On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Friday, March 30, 2007

Yes or No - STRP Referendum

CBS-WINK News March 30, 2007 segment where the initiative for a referendum for a direct citizen vote - YES or NO on the STRP - is discussed by the City's founders.

This is an initiative to let the citizens of Marco Island directly vote on the STRP.

(please turn up your speakers)

The reporter highlights comments by the present city attorney leading us to believe that the referendum can reach the voters barring maneuvering by the city management.

Finally - a chance to allow the citizens of Marco Island to vote on a $137,000,000 PLUS project that will impact their quality of life for many years. Democracy in action - a citizen initiative.

Email this video with your comments to the council. Click the envelope below and paste the following email addresses when prompted.



  • the predictable cynical response:

    From: Bill Moss [mailto:bmoss@cityofmarcoisland.com]
    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:02 PM
    To: mminozzi@comcast.net; friartuck3725@cs.com; terridisciullo@comcast.net; WdTrotter@earthlink.net; Rob@popoffs.com; councilmanforcht@comcast.net; CharlesKiester@comcast.net
    Cc: Bill Harrison; Rony Joel; Mike Murphy; Roger Reinke; Laura Litzan; Dana Souza; Jake Rohrich; Bruce Weinstein; Barbara Lawrence; Bryan Milk; Lisa Douglass; ryovanovich@gcjlaw.com; gurbancic@gcjlaw.com
    Subject: Initiative Petition

    Dear Councilors:

    Yesterday the City Clerk received a petition to request the Marco Island City Council stop the septic tank replacement program, signed by five citizens as the Petitioner's Committee responsible for circulating and filing forms to commence referendum proceedings for a proposed city ordinance. The subject petition was reported in today's edition of the Marco Island Eagle.

    This morning I read the submittal and reviewed the provisions of Section 6 of the City Charter, and I have received several phone calls asking questions.

    While I may defer to the City Attorney, it appears the petition does not meet the requirement of the City Charter and is therefore unlawful. The first paragraph of Section 6.01 provides:

    Ten percent (10%) of the qualified electors of the city shall have the power to petition council to propose an ordinance or to require reconsideration of an adopted ordinance, provided that such power shall not extend to the budget or capital program or to any ordinances related to appropriations of money, levy of taxes, or salaries of city officers or employees, but shall extend to an ordinance providing any single capital expenditure in excess of $250,000.

    As such, the Septic Tank Replacement Program cannot be the subject of an Initiative.

    The City Attorney is reviewing this matter and should soon render an opinion.

    From a piratical standpoint, the citizens of Marco Island have addressed the referendum question through their elected City Council. In April of last year City Council debated whether to subject the STRP to a referendum and declined to do so.

    We will keep you advised.

    Bill Moss
    City Manager

    By Blogger Dr. Mario, at Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:39:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Help Another One Leave

The City Chief of Police is a finalist to become the next police chief for the City of Tallahassee.

This blog strongly encourages the citizens of Marco Island to help him get that job - for our sake.

Email your strong letters of recommendation to Ms. Jeanne Kimball at kimballj@talgov.com - she is a human resources person for the City of Tallahassee and is the one designated to receive and review such letters of recommendation.

Be strong, be encouraging (don't mention anything about the now 6-month old asbestos "investigation") and mention what a great asset he will be to the City of Tallahassee.

So, let's be community minded and help yet another instrument to the current state of affairs leave the ship.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Conspiracy Theory

We all love them. Some of us actually believe a few of them, and some of us are just amazed at how many exist - even for things that were demonstrated to have clear explanations centuries ago. Some conspiracy theories can be dismissed quite easily, like the one about how vapor trails from high flying jets are really not vapor but a mind-controlling gas.

However, other conspiracy theories stay with us seemingly forever because in part there is more than a ring of truth and because we can't seem to come up with an alternative theory based on what we know. The theories that linger the most relate to the JFK assassination.

It is reasonable to expect the groundswell of public suspicion created entirely by the government's refusal to make public all of the information relating to the assassination. Over time the suspicions took on a life of their own leading inevitably to a plethora of conspiracy theories that persist to this day. In fact, a 2004 poll by ABC News found that 70% of Americans believe that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a plot and not of a lone gunman. [1]

Why? Simply because the government's refusal to tell the truth and refusal to be forthcoming with all of the facts - good or bad. In this case, as with all other fuels for conspiracy theories, potentially benign facts were occluded. And then when they did emerge clearly, people asked the logical question "Well if it was benign, why weren't we told?" The better question is always "Why does our government at all levels think that the public is too stupid to handle the truth?"

