Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Recently, Soap Box Hero demanded a public outcry on what is happening in our community. I agree.

James A. McGlone?’s recent letter to the editor asked why PATA circulated petitions against the City of Pickerington?’s 2.4 units per acre zoning, yet was silent on the Violet Township?’s 2.7 units per acre and on the 6.7 units per acre in the Violet Township/Canal Winchester CEDA.

I would like to know why is PATA silent, too?

Why aren?’t the 18 PATA petitioners out circulating petitions demanding a vote on the CEDA in November also? Isn?’t 6.7 units per acre worse than 2.4? Is paying 100% of the expenses for 20% of the revenue in the CEDA fair to Violet Township taxpayers? Isn?’t 100 years of paying 100 % of the expenses for 20% of the revenue a rather long period time? Aren?’t far more tax dollars involved for 100 years in the CEDA than in the zoning change?

Where?’s the ?‘taxpayers advocate?’ when we need them? Where?’s PATA?


By Mark W. Uher

PATA is Here

Mark,

Without knowing the vintage of your computer it is hard to instruct you on this but when you are typing in your message as I am now, put your mouse pointer on the bottom of the scoll bar on the right of the screen. Click the left mouse button a couple of times. Look to the left side of the screen. Under ''Our Info'' click on Our Newsletter. Further down you you will see ''Our Pages''. Click on any of the subjects there. PATA is right where it's always has been. Providing information and a place to discuss issues.

By Long Time Reader

They Only Want Our Tax Money

Dear Long-Time Reader:

Thank you so very much for the useful information on how to use the PATA website.

If you could help me one more time, I still cannot any mention on the PATA website of the following items that impact Pickerington Area Taxpayers for 100 years:

1. CEDA Article VIII Section 1 which mandates the 100 year term of the agreement;
2. CEDA Article III Section 3 & 6 which mandates all the services Violet Township taxpayers will pay for; and
3. CEDA Article II Section 9 I which mandates Violet Township must favor annexations into
Canal Winchester, must participate as a litigant throughout any and all court appeals and must support any issue that is beneficial to Canal Winchester pending before the Ohio General Assembly.

Thank heavens, Canal Winchester let us keep our Township name, colors and logo. It appears they only wanted our tax money to help fund their schools.

Again, please, Long-Time Reader, if you could help me locate a simple CEDA pro forma financial statement on the PATA website that may be helpful also.

Maybe the PATA petitioners were too busy collecting signatures to get the CEDA deal on the November ballot to post a bit more about the 100 year CEDA deal on their website. In that case, I understand.

Again, many thanks for helping me use the PATA website more fully.


Mark W. Uher

zoning density mistated

Mark,

Many members of PATA participated in the Wellington Park negotiations with David Ruma for over one year. (Mr. McGlone's township zoning reference) The zoning of the single family portion of the project is only 1.7 units per acre, well below Pickerington's 2.5 to 2.6 per acre standard they seem to be proud of. See the ''our pages'' section to your left for a complete rundown on this development under Wellington Park. The total density is 2.9 per acre which includes 175 condominiums, most two bedroom. Call Mr, Stemen and confirm this figure of less that .2 to.4 children generated per condominum home versus 1.0 to 2.0 children per single family home for this type of development. A development directly across the street, Spring Creek, has 2.0 single family home density and 3.0 density with the CONDOS, see ''our pages,'' recent trends in Township zoning for the information. I think the fact that we were able to get a lower zoning on a parcel across the street and immediatley adjacent to the city of Pickerington is amazing... given the annexation and high density pressure that the city represents.

Originally, the developer wanted nearly 500 single family homes! PATA members stood up and fought this over 18 months ago at the first zoning hearing...where were you to record our participation?

PATA members were also the ones to ask the developer for the cash donation to the schools in these negotiation meetings while a school board member sat there silently and did not bring it up!We suggested to him strongly... that if he donated cash to the schools that we would be more inclined to support more homes on this land since he was giving back to the community. He came through and I am proud that John Brinson brought this up in view of the silence from the board member.

This development is immediately adjacent to the city of Pickerington and could have annexed for an R-4 zoning allowing the 500 single family homes to be built! It was defintely on the table for them from day one. We worked on this hard...I am insulted that you ask where we were! We just do not NEED to grab HEADLINES all the time like you do to have a positive influence in some situations in the community. Maybe you should join in on some of these PATA issues that we work on but do not play out in the paper, there are certainly enough to go around.

I know that you think controlling housing growth is a reasonable request of our leaders given our school situation. Unfortunately, it takes years and attendance at endless meetings and hearings to make a difference, and right now, in the city, all hearings on the zoning of annexed land are held AFTER the land is already zoned for a use and a density promised to a developer in the annexation process...because of this, the public has no effective influence on the process and we have to TRUST that Mr. Hughes and Mrs. Bushman are asking for cash contributions from the developers like we did from Mr. Ruma. Yea right...