• HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner1-5
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner2
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner3
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner4
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner5
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner6
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner7

Group of Kingfisher County landowners sues city of Piedmont

Wind turbines, like those pictured above, are at the heart of a lawsuit facing the city of Piedmont leadership

By Robert Flippo

editor@piedmontnewsonline.com

A group of Kingfisher County landowners have filed a lawsuit in Kingfisher County against the city of Piedmont in response to the recent changes in the city ordinance declaring wind turbines within a three mile radius of the city to be a public nuisance.

The lawsuit names five individuals who claim the ordinance harms them and their property rights. The individuals named in the lawsuit all have lease agreements with Apex Clean Energy to build wind turbines on their land. According to the lawsuit documents, Apex is not included in the lawsuit. It is only on behalf of the landowners.

The lawsuit reads that Piedmont’s ordinance amounted to an illegal taking of private land and the landowners were not afforded proper compensation under the rights of imminent domain. The suit further reads that the city of Piedmont has failed to prove that wind turbines are a public nuisance.

City Councilman Charles Coffman said the city has not attempted to enforce the ordinance yet and that Piedmont has acted within the parameters of Oklahoma state law.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking an injunction which would prohibit the city of Piedmont from enforcing the ordinance until the city “proves operation of an industrial wind turbine is, in fact, a nuisance, and said nuisance affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood.”

The lawsuit also seeks compensation from the city for the loss of revenue from the 85 wind turbines that would be affected by the ordinance. Estimated at $15,000 a piece, the damages the group is seeking from the city totals $38,250,000.

The lawsuit is still in its early stages and City Manager Jim Crosby commented that he did not know if the attorneys with the Central Oklahoma Property Rights Association (COPRA) would handle the lawsuit on behalf of the city. COPRA is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit but the city of Piedmont and COPRA entered into a litigation partnership in legal action against Apex Clean Energy and Kingfisher Wind.

99 Comments

  1. bill says:

    I expect some one will now be looking into the Open Meetings laws in a more substantial way. Seems Councilman Coffman has the answers so we should not be too concerned. I’m certain those COPRA folks will come to our rescue. However just in case if I were a councilman I would be considering all the possibilities. It appears unless some more folks start suing the city and that if we have to pay it would only be about 12,750.00 for each house hold. I did suggest to the councilman that they look into chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy laws. Of course most of us would not see to many wind generators just those folks out in the recall ward.

  2. Concerned says:

    Are legal fees from continous lawsuits going to bankrupt Piedmont? Then the sheriff WILL have to protect the citizens in this town!

  3. JT says:

    The council should solve all the problems inside the city limits first. Then maybe they can worry about things outside of town. Save yourself some trouble and get rid of the ridiculous ordinance. Pride, stupidity and foolishness go hand in hand (in hand?).

  4. Richard Jones says:

    bill, My Friend.

    Please do us all two favors:

    1) Please drive out to 164th and NWEXP and look west. The numerous turbines you see are the Apex Calumet project. They are 492 feet tall, and roughly 14 miles away as the crow flies. With the synchronized aviation avoidance lights required by law, they are even more pronounced at dusk. Soon, all of Piedmont will be seeing turbines if Apex, the industrial wind turbine complex developer, has their way. You are only fooling yourself, and misleading others when you state otherwise.

    2) Please see Oklahoma Statutes Title 50, Section 16:
    §50 16. Cities and towns Power to define and summarily abate nuisances.
    Cities and towns in this state shall have the right and power to determine what is and what shall constitute a nuisance within their respective corporate limits, and for the protection of the public health, the public parks and the public water supply, shall have such power outside of the corporate limits; and wherever it is practical so to do, said cities and towns shall have the power summarily to abate any such nuisance after notice to the owner, and an opportunity for him to be heard, if this can be given.

    You will notice no requirement of Proof, although the negative health effects of these spinning, high voltage, low-frequency-emitting pieces of industrial equipment are well documented.

    To neglect the first is simple Laziness, although I guess some prefer to remain uninformed. I can understand that – looking into the face of the truth that awaits Piedmont is both Unbelievable and Scary.

    To disregard the second signifies a serious reading comprehension problem.

    As the attorney for these landowners who have signed leases with Apex, is himself a landowner who has signed a lease with Apex, it likely cost them little, if nothing to file this Frivolous suit. It is merely a ploy to stir up knee-jerk reactionaries who have not read The Law, in a weak attempt to pressure city leaders, and cause Misplaced public panic. This tactic apparently worked on you.

    Piedmont is no more taking away their rights, than these poor, mistreated souls are taking away the rights of not only those landowners whom they insist on forcing to live in the shadows of these blights on the landscape, but all citizens of Piedmont not particularly crazy about structures slightly shorter than the Washington Monument with a Boeing 747 stapled to the side, sporting red strobe lights, which will be erected only a few miles away.

    They will be our Constant Companions for the Next Thirty Years.

    Please go out to 164th and NWEXP at dusk, and see for yourself. Think about 14 miles away, and 492 feet tall – then consider how far you live from the western or northern edge of Piedmont. Once you have done this, you can come back and regale us all with the problems of only those “folks out in the recall ward”.

  5. bill says:

    Richard I appreciate your friendly gesture and the your absolute wisdom. Some points you make may have been worthwhile for the commmunity to have the opportunity to have been engaged. This also may have given the general community the time to learn some of these notable facts that you are so certain about. It is my opinion that those who oppose the giant wind towers were the only ones that had opportunity for input or even information for that matter. No doubt that those land owners do not share your views and or they are just simply not concerned about your views. If the suit filed and or any others which may be filed happen to be frivolous a Judge will likely make that an official decision. I do not support or object at this time the wind farm project. I do however believe the city has not handled this matter in an effective and transparent way.

    • Richard Jones says:

      Yes, bill. I will agree that there is always room for more transparency in government at all levels. However, this is not a new subject of debate. The first stories in the local media concerning Apex, the industrial wind turbine complex developer, appeared 13 months ago, when the cartographically illiterate carpetbaggers tipped their hand by erroneously erecting a test tower inside the city limits. Had they not done this, no one would have known they were coming until the turbines started going up – it is, for obvious reasons, their modus operandi.

      Why would Apex notify the city of something that they thought was not occurring inside city limits? Of all the land out here, why would they burden themselves by having to deal with a city council when they didn’t have to? Updated city maps are available at the tag agency, city hall, and the bank. If they supposedly knew they were going to be in town, why didn’t they just swing by, leave a note with the city manager, and pick one up?

