|
I’ve spent all day trying to figure out just what Northeast Times letter I wanted to put up on the site and gently mock. It’s been a tough decision — the one mentioning the girl who spent an extra year at school so she could organize a dance, the one about the paint job at a local school, the one saying a priest should be aborted, the incomprehensible one from Tony Irish, &c. were all losers — and I’ve settled on this pair of letters that are kind of similar to each other:
The city took Jeanne Smith to court over her chickens in 2000 and the city lost. So then in 2004 they pass an ordinance that you can’t keep farm animals in the city. Why are they after Smith? She had the chickens before the ordinance. As long as she takes care of her animals she should be able to keep them. How much money has been spent on this case by the city of Philadelphia over the years?
A barking dog makes more noise than a chicken. Dog waste smells pretty bad, too. Will that be the next ordinance to be passed by City Council?
Ida Steer
Holmesburg
I feel the city should leave Jeanne Smith alone. She uses her chickens to teach children. Not only that, she has had them long before the new law was passed. This “grandfather” clause applies to every other law that is passed, why not now?
I believe there is more to this than chickens. What’s with Mr. O’Neill and his involvement? Why doesn’t the city go after people who don’t pick up after their dogs? That’s a law that’s not enforced.
Chuck Steer
Holmesburg
Thank you for your identical letters, Mr. and Mrs. Steer.
Letters to the Editor 02.16 [Northeast Times]
|
