Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Don't know how many people read Barbara's column today, but I did & sent her some thoughts:

Dear Ms Carmen,

As I read the paper this morning I came across the commentary you had written. It looked to be more of a statement in support of developers rather than an objective fact based article. In response to the points contained within your article as it pertains to Pickerington, from a 10 year resident of the area, here are some thoughts from the other side:

I am a Violet Township Resident with two children in the PLSD & am a proponent of Planned & Controlled Growth ?– not stopping it, but I don?’t think there?’s any fiscally sound reason why Residential Development can?’t be accompanied by a plan not to cripple the surrounding area in which it occurs. I think the fact that the planning should have occurred in the past (I agree with you here) should not preclude it from ever happening at all ?– what you suggest should have been ?“done before private land was rezoned and under contract?” is exactly what many residents believe and have wanted as well, but the fact of the matter is that some of the very people that should have had those thoughts or actions you mention, sit on the Pickerington City Council & instead made sure their land was zoned to suit them or the special interests they serve were protected first.

You point toward ?“newer suburbanites claiming, I?’ve got mine?”. If you believe that overcrowded schools, excessive property taxes, clogged roads and the looming negative impacts of declining property values represent ?“mine?” and we?’re trying to keep it that way, it?’s obvious that you?’ve only taken the time to hear one side of the argument. That mantra or spin has been used regularly in the past 6 months by the Pro Growth at any cost group. Let?’s take a closer look at what we?’re talking about here.

First, we aren?’t asking for growth to stop but rather for it to be controlled such that the reasons that people moved here continue. This is the only reasonable thing to do for the current residents and those that will move to the area. New suburbanites slamming the door? In the last election in Pickerington over 70% of the voters supported 3 controlled growth initiatives and I would challenge you to show that a majority of these voters are ?“New Suburbanites?”. The numbers of voters that supported these initiatives were 2-3 times more votes than any single growth proponent on the Pickerington City Council received during the last election. Let?’s also look at the real motivations and not the spin that the developers are promoting. The ground swell support of this controlled growth movement has been based on concern for our schools first, followed by the quality of life and the cost of living in this community. Pickerington Schools are currently overcrowded and under funded. If you had taken the time to even drive to the area you would find portable classrooms next to most of the schools. Even with the 2 new schools that aren?’t scheduled to open until next year the district will continue to house Elementary and Middle School students in these portable classrooms and we will still have a more students than space across all grades.

Sunday's Dispatch Part 2

Let?’s focus on our Elementary Schools in Pickerington ?– currently there are 22 portable classrooms that can house up to 572 children that means a new Elementary School is needed to accommodate the growth that has occurred over the last 5 years ?– forget any child from a new development that advertises ?“Pickerington Schools?”. You see our Elementary Schools are bursting at the seams. It appears from your article that Builders & Property Owners need better rights. But I didn?’t see your point of view on the kids. Are they the correct parties to pay the price for the City of Pickerington?’s horrible attempt of urban growth? The State of Ohio is also not the sole source of problems to do with School Funding in the Pickerington Local School District ?– I am attaching a link from our School Districts website that details other issues. We currently receive 52% of our school funding from the State ?– more than any other surrounding district & are classified as a ?“poor?” district. What this means is that Pickerington has a poor commercial tax base 18% vs. other communities of ~ 30-35%. This translates to a very high reliance on residential property taxes for school funding in our area ?– coupled with that our district is in the midst of a financial emergency. How much more do we really deserve? We aren?’t Vinton County, nor are we part of Appalachia ?– just a Columbus suburb. And to say that the City of Pickerington is only emulating the City of Columbus ?– what does that mean? Where should the responsibility lie? And where should it start? It desperately needs to start soon. We are a year away from Split Sessions & if your point of view is that parents should sit back & hope for the best I will have to disagree with you.

http://www.pickerington.k12.oh.us/HTML%20Presentation%20folder/index.htm

Second, let?’s look at funding - the schools are cutting all but the most basic services including remedial and advanced instruction at some levels, busing, and extracurricular activities including sports. Even with the passage of the current levy only a portion of the cuts are returned. Let?’s also take a look at the impact of the incremental housing that you are supporting. And be careful of the spin here, I?’m talking about the incremental impact of development not the historical average that the builders would like you to use in the argument. Each house that is built adds 2 additional children to our schools that are currently beyond capacity. This construction will have to be funded by all of the residents in the school district. Even though a community authority is being hailed as a solution it would only provide funds for 2 schools with a capacity of 1500 students but will add minimally 2800+ children to the school system. From an operating perspective, each incremental child adds $1500-2000 of deficit each year. Many people are concerned about who builds the schools for the additional 1300 children & who pays to operate them. We?’d like the opportunity to get the current children out of trailers first ?– is that so terrible?? This funding will also come from the balance of the residents. You can say that the state should do something, but the reality is they won't and quite frankly why does government have to be the solution to our problems? I can tell you that the residents of this area would be willing to step to the table and provide appropriate funding if it wasn't going to be consumed by the rabid growth being pushed by the developers.

