Now
Fair
23°
High
32°
Low
16°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Council to Peter Rabbit: Hit the trail

Comments 89 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY CORY MATTESON AND ALGIS J. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 - 11:50:22 pm CDT

Peter Rabbit, it seems, must turn tail.

The lone horse in Hickman, currently grazing on a pasture on Harley Scott’s incorporated four-acre property, effectively got the boot Tuesday night.

A vote to enact an ordinance that allows horses — including worldwide attention-grabbing ones — to live within Hickman’s corporate limits failed on a two-to-four vote at a Hickman City Council meeting.

Story Photo
Harley Scott keeps his 30-year-old horse, Peter Rabbit, penned next to his house. (Robert Becker)

The ordinance, introduced for consideration Tuesday by Councilman Mike Cejka’s motion and seconded by Councilwoman Kim Hoesing, offered a compromise: All horses, including Peter Rabbit, could stay. The current city ordinance bans all large animals within the corporate limits.

Horses would be required to reside on a minimum of 1.5 acres, and their owners would have to have an annual health certificate from a veterinarian, pay an annual licensing fee and meet fencing requirements.

But Cejka and Hoesing were the only council members to vote in favor of the change. Voting against it were Richard Harms, Doug Hanson, Dave Dykmann and Steve Noren.

Brett Baker, Hickman’s city administrator and economic development director, said there wasn’t much support for the horse from Hickman’s residents, and “no representation from Peter Rabbit’s close relatives.”

The Scotts were out of town and could not be reached for comment. Their son, Jack Scott, who Baker said was aware of the Tuesday discussion, didn’t show for the meeting either, and could not be reached Tuesday night.

 “We hope it would be reasonable,” Jack Scott said earlier, when asked if the family would abide by a new ordinance.

Baker said the compromise ordinance was similar to one that the City Council considered last November. At that time, he said,  Harley Scott indicated that he would not comply, and the ordinance was not acted upon.

Two weeks ago, a sheriff’s deputy delivered a city letter to Harley Scott telling him he had 30 days to comply with the city ordinance banning large animals. To comply, Peter Rabbit had to hop along by Sept. 15.

Baker said Tuesday night that Mayor Jim Hrouda allowed for three people to speak in favor of keeping the horse, and three to speak against keeping the horse in city limits.

Only one person supported keeping Peter Rabbit around, and two spoke against the idea.

That smattering of voices, Baker said, was consistent with the light response city officials received from Hickman residents after Peter Rabbit’s fate made news around the globe.

Although the city received a a slew of letters, e-mails and phone calls, just a few were from the people of Hickman. Out of 51 letters, Baker said four came from residents — two were written by the same woman.

Less than 10 of some 1,300 e-mails that listed addresses were sent from people in town.

And the calls came from everywhere — including a member of the family that owned late Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro and a member of the office of  U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia — except the Hickman masses. Only three people who called identified themselves as Hickman residents.

Baker said most of the outsiders calling and writing in weren’t aware of the full history of the ordinance banning large animals, which then-City Councilman Jack Scott voted in favor of in 1988. Nor were they aware that Harley Scott and his wife, Cheryl, asked that Peter Rabbit’s current abode be voluntarily annexed into the city.

A 29-point historical timeline of Peter Rabbit-related events is currently posted on Hickman’s Web page (www.hickman.ne.gov).

Baker said once the Barbaro owner’s family member was told about it all, she changed her mind, and said the horse had to go.

Reach Cory Matteson at 402-473-7438 or cmatteson@journalstar.com. Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 402-473-7243 or alaukaitis@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Jim wrote on August 26, 2008 4:11 pm:
" It amazes me how this small town tries to act like a big city, come on Hickman act your size. "

 dont understand this wrote on August 26, 2008 4:29 pm:
" Wouldn't that horse be grandfathered in from any new ordinance banning livestock in town anyhow? I didn't realize you could come up with a new ordinance and make it impact those already in place, heck even a sex offender living near a school is allowed to be there if they lived there before those laws took effect. "

 J wrote on August 26, 2008 4:31 pm:
" The horse looks in excellent shape for 30 years old. I am sure he winnies all night long and keeps everyone in town awake....let him stay where he is at. At least he is being well taken care of by his owner. "

 Hello wrote on August 26, 2008 4:41 pm:
" Kudos Jim! I can't believe they need to "have another meeting" to consider an ordinance to allow the horse to stay. What a waste of time! You don't need to have another meeting. Have a representative from the council call the guy and say the horse can stay. Real simple. I'm confident the city council learned something from this. O.K., so you make an ordinance that says "no more animals from this point on, however those currently in the city limits can stay." No brainer. Oh well city council, some of life's best lessons are learned the hard way, aren't they? "

 JB wrote on August 26, 2008 4:46 pm:
" It's sad that the city of Hickman needed to have their computer crash before they even considered this. My guess is all the threats about buying fireworks and property else where never even set in. They are simply tired of hearing the phone ring. Sad, very sad. Residents should remember how the council members vote on this, if anything for the next election. Obviously some of them don't deserve to be in office. "

 evelc wrote on August 26, 2008 4:46 pm:
" It is refreshing that the council has found a way to allow this old horse to live out his days in familiar surroundings. They have proved themselves compassionate and reasonable and capable of bending the rules when it makes good sense.

