Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

My reply, respectfully

Sir,

Good morning, I am a long time reader and a first time poster so you can consider me just another Chicken Little but I must challenge some of your assertions. First I would be curious about hearing more about the hurt feelings and burst egos as a result of the elections. Are you saying that someone not successful is making all these postings to subvert this new council makeup or something else? As to the reorganization votes, is it not safe to assume that any challengers that were going to make an attempt to take over or maintain the leadership of the council simply withdrew their attempt upon hearing that you and Mr. W had enough votes to render them impotent? So in other words, they were trying to save face and protect their fragile egos by not getting embarrassed and thus giving the illusion of solidarity?

From what I have been reading here, I didn?’t see a rebellion against the mayor and his policies but a revolt against the mayor and his apparent exclusive faction. He simply didn?’t have an accurate head count. If I am interpreting the Alpha Male inference correctly there seems to have been a faction of politicians and select staff members started that had other interests than the city at heart. I apologize. I am sure that in their opinion they had the city?’s interests at heart mixed thoroughly with their own agendas.

In your 4th paragraph you reference the ?“majority of council?”. This reference and the inclusion of Sabatino?’s dissenting vote with no explanation of why he did so leads me to believe that your council is still a majority/minority split despite all the unity you tried to portray. No one expects all people to think or vote the same all the time but rather than dispel the factions I think you are sublimely substantiating them.

Finally, taking credit for slowing residential growth, which is what I assume you are saying ?“we will continue to tighten the screws on building?” means. This is now an easy win for you as the industry has taken such a downturn that you can?’t really take credit for. The industry, in addition to facing increasing costs for raw materials is also plagued with increasing interest rates and a plethora of other issues that is more reckoned to the industry naturally righting itself as it did in Texas in the 80?’s. Now you might be twisting the knife with your fees and design rules and I?’ll give you that. The Dominion scandal is just starting to open up political eyes as what has been prevalent for such a long time. Dominion itself may precipitate manageable growth to slow growth to zero growth once higher leaders take a studied look at who else is offering this shell game. We know that zero growth is not healthy for a community or a school district. You may have set too much store in the collection of impact fees in your money managing and if you say instead the collection of commercial impact fees will still fill the pot, please think again. Our commercial growth is directly related to residential growth. If the customer base (rooftops) is not provided, these retail developers we see looking at us now will look elsewhere faster then you can say the sky is falling. Their development plans are based on the future and not the present.

Sorry if I crossed the line in response to you sir, but when you accuse us of being chicken littles, remember that there are also those that, in spite of what goes on around them will never admit that while the sky is not falling, something sure as heck is going on up there. There seems to be a common thread of what may be fact lurking just below the waves you or we see on the surface.

Reporting more public record

My comment that I directed at earlier posters was aimed at those that have expressed concern on this site and to me personally that the sky is falling and in my opinion it is not falling. The people that are reading this web site are in my opinion getting a view different than what is actually happening in the city.

I made no assumptions or assertions as who was posting anything on this site so please don?’t read anything into my posting that is not there.

As for talking publicly about hurt feelings and personal egos it seems to me that would be a form of voyeurism. I won?’t go there.

What I will talk about is the implied claim that some how personal egos and hurt feelings will result in the New Pickerington City Council members not supporting issues or turning their backs on issues they were voted into office on. Here again I don?’t see that happening.

As for the re-org meeting and the resulting vote, you are all free to speculate on how these seven members reached their unanimous vote. I was not implying in any way the council will continue with seven to zero votes here on out. I am only talking about core-issue votes.

Then there is my comment about, ?“continue to tighten the screws on building?” was really taken out of context. In early December the number of single family building permits issued in Pickerington in 2005 was at 284. There is no one in Pickerington more frustrated than I to see these high levels of building permits being issued here in Pickerington. Clearly the builders have saturated the Pickerington housing market and they are in a decline currently. I feel like it is a heavy rain after a long drought. It will only be a temporary relief if we do nothing.

However the City is doing things to slow that growth once the housing slump is over. On December 1st the city started collecting impact fees. This will add $3,470 to each new home. The residential building design standards will improve our housing quality and also add cost to these new builds. On the Service Committee agenda is an increase in the water and sewer tap fees and I expect that to past council once it is on the council agenda.

Will requiring new residents moving to Pickerington to pay for a small ?“PORTION?” of the cost that existing taxpayers must now pay as a result of these move-ins encourage many of these future residents to consider other communities that don?’t charge for the incurred services? Right now I do not think anyone knows for sure whether the above moves will control growth.

I do not think I want to move into a build more houses to encourage more retail development cycle. If you would read the impact fee study and the cost of land development study that accompanied the growth management plan (?“Our Pages?” to the left) you will see that these big box retail developments lose money for the community when you compare the tax revenues received with the services provided. I don?’t want to see another Brice Road.

Finally I have never supported zero growth for over a long period. I fully realize the need for some growth but it must be at a level that we can keep up with the needs of the community. The current 5% decade long growth rate exceeds the community?’s ability to maintain its level of services.

Dear Anonymous:

Please give credit where credit is due. Ted Hackworth has done much for this community with regards to managed growth. Even prior to his election to City Council, Ted was initiating petitions to control growth and speaking out against a prior (pro-builder) administration. He didn't sit by idly as council rezoned, by emergency,land to allow 4 houses per acre. He also fought against the practice of giving away the farm (waiver of tap fees, coverage of legal fees) with preannexation agreements. Ted is being humble in his response to you. I believe this community owes him, and the others that supported the same efforts,(with their own time and money)a big thank you for all they did to slow growth in this community.

Hey Chicken

Nice posting. Your attention to detail is outstanding!