Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The PATA Web site has provided a link to the Lancaster Eagle Gazette. To your left you will see the article written by Walt Williams of the Gazette. He reports on the comparison of Pickerington School system and the Lancaster School System. Both systems are trying for a November operating Levy ballot issue.

Let?’s see now how do I approach this touchy subject? The voter?’s of the PLSD have been accused of being greedy with the funding of their schools. Yet right here in our own county we have the Lancaster School district that hasn?’t passed a levy since the 1960s. Yet they deliver $7,984 per each pupil in their schools system. The average tax is only $750 per household. Lancaster school district residents pay no school income tax.

Now the PLSD just passed a levy renewal in May of 2002. We passed a new operating levy of 3 mills in November of 2000 along with the funds to build a new High School. The taxpayer?’s of PLSD pay $1,069 per household and we only deliver $6,854 per each pupil?’s education.

By turning the school levies down since the 1960s, Lancaster has been able to deliver more money than the Pickerington Local School District to each pupil. They also have developed industry and a larger commercial tax base for their schools. Maybe it is time we try Lancaster?’s approach. They may know something we don?’t.





By Dr. Pepper

have we hit bottom yet?

Mayor Hughes claims we have ?“BALANCED GROWTH IN PICKERINGTON?”. Could the Mayor have planted that seed of truth that was wrapped in a lie? He has repeatedly said, ?“We (Pickerington) develop one dollar of commercial property for every three dollars of residential property?”.

Actually much of what he claims has been annexed in from the Township. Other properties have TIFed. Still more have just changed locations. So the net gain to the PLSD has been minimal. He can hang his hat on very little NEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTY in Pickerington. Maybe PATA needs to do a little research and correct the Mayor?’s figures to more the current information instead of the 1999 figures the Mayor intertwines with his little tales.

Alcoholics never seek help until they hit the bottom. Many times a triggering event forces them to realize their problems. The question will be in the coming months is whether this request for additional taxes from our school district will be our ?“alcoholic bottom?”. Will this proposed school levy be that triggering event, to force the voters and the leaders to come to terms with OUR problems? Like the Alcoholics, we must look into our collective mirrors the next morning and see the damage we have done to not only to our lives but the lives of our Children, the older residents and any future residents of this school district. Must we all be house poor to enjoy a safe community, good schools, and a sense of community worth? Will we still listen to and respond to the rhetoric of the perpetual school supporters that blindly go out year after year to solicit even more money than the year before, only to find ourselves deeper in debt and with no progress of ever resolving our problems.

IT IS TIME TO WIPE THE FOG OFF OF THE MIRROR VOTERS AND TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT OURSELEVES?


By Dr. Bob S. & Bill W.

There is a way!

Dr Bob and Bill, No matter what the city manager wants to do, no annexation can take place without the county commissioner's approval. I am running for county commissioner this November 5. Check out my discussion...How to control annexation. Vote for me this fall and there will be no new annexation with out a tax imposed to pay for schools, utilities and police,fire protection.