Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Appreciation


I understand the dilema that you all face in terms of your attempts to organize opposition to the status quo. It's not my intention to suggest that anyone in this group has negative intentions, only that the perception created can be negative.

The effort to organize the kind of grassroots groups that have similar concerns will not be easy. But, leaders frequently emerge from open (and often difficult) meetings in situations like this....rather than being identified and invited. Concensus on action is based on inclusion...not on strength of organization.

I don't know the person who is in charge of my civic assocation, and I doubt that I agree with that person on lots of issues...I haven't made the decision that they should act on my behalf in an important issues like this without me being there to question their actions, even in the earliest stages of organization. I think its accurate to say that the election (if they are actually elected) of civic assocation leaders are not conducted anticipating that they would ever be in a position to represent the community on issues beyond the size of my deck or the height of my fence. In addition to the civic assocation leaders, school board members, township trustees, athletic boosters, and even city council members will all get a chance to establish an initial agenda before anyone else get's to even see what's going on...not before we get to vote, not even before we get to speak...but before we even get to attend and keep an eye on those who would say they represent area residents. Frankly, while no insult is intended to any of the fine people who are participating in this, if not for the inclusion of Ms Reade and Mr Shaver, who's positions I am familiar with and support, my criticism would be more pointed.

Again, please don't be offended by my comments...they are intended as constuctive criticism from an individual who agrees with your direction and intentions, but is concerned that your approach might divide rather than bring together those who share concerns.

Thanks for listening, I'll continue to work to support all elements of your efforts with which I agree.

WOW, etc

WOW, what a stir of the old pot... Like you, I share the concerns of back room deals meant to do other than the public purpose. But, you might want to consider a few points:

1. This was never a secret meeting (or group of secret meetings)from the get-go. From what I gather, I'll bet the CommUnity 1st organizers are going hoarse re-explaining this over and over and over. That Times-Sun newspaper editorial no more reflects reality than the man-in-the-moon. And, the editor should probably make an apology to his journalism professors for the embarassment.

2. Because I was there (invited in my capacity as a civic association trustee), I saw no attempt to dicide solutions in ''secrecy''. If you've ever participated in a facilitated brain-storming session (generate ideas, write them down, participant prioritizing) in a non-judgemental arena, you'll have a good idea of what went on. I give Lisa and Sarah an ''A'' for their effort, noted they carried it off despite the ''in-experience'' factor with this kind of arena, and still retain my doubts that some of the present elected officials in the city, school district, and township will ever pay attention to whatever becomes of the inputs made. Some of the inputs might be considered downright silly, but you get that in these group settings. I don't have a problem with that either because it's part of the process.

3. Your comment about civic association leaders in a follow-on response is duly noted... But, how about some due to those of us who ''work'' for our neighborhoods (supporting those who neither have the time or inclination to participate). BTW, the -0- pay we get is great! And, you get into some interesting conversations! If you've got an association in your neighhood, jump in and get the neighbors talking to you (and then accomplish something in a responsible manner). The positive comments are appreciated, the negatives from the unknowings hurt.

Bottomline is this was a closed (not secret) session and the first of others to acquire inputs. No decisions made. Just information/suggestions collected. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some old adages apply here: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Or: If at first you don't succeed; try, try again.

No matter what, I'm still planning to invest my time (and a few bucks too) into getting some leaders elected who truly represent this community. We've had far too many false prophets over the past years who have cost us plenty...

Please turn the lights on

Isn?’t this fine mess we are all in? The T-S has an editorial about a closed meeting and now those of the privileged class here in Pickerington that attended and they say nothing happens. Just some chatter nothing more nothing less. Clearly when 2 dozen citizens meet and they are talking about community problems and at least five of these people that are elected by the local voters then isn?’t it reasonable that the press be there to report what happened? I am sure John Dolske is an honorable man and he wouldn?’t lie but wait he was given time to speak. His concerns were listened too. The other 16,000 voters in the area were not given that same chance and they have no idea who even attended this meeting. Did this handful of citizens influence our elected leaders? Was there a proposal that these elected people will act on? Who knows? Did these selected speakers cover all of the topics? Who selected them? Will their neighborhoods get special attention in the future?

The common defense of this action now is to blame a biased paper. I see up the page you blame even who they endorsed last election. Strange since they don?’t agree with your views in their editorial, then they must be biased in favor of whom this time? Maybe it is some plot again by the evil city PR people. Nope I don?’t even think the city had any people there. Did they? Who knows?


No I think the T-S is correct this time. The purpose of the press is to report objectively about the community. If they are denied this access then we are all left to wonder just what was going on at that meeting. If they are given access and they fail to report or failed to attend then I would criticized them it that case, because they were failing to do their duty. Just merely trying to report and being denied I fault the organizers of this effort no matter how well their intentions were.

You all lost a big chunk of community support with the way you handled this meeting. I fear your continued arrogance about this matter will only further erode your credibility. This is a small town and those attending that meeting will soon be known to everyone and I am afraid your public images will suffer. I know I am looking a little differently at your issues now and I wonder just how many others feel as I do?



By ReBob

So what!

I find it funny that there is such furor over this meeting when the city has been having ''closed'' meetings with developers to hammer out pre-annexation agreements and giveaways since 1999.

Of course they eventually ''come out'' to the public during the city council vote to approve them, via emergency, with no committee action or DISCUSSION, NO PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING SUCH AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE, remember that ''councilmatic'' waiver of commitee action kicks in then.... I think Mapes invented this word.

In other words, big decisions are made and tax dollars bound by placing a ''contract'' with the city and the developer in these agreements,promising zoning densities and classifications, tap fee waivers, legal expense payments and road costs all to be paid for by the taxpayers to benefit the developers and landowners of these deals. Why didn't the press pick up on this?