Those that know me best know I tend to get a little wordy at times. I wanted to post my recent letter to the editor here because the papers reserve the right to edit them. Also, it will allow for any coments or questions.
To the Editor,
I would like to take this opportunity to tell the residents of the City of Pickerington why I cosponsored the initiative that has drawn so much press lately. Some have called this a housing moratorium initiative. It is, in part, but it is also more. First, let me say that I am not anti-growth. I do not fit the mold cast by the builders in this area and those that support them as moving to Pickerington and wanting to close the door behind me. I am all in favor of growth; as long as it is controlled, balanced, best represents the wishes of the residents and is managed by leaders who represent only the citizens who elected them and no one else. I am also in favor of a commensurate rate of growth of the infrastructure which is planned for, proactive and not totally reactive. Volumes have been written by those that suffer the traffic snarls that plague the area several times a day, every day of the week. I have been one of those who asked for and spoke at Ohio EPA hearings regarding sewer expansions. I was the treasurer for the overwhelmingly successful issues 17, 18 and 19 last November. All of these dealt with controlled growth. None of them were asking to stop growth. I have applied for and interviewed for vacant seats on City Council. I have applied for vacant seats on the Planning and Zoning Board. These were attempts to become part of the solution to uncontrolled growth, not to stop growth.
My family and I have lived in Pickerington for nearly 16 years. Both of my children were born here and are in the Pickerington School System. Fortunately, thanks to Heritage Elementary, only one of my children has had to attend class in the portable classrooms. But each of them has, in one way or another, been affected by the overcrowded conditions at each of the schools they attended. They have each been affected by riding school buses that were overcrowded. Now the entire future of our school system is riding on a levy vote that from what I am hearing has even less support than the last failed levy. This is due mostly to uncontrolled growth in the city.
When Mr. Shaver first made the citizens aware of his plight to get his proposed ordinance out of Committee, I started listening to what he proposed and the difficulties he was experiencing. When another elected official was reported to have ordered it to be moved out of Committee, I was wary. This same official and the Council have been labeled in writing by representatives of the builders in this area as being very ?“pro-growth?”. I wondered why this same official who is pro-growth would suddenly demand that such a contrary issue be brought to Council. I asked around and the answer became evident. Mr. Shaver?’s proposal couldn?’t be killed in Committee. It could only be killed in Council if Mr. Shaver?’s motion was never seconded. That is when we decided to petition for the initiative. We decided the residents of Pickerington had a right to decide. If the elected officials in the City will not represent us, we can represent ourselves and take our issue to the voters rather than City Council.
continued..
To the Editor,
I would like to take this opportunity to tell the residents of the City of Pickerington why I cosponsored the initiative that has drawn so much press lately. Some have called this a housing moratorium initiative. It is, in part, but it is also more. First, let me say that I am not anti-growth. I do not fit the mold cast by the builders in this area and those that support them as moving to Pickerington and wanting to close the door behind me. I am all in favor of growth; as long as it is controlled, balanced, best represents the wishes of the residents and is managed by leaders who represent only the citizens who elected them and no one else. I am also in favor of a commensurate rate of growth of the infrastructure which is planned for, proactive and not totally reactive. Volumes have been written by those that suffer the traffic snarls that plague the area several times a day, every day of the week. I have been one of those who asked for and spoke at Ohio EPA hearings regarding sewer expansions. I was the treasurer for the overwhelmingly successful issues 17, 18 and 19 last November. All of these dealt with controlled growth. None of them were asking to stop growth. I have applied for and interviewed for vacant seats on City Council. I have applied for vacant seats on the Planning and Zoning Board. These were attempts to become part of the solution to uncontrolled growth, not to stop growth.
My family and I have lived in Pickerington for nearly 16 years. Both of my children were born here and are in the Pickerington School System. Fortunately, thanks to Heritage Elementary, only one of my children has had to attend class in the portable classrooms. But each of them has, in one way or another, been affected by the overcrowded conditions at each of the schools they attended. They have each been affected by riding school buses that were overcrowded. Now the entire future of our school system is riding on a levy vote that from what I am hearing has even less support than the last failed levy. This is due mostly to uncontrolled growth in the city.
When Mr. Shaver first made the citizens aware of his plight to get his proposed ordinance out of Committee, I started listening to what he proposed and the difficulties he was experiencing. When another elected official was reported to have ordered it to be moved out of Committee, I was wary. This same official and the Council have been labeled in writing by representatives of the builders in this area as being very ?“pro-growth?”. I wondered why this same official who is pro-growth would suddenly demand that such a contrary issue be brought to Council. I asked around and the answer became evident. Mr. Shaver?’s proposal couldn?’t be killed in Committee. It could only be killed in Council if Mr. Shaver?’s motion was never seconded. That is when we decided to petition for the initiative. We decided the residents of Pickerington had a right to decide. If the elected officials in the City will not represent us, we can represent ourselves and take our issue to the voters rather than City Council.
continued..