That said, most folks would agree that the "no livestock" ordinance itself is certainly a normal one for a town of almost any size. One word: manure. "

 nemo wrote on August 26, 2008 4:56 pm:
" Yeah really, spend a little more time talking about something that should be a no-brainer. Let the horse stay. There should be a grandfather clause on this ordinance. "

 Nina wrote on August 26, 2008 5:04 pm:
" Glad to hear the old horse has had a reprieve. It's just like with people - some get the breaks, and get all the attention, and others not. So it would seem when the same website contains Peter Rabbit's (third?) story right along with those of dozens of starved, neglected or abused animals in the past few weeks, whose plight wasn't known until they were gone. "

 computer crash wrote on August 26, 2008 6:56 pm:
" If Hickman's computer crashed from just 2000 e-mails I think they should vote on buying a new more modern computer and leave the horse where it is. "

 coufused wrote on August 26, 2008 7:12 pm:
" So if I can buy up enough lots to make 1.5 acres then no one cares if I bring in a horse. How about a Pigs. They can be pets as well. This is insane. If I remember from the prior articles Mr. Scott was a city council member for several years and should have understood the city ordinances when he requested the city to annex them. I really think this is a case of someone thinking they are "above the law" "

 Marilyn Maul wrote on August 26, 2008 8:59 pm:
" Some of these officials need to be ousted. Who in the heck cares if a guy in Hickman has a horse that has lived there for many years. Somebody wants to exercise authority again. GET REAL! Act like a small town and not a BIG city. Can't believe this one....... "

 Power to the People and Peter Rabbit wrote on August 26, 2008 10:09 pm:
" People can make a difference. And so can the internet. This story spread like wildfire. What an amazing response from across the nation. People love animals. People don't like big government--even when it comes in the size of a small town's city council. "

 Grandfather Peter wrote on August 26, 2008 10:26 pm:
" Why doesn't Hickman Grandfather clause Peter Rabbit. He's not a young let him live out his days in Hickman. Good Grief, what a bunch of scrooges! "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 26, 2008 10:31 pm:
" Yeah!!! According to the 10/11 news, the horse will have to removed by Sept. 15th! Thank you Hickman city council for listening to the residents of Hickman and removing the horse! I don't want to live next to any livestock (including a horse). You all have my vote at the next election!

Thanks again Hickman officals! "

 Jonathan Swift wrote on August 26, 2008 10:32 pm:
" A Modest Proposal: I propose that Peter Rabbit be donated to the Food Bank. That would eliminate the legal problem and also free up the pasture for the Hickman City Council members. It appears that they're overdue to be put out to pasture. "

 Boycott Hickman wrote on August 26, 2008 11:20 pm:
" I just heard on the evenings news, Hickman council voted 2 to 4 AGAINST the ordinance which would have allowed the horse to stay. They admitted they received thousands of calls, letters & emails in favor of keeping the horse, but they said it would hurt the towns growth to have a pasture in town. What a bunch of bullies. The Scotts have until September 15th to do something with the horse. So I wonder what the council intends to do if the Scotts don't comply. Shoot him or have the sheriff try to take him to jail? "

 lincolnite Doug H wrote on August 27, 2008 12:18 am:
" well now that the one horse town of hickmanville is with out a horse and all is good there now i hope that means all hickvillens will stay out of Lincoln "

 Define livestock wrote on August 27, 2008 12:52 am:
" Livestock is defined, in legitimate reference books, as providing food or fiber, being raised for home use or for profit. That doesn't sound like a 30+ year old horse.

I think that people have the right to change their minds. Even if the older Scott knew about the animal exclusion law within Hickman, it doesn't mean he didn't believe in the concept of the "grandfather clause." It is hard to believe that Hickman is so concerned about a horse when there are so many other important things in this world to focus on. Come to Lincoln and I will show you where some horses live, grandfathered into the community. For someome from the western part of the state, I found it relaxing and calming to drive by the horses.

Finally, if there is "more to this story", then why don't you talk about it? I remember at the last council meeting there were 25 people who wanted to speak, but the council limited comments to 3 people. Were these 25 people for or against the horse? Why hasn't the mayor or the city administrator provided examples of real problems with the horse? Is the problem just a question of a license or is it more? Why now after all these years do you really care about this horse? I think there are some personal biases at work here.

The support is going to be on the side of the horse when the mayor or the council doesn't share the full details. I do find it ridiculous that the Council limits comments to 3 speakers per side of an issue. How controlling you people are! Why do people actually want to live in Hickman when your right to speak is controlled. Are the city leaders that busy that they can't listen to more than 6 total people?

