Now
Fair
24°
High
32°
Low
16°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Editorial
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

If the horse wins, Hickman wins

Comments 39 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 - 01:09:21 am CDT

Well the race is on and here comes pride up the backstretch …  -- George Jones

The tale of the heartless city council that wants to banish an old horse from city limits has turned into a public relations nightmare for the town of Hickman.

The council majority dug in its heels too early. But it’s not too late to turn the boos into cheers in this high-profile controversy.

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

Newspapers around the world are filled with pun-filled references to the “one-horse town” and the old horse who was unable to buck a local ban on livestock.

City officials have been bombarded with so many phone calls they were forced to shut off voicemail. The number of e-mails overwhelmed the e-mail server on three occasions. The story on the Journal Star Web site drew hundreds of comments, including the inevitable, “You put the ‘hick’ in Hickman.”

The owner of Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner who shattered a leg in the Preakness, called city offices for an explanation.

Journal Star editors even fielded a few calls from out of state urging the editorial board to try to nag the council into doing right by the 30-year-old Morgan-quarter horse crossbreed with the odd name of Peter Rabbit.

From a distance the case may seem black-and-white. Seen up close, one can distinguish shades of gray.

The council majority was well within its rights. City prohibitions on livestock are virtually universal. City officials also said owner Harley Scott was not open to compromise that would have allowed the horse to remain if he was examined yearly by a veterinarian, license fees were paid and other requirements.

But the outpouring of public sympathy is understandable. The horse has lived his entire life in this pasture, which only became part of the city in 2006 after the tract was annexed. There’s something charming about the scene of a friendly old sorrel who likes to chomp on apples and carrots offered by kids, who saved them from school lunches.

The Hickman City Council is not going to win this in the arena of public opinion. It could get worse. Imagine the tearful scene in which video crews and reporters show up on the day when the horse is finally hauled away.

The council ought to view this as an opportunity.

Now that it has the attention of the world it can generate a warm wave of approval from around the globe if it reversed its position and allowed the horse to stay. The so-called grandfather clause permits all sorts of pre-existing variances to local ordinances. A good lawyer ought to be able to squeeze in this situation under its provisions. The problem will go away when Peter Rabbit gallops off to that green pasture in the sky.

By now it should be clear that the city council will lose by winning this struggle. A good-natured change of heart would be better for the town’s image.

The race is on and it looks like heartache. And the winner loses all. -- George Jones


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial > 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  
Dale wrote on August 28, 2008 7:55 am:
" Rules are rules... all the scotts have to do is get it checked by a vet once a year! Everyone else has to follow the rules in city limits by licensing various things that they own. Why do the Scotts think they can get away with this and take the city to court? Simply ridiculous.

People need to stop using their heart and start using their brains and realize that the Scotts are the ones at fault for not allowing the horse to stay. They are the ones that chose not to follow an ordinance that has been in effect for 20+ years. They are the ones that asked to be annexed and they are the ones who don't want to follow the rules following annexation even though Hickman is throwing them a bone by allowing the horse to stay if they just get it a simple vet check. If they don't deem it necessary to get it checked then they are the ones who don't care about the horse, not the city council. "

 Earnest wrote on August 28, 2008 8:03 am:
" I will say again, my wife and I have been looking for land outside of Lincoln and we have crossed off Hickman as a potential place to live. The city council of Hickman has pointed out their disdain for folks who are not from Hickman calling and emailing. What they don't seem to get is that this is hurting their potential growth, but perhaps they want to be one of Nebraska's shrinking small towns. As for us, we realize that if they will go after an old horse like this then my kid's basketball goal, and the occasional visitor whose car is in my driveway are what will irritate them next. "

 Kate wrote on August 28, 2008 8:08 am:
" Very good way to put it. The town of HICKman not only proved the small town wanna be big town mentallity, it put Nebraska on the map as a bunch a idiots. Thanks again HICKman. The good ole boy, I'm gonna show ya attitude stinks. Both side are wrong, but neither will have to pay. The horse will pay the price. May both sides rot in hell, but wait, you believe in laws, not a higer being. "

 no grandfather wrote on August 28, 2008 8:27 am:
" The problem with the grandfather clause is that this law existed prior to the land being annexed, and the land was annexed at the request of the property owner. So rather than the city coming to him he requested to become part of the city and all laws that come with it.

