|
|
Nothing changed since 2001
Under the Canal Winchester proposal, Pickerington, Violet Township and Fairfield County infrastructure and services would be strained by any new residential development in the CEDA area. At the same time, most of the tax revenue from new development would benefit Canal Winchester in Franklin County.
The Pickerington CEDA ensures that revenues generated in Fairfield County stay in Fairfield County and focuses growth on commercial and industrial uses, not residential development.
We encourage you to consider the ramifications the Canal Winchester plan could have for Pickerington:
?„h More traffic but no revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure improvements.
?„h Loss of access to the tax generating development areas along Route 33.
?„h The prospect of having to deliver utilities and services to a community that will enjoy new commercial development at the expense of Pickerington.
We ask that you contact the Violet Township Trustees at 575-5556 and urge them to support the CEDA proposed by Pickerington. Also, contact the Fairfield County Commissioners office at 1-740-687-7190 and urge them to reject the annexation of Fairfield County property into Canal Winchester, a municipality in Franklin County.
As Always, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Craig Maxey
John Washington
Jeff W. Monebrake
William W. Wright
Brain W. Fox
Douglas A. Parker
Louis V. Postage
**See editors note**
**Web site Editors note **
** Web site editors note ?¡V this above information is provided word for word from the Council member?¡?¦s letter. The contents of some of the statements within this letter are in direct conflict with numerous additional postings on our web site and materials archived within the members of PATA. Should you wish access to this additional material to formulate your own opinion, please contact PATA @ 755-2464.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PATA newsletter jan.2001
Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance Newsletter
2-14-2001
January 2001 Newsletter
What is a CEDA
Over the past several weeks you have undoubtedly read in the local newspapers about a Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) that has been proposed between Violet Township and the Village of Canal Winchester. While the politicians on all sides do their political dance, the folks here at the Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA) wanted to provide you, the average taxpayer, with some insight into what this means to you.
First of all, a CEDA is simply an agreement between two governmental agencies to work together to provide government improvements, facilities, and services, in an effort to promote employment opportunities and economic development in a defined geographic area. In other words, they work together to grow a Commercial/Industrial tax base, which can be used to provide you with cheaper, better governmental services.
The geographic area for this CEDA is a part of Violet Township that is unincorporated (meaning it does not fall within either Canal or Pickerington city boundaries), but is and always has been a part of the Canal Winchester School District. By participating in this agreement, Violet Township will incrementally increase its tax income, as will the Village of Canal Winchester, and the Canal School District.
What does the Violet/Canal CEDA mean to you
Canal residents:
If you live in Canal Winchester, this agreement means that as the area is developed, your Village and your School District will see significant incremental tax dollars that do not have to come out of your pocket.
Violet residents: (both incorporated & unincorporated)
All of us live in Violet Township so all of us will also benefit as the Township coffers fill more quickly, without the incremental tax dollars coming out of our pockets.
(NONE OF THIS INCREMENTAL MONEY BENEFITS PICKERINGTON CITY RESIDENTS)
Why is the City of Pickerington making such a stink about this?
For some time now Mayor Hughes and City Council have been promising constituents a ?“Business Park?” that will help offset taxes. They have used this ?“Business Park of the future?” as justification for the over development of residential areas within City Boundaries. The unfortunate fact is that instead of working with Violet Township on a CEDA to accomplish this, Mayor Hughes chose to step away from the table, and pursued his typical course of action, which is to try to annex the property to the City. Last year, while time could have been spent working on a COOPERATIVE agreement between the City and the Township, Mayor Hughes pushed a merger idea that was discarded handily by Area residents. Basically while Mayor Hughes was trying to take the whole pie, instead of sharing it with others, Violet Township went and cut up the pie with Canal, leaving Mayor Hughes with none. Anyone who had the opportunity to attend one of last year?’s growth summit meetings between the Township and the City witnessed this first hand (for loan of a video copy, contact PATA at 755-2464).
|
|
|
Newsletter continued
Violet Township Trustees made several concerted, public efforts to bring City Officials, including Mayor Hughes, to the table to work on an agreement just like the one we are talking about. Obviously for a benefit to be realized for the Pickerington Local School District the CEDA would need to be located within a different boundary than the currently proposed Canal ?¡V Violet south of Busey Road CEDA. The City now chooses to pursue the hostile annexation path on some of this same property, rather than a cooperative path. While the annexation option would provide ?¡?§the whole Pie?¡?¨ for the City of Pickerington by cutting out shared opportunities with Violet Township and the Pickerington Local School District, the likelihood of this happening is slim at best. It?¡?¦s like the guy who has $10 left from his paycheck: does he invest the check, knowing that it will grow for him, or does he play the lottery, hoping to win big?
