Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

November - December 2001 Issue # 8

Jan 09, 2002

Nov - Dec 2001 PATA Newsletter

Information for you about
issues that
effect
you

 Isn?’t 2002 time for a change?

 Do you want to subsidize area residential construction?

 Details of annexations now pending are enclosed within this Newsletter and on the PATA web site at http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata

 Every area resident will be impacted!

All members of PATA are keenly aware that the future is what you make it. We provide these Newsletters and our web site to help you become informed. Your efforts in using this information are the key ingredients in making this community a better place.

"WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THE COMMUNITY ALSO HAS RIGHTS, AND THAT THE HAPPINESS AND WELL-BEING OF EVERY CITIZEN DEPENDS ON THEIR FAITHFUL PRESERVATION."

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 1837


2001 ?– A YEAR IN REVIEW
?“THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME?”

Though our organization has been active for 2 years now it?’s been nearly a year to the day since the publishing of the first Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA) Newsletter. In this, our ?“First Anniversary Edition?” we thought it would be good to look back at 2001, and to look ahead to 2002. Many of you know that we also sponsor a web site of additional information at http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata to fill in the gaps between Newsletter releases.

PATA published 8 newsletters in 2001. Our distribution, over that time, jumped from 800 with the first issue to over 5,000 with the most recent edition. The editors of this newsletter, and all the membership are grateful to the good folks in our community who volunteer their time to help with these efforts.

The ?“Vision Statement of the PATA organization is ?“The cooperative and efficient workings of our City, Township and School District for the good of the ?‘Greater Pickerington Community?’?”. PATA participates in and reviews the gatherings of all these groups. But in 2001 the efforts of the PATA organization, and of this newsletter, were focused mainly on the City of Pickerington and the actions of the City Manager, City Council, and Mayor Hughes. While this has rankled those who have been centered in the spotlight (Mayor Hughes actually called us ?“Nazi?’s in one City Council meeting) the reasoning behind this is really quite simple. The other governing bodies aren?’t taking actions deemed detrimental to the long-term health of our community to the same degree that the City has been. Sure, there are issues that need to be addressed with the School Board and the Township, but the City has given us so much to be concerned about, that it is sometimes hard to choose what we should write about first. We have attempted to focus on issues with significant impact on the future of our community.


Organizationally we believe in:
1. Controlled residential growth
2. Increased development of a commercial / industrial tax base.
3. A realistic plan for our schools

The city leaders continue to practice denial, but the facts are the facts. The city of Pickerington continues to show more concern for developers and their needs than they do for their constituents. Often when confronted by members of PATA at City Council meetings, the Mayor and others say with a sneer ?“You don?’t even live in the City ?– this doesn?’t affect you.?”

THEY COULDN?’T BE MORE WRONG!

ALL OF US ARE AFFECTED BY THE ACTIONS OF EACH GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN THE AREA!

We suggest those officials who object to citizen participation with the local governing entities read the following section of ?–
The Ohio Constitution
The 1851 Constitution with Amendments
?§ 1.03 Right to assemble (1851)
The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct their representatives; and to petition the general assembly for the redress of grievances.

A year ago this time a referendum petition was circulated in an effort to stop the City from automatically zoning any property annexed into the city at R-4 (up to four units per acre ?– 8,500 square foot lots). After the County Board of Elections verified this petition, the City rescinded this legislation, and began passing all annexations by ?“Emergency?” with R4 or PR4 zoning included within the language of pre-annexation agreements. The use of Emergency Legislation by the Council has become a joke. There are no true emergencies in a city the size of Pickerington; only the desire of the government to pass legislation unchecked. You see, when the city invokes ?“emergency powers?” the legislation they pass is not subject to referendums put forth by the people. By passing emergency legislation on a continuous basis, the city is basically saying, ?“we don?’t want a referendum on this because we are more concerned with the wants and needs of the developer than we are with the wishes of our constituents.?”

During 2001 these R-4 (PR-4) annexations have already added up as follows:

Burtnett 56 acres
Diley 245 acres
Kohler ?– Painter 147 acres
Clark, Biddle, Steiger, Wirthman 210 acres
Hill Road (9) 199 acres

These 857 acres of R-4 housings are in addition to numerous upcoming subdivision plats that were already inside the incorporated limits and also carry R-4 status. Thousands of homes are coming your way without your ability to vote on a duly authorized referendum.

IT?’S JUST NOT RIGHT!