I was even against evicting the horse originally due to grandfather clauses, but once I realized that this guy asked to be annexed after the law was in place I don't see why he should get a free pass. Also it appears the council has made many opportunities for amends and this guy just keeps saying no thanks and the horse will stay here - again if he had a leg to stand on legally that'd be fine but I don't see where he has a chance on this thing due to his own actions of requesting annexation. "

 Mary wrote on August 28, 2008 8:41 am:
" Geez Dale, it's just a horse. Let it stay. "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 28, 2008 8:57 am:
" What's really funny about this entire fiasco, is that it's everyone OUTSIDE of Hickman that is having such a nutty about this. In town, it's mostly a joke at this point. "

 Michael wrote on August 28, 2008 9:11 am:
" What a crappy town. Impeach the city council. Heck, there was a couple horses in Lincoln just a couple years ago. They were up around 72nd and Morrill. They didn't bother anyone, just did what horses do.

I'm ashamed of Hickman. They lived up to their name. "

 Charlene wrote on August 28, 2008 9:17 am:
" The Journal got it right. If you go to msnbc.msn.com today (Thursday) you'll see Hickman made the national news as a one horse town. So true! As far as having a Vet check the horse evidently people don't realize how expensive that is and at this horse's age unnecessary, besides what does that prove? Nice editorial Journal Star. Maybe the HICKman city council will read it. "

 watcher wrote on August 28, 2008 9:23 am:
" Can you say PR nightmare-pun intended. The city fathers made this bed and they will be paying the consequences for years. The horse is on a 4 acre plot of land not in someone's backyard. When I was growing up the neighbors had a horse in their yard-less than 100 feet from our back door. As long as he was taken care of he didn't bother anyone. They cleaned up his pen and he was a lot quieter than the dogs all around. The council throwing their "power" around will come back to bite them in the rear. "

 Tzi wrote on August 28, 2008 10:23 am:
" Thirty year old horse? Moving it would probably kill it. "

 hickchick wrote on August 28, 2008 10:32 am:
" After reading the detailed time line at http://www.hickman.ne.gov ,
I totally disagree with LJS calling the Hickman city council "heartless". So your point is that Hickman should be mostly concerned with its image in this matter of the law? "

 Dale wrote on August 28, 2008 10:42 am:
" Earnest: Good, we don't want anymore people here. Growth is not always good, especially when the people who decide not to live in Hickman base it on a horse. "

 Richard Stone wrote on August 28, 2008 10:50 am:
" I read the story about Peter Rabit online today. I live in Florida and feel sorry for your community when your elected officials show NO compassion for Peter Rabit. Grandfather the horse in and let a 32 year old resident live out his last days at home. I can assure you I would NEVER move to your community. I tried to send an email to your city fathers but they have switch off there email server, I guess they have decided to go run and hide like a bunch of self serving elected officals. ... Richard Stone. "

 Give me a break wrote on August 28, 2008 10:58 am:
" Who cares what the National news media and other outsiders think about Hickman. It's not like they're ever going to move there or even put one cent into its coffers! As a Marketer... there is no such thing as bad press when it is free press.

I used to live near Hickman and I'm guessing people kinda enjoy their 15 seconds of fame and are having a good laugh at all those who are labeling the town due to a simple horse eviction. I'm guessing you all have deeper demons to take care of than to worry about a horse. "

 comeon wrote on August 28, 2008 11:02 am:
" Having the horse checked by a vet isn't about "proving" anything. It's about abiding by ordinances that every person in the town must follow. If they allow them to not abide by it, how many other people are going to want an ordinance overlooked? If any of you who think this is just about a horse, your wrong. Learn the facts before you judge. "

 dont even think about it city of Lincoln wrote on August 28, 2008 11:06 am:
" Even Lincoln has a horse within the city limits! Just drive on South A st over the big bridge and you will see him!!!!! "

 sheesh....... wrote on August 28, 2008 11:47 am:
" It sounds like the town of Hickman has alot more "smellier and uglier" items to get cleaned up than this horse. I think junked out vehicles and
property not being kept up are FAR worse than the horse. Why don't you put more effort into making your town beautiful than going after a horse that has lived its whole Apparently small town America is being shoved out by swelled ego Councilmen. "