      There has been ample opportunity for citizens of Piedmont to notify city leaders, both past and present, of their views– in at least twelve City Council meetings, one notable Planning Commission meeting, and countless news articles available online for comment. There were plenty of citizens who didn’t buy Apex Development Director Kent Dougherty’s original story of 80 foot tall turbines (Apex Plans Wind Farm in Piedmont – Piedmont Gazette, August 8th, 2012). We are all too old to be spoon-fed – information must be sought. It appears that those opposed to this community growth killer were the only ones speaking. You cannot blame city leaders for listening to citizens. That is their job, after all.

      To stand at a bus stop with a year’s worth of printed schedules in hand from two separate publishers, watch as a bus loads, and then blame the bus company as the bus pulls away from the curb, for the fact that one failed to get on it, is rather disingenuous, wouldn’t you say?

      bill, we both obviously care deeply about this community, and its future. I have enjoyed our back-and-fourth, but Please, if you won’t drive out to the Calumet project and see what 492 feet tall looks (and sounds) like up close, at least make the short trip to NWEXP and 164th and look to the west. I hear part of the road has a nice fresh layer of chip-and-seal.

  6. Concerned says:

    Really, this whole green agenda just isn’t cutout for a backwoods, hillbilly hick town like Piedmont. If it doesn’t involve beer, boobs or bibles the citizens here just aren’t interested in it. Conserve energy, recycle, drive fuel efficent cars, we don’t need that here. Wind energy, solar energy, yep that’s for bunny lovin tree huggers out in California. As they say Party On!!!

    • Brent says:

      A person who will not do the leg work to better themselves on a certain subject needs to shy away from commenting. This is not only a Piedmont issue, if the lease owners want to accept my money as a welfare hand out then they will have to take some of the blame here. I did not ask to live in an industrial zone, I chose to live out in the country away far enough from OKC. If it takes a town like Piedmont to help land owners fight an East coast land grabbing company and neighbors who would pollute the landscape with war of the worlds towers then thank god for Piedmont. Now ask yourself who is the better neighbor. A lease with apex will give you less control of your land.

  7. Charles Coffman says:

    We did not have to add the commercial wind farm language to or ordinance to persue action. But, by adding it we were saying we have a real concern for our citizens. We have not taken action to enforce the ordinance. This is the attorney arena now so will see if the state law is affected or if a judge will say if they are or are not a nuisance. Other things working are the county planning commission for the purpose of reviewing commercial enterprises within three miles of a city. There are other cities considering joining in on this. As far as the transparency issue goes. We are looking at having more public hearings as part of our meetings. But, it is not a good thing to listen to 30 people at the meeting and assume they speak for the other 6,000 people n town. I had one person suggest that we rent an auditorium and ask for a show of hands on every agenda item. I can’t see that working. We have a representative democracy and in the end each ward has one vote. In my ward people call me regularly on issues and I note things on my Facebook page. But we will keep trying harder to be more open. We have heard the citizens.

  8. bill says:

    You might start by have a legitimate OPEN MEETING that proper notice is provided to the community. Might also have been helpful to invite or at least have discussions with any of the communities that already have the wind farm experience. There are apparently those who are supportive of the wind farm program and of course those who oppose wind farms. Would be great to listen and learn from those who have first hand experience in their communities. Sound like the Mayor’s of those other cities do not share in the opposing views. They also believe that the opposing views have made misstatements of fact and have not reviewed real scientific data. I’m personally undecided I just think the city went READY…FIRE….AIM… Unfortunately in making these decisions they failed to inform the community in a responsible way. As you know it is bit intimidating to attempt to bring a question or comment to the city in an open meeting.

    • Charles Coffman says:

      Bill, I won’t comment on the science, not my area of expertise. One thing a bit different here than some of the communities is we are right on the edge of a major growth zone. Why an outfit would drop a large commercial enterprise in the path of one of the fastest growing areas of the country is a bit of a mystery. If it were a few miles out it might have avoided a lot of problems. Some of the other communities were fine with them because they were away from the main partof town. Regarding the open meeting…In every council meeting there is a space for public comments, just need to sign up. We also post the agenda on Thursday before the Monday meeting. If you Google the city of Piedmont Oklahoma we pop up and you can open up the agenda without going up and checking what is taped on the front door of the Muni Bldg. Since I have been here we have let the people speak during the open period.

      • Kate Kearby says:

        fast growing farmland owned by families for 100 years and you think they want to hurt themselves.

        • Charles Coffman says:

          Kate, did not mean to give that impression. I respect those folks and they should hold on to their land forever if they want. Wish we could all agree to a buffer around the city on commercial items. These are a whole new animal than exists with oil and gas. I am from Oklahoma and have been next to oil pumps, never gave it a thought. I am old enough to remember the area around down town OKC when it had all those oil derricks. These are different.

  9. bill says:

    Not sure that it is accurate or true but based on what I have read and been told by a number of people that APEX has made an offer to give Piedmont 1.5 million dollars for the impact of our road use and also to have a I mile buffer from the city limits of Piedmont. I think the community would like to have been informed before the city took such a drastic action forcing lawsuits to be filed. Councilman Coffman can you confirm or do you deny that such an offer was made.

    • Brent says:

      I live in the area and thank god for Piedmont. Why in the world would anybody want a war of the worlds set in their back yard. And mat I say to scale. Also if you did some research about what could happen as far as nuisance laws, health, and subsidies this is the best move Piedmont could take to protect its potential . Lease holders need to look at this real hard because from what I hear they can be part of a nuisance suit. So go ahead try to sue Piedmont for trying to take your rights away( which is a joke) I will watch and wait to see if what the Atty General ruled on will go ahead then I as a land owner who actually lives in the area will use my rights to protect my property.

  10. bill says:

    Or maybe the order of the day will become FIRE..READY…WHERE DID IT GO?

  11. Kate Kearby says:

    http://www.turn180.ie/?p=730 some kind of science not fairy tails.

    • anon says:

      The judge will get a ‘kick’ out of this ;scientific’ evidence.

    • Richard Jones says:

      Darn, Kate. That’s some pretty scary stuff.
      If it has that affect that to colts, I wonder what it will do to Children?
      I wonder if its worth the risk.

      • Kate Kearby says:

        I don’t know Mr Jones, I do wonder if this kind of investigation is completely legitimate, do lusitano breeds of horses have tendencies toward this? But at least it’s not some fiction about blades coming off a training tower at CV Tech. Back to the real reason I don’t like them. if they were so good why do they need government subsidies.

