Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Given the posting of the minutes of the city council work session below regarding Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDD) and past discussions on Cooperative Economic Development Areas (CEDA), we thought this may make an interesting topic of the week. Obviously discussions of JEDD and CEDA are a great political move in continuing the cooperation between the city and township that began with the change in city council in 2003. However entering into agreements such as this must be more than political statements. JEDD and CEDA agreements can be binding for up to 99 years so any impetuous moves can obligate us, our children and grandchildren.

Both entities are required to invest capital in any venture and both should expect rewards. Both entities have different tax bases, different income streams and different requirements for spending that income. It should be expected by all taxpayers that investments and rewards should be shared equally, shouldn't it? If one entity is required to invest more than the other, should rewards be proportional to investment?

Shouldn?’t any agreement such as a JEDD or CEDA be studied extensively to assure taxpayers that their investment will be spent wisely and their rewards are realized equally and neither entity is unfairly burdened nor rewarded? Simply agreeing to any JEDD or CEDA for political purposes or to capitalize on a perceived opportunity in a very small development that is opposed by adjoining neighbors or a very large development that is opposed by a much larger group may be construed as a hasty move if all facts aren?’t presented to the public for study and comment.

Do you think that our governing bodies owe us clear explanations of the differences between a JEDD agreement and a CEDA agreement and how they apply to the opportunities arising?

Do you think that these governments owe us a look ahead at whatever agreement they wish to adopt so we have time to understand the commitments and rewards possible?

Do you think that if the city enters into agreements that seem to promote commercial development in the township rather than the city may give the perception that former councilmen in the city were right when they said that impact fees would push development out of the city and into the township?

How do you feel the schools should be involved in these economic opportunities? After all, don?’t both governing entities want to do what is best for the schools and include the impact on the schools in their decisions?



By Roadrunner and Coyote

Economic cooperation or ??

Roadie and ?‘Ote,

You seemed to have exceeded the mental capacity of your loyal following here so just so you don?’t begin to feel too mentally superior to the rest of us, Ill gladly chime in.

I think that properly executed JEDDs and CEDAs can be beneficial to areas trying to cooperate in economic development. Let me quantify that. Economic cooperation takes planning and the right people at the table. Both these facets are at risk in our current situation. First is the planning aspect. I think something has been rushed together in the space of a month or two with little to no circulation throughout the governing bodies. I think that just a few people have been meeting privately to create this agreement. I think that the people who would have given this thought and research were excluded. Second, this leads to the right people. I think that the people in the township involved in this have only the interests of the unincorporated areas of the township and their family farms at heart. I can?’t fault them entirely for that given the way they have been treated by city officials in the past.

I think that several city officials only have their own personal political agendas to promote and it these agreements can further their political careers then they are a good thing to them and the city be damned.

Now on to the issues you raise. I learned through these pages and through asking a couple of questions of elected officials that the CEDA with Canal cost the township about 10% to get in the game yet they receive nearly 80% of the benefits. Is that what this city calls cooperation? Is the ability to politically state ?“we cooperated on my watch?” worth giving away the store to the township? I say it has to be a 50/50 split on investment and a 50/50 split on the return.

Yes, I believe that JEDD and/or CEDA talks have to be held in public and I believe that a final JEDD or CEDA acceptance should lie with the voters and not the politicians. Let the voters decide their own agenda and political aspirations, not a bunch of part time neopoliticians.

Part of the process leading to an electoral decision to execute a JEDD or CEDA is education. Send each voter in the city and township an ?“Economics Agreement 101?” mailer that clearly and easily explains everything we ever needed to know about JEDDs and CEDAs.

I would say most definitely that if the city enters into an agreement with the township that it cements the fact that Parker, Wright and Sabatino were right all along. We are promoting development in the township to skirt our impact fees under the guise of JEDDs and ?“cooperation?”. All the money spent for the studies on growth management and impact fees produced shelf material and nothing more.

And last, I think the schools should always have a seat at any table where any development in the district is discussed. Whether residential or commercial, they have a stake in every decision made. Let them become part of the process and not the continuing victim of it.

In summary, I would like to see the city and township cooperate more but with the personalities involved on both sides, I fear the politicians and do not want to blindly trust them while they further their own agendas.


By Clay Riddell