Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Dear Violent Mom

You call my posting a tirade. Thanks for your violent opinion. These merely an observations.

I left out the Sycamore site on purpose. So we could discuss it. The land was donated. Was Tollgate/Refugee? The new junior or high? Sycamore is on the city/township boundry so all can use it. The Tollgate is so far east, the site will most likely NEVER see a city resident. The city grows outward and I feel schools should be built on the borders so they can be shared as devlopement grows. But not giving them any chance for annexation seems obvious ploy of city taxpayer dollars. Just wait until the new junior/high annexation talks start. You'll probably see a real tirade by the trustees then.

But the sprawl of the township is evident by the Tollgate decision. Another site that was proposed that would have saved a millon dollars or so and no need for a ridiulous road realignment at taxpayer expense. When this new ones over and done, I'll bet taxpayers will be livid.

I see you left out any discussion about the fire department. These issues are all related, it's just not schools issue. How many dollars has the township collected for the parks? Impact fees? 42% of the Diley Road improvements are in the township. Of the 8-10 million, how much of the tab are they picking up?

By the way, all of the schools are in the township, mom. Except Tussing.

By Told you so

Huh?

Violet mom says that 1/3 of the students come from the city and therefore they should have 1/3 of the schools. Then in the next paragraph she says that kids from the township attend city schools and ''some'' kids from the city attend schools in the township.

Those statements, somewhat cotradictory in themselves, one would deduce that there should be a higher percentage of schools in the city.

How many single fanily homes are there in the city north of Refugee Road? 3? 4? I think that's it. No wnoder they needed a new township junior and senior high.

By Splain it to me again

Look again...

I said about a third of the kids come from the City (that's just what I've heard said on this website, never have seen it verified) - if you look at the chart 43% of the schools are located in the City. Again, my question is how many should be located in the city?

Is the answer all of them? So they can be annexed to fix the City's tax problems? Geographically the School District is much bigger than the City of Pickerington and needs to think in terms of their total. The school district is ~38 square miles with the city being 8 square miles - is the answer to cram all the schools into an 8 square mile section? If that wasn't the City of Pickerington would anyone with any planning sense think that was a good idea?

I would like to think the City would have been more proactive than that. Maybe they could ask for refunds for all the tap fee's given away? Does anyone have that total? I bet that would go a long way to fixing their tax problems. Had they had the foresight when they were platting & issueing building permits like Christmas candy, maybe they would have a Plan B. The problem stems from the fact that there way never a Plan A because there was never a Plan.

The City is like an everyday person with no retirement plan. The rainy day is here & it's everyone else's fault as to how they got there.

By Violet Mom

Your clueless, mom

25,000 in the township. 15,000 in the city. Over 1/2 not payoing income tax. That's the problem. Your a welfare state.

Sprawl...Hunnington Hills ...Jefferson Woods...Farms. Grow from within. What's good land planning...5 acre lots...what a waste.

By Told you so