        • Richard Jones says:

          Jeez, Kate – Lets do this Yet Again – As I patiently explained to you previously, I did not say that the Industrial Wind Turbine Blade found Sticking Out Of The Top Of A Children’s Daycare Center after the May tornado had been mounted on an industrial wind turbine – training or otherwise. I never said such a thing. You read it that way, accused me of it, and I corrected you on it. As I have said before, the 100 foot blade was mounted In Concrete at the Vo-Tech as a display model. I believe this mounting to be slightly more durable than the poly-carbon fibers that the blade would have been attached to had it in fact been mounted on an industrial wind turbine tower, but maybe that’s just me.

          My comment was an effort to be Nice to you, and Supportive of your statement. I Honestly Appreciate and Respect your love of Horses and your very noble efforts to further the cause of 4-H here in Piedmont. Although you seem to have an opinion on just about everything, struggle with punctuation (voice inflection does not translate well to the written word), and are quite fond of repeatedly invading the campaign page of political opponents in the furtherance of a recent failed city council crusade, I had hoped that there existed an opening where we could look past all of that. Apparently, I was wrong. I truly consider this to be most unfortunate. When you slam the transmission into Reverse that quickly, it cannot possibly be good for the vehicle.

          I was Being Nice. And Supportive. Never Mind.

          • Kate Kearby says:

            not exactly Mr Long, (and my representative councilman will not respond to his constituents) and blocks them from contact (not me) . Lets not bring my comments into the 4H, that is a separate matter where I am careful not to mention anything to do with politics, Piedmont’s or otherwise. An article recently removed from COPRA.us that mentioned the ‘2 missing blades’. Beyond that I am supportive of the ‘no windmills near Piedmont (or anywhere due to the subsidy issue), But 100 year land owner farm families need some property rights too? Can anyone see that? I don’t think they are stupid uneducated people, perhaps they need a kinder hand in the whole windmill issue?

    • Bill says:

      Really Kate???? Your science is base on a group that claims carbon dioxide is not dangerous to the environment. And their based in Ireland, with as much junk science that is out there couldn’t you find an American crackpot to support your claim????

      • Kate Kearby says:

        vs the fiction of lost turbine blades, I stated myself generally is this a ‘one rat study’? but without the science what about the government subsidies?

  12. Charles Coffman says:

    I was told several offers and different buffers are being floated. I did hear about the $150,000 a year for ten years but did not hear about the 1 mile buffer. We want 3 miles and the attorneys will be doing he back and forth. So here is a question…. If the city took a 1 mile buffer would those folks signing leases that fall into that mile sue Piedmont for taking it or APEX for offering it? What if it is 2 miles? What I am trying to say is that it gets complex. Right now we know what the state law says, we know other cities have been successful, and that no one wants to go to court. We are asking for three miles, never asked for money.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Council Coffman, in spite of the risk of inane attacks by the vultures that hang out around this site, I have the following questions and comments:
      1. Exactly where in any Oklahoma state statute is the mysterious ‘three mile limit’ referenced?
      2. What cities are you referring to that have been ‘successful’ and successful at what?
      3. How do you justify refusing an ‘absolute guarantee of a 10-year annual $150k contribution’ to the city for roads, while at the same time begging for permission to outsource our police protection, based on savings as defined in bogus city budget numbers?
      4. You refer to Piedmont as ‘one of the fastest growing areas of the country’. Maybe you need to check the number of building permits issued lately. Not much is happening, and maybe you should check into why developers are not fond of Piedmont right now.
      Ambiguous unsubstantial statements by city representatives are getting stale and need to be challenged.
      Vultures will be ignored – I want answers from the guy who has all of the answers..;.And I’m pretty sure that the citizens recognize that, in the last two months, the city council has exposed us to multiple civil and possibly criminal law suits….We do not deserve this.

      • Charles Coffman says:

        Still throwing rocks, calling people names and saying the sky is falling I see. Some folks are best to just refer to the attorneys. I believe you know him.

      • Richard Jones says:

        Woods, the reason that there are scant few building permits being requested in Piedmont lately as you insist, is because developers simply Refuse to Gamble on potential buyers purchasing homes in the shadow of 492’ tall industrial wind turbines – whether that fear is justified or not. The negative impact has already begun. Why do you find it impossible to grasp this simple concept? It’s really not rocket science.

        No sane developer would begin financing the construction of a housing development anywhere near Piedmont when they are aware of the probability of industrial wind turbines being erected in the area, and the fact that now, everyone is aware of it. They are sitting on the sidelines and watching how this thing plays out. Why would a home buyer spend 250K on a house that could Possibly be within sight of an industrial wind turbine, when they can get the same house in Deer Creek for 250K and not have to worry about looking at spinning blades and flashing lights day and night? The schools are comparable, and the travel time to metro OKC is equitable. The only real difference is that one community is being threatened by industrial wind turbine developers, while the other is not.

        You can foolishly pretend that such things do not really matter to a family planning on making the largest, long-term investment of their life, but the rest of us live in the real world. So do real estate developers.

        Though you may somehow consider me a Vulture, I must point out that I was just fine to leave the road-kill that resulted in your political career untouched. Tell us all again how you do not support wind turbines inside the city limits – while you negotiated for wind turbines inside the city limits. Call me a liar while you are at it – that’s my favorite part.

  13. bill says:

    My goodness Councilman Woods sounds like the voice of reason. Who would a thunk it?

  14. Vernon Woods says:

    Councilman Coffman, I threw no rocks, no names were called, no ‘whatever else'(?) – attorneys?. Just respond to my questions – not that tough if you have the real facts and don’t distort them to fit your most current political agenda, whatever that is.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      And I might add that no insults were included in my facebook comments which you deleted – only requests for verification of your claims. You can run, chuckie, but you can’t hide from the truth.

    • Charles Coffman says:

      About time you state the agenda since you mention it often. It could be summed up by trying to end the feuds you still are a part of, treating folks with respect, and fixing the roads. Nothing else. You are the one that wants everyone fired and recalled. On your questions… Title 50 section 16 refers to towns having the riights to go outside their borders under some circumstances. It is case laws that built the 3 miles more than the statutes. That is why I refer you to the attorneys. If you Google town, wind, law you can see many cases out there. Because the big buildup of new wind farms started with the recent tax incentives many of these cases are in appeal. Some won, some lost, nearly all are on appeal. Add us to the list of those entering the fight. Fastest growing is a moving average, come to my side of town and count the frames going up. We are still one if the fastest growing and they have carved out two large new additions around me that will start pouring slabs soon. As far as the guarantee of $150,000 a year… It is not about the money, we want space around the border. I would not sell out part of town for a buck. As far as bogus numbers, looks like you used the 2010 numbers, left out the min court, and did not include vehicle replacement. I know you do the Vernon pee pee dance of joy when something makes the town look bad. I really wish you would look beyond the past and try to offer a solution from time to time.

