truckman42 Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Our leaders are making it hard for our only licensed taxi company to stay in business. United Paulding Taxi is a small company and it provides a needed service to the community. It takes residents to places such as medical clinics, doctors and Hartsfield airport. It has frequently taken people home who are too drunk to drive. Paulding county officials and Dallas city officials have passed regulations that make it hard for this taxi company to stay in business. Paulding officials enacted a requirement that taxi drivers must pay a $100 annual fee. This is $50 more than what Cobb County assesses its taxi drivers. Taxi drivers do not earn much money and many refuse to work here because Paulding’s fee is excessive. Dallas officials recently required taxi company’s vehicles to be no older than ten years. This new law prevents United Paulding Taxi from picking up passengers in the city of Dallas because of the age of its cars. Residents in Paulding County and the city of Dallas need a taxi service. I urge you to contact these officials and insist they stop making it hard for this small business to operate. Paulding County Commission Chairman David Austin 770-443-7550 Mayor, city of Dallas, Ga Boyd L. Austin 770-443-8110 ext 1212 baustin@dallas-ga.gov City Manager, city of Dallas, Ga Kendall Smith 770-443-8110 ext 1205 ksmith@dallas-ga.gov Link to post Share on other sites
dawneykids Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 What a bunch of horse pucky! Taxi drivers couldn't even operate in Paulding until a couple years ago and I swear I don't understand the problem. Granted, cars need to be up to par and safe, but there a lot of cars ten years or older that are perfectly fine and safe. Is revenue really more important than our residents? Apparently so. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
TugboatsMom Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Well we can vote those money hungry idiots out of there. They can't stand the little man trying to make a living cause they are paid big salaries by us...(the little man). Vote em all out... 6 Link to post Share on other sites
publisher1 Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Now I'm quite supportive of small businesses like the taxi service but local government is under a great deal of pressure from surrounding jurisdictions to 'regulate' the taxi industry because of the level or regulations that exist in other counties. The issue is that 'nothing is really quite that simple' and when folks in local government - elected or staff - look around at what the other jurisdictions are doing, they say, wow ... we need to do that too. And I think even the folks at United Taxi here in the county would agree, they want some regulation ... but regulations that are tailored to our circumstance here. When the first taxi service regulations came up about four or five years ago, the county's ordinance was really ridiculous in that it demanded that the taxi cab company register something like 25 cabs to earn the permit. That's fine in Atlanta but there is no reason for a local outfit to need 25 operating taxis. Literally, every cab company was out of business for months because of this. Some other points. First, the county using a federal grant, subsidizes Paulding transportation services which runs the bus that does help a lot of the elderly make trips to places like doctors appointments or recurring treatments. This is filling a needed service for the elderly but because it is a subsidized service free for the elderly, it also does cut into the natural market for taxi service needed by those who can't drive. One of the complaints is that there is an arbitrary age-limit set on the vehicles used by the taxi service. Considering the costs of marking, etc. this arbitrary age limit means that these costs are larger on an annualized basis. Obviously as a county or city we don't tell taxi cab companies what kinds of vehicles to use and really can't. The fare collection schema - the taxi meter - is another regulation that many smaller communities without the requirements or market, say of a New York City - require anyway and that of course, involves certifications. There are a lot of costs involved including two-way communication (often done these days by cell phone) as well as how the driver is directed to the fare. Having talked directly with the taxi company owner and truckman42 about this issue, I recognize that there is true need for this service in the community as well as what we might assume is a somewhat arbitrary method employed - call it the one-size fits all approach to regulation that is common in government - to develop the regulations. Bottom line, the public does have some specific interests in regulating taxicab services. We all recognize the need, for instance, of the taxicab company operating safe vehicles that are properly insured and driven by responsible, sober drivers who don't gouge fares or roll drunks. Other jurisdictions are equally concerned that if the rules here are too lax or lenient, taxi businesses may migrate from adjoining counties to Paulding to