As a resident of Omaha, I am surprised that Omaha can legally do this. While Omaha hired all of the Elkhorn Fire Department to serve their "Omahorn" community, only 6 of the 12 Elkhorn Police were hired by Omaha. I can understand why Elkornians (my name for them) are concerned about poorer emergency response times.

Mayor Fahey is at least honest about why he is making such a grab: tax dollars. I still don't think this is in anyone's best interest, except Omaha. Now, if we could just flood Ashland and make a giant lake for recreation. That would be cool.
Ryan the Angry Midget | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 10:42 am | #

Thanks for the sympathy, Ryan. I know it isn't the end of the world or anything, but the Elkhornians I know feel abused.

I hear Ashland has lost the beautiful sculpture garden that used to grace the hillside along Highway 6. Now there isn't any reason not to move ahead with plans for Lake Daub.
ptg | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 11:23 am | #

I heard the 6 or so cops were dropped because of security checks, it was on the news.The omaha ha news.
What town did you say you live in?
Nee | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 1:00 pm | #

Ryann?
Nee | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 1:02 pm | #

It must be like trying to stop a bulldozer with a garden tractor. Good luck, Elkhornians.
Dadgum | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 1:22 pm | #

Your post says "that Omaha Mayor Fahey relies upon to trample the rights of the good folks of Elkhorn". You are forgetting that the only rights you have are those given. Nebraska law allows a city the size of Omaha to take over a town under 10,000 in population. It may not feel right but in the eyes of the law no one rights have been violated. So please review current laws before claiming someones "rights" have been "trampled" on.
john harshbarger | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 9:42 pm | #

Just because something is perfectly legal, Mr. Harshbarger, doesn't make it right. For example, it used to be perfectly legal to buy and sell slaves in America, and, in the eyes of the law, "no one's rights were violated". That fact didn't make slavery right, did it? Aren't some rights correctly deemed inalienable?

The Consitututionality of any law is always subject to change. 25+ years as a Nebraska lawyer has taught me that much.

Right and wrong, however, never change. I've put in 60 years being human, and I haven't seen an exception yet.
ptg | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 10:42 pm | #

mike | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 5:48 pm | #

Actually right and wrong are ALWAYS changing. Just as you said at one time it was legal to own slaves as such it was right at that time(but not now, and I don't think it was right by todays standards). You can't look back and say for certain something was wrong as at that time it may have been right. Only thing that makes things right or wrong are what people believe and that is in constant change.

You seem to thing what was done to elkhorn was wrong while I think what was done was right. just goes to show right and wrong are not absolutes. They change over time and by the person.
john harshbarger | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 9:18 pm | #

You won't sell me on your warmed-over moral relativism, John. What your last comment actually goes to show is that I am right and you are wrong.
ptg | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 9:25 pm | #

Right for Omaha and wrong for Elkhorn?
Dadgum | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 1:47 pm | #