Why did the City Council Turn down the Preserve Our Paradise Petition?

This is the rest of the story regarding the article submitted by Chairwoman Terri DiSciullo to the Eagle dated 8/24/06 titled: Guest commentary: Why the City Council turned down the Preserve Our Paradise petition. In an effort to verify the Council’s “informed decision” to reject a petition signed by more than 1,400 registered voters of Marco Island, I examined the City Charter and Florida Statutes referred to by the author.

Any one interested in verifying what I say here should read the City Charter as it relates to paragraphs 6.01(1) (the paragraph under which the petition was submitted) and 6.01(2) (the paragraph under which the City Attorney advised the Council that the petitioners violated certain provisions. I am not an attorney. However, I can read and my understanding of the two paragraphs lead me to a different perspective on their intent than that held by Ms. DiSciullo and the City Council.

Paragraph 6.01(1) states “Ten percent (10%) of the qualified electors of the city shall have the power to petition the council …” This is the paragraph under which the petitioners initiated their petition. Ten percent of qualified electors did in fact submit a petition to the City Council in compliance with paragraph 6.01(1) of the City Charter, and therefore it appears the Petitioners were in substantial compliance to this paragraph.

Ms. DiSciullo claimed the decision was based on the City attorney’s advice that the petition had failed to meet the requirements of the charter i.e. Section 6.01(2). A reading of this paragraph reveals that its purpose is to offer direction on how to petition. It offers the following guidance and fails to impose any qualifying activity to make a petition: “A minimum of five (5) electors may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city manager or other designated official, and affidavit stating they will constitute the petitioners committee…” It does not state “will” or “shall” or even “must”. By using the word “may” the obvious intent is to permit a contingency and therefore implicitly defers to the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 6.01(1) above, which are declarative in purpose. A reading of 6.01(2) clearly shows that its purpose is instructive and not mandatory.

It appears the City Attorney may have inappropriately advised the City Council on the Petitioners omissions as pertains to Section 6.01(2) and again when he “emphasized” that the petition had failed to meet the requirements of the charter. It also appears the City Council failed to perform due diligence by not seeking out a second opinion. It is clear that the Council wanted to reject the petition as Ms. DiSciullo admits in the article and it seems they were thrown a lifeline by the City Attorney. Unfortunately, close examination reveals the line is flawed. Finally, Ms. DiSciullo states that the City Council determined that the charter provisions be followed exactly as written and adopted by the Marco Island electorate. I suggest that the City Council perform their duty, revisit their decision and comply with this statement. The Council should comply with paragraph 605(1) of the Charter and address the sufficiency of the petition in compliance with F.S. 166.031 or they will disenfranchise the voters and cause harm to our election process.

Byron Erickson

Progress – Backwards

A present-day cultural icon once said in his native tongue “Para atrás, ni para coger impulso!” – which for the benefit of the seven people in Florida that don’t speak Spanish, the infamous saying translates to “Backwards, not even to gain momentum!”

The Argentinean doctor’s 40 year old saying, in a misanthropic sense applies to Marco Island. But as another, though honest icon, once wrote, how “curiouser and curiouser!” it is as we progress backwards.

Congratulations and much appreciation to council members Ms. DiSciullo, Mr. Kiester and Mr. Forcht for voting against continuing the sewer project.

As to the rest of the Sanhedrin, you may want give at least a semblance of being informed, lest you look any dumber – not the citizens of course as that image is irreparable, but to the other interests you serve.

Here are the facts, yet again, for you curious four:

• There is no study of any kind that connects any septic tank to any form of pollution invading or otherwise affecting anything. This author, after reviewing every report provided by the city, will attest to that fact. Did you miss a report? The email from Mr. Moss stating unequivocally that there is no such study suffices. Check out the report yourselves.
• The sewage processing plant handling paradise has had spills. Ergo, they – the government – have in fact harmed the environment. This fact has been documented on this site and by the state of Florida.
• Sewage treatment plant spills in other paradises like California and Washington have increased many times over this year as compared to last – as also reported on these pages.
• Every citizen, visitor, tourist, part time resident, full time resident, Cuban that was just dropped off on Residents Beach by human smugglers, illegal alien, worker, weekend over-60 Harley enthusiast and coyote (you know, the ones playing golf on the Marco Island golf course) will benefit from, or be adversely impacted by the sewage treatment plant.

So, let’s keep making multi-million dollar decisions with serious health consequences based on misinformation.

And then onto POP. With history to guide us, as provided by some members of the city council and by nearly all of the “staff”, could this fine organization not have anticipated what happened?

When people and governments act in good faith, the intent is what counts. Those who seek the perennial advice of lawyers seldom act with good intentions. Knowing how some of the council acted and said when it came to this initiative, POP should have entered into this endeavor only after covering all of their bases. POP must have known after months of contention and personal insults that the government would go to any length to block the initiative. Read: block what the voters want. In this case, until POP reviews its legal options, the reason for the defeat appears to be a requirement by statute. The long-distance response by POP is that it just isn’t so. So once again we are left to wonder. Which begs another question – why wasn’t the senior representation of POP at the city council meeting representing their/our interest when this matter was being debated?