 Carolyn Maurer wrote on August 28, 2008 11:51 am:
" I live in Indiana and when I heard about that narrow minded town council in Hickman I could not believe it. What a heartless thing to do, both to the old man and the old horse. They should leave both of them alone. That poor old horse lived there long before it was in the city limits. That is typical of places that scarve up land or people who move to farm areas and then want to impose new rules on people who have long lived there. If I lived anywhere near there I would boycot the entire town. What a nasty place it sounds like. "

 Mary Noell wrote on August 28, 2008 11:58 am:
" Seems that the horse has not moved and he should be able to stay. How long does the council think a 32 year old horse is going to live???
It would be an act of kindness to allow a grandfathering of the horses location until he expires. What kind of lunatics are pushing him out? I thought you folks were the salt of the Earth. Remember if the gas runs out you may need Peter Rabbit for a ride to town. "

 Linda wrote on August 28, 2008 12:03 pm:
" Hickman is small minded. Appears the Scots are stubborn and the horse who hasn't done anything to anyone loses. "

 Yup wrote on August 28, 2008 12:13 pm:
" This article is right. Hickman right now is losing in the public opinion. OK, so most of the world just thinks you're mean and they'll go away after a while. But those of us who live close to you will remember your deeds. The reason your leaders gave for not allowing the horse to stay was that it would impede growth. What happens to your town when people decide to not buy/build there anymore. Apparently Dale doesn't care, but the other 1000 or so residents might. And there's the issue of the lake nearby. Casey's get a lot of business going to and from the lake, if people decided to not stop there anymore and just drive on through, they would feel an effect. It isn't just about the horse anymore, it's how the town is portrayed in dealing fairly with this. It sounds like stubborn is more the issue, and possibly a dislike of certain parties getting their way. If you move the horse and it dies, you'd better be careful of more negative fall out, possibly from PETA. "

 Anyways wrote on August 28, 2008 12:22 pm:
" Hickman is actually a nice little town dispite what you all may think. This is one man, in one town who doesn't want to take his pet to the vet. I have 8 horses and have the vet visiting regularly to assure their good health, but that is my choice. This old horse just needs to stay where he is use to or it may be the end of him. I do think it is nice that with all that is going on in the world today, that this old horse has made the news all over the country. My, we must really being in the need for something to talk about! And for people who don't live here or even live near here to judge is just outrageous! Look at your own communities and I am sure you will find far worse things going on in your city councils. "

 Max A. wrote on August 28, 2008 1:46 pm:
" The land where Peter Rabbit lives is in a flood plain. No one will be building on that ground, when Peter Rabbit has passed away. The city council members are showing their "power and control" over one horse. Why? Because they are small minded individuals who really don't care about public opinion. When Hickman's businesses start losing money because people are boycotting the town, then what? City Council members, it's time for you say, "We were wrong. We'll grandfather in the horse" It really will improve the public's perception of you. "

 I dont care.... wrote on August 28, 2008 2:36 pm:
" what you people think of Hickman, or it's residents. I'd be willing to bet that only 5% of Lincoln's population actually knew how to get to Hickman before all this nonsense started. Therefore, it stands to reason that all your boycotting of the U-Stop, and the other local businesses probably isn't going to really affect the city coffers all that much.By the way, it's been a U-Stop for a few years now, not a Casey's. Thanks for helping make my point. Why don't you Lincoln people go ahead and continue to re-elect your own city councilmen that seem to be doing a bang-up job for your town. "

 Hickman resident for life wrote on August 28, 2008 2:44 pm:
" Harley Scott is no saint in Hickman. He continues to be stubborn on this issue and many in the past. So for all that is taking his side they don't realize that this isn't just about a horse and goes far deeper. "