Here is a perfectly good example from the same Kennedy assassination. There were several shadowy figures on the grassy knoll across from the book depository. These people more than likely had absolutely nothing to do with anything directly or indirectly related to the assassination. But because of how this fact was handled (the details are beyond the scope of this article), perfectly innocent bystanders were transmogrified into Cuban expatriates hired by the CIA to assassinate JFK as recompense for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (note: this author has a rock-solid alibi.)

Nature abhors a vacuum. So right or wrong, it is human nature to fill the void when those entrusted with our rights violate those rights and feed us lies or nothing or both. Hence the void is filled with that with which we imagine or conjure or rationalize as a means to put things in perspective. Analogously, other scholars believe that by virtue of creating conspiracy theories we participate in the political process because they are after all a form of popular political interpretations of the zeitgeist. [2]

Now let's not confuse conspiracy theories with stupid pet tricks. There is a world of difference.

A conspiracy theory is based on some fact that, devoid of additional facts by which a rational person can draw a reasonable conclusion, people with active imaginations fill the logic void and come up with all sorts of things. For example, an alien ship crashed near Roswell New Mexico is a bonafide conspiracy theory: something did crash (a fact) but officials were not forthcoming with any credible information as to what really did occur until it was forced out of them decades later, by which time all sort of wild theories had emerged (and a pretty good tourist trap too!).

A stupid pet trick on the other hand is just a supposition that has no basis in fact or reason. It is put forth simply because the proponents are abject morons or are put forth for malicious reasons. For example, the public proclamation by city "officials" that asbestos was planted by citizens is a stupid pet trick.

Get the difference?

So lets start our own local conspiracy theory as to why the City Enabler (euphemistically referred to as the "City Attorney") will be leaving for good:
  • He knows the indictments are coming
  • Saw his video intimidating the voters and seemed to recall some obscure law he sort of heard about in law school about voting rights act or something like that and isn't sure if it applies to "those people" or to regular Americans
  • An eight year old explained to him that $137,000,000 is more than $250,000 hence the STRP financing scheme of the week is no different than all of the other financing schemes and all of them violate the city's charter
  • His law firm does not want any law business or any more money
  • He started drawing parallels to Tom Hagen
  • Somebody explained to him that the Sunshine Law seminar he gave pretty much indicted everyone in the room
  • He read the section of best seller "Felonies for Dummies" where it indicates that not reporting a felony is in itself a crime
  • He forgot to read the CARES settlement agreement before he approved the Quality Enterprise asbestos sweetheart deal
  • Got fired for writing a good opinion but that is contrary to the city manager's belief of what America is about ... as evidenced in this email:
    • Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:53:01 AM
      From: "Richard Yovanovich"
      Subject: RE: Re: Fwd: Park rules
      To: Bill Moss
      "Greg Urbancic"


      Prohibiting this will be a problem in my opinion. Placing restrictions on
      political speech is not favored. Public parks have been historically viewed as
      appropriate locations to allow political speech to occur. As long as the
      public's ability to use the park is not unreasonably interfered with, the City
      should allow this activity to occur.

    • ------------------------------------
  • This one is self explanatory (although if you want a good laugh, read the response - it can be found in the Search City Emails! link on this blog)
    • From: Charles Kiester [mailto:charleskiester@comcast.net]
      Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:18 PM
      To: Bill Moss; Rob@popoffs.com; Councilmanforcht@comcast.net;
      friartuck3725@cs.com; wdtrotter@earthlink.net; mminozzi@comcast.net;
      Cc: ekbania@marcoeagle.com; Greg Urbancic; Richard Yovanovich
      Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor--Legal fees


      I no longer have any confidence in either you or our city attorney being
      straight with me given both of your performances Monday evening. Based on
      Councilman Tucker's email letter which threatens big-time expenses that will be
      charged to the city makes me even more determined to bring this issue to the
      next agenda, and to the public's attention.

      I really have no desire to increase the city's liability if what I stated in my
      letter to the editor would do so; however, I cannot conceive that it could hurt
      the city in any way.

