Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

To Mayor Shaver:

I have been reading with interest your comments and your actions over the last year or so. Quite frankly, I am increasingly becoming disillusioned with your performance in office.

One of the major issues facing the City of Pickerington in 2003, when you ran for Mayor, was the out of control residential growth that was occurring in the city. Your campaign literature clearly indicated that you would work to ?“MANAGE RESIDENTIAL?” growth in our City. You also indicated in that campaign literature that you were running with a team to accomplish that goal. I think your first two years in office there was movement and some accomplishments in a policy to control residential growth in Pickerington. Once the housing market recovers from its own greed and over building we will all see the true effect of those policies and programs that were put in place between 2003 and 2005. Some of your comments in the above time frame seem to contradict your belief in any of these programs and I now get the feeling, judging by your comments and the legislation that you support, you feel that the City is not capable of controlling or managing its residential growth. You now want to turn the managed of growth over to the trustees.

The second goal on your campaign literature was controlling the City debt load. I believe the council and the city has made some strides in that goal. I don?’t see foolish projects like the downtown revitalization projects that just pretty up the place and narrow the curbs so you have more difficulty in making those turns without driving over said curb. I know there is talk of expanding the sewer plant and beyond that very little in the way of public projects. However your comments here again betray your own promises made to the voters in 2003 about controlling the city?’s debt. That is the talk about a recreation center. I can only assume you plan to build a monument to yourself at the tax payers expense. The second issue is your willingness to give away the city?’s tax revenues to the township with nothing in return. If the city taxpayers must provide these services then new annexations will surely be financed by the existing tax payers while other citizens of Violet Township (unincorporated areas) will get the windfall. That is not my idea of cooperation nor does it help control our debt service.

Finally your third goal if elected was to create a responsive City Government. Clearly the citizens were alarmed with your agreement with the township and the unfairness in that agreement to the City Taxpayers. They took action and circulated a referendum and an initiative to send a message to you and your council majority. I now understand that you plan to use City funds to ?“educate?” the citizens about this initiative and I assume the referendum. I have read this morning where you spent the day with the trustees yesterday and they have you jacked up and looking at issues through their rose colored glasses. What concerns me and it should alarm everyone is your inability to stick to your guns and follow through on the very policies you campaigned on.

Continued:

By Former supporter

More

Mayor Shaver; I know you talked about trying to resolve some of the law suits that the trustees had filed against the City before your were elected. I think you did make an effort to resolve them. However during the negotiations I think you tried to give away our City?’s rights and our tax revenues with little or nothing in return for those ?“service payments.?” I tried to look up the law suits with the city last night and I can?’t determine the status but I think most have been resolved. My point is do you still feel Pickerington should be punished, that we are bad or what is the deal here Mayor with your willingness to get an agreement at all costs (I might add that cost will be shouldered by the City taxpayers thus cancelling out many of your campaign promises)?

I know parks and recreation centers sound good but I believe you mentioned yourself a year or so ago that the taxpayers in the city didn?’t want to pay more taxes for recreation facilities. So why do you continue to pursue a recreation center over the objections of your constituency? Is that your version of a responsive City government?

I think your tendency for lack of detail, will find you and this city in deep trouble and will leave your legacy very similar to your predecessors. Your ability to forget past actions by your adversaries and your inability to stay focused on what you promoted yesterday make supporting you and your ideas very difficult. You seem to constantly forget who you serve and how you got to where you are today. Your hair trigger temper and general behavior makes it very difficult for real friends to support you or to be close and it provides opportunities for those that would use your position for their own gains. Your behavior seems to isolate you and your starvation for attention allows those people to simply use you with a few simply strokes of your ego.


By Former supporter

really?

With friends, like you.....gee, it's hard to believe you were ever a supporter of the mayor. And, didn't he and his group get rid of the Lee G. corruption. Do we really want that back in the city? I know I don't and I doubt other voters do either. Better see who is supporting Hackworth, Sabatino and their buddies.....they might not be so wonderful as you think.

By Tom

Doing coffee for money?

Hey Tom wasn't Brian Wisniewski and Ted Hackworth supporting the Mayor three and half years ago? So now you say they are corrupt? Because they have lunch with someone? Who are they having lunch with and how would that make them corrupt? Besides dude wasn't Shaver running against Lou Postage?