Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

On the other hand...

You comment on ''cha ching to the taxpayer'' if 300 homes, rather than 150 are built, in the City, with another 300 in the Township. On the other hand, if 150 are built in the City & 300 more in the Township, with no mechanism to pay for new schools (we need at least an elementary NOW) - then what? Where are we going to get the money to pay for needed buildings? The operating levy was defeated today. The voters are apparently not willing to pay more now.

On the other hand - if we build (using your numbers) 300 in the City, and the same in the Township, and all 600 homes are paying an additional 10 mills for the next 40 years, with that revenue stream funding current bonds and schools are built in the next couple years, aren't we MUCH better off that if we didn't have the extra money from the community authority?

Yes, we will have growing pains (which my kids continue to be caught up in). But, looking at the big picture, I think we still come out ahead.

What are our options? Hope for an industrial / office park in the next 12 months? Things are in the works, esp. along 33, but that appears to be years away - and not enough to fund more school buildings.

I ask this not to be argumentative, but hopefully to elicit an intelligent debate. If we reject the c.a. (even with 300 homes/year), what is a better option? Where will we get the money to pay for the schools which are already needed, as well as the additional schools that will be needed if 150, or even 100 homes are built in the City each year (plus, of course, ''unfunded'' Twp. new builds)?

Given what I know now, I strongly believe the c.a. is our only & best hope. However, I'm open to new ideas and suggestions - as long as they somehow address where the money for additronal schools will come from.

By Pleased with Council

Agree - more info is needed

First, see my other reply: ''on the other hand'' - I think I may have addressed a couple points you raised. Second, know that my kids have been redistricted multiple times in recent years. Thay have been affected by this too.

Tom Hart with BIA offered $500/home after 325 each year. I believe the ordinance enacted calls for a minimum of $1,000/home after 300.

With respect to maximum housing starts, realistically I don't see the builders putting up 3000 homes next year. I think we need to stick to probabilities. And, to answer another point, that's where the 3rd party demographer comes in.

You state with respect to 10 mills: ''And what makes anyone think that 10 mils is the right number... You have no idea if this works - none of us do - that's part of the problem here. Mr. Rigelman is sure it's not the answer or at least not enough money.'' I agree. We don't know if it's the right number. The ordinance enacted (if I'm not mistaken) requires any c.a. ''to fund the construction of new schools and the purchase of any land necessary as the result of the addition of single residential units to the community. This number will be determined by an independent financial expert/auditor/demographer. In no event, however, shall the economic capacity under such plan be less than the equivalent of ten (10) mills over a forty-year period.''

So, there is still a requirement that the numbers be validated. We also have a minimum - keep in mind, the builders were planning on raising roughly $35 million for school buildings with 6 mills (not sure whether it was over 20 or 40 years, but I think 20). Tonight's Council actions effectively doubled, or even quadrupled that number - as the minimum!

By Pleased with Council

Any Money at Any Price


Dear Pleased,

You seem to know much more about this Ordinance than what was discussed at the meeting.

Why don't you post it for us to read?

It sounds like you are of the position that any money at any price is better than no money at all. I'd like to see how going from 6 mills to 10 mills effectively ''quadruples'' monies raised.

You are welcome to your opinion but that isn't mine. The builders need a mechanism to not over run our schools while they profit in our Community - why can't there be a plan that does both? Not good business? I refuse to believe that ''good business'' must create a situation that is bad for kids. You seem willing to let your children live through the ''growing pains'' for the greater good. I'm just not sold that uncontrolled growth - yes, I think 600 homes a year is uncontrolled growth, if we can't build a school each year to put the kids in, is not well planned from the schools perspective. The point is to slow growth - not build houses & get a check & cripple the schools.

Merits of an Authority may be good - but the point is it's premature to give anyone a green light. If ''planning'' is what you think took place last night - we need lots of outside help. I am sure New Albany didn't make their authority with 5 points & a lot of fighting in 30 minutes at a Council Meeting - but this is Pickerington.

With these guys in office this is as good as it gets.

By Concerned Resident

Pardon my French

Just who the HE!! do you think is calling the shots on this CA? POSTAGE?? He couldn't call the shots at a one-player, one-armed basketball game. He simply doesn't have the gray matter to do that. He does not pull strings. His are the strings getting pulled.

This is a save face maneuver staged entirely by the developers, builders and those that pull their strings.

Nothing else but theatrics!

They don?’t care about supporting the schools. Just mentioning the schools and their reputation is a huge selling point. How many prospective home buyers actually dig in to find out the desperate state we are in? One in a hundred??

The developers are in all of this to make tons of money. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE!

Please don?’t believe anything else.