The City of Pickerington, in an ?¡?§Emergency Meeting?¡?¨ held Monday, January 29th, voted unanimously to annex 365 acres of land that is a major portion of the land in the CEDA between Canal and the Township. ?¡?§I?¡?¦m mad, so I?¡?¦m going to take YOUR ball and go home.?¡?¨ On January 5th of this year, portions of the land that the City is now trying to annex was signed into an annexation agreement with the Village of Canal Winchester. What this means is that a landowner (who owns a major portion of the land, 297 acres, within this CEDA agreement) wants to be a part of Canal Winchester, and the Village wants her. However, Mayor Hughes and the City are stomping their feet in frustration, and are now at the point of taking hostile action against this property owner?¡?¦s right to decide how her land should be used.
HERE?¡?¦S THE FUNNY PART
As mentioned earlier, the land in this agreement is and always has been a part of the Canal Winchester School District. The Pickerington School District could not see any economic benefit from this agreement, regardless of the players. In essence, the City Government is mad because of the missed opportunity to line its coffers, not because the grasping Pickerington School system would have found an oasis of tax dollars.
WHAT THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON COULD DO
In light these facts ?¡V
1. The Diley Road - Route 33 interchange will begin construction April 2002 and conclude December 2003.
2. Our City has a very clear need to develop commercial and industrial land within city boundaries AND within school district boundaries, just .7 of a mile from this interchange.
3. We all desire to maintain the greater Pickerington Area?¡?¦s status as a great place to live in Central Ohio.
There are two things that elected City officials might consider.
?„h First, they could tear up their ?¡?§pre-annexation?¡?¨ agreements with Homewood Corp and Dominion Homes that has 400 acres of land (Diley and Painter/Kohler properties) being developed as residential homes (the dreaded R-4 zoning). This land is directly to the north of the CEDA land, and would be a great commercial/industrial development site. By doing this, the city would be adding significantly to its own tax base, while pumping sorely needed tax dollars into the school system.
(PATA SUGGESTS THAT PICKERINGTON TEAR UP THEIR VALID CONTRACTS AND LOSE IN COURT)
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
1. Wasn?¡?¦t an earlier Comprehensive Land Use Plan considering the widening of Diley Road to 4 lanes between Rt. 33 and Rt. 256?
2. Wouldn?¡?¦t this form of transportation corridor improvement give us the best opportunity to broaden our tax base?
3. Could proper, balanced planning give our residents a choice of an ?¡?§environmentally friendly?¡?¨ Office Park surrounded and augmented with improved recreational opportunities in the proximity of Pickerington Ponds?
4. Wouldn?¡?¦t such development require less water consumption than the proposed additional 1000+ homes within just this 400-acre area?
|
|
|
Now who was the editor?
?„h A second option is to truly work together with the Township and cooperatively develop a CEDA for land to the east of the land set aside for this current agreement. This additional ?¡?§area for development?¡?¨ is within PLSD boundaries and shares many traits with the Canal/Violet CEDA land. Again, adding tax dollars to both the City of Pickerington and PLSD School system.
CALL TO ACTION
**** NOTE CHANGE OF TIME AND PLACE FROM EARLIER PUBLISHED INFORMATION ****
March 1st (Thursday)
7:30 pm
Canal Winchester High School Cafetorium
300 Washington Street.
Public Hearing for input on the CEDA between Violet Township and Canal Winchester. The members of PATA would like to encourage all citizens to attend this meeting, learn all the facts available directly from the officials involved, and show support to the Violet Township and Canal Winchester officials who have taken this forward thinking step. Should you be unable to attend the meeting, your written comments are welcome. This can be done at either the Violet Township offices (12970 Rustic Dr. ?¡V Pickerington, OH 43147) or at the Village of Canal Winchester offices (36 S. High St. - Canal Winchester, OH 43110).
?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y?„Y
Bob Harding Jeffery Fix
Contact Person Newsletter Editor
*********************************
Jeff
I heard you in 2001 and I believed you were correct in your comments. However you have spent 6 months taking your own advice above (I assume you still believe in your 2001 comments) and you still failed. Even when you ran for City Council last year you complained about the members of council that were still there from the 2001 CEDA days.
Now Jeff the ball is in your court they are going to jack you around like you never have been jacked around before.
|
