Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Webmaster,


By the 6 new postings to the ?“Our Pages?” section, is it safe to assume that you are trying to point out that:
* For at least the last 5 years, other people besides PATA have been trying to tell the City and Schools that growth is a problem?
* That the 3 main governing bodies should work together for controlled and balanced growth?
* That the schools should always be considered first and foremost when annexing and increasing density?
* Are you trying to tell us that the negative impact on schools caused by uncontrolled residential growth is not something new that just was realized with the latest chapter in the unending levy saga?
* Are you trying to tell us that negative school impacts have been evident since the current high school was built?

Thank goodness Webmaster, that you are trying to tell us that our problems are not new. Hopefully, you might get a few more people to understand or at least remember for more than a week or so. You might even win over a few of the indifferent, lazy voters to turn out and make a difference.


By Nobody

Goings on in the back room

I think the WEB Master left out some important details. In April of 1998 Lewis Stemen called Craig Maxey to ask they Mr. Maxey pass the proposed rezoning of the Preston Trails property as emergency. Why you may ask? Because the school had an agreement with the land owner that if they rezoned the property as they wanted then the owner would sell PLSD enough land to build the Diley Middle school at market prices. There have been rumors for years now that Joyce Bushman had an option on this property and cashed in by having it rezoned to accommodate over 500 more homes to the Pickerington Schools.

I don?’t know about others but if only six months had past since we had this big dog and pony show about the uncontrolled residential growth in the district we have the school district. Yet we have the school administration conspiring with the Pickerington City Council to add 500 more homes and pass it as an emergency so that the citizens wouldn?’t have the chance to run a referendum on the vote.

These are the very same people now asking for more money and they now claim they have no control over the city council.

All along we have been thinking the two entities didn?’t work together.


By Music Man

6 new postings

I requested the Webmaster post this information so that readers of this site would understand that absolutely none of these ?“radical?” statements and issues that PATA is presenting is anything that many smaller, well-respected citizens haven?’t brought forth before. It also illustrates that very small groups with the power to make these suggested changes toward a brighter future have, as yet, refused to do so.

Inquisitive minds want to know .

I?’ve read the most recent stuff about all those committees that were suggesting stuff and then remembered the Growth Summit meetings of some time back. I track through this website and found this letter posted-

Letter from Mayor about cooperation between Violet Twp & City

A Letter from the Mayor to Violet Township Officials dated 1-16-2001

This is posted well down the list of Our Pages posting to the left
- since there is no hyperlink between the Discussion Pages and Our Pages the URL is listed below.
http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/clubextra.html?nclubid=68303919&nid=323575884

Mayor Randall Hughes called off the Growth Summit meetings and said....

In regard to the issues identified at prior meetings such as more consistent zoning codes, annexation agreements, and CEDAs and JEDDs, the City is already working to address each of these issues. As previously discussed, we are committed to removing barriers to annexation and we are currently passing legislation to reimburse the Township on the road and bridge levy, making annexation a win-win situation for the City and the Township. This would especially enable the community to acquire a business park, bringing an increased tax pool and creation of new jobs that will benefit our residents, our schools, and improve our quality of living.

In light of the most recent confusion over our zoning code, I am appointing a special committee to evaluate our zoning code relative to the township zoning code. We are also meeting with representatives of the Pickerington Local School District to discuss ?“make whole?” provisions on future Tax Increment Financing districts.

So Randy please answer my questions.

1. How is your government zoning consistent with the Township? No more dribble about this and that sub-division. Give me YOUR zoning code versus THEIR zoning code. Please include all zonings during YOUR term of office that have occurred at the lowest possible density per YOUR own code.

2. Annexation agreements, lets see PATA has listed boatloads of your ?“pre-annexation agreements?”, is this what you meant? Isn?’t this CONTRACT ZONING, for which your own Law Director is now concerned about honoring more than letting your own voters have their wishes heard?
3. CEDA?’s & JEDD?’s are you still ?“working on this?”, why don?’t you show us your results of these efforts for the past 19 months?

4. The ?“Win-Win?” of Road & Bridge levy reimbursement.... Please, using the Kohler-Painter annexation, give us a dollar amount per acre of what the Township could have expected in this annexation. PATA members have spoken to my civic group indicating this was pennies per acre, where they correct?

5. A business park.... so where is this little gem. Is it going to be in another community?’s school district as has been stated repeatedly and as PATA showed in maps last year? If so, how does it support OUR schools, which are hitting us up again for more funds and buildings?

6. Does your special committee on zoning issues ever meet? Shouldn?’t they also have some ?“results?” by now?

7. Schools are back for more money again so your TIF solution seems to have made a hole rather than ''make whole'', what's your next bright idea?


Sir, I think you?’ve got some ?‘splaining to do!



By Curious George