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
Hey, just do comparisons to other cities before you all throw stones. We are not large farmland that can exist using Septic Tanks. But that argument has already been solved.
We are a small city, and as such the burden of utilities is spread so ever thin amongst a limited number of us. Read above and you will see those that would blame others for what is reality, not frivolous spending.
One day I suggest we hold a workshop and do nothing but look into what other coastal cities about the same size as Marco are doing, what their costs are for all services and utilities and see if we are higher, lower or the same and what we can do to improve on any budget or expenditure items.
We are not the only city our size and there are many that offer different comparative scenarios that we may be able to learn from or at least realize that we MIGHT not be out of line with costs.
How about it, anyone else care to learn ?? Seems more meaningful than just rambling in a blog !!!
Sounds like a place you should move back to !!!
Let us know how things are now when you move back there.
ajm3: Nobody has to defend Mr. Honig. He is one of the rational members of Council. I think if you look into your posting, above, you will find a msstatement. Mr. Honig is NOT concerned about the number of requests made by memebers of Council. He is concerned, and rightfully so, that memebers of Council are requesting or expoecting City Staff to organize, analyze and consolidate their request(s) as part of the process. It is not the responsibility for City Staff to perfform these tasks. In fact, it would appear to be illegal for City Staff to do so. I would expect the City Manager to not allow any member of City Staff to perform personal "jobs (tasks)" for members of Council !!Ed Issler
This issue is not whether or not a Miniature Golf Course will be built on this land. It is about having to get MICA approval on the operational and architectural elements of the business, as provided for in the Deed Restrictions.It seems that this has come about due to a personal vendetta on the part of Mr. Kramer and nothing else. I hope they have to tear it down and start again.
And for those of you that did not know, the horse drawn carraige concept was also a Deed Restricted endeavour. It never had a chance. MICA is just enforcing the desires of the Developer. That is a good thing.
As I understand it, most Deeds on Marco contain a Restriction pertaining to the keeping of "Farm Animals" on the property. Suffice it to say that a horse is a Farm Animal. I guess Deltona did not want Marco to be farmland. Good idea !!!!Ed Issler
If you people would read the story and the quotes, or better yet, be there in person, you would know that Mr. Honig has/had NO issues or problems with Mr. Pettricia's Public Records requests.The issue is that Mr. Petriccia is also requesting that City Staff, who work for us, not Mr. Petriccia, analyze, coallate and summarize the data in his requests so that he does not have to do it or so he can understand it better.I would think, as a past Vice President of MITA, that Mr Petriccia would be ashamed and hesitant to request City Staff to do his personal "bidding" or better yet, Vedetta compilation. City Councilors are paid a yearly amount of money. If Mr. Petriccia desires, he can pay someone to do his personal organization and summarizing.Nobody, including Mr. Honig, has any issues with the Public Records requests.But maybe those above are not reading or are not willing to admit the extent of Mr. Petriccia's requests. Ed Issler
26 years on marco: maybe we could get Bill McMullan to provide a background and insight into this type of activity. After aoll, he was indicted and had his Florida Real Estate License revoked for his part in one of the largest and earliest real estate fraud cases, that took place right here on Marco Island.
Let me know when you schedule his speech, I would love to listen.Ed Issler
Old Marco Man: You obviously have no idea about what it takes to run a City. There are areas where we could eliminate some spending, but when you compare our City Budget to other cities with the same size and infrastructure, we are not out of line.
If you have specific suggestions, you are aklways encouraged to present them or send them to City Council for consideration. But remember, there are 18,000 full time residents of which 13000 are registered voters and everyone has a say in how the Island is run. The Council has 7 (seven) members who represent all of us. And one of the three rfecent Council victors was victorious by 185 votes or 93 residents. The Island is not run for your apporval or liking, but rather for all of us.I have sent a money saving suggestion to Council. I suggest that we do not need a Police Chief and a Fire Chief. An island our size could operate with a Director of Public Safety who would oversee both the Police and Fire. Saves a salary and a pension.Ed Issler
DC/Klaus: Your problem has always been that you want to make these blogs personal. That is why Klaus has so many postings that are removed by the Eagle staff. Our Council votes and make up is never a "personal" thing, but rather something that affects all of us.