      • Vernon Woods says:

        In other words, your claim that a state ordinance referencing a three mile limit has no merit, and you are unable to back up your claim about ‘other towns’. And Chuckie, you and the mayorette have lately done more to discredit our town than anyone in our history, from urine-gate, to outsourcing our PD, to the approaching legal smorgasbord. All we ask is that you be able to prove your claims before you make them.

        • Kate Kearby says:

          Regardless of the politics will you ever outgrow being a MCP. You may not like her but she is a Mayor. I may have lost all hope in the ‘politics’ of everyone in Piedmont, and the dozen puppet masters. But Male or Female makes not difference. Seems we have a female puppet master also, at least one. Odd neither her or her boy toy chatter on line, at least not under their own names.

        • Charles Coffman says:

          Like I said, throw rocks, call people names, and say the sky is falling. This anger you have about the past kept you from being an effective representative for your people when you won election. You had a great opportunity to make a difference but you could not move forward. Ask the attorney, talk to the CPA, run for mayor if want to make a difference. You still influence people in town and have some connection with ex officials and one of the papers in town. Why not present some solutions. I guess you want us to remove commercial wind farms from the nuisance ordinance? Want us to accept a half mile buffer, pull away from the law suite? Want us to rehire the fired policeman? Do you want staff replaced? Who and why? Now is your opportunity to present solutions and say why you feel your solutions should be considered. I hope the good folks will stand back and let you bring forth your wisdom once and for all.

  15. Charles Coffman says:

    Deny an insult with an insult?

  16. rosy says:

    Why when copra and Piedmont went together, was copra not required to list the members and contributors or contributor is more like it, that will be paying for their Tulsa lawyer that is busy talking with Apex. Since the illegal super secret meeting that wasn’t really a secret after the fact, thought Piedmont was all into transparency and open government. Might check to see who owns property within the three mile buffer to see why theres a three mile buffer, chosen by copra.

    • Brent says:

      I don’t live in the 3 mile zone. You folks need to realize that this is not just a Piedmont issue. COPRA is a group of people who’s life’s are going to be greatly affected by this industrialization of the area. If you can’t comprehend the fact that I and others will fight for our right as property owners in the area to keep wind turbines from industrializing all around our house then there really is not much more to say. This is not a battle we chose and apex regardless of what you heard has not been reaching out. They started when they realized we were not going away. This is my house , my property and my family so like I said this is more than a piedmont issue.

  17. Vernon Woods says:

    Chuckie, you get a little hard to follow when you get all worked up like this. Try to calm down a little. Then maybe you can answer my original questions.

    • Concerned says:

      Vernon, his name is Charles, not Chuckie. That’s all you have. Insulting people. You still sober? Or did you fall off of the wagon again? Why don’t you tell us the story about how you got kicked off of the Piedmont Volunteer Fire Dept. for showing up drunk? Tell us about that. That’d be a good story we could kick around for a while.

  18. Charles Coffman says:

    Yep, just a bag of rocks. No solutions.

  19. Charles Coffman says:

    Probably best if we all look ahead from here on out.

  20. Vernon Woods says:

    Chuckie, you and your mayorette still have lots of goblins after your asses. While ‘looking ahead’ and attempting to ignore the past, you’d best check your rear view mirror once in a while. The citizens of Piedmont will continue to be required to pay for your previous bone-headed actions. Have at it howlers.

    • Kate Kearby says:

      MAYOR for one who is so concerned about specifics, spelling, dotting ones I’s and crossing ones T’s you might consider using the correct word that’s in the dictionary vs your MCP slang!

    • Brent says:

      And this guy represented you?!?! Wow!

  21. JT says:

    I wonder if anyone will admit to ever voting for Vernon after reading all of this? I’d love to hear the story about Vernon getting kicked of the Fire Department.

    What is so special about the 3 mile buffer? Why not just 1 mile or why not 10?

    It would seem to me that people who live in unincorporated areas with little to no government regulation suddenly want the government regulation. Maybe some people never gave it a second thought, but I bet they do now.

    Also I’m just as worried about an engine block, vehicle, I-beam or 2×4 flying through the air in a tornado as I am a composite wind turbine blade. Should we ban those items also?

    Also how far out in the country do you have to be, to not be on the edge of a major growth zone? Who gets to define a major growth zone? There is plenty of empty land within the corporate boundaries of Piedmont that will be miles and miles away from the proposed wind turbines. Furthermore if you look at the newly re-drawn ward maps, you will see that the east side of town is where most of the population growth is occurring. Won’t the proposed turbines be mostly on the north and west sides of town?

    • Richard Jones says:

      Hello, JT.

      “Miles and miles away” is exactly what some of us are fighting for. I would go for no turbines east of State Highway 81 myself, but again, maybe that’s just me.

      Those who live in the unincorporated areas did not choose to do so for fear of regulation. As there exists a county government, and part of that government’s responsibility is to protect the citizens of the county from all manner of occurrences, most probably felt that the wants and needs of 99.5% of the county’s population would be respected and protected, instead of the .5% that will actually profit from activities such as giant industrial wind turbine installation. Those figures come from the County Commissioners meeting a few weeks ago. Speaking only for myself, I am rather surprised to find that those of us not living within some arbitrary lines on a map are (property taxes aside) considered citizens of the Wild Wild West.

      Yes, we are all unfortunately too aware of the devastation that a tornado can bring – Tragically, some of our neighbors more than others. One must admit that although engine blocks, vehicles, I-beams and 2×4s are capable of causing damage when thrown about in such situations, it’s probably not advisable to intentionally redesign any of them with the specific goal of catching the wind, and then mounting the re-purposed projectiles onto 400 foot towers. Simple Common Sense dictates that from a public safety standpoint, this is not a good idea.

