an analysis of the expected tax revenue, both City and County, if the Marriott is permitted their request. I would rather them pay it than me.Ed Issler
WMissow: If you know anything, you know that there is nothing more that I enjoy than a rational factual discussion on topics in these blogs. And I will respond to your comments.You are absolutely correct in your statement. The Temporary School could have been placed on the New Life Community Church property had it NOT been for Deed Restrictions that were in place on this property. Our entire neighborhood contributed $300 per household and we hired an attorney and were able to legally stop MIA from entertaining this site for their school.But I will even go one step further into history. Before Veteran's Park, there was a proposed Hotel (Embassy Suites) and a 35,000 square foot Commercial Development proposed for that property. With the help of lawyers, MICA and the Planning Commission, we were able to get the Developer to relocate the proposed Hotel to the back side of the property (off of the water).So, yes, I am not short of experience in these matters and I do sympathize with these homeowners. But again, I believe in this case, what is being proposed is better than what is existing. And if it is not, we can make it so it is better. I would hope that the City could also get some Beach parking out of this.Thanks for the discussion !!!Ed Issler
Anyone can drive this stretch of Collier Blvd. There seems to be a fear or just plain stubbornness being expressed above. Right now what the homeowners see are trees and a wall. I have not seen the specifics, but that is what they will see after the project is done, if it is done. A single story parking lot is hardly a condemnation of the property behind it.Everyone complaining about this needs to realize that nobody has yet expressed the fact that when these property owners bought in that location they had every expectation of having a high rise, like San Marco Residences, built in front of them, consistent with zoning and Deed Restrictions. The PUD, and height agreement, for the condos built by Mass Mutual came very recently.So to speak of compensation of loss of views is ridiculous. Buyer beware and owners stop BSing !!!! What the City is considering is far, far better that what could have been when these owners bought their properties.We all agree that a PUD agreement is in place. We do not know how applicable it is to a one story parking deck. But let's call a spade a spade and consider what could have been built on that property when all of the owners bought there !!!Ed Issler
Thanks Ray. Sorry for the misreadEd Issler
Mr. Wahl: I drove this section of Collier Blvd last night and it is impossible for you to have lost any view as no view exists from any home that faces the Marriott property. If, in fact, somehow you have a view, please stay seriously involved and do something about it. But I am going to look again. Facts are one thing, emotion is another.I wonder if there is any way to get any Beach Parking out of this proposal m??Ed Issler
I suggest we all drive this stretch of Collier Blvd, as I will do ,today, and examine the impact of this plan to the Homeowners. Then we can all make comments here as to how we feel about it.I am VERY curious to see for myself the impact of this proposal on the "VIEWS" of these homeowners.I will post tomorrow with my personal drive and results.Even with a 2 story home, I cannot imagine much of a view, but I need to see for myself.Ed Issler
Dear Netherwood: As you follow the Marriott issue, please just get your information correct. The restrictions being referenced are NOT Deed Restrictions, but are restrictions/agreements that are a part of the PUD (Public Utility Development) that was approved by the City for Mass Mutual, the property owner. Changing these retrictions or agreements that are a part of the PUD fall to the City, not MICA.Just wanted to make certain you understand that MICA has no control as to what happens here.Ed Issler
Konfuzius/Klaus/Bill McMullan (all the same): I am afraid that you are once again arriving at conclusions that have no basis in fact. Since when did 3,000 represent a silent majority, a vocal majority or any majority of Marco Island voters or residents. And, in fact, the 3,000 responses are sure tyo have come from the same group of residents that have always been opposed to any improvements for Marco island.I suggest we let the property owners that are affected have their say and let's see what the Marriott has to say. After all, without the Marriott your taxes would be MUCH higher and with the expansion proposed, in my opinion, our taxes would be lower.Ed Issler
Faye: I do not know how to contact you on a more personal basis, but I just want to send my condolences and my deepest regrets for your loss.Ed Issler
ProfZed: MICA does not decide zoning and PUD aprovals and denials. MICA deals with Deed Restrictions. There are PUD agreements that were executed in the past that affect what you have described in your LTE, if in fact, your statements are correct.I do not know what the PUD states about parking expansion. I know the Parking use is permitted by Deed Restrictions.I think it is everyone's interest, including the neighbors in this area, to wait and see what is actually going to be proposed.Ed issler
Errors are determined by the eye of the definer
