|
|
Answer to Pam
Pam, the time for merger has passed us by. First you have to form a merger committee. That in itself stops all annexations for two years. Then if this committee finds the merger not viable, we are back to square one. By then Canal will have had its way with the 33 corridor and possibly our school district.
Also, we have watched the township in action and send a merger questionaire that was so one sided it probably 'entrenched the views' of the residents to a point of no return.
Pataskala City and Lima Township's merger was to stop the encroachment of Reynoldsburg. Maybe when Canal gets its fingers into our school district, we'll see how the Dunlap/Weltlich short term stop Pickerington at all costs thinking has disabled the community and the city. The Shaver administration will be the ones to take the fall because they should have stood up for themselves and us. This is what happens when you hire staff as yes people or ignore their input. For the latest, watch the decisions of the new engineer. It'll be easy to see that the politicians control her thinking. The politicians dabble and babble. The residents suffer.
That leaves annexation and Fix is about to send that south, to Canal. Wait for Fix's e-mails to be made public here soon. When they do I'll get a hold of you Pam and you can help with the referendum.
By Merger Curious
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try again Pam
Your reasons are too broad and without statistical or analytical support. Put together some numbers and make a PowerPoint of something and send it to the webmaster for posting. Then we will have something besides your words and happy thoughts to debate.
Show us why we need this rather then because it would be so nice to have.
Also, and no offense intended, bear in mind you are on the same slippery slope as Fix in your presentation from two aspects. First, you are relying entirely on your sales ability for a merger. You talk and talk. We are already in the process of turning over our governing ability to the trustees based purely on a sales pitch. Second, you are relentless.
I had the misfortune to be a member of Fix?’s little republican club before I saw the light. He needed something from me for an event they were hosting and I wasn?’t inclined to give him what he wanted because, quite frankly, I didn?’t like him and never did. He was so relentless in his pursuit of what he wanted that he kept calling and seeking me out in person. So much so that I threatened him with a restraining order. He is in complete harmony with his relentlessness and is unabashed about it. He said that is how he gets what he wants. Most people will end up giving him what he wants to get him to shut up or go away. I suspect this is how he garnered the three additional votes he needed long before the topic was publicly debated. He had three councilmen say they would vote for it if he shut up and went away.
Pam, you are becoming much like him in your relentless pursuit of a merger. This venue isn?’t working for you. Take your show on the road or look at another venue. Neighborhood Link has places on these pages where you can sign up and create your own community to take your merger talks to. How about reining in your Fix tendencies and take your merger talk elsewhere. If you continue, I will begin to think you might just be Fix Himself.
There, is that more calm and unemotional enough for you?
|
|
|
No More Township
Curious, we have outgrown the township. It slows us down, keeps us from acting in concert, gives us no protection from annexations by Canal and the like, and keeps us from undertaking annexations of our own to the southeast and northeast of the township. It also allows township residents to ''free ride'' on city improvements, and city residents to ''free ride'' on township improvements, while denying our community the tax base we need to finance many of the improvements and services that we need. You don't need any numbers to see that.
Annexations of township land by the City of Pickerington, I suppose, could get us to the same place, but it would be a slow process, and also would depend on the consents of individual landowners. Look at how long the Canal annexation is taking -- five years and counting. On this scale of things, a merger probably would get us to the desired result more rapidly.
There would be nothing wrong, by the way, with proceeding on both tracks at once -- capitalizing on those annexation opportunities that present themselves, while working through the merger process.
One thing to beware of, however: offering concessions to developers or, worse yet, approving or even encouraging runaway residential growth, just to facilitate annexations. That was the old City government's strategy, it is what got all of them (save one) thrown out of office (and deservedly so, in my opinion), and we are still paying for it today in congested roads and overcrowded schools. Again, no need for precise statistics to see that. Just try getting to work in the morning, or look at your growing school tax bill.
I must confess that I am becoming impatient with the city/township cooperation alternative too. Look how long that is taking, and how much dissension it is creating. Too much wrangling over who gets what, and not enough doing. Also, the Canal annexation should bring home to us all the fact that there is no sure protection from this in a joint economic development agreement. It's been a nice try but, so far at least, I see no cigar, even in prospect.
If we are ever going to have meaningful shares of the US 33 and I-70 commercial pies, then we need to get on with it, now.
By Yosemite Pam
|
|
|
Another Problem
Sorry Pam, but I've got to bail out for now on your merger idea. Notice I said idea and not plan. There isn't even a hint of debate on the subject at the elected official level. Not one of them campaigned on merger or probably even believe it could be done. Certainly not the trustees. One who campaigned on that topic would never be elected.
Elected officials usually try to do something they told people or put in literature. Oh, let's say reduce the speed limit on Hill road. The only north/south way out of here. Personaly, I think it's dumb-ba. Especially when the traffic studies we residents paid for don't show that's the best thing to do.
Or let's say reduce seniors taxes, like mine. Well, all you have to do is give Fix your vote and believe that'll help taxes and boom, your campaign promises have been met! I looked up smith in the dictionary and it said , you thought you were getting a leader and all you got was someone lazy to lead around the issues he doesn't understand. Newbies, don't they want to make you laugh.
Or let's say you trade your vote to become council president again so you sit in the 'hey I get to be mayor next if this one moves on to higher aspirations or blows up mentally'.
So sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when the idea sounds good, but there isn't a plan to start a plan, an elected official who dares to even say the 'm' word, or man/woman/heshe/alien who masquerades as a cartoon character.
If you really believed in merger, you would stand up and be counted. I don't care about your identity nor does anyone else. Just go to a council meeting, get a neighbor to stand at Hill and Refugee with a sign, or write an anonymous letter to the trustees or a council person and ask for it to be read. You can sign it 'fear of retributon'. After all, the city has elected trustworthy, open honest people. Just read their campaign literature.
By Merger Curious No More
|
