Results 1 to 10 of 25
-
11-04-2011, 01:01 PM #1
-
-
11-04-2011, 01:17 PM #2
Don't be shy i know you want to say something...
-
11-04-2011, 01:20 PM #3
Seems a little extreme to remove the lights but if you can't afford the electric bill then turning them off makes sense. It says the city's past due electric bill goes back a decade. Seems to me they needed to do something.
If the people are truly that concerned for their safety then they can get lights themselves. The electric company will install halogen lights on a pole on their property and bill them for the electric usage.
-
-
11-04-2011, 01:25 PM #4
That city's problems are obviously much deeper than some debt over electricity. The lack of foresight is no surprise I guess.
I mean, in an area with a low median income and high poverty, what do you expect would happen when you make it easier for people to commit crimes at night?
-
11-04-2011, 01:27 PM #5
-
-
11-04-2011, 01:31 PM #6
If I could quote the poster named WCW:
"And yet the US still sends billions of dollars overseas... start taking care of our own FIRST!"Drug and smoke free trading.
Hidden Content
Hidden Content cardscomicsmoviesandgames
Hidden Content darkdemon202404
-
11-04-2011, 01:32 PM #7
Here's a man with some common sense!
-
-
11-04-2011, 01:33 PM #8
Wonder what other costs they could have cut. Seems odd.
-
11-04-2011, 01:34 PM #9
That's the million dollar question right there...
-
11-04-2011, 01:34 PM #10
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.
-
Originally Posted by duane1969 
