User profile: Like_It_Is
Joined: June 28, 2007
Comments posted: 15
Contact Like_It_Is (log-in required)
Comments by Like_It_Is
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 28 at 1:04 p.m.
So she arrested him because she "felt" or had an "instinct" that something was amiss about the guy??? I thought probable cause (not just a "feeling") was required before an arrest could be made.
On E-mail exchange continues in 42-cent theft case at mall fountain
Posted on June 16 at 3:47 p.m.
Just heard that someone saw a coyote in northern end of Park Shore in Naples.
Posted on May 17 at 8 a.m.
Shouldn't Allstate reimburse the State of Florida for the expenses incurred in forcing the turnover of the documents? The citizens' taxes paid to force Allstate to comply with the law, and now it gets to start writing policies again??? Why should I do business with Allstate???
On None
Posted on March 20 at 8:56 a.m.
I agree with Emmy wholeheartedly. I too visit Keewaydin most weekends, and I can personally attest that the claims of rampant diapers and trash are simply untrue or, at a minimum, greatly exaggerated. I ALWAYS use a trash bag to clean up after myself, and when I encounter the occasional stray bottle cap, I pick that up as well. The only thing I leave behind is my footprints in the sand. And now the regulators are contemplating building docks.....geez.
On Authorities needed to help control Keewaydin Island abusers, official says
Posted on October 15 at 11:14 a.m.
Cindi, since you asked, I would invite you to review the PUD master plans in 1996, 1997 and 2002. All show the area where Stevie Tomato's is located as "commercial" and all allow "drinking establishments" to be located in that area.
Whatever the reasons for the developer's request to amend the PUD in 2002, the commercial zoning and the legal right to place a drinking establishment in the commercial area has existed since at least 1996.
Swfl ff, I agree that a compromise is a good (if not the only) solution. At least it would avoid a potential lawsuit at the expense of the taxpayers. Stevie Tomato's offered to install a sound barrier, at its own cost, although not required legally to do so. The neighbors and the County rejected the offer and publicly disparaged Stevie Tomato's. So much for compromise.......
On VIDEO/POLL: Noise, height, issues from Stevie Tomato's making North Naples plaza a battleground
Posted on October 15 at 9:30 a.m.
Contrary to some comments made here, the FACTS are as follows: 1. The area where Stevie Tomato's is located has been zoned COMMERCIAL for at least 10 years. (Perhaps the developer told some people that it was going to be residential multi-family, but the zoning has been commercial for at least a decade.) 2. The complaining neighbors bought the closest lots to the commercial area, AFTER the commercial area was already zoned commercial. 3. Stevie Tomato's has violated no law (nor has it been charged with violating any law).
On VIDEO/POLL: Noise, height, issues from Stevie Tomato's making North Naples plaza a battleground
Posted on August 31 at 11:54 a.m.
Agree with all the comments above....assuming, of course, that the murder charges are proven and they are found guilty in a court of law.
On San Carlos Park convenience store clerk shot in the head during robbery dies
2 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on August 23 at 5:44 p.m.
Lolala...I'm not a Marco resident, so I am the first to admit that I may not have all the facts. However, as I understand it, the "recall" of a duly elected official is governed by Florida law. The courts soundly ruled that the plaintiffs' grounds to try to get the councilmen recalled (call it what you will but, essentially, the plaintiffs simply didn't agree with the three councilmen's votes) did not satisfy Florida law. The plaintiffs lost the lawsuit (resoundingly), and now they whine about it. If Florida law allows costs and fees to be awarded against the plaintiffs, so be it. They took the risk by filing the lawsuit, which, as you say, is their right. But now that they lost, they must deal with the possible consequences (and should do so without complaint).
2 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on August 23 at 2:14 p.m.
Wait a sec....weren't the three councilmen sued individually simply because they voted a particular way on an issue??? Perhaps those who accuse the councilmen of being "vindictive" are vindictive themselves. Meanwhile, no fewer than two courts summarily rejected the claims against the councilmen, right? Sounds like the suit was ill-advised from the beginning. Under these circumstances, and if Florida law allows it (which may or may not be true), why shouldn't the plaintiffs pay back the fees and costs unncessarily expended by all the taxpayers of the City to defend this near-frivolous lawsuit?
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on November 14 at 12:33 p.m.
You're all missing a huge point here.....$525 worth of tequila!!!! That's about 20 bottles, right? This guy's got an incredible liver!
On Employee faces felony charges for allegedly stealing steaks, tequila from restaurant