Tell me and other supporters of Peter Rabbit how he is fits the definition of "livestock"; it should be great. "

 Mr. Ed wrote on August 27, 2008 1:57 am:
" Quit horsing around! This is for real, the horse has to go. I don't like it for one minute. "

 Bob White wrote on August 27, 2008 6:00 am:
" It is really amazing, in this modern age of technology that a compromise could not be reached. We were considering a move outside of Lincoln to a small town environment. Due to the circumstances and current mind set of Hickman's leadership and town folk, this is not the place for my family.
Sorry Hickman, you could of made a great decision to write a wrong in modern America, but you blew it. "

 Blackeye for Hickman wrote on August 27, 2008 6:12 am:
" This will be Hickman's legacy as they try to act like they are Lincoln. I would much rather live next to five horses than one barking dog in town.

This is just plain stupid and I hope that those forcing the move of the horse are publicly shamed. "

 Tim wrote on August 27, 2008 6:30 am:
" Did anyone bother to read the timeline they linked to in the story? The ordinance was put on the books in 1988, when the horse's owner was on the council. In fact, he voted for it. He then requested voluntary annexation of the property where Peter Rabbit lives in 2006. He knew what he was getting into. It wasn't a surprise to him. He repeatedly refused to accept notices regarding the issue. When I first heard the story, yes, I felt there should be some way to let the horse stay. However, after reading the timeline and seeing the actions taken by the owners, it appears they are being somewhat uncooperative and expecting some sort of special treatment. They wanted the benefits of being part of the town of Hickman, but didn't want to play by all the PRE-ESTABLISHED rules. "

 Tired of Whining wrote on August 27, 2008 6:52 am:
" Why does everyone think that this horse should be Grandfathered in? The ordinance was passed in 1988. The property was annexed by the city in 2006. Clearly the horse was not part of the city before the law was in effect and there is nothing for the horse to be grandfathered in on. Simply another case of everyone that reads an article in the paper thinking they know more about a subject than the people actually involved. "

 Nebraskan that travels a lot wrote on August 27, 2008 6:59 am:
" This story is now running on CNN! Thank you Hickman! Thank you for living up to the sterotype that small towns are small minded! You've set a fine example to the rest of state and country "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 27, 2008 7:03 am:
" Boy, am I glad that they are getting that dangerous animal out of town! Hate to think he would be running around town causing vandalism and destruction to our fine town! Give me a break! There are teenagers in town that cause more problems and are more of a concern than a 30+ year old horse. I think the council needs to be looking at solving some of the other problems our town has like the flooding problems! Maybe the Scotts are getting what they asked for several years ago, but let's remember people that Peter Rabbit is the victim here! He doesn't have a choice! Signed, another horse lover "

 Who Cares wrote on August 27, 2008 7:12 am:
" Does anyone really care about Hickman? This is just to get their name in the paper. They make the rest of Nebraska look real good. I think Lincoln should give them a letter saying that town has to go. "

 Buddha wrote on August 27, 2008 7:16 am:
" It amazes me how Hickman, a small rural town, will ban horses from it's limits, but Omaha, a big urban city, still allows them within their limits. If you don't believe me, drive around some of the parts of the city that aren't so urban. Even the Omaha Police Department's horse barn is just east of the Old Market, near the Conagra campus. "

 TO Hickman Resident wrote on August 27, 2008 7:18 am:
" Why did you move to the country if you don't want to be around livestock animals? Seems to me that is exactly what was going to happen. By the way if your so into this, why didn't your voice be heard in front of those people called a "council" LOL...why did you have to learn about it on 10/11 news....all you people amaze me. Maybe were a little jealous of the Scotts? "

 Kate wrote on August 27, 2008 7:19 am:
" It is amazing that those you vote in to represent the people are more interested in their own personal vendetta and an innocent animal has to pay the price. Way to go HICKman. "

 Galen wrote on August 27, 2008 7:20 am:
" The strange thing is - the horse has probably lived in Hickman longer then the people trying to get rid of him. It just proves that ANY politician can't be trusted to do anything except raise taxes. "

 jb wrote on August 27, 2008 7:25 am:
" Another example of city government impressed with it's own importance "

 Kathy wrote on August 27, 2008 7:31 am:
" I would think that this situation would be a grand father clause in the ordinance. Existing horses can stay but no new ones unless born to a current mare. It seems he has the fencing and the acreage required. Whatever happened to compassion.gynja "

 Before wrote on August 27, 2008 7:37 am:
" You all condemn the town council of Hickman, I suggest you read the timeline the story linked to. You'll get the WHOLE story, not just the Scott's side of it. I doubt support would be so widespread for the horse if everyone who emailed, called, or wrote knew the whole story. "

 Darwin wrote on August 27, 2008 7:38 am:
" Quote: "Letters came from everywhere... except the Hickman masses."
Yes, the masses. All 1400 of them. Wow, what a booming metropolis. I hear they plan on getting a stop light soon, and someday maybe even a grocery store. I think New York may have some competition for the title of "cultural epicenter of the country".

