Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance Discussions



9-25-2002
I guess the first question is how to we get there? So this morning, I would call on the City government of Pickerington to re-evaluate their polices of using TIF?’s for economic development. I would call on them to STOP their aggressive annexation polices. I would call on them to work with Canal Winchester and use the sewer capacity that they have agreed to provide to Pickerington residents. I would call on them to work with Fairfield County utilities to provide sewer capacity to these newly annexed areas. These two mentioned entities already have there plants in place. I would ask that the city contact the township to find and work out a similar development area (CEDA type) within the PLSD for commercial development. I also call on the City of Pickerington to call a MORITORIUM on new housing starts for the next two years. This will give us all a chance to work out the details of where we are going and how we are going to get there.

***Please abandon this ill thought out idea of forming a new township and splitting up the fire department.***

The township trustees have been enjoying a free ride for a years now with little or no pressure coming from either me or this web site. I have been spending time with attorneys here lately and I have been asking some questions of how to control the residential growth of this community. I call on the Violet Township Trustees to do a study and report to the public about the possibility of forming a HOME RULE TOWNSHIP or some call it a CHARTER TOWNSHIP. Each time I have tried to find a way to control our growth, in the township, I run into the antiquated zoning code and the Township?’s lack of power in enforcing any kind of growth plan. I would ask that the township do the study and report to the residents that cost of making this transition. If they don?’t have the politically courage to do it own their own please let the voters decide. If you become a Charter Township you can also call for a moratorium of residential housing starts.



By Ted Hackworth

Record pg 2


The school board should level with the community about how and why we are in the predicament we are in. Let?’s be honest and tell everyone that our tax base is weak and we must improve that tax base before we all sink into to the FINANCIAL WATCH that we all know we are heading into. It is not the greedy PLSD tax payers. Building new schools will only encourage more home building and the cycle continues. It?’s time to stop this cycle. As more homes are built the 23 mil lower limit of the PLSD tax base becomes a regular problem every year from here on out. Please tell this community what a guaranteed one and a half percent growth rate would do for your planning. Once we have a growth rate in place the board can provide accurate financial planning data to the voters and I think you will find tremendous community support for the Schools, City, and the Township. Maybe we can have a community of something other than a sea of new homes. If the elected officials of this community can?’t muster the political courage to make these changes and control our growth we might consider using the residents and citizens to force them into action. We have that right in Ohio and I think we just might exercise those rights soon.






-By Ted Hackworth


-By Richard Saunders



By Ted Hackworth

Record pg 3

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance Discussions


Part 2

8-11-2006
There is a lot in this posting from 2002 talking about cooperation and how cooperation will better the community at large and assist the funding of the school district. I've got to hand it to you Ted, this was right on the mark then, and I have to say it is still on the mark today. My question is, why have you abandoned some of the thoughts posted in here back in 2002?

You clearly state in here that you feel the then city council should be working to forge an agreement with Violet Township similar to the CEDA with Canal within the PLSD for commercial development, you talk about cooperation with the county in providing sewer capacity, and you even mention that the city should ''abandon this ill thought out idea of forming a new township and splitting up the fire department''. These are your words not mine.

Now in regards to that nasty township that you claim is sticking it to the city every chance it gets, they did go for the Home Rule Township you suggested and were successful, and I would have to say that housing growth hasn't been a problem in the township recently either.

There are a lot of good suggestions here. My question is since you were successful with the Housing Moratorium, what happened with the rest of this agenda, and why are you now exploring a paper township, when in 2002 you stated it was an ill thought out idea?

It seems to me that battling the township over annexations and fire department coverage is not going to get the community any closer to real economic development, to diversify the tax base, to assist the PLSD. In fact it will probably create a lot of attorney's fees that city residents will be forking over. Sounds like more bills and less income. In fact by reading some of the older postings on this site it appears that was the prevailing thought a few years ago as well. I hate to have this community go back to the days of expending taxpayer dollars on items that will not benefit the community as a whole at all.
-By Richard Saunders



By Ted Hackworth

Record pg 4

I guess the first issue is that Mr. Saunders wants to pick and chose from my quotes of 2002 while I was a private citizen. Your first question to me is ,?”why have you abandoned some of the thoughts posted in here back in 2002??”

Mr. Saunders also attributes quotes to me that I have not made. So to keep this discussion civil lets stick to the facts and the comments I actually made on this site.

Next asking about statements from 4 years ago means that nothing has changed and that new information is never discovered nor no-one moves forward and grows wiser.

Why did I oppose the TIFs as a economic policy? Shortly before this posting I received a letter in response to a letter I had sent to the city asking about their economic policies. The letter was signed by the late police Chief John Fuller who was acting City Manager. He stated that TIFs were their economic policy and he didn?’t provide any additional points of the economic policy. When I took office in 2004 I worked with the City and the staff to change the faults of our TIF s policy and our over all economic polices. I was successful in changing the TIF policy but I have some work to do on the economic polices of the city.

Recently the City entered into a TIF with Equity and they will build a 1,200 foot road (nearly $2 Million) and if they don?’t develop they will eat the cost of the road. In addition they are guaranteeing that they will build three new office buildings. This opens up the acreage behind this development.

With changes in the TIF laws over the last couple of years by the state legislature it has made this non school TIF a reality and it also allows the city to repay the developer with TIF money and it doesn?’t impact the schools system.

However what was pointed out last month (June 20th) that this TIF will impact the Violet Township Fire Department. It also impacts our Pickerington Police Department. However unlike the Township we will received income tax and we can supplement the police Department budget with income revenues. Currently we can?’t help the Violet Fire Department with our income tax revenues.


By Ted Hackworth