 Not Leaving Anytime Soon wrote on August 28, 2008 4:10 pm:
" For all of you out there making judgements on half the story, maybe you should make sure you have all of the facts. If standing behind my city council because they enforce the codes and laws of my community makes me a hick, then I am a hick...a big one! The Scotts, one of them being a former city council member and the other of them being a former Hickman City employee, think that the rules do not apply to them. They knew the codes and regulations before requesting that their land be annexed. The city council has been working with them on this issue for over year and has been more than generous, yet they still refuse to comply with the code. And now, the city is being bombarded by a bunch of negative emails and complaints from mostly people who have not a clue about the particulars of this issue. Gee, I wonder why there aren't more volunteers for public office? I, for one, am angry with the Scotts because my city council's time and energy, for the last year, has been spent on this issue that is really a non-issue. They are not in compliance with the code, they have been notified of that, and now they should just comply with the code! I am a supporter of the Hickman City Council and I am a resident of Hickman and I am not leaving anytime soon! "

 Hickforlife wrote on August 28, 2008 4:34 pm:
" It's apparent that there is some serious under-lying issues between the Scott's and the City of Hickman. The problem is those issues are being taken out at the price of an old horse that everyone seems to enjoy having around. Save your bullheaded community bickering for an issue more pressing than Peter Rabbit. The right thing to do here is to let the horse live out the rest of his days at home. City of Hickman you chose the wrong issue with Mr. Scott to make your stand. Nobody gives a hoot about your city or Mr. Scott, but they do care about an animal that could possibly croak as a result of your community spat. Do the right thing! It's obvious. "

 Susan wrote on August 28, 2008 5:23 pm:
" How can a town that holds a "Hay Day" festival want to get rid of one old horse? They ought to make the ole' hay burner their "Hay Day" festival mascot.

Anyway, the horse was there before the ordinance so the council should have been grandfathered him in from the start.

And frankly, the Scotts should get the horse a yearly checkup because at his age it's the wise thing to do. They're probable just angry at being told what to do after all these years. "

 Not friendly wrote on August 28, 2008 11:32 pm:
" The Scotts said in an earlier article that nothing was said about the horse not being allowed to stay when they requested annexation. Why wasn't something said to them then by Hickman City Council? And the Scotts also said they were only notified recently of the offer of the vet to keep the horse. So it's apparently a he said they said kind of deal. I believe the Scotts. I thought the Hickman city council was mean, but apparently it runs through town by the comments by the Hickman residents. The town is losing in this public relations campaign. "

 Jeanie wrote on August 29, 2008 6:31 am:
" People please take the time to read the other side of this story before you choose sides. I had sided with the Scotts until I read the info on the Hickman website. They had their chance and decided that they wanted more. The website is www.hickman.ne.gov . "

 Ive read wrote on August 29, 2008 10:11 am:
" I've read the other side of this and I still side with the horse. Really, what harm will this horse do by allowing it to stay. I doubt there are any residents who want to bring in large animals on their lots. A lot of speculation about "well anyone can bring in a pig then", but it won't happen. Why don't Hickman get over their dislike of the Scotts and think of the hrose. No one wins if the horse has to be moved. "

 Martin wrote on August 29, 2008 11:52 am:
" Our city of Lincoln has horses within the city limits. My great uncle has kept horses for years and his property is fairly centered within city limits. But Hickman can't keep one horse? Hickman must not care about reputation, because this town just continues to look worse and worse. Just grow up HICKman. "

 Vanessa wrote on August 29, 2008 12:31 pm:
" This is about a bunch of incredibly selfish, pig-headed people and their egos. And ultimately, an innocent animal pays the price. Again.

The grandfather clause would adequately address the situation. Those people who are suggesting that such a clause would open the door to pigs, cows, and all manner of livestock, evidently don't understand how a grandfather clause works.

I suggest Hickman use their brains (as suggested by a previous poster), and get rid of the humans (on both sides) responsible for this mess. The horse should stay. The horse hasn't done a darn thing to deserve a death sentence - which is what moving him now amounts to.

It also seems to me that the negative publicity Hickman has generated from this heartless decision will do more to impede its growth than one old horse ever could.