      Chuck Kiester
    • ---------------------------
So here you have it: Some facts, some opinions, a big void and, sans a complete and truthful explanation from the city governance, everything required to start our own home grown Marco Island conspiracy theories as to why the City Enabler will not be enabling much longer.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/JFK_poll_031116.html
Secrecy and Power in American Culture by Mark Fenster


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Monday, March 26, 2007

The Fleecing of Marco Island

Agenda Item 7(B) passed at the march 19th City Council Meeting is what Mr. Moss hopes will be the final chapter in the Quality Enterprises Asbestos Debacle, but ultimately that will be up to all Marco Islanders. If we all sit back and allow this deal to go forward here are the consequences:

Under the Court Ordered Mediation Settlement Agreement ending the CARES lawsuit, the City agreed to demand and pursue the recovery of taxpayer dollars spent on cleaning up the asbestos on Site A & C of the Glon Property from Quality Enterprises. They also agreed to enforce certain sections of the contract with QE for the South Collier Project that would assure Marco Islanders that those responsible for contaminating our Island paid to clean it up, not the taxpayers.

In this latest attempt to shield QE from any financial responsibility this contract states “The City agrees that any and all claims against Quality associated with any expenses incurred by the City for remediation at Site A and C are satisfied, contingent upon Quality’s satisfactory performance of the activities provided in the contract” The “Contract” referred to provides the following:

Quality will pay nothing to the City to reimburse taxpayers for monies spent to date relating to the asbestos problem, over $250,000 of our tax dollars. Quality will haul the debris pile, they contaminated with asbestos, from Site A to the Collier County Landfill and charge the cost of that, estimated to be $650,000, to the City of Marco Island’s account.

The City of Marco Island already has credits in their account for materials removed from the Island relating to the North Collier Project, and will allow more material, our property, to be taken from the Island under the STRP FY-07 Contract and the value of that material will be used to offset the cost to dispose of the debris pile from Site A.

So in essence this new contract gives Quality Enterprises $900,000 taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess they made on our Island. The City will tell you that there are offsetting values we are receiving from Quality in return such as $500,000 in Cost Avoidance to provide a staging area in lieu of Site A, and $180,000 to place limestone on a future tank site, but what they aren’t saying is that these are specious arguments as there is nothing in the existing contracts that give Quality the right to charge the City for these items in the first place.

So the only question we must ask at this point is just who’s best interests are served by this latest deal between The City and QE? And it just might be time for citizens to ask our Councilors why they approved this deal?

by Butch Neylon


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Not A Therefore B So Best is S

The City of Marco Island has promulgated a "new" plan by which to finance the ill-fated STRP. This plan, detailed in a proposed referendum and known colloquially as "Plan A" sets forth a financing option to the $135,000,000 project appreciably different than the original finance scheme. Of the many curious features, the "new" Plan A adds nearly $12,000,000 to the overall total with absolutely no substantiation for such an increase. The new plan requires all 5,835 STRP victims to fork over $10,000, plus an increase in taxes to all residents will raise $88,600,00 - for a new total of $146,950,000 or nearly $12,000,000 more.

There are two facets of Plan A that are objectionable. One is the financing and the other is the obscure and misleading ploy that it is attempting to accomplish.

Those of you believing that Plan A's finance scheme is better because it saves you - personally - money, you may want to look again. So as to not torture the readers that can parse a bit of 8th grade arithmetic and have therefore seen through the "fairness" claim, we leave the rest of you to crank out the calculator or seek guidance from a middle school arithmetic teacher. Hence we will forgo delineating the financing and focus on the bigger issue.

Present in Plan A is an intentional or inadvertent obscure and misleading ploy that will give the present city governance the absolution for having started the STRP illegally in the first place. Here is the hustle;

All citizens of Marco Island, with the exception of the Citizens Acquiescing to City Abuses, know that the STRP should have been put before the voters prior to starting. Without the voters' approval, the present city governance violated the spending cap. This requirement is in the city's charter. But for whatever reason, some of which are becoming evident in the cache of emails recently made public, the city did not. Now, with the city facing yet another legal challenge for yet another transgression and staring down yet another swell of citizen rancor, it is trying to make it look like the voters voted for the STRP without them having really voted for it.

Consider the following language, quoted verbatim from the
proposed resolution

Section 3. Alternate Septic Tank Replacement Program Policy. If a
majority of the electorate votes “No” for either the City Charter Amendment or
the Bond Referendum, the financing policy of the City Council for the Septic
Tank Replacement Program shall be as follows:
The Program shall be financed through the previously adopted special assessment process for the wastewater capacity improvements and wastewater treatment collection improvements.

