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.