 When City Council annexes properties, some of it showing potential for commercial development, and zones it R-4 by Emergency Legislation.

 It is nearly unspeakable that the city continues to zone tract after tract R-4. The City has been going out of its way to provide developers with opportunities to build higher-density subdivisions.

With some of its existing lands, the city had an opportunity to build the commercial/industrial park that has been talked about for years. Yet instead of an office park behind Kroger, we now have additional sub-divisions of R4 housing.
By doing this, the city would have eased a portion of the pressure on the overburdened Pickerington Local School District by generating incremental tax dollars, without generating incremental students. This is the kind of tax base development that our school system so desperately needs. Instead, on an ongoing basis City Council chooses to add thousands of new homes to our fair community. Just look at Council?’s 2001 modified Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Your 1993 Commercial Park site is now residential rooftops. R-10 zoned apartments and condos will surround your Police station.

 What?’s even more ludicrous is the fact that the city is doing all of this without any public input whatsoever. In almost every single case, there is a pre-annexation agreement between the City of Pickerington and the developer of the land. It is a fair assumption that these pre-annexation agreements are legally binding. If they were not, then no developer would ever sign one. There are rarely, if ever, hearings on pre-annexation agreements. By following this path, the city circumvents the due process that its constituents have a right to expect. The City effectively zones these properties for higher density housing without allowing one word of feedback or input from the voters they are supposed to be serving.
 All of these annexation agreements with zoning attached are passed by emergency legislation. Is there really an emergency here?!? Is the City of Pickerington in such desperate straight for new housing that it must immediately pass emergency legislation to build more houses as soon as possible? Or is it really that city council doesn?’t want to go through the normal three readings and face the possibility of hearing more dissenting feedback from its constituents? Better yet, does the council do this as an ?“Emergency?” because they know that by doing so they will not have to face the possibility of a referendum on their actions? In either case city council is taking extraordinary steps to avoid constituent feedback, and public criticism of their decision-making processes. PATA members are for the most part just ordinary citizens with an average education. Yet it seems so clear to us that the actions taken by City Council clearly cross the lines of right and wrong that one would have to wonder what is their motivation? It can?’t be that they are interested in the long-term best interests of their constituents, or they would not continue to zone for higher density housing without offsetting commercial/industrial growth. It can?’t be that City Council is looking out for what is best for our schools. Simple math tells you that adding a significant number of students to the system without providing the right kind of tax base to fund the schools just doesn?’t add up. It can?’t be that they don?’t really understand that this is a bad move for the City because too many people have spoken up that this is not right. So if City Council is not looking out their constituents, their not looking out for our schools, and they are not looking to do what is clearly the right thing to do, what could their motivation possibly be? Whatever it is, we are quite certain that ?–

Point by point it?’s just not right!

AND MAYOR HUGHES SHOULD NOT BE LET OFF THE HOOK EITHER.

In the December 26, 2001 edition of This Week in Pickerington the Mayor tries to put a positive spin on the city?’s actions in 2001.

?“We developed a transportation program for our special needs residents with Echo Manor and also began implementation of a master plan which will link all our park bike and jogging trails with the Metro Parks in Columbus.?”

Wow ?– I bet everyone living in the city of Pickerington is really pleased that they are paying significant tax dollars so the city can claim their major accomplishments for the year are in setting up a shuttle van for the disabled and connecting some bike paths.

The paper goes on to say ?“The only items he said he believes that City did not produce on in 2001
involved plans for a new industrial park.?”

Not only did the city fail in this, its most important endeavor, but it failed in a few other areas as well.

 A January petition to overturn the city?’s automatic R-4 zoning gathered 490 signatures in one day, sending a clear signal that the city was out of line. Council voted to rescind the original ordinance and just pass each issue separately via ?“emergency?”.
 The city failed to join Violet Township and the Village of Canal Winchester in the signing of a CEDA in May of this year. Sheer stubbornness on the part of the city?’s negotiators caused this.
 The City was sued by Canal Winchester for failing to provide pre-annexation documentation.
 Three new ballot initiatives were introduced in November in an effort to curb city councils bad habits. (More on that later)
 The relationship between the Pickerington city government and Violet Township never got past the starting line. There was little effort, public or private to come to any agreement on any issue once the CEDA was announced.
 The city?’s annexation policies have come under constant criticism from area residents. City Council meetings often resemble a sparring match, rather than a civil exchange of ideas.
 The City of Pickerington & City Manager Joyce Bushman are currently involved in a lawsuit regarding a use of Public Funds for a petition drive. Taxpayer money was used in 2001 to fight against ?“Senate Bill 5 ?– the annexation reform law?” that was passed overwhelmingly by Ohio House and Senate, and signed by Governor Taft.

