Letters to the editor

Council didn’t let people decide

The Thermopolis Town Council did not say “no to chickens,” they said no to letting the people decide.

Two town councilmen chose not to second a motion made by a third town council member to bring it to a draft and first reading along with public meeting.

In the recent town council meeting, 127 signatures were presented. Out of those 112 were deemed valid. The Mayor then read one letter from one individual that was adamant about no chickens. The councilman who made the motion asked how many signatures were on that letter. The response was one. If one voice is equal to 112, then let one more voice be heard, one citizen was pretty upset at the fact that they chose not to put it before the people. She actually does not want to have chickens, but she was shocked with the fact the council could and did make such a decision.

One of the councilmen has been quoted as saying “I believe there would be 700-800 no votes against if brought to a vote.” With those numbers, this issue could easily be put to roost, but when given the opportunity to do just that, they balked at it. The figure of 700-800 votes is quite an incredible estimate when you take into consideration the 300 signatures required were deemed “a threat” by one of the councilmen. Does the councilman honestly believe that there would be even more than twice the number of people that would come out and vote against chickens than vote for councilmen?

I hear a little cluck, hear a little cluck there, but never any sizeable amount of squawking to validate this sensational claim. Meanwhile, 3/4 of the current councilmen value the voice of one or a few as equal to over a hundred property owning, of voting age citizens.

Worse yet, it has been reported that (at least) one of the would never be for chickens due to his own personal bias.

A proper vote (in a democratic society) where the people can say yes or no sounds more than reasonable.

Darren Butcher

Wind farms could boost state revenue

As I continue to read about our budget woes and lack of mineral royalties, I keep wondering why we continue to put up so many roadblocks for wind farms. If we are trying to protect our fossil fuel companies, its backfiring badly.

We do not have a monopoly on the wind so they simply choose a state that is more receptive. The last five years, we have driven through the neighboring conservative oil producing states of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas and were amazed how wind farms were expanding and new ones were being built throughout the area.

How many years have they been trying to build the huge wind farm south of Rawlins?

We aren’t going to stop wind farms so lets get on the bandwagon!

We could increase our state revenue, provide hundreds of good paying jobs, and pump millions of dollars into the state economy.

Robert R. Roos