1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on September 18 at 1:21 p.m.

Just so happens I got the results of a MICA survey in the mail yesterday which included the results of what the MICA members think of the performance of the city manager. Here are the results:

Excellent: 262
Good: 723
Fair: 518
Poor: 687

Looks like the majority give him a below-average rating, but a signficant minority think he is doing a decent job. In case you are wondering, the City Council received similar marks, while the Fire Department and the Police Department received VERY high marks.

Again, this survey was only of the members of MICA.

On Marco city manager gets high marks from council

0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on July 11 at 2:21 p.m.

Ed,

I am afraid you are wrong about the first petition. The usage of "may" there was to "give permission", as in "You may have a piece of cake." This doesn't require you to have a piece of cake, it gives you permission. If it said "You shall have a piece of cake" (BTW - "Shall" is the word to use for a legal obligation, not "must"), there is no choice in whether or not you get a piece of cake, you get it whether you want it or not. Your suggestion in the response to a previous article on this subject that they should have used "must" instead of "may" and make it a requirement, would have resulted in requiring any political action committee with at least 5 directors to circulate a petition to add a referendum. That would be just silly.

In any case, there should be nothing to prevent this referendum from going forward now, since the lack of 5 directors was the only thing the council identified as not in compliance with the city charter. If the council comes up with something new, then you really have something to complain about.

On POP gets signatures certified for referendum

3 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on June 27 at 1:03 p.m.

Quoted from above:

"Not too smart of the voters who voted no! We still have to pay for the sewers, but we don't get a tax deduction for doing so. Utility costs are not deductible, but real estate taxes are on you income tax return."

This is not quite true. Any owners who have their Marco Island property set up as rental property will also be able to deduct utility costs. The people who lose out on the tax deductions now are the ones who actually live in the home they own in Marco, either part or full time.

On Marco referendum: Pay for sewers with utility rates, not taxes, voters say

7 of 9 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on January 30 at 1:26 p.m.

I am afraid I have been comming to the island as a "Resort Destination" for the last 20 years. And many of the people I work with in Minnesota who know Marco Island, also think of it that way. The big draws are the large (and pretty secluded) beach, the warm weather, and the laid-back atmosphere, and the fishing. We, and the people I know that travel down there for vacation, specifically do NOT want amusement parts or the like.

Anyway, my point is that people from outside of Florida really do think if it as a place to go for a relaxing vacation, and that the travel agents also push it as such.

And we liked Marco so much we bought land on Macro 10 years back, which is why I keep tabs on what is going on down there via maconews.com.

On Letter: 'Resort destination’ doesn’t seem to fit