Something significant is missing from the discussion of the Rose Marina expansion. That something is called “Public Policy”. Let me explain.
The Planning Board and city staff have devoted several meetings and significant time to reviewing, debating and supplementing the application for several variance requests by the marina owners. Those can be summarized as requests to relocate a dumpster, to add some landscape buffers, to build a restaurant, to have sufficient parking for marina customers, and to fence off an area for dry rack boat storage.
The Planning Board is charged with maintaining and enforcing the Comprehensive Plan, and using that as a standard in assessing requests for zoning and Land Development Code variance requests. Nothing in the variance requests currently on the table asks: Should the Rose Marina convert from a marina serving the local boating and fishing community into a Cruise Ship Terminal? And nothing that the Planning Board approved and now forwarded to the City Council addresses this question.
As such, the Council may approve these variances as passed by the Planning Board, and never have addressed the significant Public Policy issue. This is equivalent to having an elephant in the living room, and the only thing being discussed is the carpet, the upholstery on the furniture, etc.
I suggest there is a major public policy issue involved, and only the City Council can raise the issue, discuss it, invite public comment, and decide…. What Is our Public Policy On The Marina?
Should the local marina, from the outset devoted to local boaters and fishermen, be converted to a Cruise Ship Terminal?
Let’s look at the scale of the cruise ships involved.
There is proposed to be as many as 4 cruise ships, massive vessels relative to our small waterways, at any one time anchored at the marina. So, as a Candidate for City Council, I am asking:
Shouldn’t our City Council discuss the public policy involved?
Shouldn’t the City Council determine if this conversion is a legal and permitted use of public submerged land?
Shouldn’t the City Council determine if this has any benefit for the residents, the legal owners of Marco Island?
I say the Council should answer all of these questions and many more before dealing with the variance requests that the Planning Board approved.
As to whether this Marina conversion presents benefits to the resident voters and the community at large, any benefits that are currently suggested are in the insignificant category. The marginal property tax valuation impact and resulting incremental tax revenue is down the road and small. No one living on Marco can board the ships at Marco. There are no meaningful benefits to the residents. Nor has the City even suggested they should collect fees for allowing the cruise ships in.
As such, our island is being used to harvest profits, and the residents get nothing significant. As a candidate my position is we need a robust discussion of the public policy involved before any variances are approved.