establish their operations depriving them of needed revenue. The question is what can local government do to maintain the quality of the service, the safety of the service and the existence of this vital service in Paulding without inviting undue criticism and even prohibitions of services operating here from surrounding jurisdictions. It really is a regulatory quagmire that is complicated by the interests and influence of large taxicab companies operating in the metro area that are intent on using government regulation to restrict competition in their markets. Let me float an idea ... and this is just an idea ... that might mitigate to a degree the costs to a local taxicab company that is burdened by the cost of maintaining a fleet in which no vehicle, regardless of condition, can be older than ten model years old. Lets say that the fees for operating a license are set at $500 annually plus $100 for each driver licensed to drive the cab. This is a burden but it is also probably pretty common across the metro area. The total of fees incurred by the cab company is now $1200. Now lets say that the county surpluses its heavy-duty police cars at six years of age and in operating condition in part because SPLOST funds are used to keep its vehicles up to date. What if we gave preference to the locally licensed taxicab company to purchase these retired vehicles crediting them their fees toward those purchases made at a public auction. Whether or not that is a workable scheme, I couldn't say. It would need review by attorneys, it would need to be applicable to every taxicab company licensed in the county but it would lessen the burden that the local taxicab company faces as it is being coerced to meet a region-wide and to some, arbitrary standard. Another alternative would be to issue from Paulding Transportation, vouchers for their clients that could be redeemed by the taxicab company for filling in gaps in that service that could be applied to the fees or other costs they face. I think it is also important for all of us to recognize that as new technologies such as self-driving vehicles mature into real products and services over the coming two decades, the taxicab industry is one that could be seriously impacted. Indeed, the issue may come to be whether we can as local government protect operators such as United Taxi from encroachment mandated by state or nation players whose message in taking over these kinds of markets is energy efficiency, safety, technology and cost. An unorganized, diffuse regulatory scheme invites centralized actions in the name of progress and those forces, particularly with vast amounts of money behind them, can be difficult to resist. I know these are more complex solutions to regulation and that complexity is being forced on us by our proximity to the metro area and the pressure on local governments to conform. We also have to realize that when it comes to regional regulatory schemes, we as citizens of this jurisdiction can't be outliers largely because if the other dozen or more metro counties have it in their heads to force regional regulation, they can and will employ the general assembly to force compliance. I wish it were simple but there is really nothing 'simple' in today's world. George Patton "Pat" Hughes (aka: pubby) Link to post Share on other sites
jennilyn77 Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. 16 Link to post Share on other sites
Nice Green Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) I don't see a $100 fee as excessive when one county's annual fee is $50. $50 over the span of 12 months is just over $4 a month. That's a Starbucks coffee a month. Now if you had the numbers from several comparable companies and none of them had annual fees over $50, then I think you'd have a stronger argument. As to the vehicle age requirement, I think 10 years is a good limit. Yes, you can patch up vehicles to keep them running for a long while, but there comes a point to where such repairs are not cost effective versus getting a new vehicle. And the older the vehicle, the greater chance of a breakdown while it's in operation. Besides, wouldn't newer cars help the taxi service sell itself better than clunkers chugging down the road? Edited April 28, 2014 by Nice Green 2 Link to post Share on other sites
mei lan Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. Hey, I like you. Link to post Share on other sites
bored Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. Great point. Now I have the following tune in my head tho: As we taxi down the runway we can hear the people shout._________________________ Let's make a game of it, fill in the next line. (KEEP IT CLEAN) Link to post Share on other sites
