Seriuosly Jeff, you should step down. If you really think your representing the best interests of city taxpaying residents, you are as dillusional as the mayor.
You say we are giving up our right to conform our boundries for inclusion in all commercial developement. Not true. Only the commercial described in the agreement. And it's o.k. for YOU to give up those rights of the property owners? Have you asked any of them? I thought we were in America, apparently you do not.
And you bellyache about another 4-5,000 residents. Well at least those 4-5,000 will pay the impact, parks, and police fees that won't be paid by those moving here because YOU feel, yes feel, giving up our right to conform our boundries is smart. That's only $5,832,000.00 in impact fees and $810,000.00 in parks fees alone. How can letting residential build on our borders be a good trade. Listen to yourself.
You say the 'township has more incentive to develop commercial on our borders than to develope residential. If you do the math.'
What in the name of mother earth are you trying to pull over our eyes here? Would you please tell what the township has zoned commercial on our borders? 3 acres on Diley? We are darn near land locked residentially and you want to give the right to annex up? Are you well between the ears? Oh, I forgot to mention the area where the Wal Mart debacle happened, but isn't that zoned residential currently, mon ami?
You say if the township enters into an agreement with Canal Winchester in the areas described (oh, there's that areas described you were talking about again)... the city of Pickerington would participate. So which is it? Participate in all commercial or the just in the areas described? See, this is why they call you a snake oil salesman. And hey, if Canal is invited we can then share the revenue 3 ways. You should have made the agreement for a lot, lot longer, I mean, if you want the city to be fully reimbursed. Now you can see why it was so silly when they asked Pickerington to pay the 1.5 million dollars to join the CEDA...already in 15 years of tax abated progress.
Mr. Hackworth asks you what your definition of a hostile annexation? You say they do it without the townships consent or agreement. That's not even close. It's when it's done without the PROPERTY OWNERS consent!!!! You clearly show you are a representative for the township from this ridiculous response. And that in itself should be enough reason for you to let somebody govern in the best interests of its taxpaying citizens.
By Eye On City Hall
You say we are giving up our right to conform our boundries for inclusion in all commercial developement. Not true. Only the commercial described in the agreement. And it's o.k. for YOU to give up those rights of the property owners? Have you asked any of them? I thought we were in America, apparently you do not.
And you bellyache about another 4-5,000 residents. Well at least those 4-5,000 will pay the impact, parks, and police fees that won't be paid by those moving here because YOU feel, yes feel, giving up our right to conform our boundries is smart. That's only $5,832,000.00 in impact fees and $810,000.00 in parks fees alone. How can letting residential build on our borders be a good trade. Listen to yourself.
You say the 'township has more incentive to develop commercial on our borders than to develope residential. If you do the math.'
What in the name of mother earth are you trying to pull over our eyes here? Would you please tell what the township has zoned commercial on our borders? 3 acres on Diley? We are darn near land locked residentially and you want to give the right to annex up? Are you well between the ears? Oh, I forgot to mention the area where the Wal Mart debacle happened, but isn't that zoned residential currently, mon ami?
You say if the township enters into an agreement with Canal Winchester in the areas described (oh, there's that areas described you were talking about again)... the city of Pickerington would participate. So which is it? Participate in all commercial or the just in the areas described? See, this is why they call you a snake oil salesman. And hey, if Canal is invited we can then share the revenue 3 ways. You should have made the agreement for a lot, lot longer, I mean, if you want the city to be fully reimbursed. Now you can see why it was so silly when they asked Pickerington to pay the 1.5 million dollars to join the CEDA...already in 15 years of tax abated progress.
Mr. Hackworth asks you what your definition of a hostile annexation? You say they do it without the townships consent or agreement. That's not even close. It's when it's done without the PROPERTY OWNERS consent!!!! You clearly show you are a representative for the township from this ridiculous response. And that in itself should be enough reason for you to let somebody govern in the best interests of its taxpaying citizens.
By Eye On City Hall
