Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

READ TODAYS DISPATCH PAGE B10, LOOK HOW EVEN THE DISPATCH HAS SLANTED TOWARD THE CITY, THIS IS REDICULAS, LOOK HOW MAPES EVEN HIT THE P.C. ISSUES OF LOW HOUSING ETC. HOW STUPID THIS IS ALL NOT TRUE! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT ZONING 2 HOUSES PER ACRE--I HAVE CHECKED WITH SEVERAL LAWYERS AND THEY HAVE STATED THAT IF THATS THE ZONING THE BUILDERS KNOW IT AND CAN BUY IT OR LET IT GO. IF THEY WANT TO REZONE THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCEDURES. I EMPLOY SOME OF YOU WRITERS OUT THERE THAT CAN WRITE EFFECTIVELY TO WRITE AN EDITORIAL TO THE PAPER AND PRESENT OUR POSITION, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING--IF NOT WE ARE ALL IN TROUBLE.
THANKS BRUCE ROOKSTOOL

Fun Quotes

Bruce,

While I couldn?’t find the specific article you referenced online, I did find the following interesting quotes. Hopefully the voters can put it all together.


Revenue continues to grow in Pickerington, whose income-tax base has hit $1.85 million this year, up from $1.62 million at this point last year.

Officials laud development as the reason.

''There's a lot of building going on, so we are not facing problems,'' Pickerington Finance Director Linda Fersch said. ''When development is stagnant, then we'll have to raise taxes.''

''This district is in some deep hurt; we do have financial difficulty,'' she (board Vice President Gail E. Oakes) said.

Only one audience member at the board meeting spoke about the tax issues. Resident Jim Brink suggested that the board pressure government officials to control residential growth in the district to slow district enrollment.

''We're not asking for a penny more than we need,'' member Lori A. Sanders said in voting for the combined tax issue that district officials say is needed to build two elementary schools and erase a $6 million deficit expected by 2004.

ARTICLE

SORRY THE ARTICAL IS ON PAGE B10 AND ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES FLAWED, CITY OFFICIALS SAYS/
UNREAL HOW IT IS SLANTED!!!!!!

Vale attempt to intimidate


So what does this Dispatch article really say?

1. Does it say that the Pickerington Law Director already knows that the newest versions of these petition issues, now almost 10 months old, were filed on the correct and not one year outdated forms? As was his dodge the first time around.

2. Does it say that the correct # of signatures has already been determined valid by the Fairfield County Board of Elections? Since the personnel at the BOE was proficient enough to handle the old R4 Referendum in about a day and a half they are likely already completed with the signature verifications.

3. Does it say that Pickerington Officials intend to stand behind ?“pre-annexation agreements?” that provide zoning determinations prior to public input and promotes preferential fees structures for some service utility users? Shouldn?’t these processes be more ?“illegal?” than a public voting process of changing the City?’s zoning, fees, or ?“emergency?” legislation usage.

4. Does this article further illustrate the ?“close?” relationship between City Officials and residential developers? Just look at who?’s quoted and on which side of the issue they stand.

What this article says to me is that this City?’s Law Director and his residential developer attorney?’s are scared and they should be!! This article is nothing more than a vale attempt to intimidate the public and should be recognized as such.


By Wise old owl