My ol' dad would have called Hickman a one-horse town. Blink and you'd miss it. I guess they arent even that anymore. I read alot of articles bemoaning the death of small rural towns. Maybe this is why... "

 fireworks not horses wrote on August 27, 2008 7:42 am:
" Never mind that the Hickman City Council allows 11 fireworks tents in the town for 2 weeks with non-stop firework explosions throughout the summer, we can't let an old horse with a short life to live be grandfathered it. I think that the GOB (good ole boy) network is alive and well down south. Who did Mr. Scott upset many years ago where this is the focus of the city council now. Many more important issues to address. "

 Jan wrote on August 27, 2008 8:19 am:
" I can't beleive that the city counc[l voted to have the horse removed. I have a 32 year old horse that if we moved him he would probably die. He knows his home and it is no different than removing a person from their home as they grow older. Only horses are creatures of habit. That is the home he knows and feels secure. If the people in Hickman are that close minded , then who wants to live there ? Fire works are ok but 1 quiet old horse that loves his home must go, Unbeleivable. "

 Shelly Christy Gretna wrote on August 27, 2008 8:22 am:
" I don't know Mr. Scott, nor any of the rest of you, but as an objective observer I have to say: you guys are making fools of yourselves. Rather than Mr. Scott believing he was "above the law", as accused by some, when he voted for the ordinance and asked to annexed, it sounds as if Mr. Scott was under the assumption that Hickman city council actually understood grandfather clauses and how a situation like this is normally handled, as it is in other cities throughout the state, and everywhere else. Oops. Guess not. Putting personal squabbles aside, does anyone care about the stress and decline that is about to descend upon this incredibly old horse? Have a heart! You people act like it is an insurmountable problem. It's real easy! Grandfather clause! (Look it up)

The only insurmountable problem I see is egos. "

 Timeline wrote on August 27, 2008 8:23 am:
" If the 29 timeline is on the Hickman website, it is not accessible at this time. I have clicked on each tab and didn't see anything like a timeline. The home page might have something on it, but it doesn't stay visible for more than a second or two.

Information in the articles in the Lincoln paper states that the horse's owner was not on the city council when the ordinance was passed. His son was on the council. That is not the same thing. "

 Greg wrote on August 27, 2008 8:32 am:
" I read the entire timeline and the Hickman politicos are still way out of line! Vote 'em all out before they vote you out! "

 mitchy_v wrote on August 27, 2008 8:44 am:
" There are horses in Omaha but not allowed in Hickman! That is a little backwards. "

 Dunnit Papillion wrote on August 27, 2008 8:46 am:
" We've all heard the "rest of the story" now, and still it makes no difference. This isn't about which ego wins, it is about doing the right thing where an old horse is concerned. And acting like grownups.

Which do you think is more damaging to Hickman's likelihood of growing? 1)A grandfathered horse pasture in the middle of town, or 2) all the terrible publicity you are getting by showing the world that small-minded, clueless politicians are running this town? I never knew a thing about Hickman before this, but I sure wouldn't be tempted to move there now!!

Papillion has a horse pasture a block off of main street, which was GRANDFATHERED IN; it hasn't hindered growth in the least. "

 Keith from Texas wrote on August 27, 2008 8:52 am:
" I read "The rest of the story" on the Hickman city website and I still think that they should let this horse stay. The real story is not about Mr. Scott being a jerk, it is about the innocent horse that is caught in the middle of this. The city council needs to drop this issue and move on to handling real city business. "

 Rachel wrote on August 27, 2008 8:53 am:
" I HAVE read ALL of the arguements and both sides of the story. The bottom line is this, the horse is not bothering anyone. The city council has some personal vendetta against this family and they are using the horse as a reason to prove a point. Yes, the city council can ban the horse. What does it prove? They are a bunch of insensitive fools who have no business being in office. What happened to common sense and compassion?
I think it would be different if the horse was young, but it is 30 years old!
And, as a previous person noted, what about the meeting where 25 people showed up and wanted to comment? They were not allowed to. Maybe that's why they didn't attend this meeting.

It is a shame that the council has ruined their reputations and the reputation of what used to be a nice town. They don't care what those of us outside Hickman think. Well, they'll care when we stop going through their town and spending money there. I, for one, will never go there again, even though I used to stop through there once a week. It's worth driving out of my way to avoid supporting those with no compassion in their hearts.

