User profile: Neutral
Joined: Jan. 30, 2008
Comments posted: 14
Contact Neutral (log-in required)
Comments by Neutral
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on February 1 at 10:15 p.m.
MarcoFacts: Read the post and explain how your response has anything to do with it. The post was about some on your sides expectation that the finacially injured parties are somehow going to wake up forget about this whole thing or pack up and move. Get real. I assure you though that I have read more on the subject than you and a simple septic tank inspection program would have accomplished the same thing, a vacuum system sewer would have cost a fraction of the amount. If you had read my other posts you would know that I am and have always been connected to sewer and that I fully realize and accept that the STRP is a done deal. Face it you and most of your lot went to a presentation or two where you were told that it would cost you a few bucks if the STRP were stopped. You went to the polls chatting about how the world would come to an end if 15% of the island remained unsewered and you voted your wallet neighbors be damned. Now you expect cheerful congratulations from those who have been victimized. Don't be silly. This election and it's consequences have created more anti city government radicals and we will be plagued by the consequences of that for a long long time.
Posted on February 1 at 9:21 p.m.
Avenger: I can help you imagine what the antisewer side would be doing now. We would be consoling Don Farmer and pitching in money to have him surgically attached as a parasitic twin to Bill Moss. Not that it would change much about his life. All of the oppressed had already agreed to contribute 10% of the money they wouldn't have wrenched from their warm live fists and have a 10 million dollar reconciliation bash for the entire island. My friends with septic tanks were planning to go out and weep with joy over the drainfields they thought they had lost. Then we were going to flush the STRP. But as you guys keep reminding us this is will never be. It is over and we are all (40% of the island)going to pack up and leave. Just as soon as our houses sell sometime in the 23rd century or until sea level rises 20 feet whichever comes first.
PS: Mr. Krane: I feel your pain but I ain't buyin the tourist bit. Call me psychic but I'm getting antisewer brethren vibes from you.
Posted on February 1 at 8:36 p.m.
Flowerpower: I don't see any abuse or fingerpointing in this thread. Alot of people have been abused on Marco Island over the past few years but thats not what this thread is about so take your "spoiling for a fight comments" elsewhere because this article and thread are about reconciliation.
To the new council: Flowerpower brings up the past referendum on spreading the cost around which failed. I agree that it was a fair and equitable plan. My personal feeling is that the original referendum was designed to fail. I would suggest reintroducing it as a simple yes/no proposition instead of the confusing way it was presented before, but from my conversations with others about the original referendum it is clear it didn't stand a chance anyway. A sad fact is that most on Marco island want 100% sewer coverage but only if others are paying 100% of the cost. I think any further divisive referendums would only prolong the agony. One thing is obvious from the results of the last referendum, anything that even hints at a change in the spending cap is a non-starter and you can't ask the voters to be fair and equitable if doing so will cost the majority a dime.
Posted on January 31 at 4:19 p.m.
I am posting this comment in hopes that the incoming councilors will check this thread. Many of the anti sewer voters are people to whom the personal financial burden of the STRP is signifigant. My property is sewered but I voted for your opposition because I saw the STRP as a program that would have been politically impossible if the unsewered lots had not been a small minority. I worry about this precedent of targeting a minority because they do not have the numbers to fight back effectively. I doubt if every homeowner who has $35,000 ($20,000 assessment + $15,000 septic system cost) taken from them will get over it. I do believe that any efforts made by the new council to lessen the burden will help. I like most on Marco am a financial conservative. My primary reason for voting against you was that you recieved endorsement from those council members responsible for attempts to circumvent the spending cap in the past. I hope that we have seen the last of these tactics. I love this island and I look forward to the day when it is as relaxing for residents as it is for tourists. I hope that will be within your term.
Posted on January 31 at 3:32 p.m.
