Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In reviewing the multiple posts since my initial ones last night, I have seen several people complain about the vote by City Council last night. What I have not seen are constructive suggestions or a better solution.

With all due respect, and with understanding and appreciating the intent behind it, the petition being circulated among residents is not better. While it also slows growth, it does not provide for any additional income to the schools.

I am hopeful that those who were initially against the C.A. have taken the time to read the actual language of the ordinance, and contacted Mr. Shaver with any questions they may still have (his e-mail is posted in a prior posting by him).

The details of the C.A. have not yet been worked out. Those are still up for negotiation. The quote from Mr. Hart in the Dispatch, stating that he is going to fight the ordinance, should be encouraging to those who think City Council sold out to the builders. However, to those of us who truly hope a compromise is worked out, those words are unsettling. Mr. Shaver & the mayor, among others, have worked hard to work out a solution with the builders. In return, the builders have made good faith efforts to work with the community. As I understand it, they were the ones who initiated the idea of guaranteeing a certain income for the C.A. (although not at the proposed 10 mill rate). In addition, they have offered to essentially build the community rec center I have heard so many people say they would love to have. I hope the BIA will continue to work with the community to negotiate a solution.

The ordinance passed last night provides for a maximum number of houses over the next 10 years in the City. It provides a funding mechanism for the schools. If there is a better solution - for funding schools AND limiting growth, please offer your idea. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A BETTER IDEA, PLEASE DO NOT KNOCK WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO DATE. Many people have volunteered countless hours to get to where we are now. Please don't ruin that.

With respect to the C.A. - it MUST include the Township. Maybe not initially due to logistical issues, but the language of the C.A. MUST allow for Township properties to be included. And, residents of the City & Township MUST pressure the Township to ''encourage'' builders there to join the C.A. It can happen.

Finally, don't forget we ALL have the same desires - good schools, a strong local economy, healthy property valuation. This applies to residents, students, business owners, elected officials, developers, realtors, etc. Let's work together and move forward.

By Still pleased with Council

Watching from a distance

Although I am not a resident of Pickerington, I have been following this issue for some time as it is very similar to what has happened in my home town which earlier had experienced uncontrolled growth. About a decade ago (population about 75,000), the city took control of growth from the developers and restricted growth, as appears to be happening in Pickerington. Although we now live in a city with a population approaching 140,000, the growth has been controlled, it has been orderly, and the schools have been funded as well as that of the parks and other open lands. Roads have been built BEFORE they are sorely needed, rather than after the homes have been built and the traffic exceeds road capacity. Schools have been built BEFORE we get to the point of overcrowding.

The residents of Pickerington are fortunate that they are moving into getting growth under control before it is too late. The builders will NOT suffer. The builders will make their (necessary) profits as home and land values increase, as will surely happen.

I agree with the points brought out by Still Pleased with Council. Also, I agree with the challenge to try to come up with a better solution than has been passed by council. If you can't do it, then support what council passed.

Now I'll fade back into watching from a distance.

still not pleased

Dear Pleased,


First you say ''work together'' and YOU and OTHERS have spent hours working on this issue. Are you a city resident? Second who is in your group that worked on this CA?

You say no other plans offer extra income to the schools. This CA is not offering extra income to the schools. It is creating a burden to the schools. How do you think we will educate these children coming from these 3000 new homes? Why do you keep forgetting that?

If you want to have the community's support then you must listen to the community. You and others have not been listening to the citizens of this city. You have been ignoring them just to have your own egos stroked by Lou Postage. He let you in on the deal. You are no better than Lou.

If this was on the up and up why did the council do it without anyones knowledge Tuesday Night? It was 24 hours before that ordinance was posted on this web site. That is business as usual and you are part of it.

If we slow down the growth then we slow down the expenses. It gives our tax payers time to recover. It also gives us time to build the proper infrastrutures. This CA only builds homes which creates a very poor tax base and that only compounds our current problems.

This is not the solution or even part of it. It is a group of do gooders not allowing input form others to set the policy and many are not even City residents. The city and their tax payers will be paying for all of this with extemely high tax rates if this passes.

If you continue down this path you won't be able to give your houses away here in Pickerington AREA.

Township


I don't disagree that if this were to be successful it should include the township as well. But I don't agree they should happen separately. We don't need two Community Authority's for the School District. We need one, structured correctly or none at all - you need to remember who is the customer? It's the schools. Some of the builders in the City's CA also build in the township. They could take the first step & say all their acreage will be included in the CA in both the City & the township. The acreage does not have to be contiguous as originally first thought - so this is possible.

My feeling is that Lou Postage doesn't want that as he wants to control the school placement, income taxes from the workers & insure some of the monies go to the City. He had every opportunity to involve the Township & chose not to - I was not impressed with his reasoning & am sorry that you were.

The only logistics involved here is the speed in which they want to build houses - they need to take the time to plan this correctly for the entire school district in cooperation with the township or not at all.