I hope you are proud of yourselves city council. You can tell your children and grandchildren what great people you are evicting a 30 year old horse from your town. I bet they'll be proud. "

 Lee wrote on August 27, 2008 8:58 am:
" Another good reason not to live, shop, visit, etc., Hickman. How pathetic can you get! This is just another case of big fish in very little pond getting to be tyrants. I'm ashamed of that city council and others like them. "

 Horse Lover wrote on August 27, 2008 9:01 am:
" Its too bad that a horse at the age of 30 will now have to be re-homed.
How pathetic that the city council can't see past their own Testosterone
inflated egos to allow the horse to live out the rest of his life (and for those that aren't that bright, thats quite a long life for a horse and
he won't last forever) where he has known and be grandfathered in.
I tend to find people that are *that* against animals are generally
not good human beings overall in the first place. "

 Jim wrote on August 27, 2008 9:08 am:
" Hickman wait until Lincoln annex's you into the city limits. I bet everyone of you against grandfathering this horse will scream. Should things you do on your property be grandfathered then. Remember your arguement then. Your crazy if you don't think there is a grandfather clause just because the city of Hickman shows the timeline they did. Our small town, smaller then Hickman, annexed land around town, did our board force it's ordinances on all of those it annexed, nope, I guess we realize were a small town and not the big thinking progressive city that Hickman is. Hickman you have now become the joke of Nebraska, hope your leaders are happy. "

 Katmom wrote on August 27, 2008 9:26 am:
" What I find amazing is that everyone criticizes the council and blames the town of Hickman for this poor horses fate. Why is no one critical of the owners? It's ultimately their fault that all this happened. They are at fault for the poor horses' fate, because they knew the rules and assumed they wouldn't apply to their horse. Heck, one of the family members was on the council when the ordinance was passed--it's not like this should be a big surprise to them. Shame on them for not being responsible owners and thinking first of their horse, instead of their own interests. (and I am a Hickman resident, if it matters) "

 shame on them wrote on August 27, 2008 9:37 am:
" Hickman should be renamed Hicktown. I feel bad for the residents. I feel really bad for the residents who voted for the city council members who have such big egos. Everyone, at least once in life, needs some compassion. These council members will some day have this situation and I hope that they are treated right. It will teach them a lesson. Shame. Shame. Shame. "

 Hickman Resident too wrote on August 27, 2008 9:49 am:
" First of all, Everyone quite talking about a situation that you only know the half of, yet you still think that you know the right answer. In life the easy answer is not always the correct answer. Secondly, Hickman has to act like a big city with these ordinances because Hickman is growing at prodigious rate. It will likely double its population in the next 20 years that is a lot for a little town to handle. And yet you think it’s sleepy little town with nice little towns folk that wave Hi to you at ever little corner. Never mention the problem residences in the town that have 3 junked vehicles in the front yard and months of trash piled up next to them. Or the fact the there is a very large population of ‘criminals’ and not the kind that keep a horse in town against a city ordinance in a town that they voluntarily annexed into. I am talking about the kind that do federal time for distributing a controlled substance, or the 20 year old that has a criminal history that rivals any seasoned criminal, or my personal favorite the mother of two who had a nice little marijuana grow operation in her house. This is a sleepy little town indeed. Hickman has lots of problems, the majority of them stem from ‘real criminals’ leaving Lincoln for greener pastures in Hickman where Jonny Law does quite have the same handle on them as in Lincoln, not that LSO doesn’t try. Yes, this is my point. Hickman is full of criminals from Lincoln, not just yuppies looking for a sleepy little town to call home. Hickman has all the problems that Lincoln sees in its Core, with none of the resources to combat the problem. So the individuals who say the City Council should better spend its time with real problems your right, but in the end Hickman will always have these problems because Lincoln will always have them.
Oh, and yes we do have a grocery store. "

 This is not like Nebraska wrote on August 27, 2008 10:11 am:
" Hickerville will no longer be a "One-Horse Town". Some things are better than laws, but those trying to impose them wouldn't have a clue about that. "

 nemo wrote on August 27, 2008 10:18 am:
" It's a 30 year old horse for gosh sakes how long is he gonna live? Hickman's progress? Ha! I wouldn't live there for anything. What is wrong with you? I don't want to live by a horse? And tired of whining you should hear yourself," you don't know anything about it". jeez get a life. Okay so the correct term may not be grandfathered, would exempt be better? He has been there since 1970 something, he's older than the law. "

 use of tax dollars... wrote on August 27, 2008 11:06 am:
" the horse is on 4 acres. it is not like it's living in a neighborhood lot backyard! seriously hickman, what a waste of time and money. "

 Silly wrote on August 27, 2008 11:35 am:
" This all is just silly. The poor horse isn't gonna live much longer, and regardless of the voluntary annexation, and the city ordinances, you could drive past that place 10 times, and maybe you'll see that horse once. The property is very well cared for, and if you didn't know to look for the horse, you probably may never see it. Its not like the horse is going to be around for another 20 years. Just let him stay. And, yes, I live nearby and drive through Hickman every single day. There are so many more important things that could be done in this town. "

 Leigh wrote on August 27, 2008 11:55 am:
" The council voted against the ordinance that would have allowed the horse to stay as to not "hurt the city's growth." Seriously, was that the best they could come up with?! Yes, I was definitely going to move to Hickman but decided not to if there was going to be one horse there. C'mon people. Let's look past egos and council votes and consider the best interest of the HORSE. He is 30 years old and I can't imagine the stress he would endure if he was moved and apart from his owners. Let Peter Rabbit live out the rest of his life in peace! "