cookies are sweet Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 While I ain't no super smart businessman or politician or nothing, but it seems to me that if you are a county that is new to writing taxi cab rules and regs, it would behoove you to look to the counties that surround your county and see what their rules and regs are. Then, I know this is crazy thinking, but what can I say, I'm nutty this way, then you write your rules and regs to match the counties that surround yours, so that the cabs that would most likely be crossing county lines would be able to do so without a lot of issues and problems. I would find it interesting to see how Douglas's and Cobb's taxi rules and regs differ from Paulding's rules and regs, if any. If the only difference is a $50 fee more, per year, then I don't see that as a big deal. That is less than $0.14 a day. (and you too can feed a hungry child, ooops, wrong commercial) I have no clue what the differences, if any, are. But that is what I would be looking to show if I was a cab service that was having a problem. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NewsJunky Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I have sympathy for anybody trying to make a living in this economy but I don't think a 10 year limit on the age of a taxi is too much to ask. If I had to call one I would like to get one that probably won't break down and is somewhat comfortable. Link to post Share on other sites
rockysmom Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. Seems like the taxi companies should certainly approach the county about this very truthful fact. Guess we will see. If the county doesn't work with them, then I'll know for sure......they got rocks in their head. Link to post Share on other sites
lowrider Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. Link to post Share on other sites
michelay1000 Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Jenilyn for president 4 Link to post Share on other sites
billh Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 The best thing is to get rid of all the people in office now!!!!!!!!!! 3 Link to post Share on other sites
winston1972 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I think this is a ploy to get us to walk to the airport and force the people into chartering a helicopter or plane to transport them where they need to go... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
bored Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I think this is a ploy to get us to walk to the airport and force the people into chartering a helicopter or plane to transport them where they need to go... Too funny..... Link to post Share on other sites
Animal Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I think a better transportation system is a good start. I would get permission from the Ant-growth group first. Link to post Share on other sites
cookies are sweet Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I think a better transportation system is a good start. I would get permission from the Ant-growth group first. You mean like a Marta rail? Link to post Share on other sites
gpatt0n Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 While I ain't no super smart businessman or politician or nothing, but it seems to me that if you are a county that is new to writing taxi cab rules and regs, it would behoove you to look to the counties that surround your county and see what their rules and regs are. Then, I know this is crazy thinking, but what can I say, I'm nutty this way, then you write your rules and regs to match the counties that surround yours, so that the cabs that would most likely be crossing county lines would be able to do so without a lot of issues and problems. I would find it interesting to see how Douglas's and Cobb's taxi rules and regs differ from Paulding's rules and regs, if any. If the only difference is a $50 fee more, per year, then I don't see that as a big deal. That is less than $0.14 a day. (and you too can feed a hungry child, ooops, wrong commercial) I have no clue what the differences, if any, are. But that is what I would be looking to show if I was a cab service that was having a problem. What I found rich is the notion that to hold a license in Paulding - this is the first county passed taxi cab ordinance - required you have something like 25 cabs based in Paulding. At this time there was one cab company with two cabs. If you haven't figured it out, stradial, half the reason that local governments regulate businesses - and I don't care if you're talking about real estate, law or medicine - is to protect the markets of those who practice those professions. By setting a large number of cabs as the minimum number of cabs a cab company must run, you basically eliminate competition from small independent cab companies. When you realize that probably a quarter of the regulations in a Cobb or Fulton County ordinance are written by the existing cab companies in those communities seeking to protect their 'turf' you realize how businesses - despite anti-regulatory Republican rhetoric to the contrary - love regulations. Local governments sometimes feel justified in giving these businesses those protective regulations in exchange for regulations - some of which the established businesses object because of cost (torn seat rules for instance) - which do positively impact and add to the comfort, economy and safety of the cab company's customers. It really shouldn't be judged as a moral vs. immoral rule or regulation but rather of what actually benefits the public and sometimes the benefit to the public is advanced by restricting to some degree the competition in the market. pubby PS: My memories of the county's action I want to say occurred probably in 2007 or 2008 during the Shearin administration. I know that after outlawing cabs in the county at that time for a period of several months - maybe five or six - there was some accommodation. Apparently the current issue involves the city ordinance which may have been changed to more closely conform with the county law. I don't have the details of the ordinances in question but I can say the first shot at regulation was based on copying another county's ordinance and it was a disaster. Link to post Share on other sites
