|
|
Dear Brian W. and other concern citizens:
Brian, I share your concern that many of those who seek reform mistakenly, although no doubt inadvertently, disparage members of the community who reside in small homes, apartments and condominiums. These people are as much a part of this community as any other and provide the diversity that is needed for any community. The point is that a community should be planned rather than developed haphazardly at the latest whim of developers, many of who have no long-term interest in the community and seek only short-term profit. Of course, one should, however, not expect developers to act differently, as their legitimate concern is the profit of their enterprises. What is disconcerting is that our elected officials appear more concerned with the desires of the developers than with the community as a whole.
The most recent example of this occurred at the last meetings of the Planning and Zoning Committee and the Service Committee. At P and Z, the committee recommended approval of nine final plats for residential developments. On Thursday, eight of these received approval at Service Committee. I opposed these developments, but was outvoted by Mr. Parker and Mr. Maxey. The ninth was tabled, but will likely receive approval when Mr. Hughes returns. This means that on Tuesday the council will vote on final approval for eight new plats. Given the past votes of my fellow council members, I have no doubts that these will be approved.
What is the reason for the rapid acceleration of the approval of these final plats? The reason, as acknowledged publicly by Mr. Parker, is that the developers wish to have their plans receive final approval by city council before any vote can occur on the proposed ordinances seeking to restrict growth can be voted on by the public at the next election. The new ordinances, even if approved by the electorate, cannot, as a matter of law, effect developments that have received final plat approval.
In order to understand why I am opposing this rapid acceleration of plat approvals, it is necessary to understand the effect of residential development on the community. Almost every study on the effect of development of the cost of community services concludes that residential development imposes a tax burden on the community. For every single-family residential unit, the cost of providing services is approximately fifty percent higher than the generated revenue. In other terms, for every dollar in revenue, the cost of services is approximately $1.50.
A home resides within different overlapping political entities: i.e., a city, township county and school district. The cost consequences, however, are not equally shared by the different political entities. A city, such as Pickerington, may benefit in the short run by rapid infusion of income taxes. Looking at the short run, a city appears healthy. In the long run, even a city will eventually be damaged as the cost of infrastructure rises. In that regard, witness the millions we are now expending on new fire stations, police stations and roads, not to mention the increase in number of employees providing governmental services. We are also carrying a termendous debt load.
In both the short run and the long run the most drastically effected entity is the school system that loses money with every student added. When residential development is uncontrolled and increases rapidly, the schools must come back to the voters with ever increasing frequency for more money to overcome the shortfall. This is the situation we face today.
By David Shaver
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Letter 2
The remedy is planned growth with emphasis on diversity. Every community needs commercial development to provide revenues that do not make the same demands for services as required by residential development. We are not doing this in our community. The school system cannot control development. Only the city and township can do so. In the case of the township, its hands are somewhat tied by the limitations on political power that townships can employ. This means that the municipal governments must take the lead. In this regard, we have sadly failed the community. I would note that even with the aggressive annexation plans of the city, the area slated for commercial development if annexation eventually occurs lies primarily within the Canal Winchester school district.
This brings us to the issue of why it is important to oppose these pal approvals. I believe that there are three primary reasons.
First, the tendency of city council to favor the concerns of the developers over that of the community must be stopped. There is only so much land that is available for development. Preferential treatment for residential development diminishes the ability to encourage commercial development. The rapid acceleration of plat approvals at the wishes of the developers indicates a willingness on the part of the city to encourage any residential development that is proposed. In fact, I would be hard pressed to remember the city rejecting any request for residential development. We may ask for prettier landscaping, but simply saying no does not appear to be in our lexicon. Moreover, by gifting sewer and water taps and roadways to developers we are actually diminishing any benefits that we would receive from residential development. If we say no to residential development, owners of the property will turn to commercial uses. At worst the land would remain agricultural, which, according to the same studies noted above, would be financially beneficial as such land requires only about thirty-three cents for service outlays for each dollar of revenue produced.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, the repaid infusion of single residential units is detrimental to the financial stability of the school system for the reason previously noted. Moreover, the acceleration of the rate of residential development affects the ability of the school system to plan. If you will turn to the projections for growth proffered by the school system in the latest calendar, you will note that the projections assume about four hundred new students per year. Since each residential unit produces about one student, the projections rely upon an assumption of four hundred homes a year. Historically, this is accurate, as the township and city have each contributed about two hundred new homes per year, albeit with the township spread over a wider geographical area. However, the current city rate is about four hundred a year, or double the projected rate. Rapid approval of new development will further accelerate this rate. This means that the schools will need to ask for new buildings and hence more tax payer money than anticipated. The problem is compounded by the tendency of the city to grant TIF?’s to retail development, which produces little in income tax revenue. For those of you who do not understand, A TIF funnels tax money that would ordinarily given to the school back to the developer for ?“capital improvement?”. While this makes sense for some commercial projects, it makes very little sense for retail operations.
