Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The Problem with Broad Strokes

Pam,

I think the reason you are being accused of bias is the way you try to frame the issue with broad and simplistic strokes that add little to the conversation.

While I admire your attempt to control the conversation, those tactics simply don't work on this blog.

For example, you claim, ''For the city to secede from Violet Township, and form a new paper township under the city, would not address this problem, but would only complicate it.''

This is not a foregone conclusion.

I am not for or against a paper township, but nothing should be off the table right now.

This is the time for thoughtful people to study all aspects of the issues and assess where the community is headed, which doesn't seem to be at all obvious to those in power, and where it can and wants to go.

Wisniewski has an abundance of facts on his side for being against the Economic Development Agreement. However, the situation is complex, and there is no consensus for moving forward, despite your proclamation that, ''Logically, there are only three ways that the city can do this: Annex it, enter into a joint development agreement of some sort (and not necessarily Mr. Fix's sort) with the township, or merge with the township.''

Are these really the only solutions?

The answer may very well be that Pickerington's most likely course is to be simply a bedroom community.

Even if the city annexes land for commercial development, most of it is in the Canal Winchester school district, so the PLSD won't benefit much, if at all.

not a ''blog''

this is a ''discussion board''.

a blog is a personal diary posted on the web.

Missing the big point


Pam and others, blog, discussion area, whatever.... doesn't anyone realize we are the few who are actually dicussing this?

Council divided (as usual), each side dug their heels in and they cast their votes.

2 more readings to go and it is history.

What point is there in beating this dead horse over and over again here?

The end is near

Yosemite Pam,

I had to go back and check some facts prior to responding. You make some assumptions about the city consultants that are simply incorrect.

If you go to the city?’s web site and review the Growth Management plans adopted in 2005 you will find that the two most productive or the two zonings in the city that bring in the most tax revenues when compared to the cost of community services to that zoning are 6 units per condos and Office parks. This is very good information but you must temper that with what else the consultant says in his report to Pickerington in 2005. Many on council and apparently you have pulled out your quotes and you want to forget the rest.

Short of having Violet Township and Pickerington merge into a new city in the very near future there is no possibility that the Township Trustees will be able to protect the residential density and the future of this community and school district. Gary Weltlich and Jeff Fix?’s agreement will not address the problems facing the community. What this agreement does is back the City residents into a corner based on the very false assumption you put forth in your commentary.

I read in the Times-Sun this morning about the city budget. The income taxes for 2007 (I assume because the reporter was not clear in his report) are projected to bring in $4.1 Million. Pickerington has one of the lowest income tax rates in central for a CITY our size. I believe there is room for tax reform in the city and I think our elected leaders need to at least look at it. I believe once they have worked the numbers and come up with a new tax package then send it to the voters not Yosemite Pam or Bill.

If I read Mr. Wisniewski?’s web blog correctly we send a ton of money to the township and that money comes right out of the city?’s home owners pocket. The only way I can see to stop that hemorrhaging of our tax dollar to the township is to form our own township and capture those tax dollars here in and for the benefit of those paying the taxes.

What is being proposed will prevent any of the above from happening for the next 30 years and at the same time it doesn?’t protect the Pickerington Local School District from an outside municipality from annexing into the school district and dumping high density housing in our community that we will all pay for in the future.

Mr. Fix talks about the number of available building lots in the City but gives the township a pass on the number of building lost they have approved and available. If Mr. Fix is so concerned about our community and our schools then those township homes have just much impact on the schools as the city lots.

I agree with an earlier poster EVERYTING must be on the table. This agreement will stifle many of the pressing issues of the city tax payers and that will fester for years after if Mr. Fix is successful in Ram Roding this through council.




By Bill