 Mary Ann wrote on August 27, 2008 11:58 am:
" This is a ridiculous situation. The horse can't live that much longer. The town should "Grandfather in" all livestock that live in the zones when they expand their boundaries. Obviously town leaders did not hear from enough "horse supporters" before making this decision. I am VERY disappointed that such a small town would force the elderly horse out. They may very well be starting a war with equestrian friends. I would never consider moving near their town. "

 JB wrote on August 27, 2008 12:42 pm:
" Should have been some type of "grandfather" clause availible. "

 I vote to Boycott wrote on August 27, 2008 12:50 pm:
" Let's all boycott Hickman. The city (ha!) council should be ashamed of themselves. Hickman will never see another dime of mine and I guarantee I'll let everyone I know how I feel and hopefully they will follow suit. How's that for "growth" Hicktown? Residents, please don't take this personally. My slam is purely towards the little town council. "

 One Out In The Third wrote on August 27, 2008 1:18 pm:
" If it was only that easy to rid ourselves of politicians. "

 Huh wrote on August 27, 2008 1:29 pm:
" What a crock. Hickman doesn't want a horse in town because it'll spoil the growth. You have one resident who says the only problems they have in town are from people that moved in from Lincoln. Huh? Don't blame us for your town problems, blame your city council and their attitudes. Anyone is free to post comments, and I think we know enough about the situation to come up with the conclusion that Hickman isn't a friendly town. "

 PARROTTFISH wrote on August 27, 2008 1:41 pm:
" Shame on your local government! You couldn't "grandfather" Peter Rabbit? I'm sure glad I don't live in your city. I'm so disgusted, I'm speechless. "

 Gayle wrote on August 27, 2008 1:52 pm:
" I live in St. Louis county in Missouri, and we just lost a local horse farm to development. Many of the locals are upset about this, as am I. This horse farm has been in the middle of suburban neighborhoods and next door to a high school for over 30 years with no problems. How can one horse in a small town be such a huge problem?

I understand the frustration of the town council over this issue; however, what it comes down to is that a completely innocent animal is probably going to be put down because someone thinks they don't want to see a horse in their fancy neighborhood. Have a care with those ideas. St. Louis county also has an incorporated township where you cannot even plant one rose bush in your yard without special permission from the town council. Strict adherence to arbitrary rules will come back to bite you one day.

On behalf of animal lovers everywhere I ask that you just let Peter Rabbit the horse live out his few remaining days where he is. Just think - perhaps some day the only horse your children will see is in pictures! "

 Yup wrote on August 27, 2008 1:56 pm:
" How stupid does this make Hickman look. It's internet home page on MSNBC right now. If you read the comments there, there isn't any kind things to say about the Hickman city council (or the town itself). It's too bad that small town government = bullies. So what are you going to do to get Peter Rabbit to move. I suppose you're looking to levy fines, or will you try to evict the horse. If they have to move the horse and it dies, will you feel bad, somehow, I feel this is animal abuse. Where's PETA. "

 Earnest wrote on August 27, 2008 2:42 pm:
" The irony is that the council reports that most of the emails are coming from non-Hickman citizens. That is important Hickman City Council. Some of us were looking at land there to build a house. My wife and I just drew a big X over your town as a place to move outside of Lincoln. I am scared you won't like my kid's basketball goal or my in-law's car in the driveways on the occasional weekend. "

 Raleigh NC wrote on August 27, 2008 2:57 pm:
" Have a heart.

Give an old horse and an old man a break.

If you do not want to live next to a horse then don't buy the house? "

 Boycott Hickman wrote on August 27, 2008 3:05 pm:
" So you are going to boycott Hickman? What exactly are you going to boycott? Are you going to stop buying food at our grocery store? Are you going to stop buying drinks at the tavern? That will show 'em!

I am one of many Hickman residents proud of the way the Hickman City Council handled this situation. If they let a horse in, why not a pig? why not some goats? This could have snowballed into something much worst.

And if this decision make people rethink their idea of moving into Hickman, too bad. It is a nice community with good people. "