A suggestion to the council: listen to your voters and in the rare case when the informed majority is “wrong”, don’t alienate them. [Yes citizens, sometimes the majority in the American democracy are wrong, as in dead wrong – like slavery, legalized discrimination of women and blacks, infanticide, the House Un-American Activities Committee, etc..]You were not voted into a body which forms a representative form of government to do what businesses want or to act on what you guess is correct. Federal representation is where we entrust our representatives to make judgment calls and to do what they think is best, since there are many issues for which we can not opine intelligently since do not have access to certain information (e.g., military secrets). But at a city level, where there is a sunshine law? If you do what the majority want, and that majority is just as informed as you are, then there would be less contention, less lawsuits, and more leeway. And democracy would actually work well.

More Bad News for the Citizens on Sewer Systems

As this medium has been attempting to have our elected officials reconsider their decision to go ahead with sewers, we once again bring to their attention how - for the most part - beuracratic control of processing sewage is not what they have been promissed or have promissed us.

Since us citizens are the ones that have to suffer the long term consequences of today's actions, we raise to the level of liability the health and economic impact when these processing plants fail. And notice that its not if they will fail, but when.

This gem from the August 4, 2006 New York Times:Washington is the second most environmentally regulated state in the country - second only to California - which as has already been reported in these pages, has the most polluted beaches from sewage.

It is once again urged that consideration must be given to the liability when these plants fail. It is not too late to reconsider.

Once again it is proven that it is folly to take the word of the EPA and the myriad governmental departments when they attest to the adequacy of the treatment plant and related systems. As one can clearly see, it is meaningless. Don't believe it? Ask the folks in California and Oregon and Washington.

With many on the council making their only priority anything that is good for business is good for Marco Island, consider how good business will be when the beaches start closing due to sewage contamination. If you think that the real estate cabal on the island can't sell now because of hurricanes and interest rates, watch them sell when the daily paper has a section right under the tide schedule showing which areas of the beach are closed. (Fiction you think? Pick up a copy of the San Diego Union Tribune).

Can we please reconsider this sewer deal? For the sake of Marco Island's economic health and more importantly, for the sake of our own health?

Sellout Redux

Is it a hotel wanting to become a timeshare, or a condo wanting to become a hotel? Or vice versa? Would the new facility change density from 16 units per acre to 26 units per acre? Is the 7% that is supposed to be reserved for rentals (a.k.a. transients) – is that annualized or is it monthly? And does anyone know how such a restriction will be monitored? Better still, does anyone know how it will be calculated? And if the corporate entity that owns whatever it is that is being put up is found to be in violation of this section of the ordinance, does anyone know what the penalty is?

You know what, in Marco Island, answers are not needed, clarifications are not essential, specificity as to enforcement is inconsequential, and living up to the promises that density will be reduced is for not. Marco Island is for sale to corporate America at any price under any terms. So the Enron’s of the world, come on down to Marco Island because what you want is what you’ll get.

These where not only the questions but the issues and dilemmas and contradictions and concerns that still existed up until the very moment that the city council voted on an ordinance to amend the land development code for the RT district. As expected, an ordinance totally opposed by the citizens and supported solely by a corporation and its hired “professionals” passes.

Praises to council members Kiester, Trotter and Forcht for voting NO, and politely opposing yet another sell out. Thank you. But what we need is a trio of Patton’s (perhaps a Patton, a Sherman and a Salah al-Din) – enough of the political niceties since it leads the community nowhere.

What a ...

• A citizen gets up to oppose the ordinance, and in his own way suggests that the city is giving up too much. His recompense? The Marriott’s slug lawyer berates and ridicules him. How appropriate.
• Absolutely not one person can define in any terms what density is or how it’s gauged. The “STAFF” backpedals on the issue and even one council member calls it “voodoo”. But yet, the ordinance which will affect density, passes.
• The Marriott VP proclaims that the 7% rental availability (whatever it means to whomever) is difficult to manage but not impossible. But if the 7% is per month as opposed to it being annualized (as the corporate god wants), then it’s impossible to manage. Excuse me? We all know that corporations will say anything, but are the folks that were in favor of this resolution really that stupid to believe such a claim? Or is it that they just don’t care?
• An eloquent and professional appeal by the president of MICA is put forth. During the short speech this author happens to look at Councilman Tucker. He is playing with his cell phone.
• Nearly every time the staff was asked a question, they quoted the Marriott. Doesn’t the staff do their own independent research? Here is a novel idea, since the city gives everything to any business that asks for it anyway, let’s fire the staff and just call the businesses for answers.

This author privately asked a prominent city person that has been deeply involved in this issue since day one a question: “Except to the Marriott, what is the benefit to Marco Island and the community from this deal?” The answer: “Absolutely none.” As a lay observer, that is the impression – there is no benefit – though the detriment to the confidence of the citizens who in near unanimity opposed this deal is appreciable.