Concerned Pldg Resident Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Our leaders are making it hard for our only licensed taxi company to stay in business. United Paulding Taxi is a small company and it provides a needed service to the community. It takes residents to places such as medical clinics, doctors and Hartsfield airport. It has frequently taken people home who are too drunk to drive. Paulding county officials and Dallas city officials have passed regulations that make it hard for this taxi company to stay in business. Paulding officials enacted a requirement that taxi drivers must pay a $100 annual fee. This is $50 more than what Cobb County assesses its taxi drivers. Taxi drivers do not earn much money and many refuse to work here because Paulding’s fee is excessive. Dallas officials recently required taxi company’s vehicles to be no older than ten years. This new law prevents United Paulding Taxi from picking up passengers in the city of Dallas because of the age of its cars. Residents in Paulding County and the city of Dallas need a taxi service. I urge you to contact these officials and insist they stop making it hard for this small business to operate. Paulding County Commission Chairman David Austin 770-443-7550 Mayor, city of Dallas, Ga Boyd L. Austin 770-443-8110 ext 1212 baustin@dallas-ga.gov City Manager, city of Dallas, Ga Kendall Smith 770-443-8110 ext 1205 ksmith@dallas-ga.gov I say GOOD for the County on this...This Company MAY be the ONLY taxi in the County BUT the owners have a habit of NOT PAYING vendors or paying late and then trying to cut "deals" after they have used the vendors service. Paulding County deserves to be serviced by a REPUTABLE company and $100 IS NOT excessive for a business license. Compare this to what a cosmetologist pays for their license or ANY other independent business. FAIR IS FAIR!!! Link to post Share on other sites
mojo413 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Our leaders are making it hard for our only licensed taxi company to stay in business. United Paulding Taxi is a small company and it provides a needed service to the community. It takes residents to places such as medical clinics, doctors and Hartsfield airport. It has frequently taken people home who are too drunk to drive. Paulding county officials and Dallas city officials have passed regulations that make it hard for this taxi company to stay in business. Paulding officials enacted a requirement that taxi drivers must pay a $100 annual fee. This is $50 more than what Cobb County assesses its taxi drivers. Taxi drivers do not earn much money and many refuse to work here because Paulding’s fee is excessive. Dallas officials recently required taxi company’s vehicles to be no older than ten years. This new law prevents United Paulding Taxi from picking up passengers in the city of Dallas because of the age of its cars. Residents in Paulding County and the city of Dallas need a taxi service. I urge you to contact these officials and insist they stop making it hard for this small business to operate. Paulding County Commission Chairman David Austin 770-443-7550 Mayor, city of Dallas, Ga Boyd L. Austin 770-443-8110 ext 1212 baustin@dallas-ga.gov City Manager, city of Dallas, Ga Kendall Smith 770-443-8110 ext 1205 ksmith@dallas-ga.gov On Paulding County... $100 / per driver per year does not seem unreasonable to me. I am assuming this fee is a business license that includes a background check and drivers license verification? Also I'm wondering when this was enacted? I have attended every BOC meeting since early October and I cannot remember any mention of taxi's during any meeting I have attended. On the City of Dallas... I have no idea. I do not live in the city and have never attended a City of Dallas meeting. Link to post Share on other sites
tundra Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Awesome. We'll have a commercial airport, but no taxis. That makes perfect sense. I've heard many times trying to start a business in Paulding County is a HUGE challenge. Jenilyn for Commission Chair. Link to post Share on other sites
jet_man1969 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 there goes my grand idea of using classic hot rod cars as taxi's! How about letting the business decide whats good for the business? Unless the county or city is paying for the company's insurance what does it matter if the car is 2 years old or 20 years old? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