Dear Mr. Kramer: The Deltona Deed Restrictions become "null and void" is a certain attempt at deception on your part. The actual statement is null and void unless changed by the then owners. If not, they are extended automatically for 10 years or by MICA for an additional 30 years, on behalf of Deltona. That is the case with your property. You know very well that MICA has a Fiduciary Obligation to Deltona to extend and enforce all the Deed Restrictions. You are only trying to fool yourself to say anything else.If not for Deed Restrictions the Island could have had MIA at the Church across from Veteran's Park. If not for Deed Restrictions, the Island could have had horses on property adjacent to operating commercial businesses. There may be 1600 people that signed a petition, and it is certainly understandable that you would be appreciative. But there are 10 times more that support MICA and the Deed Restrictions that they enforce.Hopefully, in retrospect, you realize that you have only yourself to blame for this entire situation. Why you did not work with MICA during the process is beyond me. I certainly hope that your effort can somehow be saved through meetings, fines and changes. But if not, I wish you the best of luck.Ed Issler
Excellent LTE Marcia !!!Ed Issler
If these owners refuse to do what is required, there is another Miniature Golf Course ready to be built. I am certain they will do what is required with MICA and I am certain they will be as charitable as the Kramer's. I would rather see the Kramer's do what they have to in order to reopen. Let's hope they doEd Issler
We all know, or hopefully we all know, that MICA was not, and is still not, responsible for the closing. All the owners have to do is sit down with MICA, resolve Deed Restrictions issues and Review processes, make the changes, if any, and move on to a successful operation.In my opinion, the entire issue happened as a result of the owners ego and refusal to adhere to the process.If the owners allow the closure, there is another Mini Golf Course approved and they can now go on with their plans.Ed Issler
Please go to Miami !!! Deltona, a very valid, operating, politically powerful Corporation, still exists and is headquartered in Miami. I have spoken to them on many occasions with regard to Deed Restrictions. Especially when MIA was considering placing their temporary school on the New Life Church property across from Veteran's Park.Having the case heard in Miami would allow Deltona to testify on their own behalf (and validate MICA's role) and the Kramer's would not stand a chance.Better that they, the Kramer's, sit down with MICA and come to some sort of compromise.Ed Issler
MICA has nothing to do with City Codes. MICA ovewrsees Deed Restrictions !!!
Dear Herb: I know you know that City Council has no control or jurisdiction over MICA when it comes to enforcement of Deed Restrictions. I, like you, also have no issue with the Miniature Golf Course and would like to see it stay. But at this point it appears to be an issue of Mr. Kramer's ego against MICA, and his violation of the Deed Restrictions and MICA review procedures. Th9is could be resolved by a sit down meeting and possibly making some minor revisions. But from what I see, Mr. Kramer is not willing to do this. I liken this to the approval by the Planning Board of the Horse Drawn Carraige idea. It turns out that both properties that were the subject of the request had Deed Restrictions against having "farm animals" (horses) being kept on the property. Has Council approved it, subsequent to the Planning Board Approval, I am certain that MICA would have stepped in and stopped it based upon the Deed Restrictions. City Government only looks at zoning, land use and density, not Deed Restrictions.We know you and Fred go way back. Why don't you try to convince him to sit down with MICA and try to resolve the issues at hand.Ed Issler
Dear Phyllis: Always great to see a new opinion or LTE. But as someone who has expressed an interest and opinion about MICA, I highly recommend that you become informed about MICA, the purpose of MICA, the LEGAL obligation of MICA and lastly, you should review the some Deed Restrictions including the Deed Restrictions of the Putt Putt Golf property. Then, and only then, should you comment on MICA. You can still say the same thing you said above (after all it is a free Country), but at least you will be better informed.I am just a member of MICA, but MICA has the LEGAL obligation to enforce the Deed Restrictions created by Deltona Corp., the developer of Marco Island.Ed Issler
ProfZed: If your intent, as expressed herein, is in fact sincere, then you need to understand a major aspect of life here on Marco Island. There are some, like 2themoon and others (you can tell from the blogs) who bought here on Marco as a retirement place 40 or so years ago. These residents (condo or home) would just as soon not see any tourist related activities, schools, new streets or any improvements that will move Marco island into the future. You can read their emotions in the blogs, which should not be taken seriously in the first place, especially without names attached to them.Marco Island is a GREAT place to live. This whole article revolves around Mr. Fred Kramer, a local attorney, who has always had it in for MICA, made this a "test case" on his own. He appears to have lost. That loss is actually the Island's gain in that we have a Civic Association that watches out for our best interest and the original Developers Best Interest.The majority of Islanders welcome your effort to become one of us and encourage you to do so. To make your decision or let it be affected by these blogs is a huge error in judgment on your part.Ed Issler
WMissow: This has nothing to do with City Council. Nothing!!! The issue here is that Fred Kramer just thought that he was above MICA and did not need their approval. As it appears, he did and does need their approval and now it is too late.
I am certain that something will be negotiated if Mr. Kramer's ego allows it.
WizeOlMarco is right on with his/her statement. MICA was mandated to enforce Deed Restrictions and Architectural Reviews on behalf of Deltona.
I bet not many of you knew that horses are not allowed to be kept on property on Marco Island, by Deed Restriction. Just another example of an idea that would not have gone far, as far as MICA is concerned. I learned this after the fact, but it is significant!!!
