Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Here's the point

It's O.K. for this type developement in the city is what I'm reading. This developement I believe is contiguous (that's means on the cities border for those of you still in darkness).

Why did the property owners not want to annex?
Afraid of lawsuits and red tape from Violet T?
Did anybody from the city discuss it with the owners?
We, yes the city folk, just lost that income tax and police levy money because....we're stupid? We're unapproachable? We don't care? Developement is easier in the township? Oh yea, the %#$*&$%# residential impact fees are, adios muchachos. And the design guidelines? Why even have them if we let our borders go unchecked.

Thanks go out to all of those involved in these decisions. LEADERSHIP. Another side blocked.

And by the way, did they use county sewer? No tap fees or usage fees to help the city debt. Do you know there you city folk, that a portion of your property taxes that go to the county, help to build these other plants on your borders? It's kind of a buy 1, get none sale.


By City Insider

Residential

Residential is a loser for the city. We're not collecting the income tax, and we're not servicing the area either.

You'd better read the cost of land use study prior to thinking it's worth it to annex residential. In rare cases it might be, but those are few and far between.



By another insider

loser to the schools

Even if these lots are couple of acres each they will be money losers to whom ever government decides to provide the services for the development. I think what we should be asking is why the township doesn't have the design guidelines, impact fees, and the two lots per acre zoning? It is a good sign that this developer apparently didn't approach the City for annexation. These same township residents have belly ached for years about residential going into the city. Unfortunately for us all it will affect the schools and probably not in a good way.

Cost of Land use study

I've read them both. The one that Prindle did that Harding used from around the county that showed residential paid 1.00 in taxes it cost 1.15 to service it. It was flawed report as it included Gov't. areas without income tax and a variety of other problems that made it a useless comparison for this area.
Now, we'll see if you have read the one we did specifically for this area. What were the cities costs, tax in versus services for this type of developement? Prindle did this study also, so it is relevant. This info was kept away from public consumption because it didn't fit the agenda of the old, new majority.

By City Insider