Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, August 30, 2012

Petition out of line

August 30, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

The River Bend Court area’s recent petition to annex 1742 E. 1350 Road was inappropriate. I’m concerned because annexation is not for personal agendas. This was just an intimidation tactic to force their neighbor to stop target shooting.

I understand the concern for safety. I also understand the right to shoot. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Why didn’t they talk to their neighbor first? This was the perfect opportunity to teach firearm safety and get to know someone. Instead, this neighborhood chose to exercise mob rule, where a group removes another’s rights in order to force conformity. What makes people think they can do this and not have it done to them?

I’m sure residents wouldn’t like it if someone tried to have their property rezoned to prohibit children or called the police to stop them using fireworks, which are no less dangerous. If they wouldn’t like this done to them, then they shouldn’t be doing this to others!

If investigation disclosed unresolvable safety issues, then that was a matter for the sheriff. This petition was completely out of line.

Comments

none2 1 year, 7 months ago

I decided that it was best to google the address to see the area in question to understand what exactly was going on:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=1742+E.+1350+Road,+Lawrence,+KS&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87bf6f0a586400a5:0xfa4cbd18bb396996,E+1350+Rd,+Lawrence,+KS+66044&gl=us&ei=DTFBUP-AJoPQ2wWW9YDIDA&ved=0CCEQ8gEwAA

I suggest everybody take a look at it in satellite view and zoom as necessary to see the actual houses involved...

It is obvious that there has been a lot of relatively recent development to the east and south where all the homes look identical and the trees are tiny. I would guess that originally there were just the three homes along North Michigan -- the ones that have well established trees around their homes.

I don't know exactly how the events transpired, but I wouldn't be surprised if the developers didn't try to buy out the established properties. If they refused to sell or wanted more money, then did the developers figure that they would still do whatever they wanted and let these older established properties suffer the consequences once it was an established neighborhood? The zoning commissions should have REQUIRED the developers to accommodate the existing neighbors before giving them basically carte Blanche to do as they will.

I don't know if the owners of these established properties man complained to the zoning board when all this development started, but if he did, then the developers should have been FORCED to amend their plans since THEY were changing the existing neighbors' way of life -- from that point on.

If events unfolded somewhat like I think they did, then SHAME on the developer(s), and SHAME on all the governmental entities that let this development happen without considering the ramifications to the existing residences.

0

1Love 1 year, 7 months ago

Bad analogy.....that is why we have zoning laws, so a business could not be placed right in the center of a residential neighborhood, or in someones backyard. This is not the country people!!! I lived in the country for half my life, we shot all the time, the neighbors shot all the time, but we had a good 1/2 mile between us and we shot in a direction where there were no neighboring houses or roads. This guy lives in the city on county property. Country and county are 2 separate entities. Just because he has the right doesn't make it right. Laws evolve all the time. The community wanted to prevent a tragedy before it happened not after.

0

Matthew Herbert 1 year, 7 months ago

"I'm sure residents wouldn't like it if someone called the cops to stop them using fireworks". Like it or not, if you shoot bottle rockets or guns at my house, I'm calling the cops.

1

1Love 1 year, 7 months ago

As a resident in this area, I'd like to shed some light onto this subject. Consider the following visual....a bullseye, the center being Mr. Cobb's county property then the the outer ring being residential city property. Although, yes he does/did have the right to shoot a firearm, it is not very intelligent to do so within range of neighboring houses. If you live in the city and hear gun shots, it is alarming and never a good thing. He went out of his way to notify the Sheriff when he started and stopped target practice, but lacked the concern to notify neighbors in the vicinity that would naturally be frightened to hear gun shots in a residential neighborhood. Until, recently he also had several No Trespassing signs in his yard...so no, he was not perceived as being approachable as he stated. If you own a gun, I hope you also own common sense and have been through a basic gun safety course. The statement about rezoning a residential neighborhood to ban children....that's just pure lunacy and laughable and not a very good argument/point. Fireworks are illegal in the city limits of Lawrence, so feel free to call law enforcement. Good day!

0

beatrice 1 year, 7 months ago

"Why didn’t they talk to their neighbor first?"

Yes, I always approach people who are shooting off their guns near my home to ask them to stop. I mean, what could possibly go wrong in that scenario, especially since neighbors have never been known to be violent toward one another?

0

gr 1 year, 7 months ago

So, someone does something you don't like. You don't go to them about it, but you go to the city and have them annex the person you don't like.

That will teach them!

Ok, the take away message is that annexation is BAD! It is a punishment.

Annexation is assimilation by the Borg. I hope y'all will remember that the next time there is talk about annexation. The question then is to ask, Who is being punished and why.

0

KansasLiberal 1 year, 7 months ago

Is Lois Ammel a gun nut or did her husband write this letter for her? Either way, the opinions that were expressed in the letter are wrong.

0

Rex Hargis 1 year, 7 months ago

None2 -- it has happened in this area. The American Civil War proved this (the Library of Congress calls this the War of Southern Rebellion). Fire on Americans? I had the responsibilty to not fire if the order was illegal.

0

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 7 months ago

Whay to many "city slickers" want to be a rancher or farmer, with there 5 acres plot

1

none2 1 year, 7 months ago

I remember not that many years ago when a little girl in Leavenworth County (not too far from DeSoto) was shot in the head by a bullet that most likely came from a hunter. People would like to believe it was an accident. Still, the person who did it never had the guts to come forward. They knew what they did because this story was all over the news, and anybody who lives in that area as well as those that commute through that area got questioned as to whether they had any info. The person is a coward.

I'm not for banning guns outright, but people have no business shooting in areas populated by people. This is not Dodge City during the wild west days. Now, if people built a house in an area known for hunting, then some of the fault lies with them. If the house was there all along, then the hunters should have some respect for those that do not want to get shot or for that matter don't want to hear gun shots in the wee hours of the morning.

2

Rex Hargis 1 year, 7 months ago

Donttread I would never come armed on your property, unless I was called back to armed service and was ordered to.

0

donttreadonme 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm a gun owner, but your right to fire a weapon ends at my property line.

2

Rex Hargis 1 year, 7 months ago

True, there is no right to shoot. But it it is not prohibited either.

1

Peter Macfarlane 1 year, 7 months ago

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say that anybody has a right to shoot a firearm?

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.