Let’s find a better location!
The gun range applicant evidently seems to think that the support of his adjoining neighbors is important.
That does, in fact, make total sense!
He made a point to mention that seven adjoining property owners supported a range at that location in the recent NBC29 report. And there are several documents in their package submitted to the Planning Commission that highlight the adjoining neighbors’ support.
But here’s the thing…
Many more adjoining property owners are vehemently opposed to the range. We count at least 15.
If you want to look at the numbers in terms of property boundary lines, there is approximately 10,639 feet of boundary that isn’t owned by the applicant’s family. Opposition to the range covers approximately 9,295 feet of that boundary. The math comes out to:
83% of adjoining neighbors are opposed to this, by property boundaries
Perhaps we should thank the applicant for pointing out the importance of neighboring support.
Why does he dwell on the seven? Not sure. I suppose he doesn’t think people will point out that the other 15 want no part of an outdoor gun range next door. Or maybe his seven are long-time neighbors/friends and more important to him than those of us who have been here 10 years or less? Do our property rights matter less?
We must also note that the seven who the applicant mentions or others who have not committed may be long-time neighbors who do not necessarily want a range there; People that may oppose the range but don’t want to come out publicly and ruffle the feathers of a longtime resident of the area. They may be pressured due to business relationships or loose friendships to not join the opposition to this location.
Regardless of the reason, it’s just not right to tout adjoining neighbor support when the vast majority of them are opposed to this proposal, as written.
Please. This is causing too much stress with the neighbors and the surrounding community. Let’s work together to find a better location.