LETTERS to the editor

Three pets are too many

To the editor:

When I lived in the country I always had pets, and trained them to obey and to have manners, and they were socialized.

When I moved into town a few years ago, I was terrorized for 18 months by dogs belonging to the renters next door. They came from 100 feet away to my back door where I was sitting (and also when I was in my driveway), running and growling at me from a foot away. Good thing I knew better than to get up and turn my back on them. They barked day and night. I called the police and animal control until the city solved 90 percent of the problem.

Besides an animal shelter, the city should discuss preventive measures for the future, and be the first city to lower the limit of three pets. In my opinion, that is too much for town, and the limit should be one dog and one cat, no breeding. Pitbulls are are bred in basements for drug money. Some dogs destroy houses and yards. A smart person would have only one, with the cost and cleaning up after them.

What year was that decided? Maybe when the population was lower. Do the math: three to a household seems like there are more animals than people. Dogs are territorial and when you get two or three together they act like a pack of wolves. Some days when I’m outside I swear I hear 100 dogs barking at the same time in a four-block area.

I’m not a pet owner anymore. Seen enough.

Terrie Earls, Cloquet

Tunnel vision

To the editor:

As though looking through a tunnel, the Wrenshall School Board is once again planning to run another school improvement/repair facility referendum this year, despite the overwhelming known risks facing property taxpayers in the school district.

There is little doubt that something needs to be done to fix and repair the school. And this is exactly where the school board and concerned property taxpayers disagree on what should be done and at what cost. Those that want to proceed more conservatively and weigh the risks toward any practical solution are completely ignored.

In the previous two school years, open enrollment was about a third of the school’s student enrollment; this year it is just short of 50 percent. Consider also that about a third of all Wrenshall school district students open-enroll in other schools.

The school board states that the open enrollment numbers are needed to sustain the school. It’s true that state aid follows open-enrolled students to our district, but levy funding for school improvement/repair or operating costs do not. That additional burden falls on local property taxpayers.

Consider also the energy/utility tax settlements that will create a major tax burden on property owners, and the current facility referendum balance of $1.3 million due to be paid in full by 2022.

Can we afford to sustain a school at all? Our population is small, and our property tax base is small, and so why does the school board recommend we build/improve and invest in a larger school?

The school board needs to focus on what’s in the best interest of property taxpayers.

Michael Rabideaux, Wrenshall