Stupidest. Decision. Ever. "

 Reality wrote on August 29, 2008 12:32 pm:
" Yes, HICKman made National News! ( Sorry about those who are jealous ). Now, if the Scotts would just comply, compromise there is no story. So, I hope they keep the story going... By the way, he is still bitter about not being re-elected on the city council. Before, he had thought this was his town. Now, the horse raises it head and smells an aroma, it is coming from across the street. Either subway or usuck I mean ustop. The horse smells CHEESE and wants to move to an open pasture away from the development going on around him. "

 hicks wrote on August 29, 2008 1:39 pm:
" Yep, Hicks in hickman....leave the horse alone. If this horse was at UNL on campus, it wouldn't be removed. For Gods sake, the horse is 30 years old. Grandma is 95 and can't do the dishes anymore, lets put her in a home. If the horse lived to be 30, really, what is a vet going to do but collect money to say, hey this horse is in good shape for being 30 years old. Get a grip people, why don't you band together against government, big government in the same way. petty people. Hickman city council, probably the only control they have ever had in their time as a rep. "

 Hickman Resident wrote on August 29, 2008 8:20 pm:
" Unless you are from Hickman your opinions don't count. That's what the mayor said. The City Office counted 1300 emails but only maybe 10 were from Hickman because they signed their name or said they were a Hickman resident. This statement was made by the City Administrator and the Mayor at the council meetig. This troubles me. You don't count per mayor and City adminstrator. However all of you count! Thanks to all the bloggers who have supported this issue. There is a rest of the story JEANIE and the website has ommitted two very important meetings (because as it now it makes the city looks good)so please don't make a judgment from that info that has been taken from a newspaper with the omission of these two dates that are in the timeline. This is not about the horse anymore its a vendetta by a few of the council members. "

 Evey wrote on August 29, 2008 8:34 pm:
" Great article. Kudos to the author. He/she gets it. Do you give training to the city council? "

 S. Snover wrote on August 31, 2008 2:44 pm:
" I live in South Dakota and read of Peter Rabbit's story on the internet. I think Hickman is a heartless place, and wouldn't want to visit or live there. You seem to act like you are a huge big city that has forgotten home town caring values. The value of the dollar has overtaken your kindness. I smell big developement here and a little bit of "Stepford" mentality. I am disappointed that only one of you had the guts to stand up for Peter and Mr. Scott. Shame on the rest of you that live there.
I understand that Mr. Scott has not agreed to yearly vet checks etc. That is very costly and maybe some fund raising to help care for Peter would be in order. Mr. Scott and his horse has been there longer than most of you, I would venture to guess. I don't blame him for his stance. I don't think Peter is going to get out and spread diseases. What ever exuses you people are thinking of, are looking rather lame.
I do blame your city, council, mayor and residents for be so closed minded. You like to hide behind the ruling saying it would be hard to keep other stock animals out. Big developement and MONEY appears to be the real reason here. Money grubbing and not human kindness toward an elderly horse and elderly man.
Leave the poor horse and Mr. Scott alone. The nation is watching Hickman Nebraska, and we don't like what we see. "

 still caring wrote on August 31, 2008 3:31 pm:
" Some of you have wondered why such a fuss is being made about a horse in Hickman. The reason is, is because there are still loving, caring peope out there. Yes, we care and have a heart. We care for all of God's or a higher spirits beings, be they human or animal. The world generally is becoming cold, unsafe and selfish. That is why I am glad so many people have written and made their opinions known on Peter Rabbit's story. Is this the biggest story in the world? Is it the most important story in the world. No. BUT it is a story that has touched the hearts of many people. Maybe Mr. Scott can't afford yearly exams for his horse. If he has lived to 32 Mr. Scott must have done something right. If Peter is fed and loved and as healthy as he can be for his age, Mr. Scott must be doing alright. I am sure if Peter was sick he would have his vet look at him. Maybe the people of Hickman could help out with vet costs. What are you afraid of? Is Peter going to get out and bite everyone?
You wonder why this story is important to a bunch of people who don't live in Hickman? We all wonder why the people of Hickman don't care. Maybe if we all were a little less concerned about our selves and more concerned with others, including animals, this world would be a little better place. "

Ads by Yahoo!