See this poll on: https://poll.fm/6651063/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
@kc
Hey- You're an idiot. THAT well does not sit in the Trail Ridge MS field and has not affected any students at the school.
It also may still be there and existed before the school was built right next to it, not the reverse. It was also bought by the city for $481,000 and required drilling company TOP Operating to move it.
Almost half a million dollars. Longmont taxpayers will be paying much more like this when or if 300 passes for private property owners within city limits who are told they can't use the mineral rights on their properties.
Hey-I have a YES on 3a and a yes on 300 sign - And I know EXACTLY what passing these measures mean. It means kids will get a better education in a safer, healthier environment. For years, the kids at TRMS had to put up with that obnoxious Rider well right in their field that had benzyne 100x the limit. And it is still there.
You type would do this instead: http://www.timescall.com/ci_19173033
Your type would claim I planted the picture, so why bother.
Comparing supporters of the NO on 300 campaign to criminals messes with your cred too.
I'd instead point out that those who plant Yes on 300 signs and Yes on 3A signs aren't understanding what it means if both pass. One takes away the rights of private property owners and will cost everyone. The other has no sunset clause and will cost everyone until forever.
And again, I've driven all over town looking at campaign signs and have not seen any No on 300 signs placed illegally, before or after removal by the city. Prove it. Or as people like to say: "Picture or it didn't happen." My word against yours. My claim stands.
I have also seen the 3A signs and they are also illegal, but this is about 300, not 3A. The city has taken them down and they should take the 3A signs down also. Calling one a liar is both immature and leads little credence to what you are saying.
Asatrur...you lie. I've seen none. Get new glasses. Those are YES on 3A signs.
Asatrur, then what say you about supporters of Yes on 3A (The SVVSD mill levy override) who have done the same?
If the backers of the YES on 3A campaign are willing to break the law and leave their litter everywhere, why would we expect something different from their taxing?
Over the last 2 days, I have seen literally hundreds of no on 300 signs placed on city and county property, which is illegal. If the backers of the no on 300 campaign are willing to break the law and leave their litter everywhere, why would we expect something different from their fracking?