Hypocritical actions
It is very apparent at this point that these same council members were helped into office by none other than some of the Pickerington Local School Broad members. A little over a year ago there was the committee formed something about a Strong Violet Township. Some called them the dirty dozen. They were made up of partly Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce members. They put on a huge media blitz by inviting the local ?“This Weak?” Reporter who took pictures and gave them front page coverage. Where is the group today, and what did they accomplish? Their purpose was to put pressure on the Township Trustees so they would back away from the CEDA agreement with Canal Winchester.
Two of their members Larry Sigman and Debbie Carlier both wrote letters to the local papers urging the township trustees not complete this agreement with Canal Winchester. In Mr. Sigman?’s letter he acknowledged that he knew since 1997 that Pickerington planned to expand and annex into the Canal school district. Why would Mr. Sigman support the City Council in annexation of another school district? Mrs. Carlier also wrote letters and spoke at the CEDA hearings. Why would she support the city annexing into another school district? Isn?’t that hypocritical at the very least? Aren?’t these the same board members that complained at the growth summit meetings in the summer of 2000 that Columbus was causing most of the problems of growth for the PLSD?
Then in October of 2001 just before the election thinking they would gain some political points with the public City Councilman Doug Parker announced that they were passing a ordinance authorizing two TIF?’s. One TIF was to build a road near the Windmiller Ponds area. The second was to build another road near 240 and 256. Mr. Parker gave credit to Mrs. Carlier and Mrs. Lori Sanders. Both were board members at the time. In exchange the girls were credited with a $100,000 gift each to the schools from the city which would have been money coming from school tax dollars anyway.
Mr. Postage claims also to be a huge supporter of the schools. Is bankrupting the Pickerington schools helpful to these children?’s future? Mr. Parker claimed all these new taxes we get($7 million) but the schools would have to wait about 10 years before receiving that first penny. Councilman William Wright sees no problems with the school system. He taught his kids to accept hardships. Monebrake attended PLSD when they were doing split sessions. He sees no problem either. Fox has greater ambitions so he plans to be gone once he gets elected to a higher political position. Parker plans to have his vending machines dispensing golf balls and he will be set for life.
So it all comes down to the basic question: Since 1997, what has the Pickerington City Council done to help the school district control growth? Remember that is what the two committees the board commissioned to study and growth was one of their projects. Since the City has failed to control residential growth, why has the above three school board members supported the actions of this council?
Who has benefited the most since 1997 from the actions of the schools board, its levy supporters, and the Pickerington City Council? Is this who a person or a group? Using a generic word for the beneficiary for these actions you could use developers. Or should the word be developer?
By Elephant Memory
It is very apparent at this point that these same council members were helped into office by none other than some of the Pickerington Local School Broad members. A little over a year ago there was the committee formed something about a Strong Violet Township. Some called them the dirty dozen. They were made up of partly Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce members. They put on a huge media blitz by inviting the local ?“This Weak?” Reporter who took pictures and gave them front page coverage. Where is the group today, and what did they accomplish? Their purpose was to put pressure on the Township Trustees so they would back away from the CEDA agreement with Canal Winchester.
Two of their members Larry Sigman and Debbie Carlier both wrote letters to the local papers urging the township trustees not complete this agreement with Canal Winchester. In Mr. Sigman?’s letter he acknowledged that he knew since 1997 that Pickerington planned to expand and annex into the Canal school district. Why would Mr. Sigman support the City Council in annexation of another school district? Mrs. Carlier also wrote letters and spoke at the CEDA hearings. Why would she support the city annexing into another school district? Isn?’t that hypocritical at the very least? Aren?’t these the same board members that complained at the growth summit meetings in the summer of 2000 that Columbus was causing most of the problems of growth for the PLSD?
Then in October of 2001 just before the election thinking they would gain some political points with the public City Councilman Doug Parker announced that they were passing a ordinance authorizing two TIF?’s. One TIF was to build a road near the Windmiller Ponds area. The second was to build another road near 240 and 256. Mr. Parker gave credit to Mrs. Carlier and Mrs. Lori Sanders. Both were board members at the time. In exchange the girls were credited with a $100,000 gift each to the schools from the city which would have been money coming from school tax dollars anyway.
Mr. Postage claims also to be a huge supporter of the schools. Is bankrupting the Pickerington schools helpful to these children?’s future? Mr. Parker claimed all these new taxes we get($7 million) but the schools would have to wait about 10 years before receiving that first penny. Councilman William Wright sees no problems with the school system. He taught his kids to accept hardships. Monebrake attended PLSD when they were doing split sessions. He sees no problem either. Fox has greater ambitions so he plans to be gone once he gets elected to a higher political position. Parker plans to have his vending machines dispensing golf balls and he will be set for life.
So it all comes down to the basic question: Since 1997, what has the Pickerington City Council done to help the school district control growth? Remember that is what the two committees the board commissioned to study and growth was one of their projects. Since the City has failed to control residential growth, why has the above three school board members supported the actions of this council?
Who has benefited the most since 1997 from the actions of the schools board, its levy supporters, and the Pickerington City Council? Is this who a person or a group? Using a generic word for the beneficiary for these actions you could use developers. Or should the word be developer?
By Elephant Memory