 RedFred wrote on August 27, 2008 3:06 pm:
" I have an idea! Let's keep the horse in Hickman by establishing a fund to pay for the daily fines. If each of us chips in $100, we can watch the city leaders pee their pants for many days to come (and keep the story of this sorry excuse for a town on the front pages of a national audience). Anyone else want to help? Let's get an account started and begin sending funds. Keep Peter the Rabbit in Hickman until he dies. "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 27, 2008 3:21 pm:
" Here we go again...e-mails around the world. Evidently our council does not CARE how they make Hickman look. The meeting was a joke. Dykeman, Harms, Hrouda biggest jokes of all and when their time comes for getting re-elected I hope Hickman residents remember what we have gone through because of them. The quote for the day is "The smaller the town, the smaller the people" and that is went on at last night's meeting. Do your really think the Scotts are going to give up. I wouldn't. Pick your battles council and mayor. You never looked more rediculous! Spend your time on cleaning up the crap houses on the west side of the street, the overgrowth of weeds at the old school house, or the piles of junk cars that are sitting around on property. Ordinances can be amended to adjust to a particular situation. I'm thinking Peter Rabbit will be at the same home that he is at now in November. He definitely gets my vote for council member or maybe even mayor! We must overturn these elected officials that have only caused an embarrasment to the city. Get out and vote in November!!! "

 just wondering wrote on August 27, 2008 3:45 pm:
" if the horse is 30+ years old then he should be grandfathered in from the previous ordianance in 1988 right? "

 Ignignokt wrote on August 27, 2008 3:50 pm:
" The funniest thing about this situation is this...Hickman will be a one horse town without a horse. "

 Friend of Silver wrote on August 27, 2008 4:06 pm:
" Friends of Hickman,

Remember the Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers and Mr. Ed...National Velvet and the other award winning movie stunt horses. Recall the plight of the pioneers who cherished their horse as a mode of transportation (pulling a covered wagon) and hitched to a plow as a beast to cultivate a farm row of corn or grain.

Many kids today think milk comes from a plastic container; not a cow! Can your mindset within the community truly cherish an approval by City Fathers to evict an old horse named Peter Rabbit? Just one that remains as a symbol of rural culture.. soon gone as we all must pass when death calls upon the undertaker. Preserve Peter Rabbit's pasture. It is the right thing to do.

I surfed the Internet and found this URL: http://horsefame.tripod.com/
-- take a look at Hollywood's famouse movie horses. "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 27, 2008 4:25 pm:
" This whole situation is a waste of time, effort and money. This amount of negative coverage this has received has hurt the potential for our town's growth far more than an aging horse ever could.

Although the council claims that they have not heard much in the way of support for Peter Rabbit, I believe that public opinion favors the horse. I, for one, will not forget this at the next council or mayoral election and I doubt that other people will be able overlook the lack of compassion and inflexibility of the council.

to Gayle...I drive by the horse's home multiple times a day - it's not in a "fancy" neighborhood by any means - the pasture abuts a power station and is across the street from a gas station. Our council doesn't even have that to fall back on.

to Earnest...I don't blame you one bit for crossing Hickman off your towns in consideration - you never know what they're going to come up with next. "

 Hickman Girl wrote on August 27, 2008 9:01 pm:
" I have lived in Hickman my whole life. I think that Peter Rabbit should be allowed to stay because he isnt harming anything. He is not a threat to others. I wish he could stay because that will be 4 acres of land that can not be built on. Hickman is a small town and some people wish to keep it that way. Peter Rabbit is a reminder of how small of town we are. Like I said, Peter Rabbit isn't a threat to others. A lot of kids in Hickman walk by he pasture often just to say hi. Hickman is a small town. A horse isn't hurting anything here. "

 TK wrote on August 27, 2008 9:12 pm:
" Ridiculous responses...nearly all of them. Do you live in Hickman? No? Did you go to the council meeting to show your support for the horse? Did Jack Scott? Any of the Scotts? No? Then how about you go find some other cause to support. I am sure there is a cat somewhere pining for the attention. "

 Susan wrote on August 27, 2008 10:15 pm:
" So your little boycott is going to punish those of us that have businesses in the community that want the horse to stay. And you call us small hicks? Don't label all of us in one lump name of Hickville. This whole thing stopped being about the horse and his health along time ago. If this was really about the horse, both sides would of had a compromise by now. It's about getting even. Jack didn't win the election, so this is his way of stirring things up. The council isn't going to back down because what they do for one, they will have to do for another. "

 godsofwrath wrote on August 27, 2008 10:47 pm:
" I think it`s time for Hickman to have a recall election on those council members who voted to kick peter rabbit out of town. "

 Yup wrote on August 28, 2008 7:27 am:
" It sounds like the horse isn't the thing stopping growth. According to one resident, you have junked cars, trash piled up for months and they know of criminal activity in the town. If you know about these things and do nothing, then why would you think anyone or business would want to move to your town. Keep the horse and get clean up your town. "

 Rest of the Story wrote on August 28, 2008 8:29 am:
" Please realize that the "Rest of the Story" posted on the Hickman website is EXTREMELY one sided. I can't believe a city can even post that info on the website as one sided as it reads. No mention of the meeting of June 10, 2008 or July 8, 2008 on the timeline that mentions how the council voted down the proposed amendments that supposedly the Scotts were to abide by. If you are going to allow that garbage on your "citizen tax paid for" website, Brett, at least have the decency to be a little more impartial, or at the very least, accurate. "

