Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

my reply - part 2

On the issue of Tuesday's ordinance, I can understand where the perception comes from, but it really was not a ''back door deal.'' David Shaver was the one who drafted it. It does place a limit on the number of homes to be built. If the C.A. is not in place, the limit of 100/year will continue through 2004. I'm going out on a limb, (since I haven't spoken to any directly), but I'd guess the reason the rest of council voted in favor of the ordinance was because of the pressure of recall and of Mr. Hackworth's petition. For whatever reason, they did support Mr. Shaver's ordinance, and we should be glad.

The ordinance DID NOT create the C.A., but it does set the stage for negotiating one. The terms of the C.A. are not yet set. We still have time to voice our opinions as to what it should look like & how it should work.

Finally, I want to correct the mis-perception about a luncheon the Chamber had last year. There was no secret meeting with the City Manager before the vote last year. We had planned our regular monthly luncheon, with a chance to meet the candidates. We do this every year. As a Board, we decided against discussing issues, as it was not clear who should speak for/against them. Unfortunately, we had a lack of communication with the committee who was in charge of setting up the luncheon, and only one side appeared to discuss the 3 referenda you mentioned. The executive board did not realize this was going to happen, and apologize.

Finally, you state: ''You need to do a little soul searching and do right by the community first. Then and only then will you earn the respect of the citizens of this community. You will not gain respect by representing the views of a few of your most generous contributors to the detriment of the community.'' In response, I can only hope my actions speak as loud as my words. My involvement with CommUNITY 1st, my speaking out to City Council requesting a growth plan to the detriment of Chamber membership, and my continuing to work with the Chamber members as well as the BIA to find a solution should demonstrate that I am committed to the community. If I was not committed to making a positive difference, I would focus more on my family, my business, and my sleep! However, focusing right now on the community issues should in the long run improve my and my family's quality of life. And hopefully, yours too.

As requested...

I just posted a new discussion topic that addresses some of your questions - mainly that we all still need answers to important issues. Remember, the C.A. is still being developed, and is by no means set in stone.

With respect to other portions of your ''hypocrites'' post and the above post:

One big question I have is what area residents really want. I hear some saying we need additional funding to pay for needed schools (and operating money), and that current residents are not willing to pay unlimited amounts of increased taxes to do so. On the other hand, you and a couple others seem to be saying you would rather we pay for everything ourselves, as long as the growth is slower. I can see the argument that it's unfair to place an additional tax on new residents. But, if not that, then what is the solution?

If we can't pass an operating levy now, how can we expect to pass multiple additional bond and operating levies in the future?

My comment about my not paying 100% for new buildings may have been inartfully worded. I also moved in several years before my kids were school age, and I plan to retire here. I'll certainly be paying taxes longer than my kids will be in school. However, the comment some have made (including Mr. Rigelman) is that the community authority is not raising enough money or taxing the incoming residents enough, because it is not funding schools at 100% - i.e. being a self-sufficient entity. I don't think it needs to be funded to that extent. If we can get, for example, 40, 60, or 80% of the costs needed for bricks and mortar, isn't that better than nothing? And, back to your point, it is a balancing act between funding what's needed, and placing a disproportionate amount of the burden on new residents.

To your specific questions in your other post:

re: home values & lower taxes outside c.a. - if the Township land is also included in the c.a., you don't have this problem. This is one reason it has to include both areas. Also, I would have to believe that by including all new homes in the school district w/in the c.a., the additional burden on each property would be less.

re: ignoring 2 homes/acre. As I have been told, the subdivisions passed by emergency last fall are not subject to this restriction anyway, so this point is moot as to them. With respect to new subdivisions, I don't know. I have heard that the BIA is considering litigation on this issue, as they think the zoning is unconstitutional.

re: will people know of millage? Yes. By law, they have to be given notice.

6 Mills won't raise $35 million

Even allowing for inflation, and assuming that new houses in the Community Authority have an initial average purchase price of $200,000, which I think unlikely, a 6-mill levy on 3,000 such houses will not raise $35 million over 20 years. And 6 mills certainly will not raise the $74 million of principal and interest that, according to the PLSD's own underwriters, it would take to finance $35 million worth of building projects.

I'll show you later how you can do these calculations for yourself at home. All you need is a pocket calculator (although, if you can run micro-soft Excel, you will save yourself a lot of work). When you do, I believe you will conclude, as I have, that the Community Authority is nothing more than a BIA-inspired fraud to stave off growth management, which is what this community needs.