mrshoward Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I say GOOD for the County on this...This Company MAY be the ONLY taxi in the County BUT the owners have a habit of NOT PAYING vendors or paying late and then trying to cut "deals" after they have used the vendors service. Paulding County deserves to be serviced by a REPUTABLE company and $100 IS NOT excessive for a business license. Compare this to what a cosmetologist pays for their license or ANY other independent business. FAIR IS FAIR!!! ^^^ Banned me from the "airport supporters" page for asking a simple question. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
publisher1 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 On Paulding County... $100 / per driver per year does not seem unreasonable to me. I am assuming this fee is a business license that includes a background check and drivers license verification? Also I'm wondering when this was enacted? I have attended every BOC meeting since early October and I cannot remember any mention of taxi's during any meeting I have attended. On the City of Dallas... I have no idea. I do not live in the city and have never attended a City of Dallas meeting. It is a city ordinance, mojo. And the issue seems to be the age of the vehicles. George Patton "Pat" Hughes Link to post Share on other sites
Concerned Pldg Resident Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 ^^^ Banned me from the "airport supporters" page for asking a simple question. I just got a VERNON COLLETT mailer...I was up in the air until this arrived as to who to vote for BUT the mailer is PAID FOR by the ANTI PROGRESS FOLKS at Protectpaulding.com / STRIKE ONE AGAINST VERNON...then he states that he is ALSO against progress in Paulding and will work to STOP THE COMMERCIALIZATION of the Paulding County Airport / STRIKE TWO AGAINST VERNON...So I just spent the last 3 hours going DOOR TO DOOR in the neighborhood showing the mailer and making sure he wouldn't get any votes from around our area!!! The Airport is ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE and Ms.Patti, her website, the Anti Progress folks at Protectpaulding.com, and the 3 or 4 who have cost the County time and $$$ are and will remain STUCK IN THE PAST!!! Sorry VERNON but you climbed up on the WRONG HORSE THIS TIME!!! Your mailer made up the minds of close to 21 voters who now plan to make a LOT OF PHONE CALLS! Link to post Share on other sites
mrshoward Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I just got a VERNON COLLETT mailer...I was up in the air until this arrived as to who to vote for BUT the mailer is PAID FOR by the ANTI PROGRESS FOLKS at Protectpaulding.com / STRIKE ONE AGAINST VERNON...then he states that he is ALSO against progress in Paulding and will work to STOP THE COMMERCIALIZATION of the Paulding County Airport / STRIKE TWO AGAINST VERNON...So I just spent the last 3 hours going DOOR TO DOOR in the neighborhood showing the mailer and making sure he wouldn't get any votes from around our area!!! The Airport is ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE and Ms.Patti, her website, the Anti Progress folks at Protectpaulding.com, and the 3 or 4 who have cost the County time and $$$ are and will remain STUCK IN THE PAST!!! Sorry VERNON but you climbed up on the WRONG HORSE THIS TIME!!! Your mailer made up the minds of close to 21 voters who now plan to make a LOT OF PHONE CALLS! Ummm... I'm not Vernon Collett. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
cookies are sweet Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I just got a VERNON COLLETT mailer...I was up in the air until this arrived as to who to vote for BUT the mailer is PAID FOR by the ANTI PROGRESS FOLKS at Protectpaulding.com / STRIKE ONE AGAINST VERNON...then he states that he is ALSO against progress in Paulding and will work to STOP THE COMMERCIALIZATION of the Paulding County Airport / STRIKE TWO AGAINST VERNON...So I just spent the last 3 hours going DOOR TO DOOR in the neighborhood showing the mailer and making sure he wouldn't get any votes from around our area!!! The Airport is ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE and Ms.Patti, her website, the Anti Progress folks at Protectpaulding.com, and the 3 or 4 who have cost the County time and $$$ are and will remain STUCK IN THE PAST!!! Sorry VERNON but you climbed up on the WRONG HORSE THIS TIME!!! Your mailer made up the minds of close to 21 voters who now plan to make a LOT OF PHONE CALLS! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dana Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I'm outta likes dang it! Like Link to post Share on other sites
Blondiega1 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Jenilyn for president Nah. She's a big ol' flaming liberal. Link to post Share on other sites
cookies are sweet Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Nah. She's a big ol' flaming liberal. Flaming? She's a he? Just kidding, just kidding. Link to post Share on other sites
