Dear Editor,
Way back when I was in elementary school one of our teachers told us, “You can’t compare apples to oranges,” and she was correct.
But that is what is being done when people say that the property maintenance code works in Park City, Cave City and the city of Glasgow and to a point it does. The problem is we are not the city, we are the county. Does anyone see the apples and oranges?
I wanted to make a little common sense observation. Curiousity got the better of me and understand I don’t live anywhere near Megan Lane. It took me three days to find it after I googled it in.
Truthfully after the discription of the street that was given at the Barren County Fical Court meeting, I expected to find an old run-down house perhaps 90 plus years old and a lot of junk. I made a second trip around Megan Lane to be certain I was looking at the correct piece of property. What I saw was a nice house, paved driveway a two-car (possibly four-car) garage, a small stock trailer parked behind the garage, several pickup trucks, that did not look to me to be junkers, and what seemed to be a car hauler. I saw only one car that was in rough condition. The boat I had to look for, as it was at the back of the lot partially hidden by trees along with a pickup.
The only animal I saw there was a large dog and a gentleman walking down the road with a large dog and a Dachshund, both on a leash. If the property extends back where the boat was parked then they have a large piece of property.
It looks to me as if they were there first so why should they have any reason to be included in the subdivision’s restriction. To me that property does not devalue Megan Lane and more power to the magistrates that voted the code down.
Shirley Dalton
Finney
