Lee,
As a longtime resident (50+ years), I want to know the "real" status of the Mound House, and, as befits situations, the city council.
We are in a financial crunch, nationally and, more seriously, locally - and these people are worrying over "specialty" items - the Oaks, the Newton house, and, apparently without concentration, the Mound House (which as been sitting untouched for over a year (
I know. I live less than 4 blocks from the Mound House and see it everyday - at least, when I can abide walking down there to observe the "progress".
It's a "joke", $1.2 million - FOR WHAT.
Also, how did the "civilian" agency to "protect" our heritage get so much power? Newton was a real estate broker who happened to have met the Lindberghs. That cheap little "rail" house someone is trying to preserve is a joke. Hasn't it already been stated that it is likely the house is NOT historic - by state and county? Why bother?
And again, how did this group have the "power" to overrule the city council - which wisely had decided to destroy the place instead of spending $200,000 dollars to "fix" the roof? What nonsense! And now we are going to pay to move it to Connecticut St. - that and "fix" the roof??
These decisions, based on the how estimates generally turn out here, will probably cost us $500,000 - is all that really worth it? When it isn't even "historic"?
Take all this, and the Indian "burial ground"/Mound House fiasco, and look how foolish our leaders really are.
And more importantly, why is the city council so involved with all these "special projects" that only take the time away from more important things - like our water and sewer systems?
In the five-six years of "work", they've dug out a swimming pool and, maybe, lined the exposed walls and converted that area into a "heritage" room - the place was an Indian "dump", not burial ground; they've placed two false dormers on the front roof; built another room out the back of the living room - THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE; a staircase to the upstairs; re-shingled the roof; and cut down some trees to "protect the house during a storm" (strangely and, unfortunately, very old trees - been there a while!!).
And where did the truly classic furniture go? The place is empty. Five years ago, it was full of furniture (valuable antiques) and there were open houses occasionally to show off the vintage beauty of the place. And now the council has made a public statement about the house - that maybe it is now unsafe (after these years of non-use) and will have to be "remodeled". WHAT???
Now the council is increasing taxes and fees - why? Islander residents are little effected by the "crunch" (though the county is) - and we get to pay the taxes to "make up" the difference?
Our homes have just been devalued by the county - again - and the our council increased our tax rates???
What are they spending the money on - yet another consultant telling us how can we help the traffic flow onto and off the island? Didn't we pay a million dollar "golden parachute" pay-off to the last person who handed us that story line a few years ago???
Gosh, why does the county not want to spend 1$ million dollars on 1 mile of Estero? Could it be the county has a REAL problem with reduced tax intake? And Mr. Kiker is so upset we didn't get the money the county promised?
Look around Mr. Kiker - there are people losing their homes in this county - one of the most severely hit by the bad economy. For a while we were one of the two worst counties in the US - why do you think Obama paid a visit?
The county will certainly have larger problems than paving Estero this and, potentially, next year.
And Gosh again, why weren't the shoreline resident willing to "deed" their beach property to the Federal government to help the community? That last portion of the sentence is an oxymoron, they never "help"??
Remember the great help after Charley.
Why was the council so eager to "allow" that - doesn't that sacrifice the "rights" of those people for the so-called "benefits" of hurricane protection?? Well, NO! The "renourishment" thing was going to get the county and city a bundle of Federal money - that was their interest.
Would either of the councils involved have really spent the money for what it's intended? Unlikely - based on the history. Ray Judah talks the talk - but has his own agenda.
Of course, the question rises, how could they possibly spend that much - the beach, except under and near the pier, is NOT damaged!
Anyway some thoughts,
Penny (Ronan) Crow
Editor's note: Good to hear from you Penny. I don't recall the town giving any former town manager a $1 million parachute. Don't think it happened. Marsha Segal-George, who I think you are referring to, got one year salary, as I recall.
Desperate Deceit
The latest County actions in committing big bucks in hiring a Public Relations outfit should remove any doubt about County's real purpose for their artificial beach program. Also, County's dispatching their lobbyists to convince the State to extend the artificial beach project deadline shows their desperation. County's purpose, has always been: "More beach for County growth". County's misguided effort can be clearly illustrated * Mis-name the project to sell it. Call it "renourishment " when official government beach data clearly shows the project is largely, unnatural. Expand the stable and growing beaches the most. Give the least project widening to the the two, historically eroding areas. Justify the project to the Federal government as being 88% for recreation, Yet tell owners this is a Storm Protection Project, but have zero scientific supporting data. * Beach Engineering lacking In aCommissioner Ray Judah meeting, the Project Manager admitted that he had no erosion map that supported the completed plan's engineering, as Judah had promised us. County rejected the Town's request to apply $400,000 of Town's money to new technology for understanding causes of and to control erosion and yield natural beach re-building. Eleven County beach projects have failed. namely: 1. The removal of 2.3 acres of Bowditch Point and application of Matanzas Pass dredgings offshore are apparently causing immediate northern beach erosion: 2. Current Bonita Beach sand losses with a repeat restoration needed; 3. Lovers Key restoration gone: plus eight (8) separate restoration projects for the Pier erosion area are all gone. Project for our beach calls for 4.6 miles of beach to be bull-dozed with heavy equipment killing plant and animal life there. Owners' beach front areas deemed too compacted can be ploughed 2 feet deep repeatedly, to loosen sand. * Unfair burden on our Town For this $11,000,000 to $13,000,000 project, the Feds and State put in their millions and likewise the Tourist Development Council (TDC) draws millions from bed taxes (including from ourTown). Tourism is the TDC's purpose. Town puts in $1,000,000 of your tax dollars saved up by past Town Council's. County MAY temporarily pay some Fed's bills. if Fed money is late. However, County commits ZERO permanent dollars out of their reserves, unlike our Town does. Like Bonita Springs currently, each time the sand washes away, County will tell the Town the new cost. Once in a project, our Town is stuck for succeeding never ending bills from County. Town taxes keep gong up as well as traffic As Commissioner Hall told me regarding our beach, "Anyone who says renourishment will not increase beach traffic, is simply not credible"! Our traffic increases! County imposes a beach vegetation plan on 65% of our island's beach. The vegetation plan is marked as subject to change. Does anyone believe that County will not change the plan at their discretion? Does anyone think that vegetation over-run beaches, like at some major island resorts, will help your property? Judah does. Beach owners lack of trust of Lee County accounts for the fact that currently only about 28% of valid easements are signed by private beach front owners. Governments have signed 14%. That's the County's accomplishment in over 12 years, against a need of 90%. signed. The saying goes: "you can not fool all of the people all of the time". Yet 12 years later, County keeps trying, while NOW adding a Public Relation company costs to the millions of tax dollars already spent by County for THEIR project. Owners beware!