By David Shaver
|
|
|
Open Letter 3
The overall effect is that our schools are becoming increasingly desperate for money. I would expect nearly annual levy campaigns. Obviously this cannot go on.
As an aside, I would like to congratulate Ms. Oakes and Mr. Rigelman, who appear to understand this dilemma. Mr. Rigelman in particular has been quite eloquent in his recent appeals to the voters to turn their attention to this problem. Unfortunately, the school board as a whole has remained silent. My understanding is that this is from a concern that they remain ?“apolitical?”. What the school board needs to understand is that silence is also a political act. The maxim in the law is that silence equates approval. When the schools are threatened by government policy, it is the duty of the school board to voice criticism of that policy regardless of whether it ruffles the political feathers of old friends on city council.
Last, the measures should be opposed out of respect for democratic principles. Over the last few months many citizens have worked hard to get measures limiting growth on the ballot. I do not know whether these measures will be successful, but is certainly a cynical act to render the rights of citizens to vote on such measures meaningless. Assume that in November the voters do vote to impose restrictions on growth. The victory will be hollow. These measures cannot effect developments that have received final plat approval. Accordingly, by accelerating approval o all developments currently being planned by developers, the new law will have no practical effect. Over the months I have been on council I have been dismayed that the concerns of developers are seemingly more important than the concerns of citizens. This appear to simply reaffirm that perception.
Brian, I would suggest that you and other citizens who are concerned about these issues come and speak at the next council meeting. While I candidly do not believe that anything you say will have any effect, it nevertheless needs to be said. In the interim, I applaud you and the other individuals, whether they agree with me or not, for utilizing this forum to express your concerns.
Respectfully yours,
David B. Shaver
Pickerington City Council
By David Shaver
|
|
|
Amen
Mr. Shaver, you could not have stated our community's current predicament more succinctly or more eloquently. We are at the crossroads. We can either seize the moment and start to plan for our community's future, or we can leave our future in the hands of developers and their minions, who have no interest in building a community with green space, parks, a sound tax base and great schools.
People are just beginning to realize that it is impossible to sustain quality schools on a tax base as weak as Pickerington's. Our assessed valuation per pupil is just about the lowest in the area. Commercial property makes up just 18% of our tax base, again just about the lowest percentage in the area. The bond millage we will need to keep up with our explosive growth will make it all but impossible to get voter approval of the operating millage we will need to keep our schools running soundly. Without some conscious attention to the kind of tax base we are building, our schools will weaken and deteriorate. It is inevitable.
Pickerington is in the proverbial cat bird's seat. Developers are desperate to build here. We can hold out for quality development. We do not have to waive tap in fees, impact fees, zoning restrictions and the like. We can tell developers, if you want to build in Pickerington, this is the price. If they decide the price is too high, and elect not to build here, we lose nothing. Additional residential development of any sort is a burden and not a benefit to those of us who live here now.
This is why I cannot begin to fathom the actions of our current city council (yourself excepted), mayor, city manager, zoning and planning board, etc. There is absolutely no way that one could even begin to argue that the actions and policies of these people are in the public interest.
Keep speaking out, Mr. Shaver. Maybe we won't be able to turn things around, but we can certainly take a good shot at it.
By Bruce Rigelman
|