      While it is obvious that the majority of recent growth in Piedmont has occurred in the east (toward Oklahoma City) as you have stated, one has to wonder what Piedmont’s business district, and Sales Tax base would look like had that growth instead taken place in the north and west of downtown. Piedmont could have a population of ten thousand, but if those citizens all live along County Line Road to the east, trips into Piedmont proper (using quasi-paved roads west, away from Oklahoma City) would be few and far between. A Major Growth Area or not, the City of Piedmont’s financial stability will only increase when there are more people traveling through, and spending their money In Piedmont. Short of a Wind-er WonderLand Theme Park, Over one hundred and twenty 492 foot tall industrial wind turbines erected north and west of town will eliminate the potential for profitable growth near that targeted area. In turn, it will eliminate this viable opportunity to increase the Sales Tax base. Considering Piedmont’s current financial situation, simple Common Sense dictates that eliminating opportunities is not a good idea.

      Regards.

      • JT says:

        Richard,

        You knew (or should have known) when you moved into your current residence what you were getting into. Most county governments in this state exercise very little to no planning, zoning or ordinance rule making. County governments record land records, maintain county roads, provide judicial services and law enforcement services.

        So no, I would disagree that county governments exist “to protect the citizens of the county from all manner of occurrences”. That would be what I would call a Nanny State.

        Those who move to the “country” have very few of the so called protections offered by living within a municipality. I would wager that a large portion of them move the for that very reason. Also, if you do some research you will find that the “Wild Wild West” never existed. It is an invention of Hollywood to sell movies.

        Should we have cellphone towers, tall buildings or electrical transmission lines? These can all be found in highly populated areas frequented by tornadoes. Should they be banned as well?

        • Richard Jones says:

          JT, My Friend,

          Honestly.
          Four years ago – unlike your well-documented 44 square miles of Piedmont, its street conditions, and it’s publicly available budget, Neither of Us could have possibly imagined the potential for Giant Industrial Wind Turbines this close to town. Calumet was just a glimmer in the eye of Apex at that point. On the contrary, it is You, My Friend, who “knew (or should have known) when you moved into your current residence what you were getting into.”

          It is unfortunate that you disagree that the purpose of the county government is to protect its citizens. A County Commissioner during the aforementioned County Commissioner’s meeting explained that a part of their job was to do just that. You will excuse me if I just go with the voice of experience on this one.

          My Great Grandfather staked his claim in “The Strip” during the run of 1893. I find it odd that one who grew up in what was once The Cherokee Outlet – a No Man’s Land eventually cleared of Cattle Thieves and Train Robbers during the 1880s by a future leader of none other than the Texas Rangers – would claim that such a place as the “Wild Wild West” did not exist.

          As an Engineer, given your continued listing of objects in the known universe that could possibly be tossed about by a tornado without acknowledging that None are Specifically Engineered to Catch The Wind, As a Canadian County Citizen, given your failure to recognize a self-admitted role of Canadian County Government, and as One Who Grew Up in Garfield County, given the ridiculous denial of the history of the area, if not your very Heritage, I’ll resist holding my breath awaiting you to address the advisability of killing the growth potential of the area of Piedmont that would funnel the most Sales Tax generating consumers through downtown.

          While I welcome a Good Debate, it appears that on this particular subject, you are just being argumentative. Let’s instead go watch the “Dunk the Clown” spectacle down on the midway, shall we? First round (balls or beers) is on me.

          Kindest Regards.

          • JT says:

            Richard,

            The town I grew up in is totally surrounded by wind turbines. My grandparents live in that town. It’s been operational for almost a year now. Funny how all the objections you raise have been voiced by no one I’ve talked to that lives there. In case you are curious, my family did not receive a wind turbine lease on any property they own.

            If you do some research you will see that what is depicted in movies and TV as “the wild west” simply never occurred as depicted. The FBI says there were 5,014 bank robberies in the US in 2011. I imagine that is significantly more than all the bank robberies in the 1800s. That’s just a fun fact though, it doesn’t really prove my point. Historians such as Hollon, McGrath, Anderson, Hill and Dykstra make the scholarly arguments.

            Anyways as one who grew up in a town with (GASP!) no police department and little to no code enforcement I don’t sit around waiting for the government to protect me and solve all of my problems. Furthermore I remember the county government as being pretty inept at preventing numerous arsons and theft. Which leads me to my conviction that the government can’t protect me or anyone else.

            The growth potential argument is a straw man. The growth potential is to the east through the lowlands of Deer Creek all the way to Edmond and OKC.

            Your argument about catching the wind is a bit absurd. Ponder this, a wind turbine is designed to catch the wind and resist the wind at the same time. Now simply because something is NOT designed to catch the wind does not mean is catches no wind. Most structures are designed for a maximum wind speed of 90 mph in a 3 second gust. An EF1 tops out at 110. Lastly, a wind turbine is designed to not catch any wind above a certain wind speed, but I’m sure you already knew that.

          • Richard Jones says:

            Whatever you say, Slick.

  22. bill says:

    There have been reapeated attempts to encourage some basic planning principles by the city. Many resources have been approached; councilmen, planning commissioners, city managers, city development directors, bulilders, developers, business leaders, engaged citizens and proffesional planning organizations. We must recognize some basic priniciples of city planning have been ignored. The principles addressing infrastructure corridors, buffer zones, economic sustainability and quality of life. The many problems facing the city now could have and should have been prevented. Councilmen, citty officials and interst groups often say it is time to let the past go and move on to the future. That statement on its own sounds very good and comforting, however if we do not acknowledge what we may learn from our past experiences we will continue to repeat our past mistakes. If we had been pro active a decade or two ago and we had addressed those baisic principles in an open and honest way we could have prevented most of the challanges, controversies and mis-trust we must deal with as emergent now. GET PRO-ACTIVE NOW OR ACCEPT THE POOR PERFORMANCE AND GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

  23. Charles Coffman says:

    There are a few things that have changed that have made a difference. The updating if codes and ordinances, the 2030 plan, and the new planning directors have a link. Wade has experience in N Texas and has a good pulse on trends and how some of fast paced cities are doing things. yes, they are different, but it is the planning method that we have adopted I want to point out. Behind the scenes we are different. We have to get the new charter approved (public meeting on the 17th) and define iron clad rules for waivers or tax incentives ( only if the result in growth of revenue and are vetted openly etc) but our internal items are very different than they were. We don’t have to fight some of the old battles. The process for handling things on our border was unexpected. A fight between land owners and the cities really needs to be done as part of a set method. A county board that deals only with commercial projects within a defined buffer zone might help. Land owners won’t feel they need to join a city they really do not want o be a part of to protect themselves from a hazard waste site and cities would know what kind of a buffer and what would fly in the way of protections. This might resolve some of the annex, de-annex issues as well. There is much to do and it is maddengly slow. We do have people who will at least look at these things now. JT, I heard someone was looking at a wind farm at Waterloo and county line. If that is true then this shows nw this s a bigger issue tan just west Piedmont. Bill, I wsh we could have started 15 years ago before we went past 5000 people and did just one mile a year. We would be a different town. We may only be laying the ground work for those that come after us but we are not going back. Good comments, both of you

    • Brent says:

      Like I have stated before and will always repeat” this is not just a Piedmont issue” wind turbines are going up west, northwest, north, south and southwest of Piedmont. That is what needs to be addressed, apex will get a foot in then try to tie all the projects together. Then other wind companies will follow, which they already are.Piedmont is in a unique position where a milestone could happen and other towns will follow. I moved out in the country not expecting to fight an industrial zone. Next will be a dump. I won’t fight that because if wind turbines are all around that is what my land will be worth. If I can’t live with them then I will put In a landfill. Why not?