Sunday's Dispatch - Part 3

You used several personal situations that supported your position. Mrs. Cook, separated by 2 generations from the Abraham Pickering, is a Columbus resident trying to sell land for a maximum profit. How is she so different from the City of Columbus you describe in your article? She has no concern about the well being of this community and has merely a business interest in this matter. I'm also familiar with the other resident with Alzheimer?’s. The son of this individual who is interested in selling the land was recently on the Pickerington City Council that supported through repeated votes of ?“Emergency legislation?” that circumvented the will of the electorate and promoted the uncontrolled growth that is currently occurring.

The moratorium in Pickerington is not exactly as you portrayed it in your article, but is definitely the City?’s point of view on it. What you didn?’t mention is that while the 100 home limit is about half of what builder?’s need, over 98 permits have already been issued this year ?– more than double of where they were a year ago in the largest home building year in the City of Pickerington. So the reality is if the Moratorium is passed Pickerington will build well over 200 homes by the end of the calendar year. What the moratorium will do is to give the City Leader?’s (I use that term loosely) a chance to actually create their plan the right way. You can use a 3 legged stool as an example, because for new development to come into a Community & enhance it (which is possible) it needs to be accompanied by Infrastructure support ?– including the roads necessary to support this influx of new homes as well as a plan not to cripple the schools ?– a stool needs all three pieces to stand straight. Pickerington?’s stool has one leg & that needs to be addressed.

Am I opposed to growth - No. Am I opposed to land owners selling at the best price they can get - No. But I am opposed to the actions of a few destroying the existing community for residents that have just moved in and those that have lived here their entire life. To be clear on what the ''Clan'' that you so eloquently diminish with your choice of words wants I?’ll call out in a simple format so as to not be mis-quoted:

Impose a 1 year moratorium that restricts housing to 100 starts

Develop a plan of growth that considers the needs of the community as it exists now and with the new residents in the future as well as business interests

I found you article to be misleading and uninformed. By the points you raised it looks as if you only considered one side of the situation and spent no time to investigate the full issue. Please Barbara, do your homework next time - this was sloppy reporting at best.

Carmen and her facts pt 1

Dear Ms Carmen,

It seems you have been feed information by the communication director of Pickerington concerning a proposed moratorium. First before you write a biased report or comment, you might try to check the story out completely so not to look so foolish.

First there are two moratoriums being proposed. One by Councilman David Shaver that calls for a one year (so-called moratorium) that limits the number of new homes to 100 besides what has already been built for the year. It is up for its final reading this Tuesday. It is a very weak ordinance and it will fail Tuesday by a vote of 5 to 2.

There is a second ordinance being proposed by me that calls for a two year moratorium and NO houses will be built during that time. It requires the city to develop a growth management plan and that plan will limit the rate of residential growth to one and half percent per year (Approx 50 to 70 homes per year). It requires that our council developed a long term capital improvement plan along with how we plan to pay for these improvements.

Clearly judging by your arguments you have never been in Pickerington at 8 AM or 5 PM during the workdays and try to drive the 6 or 7 miles from one end of town to the other. You apparently have no children in our schools that face bankruptcy because we can't afford, through our residential tax dollars, to continue to support our schools operating expenses. This is not because we as tax payer are greedy like some would have you believe but because we have failed to manage our growth and to allow tax revenues to catch up with the needs and infrastructures required by a city of 10,000. The costs of services to a new home is $1.50 for every tax dollar received.

The raise the draw bridge scenario has been used by the City of Pickerington for years now. If you want to move to Pickerington there are plenty of existing homes for sale. Some sit for as long as a year and some go into a sheriff sale if they don't lower their sales price far enough. I have a HUD house on my street and three more in the next sub-division. Our schools are faced with massive cuts if the levy on Tuesday fails. Including gifted programs and foreign language. Two more for sale sign popped up on our street today.