- April 28, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Dear Editor:
I’m writing in response to your article about the man who claimed to own the deer that was put down by law enforcement personnel in Palm Coast and is considering filing a lawsuit against the officers who put it down. Whether that statement about being “the owner” came from the Observer or the man who kept that wild animal, the reality is that he violated state law by keeping a deer as some kind of pet.
Had that individual used better judgment when he initially “saved” that deer years ago, it probably would still be alive and well today. But no, he had to try to make that wild animal a pet in violation of the law as well as contrary to common sense.
In a previous related article, he even stated the deer "identified as a dog.” What a ridiculous thing to say about a wild deer that he basically captured and failed to turn over to wildlife officials for proper rehabilitation and return to the wild.
He in his mind identified that deer as his dog, and there is nobody to blame for that poor animal’s death other than the man who kept it in his house and tried to turn it into some semblance of a pet.
He ultimately led to its untimely death when it attacked and injured a neighbor. Let this unfortunate incident be a lesson to others. Our local wildlife is wonderful to observe, but do not make the same mistake in attempting to keep them as pets!
Dave Gray
Palm Coast
Dear Editor,
Two stories in the Observer this week about the city of Palm Coast's priorities and actions could make residents pause and question who’s in charge. The new sign ordinance and the Old Kings Village development are examples of something out of control in City Hall, and these two proposed changes both came from the same group.
The city planners apparently take their working orders straight from real estate and developers. The planning department assembled a "stakeholder group" of real estate agents and developers to work up a new sign law for homeowners. We residents, the real stakeholders of our city, were not included.
What they came up with was front lawns dotted with "For Sale" signs or comments, even adult-oriented lewd comments, that would be objectionable to many people found in our diverse community. They don’t need to be on your neighbor’s front lawn in large numbers. Don’t mess up the natural beauty of Palm Coast anymore.
The Old Kings Village development is so out of place where they are putting it, even the City Council was somewhat skeptical. For the public to challenge the rules they are using to legitimize this "red herring," the taxpayers and residents only get essentially one hearing with the City Council to disagree with this proposal.
The same planning department as the sign deal, after working months with the developer at taxpayer expense, claims that 35 homes are compatible with the one-home lots that exist in the surrounding area right next to this place.
We had better hold on to our hats if this goes through, as the next one will be even worse.
Jeffery C. Seib
Palm Coast
