User profile: Avenger
Joined: Sept. 8, 2006
Comments posted: 110
Contact Avenger (log-in required)
Comments by Avenger
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on August 28 at 5:41 p.m.
Geez, Issler, you’re not very good at research, are you? Or else you chose to lie by omission. Here’s a quote from “City of Lighthouse Point, Florida Resolution No. 2003-1300” at http://www.lighthousepoint.com/images...
“WHEREAS, since Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the City has levied and collected a non-ad valorem special assessment within the City to fund its fire protection services…”
So Lighthouse Point has had this assessment for 10 years. You make it sound like Lighthouse Point was trying to pull a Marco slam—raise the millage rate and add a new assessment.
By the way, what is the “mileage rate” you reference in your post? Anything to do with Waldack's "employees per square mile?"
Posted on August 28 at 5:03 p.m.
Mr. Waldack, you failed to answer my questions:
--Where did you get your data that you quote in this letter to the editor? When I review my 2008 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes, I cannot come up with the percentages you quote.
--Did you include the tax for Public Schools mandated by State Law in your county figures?
--Did you also include South Florida Water Management District and Mosquito Control under your Collier County figures?
Again, I challenge you to post your references and data that would substantiate your 89% vs. 11% comparison.
Every single assessment on my proposed property tax notice has decreased from 2007 to 2008 EXCEPT for two—the two controlled by the Marco Island City Council. My City of Marco Island Property tax increased by more than 17%, and the Veterans Park Bond Debt increased by more than 5%.
Posted on August 27 at 11:43 a.m.
Mr. Waldack, what in the world does “employees per square mile” have to do with Ms. O’Connell’s request that the Marco Island City Council and staff stop their tax (or special assess or PILOT) and spend ways? Maybe you should ask Chairman Trotter to explain valid performance measures at the next city council meeting. After all, one of the agenda items is the second reading of the resolution for the 2008 Level of Service report. Pull out your copy of the report (you’ve read it, right?) and see if the metric of “employees per square mile” is listed anywhere.
Keep up the good fight, Ms. O’Connell!
Posted on August 27 at 11:03 a.m.
Mr. Waldack, in a post to letter you wrote back in July, (http://marconews.com/news/2008/jul/08...) I asked you for the source of the derogatory comment you make about LCEC’s response to Everglades City after Hurricane Wilma. You did not answer my question.
Don’t worry, though, because after reading through the Arceri collection of emails at this site: http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com/, especially batch 1, I found my answer. Arceri “suggested” the topic for your LCEC commentary, and clearly “helped” you write it. He told you to put in that defamatory statement about LCEC’s response, and you did—I would be willing to wager large dollars that you did nothing to verify the veracity of his hearsay statement.
Speaking of large dollars, where did you get your data that you quote in this current letter to the editor? I recently received my 2008 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes. No matter how I crunch the numbers, either the 2007 or 2008 set, I cannot come up with the percentages you quote. Did you include the tax for Public Schools mandated by State Law in your county figures? Did you also include South Florida Water Management District and Mosquito Control under your Collier County figures? I challenge you to post your references and data that would substantiate your 89% vs. 11% comparison.
With that said, I do note that every single assessment on my proposed property tax notice has decreased from 2007 to 2008 EXCEPT for two—the two controlled by the Marco Island City Council. My City of Marco Island Property tax increased by more than 17%, and the Veterans Park Bond Debt increased by more than 5%.
Posted on August 22 at 8:18 p.m.
Issler, as Ronald Reagan once said, “There you go again.” In post #3 above, you lied about the 70% (yet again). So in post #9, you respond to me with this: “8000 or more (out of 12,000) that voted in the current Council.” That works out to 66.7% and so is another lie by you.
There were 34,109 votes cast in the January election. The four guys elected received 20,598 votes. That works out to 60.389%, if ya take it to five significant figures. My source:
http://www.colliervotes.com/results.a...
Here’s the issue, Issler—when you lie about things like this, for whatever twisted reason, you lose credibility. I believe little of what you post. You’re on the Electric System Municipalization Study Committee. Whatever sub-group you work with will need big-time accuracy checks because of your lack of trustworthiness as evidenced by your pattern of serial exaggerations and outright lies.
Posted on August 22 at 9:45 a.m.
Issler, you know and have admitted that the 70% crap you keep espousing is wrong. I had asked you before how you came up with that number—was your math ability that poor, or were you basically a dishonest guy? Since you have started spouting 70% again, I vote for “dishonest.”
And you have often bragged about the “machine” that was making things happen the way you wanted for Marco. Your most recent “machine” quote: “The next election will yield the same results, as the machine is still in place to get the message out and voters to vote.”
Now, after reviewing the Arceri email collection, I see what you mean by the machine. And the master mechanic is Arceri, with all his little cogs like you busily whirling around him.
Posted on August 15 at 7:38 p.m.
Issler, you have often bragged about the “machine” that was making things happen the way you thought was so wonderful for Marco. Your most recent “machine” quote: “The next election will yield the same results, as the machine is still in place to get the message out and voters to vote.”
Now, after reviewing the Arceri email collection, I see what you mean by the machine. And the master mechanic is Arceri, with all his little cogs whirling around him.
MarcoObserver is pretty astute in his assessment; your response makes it clear that he’s hit very close to home. Funny that you would brag about the machine, then insist it doesn’t exist when the hundreds of pages of Arceri emails show his behind-the-scenes machinations.
Recommend you read Fossil’s post above. He’s done a great job in articulating the problems with the machine and its methods.
Posted on August 8 at 10:22 p.m.
Yes, Cornelius is following in the fine republican marital footsteps of Newt Gingrich and John McCain. Family values, indeed!
Posted on July 30 at 11:58 a.m.
I’ve asked Issler this at least twice before, and still no answer. So let me ask again, Issler, how do you calculate that “close to 70% majority?” As Observer says, it’s really 60%; 60.389% if one takes it to the thousandths place. But keep on spouting your fake figures because you completely shot any credibility you had long ago, and this just reinforces your lack of honesty.
On Marco Island to raise taxes, add fire assessment, increase staff
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on August 29 at 7:45 a.m.
Mr. Waldack, your post above is so illogical that it’s scary. Why use 2007 data when we have 2008 numbers available? Why blame the county for assessments mandated by state law or the South Florida Water Management District? What “figures” show that Marco Island was a “donor on SWFMD and mosquito control?”
What is your source or reference for all the numbers you quote in this last post? You can toss around all the “figures” you want, but without a link or reference that can be checked, those numbers are worthless.
On Letter to the Editor: Makes sense (cents) to me