Namely, if you don't vote for Plan A, the original financing plan (a.k.a. Plan B) will go into effect. So, by voting NO to Plan A, you are voting for the original Plan B - even though you never voted for Plan B directly.

If Plan A goes down in defeat, the present city governance will claim that the voters voted for the original finance plan. Nice, isn't it?

Such a ploy must be rejected.

If the present city governance is desirous and honest in wanting voter approval on any plan, then it must put any and all plans specifically, uniquely, separate and directly in front of the voters.

At the risk of being repetitive to the point of irritability, the STRP is ill-begotten, ill-conceived, ill-designed, ill-financed and ill-implemented. No amount of doing a New York City sidewalk shell game on the voters will negate that fact. How the present city governance has gone forth with the STRP is a sin. Nowhere else - in public or private enterprises - not even in a common household - does a plan get implemented without knowing in advance if it's fair or how its going to be paid for or how it will impact the surrounding. Nowhere - except in the City of Marco Island. Imagine for a moment of the consequences if Boeing put airplanes in the sky this way or if Ford put vehicles on the road this way or if the software companies that develop our air traffic control system implemented their computer programs this way.

There is an honorable and ethical solution. Plan S. Plan S, for Plan STOP, will stop all aspects of the STRP immediately. All construction, all financing schemes, all on-the-fly redesigns of the treatment plant, all ad hoc conjectures as to the environmental impact will stop. The cessation of all activities and bidirectional hostilities will stop and thereby afford all of us an opportunity to design a plan that is financially sound, that is procedurally sound, that is environmentally sound and most importantly, is clearly detailed to the voters so the voters can vote on it with full knowledge of what it will cost, how it will be done, and to what extent if any it will impact the environment.

Plan S will instantly negate what went wrong: The financing should have been derived and voted on before the project even started. The re-design of the plant as to capacity technology and environmental impact should have been analyzed and designed before the STRP started - and even before the finance plan was put forth for how else would we know how much would it really cost and how else would we know what the environmental impact would be. Plan S will reconstitute the democratic form of government that is our right and immediately obviate the single most divisive issue on this island.

Plan S is not an admission of defeat or of anything else, irrespective of what the present governance and the Citizens Acquiescing to City Abuses believe. In fact, this type of stopping and going back to the drawing board model is quite successful. It is done repeatedly with all types of projects. Cases are legion where projects have to be stopped, re-analyzed, re-designed, re-considered, re-approved and re-implemented. And all for the better. It just takes honesty and courage.

So when you go and vote for Plan A because you think it will save you money (at the expense of your neighbors no doubt) and because you believe the cynic that stated "the train has already left the station", think of what is being inadvertently or intentionally accomplished. And think that there is another option - Plan S.

The deadly embrace of "If not Plan A, then Plan B" is your present option. Therefore choose Plan STOP.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Why Searching the Emails is Made Easy...

The reason for the extensive work spent to facilitate the search of the City of Marco Island's emails are as follows:
  • the public has a right to know
  • the public has a right to know how their government works - good or bad
  • the emails are being made available to all in an easy to use manner as a public service
  • all citizens can search for and read the emails so they can make their own informed decisions
  • the people believing that the city management and the city council can do no wrong or are doing an excellent job have to be proud to make these emails public
  • the people believing that the city management and the city council can do a better job, can potentially validate their position with these emails, or may change their minds!
  • again, the public has a right to know
Some Facts:
  • all of the emails are in a database accessible via the web (use the button on top of this blog entitled SEARCH CITY EMAILS!
  • the database is designed and programmed to facilitate and expedite complex queries
  • exceedingly difficult to develop especially given how the emails were produced by the city
  • the emails did not come with attachments and some were clearly edited
  • there are approximately 9,000 emails - over 528,000 lines - over 2,541,000 words - all indexed and searchable
The public in a democratic society has the absolute right to know all of the details of the government they have empowered. The government can not impugn such right or those that exercise that right. In all governments across the country, albeit a small municipality, a city, a state or even the federal government, citizen oversight is encouraged and welcomed - irrespective of the motives of some. It is unclear if the present denizens of city hall and the elected "representatives" welcome this facet of a free democracy.

