Opinions?

[Hilfiger1975]

It is not the federal government's responsibility to keep the lights on in rural communities. You are confusing two different situations. I understand your point and agree that we need to deal with our own issues first, but there are actually laws in place that prevent the Fed from getting involved in local and state government issues.

Could have fooled me...

That's not saying a lot though... =)

[mrveggieman]

It is not the federal government's responsibility to keep the lights on in rural communities. You are confusing two different situations. I understand your point and agree that we need to deal with our own issues first, but there are actually laws in place that prevent the Fed from getting involved in local and state government issues.

Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?

[Hilfiger1975]

Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?

Or even America RIGHTS for that matter...

[duane1969]

Wonder what other costs they could have cut. Seems odd.

Well, they are a municipality, so they could have laid off some police, laid off some city maintenance people, laid off their 911 operators, closed city hall and had no local government...there isn't too much you can do to cut cost at the city level. The bulk of any municpality's expenses will almost always be personnel.

Think about your local government. What are their primary expenses? Road maintenance, police force, provide water/trash/sewer service, maybe have a magistrate court...that is about it. There isn't much wiggle room on the city/township level.

And if they did cut something else, how much does it help. They have an electric bill that is 10 years past due! Clearly these lights were a major expense.

[duane1969]

Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?

I am just telling you what the word will be. If the Fed govt. wanted to send them $100k to keep the lights on I have no problem with it but at some point the city needs to be responsible for itself.

Speaking for me personally, if I was that concerned, then I would spend the $30 or $40 a month to have the electric company put a security light on my property. These people will not do that because the mentality in America right now is that the government owes the people everything that they want out of life.

[Hilfiger1975]

I want to thank everyone that has posted and gave their opinions, no matter how warped i think it is...

[duwal]

makes sense. Can't pay your bill, power gets shut down

[pghin08]

Well, they are a municipality, so they could have laid off some police, laid off some city maintenance people, laid off their 911 operators, closed city hall and had no local government...there isn't too much you can do to cut cost at the city level. The bulk of any municpality's expenses will almost always be personnel.

Think about your local government. What are their primary expenses? Road maintenance, police force, provide water/trash/sewer service, maybe have a magistrate court...that is about it. There isn't much wiggle room on the city/township level.

And if they did cut something else, how much does it help. They have an electric bill that is 10 years past due! Clearly these lights were a major expense.

I think they've pretty much cut all road maintenance in my town. I can actually hear my car crying as I drive down the highway. Pothole city.

[Star_Cards]

I can see that they could reduce the electricity used, but I'm confused as to why they would spend the man hours to remove the lights rather than just shut them off. Seems fishy to me.

As far as turning off the lights, it sounds like a way to reduce costs, but there are also some safety concerns by not having street lights. Lights can provide a safety aspect from crime as well as pedestrian traffic around roads.

[mrveggieman]

I am just telling you what the word will be. If the Fed govt. wanted to send them $100k to keep the lights on I have no problem with it but at some point the city needs to be responsible for itself.

Speaking for me personally, if I was that concerned, then I would spend the $30 or $40 a month to have the electric company put a security light on my property. These people will not do that because the mentality in America right now is that the government owes the people everything that they want out of life.

An extra $30 or $40 might be a drop in the bucket to some but for people out there who are living pay check to pay check and extra $30 on their light bill may be the difference between weather or not their lights stay on.