Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In response (part 1)

In response to your comments:

YOU: ''What you are saying is that you?’re willing to take a little (at the expense of the future mortgage payments on new residents) as determined by the developers of the BIA and give up a lot! ''

ME: No. First, we are not taking ''a little.'' The BIA's offer of 6 mills over 20 years on total of 3800 homes with average price of $225,000 = roughly $35 million. The new ordinance requires a minimum of 10 mills over 40 years. Ultimately, we need to wait until mid-June when we hear back from the 3rd party as to how much money is really needed. In addition, the BIA has offered roughly $1.75 million toward a community rec center ?– something many residents have stated they desire.

What are we giving up? I understand that growth could occur faster than some would like. However, if we slow growth without a community authority, how are we going to pay for the new schools needed? If growth occurs more slowly, it will still occur. We will still need more school buildings. How will we pay for these? Taxes on current residents. How does that help?

Of course, in combination with all of this, we need to be working on increasing commercial growth. The Allen Road / Route 33 intersection has been identified as one possible location for significant growth. The City & Township are currently working on the preliminary stages of a JEDD or CEDA to benefit the school district. Commercial growth will not occur ?– at least not as we'd like it ?– if we maintain the ''Bickerington'' perception. MANY businesses have told the Chamber, the City, the Township and the County that they would not consider moving here due to the infighting. That has to stop. Standing up for what you believe in is one thing - one thing I admire and one thing I personally will continue to do. At some point, however, there has to be cooperation.

YOU: ''You?’re saying that it is preferable to continue and even add to the repulsively skewed residential tax base imbalance to support our schools and infrastructure. ''

ME: No. I'm saying the growth will happen ?– at some rate. The land is platted, and homes will be built. The question is at what rate, and whether they will help pay for the increased infrastructure needed (mainly schools, but also roads, etc.) Again, we need to increase commercial development. That will help balance the residential growth. If the growth is going to happen, better to accept a way to fund the infrastructure needed than not. Even if the funding is not 100% of what will be needed. When I moved into Pickerington, I didn't pay for the increased costs to the school system by bringing in 2 more kids to the district. Neither has anyone else yet. Why should new residents be expected to do so?

YOU: ''You?’re saying there isn?’t another alternative. Suck it up and take what the BIA and the PRO GROWTH Council members will ?“give us?”. ''

ME: No. I'm saying I haven't seen a better alternative. And, no one I know of ?– certainly not David Shaver ?– is taking what the BIA gives us. Remember, the ordinance that passed Council was written by Shaver. And, upsetting to the BIA. There has been much negotiation to date on the terms of the community authority, and I'm sure much more is to come. That's how you reach a compromise and an ultimate solution ?– by negotiating. BOTH sides have to compromise something.

In response (part 2)

YOU: ''I will not look my child in the eye and say that I tried but the BIA was too strong. I will not settle for a BIA UNCONTROLLED GROWTH rate that will hurt my community. One which offers only a pittance of a ?“fee?” to exceed an already over bloated number of homes allowance per year.''

ME: To the extent that is true, I agree. However, that is not what we have. And again, $35 million+ is NOT ''a pittance.''

YOU: ''I will do all that I can to see that the currently circulated citizen?’s Initiative for a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN and TWO YEAR MORATORIUM gets to the ballot for a citizens voting decision.''

ME: I hope that none of those actions jeopardize negotiations with the BIA for the community authority. Also, if the moratorium proposed makes it to the ballot and passes, how will the new growth be funded? There is no funding mechanism tied to your moratorium, as I understand it. Slowing, without funding, is not a better solution.

YOU: ''I will do all that I can to see that the members of this area government answer to the electorate through as complete a disclosure as possible and review of their past performances?…''

ME: And I appreciate that. Elected officials need to be held accountable to those who elected them. Just as much as area residents need to inform themselves as to what is going on around them. Relying on rumor, letters to the editor, etc. for ''information'' is destructive. Especially when it's repeated. To the extent your website provides information ?– copies of documents, etc, so people can read the truth rather than someone's spin or opinion, thank you.

YOU: ''So Still pleased ?….. you can accept what others decide for you, your family, and this community?’s future by not opening your eyes to the layers of interconnected manipulation that exists here ?–or- you can be a part of a positive change.''

ME: I am not accepting what others decide for me. More than that, I plan to be part of a positive change. That is why I have sat through multiple meetings with Mr. Shaver, the BIA, the Mayor, School Board members, and others. That is why I have reviewed the chapter in the Ohio Revised Code which permits community authorities, and done preliminary legal research on the issue. That is why I have been actively involved in CommUNITY 1st, and am on the ''Increase Commercial Growth'' task force. That is why I am involved in the Chamber of Commerce, and work with area businesses. I have been looking at the information and speaking with the interested parties first-hand. Even if you don't agree with my opinions, please know that my opinions are well-informed.

Learn the facts

Name calling is so productive. Just like voicing opinions without knowing the facts. Part of our problem in Pickerington is too many people all too willing to do both.

With respect to your comments:

YOU: ?“City council is pro-residential growth and has no clue how to developed a strong commercial tax base. Look, there's no office park, no industrial park, and there's no attempt to develope any commercail properties in Pickerington other than resturants, and retail.?”

ME: I can?’t control what has happened in the past. I CAN work to make the future better. That is where I am focusing my energies. YES! We need more commercial properties. I am working on that in the best way I know how. So are the City, Township, and County, among others. As I stated in my reply to Mr. Harding, no business wants to come into a community with the infighting we have going on here. That HAS TO STOP in order to seriously work toward building a better commercial tax base. If you would like to get involved with CommUNITY 1st?’s task force on this issue, please e-mail me.

YOU: ?“Pleased, nevermind what the township is doing. At this critical stage, what the township is doing should not concern city council or city residents; meltdown is near?…. The Violet Township vs. Pickerington argument shows your ignorance and willingness to be used as a BIA pawn. ?“

ME: I am a Township resident, and Township growth has to be addressed now. It is not a ?“Township vs. Pickerington?” issue. Both entities need to work together. And, new developing land in both entities have to be brought into the C.A. This is about the School District, not City vs Twp.

YOU: ?“What these developers didn't see coming was area citizens willing to tarnish a good school district for the greater good of the community. In other words, the citizens were looking further ahead than the BIA, M/I & Dominion had planned. ?“

ME: How can you possibly say this? How is ?“tarnishing?” an excellent school district good for the greater community? I say that?’s short-sighted and mean spirited. I can only assume you do not have kids affected by this.

YOU: ?“WE WILL PAY FOR THE NEW BUILDINGS AND MONEY TO OPERATE THEM OURSELVES. WE DO NOT NEED THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY OR THE BUILDERS. ?“

ME: Interesting ?– this is exactly the opposite of what I understand everyone else to be saying. We can?’t even approve the current operating levy, or fund enough buildings for all our current kids. How can you then say we?’ll pay for even more buildings? This contradicts your prior statement.

Agree

Yes - the township needs to be in THIS community authority. It would be almost impossible to create a separate C.A. in only the Twp, based on the statutory requirement of a minimum 1000 acres. That is highly unlikely to come together at once.

The Twp, in my opinion, does not need to be in the C.A. on the day it is created and approved, but the language of the C.A. HAS to permit land in the Twp. to be joined in.