Home › Island News › Local News
Whispers heard, but Marco candidates deny, plan to disincorporate
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.
RELATED STORIES
Related Links
More Local News
- YMCA cuts budget, staff
- Marco Community Bancorp launches private placement stock offering
- City Manager's Weekly Report
Share and Enjoy [?]
In the 10 years since incorporation, Marco Island’s city has survived battles over police coverage, sewer programs and spending caps.
With four City Council seats — a potential majority — up for grabs in the Jan. 29 election, decisions on a number of pivotal city issues could shift when a new council takes office.
Below the surface there are questions regarding whether Marco will remain a city at all.
Councilman Ted Forcht, who has two years remaining on his term, broached the idea during an October council meeting.
During a discussion of the city’s financial situation in light of potential cuts due to property tax reform, Forcht asked: “Can we afford to be a city anymore?”
Two weeks later, Councilman Glenn Tucker, who is term-limited against running in the current election, expressed concern after a meeting that should the four council candidates against the city’s sewer program be elected they might “bring the city to a halt.”
His statement, Tucker said in an interview last week, was a response to comments he heard during the public comment section of a council meeting around that time. He couldn’t recall more specifics.
But all eight candidates for office have maintained throughout the election season that disavowing cityhood is not on their agendas.
The four candidates running in favor of the city’s sewer program and the four running against it repeated a remarkably similar line about disincorporation: They do not support it; they do support Marco citizens’ right to petition the government about it; should such a petition go to referendum they would campaign vigorously against it.
The candidates, regardless of their sewer position, were equally as colorful in their dismissal of disincorporation.
From the pro-sewer side:
“To me it’s like going back to the 18th century,” candidate Frank Recker said.
“I took (Forcht’s statement) as a facetious comment more than something serious,” candidate Jerry Gibson said. “I certainly hope it was.”
From the anti-sewer side:
“I wouldn’t run with anyone, and I’m running with three other leaders, if they were against cityhood,” candidate Joe Batte said.
“What we have today is a government we can touch and feel,” candidate Butch Neylon said. “Sometimes they kick us and we can feel that, too.”
Collier County Deputy Manager Leo Ochs said he didn’t believe any senior county staff members have had contact with Marco officials about disincorporation.
Ochs added that the county hears about the matter from time to time from various associations on the island, but there’s been no recent information.
Collier County Commissioner Donna Fiala, who represents Marco Island, said she’s recently heard whispers in the community about disincorporation, but didn’t think they rose above the level of rumor. She too hasn’t had contact with any Marco officials about it.
“By the time you’ve got yourself a City Hall, a police department, a fire department and you see that it’s so safe there, I would think the overwhelming cry would be, ‘Leave us alone’,” Fiala said.
For his part, Forcht said he hasn’t given up on the matter.
He is thinking about revisiting the issue following the Jan. 29 vote on property tax reform. That vote, Forcht said, will give the city a better idea of where it stands financially.
He added that he would have brought the matter to Fiala already, but hasn’t been able to get in touch with her.
“It doesn’t seem like she’s as interested in Marco Island as maybe she could be,” Forcht said.
Fiala shrugged off the criticism.
“I never got a phone call from him,” she said. “Maybe he meant to get in touch with me.”
“If I wasn’t serving Marco Island really well, I would have heard a lot of complaints,” she added. “I don’t think they want to get rid of me.”
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Health, water officials share facts about Marco sewer program
JOAN COLFER, M.D., JON IGLEHART and CLARENCE TEARS, Special to the Daily News
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Marco Island Septic Tank Replacement Program questions and answers:
What are the advantages of a centralized sewer system over individual septic tanks?
There are several advantages:
-- A central system provides controlled and monitored disposal of human waste.
-- Advanced wastewater treatment systems are monitored 24 hours a day, problems with them can be quickly addressed and remedied.
-- Instead of thousands of individual systems with the potential for numerous problems, there would be one central system to manage and monitor.
-- The advanced wastewater treatment facility will be able to provide reuse water as an alternative water supply and reduce the city of Marco Island’s potable water demand by 12 percent.
-- Advanced wastewater systems treat effluent to a much higher level than septic tanks do.
-- Central wastewater systems have certified operators who can make adjustments to the treatment process.
#1 Posted by PetePan on January 19, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The title of this article is appropriate. This type of story. full of unrealistic assumptions based on a single comment from a sitting Councilmember, advances false innuendo. It only serves the current power base in Marco Island. I rightly assume an intentional participation by this paper in what amounts to a political "whisper" campaign. Clearly a political influence is afoot here. Give the power to the residents and those in opposition of the Chamber supported candidates and what will happen? Why disaster of course! Are not the residents of Marco Island the readers of your journal? But they don't pay your salaries, do they? It's the advertisers that make this paper possible. Is it not enough to have Don Farmer blasting away week after week? As I cannot recall ever hearing any of the eight candidates say anything other then they support our City, I fail to understand the newsworthyness of this article. Give us some fair and balanced coverage of the issues in this campaign.
#2 Posted by Hawke1 on January 20, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Hawke1 and I'm surprised that Liam Dillon would pen such an article. I've always thought very highly of him. For Liam to rely on E. Glenn Tucker as a source of a rumor that is meant to bring doubt about the commitment of Batte, Guidry, Hall and Neylon to cityhood boggles my mind. Of course Tucker "couldn’t recall more specifics" of what he overheard. Tucker couldn't produce the "photographic evidence" he had of citizens planting asbestos in Veterans Park either and finally had to admit that he flat out lied about having any evidence. Anyone who believes E. Glenn Tucker about anything needs their head examined, a newspaper reporter most of all. I know you read blogs on your articles, Liam. I'd love to hear your explanation of why you wrote this piece of nonsense.
Ed Foster
#3 Posted by EdFoster on January 20, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Eagle is now officially the 'Parrot' for it mimics whatever the pro-sewer side tells it.
BRRAAA... Polly wanna cracker...
#4 Posted by gernblanstone on January 20, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Mr Tuckers very weak memory is all we've got to pin these rumors on, then the Eagle owes everyone an apology. Mr Foster is correct about Mr Tucker and the asbestoes issue so one would have to assume this is just more of his "made up" visions.
#5 Posted by rcbauburn on January 20, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Psssst. Have you heard? The NDN is now making up news to fill these pages.
#6 Posted by Hawke1 on January 21, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Liam:
I am very disappointed that a mere rumor would turn into a published story. If it was just meant to flush out feelings, you have succeeded. I and others have made comments about disincorporation at council meetings and emails in the past. However, at this point it no longer makes sense. All eight council candidates have stated at public forums that they do not support it. I think that Mr. Forcht would not get any support from council on that motion no matter who is elected. This whole thing sounds to me like a put up job by those opposed to the four anti-STRP candidates much the same way that your paper does not print anti-STRP letters or guest commentaries. You and your paper should be ashamed.
Doug Enman
#7 Posted by dougenman on January 21, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have some insight in the way Councilor Forcht operates since we were both on the ballot two years ago vying for one of three open seats on city council. He received the most votes and I came in third. I will say, that since that time, he has steadfastly stood by his promises to those who elected him and dissolution of the city was not one of them. I personally believe that in his recent statements he was trying to bring out those few and their rationale who would like the city to disincorporate--not necessarily to pursue this objective on his part. Chuck Kiester
#8 Posted by ChuckKiester on January 21, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
psst..did you hear the Eagle sucks as a media outlet... or is that just a whisper?
#9 Posted by gernblanstone on January 21, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)