Letter: Kelley’s stance on Prop 112 and Amendment 4A

Dear Editor:
As some of you have witnessed, I have been doing some campaign door-belling in the neighborhoods. Of one thing I’ve become quite certain, the usual fall invasion of boxelder bugs trying to get inside for winter at nearly everyone’s doorstep is in full-force, maybe to an even greater degree than usual. I guess we can be grateful these pesky critters are largely harmless.
Talking to folks, it has come to my attention that my opponent in my RBC commissioner race has been telling people that, of the two of us, he is the only one who opposes Proposition 112 on the ballot—the setback provision on new oil and gas development. I was sorry to miss the rally against Prop 112 in Rangely last week.
The sad thing is, Mr. Moyer has never asked me what my position on Prop 112 is. Perhaps he doesn’t understand what a truly complicated issue it is. Suffice it to say, this proposed 2,500 foot limit is a classic example of how one size doesn’t fit all!
Ironically, it has occurred to me, that if Prop. 112 passes, which I do not expect, an unintended consequence might be to make the oil and gas resources of Rio Blanco County more attractive for development since we don’t have the serious interplay of new energy development in the backyards of residential subdivisions like they do along the Front Range and in Battlement Mesa.
On another issue, I do support our own Bond Issue 4A here in Meeker on the question of bonding for renovations and new construction at our high school and replacement of the antiquated bus garage. This should be no surprise to anyone since my wife is a high school teacher who lives everyday with the current inadequacies of the high school building and witnesses the kids’ needs.
I did ask Mr. Moyer just last week what his position is on our Amendment 4A. He told me that he “supports education,” but that he hadn’t yet decided how he’ll vote on 4A.
I would appreciate your vote. Thank you.
Reed Kelley
Meeker