It is up to the this city management and this city council to reveal if this basic tenet of a democratic republic is embraced in part by virtue of these emails being accessible to all and therefore welcome the oversight. Or will the city repudiate these efforts and besmirch or malign those of us that worked to make this recorded history public. The former is hoped for.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Thursday, March 15, 2007

City Emails Available to All

As per the recent articles in newspapers across southwest Florida, the State Attorney has launched an investigation into the City's practices. Beyond looking into potential "Sunshine Law" violations, the investigation will rightly delve into other areas.

What in part precipitated the State Attorney to launch the investigation was a cache of the City of Marco Island's emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act implementation - known as Article 119. The emails are from the 2005 and 2006 periods.

Any citizen for whatever reason has an expressed constitutional right to know how their government works. This way, as evidenced in municipalities where open government is the norm, those citizens that are desirous of participating in a democratic republic can evaluate the facts and make their own determinations and decisions. In these municipalities, citizen oversight is welcomed and encouraged.

There is an even more important reason to review these emails. Citizens suspect of being the target of perceived and alleged abuses by the present City government should be entitled to review the emails so as to at least attempt to confirm or assuage their suspicions.

To these ends, and with the strongest belief that a government that is not of the people and by the people can not stand, the emails are herewith made available to all. The emails are provided using a process to facilitate searching, since without such a tool it is not feasible or practical to perform logical searches of approximately 9,000 emails comprised of over 528,000 lines and of over 2,541,000 words.

The link to the database of emails is on this blog - SEARCH CITY EMAILS! button on the top of the blog.

To use this database an access code is needed. Access codes are provided to anyone that requests one. Simply send an email to marcodatabase@dbiq.com with the words REQUEST CODE in the subject heading. For a limited time, the access code of GUEST can be used without having to request one.

Why use of an access code? Because this database has been made available to the authorities and to other interested parties, and we therefore must prevent abuses. Your email address is of no interest to anyone associated with this endeavor.

Please note that the emails are not complete. Notwithstanding the absurd non sequitur "national security" and "homeland security" pretexts for not providing all of the emails, the City clearly sanitized the emails it did provide. (As an aside, one has to seriously question the logic by which those purportedly in charge of our national security are sending national security information over email.) Regardless, and as but one example, you will find emails with bodies but no headers - namely there is text but the TO: and the FROM: and the SUBJECT: etc. are missing. The most glaring omission is that of the near 9,000 emails, not one was provided with the attachment when such an attachment was part of the original email. The ruse that the 119 request did not specify the attachments is insulting. Lastly, the convoluted format of some of the emails is not a byproduct of the search engine - that is how they were provided.

Fortunately we still live in a democratic society of the people. Hence, this is your opportunity to exercise that right, that privilege, from the comfort of your computer.


  • Bravo, great things(like this)happen when goverment becomes privatized for a certain 'few'.
    Great job Dr. Sanchez

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:22:00 PM  

  • thank you.

    By Blogger Dr. Mario, at Friday, March 16, 2007 1:23:00 PM  

  • Monday, February 20, 2006 11:37:30 PM
    From: "terri626@juno.com"
    Subject: Public Works Issues
    To: Bill Moss
    Attachments: Attach0.html 8K

    Dear Bill,

    I am becoming more and more unhappy with Public Works, and especially
    Rony. I've mentioned to you before that Rony is taking things way too fast. We
    need to slow down a bit. I know I've said this more than once. I'm disturbed
    by this email, and I realize that I haven't discussed the city's side with you
    yet, but there are more and more of these letters lately. I'm not happy with
    the fact that the council did not approve the staging area of the Glon property,
    that Rony decided to use it as he sees fit. The council shares in the public's
    complaints, not just staff. The buck stops with us, and we also must deal with
    adversity. Tomorrow night, I will recommend that we abandon some of the
    workings of that site. I will have other recommendations. Rony is not in
    control, as he seems to think he is. I think he's having a private to public
    adjustment problem. This is a city, not private enterprise. There's a big

    Thanks for listening.


    Wow!!! That them vs. us attitude at the City Council meetings are such a crock!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, March 16, 2007 6:31:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Politics - Kremlin Style

The Federal Privacy Act prohibits law enforcement agencies from conducting background checks sans a legitimate reason, such as a criminal investigation. Namely, the police can't do a background check for political purposes. As an example, and only an example, a councilperson asking the police chief to look into the background of a citizen that the councilperson did not like and said police chief does it, such would be a crime.