Montel: I would hope that these threads could be used for polite debate. You and the rest of the "pack up and leave" people should consider that the current rate of home sales it would take a more than a millenium for the 40% island that voted anti sewer to "pack up and leave". We are all stuck here together and we should try to get along. Remember only 15% of the island remains to be sewered yet 40% voted anti sewer. Why do you suppose all of those sewered people voted anti sewer when they were told it would cost them money to stop the STRP. It is because some of us saw beyond the STRP issue, which everyone knows is now a done deal. I hope the incoming council will do a better job of managing the island than the past has. If not the 40% that voted against them will remain a solid block while most of the other 60% will vote their wallet and it will only take a 10% swing to oust them next election. So chill out. Work off that energy praying that you are not in the next minority this hungry beaurocracy feeds off for it's expansion.
Posted on January 31 at 2:22 p.m.
Ingosolee: Your representation of Marco Islands financial condition as excellent makes all of last years attempts at getting around the budget cap look very interesting to put it nicely. Can you explain what those efforts were about?
Posted on January 30 at 9:29 p.m.
Marcogap: I was under the impression that this was not an option but thanks for the heads up I will look into it.
rlegan: I don't agree with the scorched earth tactics of the radicals on the anti sewer side. But I never cease to be amazed at the insensitivity of your type. When a minority has been forced to cough up 100 million dollars for something they didn't need they are likely to be angry and likely to fight back. To the people being assessed for $20,000 each to replace the septic system they paid $15,000 to install, legal bills that amount to a few bucks per tax payer mean very little. Hope and pray that you are not in the next minority group that the city beaurocracy decides to fleece to feed it's ravenous appetite. Anyone asstute in political history knows that buearocracies become self justifying bodies whose primary purpose becomes to grow themselves. This one is a classic case. If our new city council does not get a grip on it quick insolvency will come before the end of their term.
Posted on January 30 at 7:59 p.m.
This election was about $. On the anti sewer side voters reacted to being forced to pay $20k for what they didn't need while destroying septic systems they had already paid $15k for. On the pro sewer side voters were told that stopping the strp would cost them money. Without this issue to divide homeowners on this island the election would have been about financial responsibility and taking the direction of this island back from special interest groups. I for one am hopeful that other than their position on the STRP the new councilmen will prove to be financially responsible and represent the island residents. I believe that most voters on this island are financial conservatives like myself. We must insist that the spending cap be respected and that includes using the city owned utilities to get around it. If the new council continues the spending spree and continues to look for ways to bust the spending cap, the next election will be very different without the STRP to divide homeowners. Peace.
Posted on January 30 at 4:18 p.m.
Avenger: Thank you for keeping it civil. I am not refering to water usage charges. I realize that reuse water is a complicated issue and that there is no way it can be extended to every house. I own a house that is already on sewer and I am charged for sewer usage based on the amount of water I use even though most of it does not go in the sewer. We pay for the water on the way in we should only have to pay on the way out for what actually goes in the sewer.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on February 2 at 6:28 p.m.
Avenger: You got me there. You must be the psychic. What was it about my post that clued you in to the fact that I was being facetious? Probably the parasitic twin stuff. I should have known that was a little over the top. Your right about me staying put. This is the absolute best place on earth even with the our wacky local politics. I've carefully examined my post and I can't find anything derogatory about our beloved ex city manager so I'm not sure why you wrote such a touching defense for him. But in the spirit of Jeopardy I will follow your defense with a little commentary so it at least appears you weren't ranting to yourself. I thought Mr. Moss was a capable administrator perhaps even an excellent one. I will also admit that the job of Marco City manager is not one I would want. The pay certainly doesn't compensate for the aggravation. Perhaps that is why he lost his mind and resorted to suggesting the city sue residents who signed a petition for what it cost the city. That's like expecting those who support the STRP to pay for it. We both know that ain't happenin. I was amazed at how little uproar there was over that outrageous attempt at voter intimidation. I could go on and on but I won't because frankly I was never an advocate for him leaving. Considering the ballooning beaurocracy on Marco Island the pay to manage it is pathetic and Naples is even worse. My opinion is that the structure of our city government is disfunctional and put Mr. Moss in the position of making politically sensitive decisions. In that department he wasn't too savy. What we need is a well compensated manager who answers to a full time elected mayor with a city council for checks and balances. That's how big cities are run and if you don't consider Marco a big city, take a look at the budget.
On The Farmer File: A manager of two cities? Why not?