The Mayor went on to say some other incredible things in this interview.

?“Hughes said landowners who approach the city regarding annexation have rights and are only exercising them by annexing into Pickerington.?” If that were anywhere near the truth we would applaud the Mayor. But the facts are so far in the other direction from what the Mayor says that it is literally stupefying.

The fact is that the city regularly practices strong-arm tactics in trying to convince individual landowners to annex to the city. They offer incentives to the tune of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to developers to annex to the city. Stretching the truth, misleading, cajoling, strong-arming, and hostilely annexing. You name it, and the city tries it in an effort to grab the land. Then the Mayor will say, ?“gosh when people are just beating down the door to be annexed what else can we do but let them come on in.?” (That?’s a paraphrase of the city?’s position on annexation and not a direct quote of the Mayor). With copies of various ?“pre-annexation?” agreements in hand, PATA will gladly show you the facts versus the fable.

Also in the article, ?“Hughes added that Township officials?’ views on annexation clearly show that they don?’t consider city residents to be part of Violet Township.?” PATA members have personally heard Township Trustees say that they are not against annexation, just against annexation that lead to more and more higher-density development and hostile annexations. The Township government is in place to look out for the good of all Township residents. That means protecting our wallets by trying to keep our taxes reasonable. Higher density housing developments are going to lead to higher taxes for all of us. It?’s just a matter of time.

In talking about bridge and road tax revenue that the city offered the Township and then changed the offer mid stream Hughes says, ?“I guess the green-eyed monster of greed has popped out.?” It sure has. And its name is Hughes, Bushman, Gray, Maxey, Wright, Parker, Washington, and Postage. Mr. Postage was recently quoted as saying, ?“Anytime there?’s annexation along our borders we?’re going to take it.?” ?– 10/10/01 Pickerington Times ?– Sun. Yeah, that really sounds like the city is waiting for the landowners to approach them about annexation.

Please show use any annexation votes during 2001 that had an opposing vote by any current member of Council.

When speaking about the three initiative petitions Hughes is so far out of line it would be funny if it weren?’t so sad. These three petitions have been put together to protect the citizens of the city (and all area residents) from the actions of its City Council.

1. The first initiative will stop the city from giving away tap fees to developers in exchange for annexing to the city. When the city does this, the taxpayers take it in the shorts, or more specifically, the wallet. If the developer does not pay the tap fees, those costs are passed on to current residents. Gosh that seems fair. Pad the wallets of the developers at the cost of the taxpayers.
2. The second initiative would limit the use of emergency legislation to true emergencies. The city regularly has many legislative pieces on the agenda at their bi-weekly meetings that are set up as ?“emergency?” measures. By doing so the council can pass legislation without concern of that legislation being overturned by voter referendum. There are actual letters from developers to the council or another representative of the city saying that if the annexation comes under any voter scrutiny, the deal is off. The council then invokes ?“emergency?” powers, votes 7-0, and the deal is done without any voter say in the matter.
3. The final initiative is an effort to limit future residential zoning to two (2) units per acre. This would bring the city?’s zoning more in line with the Township?’s and would limit the higher density neighborhoods being built all around us.

Again the Mayor says that the people complaining about these practices are not people living in the city, rather they are people that live in the unincorporated portion of the Township. Township residents may be more vocal, but PATA membership includes a good number of people that live in the city that are also tired of the antics that take place in City Hall. The people sponsoring these initiatives are all City residents. Nice try Mr. Mayor!

Yet another quote within the article has to do with the recent election: ?“The people who are satisfied with the city didn?’t come out to vote.?” Yeah, right! In typical Bickerington fashion now it?’s the citizens?’ fault for displacing one of the ?“regulars?”. The fact is that the only non-incumbent on the ballot, David Shaver, ran away with the HIGHEST vote total.

Finally, the Mayor hands out grades to the city. Well that?’s one persons viewpoint, here is a differing opinion and why.