  24. JT says:

    I don’t know when it happened, but the decision to expand the corporate limits of the city to 44 square miles is the root cause of most (but not all) of the problems. I’m sure it didn’t happen all at once, but it was a very irresponsible action. There simply isn’t the tax base to fund a city that size. Shrink the city by 75% and a majority (but not all) of the problems go away.

  25. Kate Kearby says:

    Yet there were people just a few months ago wanting to expand the city limits to 164th and NW Expressway. Pick up a few more square miles, wow, get more roads and infrastructure the town can’t fix?

  26. Charles Coffman says:

    I looked at an Oklahoma road map not very long ago and and checked out the shape of other cities. Most of them grew along a major road but not out into the country side. So, many were long, cross shaped ( if along a cross road), or a small square along the major road. I have to agree we are way too big for our resources. If we could do it all over again it would probably be 6 by 6 square miles in the center and then run up and down Piedmont rd. If you look at a state road map you will see many cities look close to that. I did a check on utility revene for the block of land that sits to the north and west out by itself. It was about $33,000 a year. This was the area that some asked for deannexation. This is a tough issue. Sadly, the windmill issue and the threat of waste dumps makes it hard to consider making a border change. If we could establish a buffer, even a small one, and really knew that the majority of folks wanted out at least we could talk about it. If you think the sheriff issue was ugly, try floating changing the borders.

  27. Charles Coffman says:

    The $33,000 is not a lot, I only mentioned it to show what it generated. I do want to suggest that citizens are just revenue, it is just a factoid. The revene is not a driver on the city make up.

  28. Kate Kearby says:

    yet some joined, annexed in, to save Piedmont from a dump and being surrounded by OKC. wonder how that will all work out in the next 50 years.

  29. Kate Kearby says:

    and a friend still asks, what do we get for $1600 a month paid to our ‘lobbyist’?

  30. Rosy says:

    Are you serious about the threat of a dump (what a joke more scare tactics). A planning commission in the unincorporated will allow for a dump. The city will be of the authority to allow a dump in a so called “buffer” just as easy as not, that argument does not make any sense. If the city would receive money from a dump it would allow one with exactly the same arguments it’s making now against a wind farm just in reverse, a dump would be located well away from the central part of the city and would not affect the growth pattern, blah, blah, blah. Not only that if the county or state want a dump they will have a dump and it makes it much easier to accomplish that with zoning done by an unelected planning commission and a couple bucks to the city and county. City of Piedmont protects us from nothing. Ironically the NW corner of Piedmont City Limits doesn’t have the roads to support a dump. If the city stood to make money off a dump, or some road improvements, it would be allowed in a flash! No matter what the citizens wanted. It’s not like the city as ever flipped on issues affecting citizens before. What this city council says and does are two different things. According to the latest issue it’s all about what is best for Piedmont and future potential, so if there is money to be made from a dump there will be a dump. The only legitimate reason Piedmont has to be against a wind farm, no taxes come to the city. What little money Piedmont makes off houses is supposedly more than a wind farm, so no wind farm, in reverse if there is money to be made off a dump there will be a dump. Remember this is the same city council, city manager, and mayor that recently supported dismantling the police department for $300,000 a year.

  31. Charles Coffman says:

    Well, we may have sunk a dry hole. My expectation was the lobbyist was supposed to pay for themselves in grants or other city assisting projects/ materials. That has not panned out. It was an experiment based on success other cities have had with similar representatives. If you recall we had 2 applicants. One was national based but it was not looking good for federal funds and they were pretty expensive. We had another that was state based and did know some folks a the capital. We went local. I am not sorry we tried but to date it does not look like it worked out. The end of that interact should be coming soon.

  32. Ant says:

    You should have fired him as soon as you found the conflict of interest he had with apex. Not to mention the ethical issues that were raised about how he represented himself to both parties. It has become a dirty little secret for Piedmont. Seems Vernon liked helping he and Ben’s friend out with a little salery at the cities expense

  33. Charles Coffman says:

    I would be remiss if I talked about ending feuds and not say something. We had a real messy couple of years. Most of the things happened during that time have either ended or were corrected. There are a few lightening rod things still out there but they do have completion dates. Patience everyone. I was recently reminded again that county and state groups mostly hear about the turmoil we have in town and think we are all idiots. If we point out all of the flash points in this article’s responses would be double in size and give more ammo to the feud. We have changed the charter, settled the Williams deal, signed off on the police contract, made some people changes, settled the school sewer issue, repaired a few roads, worked hard on the pot holes, fixed the wells, ended the police building issue, and gave some help to the veterans. We are working toward solutions on the windmill issues. We learned some good lessons on bonds and how sensitive the town is about executive sessions as well how the OKC water costs can imact the budget. We no longer have anyone on the council saying the budget is smoke and mirrors or the city is broke. All that to say we weathered those issues. I know we will continue to improve as city officials but we need help from the citizens too. We got to look for solution and try and not open up the old wounds ( toughest thing a human can do).

  34. Vernon Woods says:

    Chuckie – 3 things come to mind when I read your latest post:
    1. In your personal Ward 4 Facebook page previewing the 09/30/13 meeting, you mention that ‘bond’ discussions were on the agenda – I hope you have learned the difference between ‘bonds’ and ‘grants’ since then.
    2. Your comment regarding a lack of success in attracting commercial business and ‘grants’ to Piedmont ignores the fact that the reputation of Piedmont in the business world is not exactly stellar as of late. This problem has been voiced by other parties working to increase our commercial activities. The city is responsible for this situation.
    3. You are an employee of an agency in the federal government. You salary is paid for by the citizens of Piedmont as well as the rest of the entire country. The current shutdown has affected neither your position, nor your paycheck. However, an examination of the dates and times of your posts here and elsewhere on the web indicate that you appear to be spending a lot of time reading posts and composing responses/explanations/excuses/spins to them. What are we paying you for, since you seem to have the time to do this while on the ‘job’?
    x. And hyenas, be careful what you claim – lawyers are just waiting to again pounce on anyone chasing that same old dog – it worked out well before and it will again.

  35. JT says:

    I can see the future headline now. “Man Gets Mad at Cloud”, see page 2A for in depth story on the life and times of Vernon Woods.

  36. Charles coffman says:

    Vernon, I had surgery and have been on sick leave. I have 1700 sick hours built up because I don’t take off much. I, as is the case with several hundred thousand people have been without pay for the past two days. My sick leave was cancelled as part of the furlough. I had a discussion about you and folks like you with our investigative office. When I ran for office I mentioned that I would not use my government email or PC to conduct city business because that was an accusation against another official at one time. They clarified that when I was on travel in airports or on leave I could conduct personnel business on my own PC. I told them to expect some person to contact them in the future. Bring it on sir, I am clean and they are expecting you. So, once again you are talking out of the wrong side of your body. In fact, you just accused me in an open forum of breaking the law. I have been on leave until I was furloughed like the other 600 plus folks in my directorate. My posts during working hours were on my time. Pretty pathetic accusation and shows just how low you will go to continue your hate. I think we can see one reason businesses thought we were not exactly welcoming. I have gotten some better feedback recently.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Oh, well, that really explains the previous several weeks of postings. Thanks for that detailed explanation, as seemingly dictated by the feds. Chuckie, I have no hate for you – just expectations of honest and verifiable statements and observation – not the verbose smoky bs you have been posting whenever anyone requests that you back up your statements with certifiable proof (ie. 3 mile boundary) of your claims. What is the problem with that?

  37. Charles coffman says:

    I will post Vernon’s post on our bulletin board at work. You see, only AirTraffic controllers and a few others from FAA are still at work. The MMAC out by the airport has 6,000 people, most laid off. My coworkers will get a kick out of someone saying they were not impacted. Vernon, here is what you pay me for… My area designs the instrument flight procedures that pilots use to land and take off. It is Mathematical modeling and human design to make sure aircraft don’t hit something. We make 800 or so changes every 56 days. Runways change, new cell towers go up, radar and signal equipment are always changing. No updates will be made across the USA while we are all laid off. Anyone on leave had their leave cancelled including sick leave. All no pay, and we still have to pay insurance and other. I understand you were a contract many years ago. Contractors all were sent home no pay. Our nice cleaning lady… No pay.

  38. Vernon Woods says:

    Lots of smoke – I was only referring to your previous ‘on-duty-time’ posts.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      This is totally irrevelant to th original discussion, but. Chuckie, are you still being paid?

      • Vernon Woods says:

        This is totally irrevelant to the original discussion, but, Chuckie, are we still expected to pay for you to continue to post your thoughts the web during work hours?

  39. Charles coffman says:

    One more time, I am furloughed, no pay. Before that I have been on sick leave since surgery. The furlough also cancels all sick leave so no pay. Your time sheet you have been logging to use for whatever reason that tracks my post times has been a waste of time. No pee pee dance of joy today. Guess you realized what you just did.

    • Charles coffman says:

      Sheriff issues posts were done at airport on DC trip.

      • Ant says:

        Charles, this is Vernons (and his groups) normal operating procedure, if you do not agree he attacks you and tries to make a villan out of you. I really believe you should ignore his posts and keep only positive comments. The naysayers will always be negative and and will never get the big picture in understanding pozitve feedback will enable this city where the negative about everything will only fyrther damage us. I for one support you even though i will not always agree with you. That means nobody is perfect but the better good is what we need. Vernon is old news and his hatred is no longer desired. Bad thing is if he would try being a motivator in lieu of a naysayer he could do alot in healing some of our growrh issues

        • Charles coffman says:

          I think that is good advice. I got caught up in the discussion and varied from the positive goals we all have. Best regards

  40. bill says:

    I do not think simply passing on cost to citizens who said loud and clear” NO “to a road bond and then adding 5 bucks and an additional 6% rate increase for water is a sustainable economic plan. The citizens are already paying 1.50 fire fee, 1.00 storm drain, cap fee inside city limits 7.00 cap fee outside city limits 9.00 road maint fee 5.00. We should support the efforts of those who are trying to get some help for our future water needs.

  41. Charles coffman says:

    You are correct bill, all the increases do is make folks mad and we are maxed out. The increases were not because of the bond failure. I did have somebody ask if it was punishment. What happened was that we had not increased rates for 4-5 years even though OKC had been increasing the portion we get from them 4% a year. We also did an adjustment to charge more for higher use on a sliding scale. I thought we changed the drainage fee to be drainage and road fee. I better check that one… But you are right, we can’t keep going to the utilities. Those happened around the same time as the bond. One thing of note is that we have been trying to get another well sunk in the well field. We have one that we can’t use but since the 1970’s there are new rules on wells sunk for municipal use. We think we can trade the one for another but I don’t know what the latest us on that. Bill.. Any time we have to use the utility bill to increase revenue it is a failure in my book. If we ever get a new revenue steam we really need to back some of the utility bill back. Part of the council meeting is when we go into the PMA. If you ever want to come to the council meeting and sign up to ask a question please do. You can ask for a break down of where the money goes. Probably a lot of folks want to know.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Well, Chuckie, as Mr. Reagan used to say, ‘there you go again’.
      Concerning your response to Bill about raising water rates, your statements are incorrect and misleading. The first increase in utility rates took place in May of 2012. The amount of that increase was determined after several meetings and discussions about what our expenses and revenues actually were. The data was analyzed and the final numbers were a result of much deliberate consideration.
      The 6% increase pushed through in May of this year was based on an off-the-wall figure provided by the city manager, with absolutely no factual information as to the amounts of our then expenses and revenues. It was solely based on the fact that the city badly needed money. You moved to approve the increase while asking no questions about any fiscal justification. My point is that, in May, you voted for a utility increase to increase the city’s generals fund, while in this post, you deplore that same type of activity.
      If you feel like truthful clarifications are an attack on you, tough – if you insist on being the unofficial spokesman for Piedmont, get you facts straight and stop quoting unverified incorrect statements, like the inexplicable 3-mile windmill limit and your inconsistent PD numbers.
      And to the public, good luck on getting a verifiable accounting of ‘where the money goes’ – the council can’t get it, so why should we?