Frank Schilling
Lee,
Cheers for the continued pressure on the Shamrock. I have walked all those steps, for years this neighborhood has endured the loud noise that comes from that place for hours and hours. It is true this year was better. It's gone from a 20 or a 1-10 scale to 16. If you lived within 400 hundred feet of that location you have heard it. I have had the same discussions with Matt Powell, Mike Von Plinsky, the current owner. I once pleaded with Mike as one of our owners was so sick and the noise from the Shamrock was keeping her from very needed rest in a recovery from two extensive aortic surgeries. I once was told, " You shouldn't buy on the Beach if you can't stand the noise. I have lived here long enough to remember when this was not an issue.
I have many friends that have battled this, when Mike was promoting the proposed new Shamrock, he vowed cooperation and better compliance with the noise. I think everyone is tolerant enough to know that at least once in awhile you have special events that are permitted. But night after night, long into the next morning is too much. Diamondhead used to be that sort of place, but with Resolution 01-15, the Town of Fort Myers Beach, settled that issue and for the good of both parties. My friends are so bombarded that the sound permeates the home through the storm shutters, the windows, the doors, over the air conditioning sound and the TV. That and the loud motorcycles that zoom in and out of Shamrock and up and down Estero Boulevard caused them to spend $17,000 on the best windows and doors money can buy. It helps, but as one of your readers said the the low frequency stuff still comes through
I really don't know how the Neptune keeps anybody over one night of that abuse. The Polynesian has lost many customers. I mean no one comes back, except owners who are stuck. The folks at the Periwinkle are a mere 50 feet away, what a turn over they must have. When Mike went to the LPA with his plan I went to voice my concerns and I met other neighbors down Delmar Street that also get this nightly blast. I have watched the deputy come and go and even met with them at times. It's so obvious you don't need a meter, I believe the sound level should be measured at the property line. Sorry for those who pay big bucks to stay here to hear the surf.
If Fort Myers Beach is ever to recover as a "Place you want to live" it needs to address a number of issues like this, it is as important as bike paths, improvements on Estero Blvd. and ahead of Beach renourishment.
Robert Young
Surf Song Condominium
Fort Myers Beach
Editors note: Bob Young is co-chairman of the Condominium Associations of Fort Myers Beach .
Lee,
Thanks for your help in regards to the Shamrock problem. We have put up with this for along time. We called the Sheriff's Dept. many times over the last few years but did not solve the problem.
My wife even called numerous times directly to the Shamrock and was basically informed that they had to make a living. We live at the Surf Song Condos and at times our Hurricane Shutters would vibrate. My wife used ear plugs but that would not eliminate all the noise. Mike Von Plinsky has been told many times about the problem but I believe he tells people what they want to hear and no action beyond the words. Keep up the good work.
Larry Stensrude
Fort Myers Beach
Councilman Herb Acken's Guest Opinion in The Sand Paper shows quite clearly a lack of understanding about our beach. PHANTOM EROSION.
Herb thinks that the entire 4.6 miles of beach has eroded to half its original size. County's artificial beach plan doubles the size of the beach. Acken supports this. Herb is totally unaware of the definitive COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC report, dated July 14, 2005, ordered by Lee County to settle the questions about erosion. Coastal Engineering's purpose: Show where that beach has had ACTUAL BEACH GROWTH, or STABILITY, or EROSION. Acken did not even know about Lee County's report settling the erosion questions. The Vice Mayor should have looked at Coastal Engineering's large map on page 6. He would have been able to see a large aerial map of the beach which shows erosion clearly.. Or Acken could simply read the text for the second erosion area which says "at R192.5 erosion begins..." This is the worst erosion of the 8 blocks total erosion. It gets the least beach widening by County's artificial beach plan. But Vice Mayor Acken did not even know what I was talking about.
THE ACTUAL TWO EROSION AREAS As I told Herb, I am in favor of fixing those TWO erosion areas, TOTALLING 8 BLOCKS.. What I also said was that the pier area had been renourished a total of 8 times since 1961, with dredgings. That beach renourishment totalled over 1.16 million cubic yards of sand. Herb was foggy about all of this. Though the Vice Mayor worries about erosion in the pier area he does nothing to help those people out by going after dredging renourishment for the pier area.
NEW BEACH TECHNOLOGY I did indeed question Acken about why he was against promising new technology for the erosion areas. The pier area has been renourished on the average of ONCE EVERY 6 YEARS. In the last 48 years, it has continued to lose sand after each renourishment. County says their artificial beach plan will be washed away every 7 years and hav