See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm

The interesting provision of that act is:

(i)(1) Criminal penalties

Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

(2) Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

(3) Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Ideals for Marco Island

  • The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
  • I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.
  • Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
  • Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
  • Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
  • Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
  • Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
  • If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.
  • I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary. [note that the act outlaws voter intimidation].
  • Man is not free unless government is limited.
All by Ronald Reagan


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Friday, March 09, 2007


At the March 5, 2007 city council meeting, Councilperson Kiester said:

"This council needs to take control."

Yes! We can only hope that the other six will agree!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Thursday, March 08, 2007

What? No, not on Marco Island - It Can't Be!

December 29, 2006 email to Doug Enman:

True but, those already connected are getting a new WWTP for free or from what little, if any, money that has been set aside from their payments over the years. I think 30% of the residential community has subsidized enough acquisitions and infrastructure replacement already. And frankly, I think it's because the condo managers and commercial property attorneys apply pressure on you and others and are being pacified.

Bill Moss


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

They New Then - Nothing Wrong With Septic Systems

Monday, January 02, 2006 4:44:26 AM
MessageFrom: Dana SouzaDana Souza <danasouza2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: septic
To: Bill Moss
Attachments: Attach0.html 1K

During one of my sleepless evenings, I searched for articles on septics... found this interesting.. look at #5 in particular.


note: the city refused to turn over the attachments hence there is no means to determine what Attach0.html is or was.


  • This coming from a complete 'Mossite' numbskull who wants to impress Boss Moss. Have you ever talked to bride of Freankenstein Souza- a scary charachter at best and why is a person whose biggest commitment is making sure that both Dogde Ball teams are equal- is writing Moss over this subject?
    We Need to look further into the past , Present and Future of the influence of 'Frankenstein Souza'
    I think he's more involved than we know.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:44:00 PM  

  • At some point in the future the past of how much they lied to public will come to indict these criminals.

    By Anonymous The Turk, at Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Professional Perspective of the City's STRP

Dear Marco Island City Council and Residents,

The purpose of this letter is to express our concern and dismay to learn that you are proceeding with a new waste water treatment facility that utilizes both ASR and Class I Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells as essential components in disposing of your waste water. Both of these methods of disposal have proven to be environmentally unsound and your use of them suggests that you may not understand the current state of knowledge of the drawbacks of such systems.

UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS: Adoption of this unproven technology had been based on the premise that there was an impenetrable confining layer between the injection zone and the aquifer above it. The theory was that partially treated waste water could be injected below this layer and the waste water would either stay below that layer or migrate great distances where it would be disbursed and diluted enough that it would not have an adverse impact if it ever surfaced. Until very recently, there was no official concern that injectate would rise to pollute coastal waters.

This theory has proven to be false.

1. The “confining” layer is porous, according to the EPA (EPA 816-F-00-022, June 2000). In many instances, water from injection wells has far more rapidly than predicted worked its way into the aquifer under the very communities that were persuaded to inject it.
2. The “confining” layer is not impervious to the corrosive effects of the mixture of native water and effluent that is injected below it. Specifically, it is comparable to storing salt water in an iron bucket. You know it will ultimately rust out, you just don’t know how soon.
3. Deep water injection wells have failed throughout Florida, the only state where Class I UIC municipal injection is legally permitted. Injection wells are known sources of pollution, particularly in coastal areas.
4. The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD) announced ( Miami Herald 12/17/2006 (*)) that it will greatly increase the level of its wastewater treatment, including micro-filtering membranes, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation and ultraviolet disinfection. It is likely this more-than-a-billion-dollar improvement may be in response to the Sierra Club filing suit over its current, failed injection practices. http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-02-17.asp

The plan is, instead of deep injection, to “reuse” the effluent.

Reuse also raises potential water quality issues -- particularly for Biscayne Bay, where reclaimed water is targeted for use in a project designed to replicate original freshwater flows from the Everglades. The project, part of the $11 billion Everglades restoration effort, would filter treated wastewater through coastal wetlands and mangroves to make the now-salty southern bay into the thriving estuary it once was.

AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELLS (ASR WELLS): The discredited theory was that excess water could be injected into shallow wells for the purpose of storage and future recovery. It was believed that these wells would contain the injected water in a sort of expanding ”bubble”( See LEAF Powerpoint “Burst The Bubble). In the short term, the water could be pumped back up and used. It was theorized that a recovery rate of 70% of the water could be achieved.

