Let?’s light things up a little. For the sake of argument, let?’s say that there is a referendum that will overthrow the economic agreement with the township bandits. Let?’s also say that on the same ballot, it passes that the city becomes its own township. What happens next?
What other changes need to be made to shore things up with the city government? That is the crux of this posting. I think the citizens have demonstrated in the past that they will take action at the polls when necessary. I have no doubt, given the more serious nature of these two issues than Issues 17, 18 and 19 might have been, that these await the same fate of overwhelming passage.
What we need to be extremely careful about is the old adage of ?“Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.?” Let?’s say that we still have control over our rights of annexation and conforming boundaries and have successfully seceded from Violent Township. At that point in time, if the major supporters of the sell-out of the city haven?’t resigned, there is still the risk they will still wield enough power to simply draft an essentially mirrored agreement paper and pass it again. Another risk is that they draft legislation even more damaging that what they are pushing through now.
Do you think that if these charlatans don?’t resign after a defeat of their schemes that a recall is in order? I mean, come on, a recall is extremely scandalous. At a point when the press would play out a major victory for residents wanting to control their destiny, a recall might seem like twisting a knife. Let us not forget that the majority of council and the mayor and even the city manager are frequently accused of and usually demonstrate Pickerington Paybacks. What I hate to see happen is that the citizen revolt could be assigned the same labels. One thing we have seen is that the majority of council, the mayor and the city manager are incarnations of every civil servant of the past assailed mercilessly in this forum and in other arenas for being the most vile, despicable and contemptible people to ever set foot on a Pickerington street. We are all sick of the constant regurgitation of politicians with personal agendas put before the city?’s agendas. We have to be extremely careful to not become one of them like every election cycle brings us more of them.
Maybe Yosemite Pam sparked an idea in me with her proposals of committees. Would we need some sort of citizen involvement in governing our city after the issues pass? I personally don?’t think the cowards supporting all this would resign due to their enormous egos so we as citizens may have to research our ability to become active in the government. If we pass these issues then we have cast a vote of no confidence in the cowards. Who do we rely on then to run the city?
Have I come full circle back to recall? I don?’t know. Perhaps a reader of this forum knows of another occurrence of a majority of council, the mayor and the city manager being kicked out of office and how the city ran after that. Is it possible? We have to be careful that we don?’t put ourselves into a position of not being able to function as a city. The coward charlatans are doing that and we have to set ourselves above them.
Can we kick out Shaver and say Fix and Riggs at first and then get more favorable appointees and then proceed with ousting Smith, Hammond and Gilleland?
Let?’s give this some thought and productive discussion.
By Mack
What other changes need to be made to shore things up with the city government? That is the crux of this posting. I think the citizens have demonstrated in the past that they will take action at the polls when necessary. I have no doubt, given the more serious nature of these two issues than Issues 17, 18 and 19 might have been, that these await the same fate of overwhelming passage.
What we need to be extremely careful about is the old adage of ?“Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.?” Let?’s say that we still have control over our rights of annexation and conforming boundaries and have successfully seceded from Violent Township. At that point in time, if the major supporters of the sell-out of the city haven?’t resigned, there is still the risk they will still wield enough power to simply draft an essentially mirrored agreement paper and pass it again. Another risk is that they draft legislation even more damaging that what they are pushing through now.
Do you think that if these charlatans don?’t resign after a defeat of their schemes that a recall is in order? I mean, come on, a recall is extremely scandalous. At a point when the press would play out a major victory for residents wanting to control their destiny, a recall might seem like twisting a knife. Let us not forget that the majority of council and the mayor and even the city manager are frequently accused of and usually demonstrate Pickerington Paybacks. What I hate to see happen is that the citizen revolt could be assigned the same labels. One thing we have seen is that the majority of council, the mayor and the city manager are incarnations of every civil servant of the past assailed mercilessly in this forum and in other arenas for being the most vile, despicable and contemptible people to ever set foot on a Pickerington street. We are all sick of the constant regurgitation of politicians with personal agendas put before the city?’s agendas. We have to be extremely careful to not become one of them like every election cycle brings us more of them.
Maybe Yosemite Pam sparked an idea in me with her proposals of committees. Would we need some sort of citizen involvement in governing our city after the issues pass? I personally don?’t think the cowards supporting all this would resign due to their enormous egos so we as citizens may have to research our ability to become active in the government. If we pass these issues then we have cast a vote of no confidence in the cowards. Who do we rely on then to run the city?
Have I come full circle back to recall? I don?’t know. Perhaps a reader of this forum knows of another occurrence of a majority of council, the mayor and the city manager being kicked out of office and how the city ran after that. Is it possible? We have to be careful that we don?’t put ourselves into a position of not being able to function as a city. The coward charlatans are doing that and we have to set ourselves above them.
Can we kick out Shaver and say Fix and Riggs at first and then get more favorable appointees and then proceed with ousting Smith, Hammond and Gilleland?
Let?’s give this some thought and productive discussion.
By Mack
