|
|
Should Pickerington join JEDD?
Yes: Agreement would benefit schools, city and taxpayers
Thursday, October 12, 2006

The citizens of Pickerington have made it clear that they are tired of being asked on a regular basis to ''dig deeper'' to pay for schools and other governmental services and they have made it equally clear that they are tired of the historical squabbling between the township and the city.
This master economic development agreement is designed to address both of those issues. Here are the major reasons that we have worked to create and implement this agreement:
1. Pickerington desperately needs non-retail commercial development.
According to the Fairfield County Auditor, 87 percent of the taxes paid in the Pickerington school district are paid by homeowners; only 13 percent come from businesses. Homeowners are paying one of the highest proportions of taxes in the entire state.
In 2006, Pickerington will not pave any roads because there is no money in the budget for it. We struggle to adequately man our police force and our hopes for a community recreation center are a dream. Our schools and our streets are overcrowded. This is all because we do not have enough of a commercial tax base to sustain the growth that has occurred over the past several years. We need commercial development.
2. Without cooperation, Pickerington's ability to grow commercially is limited.
A study completed by experts in the field of development showed that the most viable commercial properties in the township lie far outside the boundaries of the city of Pickerington. Annexing our way to these properties would be costly, if not impossible. The most viable way for the city to participate in significant development will be in cooperative efforts with the township.
The township has other options. If this agreement is turned down, the township will form partnerships with Canal Winchester and others and the city will be left holding an empty bag. Going it alone is a recipe for stagnation.
3. Return on investment.
In this agreement, the city is being asked to give up its right to annex residential property. In exchange, the city will participate in all commercial development in the school district and will split the tax revenues after all expenses are paid. Commercial property on our borders will automatically be part of an annexation agreement. Commercial property outside our borders will become part of a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD).
There are still 1,500 already approved homes yet to be built in Pickerington. We don't need any more residential development in the city and that's all we would be giving up. In return, we participate in all commercial development in the township. Everyone wins,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff in This Week coninued
particularly the taxpayers.
4. It's the right thing to do.
We are one community; we share the same roads, schools, churches, stores and ballfields. This agreement puts to rest the fighting of the past and builds a framework for cooperative development. Over time, the tax base will be leveled off and all citizens of the entire community will see the benefit.
Pickerington gives up its right to annex residential property and that is a sacrifice -- given the potential growth as a result of this agreement -- that the city should be very willing to make.
In 2005, city council agreed to give up its right to annex any property for 10 years in exchange for being included in a single JEDD. That agreement still exists today so the city already can't annex anything. This agreement would give up the rights that have already been given up and in exchange, the city would be included in all commercial development.
As a city, we have much to gain and very little to lose. This is an agreement that our city government and our citizens should unanimously support.
Jeff Fix is a Pickerington City Councilman and a member of council's finance and rules committees. Mayor David Shaver appointed Fix as the city's representative in the negotiations with Violet Township at the begnning of this year, and since then he has led the drafting of the master agreement on Pickerington's behalf.
<>
|
|
|
building houses in the TWP
Jeff Fix made this argument below in his defense of HIS proposed agreement with the Township. First before putting words on paper Mr. fix it might be a good idea to at least check your facts. After all this is not the PATA newsletter where you can get away with that crap. In 2002 a number of citizens circulated referendum petitions to counter the 2,200 approved building lots and that case ended up in the Ohio Supreme Court. The citizens lost I believe because it was an administrative action by Pickerington City Council. Anyway if we take the data on this site and in our pages is the number of building permits issued since 2003 and they total 1,111. So if we take that number away from the 2,200 approved lots in 2002 then that leaves 1,089.
I also understand from an old plat map that I am sure Fix has because he was so active in the PATA movement in 2002 that he will find another 87 lots approved and they are in the Canal Winchester school district. So that leaves 1002 approved lots. In addition Viola Park is in court with Pickerington and those 277 approved lots have expired. that leaves 725 approved lots. So that is only OFF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT JEFFERY !!!
''There are still 1,500 already approved homes yet to be built in Pickerington. We don't need any more residential development in the city and that's all we would be giving up. In return, we participate in all commercial development in the township. Everyone wins''
So Jeffery who approves those lots Pickerington gives up on our borders? Are you restricting the township? Who is to say that in four years the township elects a majority of trustees that are pro-growth? After all Jeffery isn't this about the overcrowded schools and the impact of high rates of residential growth?
|
|
|
Free money
Mr. Fix before you and Heidi comment you should do a little reading and get the facts. Heidi it is not in your campaign literature believe me. In last month's article from the Pickerington Development Director stated that 35% of the real estate in the City of Pickerington is Commercial. This agreement can't allow the City to control zoning in the township? They currently have everything zoned in the township as residential and they need to blame someone for their ineptness and you seem to have taken on that task. Oh! by the way this 35% figure came from the county auditor also.
Jeff you need to read the study that Brian was using as reference and you might learn something. It is posted in ''our Pages'' I know, you knew that. Will a huge commercial development in the township really help provide the roads and the Recreation Center that the Mayor wants? Do you know how those roads are financed and do you know the debt limits of the city? Obviously not. That will come to you soon.
As I read Brian's WEB site they seem to indicate that the property located in the PLSD boundaries is more suited for residential and retail development Jeff. What material are you using? Something you found at the township offices?
So Jeff want are you trying to sell the citizens and taxpayers of Pickerington? Most of what you say is wrong and not factual. I think Brian Wisniewski proved that the other night.
''1. Pickerington desperately needs non-retail commercial development.
According to the Fairfield County Auditor, 87 percent of the taxes paid in the Pickerington school district are paid by homeowners; only 13 percent come from businesses. Homeowners are paying one of the highest proportions of taxes in the entire state.
In 2006, Pickerington will not pave any roads because there is no money in the budget for it. We struggle to adequately man our police force and our hopes for a community recreation center are a dream. Our schools and our streets are overcrowded. This is all because we do not have enough of a commercial tax base to sustain the growth that has occurred over the past several years. We need commercial development.''
So how does going into debt to build roads in the township help the city correct the problems that they have in the city? Are the Pickerington City Taxpayers pockets that deep? Do you think these commercial developments in the township will come in at no cost to the City taxpayers and we simply collect the taxes? Apparently so!!!!
By Bill
|