And as far as Mr. Breeze is concerned, he or she should really take a look at the Deltona Master Plan to convince him or herself as to whether Marco was ever a Retirement Community.Ed Issler
Dear Sayre: Without going into the meaningless diatribe that you constantly present us with, I will tell you that your number of registered voters that voted is totally inaccurate.In fact, if you research the numbers in detail, you would find that over 500 voters did not even vote for City Council due to the fact that the names were on the back of the Ballot.Yes, I agree, stupid. But you need to go to the Supervisor of Elections to get an accurate number.And when you do, you will also see that there were candidates (1) that lost by 184 votes. And while I have already congratulated the victors, as a citizen, and while I acknowledge that the Democratic process has worked, 184 votes is hardly a mandate on the part of our voters,And it is the same Democratic process that allows our seven member Council to vote on issues to determine their impact to the citizens of Marco Island.We can only hope that all of our City Council votes for the betterment of ALL Islanders, I repeat, ALL Islanders, rather than special interests. We have many more families here than we do retirees. We have condo residents (how many I do not know compared to homeowners). We have younger and we have older voters, each looking for different things from our City Council.Once you get the correct number of voters, why don't you print the retraction and correction yourself.HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!Ed Issler
26: By the way, if you still think Marco Island is a retirement community, go to Veteran's Park today, Saturday, 15 December, to look at our community enjoying itself !!!Ed issler
Klaus (Bill McMullan): Thank you for posting soime of my past blogs. They remind me just how objective and factual I have been. But these blogs are not about you and I. These blogs are about issues. Get that through your small little brain.
You know what the Rotary here on Marco should do. They should find the District Attorney in Miami that dropped the fraud charges against Bill McMullan back when. They should have him as a guest speaker to discuss the fraud charges, what Mr. McMullan did and why he dropped the charges.Now that would make for a good meeting/speaker!!! How about it Klaus. Will you attend ???Ed Issler
MrBreeze: What you consider squander many of us consider good planning. If the boat saves one life that the older boat would not have, it is worth it. And I am certain it will save many more lives.Mr. Honig has not let anyone down. He has in fact kept his promise to act to support Marco Island and to assist in moving Marco Island forward.At some point, you are going to have to accept the fact that Marco Island is NOT an exclusive Retirement Community. Retirees are a small portion of those that live here.Ed Issler
dc5799: Read every blog I have written and I think you will find great objectivity on this subject. It is not I who has lost, for the future of Marco island is something that we all share in.As I stated above, there are 7 members on our City Council. That means, as always, that policy will require at least 4 members of Council to agree on a particular issue in order for it to be passed or approved.As long as all discussion on issues takes place in Chambers, I see a very interesting pattern that will develop. We will have to wait and see.The most experienced City Planner/Maanger type on Council right now is Mr. Kiester. And while he and I have differed on some past issues, he certainly has provien that he has the future of Marco Island as his most important priority. He is not working a "Private Agenda" and I do not believe he will be part of anyone's "Agenda".Ed Issler
26: The people of Marco Island have spoken and by a vote of 184 of "us", yes 184 votes, the slate of 3 candidates were victorious. They worked harder than their competitors and they won. They are to be congratulated.
But just like any Democracy, their membership on the Council is 3 out of 7 for most votes. The only leverage these Council memebers have is when the Budget comes up for approval. It is then that the people of Marco (all 13,000 registered voters) will see the real impact of who they have elected.
I believe the Budget requires a super-majority in order to pass (5 out of 7 votes). That is where we will see who supports what.
I do not see the current Council voting against themselves to change past decisions and policies. I anticipate many 4-3 votes on issues.