A suggestion: let’s not address and certainly not pass any ordinance without every element fully understood and all reasonable ramifications explored. We can only hope.

Pictures: The Marriott Trio.

Marco Island Bridges

WOW---over 900 Marcoites have taken the Survey and 98% recommend an "In-kind" replacement!!! This is a tremendous response--particularly when most folks are off the Island this time of year!! Would be great if it were the Marco 1,000!!!! Please forward this e-mail to all your neighbors, friends, etc. Keep up the good fight--we will prevail!!

Marco Bridge Supporters---You'll Love This!!! Not only are your voices being heard------your voices are bringing the Coast Guard to a standstill!!!!!

A message was left on my answering machine on Friday, August 4, 2006 by the US Coast Guard Legal Office. Message asked me to contact them "to discuss an issue they were having with the Marco Bridge Project and the Marco Bridges Website!! I contacted the Coast Guard Legal Office in Miami today per their request and they asked me "if I would consider sending the Surveys from our Website to a different e-mail address (instead of Mr. Shapley, District Mgr Bridges, and Mr. Overton, Marco Project Mgr) because our Survey's were clogging their e-mail system---and a serious problem if they were out of the office and opened their mail on their Treo hand-held PDA's.

I told them I would look into it and see what I can do!!!!! (May take me a few days----important to make a lasting impression!)
Keep spreading the word to all to visit www.marcobridges.com and take the Survey! Marcoites can take care of Marco--our Paradise!!!!

The Public Works Director, Mr. Joel has indicated the City will submit it's formal permit request to the Coast Guard today Aug 7,2006 or tommorrow!! The Coast Guard has 30 days to review and approve or request additional information.

With the great response to our Survey, I can now engage the U.S. Coast Guard and our local State\Federal elected officials directly via letter\e-mail correspondence. I will keep all supporters informed of all correspondence sent and all responses received back.

Again, thanks for your support. I welcome any and all comments, suggestions, etc at info@marcobridges.com or (239) 394-4348.

Bill McMullan
USAF Retired

News?

Yes, There Are Animals
Bizarrely making the headlines in what passes as a newspaper in a dying industry (see latest stats below under SOURCE), is this story of amazement (to some) about how a coyote has been visiting a golf course.

Notwithstanding the blessing to the environment in particular and to rational people in general, if coyotes and wolfs and chupacabras terrorized every golf course in the world into oblivion, is there any wonder as to why an animal would be anywhere? Certainly animals are not (yet) bound to zoning ordinances, although our animals will soon be forced to hook into the city’s sewer system from their dens and burrows and nests and warrens if they want to continue to live on Marco Island.

So as to further perplex the soul, the same folks that are amazed about one coyote are even more aghast that ANOTHER coyote has showed up. Which of course no one saw, but was identified as such via their … paw prints. You really can’t make this up.

Well, as an effort to educate the public, this blog strives to be based on science. So here is a 4th grade-level short class on those things that bark and howl: coyotes (Canis latrans) are members of the Canidae genre of mammals – basically they are dogs. And like all dog species and Nazi U-boats of the Kriegmmarine, they live in packs, hunt in packs, and play golf in packs. “Packs” means that there are more than one. So, when you see one, rest assured there are others.

Next week’s newspaper headline: “Third Coyote Terrorizes Golf Course”. And ad nausea until the total number in the pack is exhausted – or until fictional news appears, such as Israel is bombing the Hezbolians into oblivion, or one of the two only remaining 20th century murderous dictators may be on his death bed.

Conspiracy
Was there asbestos at the site? Was it just a misstatement by a city official? Were the tests forged? Were the pipes crushed, pulverized or just removed? Watergate revisited? Or should we call it Asbestosgate?

Experts and those with first hand knowledge of the incident are invited to submit to this blog their input.

In the meantime, we trust that the documents are not sealed until 2062 (a la the Kennedy assassination papers).

It Sinks – Again
This past Saturday entreated us to yet another sinking of the crane that is working on a Mac-Mansion next to the west Winterberry bridge. No, No, don’t panic – it’s the WEST Winterberry bridge (raising the EAST Winterberry bridge to the height of the San Francisco bridge will commence soon after 99.9999% of the Marco Island citizens vote against raising it).

We have to feel sorry for those fine folks that run the crane and are just doing their business. It must have been a tsunami that sunk the crane – again.

Speaking of tsunamis, did the city go to the second sinking and check the environment? Did any fuel or oil or some other toxin spill into the water? Uhm …

Source:
USA Today, June 5,2006: Newspapers offered a mixed story Monday as new data showed a circulation decline industry wide — by alarming rates at some. Average weekday circulation fell 2.5%, to 45.4 million, in the six months ending March 31, vs. the same period last year, according to a Newspaper Association of America (NAA) analysis of Audit Bureau of Circulations data from 770 dailies. Sunday circulation fell 3.1% to 48.5 million at 610 reporting newspapers. The numbers reflect a continuation of a trend that began in the 1980.