Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pass the petitions

Posted in: PATA
  • Stock
  • duster
  • Respected Neighbor
  • USA
  • 161 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor
To those people in Pickerington that think the three Petitions that were filed with the city on January 8th of this year are heading to the ballot, they are probably mistaken. The ONLY decision that is before our esteemed Pickerington City Council is either to put the initiatives on the ballot or not, but they continue to debate the merits of the language whether we will be sued or not and what effect it will have on the cost of our local housing market, they also tried to infer that some of the circulators were misinformed.

The language on these three petitions is not negotiable by either Mrs. Ricketts or me. The 350 plus voters that signed these three petitions placed their signatures on them based on the language they read, just before they signed. Nowhere on these petition did the signers give Mrs. Ricketts and me permission to negotiate the language.

Mr. Fox promised on April 16th that he was going to place all three petitions on the ballot as they were written. He further stated that he was listening to the voters. The City Council had access to the wording of these three petitions since October 24th, 2001.

I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN THEM AMPLE TIME TO FULL FILL THEIR PROMISES.

Mr. Mapes hired an outside lawyer, at the City?’s expense, to find a reason to with hold up sending the initiatives to the Board of Elections. Then pressure mounted and he reversed himself and sent them to the board for verification, probably thinking we would fall short in the number of verified signatures.

Saying the petitions were invalid on April 16th, Linda Fersch, refused to send the petitions on to the Fairfield Board of Elections to be placed on the November ballot. At this point the City Council was off the hook so to speak. Then Mr. Fox jumps up to save the day. He sponsored the three ordinances to place them on the ballot.

The facts are that they are trying to buy time and miss this November?’s ballot so they can continue to put in residential developments. At the same time, they are trying to personally bash local residents that have some very real concerns about how this city council functions.

The message that these three petitions are trying to tell the Pickerington City Council is to stop their current practices of passing everything by emergency that is not really an emergency (like zoning). Passing a zoning measure by emergency denies the residents their rights in running referendums if they disagreed with the zoning decision. Even the density initiative by Mrs. Ricketts only asks that the city council have open and fair hearings and that the city council members enter into these public hearings unbiased. Unlike; Mr. Parker testifying in favor of annexing and rezoning the Diley farm to mostly 8500 sq ft lots. The third initiative prohibits giving away the taxpayers money without any public hearing or notice. Remember the 8185 Farms this council authorized the City Manager to enter into this contract without ever seeing the pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Postage said, ?“That it was legal and Mrs. Bushman knew what they wanted?” (So why vote?). When they were questioned about this going through the service committee Mrs. Bushman said, ?“They were passed through by waivers?” (no public hearing). No one in the public received any information until it was too late to change or stop the agreements. Simply put, NO MORE BACK ROOM DEALS!


Voters deserve to decide.

All in all Mr. Hackworth and Mrs. Ricketts you?’ve been too tolerant of these developer back clowns in ?“public?” office here in Corruptington. I applaud both of your efforts and the others who worked on these initiatives through last fall and into January. Your diligence in attempting to follow the ever-changing protocol, mud slinging, and name calling by City Officials is remarkable. The puppet string (and purse string) holders have now had their say about why they don?’t want things to change and puppet office holders are doing their bidding.

I don?’t need to play email tag or discussion page banter about anything worded in these initiatives. Real people can read the language of the initiatives here on this website and understand that getting citizens voices back in community decisions is what they?’re all about. I?’ll just contact each of you to see what help I can be in getting the ball rolling again without the influences of the puppets or the puppeteers.


By John Q. Public
The Parade is coming?

I see in the paper that Mayor Hughes now is trying to find a cause and effect on his dear friend Bill Fannin coming to town next year with the Parade of Homes. In recent years that parade has shown off $500K plus homes. I doubt they are going to jam that price home onto those R-4 lots that the city has approved for Shawnee Crossing.

Isn?’t the name of that development a little insensitive? Are they going to put up Tee Pee?’s to keep with the Native American theme? I guess, after a little thought, it all fits together. Pickerington has decided to stay in the mode that Daryl Barry put them in a few weeks ago. Remember he stated at a council meeting that urban sprawl started with the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock? He went on to talk about how the white man stole the Indian?’s Land. I heard he brought tears to the people?’s eyes. So the question is will this be another rape and pillage event? Why change now? How do you get the traffic through town? If there is traffic.


By John Smith
Maybe John Q?’s got something

Nothing like a good jigsaw puzzle.






Is the Richard Brahm on page #1 of the June 24, 2002 SE Messenger the same Brahm, who represented the City of Pickerington in an annexation hearing?





Is it the same Richard Brahm ?– representing Dominion Homes and M/I Homes in the same paper on page #2 speaking out against density reducing zoning issues before Pickerington City Council?





Is it the same Richard C. Brahm, of Powell, OH listed as a campaign contributor to Pickerington City Council candidates Maxey ($250.00), Wright ($500.00), and Parker ($250.00) in PATA?’s last newsletter?





Is it the very same Richard Brahm that was touted by Pickerington City Officials as a ?“Merger Specialist?” in what killed our community?’s Growth Summit meetings of 2000?





Is it the same Richard Brahm that received per Section 1 of Pickerington City Council Ordinance #2000-106 ?–
?“The City Manager is hereby authorized to spend not more than One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) on the employment of Attorney Richard Brahm to represent Pickerington and the Ohio Coalition of Equitable Annexation (OCEA)?” to fighting against efforts in the General Assembly, December 2000 regarding annexation reform?

In fitting together the puzzle pieces ?– does a true picture form?




By Puzzler
Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_1682638-attention.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow