Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Am I missing the obvious?

As found on PATA?’s website, the language of the residential density restriction enacted through the referendum is as follows:

Section 1

All land being developed for residential/multi-family purposes that is not currently subject to an approved final plat shall be developed at a density of up to two (2) residential units per acre, multiplied by the number of contiguous acres in the project.

Section 2

This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and hereafter the earliest period allowed by law.

As I understand the legal objections by the City, concern with constitutionality stems from concerns with (1) retroactive application, and (2) fair housing laws. However, isn?’t that a matter of interpretation and application?

1. Section 2 clearly states the law is to take effect at the earliest period allowed by law ?– so why not apply the law prospectively and not retroactively and avoid the harm which would be necessary for a party to have standing to file a lawsuit.

2. This ordinance does not appear to prevent apartments and single-family homes. As long as the average number of housing units over the entire property is 2/acre, the plat should comply with the new law. This would allow more green space in developments with smaller lots.

3. If City Council has the power to pass or change existing laws, why can?’t they amend the new law so that it honors the will of the voters but avoids legal controversy?

Again ?– am I missing the obvious? I?’m just trying to understand the issues. David - maybe you can shed some light on these issues?


By Sara

The will of the people

Sara,

You?’ve cut to the chase of the issue. By interpretation of the Board of Election the Ordinance created with the passage of Issue 17 (also Issue 18 and 19) by wide majority of the voters has taken effect Dec 7, 2002.

So the questions are what is all the squawking by the BIA and why doesn?’t the City Law Director follow the law passed by the citizens of this community?

Having been in attendance at the court hearings of the Township annexation issues (316 acres South & 362 acres North) and the Board of County Commissioners it was obvious that City of Pickerington officials and legal representatives of the City presented the arguments of Pre-Annexation agreement contracts to defend their actions. In such, the City has admitted to contract zoning and also the points related to Issue 18 (?“give a way?’s) of tap fees as a method to induce annexations. For this the City is heading into Appeals Court to defend their actions. They are also headed to County Court for acceptance of one of these annexations against a court injunction.

So the smoke and mirrors of ?“fair housing?” and ?“lost property rights?” are nothing more than red herrings in an attempt to honor those deals.

Since many know the actions of the courts and the laws more than I, in my layman?’s terms it appears that the City of Pickerington is willing to battle to the last taxpayer dollar in the courts to defend their Pre-Annexation ?“deals?”. The ultimate question before us is does this City have the right to bypass the public in contractually establishing zoning, then after the zoning has been agreed to in contract, holding perfunctory zoning hearings? Secondarily, does the City have the best interest of their current utility system users at heart when they offer reductions to some ?“select few?”. Both of these practices by and large can be summed up in increasing residential construction rates and even subsidizing them. The lands in question with the 316 and 362 acre parcels already had utilities to them provided by Fairfield County Utilities, just not the reduction of fees promoted by city officials. So with the potential ?“loss?” of the previously installed utility systems (including lines and plant capacities) thousand of utility users are injured from both the Pickerington and Fairfield Utility systems.

If the answers to the above questions are NO then what penalties, damages, and perils do City officials expose themselves and this whole community to for following such practices?

So simple

Sara

One sentence and it so simple but it explains the community's feelings. They want to lower the housing density. We still have R-1 and R-4 and R-10. They just can't keep craming more houses donw our throat without non commerical property to off set it. Sara; I read it the same way you do and I believe the courts will as well.




By double dealer

Fair Housing is really.......

What the BIA really means when they discuss ''Fair Housing'' is ''Their Housing''.

No one should confuse the motives involved here.

More profit is made by the builder when they can put more homes on the same piece of land.

Higher Density equals Higher Profit. That's all this is about - money. If they were serious about being part of the community, they would be working with the Community - not threatening it.

Our kids need to come first - all of our kids. None of them deserve to be put in a trailer because we are out of room in a school. A balance sheet shouldn't come ahead of the school system. Our Builder Friends can step up & get more involved financially - maybe the School District (we) can buy the land & the Builder's can build the school ??? We need to find a middle ground that will put the kids in classrooms & not cripple the Community with the taxes needed to do this.

Slower Growth is a start.

Fair Housing doesn't have to mean Their Housing. This community needs to stand up & demand higher standards from our leaders in the City & the Township - growth needs to slow down & it needs to happen now. Our leaders need to work together to make this happen & they need to hear from us that this is important.

I know there are those that believe it should have slowed a long time ago - you are probably right. But we can't fix the past - we can however impact the NOW.

Write a letter to the local papers, come to a City Council Meeting, call your elected officials get involved. It takes a little time & can make a big difference.

If you are interested in helping financially - see the posting titled ''C.A.R.E.''