Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The Snider-Thornton Annexation

12-28-2006
I gather, from reading the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision on this matter, that five years ago the Fairfield County Board of Commissioners approved the annexation by the Village of Canal Winchester of several hundred acres of land in Violet Township, in or near the commercially valuable US 33 corridor.

Both landowners had agreed to this annexation, but one had second thoughts about it, and attempted to challenge it. However, the challenge became wrapped up in a controversy over the effective date of amendments to Ohio's annexation law, which changed the procedures for mounting such challenges.

Petitions seeking to subject these amendments to a referendum had been submitted on the 90th day after the law's passage, just hours before the law otherwise would have taken effect. The petitions were later determined to lack sufficient signatures.

The question before the Ohio Supreme Court was, did the amendments take effect at midnight on the 90th day after the law's passage, or on the date some months later when the Ohio Secretary of State finally announced the petition's insufficiency? That was the only game in town, as far as the Snider-Thornton annexation was concerned.

The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, opted for the latter view, and remanded the case to our Fairfield County court for final determination. Since, however, the effect of the Supreme Court's decision apparently is to render the annexation challenge invalid, there does not now seem much doubt about the outcome of this matter. Its too late to mount a new challenge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this does not seem to be a happy result for our community. Hundreds of acres suitable for commercial development stand to be lost to this community's taxpayers. I would be very interested in knowing how much land along the US 33 corridor Violet Township now has left. I also would be interested in knowing why our Township Board of Trustees apparently did not themselves challenge this annexation.

But I think our primary focus should be on what might have been done to keep this sort of thing from happening, and on what we can do to keep it from happening again.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe anything like this could have happened if, before these annexation proceedings began, Violet Township and the City of Pickerington had merged to form a single city.

It also seems to me that our best hope for commercial development that will benefit this community's taxpayers now lies to the southeast of Violet Township along US 33, and to the northeast of Violet Township along Interstate 70. Violet Township, lacking annexation powers, can do nothing about this.

If the township merged with the city, we might be able to annex such land. Absent such a merger, however, neighboring municipalities may continue to gobble up what remains of Violet Township.

Please give this some thought.

-By Yosemite Pam



By Yosemite Pam

Questions for Pam

I personaly think your all wet Pam, but I'll try some civil discourse first. I've gone back and re-read many of your postings and see that you've stayed the course on merger.

If merger was even a viable option, why hasn't Fix ever debated this in public with the trustees if they are so committed to working together?

Aren't they buddies? Shouldn't merger be a big love fest?

Wouldn't this be viable for a councilman who is paid by city tax dollars to pursue this before entering into this annexation suicide?

Why would Fix be giving up annexation rights in this agreement if a merger were anywhere near a possibility?

Violet runs to the other side of 33 all the way up hill road. Why have you never mentioned anything about Canal's response to a proposed mereger between Pick. and Violet?

Can you please tell us to the nearest hundred thousnd dollars what legal costs the city would incur fighting Canal?

If this is beneficial for all, will the trustees share in the legal cost of protecting the school districts borders?

I'll bet that in all the secret meetings between Gary and Jeff that the word merger was never brought up, except followed with laughter. And I say secret meetings because did you ever see where the public was notified they were going to meet or any public input allowed except for seeing a document at its final draft? Other than Shaver apparently giving Fix dititorial power?

Oh yes Pam. If the document was to have any modification (staff recommendations), then why does the developement director say everbody was to entrenched in their views?

And just why does Fix respond I've got my four votes? Just how did he get those votes before it ever hit committee floor? By keeping Smith, Riggs and Hammond in the loop?

Pam, I could type for hours but please try and open your eyes to how silly you sound. Let's get started here. I'll wait for your responses. And please forgive me, I'm being sincere here. It is is very hard not to be cynical with you, Pam. There is no way on this green earth that Weltlich, Dunlap, Shaver, Fix, Riggs and Reade will ever alolow this to happen becuse it will have meant former mayor's Hughes and Postage were right. Their stomach's aren't big enough to eat that much crow. Well maybe Jeff's is.





By Merger Curious

I'm not Jeff

As I've said before, I'm not Lisa. I'm also not Jeff, Dave or Gary. They will have to answer for themselves.

I've favored merger of the city and the township for as long as I can remember -- at least since the late 1980s. It was one of the very few things political on which my friends, the former Mayors Gray, Hughes and Postage, and I agreed. I've been speaking out publicly on the issue for years.

At the moment, however, all I'm calling for is a citizens' committee to investigate the pros and cons of the three alternatives now on the table -- Going it alone, cooperating, or merging. The devil's always in the details and, just as there is more than one way for the city and township to cooperate, there also is more than one way for them to merge.

I'm certainly not saying that a merger now would save the Snider-Thornton properties. As I've said, the cat's probably out of the bag on that one. But let's think about something to keep it from happening again. Otherwise, we're all going to be left high and dry.

By Yosemite Pam

Correction

I meant to say that I have been speaking out on the issue of merger since the late 1990s, not the late 1980s. Please pardon an oldster's mistake. The older I get, the more all those years seem to merge.

By Yosemite Pam