Elk Creek Fire proposed property tax increase sparks debate

Bring it on MG44. Most of what you have to say means squat, nada, nothing. Your 19 years mean nothing. You are full of misinformation. All of it is changing in Colorado based on the latest Wildfire Task Force Recommendations which you should try reading. New fees are coming directly addressing the wildfire issues and will change how insurance is done. Hopefully they will eliminate all you and all your misinformation. I have lived in this area for decades and never heard of you which I count as a major blessing. Looks like you are just out trying to peddle your business rather than provide factual information. Now go read the recommendations and stop trying to scare people about their insurance Miss unprofessional. You just want people to vote for more waste and more unprofessionalism from the fire department. You could care less that new regulations by the Colorado legislature, fees they are called, so that the people don't get a vote are being crammed down everyone's throat and you still want to be greedy giving more money to a wasteful fire department. Vote NO on 4A.

MountainGirl44 wrote: WindPeak....I rest my case...you are clearly not worth my time when you resort to name calling and insults. Misinformation.......i would love to debate you on insurance facts because I will win. You want to call me names and question my abilities as a businesswoman...bring it....i have plenty of people who can vouch for my integrity, professinalism,and concern for this community. i think the fact that i have been self employed for 19 years speaks to how I am as a businesswoman. Just keep doing what you are doing because it sure makes it easier for those of us who are respectful to win the arguement.

Walter L Newton wrote:

WindPeak wrote:
[snip]

By the way I was never asked to provide any information.

[snip]

No... you are correct, I never asked you personally. But I did ask the most vocal critic on these 4A threads to go on the record.

Walter L Newton wrote:

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:
[snip]

I keep trying to bring it back around to the district finances and the appropriate budgetary care. What detailed facts would you like? I am happy to give you all you ask for. I have already done my homework.

[snip]

And I've PM you and asked you if you would like to be one of my opponents that I interview for my rather long Flume article that will be published on Oct. 11th.

But you have not bothered to answer me.

The offer still stands.

If you have something to say "on the record" please PM me and we can arrange something.

And this person decline to be interviewed. And if you have been paying attention to these threads, then you should be fully aware who the person is that I asked above.

I've been open and up front about the fact that I was writing this article and you had the same opportunity to hit that "PM" button.

You didn't.

So I am supposed to guess that I need to hit the private message button. It looks like you chose to approach those that you wanted to, did you not?

Rather than an analysis it appears that you wrote an op-ed guised as analysis based on what you wanted to. You failed to provide any information on the most important part, the ballot itself which is what will be voted on.

Sorry we make opinions based on what we read here and what you wrote. We won't buy any Flume newspapers. That is just how it works.

deltamrey wrote: LJ.....calm down....meds in the kitchen...lower shelf....you IMHO will vote for any tax, anytime and any measure that extracts citizens hard earned money......easily seen. ALL tax dependent entities should demo complete transparency and NEVER resort to fear tactics to jack up the public.

I don't need meds to chew you up and spit you out, Delta-cakes...

Uh Walter I have been reading all the threads. And no where have I learned who this person is. I know who they have alluded to but no where do I have any concrete evidence that he is someone who someone might have thought him to be. The fact that he declined not to be interviewed does not make it someone who someone thinks it may be. Until I have it from him or other verification I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

I'm still pretty new here and I haven't figured out everything. I recently learned how to flag a post. I don't know how private messages works yet. I have had contact with the 285RoadCrew but didn't know how to get in touch with them so I sent a Letter to the Editor regarding a post they had. They sent a message. I have figured out how to access messages and to write a reply to a given message. But so far I don't know how to initiate and send one. Some time I will learn that. Haven't been on long enough to learn all the particulars. So wouldn't know how to send a PM and I was never asked.

Walter L Newton wrote:

WindPeak wrote:
[snip]

By the way I was never asked to provide any information.

[snip]

No... you are correct, I never asked you personally. But I did ask the most vocal critic on these 4A threads to go on the record.

Walter L Newton wrote:

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:
[snip]

I keep trying to bring it back around to the district finances and the appropriate budgetary care. What detailed facts would you like? I am happy to give you all you ask for. I have already done my homework.

[snip]

And I've PM you and asked you if you would like to be one of my opponents that I interview for my rather long Flume article that will be published on Oct. 11th.

But you have not bothered to answer me.

The offer still stands.

If you have something to say "on the record" please PM me and we can arrange something.

And this person decline to be interviewed. And if you have been paying attention to these threads, then you should be fully aware who the person is that I asked above.

I've been open and up front about the fact that I was writing this article and you had the same opportunity to hit that "PM" button.

You didn't.

WindPeak wrote: Uh Walter I have been reading all the threads. And no where have I learned who this person is. I know who they have alluded to but no where do I have any concrete evidence that he is someone who someone might have thought him to be. The fact that he declined not to be interviewed does not make it someone who someone thinks it may be. Until I have it from him or other verification I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

I'll tell you what. Call me and I will set up an interview with you and try to get a follow up article into the paper with your facts before the close of voting.

303-838-2058

I think that's fair?