Comments by maharg

Written on Behind closed doors, part II: Anchoring case enters the sunshine:

The Marco City Attorney at the time the anchoring ordinance was being formulated by the city's Waterways Advisory Comm. was Rich Yovanovich. Despite requests by members of the committee for legal guidance, his counsel was kept from the committee by City Manager Moss. I guess Moss didn't want any embarrassing questions and answers on record about the constitutionality of the ordinance. Make no mistake about it; Moss was the driving force behind this ordinance. He even had Police Chief Reinke craft much of the ordinance. Reinke testified under oath at the Court Hearing that he did not contact anyone at the State level about the the ordinance. Doesn't that sound odd when there was a chorus of voices protesting that the proposed ordinance was unconstitutional. They ALL!!!! knew the ordinance was faulty and knew how hard it would be for the ordinance to be challenged in court. But thankfully, they were stupid enough to issue a ticket to Dumas which got the issue to court. These sorry excuses for city officials and legislators did the bidding for a wealthy private citizen and even tried to get him to pay for the prosecution of another citizen.

Written on POLLS/PHOTOS: Private council meeting scheduled for anchoring case :

When this all ends, the minutes from all "in the shade" meetings must be made public. They should be very interesting. Unfortunately the principals, Moss, Reinke and Yovanovich and several council members have already left.

Written on VIDEO/POLL: Marco’s anchoring ordinance drifting away? :

We should not forget that Marco's anchoring ordinance was strongly rejected by a Collier Count Court on the basis of the OLD state statute, let alone the new one. Marco never asked for an opinion from the Florida Attorney Generals office or from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for an opinion on the legality of the ordinance despite many protestations that it was illegal. Marco and it's officials were arrogant and incompetent!

Written on Marco Island appeals to higher court on city's anchor ordinance dismissal:

A government spurned by it's own courts is a sorry spectacle. The State of Florida and it's courts does not like it's laws violated whether by individuals or local governments. A crime was committed here, not by Dumas but by the government of Marco Island. All in an effort to privatize state waters for the benefit of a few wealthy citizens.
The appellate court ruled that all judicial deliberation was complete on Oct. 25, 2007 and the city's attorneys have egg on their faces for failing to meet the appeal filing deadline.
I do agree with Mr. Gabriel that if the appeal was heard, this case would be over; lost by the city.

Written on Will Hideaway flush county funds? :

Years ago Hideaway hired guards to chase boaters off the beach claiming it was "River front property with riparian rights". I guess they didn't need more sand and rocks then.

Written on Controversies, challenges continue in Marco’s study of electric utility takeover :

I would like the management of LCEC to takeover Marco Island government.

Written on Marco councilor rejects committee member’s allegations of impropriety:

Bill McMullan was one of the co-chairmen of the Marco Waterways Org. which bamboozled the council into passing the now defunct anchoring ordinance. The city spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to defend that in court and lost. He waved enormous piles of paper around during that folly also. He should take up a hobby other than community activist.

Written on Marriage amendment (man and woman) prompts rally in Collier, south Lee:

Terri Shiavo, stem cell research ban etc.; look for more of this religious intrusion if you vote for McCain/Palin.

Written on Marco to loan Hideaway Beach $1.6 million:

When Hideaway opened years ago, they hired guards to patrol the beach and chase non-residents away, even boaters. They claimed riparian rights along a "river front". In fact the nautical charts of the area just off shore of Hideaway say "Area subject to continual change". Things change in many ways.

Written on Marco to revise permissible dock sizes:

I've got a 41' boat tied alongside a 40' dock. The dock is 5' wide as are most of the original docks. This works fine and violates no codes. What is the concern if the docks and boats don't extend further than 20' into the canal? The length of the dock along the seawall should not be of any concern other than the setback requirements. I could safely put a 50' boat alongside my 40' dock.

Features