I also see that Sunshine Law will play a very important role in the near future. It has already been demonstrated that the 3 candidates are discussing issues outside of Chambers. Let us hope that this behavior stops immediately.
And Mr. Honig has started off demonstrating that he is a man of his word and has conducted himself exactly as he stated he would during the campaign. Let us hope that he continues to do so.Ed Issler
Mr Breeze: You really need to look at the plans that Deltona had for this Island. For if you did, you would see much more development, MORE schools, more businesses that what are here already and certainly nothing that resembles a retirement community.I do, however, agree that there is room for all of us to get what we want out of this Island Paradise. I certainly hope that the new Council members always remember that they represent all of us. If not, we can only hope that as a 7 member Council that the majority votes in a manner that represents a vision that moves our Island forward.Ed Issler
So we have all of 15-20 people blogging on the subject, including myself. For the most part, these blogs are just chatter amongst a small group of people. It has always been that way.
There are 7 (seven) members on our City Council. The first vote taken was 4 to 3, with the 3 new members voting as a block on the losing side of an issue. They all voted with the same "technique" which leads me to believe a "pre-discussed" stategy.
One of the 3 candidates won by 184 votes. I would hardly consider that a "Mandate" from the voters, when over 500 voters did not see the back side of the Ballot mand did not vote al all. The only reason I mention this is because in past elections, a majority of the actual voters (the total) had elected the Council members. And while I heartfully congratulate the victorious Council members, only 1, I repeat, 1, of the new members won by a majority of the voting Public. This is NOT "spilled milk", rather a reminder to all members of Council to always fight for and vote for the majority of voters as much as possible. Remember, the Pendulum swings very easily !!!
I would caution the newly elected candidates to be careful about Sunshine Law violations and avoid discussing Council issues amongst themselves outside of Council Chambers.
Most of their supporters are the very same that have brought these violations to light in the past.
I look forward to good discussion and debate from Council and I expect each and every Council member to vote on issues as they each see them, individually.Ed Issler
Come on people, those few of you that blog. This is and was never about "us" (the 20 people that blog) this has been and will always be about our City. And the majority have spoken.
Now let the process begin and let us see how things shape up for our futre. We have seven Council members who we can assume will act responsibly (a definition that is different to many of us).
I certainly expect to hear verbose and burning retorts after the new memebers are seated and the first vote goes 4 to 3 against them. And I am certain that many votes will go 4-3 for issues that the new members want to bring up.
184 votes is hardly a "landslide" as mentioned above. Again, I congratulate the victors and look forward to the Democratic process playing out at Council meetings.Ed Issler
Congratulations to all the victorious candidates that ran for City Council. The voters have spoken and we will see how it all shakes out.
The Democratic process is a great thing. We have 7 members on Council who are responsible, as a group, for deciding the direction and future of Marco Island.
I still look for great things for Marco Island and it's residents, young and old, and count on City Council, as a group, to make the right decisions.
The votes on Council may be 7-0, or 4-3, but we can take pride in the process and in our Island Paradise.
I have always been a proponent for supporting how the majority votes. That applies not only to the election, but to Council, itself.
I certainly hope that everyone celebrating feels the same way and still supports our City Council, even if the vote on an issue is 4-3 opposed to an idea or proposal brought forth by the newly elected "slate". I know I will support Council if the vote is for a suggestion by the newly elected slate. I may not agree with it, but the process works !!Ed Issler
Sparky: Please go to City Hall and read the reports by the Consultants and Engineers that are exoerts in the area of Civics.
As a layman and not an expert, I would guess that the first answer to your question would be in the cost of delivery, maybe. Why does a person living in Orlando pay less to move a truckload of furniture that a person living in California for the same truckload ??
Again, maybe we both should read the reports, but I am not questioning the rate structure. It appears that you areEd Issler
Feels Like: 74°
Feels Like: 65°
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.