From Rhino Reader Letitia Vann
Greetings,
As the City Council races continue to gain attention in the Rhino, I would like to make an important announcement on behalf of both the candidates and the citizens of Greensboro.
It has come to our attention that someone has been intentionally moving throughout the city removing political signage for certain candidates. We respectfully ask that this behavior stop immediately. Every citizen of Greensboro has the right to see and consider the signage of all candidates without interference.
To be clear: the majority of these signs were placed on public property, and in cases where they were on private property, it is highly unlikely the removals were done by the property owner. In fact, the same two candidates’ signs have been repeatedly taken from multiple homes and businesses – properties that are not connected by ownership.
Agreed, LV.
The only yard sign I’d like to have is Trump 2028.
I am with you. I only have true republican signs in my yard. Trump 2028! The signs probably were moved because of zoning regulations. Give us a break. Why is this here anyway?
This seems fake. It is not news worthy.Charlie Kirk died and you’re talking about signs that possibly went missing. The city moves signs all the time that do not follow guideline’s.
The City of Greensboro routinely relocates signs that violate placement or even physical guidelines. This is not sabotage—it’s standard procedure. Suggesting coordinated theft without evidence undermines the integrity of our electoral process and distracts from the real issues facing voters. I have noticed some signs are too big and disrupt traffic’ being able to see over them. It seems you’re trying to get notice. I concur this is not news worthy.
Oh, thank goodness someone finally issued a formal proclamation about the Great Greensboro Sign Snatch of 2025. I was starting to think we’d need a task force, a drone fleet, and maybe a Netflix docuseries to get to the bottom of it.
And what a revelation—signs being removed from multiple properties not connected by ownership? Groundbreaking. Truly the stuff of civic legend. I’m sure the culprits are trembling in their boots now that a strongly worded paragraph has been unleashed into the wild.
Also, hats off for clarifying that these signs were on public property. Because nothing says “respect for democracy” like placing signs where they’re most vulnerable to the mysterious forces of selective relocation. It’s almost poetic.
But yes, let’s all pause and reflect on this solemn moment. May the signs be returned to their rightful patches of grass, and may the citizens of Greensboro once again bask in the full visual glory of every candidate’s yard décor. Democracy restored.
Get Over it ! The signs were moved by the city not stolen. Move on.
Exactly, Jeff. Her statement reads like someone tried to sound official but forgot to bring logic, clarity, or even basic sentence structure to the party. It’s barely coherent. It’s like someone skimmed a civics textbook, got distracted by a yard sign, and decided to write a press release in crayon.
Her tone is performative, the logic is flimsy, and the phrasing—“I would like to make an important announcement on behalf of both the candidates and the citizens of Greensboro.”? What does that even mean? Are we solving a mystery, in court or just throwing vague real estate jargon into the wind?
If this is the standard for public communication, no wonder signs are disappearing. They’re probably trying to escape the embarrassment.l
Still scratching my head over why she ran to the Rhino Times with this. Apparently, we’re no longer a city—we’re a subplot in her press tour.
Exactly , JES,—and if she thinks dragging this into the Rhinotimes somehow elevates the conversation, she might want to reread the mission statement. We’re trying to build trust and transparency, not audition for a gossip column.
It’s giving “look at me” energy, not leadership. And the idea that you’re still trying to “understand” her motives? Please. You understood them the moment she chose spectacle over substance. This isn’t about clarity—it’s about control.
Greensboro deserves better than press theatrics. We’re a community, not a headline.
She’s a joke! An idiot! She really is. It’s giving “main character syndrome” in a city that’s just trying to breathe. Dragging the community into her personal drama via Rhinotimes like we’re all extras in her political soap opera? No thanks..
She worked under Jamilla Pinder, who played both sides and lost trust. Now she’s trying the same play—showing up late, courting both parties, and hoping proximity will pass for leadership. Greensboro deserves better. We will not vote for her she’s not really an incumbent she only been in the seat three months and done and said nothing. Please leave we will not fall for her antics. DO NoT vOTe for Incumbents
Beth, I knew that name rang a bell—why is she even on our site? We don’t support Jamilla Pinder. No clarity, no substance, and she tried to play our community just to get votes. Even Chris Meadows, Chair of the Guilford GOP, sent out an email urging folks not to vote for her. That says a lot. No vote for Jamilla. We won’t !
Sara, let’s be real—no one’s voting for her after she tried to play both sides. Jamilla lost the community’s trust, and we’re not falling for it again. We don’t support her, and we won’t entertain drama on this site. Let’s stay focused on candidates who show up with clarity and substance
I received an email stating that Jamilla Pinder was disavowed by the Guilford GOP after attempting to play both sides—Democrats and Republicans. That kind of political maneuvering raises serious concerns. Is this really the kind of leadership we want on our City Council? Her credibility is compromised, and trust is not something you gamble with in public service.Let’s also remember: she was appointed, not elected. Her time in office lasted just three months. That’s not enough to count her as a true incumbent—just enough to see she was a bad choice for Greensboro.I would not vote for Jamilla Pinder. Her actions have shown she is not trustworthy, and we should not make the same mistake twice.