 Hmm.... wrote on August 28, 2008 8:59 am:
" A challenge for hickman business owner(s)... Show your support for Peter Rabbit by displaying some sort of sign so people know if they should visit your business. Otherwise people will have to just drive on by and go to someone who does.
I think everyone chipping in to keep Peter Rabbit there is a great idea. I'm sure with nationwide support it would be a success. "

 Knowallthefacts wrote on August 28, 2008 9:05 am:
" Please, all of you, read this information. Maybe this will give some of you more facts than what you know about this situation and you might understand WHY the city council voted this horse out.
http://www.hickman.ne.gov/index.php?pid=136 "

 Carolyn Hull wrote on August 28, 2008 9:45 am:
" What a tempest in a teapot! Hickman officials--- deal with the criminal problems in your town. Scott family--- get off your duffs and take responsibility for your horse and respond to the community officials. You are not above the law. Finally, for Pete's sake (and by that, I mean Peter Rabbit) think how you all look to the world. Give it up, declare and embrace that Hickman IS a one horse town. Own it! Make Peter Rabitt the honored celebrant at Hay Days. Invite the world press to cover the great stuff about Nebraska-- family, stewardship of the land, hard work and pioneer spirit. "

 KC wrote on August 28, 2008 11:24 am:
" TO 'KNOW ALL THE FACTS'
I did read all the info, and I do see both sides of the story now. But I am sorry. There is still no reason what so ever to believe that this one horse will stop "growth" in your town any more then the junked cars in yards and known criminal activity. It's not even about grandfather clauses anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the issue should have never been brought up by the sity council or any attorneys. It is a stupid stupid thing that the city council has done to the reputation of it's town.
And to the Hickman residents that want this carried through? Why? What is the horse hurting? Did the Scotts make you mad in some way that this is so important to worry about? Jeez...if this is the attitude you have about a stupid old horse that will likely die very soon...then how are you going to treat new people moving into your town? I can imagine the turned up noses that new residents must have to encounter.
So what if the law is on the city council side?? It still is something they could have let go for this one old horse.
SHAME ON YOU CITY COUNCIL AND THE RESIDENTS THAT SUPPORT THEM! "

 NorthernLoon wrote on August 28, 2008 12:16 pm:
" Requesting that an animal this aged be removed from the home it has known all it's life would be signing it's death warrant. Please, give the old boy grandfathering and let him live out his last years in peace. "

 Brock Landers wrote on August 28, 2008 1:14 pm:
" Give it up already! This story is no longer news. And enough with the "bleeding heart" angle; these people are just trying to use your emotions to get permission to break the law! If they want a horse so bad then they should move out of town to an acreage. Move on people and get a life! There are more important issues to worry about and besides, there are alot of hungry dogs out there that would appreciate the food that Peter Rabbit wil provide once he kicks the bucket. "

 Concerned Taxpayer wrote on August 28, 2008 6:26 pm:
" I'd have to say the Hickman city leaders qualify as the south end of Peter Rabbit when he is heading north! I'm from Lincoln and I won't be doing any business in Hickman when I'm in the area. "

 Lynn wrote on August 28, 2008 7:34 pm:
" I'm just surprised Hickman has an economic development director! "

 nemo wrote on August 28, 2008 8:01 pm:
" You know what? there are bigger things to worry about, but sometimes people need a smaller problem, something they feel that maybe they can do something about. Peter Rabbit is just that kind of thing. Suppose Hickman's city council actually would listen to what the country is telling them? Suppose they'd find some compassion in their hearts for this one animal. I rarely sound like such a bleeding heart but you know, how we treat animals does say a lot about us. "

 Dee wrote on August 29, 2008 7:10 am:
" This will be the next headline. "Hickman, the town that killer Peter Rabbit" "

 Passing by wrote on August 30, 2008 8:41 am:
" Brock Landers - Peter Rabbit already lives on an acreage - 4.5 acres is more than enough to qualify for an acreage. There is plenty of room for this horse to stay for the last months or year of his life. For those who say "what difference does it make what people think who live outside of Hickman?". I do not live in town but have spent many trips each year heading to lakes in the area for fishing. I also have commuted through Lincoln as I head to work and have stopped in town many times. I AM one of those people who spends money in Hickman so I do have a voice. I feel strongly about contributing to local businesses with my $ if I can so I do have an opinion. But, this story has impacted what I think of the community leadership and I'll no longer support it with my dollars. "

 Nature Lover wrote on September 1, 2008 3:06 pm:
" HUmmmmmmm, Lots of useless laws going on. So Peter Rabbit the horse was there before the annexation. All the city wanted to do is get more taxes from the surrounding areas. Then there is zoning. Pre planning a town. Progress.... taking down a farm and putting in a prison to house criminals. All the dog and cat owners that let thier animals run loose are more of a problem than a horse fenced in his own domain. Too smelly? Horses are vegetarians and thats the source of compost that is rich natural fertilizer. I rather have a horse as my neighbor than some people with preditor pets they own wiping out nature. Example:Cental Park in NY only place for nature then turns into a criminal hide out. "

Ads by Yahoo!