Home › Island Views › Letters
Letter to the Editor: Dead horse alert
STORY TOOLS
Tell us about it
- What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
- Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
- Upload photos & videos
- More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.
More Letters
- Letter To The Editor: Marco Island ‘under construction’
- Letter To The Editor: The humane thing
- Letter to the Editor: For America’s youth
Share and Enjoy [?]
This letter is in response to Mr. Waldack’s letter to the editor.
Mr. Waldack you continue to beat a dead horse. At the last council meeting there was a discussion concerning real estate taxes being paid to Collier County. Mr. Recker stated that the councilors should probably get together and meet with the Collier County Commissioners to lobby that Marco Island is not getting its money’s worth for services rendered. And I commented that our property taxes paid to Marco Island is ours 100 percent and that is what we as residents can do something about. It is the Marco Island City Councilors responsibility as our elected officials to fight the county to get the services that we are paying for. And if we are not, then they should request that we get a reduction in our ad valorem taxes to the county. I and hopefully others would join the councilors to demonstrate our support in this endeavor.
But that is not the complete story concerning taxes on Marco Island. I know I keep repeating myself, but not everyone seems to comprehending what I am saying. We have other taxes, which are called by other names, such as surcharge, fees and possible assessments. These are out of pocket cost to taxpayers which are not tax deductible on their federal tax returns. We are presently paying a 12 percent surcharge on our water utility bill, soon to be 14 percent, and 5 percent our electric bill. If the city implements a fire assessment then those of us who are homesteaded will get a significant increase in your cost for these services from what we pay in ad valorem taxes.
We as taxpayers on Marco Island can only lobby our elected officials to do what feel is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Marco Island.
It is the responsibility of our elected officials to lobby the Collier County Commissioners to do what is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Collier County.
Amadeo Petricca, Marco Island
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Mr. Amadeo Petricca:
I guess that I am beating a dead horse when I call, request and/or suggest that the Marco Island Taxpayer's Association (MITA) should expend some efforts to lobby some or all of the various Collier County Taxing Districts to reduce their budgets.
I would assume that as a Board Member of MITA that your answer to my request is that MITA is going to abdicate or shy away from lobbying the various Collier Taxing Districts with a comment that means "IT IS NOT MY (our) JOB".
What is the purpose of the Marco Island Taxpayer's Association if it is not to lobby for lower taxes wherever they exist?
The surcharges you describe and are paying for on your water utility bill is a.) The 8% subsidy for the STRP is a cost which should have been billed separately; b.) (4) two percent charges are being added to your water bill are for repaving streets. 2 of the two percent are currently on your water bill. Another two (the 3rd of 4) percent is scheduled to be added in October. This is also a cost that should have been billed separately.
It is just less costly to have one bill prepared. In October these should be line itemed on our water/sewer bills. It is important to note that these two items are designed to sunset after the STRP is completed.
The Fire Assessment is designed as a fair and just way for everyone to pay the same for the same service. If you and I go into a grocery store and buy the same item, we both should pay the same amount. You should not pay more and I should not pay less. Same holds true for Fire/Rescue.
Your comment "We as taxpayers on Marco Island can only lobby our elected officials to do what feel is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Marco Island" seems to abdicate and dismiss the mission, purpose and intent of a Taxpayer's Association.
I object to a Taxpayer's Association's Board Member denial of responsibility by saying "It is the responsibility of our elected officials to lobby the Collier County Commissioners to do what is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers in Collier County. As an elected official, I speak out against the abuse that Marco Island taxpayer's endure by the County Taxing Districts receiving 89% of Marco Island's total tax base.
MITA should lobby the Collier County Taxing Districts more, not less!!!
Wayne Waldack, Marco Island
#1 Posted by wwaldack on August 29, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Waldack says: "As an elected official, I speak out against the abuse that Marco Island taxpayer's endure by the County Taxing Districts receiving 89% of Marco Island's total tax base." If you do not lobby the County Commissioners or the taxing authority, to WHO do you "speak out" to? MITA and the citizens of Marco Island? You are lazy and have no clue what your job is. What a wasted vote that was.
#2 Posted by Fossil on August 29, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, if you and I go to the grocery store, we should pay the same price. Tell me why that doesn't apply to the Sewers? The $20,000+ assessment for new sewers is paying for the overpriced, archaic system we bought for repairs and upkeep. Unfair and I can't believe not illegal.
#3 Posted by heebeed on August 31, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In post #1 above, Mr. Waldack writes:
“The surcharges you describe and are paying for on your water utility bill is a.) The 8% subsidy for the STRP is a cost which should have been billed separately; b.) (4) two percent charges are being added to your water bill are for repaving streets. 2 of the two percent are currently on your water bill. Another two (the 3rd of 4) percent is scheduled to be added in October. This is also a cost that should have been billed separately.”
Do the logic and writing ability evident in that paragraph scare anyone else?
#4 Posted by Avenger on August 31, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)