Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

A Set Up

I must say that I was struck, last night, by the unusual attention that Councilman Parker paid to this individual. This guy must have stood at the microphone for ten minutes. Mr. Parker wanted him to read his prepared statement ''into the record,'' and was especially concerned that the press receive a copy of it, so that they would hear ''both sides.''

Also, it is important to remember that Mssrs. Parker and Maxey voted for the moratorium only with assurance that it would be treated as a ''work in progress,'' and that the final ordinance might not even resemble the one approved by the Service Committee last night.

We have a long way to go on this one. We need to keep the council meetings packed, so that Dave Shaver's efforts are not undone.

Frankly, one hundred building permits per year is all that the city should ever allow. Assuming that each house brings 1.5 new kids into the school district, as we were told last night, and that the township also issues 100 building permits per year, that's 300 new students per year, or a new school at least every third year (not to mention the additional operating revenues that will be required). Even that is more than we can afford. So we certainly should not settle for less -- ever.

Impact fees will do little to dampen the impact of such an onslaught. It costs $10 million to build a new elementary school. It would take an impact fee of more than $16,000 per new home to raise that kind of money.

CFO must stand for

CFO must stand for - Crony For Officials (City)

Isn?’t that so appropriate that a CFO in residential real estate gets the floor. The allegations that a City Official had a hand in this display smacks of what they did on the density issue before last falls election. They?’re not changing their tune and they?’re not fooling me.


By Seen Enough Before

FYI response

Gary,

What fun it was to experience the last Service Committee meeting of Pickerington City Council. My Economics professor at college would have had a field day with the presentation of the gentleman you mentioned gave. Now it?’s been some years since my college days, despite which I still firmly believe in supply side economics and have seen over the years it?’s application and relevance. For those of you that want a refresher - the price of a commodity is based upon the demand for that commodity and the availability of that commodity. If the demand is high (people wanting to move into a good community, school?’s, roads, entertainment, safety, etc.) and the supply for the commodity (let?’s say houses) is low the price for the commodity (houses) rises.

So those people who moved into the area and kept it desirable and then choose to move out ?– or downsize their residences in their later years get top dollar if the region isn?’t flooded with additional homes.

Let?’s say you?’ve got an ?‘altered?’ situation. Let?’s say that you?’ve lived in an area and paid your fair share of tap fees, taxes, levies. You didn?’t receive the incentives that developers have graciously been granted by this sitting Council. Should you desire to sell you now need to compete with those homes that the developers are ramming in (even in this winter weather) and the supply of available homes is larger with the influx of these inducements driven through officials, developers, realtors that are ?‘marketing our community?’. Who benefits? You the citizens that created the value get less than top dollar.

In short let me phrase some of the words of the gentleman who spoke that didn?’t make the press. The Columbus area housing market is among the 10 worst housing markets in the nation. Home prices in these areas fell. A decrease of -0.4%. On a national level the median price of homes for the forth quarter of 2002 was up nearly 9% over the same period a year ago. Leading to this rise was that a lean inventory of homes, more available credit for first time buyers helped boost demand for homes.

This gentleman did not come to the conclusions of the supply side logic; rather he concluded that we need more homes to ?‘expect a return on our investment?’.

In short Gary, please read back to our last Newsletter. In which we quoted an Attorney for multiple developers stating that more homes meant a profit to our schools. Consider this as you watch in the coming months the pleas from the schools for additional funds and you view the charts and graphs provided on this website and among our Newsletters.

Our area doesn?’t have a lean inventory of homes. Our residents don?’t have the market driven advantages that abound in the nation. We have a governmental body that has skewed the issue of a free market price structure in favor of those that benefit from the overbuilding of the capacity for our community. Is it any wonder that these individuals continue to come before this Council to keep their business as usual?

Who works for whom?

Doesn't Joyce Bushman work for Lou Postage? Isn't he the Mayor? Didn't Lou Say that he was going to work with his critics? Why is he allowing a CITY EMPLOYEE to undermine his public statements? Does Lou have support from 4 members of council to fire her? So let's ask the question. Will Brian Fox vote to fire Bushman? Will Doug Parker vote to fire Joyce Bushman? Will William Wright vote to fire Joyce Bushman? Will Craig Maxey vote to fire Joyce Bushman? Will David Shaver vote to fire Joyce Bushman?

Maybe we should fire those on council that refuse to act in the citizens behalf. Would being a public lair be grounds for recall? Lou all you got to do to gain public trust is to fire Bushman. Wes Monhollen same thing. Tell us all why uncontrolled residential growth is killing the school district. Since you and Lou are good buddies stick together and fire her. She is not working in our best interest. It seems very simple to me.