NewsJunky Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I just got a VERNON COLLETT mailer...I was up in the air until this arrived as to who to vote for BUT the mailer is PAID FOR by the ANTI PROGRESS FOLKS at Protectpaulding.com / STRIKE ONE AGAINST VERNON...then he states that he is ALSO against progress in Paulding and will work to STOP THE COMMERCIALIZATION of the Paulding County Airport / STRIKE TWO AGAINST VERNON...So I just spent the last 3 hours going DOOR TO DOOR in the neighborhood showing the mailer and making sure he wouldn't get any votes from around our area!!! The Airport is ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE and Ms.Patti, her website, the Anti Progress folks at Protectpaulding.com, and the 3 or 4 who have cost the County time and $$$ are and will remain STUCK IN THE PAST!!! Sorry VERNON but you climbed up on the WRONG HORSE THIS TIME!!! Your mailer made up the minds of close to 21 voters who now plan to make a LOT OF PHONE CALLS! I know Vernon and asked him about this. He says he has not even seen it and it was put out by a Pac. He did not even know about it until it hit the mail. I suggest if you really care where Vernon stands that you call and talk to him personally. I have my doubts that you ever really considered him as your guy anyway. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Concerned Pldg Resident Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I know Vernon and asked him about this. He says he has not even seen it and it was put out by a Pac. He did not even know about it until it hit the mail. I suggest if you really care where Vernon stands that you call and talk to him personally. I have my doubts that you ever really considered him as your guy anyway. I know Vernon and asked him about this. He says he has not even seen it and it was put out by a Pac. He did not even know about it until it hit the mail. I suggest if you really care where Vernon stands that you call and talk to him personally. I have my doubts that you ever really considered him as your guy anyway. I was doing JUST what you say...leaving the door open to see who supported the Airport and continued Progress and growth in Paulding and who did the dance to get elected by "kissing the Anti-growth lawsuit groups butt"...Yes, the mailer clearly states it was PAID for and distributed by Protectpaulding.com BUT it also is 100% Vernon Collett and even if he DOESN'T support what it says the mailer IMPLIES he does and I DO NOT think this group would have done this on his behalf if they had not talked with him and had his approval to mail it. Link to post Share on other sites
cookies are sweet Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I was doing JUST what you say...leaving the door open to see who supported the Airport and continued Progress and growth in Paulding and who did the dance to get elected by "kissing the Anti-growth lawsuit groups butt"...Yes, the mailer clearly states it was PAID for and distributed by Protectpaulding.com BUT it also is 100% Vernon Collett and even if he DOESN'T support what it says the mailer IMPLIES he does and I DO NOT think this group would have done this on his behalf if they had not talked with him and had his approval to mail it. I finally agree with you on something. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NewsJunky Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I was doing JUST what you say...leaving the door open to see who supported the Airport and continued Progress and growth in Paulding and who did the dance to get elected by "kissing the Anti-growth lawsuit groups butt"...Yes, the mailer clearly states it was PAID for and distributed by Protectpaulding.com BUT it also is 100% Vernon Collett and even if he DOESN'T support what it says the mailer IMPLIES he does and I DO NOT think this group would have done this on his behalf if they had not talked with him and had his approval to mail it. You should speak with him to find out where he stands. I will say again that he was never your guy no matter what the mailer says. I expect your guy is Manous. I get a vote in that post do you? Link to post Share on other sites
Concerned Pldg Resident Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 You should speak with him to find out where he stands. I will say again that he was never your guy no matter what the mailer says. I expect your guy is Manous. I get a vote in that post do you? There is also Herb Haynes still need to hear from those two... Link to post Share on other sites
jennilyn77 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Nah. She's a big ol' flaming liberal. No worries. I'm unelectable. There are way too many witnesses. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Blondiega1 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 No worries. I'm unelectable. There are way too many witnesses. Link to post Share on other sites
nickchester Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 It's not clear why any city or county would want to increase regulation. Link to post Share on other sites
NewsJunky Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 There is also Herb Haynes still need to hear from those two... I have heard from all three. I could vote for two of them before the other and no it is not Vernon. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now