In practice, these wells have proven to be far more porous than anticipated with the following adverse consequences:

1. Their use in the Florida Keys has been a major factor in the destruction of sea life and the coral reef. Tests have proven that this partially treated water surfaces in a matter of hours, not days. The effects have been catastrophic.

Tests done in the late 1990’s by the operators of the waste water system on Marco Island, Florida Water, reflect that the average recovery rate was around 30% with the highest being 50%. It should be pointed out that these tests were conducted by the operator who had a vested interest in proving the highest recovery rate possible. (http://fl.water.usgs.gov/Abstracts/wri02_4036_reese.html Tables 1 & 5)

These results were among the highest in the state. Even at this level, 50% to 70% of the water was not recovered and escaped into the receiving aquifer where it could conceivably migrate to your canals.

2. Again, the limestone that receives the effluent is eroded by the process and the formation become more porous allowing a faster outflow which further intensifies the problem. (Not to mention the acceleration of deformation leading to possible sinkholes)

Two of the main by products of the breakdown of effluent are nitrogen and phosphorus. These are also two of the main pollutants suspected of supporting the flourishing of red tide. It is our concern that the efficacy of your treatment program may not be revealed until several years of contamination have occurred. At that point the damage will have been done and you could find your island surrounded by a sea of red tide.

We would like to have the opportunity to review the above with the council and citizens of Marco Island and request that you conduct a symposium at which these concerns can be addressed. If you are going to take this path, you at least need to inform yourselves as to its possible destination.


John Glenn

The layer that South Florida has relied upon to completely confine all fluid movement is not preventing the wastewater from three facilities from moving into the lower Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW). About 40 other Florida facilities inject wastewater into similar geological formations and the injected fluids may move into the lower USDWs in the future.(EPA 816-F-00-022)


  • who is this guy? where did he come from? i like what i read...but it's going to fall on deaf ears unless he has some authority or credibility here.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:41:00 AM  

  • It was discussed at the last City Council meeting during the Public Comments. Here is a link to the video of it.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:06:00 PM  

  • Mr. Glen is the director of conservation of the State of Florida for the
    Sierra Club. Seems to me those are pretty good credentials. He doesn't have
    a dog in this fight. He doesn't have an agenda or any reason to shade the

    By Anonymous Roger Hall, at Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Sunday, March 04, 2007

It is Still Wrong

The recent transmogrification of the STRP with yet another finance scheme is still wrong.

It is perfect politics though: appease the greedy as a means to drown out the principled.

To make something that is immensely inequitable just a bit more equitable does not make it … equitable. True progress is eliminating this whole scam altogether.

As Malcolm X stated: “You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you are making progress”. Exactly.

Give this author the STRP free of charge and throw in forest of royal palms where the septic tank is to be removed, and I am still against it. Why?

Because what is remiss in all of these versions of the STRP is how seriously our environment will be impacted with the sewage treatment plant. Simply look at the daily spills across this country from these treatment plants and you have the vision of what is coming soon to Marco Island.

And when the treatment plant starts failing, and there is overflow being funneled into the ocean, and when power failures stop the pumping stations, and when the deep injection wells fuel the red tide bloom into a pandemic of upper respiratory ailments in the old and the young, you’ll hear how there is a new plan for the sewage treatment plant to reduce the problems – as opposed to eliminating them altogether. It will be déjà vu and that whole nine inches in six inches out bureaucratic mentality.

The STRP is wrong. It is wrong for the environment. It is inappropriately financed. It is improperly implemented. It is ill begotten.

It is still wrong.


  • The article " it is still wrong" is right on!

    Very few people are aware of the "clean " bubbles floating down the Marco river at Each outgoing tide. The Barnacles on our dock posts are practically black . Fifteen years ago they were white. Example--Travel south of Jolley bridge and observe the barnacles on their docks--I wonder if they're black too. I doubt it-I don't think the outlets from the sewage system goes that far south.
    More than triple that in several years and we will begin having the same headlines as Naples.
    " Something is floating near the beaches and we have to close it for the public's health. It might be animal droppings etc. etc."
    Beware to those on our beautiful gulf beach and those owning the condos and hotels. The headlines from Marco will then be--"Something is floating out there and we must close the beaches to protect the public." It might be some animal contamination.
    What will this do to their investments and hotel portfolios?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Friday, March 02, 2007

Citizens Voices on City's Asbestos Dump Site

As reported by the local CBS affiliate WINK on March 1, 2007.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home