      • Charles Coffman says:

        Special meetings and worshops were May 10th, May 15th and May 21, 2012. On May 10th we got a look at the recomended rates with a proposed 4% increase annually. That was to keep up with OKC rate increases. We all looked at how to adjust. See Vernon Woods memo dated 5/21/2012 item #5… “Water and trash rates obviously need to be increased; however since sewer rates have recently increased, I see no reason for such a dramatic increase.” That recent increase was when we did the adjustment to catch up to the several year 4% increases we had not made adjustments for. The prior council and city manager did not adjust figures causing the city to make large, lump sum payments to OKC during the drought. The most recent adjustment was again necessary because we did not agree in 2012 to include automatic increases. OKC did in fact increase water and sewer 4% per year in 2013 and said they will again in 2014. The city manager was following our own CPA’s advice in open meeting that reminded us that if we did not adjust, our main source of revenue (PMA) would dwindle. We voted to make the adjustment and finally got the wells fixed. That was a wake up call to me that we need to find another way generate revenue or hit the citizens again every year with an increase. Wish you guys would have caught the OKC increases starting in 2009 and fixed the wells then or made plans to adjust. We did not adjust until 2012 when the new CPA and Engineer gave us the scoop. From your memo I thought you understood why it was being done at the time.

        • Vernon Woods says:

          Chuckie, in spite of your hyenas’ advice, I knew you couldn’t ignore my comments. The ultimate fact is that you moved to approve and voted for the utility increase. ‘Verbose dialogue’ does not imply ‘established facts’ – it only attempts to hide the truth. The city wanted additional revenue and you used utilities to provide it. QED.

  42. Concerned says:

    I hope that the Piedmont Police department has Vernon on the “watch” list. It’s obvious he’s fallen off the wagon, again. It’s also sounds like he is stalking Mr. Coffman. Maybe someone can do an intervention with Vernon and get him the mental health treatment he needs.

    • JT says:

      Where are all of Vernon’s buddies to show him support now? Seriously, why aren’t all the people who supported his re-election on here taking up his side? John Simpson and Ron Hau always stood up for him on here, why are they being so quiet now?

  43. bill says:

    Seems like the conversation is mostly between Charles Coffman and Vernon Woods. Give Vernon credit for continueing to ask difficult questions and give Charles credit for attempting to answer them. Learning more about what is going on behind closed doors than we ever learn in an OPEN meeting and most certainly more than we learn about an EXECUTIVE meeting. I expect both are defending thier particular postitons, however all of the data should be public information and should be available to the public. Now is the most important time for city officials to make special efforts to be transparent. Trust is something you earn.

  44. Ant says:

    Bill i wish what Vernon was doing was trying to be constructive but he cannot help but be an a?? When he responds. I believe that is the main reason he was voted out. He does not debate issues he just just tries to make a villan out of everybody who does not blindly follow his BS. His main reason for engaging Charles here is to discredit and accuse him of wrong doing. Why would anybody give Vernon the time of day when he is just lurking around waiting to pounce on any mis-statement or any chance to twist words out of context. I for one am glad he has no authority on the council anymore.

  45. Cindy says:

    Vernie: still waiting to hear that story about your fire department incident. You get pretty mouthy, but you haven’t answered that question. Why again were you removed from the department?

  46. bill says:

    I for one would like for the Mayor, councilmen and city manager show a sincere effort to be transparent.

    • Ant says:

      Well bill i would like to see ctritics, the community and losers of elections get behind OUR mayor, manager and council no matter who wins. The armchair quarterbacks who believe they are smarter than the seated leaders and slam them on every issue should be ashamed. I am not referring to any specific set of leaders, i am referring to the fact we are all piedmont faithfull and all have a vested interest in our success. Vernon is mad because he got voted out annd now he wants to sit back and be critical of every move the council makes. Nobody has to like specific members of the seats but they should respect the seats. Vernon has no respect for anybody and it showed in every meeting he attended. It is just like the PAVA deal. You do not like those involved so you have no respect for what the end goals are. That is wrong and self centered

  47. bill says:

    Ant you are wrong that any objections I may have has anyting to do with who is involved. I have spoken to folks with the PAVA. We have had civil converstions and they understand what my position is and why. Maybe you should speak to them before you draw wrong conclusions. I do support veterans and I do hope that PAVA will be sucessfull in a proper way.

    • Ant says:

      I belive they know your position but I do not believe they understand your position. Just as i believe you know their position but you do not understand it. This is no different than when the museum went in but nobody protested donated fees or otherwise. If you do not like PAVA don’t support it, but why block it? I have heard the naysayers and have yet heard a decent reason as to why it should not happen. Everybody keeps throwing out that since PB is helping it must be bad and lets try and find a reason to block it. I have heard about all of the reasons why it is not needed in Piedmont and how a national organization should be involved but i have also heard the reasons they are not. Bottom line is why block it? Why not get involved in the process and off the bench.

  48. bill says:

    By the way Ant who are you?

    • Ant says:

      i am just a concerned citizen that keeps seeing this town split by politics. I belive you want the town to prosper but i belive you are still stirring the pot when it comes to people you do not like. Alot if the issues out here could be resolved without all the drama

  49. bill says:

    I suspect you really don’t know me and until you are willing to identify yourself you have no credibility. I have no dislike for any people. I simply expect our council to be independent and serve the public in a fair and unbiased way. Maybe it is you who is secretly stirring the pot. Your rants do not dignify a response.

  50. Wildcat fan says:

    Bill. why do you need to know Ant’s identity? So Ron, John Mike, Vernie and you can find out where they live? Verbally attack them and their family? Identity is NOT important but I feel view points are. You talk about an unbiased council, what about all the water taps that were given to the Simpson family with the Fina council? That was money the council could use. Even after you got all the people on the council you wanted, you are still complaining. Oh except for Vernon. Vernon was an embarrassment to our town. He still hasn’t answered about the Fire Department incident. You tell Ant his rants do not dignify a response, what about yours? You are so one-sided. Why can’t we all support the current council and move forward with this town before it’s too late

  51. bill says:

    Wildcat fan it is amazing you call out individuals and point fingers at them yet support those like yourself who want to remain secret and continue to make outrages statements about others. You are problalby ANT also. There is a giant difference between disagreement of issues and just plain old bad manners and rants. I believe the city can and will move forward and I will continue to expect our city officials to be transparent and accountable to the public.

    • JT says:

      Newsflash bill, this is the internet. People don’t give out their identities on the internet for a variety of reasons. We discuss ideas here, not names.

© 2012-2017 piedmontnewsonline.com All Rights Reserved