Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I am tired and bored by the string below so I'll start a new one.


Let?’s dissect this latest Hackworth Manifesto a little, shall we?

Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. If Pickerington becomes a bad place to live because of council isolationism and pie in the sky projects, of course I could just say ?– MOVE! But I won?’t. I needn?’t disparage councilmen individually, but you certainly understand that not all of them are in the game for purely unselfish motives. Many have been castigated repeatedly in this forum over their suspected personal motives. Keep that in mind as 4 of them will be up for election next year probably running on the same ballot as a new tax issue of their invention.

Do us a favor and copy and paste your discovery that council would not involve citizens in the process. We have read in this forum that some councilmen will assure you that those not serving are simply not as smart as they are. However, point taken. Maybe they should have involved the public more. After all, YOU had the Property Maintenance group and the Utility Review group. Hmmm, let?’s see, their mission was concluded after only HOW LONG??? By the way, a friend of mine was on the Property thingamajig and guess what? It has never been decommissioned. So we create another never-ending panel with a never ending mission. Face it Ted, you make these statements because they didn?’t come to YOU for advice. You disagreed with what they proposed, campaigned against it and are now Monday Morning Quarterbacking it. Ease up. You have to realize that no one except your new bud on council will take your recommendations verbatim. When you?’re off your soapbox you are a valuable asset and ally to council. Problem is, you only build your soapbox higher and won?’t get off. My was or the highway, right? YAWN.

What about the decisions YOU jammed down our throats in your 4 years? The crippling debt this city now faces (and don?’t worry ?– I am not smart enough to understand debt ?– YAWN) was committed to ON YOUR WATCH. Diley could have gone away. But no, you had to have it. So here we are with something like $750,000 per year debt payments. Was Diley a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. History will judge that.

Don?’t complain about the few to no people in attendance at meetings not having all the same material that the people behind the table have. Make a suggestion. Be constructive and not so destructive.

Advice from experts and seeing all relevant data you say? Well. Experts cost money. If council had hired experts you would now be condemning them for wasting that money. Relevant data? You seem to have no problem locating all the relevant data you need to blast council and write these blathering manifestos. So is the relevant data accessible or not??? Make up your mind.

Your comments about your perception of the treatment of people addressing council is way off base. I think that issue was resolved with electing a better mayor than we had who has no tolerance for that behavior.

Another Hackworth Manifesto 2

Chuck holes on Diley???? Come on! Even to the very untrained eye such as mine I can see that we are driving on a temporary layer of blacktop. Not only does it appear porous to me, which will undoubtedly leave itself open to damage, but the joint where the blacktop meets the concrete curb show a couple of inches more of blacktop will be laid. Quit whining.

Mr. Math Whiz ?– if the manager easily came up with all these cuts AND the budget was prepared with a positive attitude on the tax issue, don?’t you think that simply removing what would have been added with the increased revenue would account for the majority of this number? Geez, a while back I thought you were a smart cookie. See how first impression can be wrong?

Manager making cuts he can live with and council adopting it. Hey, e finally agree on something.

Your communications recommendations I agree with, too. NEXT?…..

Polling and Surveys? Agree there too. Certainly this council is not foolish enough to go forward until they learn why they lost. DUH!

Finally getting the public involved. I covered this before. If the group was kept small with a deadline looming then perhaps. Otherwise you end up with another Hackworth monster that would study the issues for eternity. At some point a decision has to be made and move forward.

And NO, you should not be invited to attend. You?’ve done enough damage. The question I always have is that you had all this budget information in your hands for FOUR YEARS. Why didn?’t you write these manifestos when you were in office making us aware of this years before it happened? Shame, shame, shame.

Tired and bored.

Someone's keyboard is smoking now. Hope you don't have an automatic sprinklers system in your building.

Hackworth Manifesto

TO: Mayor, Council
FROM: Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
SUBJECT: Verbatim Excerpt from December 14, 2006, Service Committee Meeting
DATE: January 3, 2007


Mr. Hackworth: Well, here?’s the issue, especially on the west side of the City, we have invested, or will have invested, approximately 8 million bucks into the Diley Road widening and now, for whatever reason, we?’ve made that property economically developable and we?’re going to have to share those future tax receipts with the township.

Mr. Fix: After expenses, that?’s correct.

Mr. Hackworth: Why would we do that? That?’s our taxpayers?’ money. It was our investments and the township didn?’t investment anything into it.

Mr. Fix: Well, the township did invest in the Diley Road widening project, not to the same dollar amount that we did. But, again--

Mr. Hackworth: How much did they invest?

Mr. Fix: I think it was $2 million, I?’m not certain of the number. But they?–

Mr. Hackworth: They didn?’t invest that much. That was under a loan from Canal Winchester.

Mr. Fix: Well, they made an investment of Diley Road widening. We?’d have to go dig up the facts if you wanted to. The point of the matter is that the critical phrase in this is ?“after expenses.?” So that ?– we invested 8 million dollars into Diley Road and a portion of that could be said that it applies to any particular development that occurs along Diley Road. And that would be an expense that we would get reimbursed for before there is any split in taxes, right? So the citizens of Pickerington whose taxes have gone to widen Diley Road, would get those expenses paid first by any improvements that happen along Diley Road before there would be any split in revenues.

Mr. Hackworth: That doesn?’t make sense. And, the reason it doesn?’t make sense is, north of Busey Road is where Pickerington put their 8 million dollars in. South of Busey Road is where the township?…they?’re not sharing any of that area down there with us.

Mr. Fix: Well, if there is economic development down there, and we?’re in this program, there would be a JEDD created for anything that happens.

Mr. Hackworth: Most of that?’s in Canal Winchester.

Mr. Fix: Well, for areas that are in Canal Winchester--

Mr. Hackworth: So that wouldn?’t qualify. And, also I think in some CETA area doesn?’t this document limit us.

Mr. Fix: Yes, we won?’t participate in the CETA.

Mr. Hackworth: So my question to you then is, if they can reserve areas of this township to not be burdened by their neighbors for sharing taxes, why can?’t we? Why can?’t we set aside the areas of each side of Diley Road, north of Busey?

Mrs. Hammond: We don?’t own them.

Mr. Hackworth: We will own them.

Mr. Fix: That land is township land and we don?’t have the right or the ability to say what goes on on that land until such time as it is developed and a developer wants to annex to the City or, according to this agreement, if they are contiguous. Now there was a Supreme Court ruling that happened today that said cities no longer have the ability to annex right-of-ways, and that may make it a little more difficult for us to annex into places that we may think today that we have the ability to go do that.

By after expenses