We should all be members of MICA and support them for supporting us, the property owners on Marco Island. Thank you MICA !!!Ed Issler
In responding to your asbove comment, I did not vote for the design being considered. I actually voted for the design that provided the most clearance for boats. Kind of a "self serving" vote. I, personally, do not care what type of replacement bridge gets built, just so long as the bridge is replaced.I would love to see an accounting of the $2 million you reference in your blog. Is this available at City Hall ?? OIf so, where ??Ed Issler
It is really a good thing that all this dialogue is taking place on this subject. Hopefully, we all can recall the Public Hearings (Presentations) that took place when multiple designs were provided to citizens and the citizens that took an interest were asked to vote on which design, at the cost proposed, was the "favorite" or citizen chosen design.Thanks to Rony Joel and Keith Dameron for doing the work and providing the meeting space for this exercise.Again, I attended the meetings along with many other interested, concerned citizens. The vote was far from anything official. Kind of like what is taking place with the Mackle Park proposal. But it was a vote.Right now we, Marco, should be able to save about 25% of the original estimate due to the downturn in construction. If that is, in fact, the case, then let's not lose that savings opportunity waiting and waiting.Ed Issler
I have a great place for the CEB to start !! They should issue a Citation to the City of Marco Island for storing a mess of lights, concrete blocks and ugly light poles on OUR City Park property. Or, since it is on Public Property, maybe we should just have someone take it away.
This is a nuisance to the entire City. When the Veterans have an event it just spoils the whole ambiance.Ed Issler
I agree. But the entire concept has not been thought through. What about creating a Catering Rated KitcheN facility and bidding out the rights to cater luncheons and dinners to local (or Naples) restaurant owners. Maybe there are enough private functions that could be held at this PROPOSED new facility that could create a monthly income (from a Lease to a Caterer) of enough money to offset some or all of the cost. At least worth a Trial Balloon.
I see no reason that for an expenditure like this that we should not have a Referendum. I believe it would pass, but we really need to vote on this.Ed Issler
Ray: While your message is clear and I happen to agree, please consider retracting your insensitive comment and expressing your opinion in a different manner.
Referendum is the way to go here. But, as suggested, some different alternatives need to be presented and discussed. A new Center will never generate the needed revenue, so we need to look at a smaller OPTION, maybe with more configuration flexibility for revenue generation.
Maybe with the addition of kitchen facilities, the Center could be rented for Weddings and such. Anything to defer the cost away from taxpayers.
But it should be put to a Public vote.
Your input to the performance of the City Manager was made when you voted for Council members. You, of all people, should be aware of how the process works.
That is the Democracy part of the process. Not your way.
If you are not happy, write to Council. Speak to Council. But the process is defined. It is ridiculous to contemplate every citizen having input in the evaluation. If we want that, then we replace the City Manager with a City mayor and elect a Mayor every 4 years or something like that.
Again, the same blogs with the same foolishness. As far as votes are concerned, they have been 4-3 but the City has benefited from those 4 to 3 votes as the 3 votes have been mostly from the newly elected Councilors.
We can all watch together over the next two years to see how things go, how votes go and who votes for and against City issues.
Somebody complains above about Larry magel beiong at City Hall everyday. That is a violation of nothing. Posdsibly just hard work. Maybe Mr. Pettricia should be there compiling his data from his Records Requests.
Mark my words, everyone needs to do historical look ups for postings and articles about Russ Columbo. Thought he was moveing, maybe he still is. But it sure looks to me like he is setting up a run for City Council in the next election.
Voters beware. If that becomes a reality, please read all the information that will be published before anyone makes up their mind.
We will watch Sunshine Law activity and the new President of the Marco Island Property Owners Association very closely. The citizens of Marco, all the citizens, deserve it.
Russ: This is a Letter To The Editor. Are you expecting him/her to deliver it to Council ??
Just like you, I am trying to figure out what the "intention" of your LTE is ??
If you have something to say to Council, write them an e-mail. Or isn't that enough notariaty for you ??
Intentions of running for Council in a couple of years ?? Maybe we need to start assembling all of your LTE's and past actions and start a file !!!
It is so funny how bloggers seem to think that by striking the keys on their keyboard suddenly makes them experts where everyone is interested in their opinions.
The blogs above are just another perfect example of meaningless rambling with no basuis in fact. MICA has been LEGALLY appointed by Deltona Corporation as the "Authorized Agency" to act on behalf of the Deltona Corporation for the enforcement of Architectural Issues and Deed Restrictions. Yes, for those of you that were not aware, each and every property on Marco Island is subject to Deed Restrictions that are, in most cases, more restrictive than zoning guidelines.There are no "voting" for or against MICA and for those students of history, if not for MICA, our Island would be MUCH more developed than it is now.So thank you MICA and keep up the good work you are appointed to do !!!Ed Issler
Feels Like: 85°
Feels Like: 73°
Feels Like: 76°
View popular webcams in our area.
Sign up to read an electronic replica of the Marco Eagle newspaper.
Get your local news anywhere you go from the Marco Eagle. Download app »
See photos from local anglers with their biggest catch of the day. Submit your photos.
Our radar shows current conditions and possible severe weather.