Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

By Rick Palsgrove

Southeast Editor

On Feb. 22, citizens filed petitions with Pickerington City Hall to place a city charter amendment on the ballot.

The proposed charter amendment is designed to preserve: the city?’s annexation rights; and its right to conform township lines to municipal limits.

The petitions arose from citizens who are opposed to the Pick-erington/Violet Township economic development agreement, a 30 year pact that, among other things, gives the township the power to block the city from annexing residential or farm property and does not allow the city to create its own township.

?“We don?’t believe it is necessary for the city to give up its rights as a municipality as part of the economic agreement,?” said Pickerington City Councilman Brian Wisniewski, one of the backers of the proposed charter amendment. ?“These rights are not economic in nature and we feel the city should not give them up. Even if these rights are not exercised, it is good to keep them as options. It?’s dangerous to give them up without knowing what the future brings. It?’s wise to leave our options open rather than closing doors we?’ll later regret.?”

Councilman Ted Hackworth, who also supports the proposed charter amendment, said, ?“We have 911 signatures (on the petitions for the amendment) with 21 different petition carriers. I believe the number of valid signatures needed is around 430, which is 10 percent of the total number of voters from the last municipal election (November 2005).?”

Hackworth said the petitions were turned into Pickerington City Municipal Clerk Lynda Yartin who will forward them to the Fairfield County Board of Elections for verification of the signatures. If the number of necessary valid signatures are certified, Hackworth said the proposed amendment would then come back to Pickerington City Council.

?“Council would then have 90 to 120 days to put the amendment on the ballot for, most likely, a special election,?” said Hackworth.

He added that council action could be taken following a legal review.

?“It?’s an obligation (for council),?” commented Hackworth. ?“If council fails to act for a good reason we can go to court, obtain a mandamus, and force the issue.?”

Referendum status

Regarding another ongoing citizens?’ ballot effort, referendum petitions seeking to put the Pickerington/Violet Township economic development issue on the Nov. 6 ballot for a vote of the city?’s citizens were certified on Feb. 15 by the Fairfield County Board of Elections.

Hackworth said the petitions have 854 valid signatures out of 932 submitted. Around 600 valid signatures of registered voters were needed to place the referendum on the economic development agreement on the ballot.

Pickerington Finance Director Linda Fersch will now obtain a legal opinion to see if the petitions meet the legal requirements to place the referendum on the ballot.

Pickerington City Council had approved the economic development agreement at its Jan. 2 meeting by a 4-3 vote with council members Jeff Fix, Heidi Riggs, Keith Smith, and Cristie Hammond supporting it and Wisniewski, Hackworth, and Michael Sabatino opposing it.

If the referendum petitions meet legal requirements, the economic development ordinance will be put on hold pending the vote of the people on Nov. 6.

Fox in the Henhouse

Isn?’t it ironic that after a year in office the top vote getter for city council in 2005 is now the reason for an effort to amend our charter to protect the city and it?’s taxpayers.

It is also ironic that Mr. Fix blasted Mayor Hughes in his PATA newsletters for accepting so much of his campaign funds from Builders and like wise once in office Mayor Hughes used the emergency legislation of council to prevent referendums of the rezoning and plat approvals that forced the citizens out to amend the Pickerington City Charter. Many of these emergency ordinances were for deals given to these builders. These same builders were also contributors to Mayor Hughes?’ campaign and we all saw how it affected his judgment and bias in office.

Now six years later the very person that complained so much in his PATA newsletters and his campaign literature about accepting outside funding for his campaign turns around and accepts 90% of his campaign funds from outside Pickerington and mostly from the township residents and guess what his judgment and bias is effected just like he all warned us a few years ago. Again the Citizens are out trying to protect Pickerington tax payer?’s interesting by amending that charter for yet another attack of the Pickerington treasury. Only this time he is handing it over to the township taxpayers.

For him to get the council majority?’s support he repeatedly had to tear down the work of the city and to complain about debt, services and a police department that was short of officers. Posted to your left he even insulted fellow council members. His plan is so vague and so full of holes that the average citizen on the street quickly saw through his plan to give away our tax dollars for nothing in return. Many are now alarmed about this guy and his mission to destroy the city and turn it over to the township whom he admires. He claims he moved from the township into the city to get away from the drug problems in his neighborhood.

It is clear that he refuses to respect others on council and in many ways the citizens of Pickerington. He claimed that the citizens all wanted cooperation with the township. Since the petitions have been filed with the city it appears that these petitions carriers didn?’t get the same reactions from the voters. Maybe what Mr. Fix was hearing in 2005 was from his campaign supporters and volunteer staff. Folks we have a Fox in the henhouse here.

no maybe

The Fox never left