Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

city is not wise

We have been down the road on this issue Public Hearing announcements with the city staff members many times in writing and email last year. Teh same ''charter language'' requirement was utilized to justify this ridiculous practice by several city staff members.

Proposed solutions by a township trouble maker who still has a few brains left:

1. The city could advertise in the local papers IN ADDITION to the widely circulated county paper, Lancaster Eagle Gazette, just like the Township and Canal Winchester do. This would reach a wider audience than the current practice which only reaches 525 residents of the entire township.

2. An astute council member could propose an amendment to the city charter adding a requirement to advertise in the locally in more widely circulated local papers. This would give the city the comfort of having a rule to refer to when questioned,(this seems to create comfort for them and allows them to ignore the problem) just like they do now in hiding behind the current policy rule on advertising.

3.The city routinely advertises vacancies on zoning boards, etc in the local papers. I guess in order to get applicants, one needs to reach the public in larger numbers so actions they take in this matter make sense! Why is the other matter different? Whose interests are they serving?

City of Pickerington... don't give the public a reason to question your motives for not WIDELY ADVERTISING public hearings to the members of the community by adhering to the limited charter guidance on advertising that you hide behind now. Change the policy to be in line with the Ohio Revised Code and prudent governing BY THE PEOPLE, not the developers.

So what you're telling us is....

it is cheaper for the City to advertise in the L E G than in the Dispatch. Fair enough. However what you are forgetting to tell us is the circulation of the L E G in the City of Pickerington vs. the circulation of the Dispatch in the City. I understand you are showing us the letter of the law (re: Charter) and that's appreciated, but wouldn't the INTENT of public notifications be better served by advertising in the papers with the largest circulation in the City?

I realize the City is obligated to operate within the confines of its Charter and the laws of the State. Isn't the City also morally obligated to take the best measures it can in notifying its citizens about pending meetings/hearings, etc.?

At the February 5th City Council meeting, Mr. Shankland asked the procedures of notifications of adjacent property owners when there is action pending on other properties. In an answer that was a combination of several City employees, there seemed to be a big shrug. They said he was notified by certified mail. He said he never received it. So the obvious question was asked if it was sent return receipt requested. Shrug. Then they were asked if they had received the letter back. Shrug. Then they were asked the backup plan if it was received back and there were shrugs and then someone said they assumed that it would be sent regular mail after that. Well, you know the old adage about assuming.

Now how many property owners could there be affected by the same city action that Mr. Shankland was affected by? Less than 5? Less than 10? In most cases, how many landowners are affected by this scenario? Any way you look at it, if the City wanted, they could take a leap of good faith, they could find a more certain method of delivery of notification of public hearings like this. Yes, I know, you?’ll think I?’m insane by suggesting this, but couldn?’t they make an attempt to hand deliver such things. It?’s not like there are so many of these hearings that they would have to hire a delivery person, but come on, if there are less than 10 people affected and they used certified mail (return receipt requested) and then received some back as undelivered, couldn?’t one of the good old boys hop on their Harley and just drive it over there?

OK, OK, I?’ll stop the madness. I?’ll stop talking about good faith, morals and good intentions. After all, this is the same group that so vehemently denied any sort of collusion in Mr. Washington?’s resignation and Mr. Maxey?’s reappointment, even after it was first reported less than 2 weeks after the election. Then reported in the papers several weeks later and again denied. The same group who verbally brutalized the public attendees at the 2/5 Council meeting to the point of being on the verge of a fatal coronary.

The same old same old?…?…?…?…?…?…..


By Maverick

Right on one point

You are correct on one issue: The Clerk should know, or ask for a return receipt for certified mail re: a public hearing. That's a little sloppy.

As far as the Ohio Revised Code is concerned, the advertising stipulation for publishing public hearings in the newspaper of record IS what the law requires.

Intent of the Law

If our laws were interpreted based on the intent of the language used, then there would be no way for anyone to discern right from wrong, and no way for judges to rule in an objective way.

The Ohio Revised Code is written the way it is for a reason. Otherwise, governments would, for example, be allowed to limit their advertising to the smallest, most obscure publications in print, and not even be required to publicize public meetings in the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, let alone the Columbus Dispatch.