"The criterion for the awards states, "In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."[2]If there was a Darwin Award (with no one dying from stupidity) given for Letters to the Editor, it should be presented to Becky McDermott, who wrote this piece, Deer Don't Pay Property Taxes. Kids don't pay taxes. Dogs and cats don't pay taxes. Should we kill them too? I pay taxes, so do I get a say, Becky? I know you don't like those of us who want to "coexist."
This is the only time where I wish this blog was public so that the deer haters could read how ridiculous they appear.
Update July 31, 2015 7:24 PM From this week's Administrative Report which goes out to the commission and staff:
"Deer Don't Pay Property Taxes"
ReplyDeleteWell, "there's yer problem!" Just charge the deer property tax and they'll leave soon enough!
That may create even a bigger problem Richard. If the raccoons get to stay and not be charged a property tax then the deer will say that is unfair to them and will scream discrimination. The same will happen with the rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, etc., etc., etc. You get my point. To be fair we would need to institute a wild animal property tax that includes all species, even for the rats who live in the sewers. And who would collect all this tax? That would be an issue too.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
No, Nick. The commissioners would have that covered. They would charge all the fawns a higher rate, since they were the newest ones to move here.
ReplyDeleteAll joking aside, I think the residents who are "donating" their properties should pay for part of this. That seems to be the norm these days.
Elaine
That's the part I can't figure out Elaine. Why am I paying for someone else's deer problem? If a resident in Virginia Manor wants to donate their property to have deer removed that come on their property, why am I paying for that when I live over by Mellon especially when they refuse to take steps to prevent the deer from coming on their property in the first place?
ReplyDeleteNick M.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteIf Dave Franklin was on this blog, he will tell you that we pay for lots of things that we don't personally use. In fact, I just received a LeboALERT for the Capital Improvements scheduled for 2016-2020.
I see Phase 2 for parking on Cedar Blvd. on page 42 of the CIP. $275,000 for Brafferton (page 41 of the CIP), $700,000 Phase 2 LIGHTING FOR WILDCAT FIELD (page 51 of the CIP) and the best one yet - are you sitting down? See page 44 of the CIP. $4.2 million for McNeilly Field set for 2018.
I am going to have a stroke. I just know it.
Elaine
"Why am I paying for someone else's deer problem?"
ReplyDeletePrecisely! I would add to that by saying, why am I paying for someone's semi-private playground, or in the case of McNeilly, someone's pipe dream of a "sports complex" (a sports complex is what the minority wants, of course).
Mr. Franklin would indeed say that we pay for a lot of things we don't use. But as a lawyer he must know the difference between "public use" and "public benefit." We pay for roads, schools, and infrastructure - much of which I do not use. But a road does not care who drives or rides on it, and some of that traffic is commercial activity that benefits me; such as bringing food to a grocery store that I, in turn, purchase. Thus roads are public use. But Wildcat Field with its green, fake grass, is a public benefit of sorts in that it benefits a very small portion of the public at the expense of everyone else. So while Mr. Franklin may be happy to have his taxes raised, and to force mine higher too, so that he and his children receive a public benefit from Wildcat, that benefit is out of proportion to the burden imposed on everybody else. In short, Mr. Franklin has made a very weak argument.
I will be very interested to hear or read the arguments our "esteemed" elected leaders will use to justify buying more toys for our local plutocrats.
You said it, Elaine. The killers do no want to coexist with any creatures, including humans. Because "coexistence" is in our group's name, they either have to say they want to coexist or they don't. They seem to have chosen the latter. Aren't they embarrassed to admit it?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, if you want deer killed on your property, you need to sign an elaborate municipally created contract, a lien on your house, a % of the fee paid in advance, and proof of universal consensus in your area that this is something the neighborhood wholeheartedly endorses.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that 8:45 PM? There is no fee that I am aware of. Do you have more information that you would be willing to share?
ReplyDeleteElaine
From 8:44 --- no sorry, I meant "if the municipality wants to be fair it should be like...XYZ".... i wrote that comment a little too fast... sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteThe folks who are donating their property for Team DeNicola are not doing it to reduce deer vehicle collisions, they are doing it to protect their flowers, plants and vegetation and to reduce the number of deer in their back yards. So why am I expected to pay for that? It makes absolutely no sense, but my humble beliefs tell me that the commissioners are using the deer vehicle collision reason as an excuse to make it seem like it's a public issue therefore all residents need to contribute, which is absolute nonsense.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
I keep reading Becky McDermott's letter and have drawn a few conclusions.
ReplyDelete1.The deer haters aren't pleased with the archery plan.
2.The deer haters will only be happy when "sharpshooters" are hired.
3.The deer haters are feeling threatened by those who want to "coexist."
4. Making this blog "invitation only" is driving the deer haters crazy.
Nick, Miss Becky said in her letter that because she pays taxes, she shouldn't have to put in an expensive fence, or buy sprays or spend $70 on a motion sensing sprayer device like the Scarecrow, and certainly has the right to plant whatever she wants. But we're taxpayers too. In fact, I pay more in real estate taxes than she does on Royce. I don't want to play that card because Carolyn Byham has that over most of us. The issue is, as Nick pointed out, it is all about THEIR gardens.
Elaine