Coverage: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
LEE COUNTY — Lee County will soon decide whether to hire a law firm to sue oil company BP for losses incurred due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, Commissioner Frank Mann reported on Friday.
No oil washed ashore in Lee, but the county has asked the oil company for $669,000 to recoup money spent on an emergency advertising campaign following the disaster.
The advertising campaign was designed to let potential visitors know the county’s beaches were unaffected by the spill, said Tamara Pigott, executive director of the Lee Visitors and Convention Bureau.
“We would not have undertaken that campaign if we had not had the incident,” she said.
BP has notified the county that it does not believe the claim is legitimate, Mann said.
“We need to hire people who are uniquely qualified and have the staff to handle this, then bring action against BP,” Mann told the Lee Tourist Development Council at its monthly meeting. “There’s more than $1 million at stake.”
Mann noted that the county clerk’s office has estimated another $836,000 in lost county revenues from the oil spill.
Filing a lawsuit would not cost the county money, as lawyers would likely agree to take a percentage of the award.
“They get a percentage of whatever we get,” said Mann. “My guess is it could be as high as 30 percent, but as of now BP has told us we won’t get anything.”
Much of the discussion at the TDC meeting centered on beaches:
n Mann reported that a beach renourishment project on Fort Myers Beach is 55 days behind schedule and requires another $660,950 for completion. Commissioners will decide on Tuesday whether to authorize a change order for the project.
Since the county obtained permitting for the project, erosion has taken more than 55,000 cubic yards of sand from the 1.2 mile stretch of beach, said Robert Neal, a project engineer for the county.
Changes in the project’s design also call for another 50,000 cubic yards of sand, he said. With the changes, the project will include dredging and filling up to 420,752 cubic yards of sand.
Mann said he expects the commission to authorize the change order.
“It will run the cost up,” he said. “But we can’t stop this project halfway through.”
Over $500,000 of the additional cost will come from an existing county beach capital improvement fund and a Florida Department of Environmental Protection reimbursement will pay for the remaining $160,000.
n Kathleen Rooker of the Lee County Coastal Advisory Council asked the TDC to consider conducting an economic impact analysis of the county’s beaches.
The study would provide data on beach tourism that would enable the county to apply for federal and state grants more easily and to quantify losses when beaches are damaged by oil spills, toxic waste spills or other disasters, Rooker said.
It would also help county authorities make decisions when it comes to spending tourism tax revenues, she said.
“There is some good data out there, but nothing specific to the economic impact of our beaches,” she said. “This would provide a framework so decision makers can make quantified decisions.”
Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - complete coverage
DEEP TROUBLE: THE GULF IN PERIL - View our special section
Photos of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
Collier County arrests 05-22-2012
Punta Gorda Prostitution Arrests…
Southwest Florida home sales: May 22…














Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 13
jude1#221154 writes:
Its about time!
Klaatu writes:
Why do they need to hire an attorney?
Don't they already have a County Attorney on staff?
jude1#221154 writes:
Barada Niktu.
LosBombero writes:
If Lee sues, I'm piggybacking the lawsuit, just to get $ome and to prove how BS this type of suit is.
light writes:
Lee County entitlement mentality is why America is in the weeds. There was no loss in Lee County Government from the oil spill. Buying more advertising was their own Chicken Little knee jerk reaction to the "sky is falling" scare of the oil spill.
It was said that it would not cost anything to sue. The lawyer would work on a contingency fee.
That idea of government getting somethng for nothing is just plain wrong.
That entitlement mentality is killing America.
jude1#221154 writes:
I do not have an enemies list and you madeupguy are not distinguished. You are just an anonymous cowardly thug who attacks people from behind a mask. That is 180 degrees from distinguished.
I do criticize some public figures at times for a variety of reasons, but when they do the right thing I praise them. I always have some hope they will see the light and do something right and truly distinguish them as public servants and good human beings. I only have words and they are not obligated to listen so I am often disappointed.
I do like to post my words as emails sometimes so that they become public records. Public records tend to have
a longer life than mere words.
MautheDoog writes:
Madeguy, there is something seriously wrong with you and your hateful, immature and accusing comments. It is beyond me why NDN has not banned you again. You are back to the same old attacks and name calling that you used as your former self, Allaclarkbar and it looks like you are going for the world record of most deleted comments. Amazing!
jude1#221154 writes:
Mau:
The editor told me that the NDN is run as a business, not as an information
resource. Perhaps in their mind stupid personal attacks create more readership and thus increase revenue.
I know of no other reason they would tolerate "madeguy" and her ilk of commenters.
That is perhaps why they allowed alaclarkbar to reregister under a different alias as madeguy.
That is possibly why she is removed slowly if ever for what are obvious puerile personal attacks.
The NDN folks think that the Web is a completely different reality where print rules do not apply.
They are ignoring the fact that consistently allowing this kind of low life (and frankly psychotic) level of "commentator" will damage their brand name.
It is a shame that this newspaper has forgotten its primary product is responsible and honest reporting and commentary.
Jude
MautheDoog writes:
Allaclarkbar, if you are nothing else else, you are tenacious, lol. First and for the last time, since your memory is not the best, I remind you of this, I am not, nor ever have been against fellow firefighters. In the last several years I HAVE been against reckless overspending by the BSFD. Nothing at all wrong with simple good economics and community concern. You however, have been like a rabid dog going after anyone you do agree with. Elementary school bully tactics again. I don't "take up" for Jude or anyone else, as he seems to be doing just fine on his own. Last but not least your TRUE identity has been leaked from good authority. You are D.R. in disguise. I will have no further contact with you as this is our final exchange. Goodbye.
MautheDoog writes:
*do not agree with*
jude1#221154 writes:
It is amazing how all the the stupid personal attacks by the BSFD fire thugs are backfiring.
The BSFD is now immensely less popular than during the last election.
jude1#221154 writes:
During the last Fire District election (Nov 2010) two challengers and two incumbents were nearly tied at just over 6000 votes. Three thousand voted for the top of the tier candidates (gov, senate etc.) but did not vote for BSFD commissioners. These 3,000 are not friends of the BSFD union but simply folks the opposition did not reach. I have spoken to many folks since the election and many more have been reached since then.
So unless there is going to be a miraculous reform at the BSFD (which no one expects from the rubber stamp commissioners, there is an interesting election coming up in 2012.
slogoodland writes:
the comments above are more like a short story,they must of got dragon!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.