City Services ?– (Mayor?’s ?– A). The city does provide trash, water, sewer, and police protection. However, really poor planning has the city in a water/sewer bind (discussed later) and the new police station site comes with apartments and condos included in the ?“deal?”. (PATA Grade ?– C-)

Pickerington?’s economic climate ?– (Mayor?’s ?– A). Give us a break! The major economic accomplishment of 2001 was the opening of the Barnes & Noble. GONE IS THE COMMERCIAL PARK THAT HAS BEEN PROMISED FOR YEARS?
(PATA Grade ?– F-)

Parks and Recreation Department ?– (Mayor?’s A). No argument here. The city?’s parks are a great resource. (PATA Grade ?– A)

Relationship with Violet Township ?– (Mayor?’s Incomplete). Nice try, Randy. It takes two to tango and we doubt you can even hear the music. (PATA Grade ?– F)

All of that and more were in 2001. Now let?’s look ahead to 2002.

NOW THE CITY IS WORKING ON ANNEXING 675 ACRES, MORE THAN 610 ACRES OF WHICH WILL BE PER PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT!

WHERE IS THE COMMERCIAL GROWTH????

When is enough, enough?

Of the 675+ additional acres now being annexed, 25 +/- acres are scheduled to be commercial, and 38 acres are for a tax-exempt church. 40 acres will be apartment / condos right beside your new school site. 100 condos or zero lot line units will be butted up against Jefferson Woods. The list goes on... This annexation is not a commercial or industrial project it is residential.

THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON IS NOW, VIA ?“PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS?”, SUBSIDIZING PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AT AN ESTIMATED ?“COMMUNITY COST?” OF $ 3,044,636.00.

 Higher density zoning was promised

 Reduced tap fees were used as enticements
 Emergency passage was the method

"WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THE COMMUNITY ALSO HAS RIGHTS, AND THAT THE HAPPINESS AND WELL-BEING OF EVERY CITIZEN DEPENDS ON THEIR FAITHFUL PRESERVATION."

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 1837


These pre-annexation agreements were formerly approved by City Council 11/20/01. Next the issue of these annexations (316) south of town & (362) north of town will be open to a public hearing on Tuesday January 29th at the Fairfield County Courthouse. The annexations are split into two separate hearings, the first beginning at 1:00 pm (316 acres) and the second beginning at 2:30 pm (362 acres).
Let these people know how you feel ?–

Pickerington City Hall (Meetings Held 1st & 3rd Tuesday of Each Month @ 7:30pm)
100 Lockville Road, Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 837-3974, Fax (614) 833-2210
Mayor Randall Hughes / City Manager Joyce Bushman / Councilmen: Lou Postage, Bill Wright, Doug Parker, Jeff Monebrake, Brian Fox, David Shaver.

Violet Township Trustees (Meetings Held 1st $ 3rd Wednesday of Each Month @ 7:30 Pm)
12970 Rustic Drive, Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 575-5556, Fax (614) 575-5562
Township Administrator Bill Yaple / Trustees: Terry Dunlap, Gary Weltlich, Harry Myers.

Fairfield County Commissioners
Fairfield County Courthouse, 210 East Main St., Lancaster, Ohio 43130 (740) 687-7190 Or (614) 837 ?– 0763, Fax (740) 687-6048.
Commissioners: Jon Myers, Judith Shupe, Allan Reid.

Southeast Messenger ?– Editor Rick Palsgrove
3375 Sullivant Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43204 (614) 272-5422, Fax (614) 272-0684
Email ?– Semsgr@Aol.Com

This Week In Pickerington ?– Editor Sandy Wallace
670 Lakeview Plaza Blvd, Ste. F, Worthington, Ohio 43085 (614) 841-1781x359, Fax (614) 841-0436
Email ?– Editorial@Thisweeknews.Com

Pickerington Times?–Sun ?– Editor Sherrie Bossart
Cm Media, Inc. 5255 Sinclair Road, Columbus, Ohio 43229 (614) 785-1199, Fax (614) 785-1881
Email ?– SNPNews@Cm-Media.Com



***********************************

PATA can be reached by-
email ?– pickeringtontaxpayers@hotmail.com
mail ?– P.O. Box 518
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone ?– 755-2464

Contact Person
Bob Harding


Will City Sanitary Sewer & Water now be duplicated where services already are established via Fairfield County Utilities?
Can we afford the environmental and economic wastefulness of these annexations?


 In the early 90?’s the City of Pickerington expanded it?’s sewer treatment plant to what was termed the ?“maximum capacity?” of treated sewage discharge possible for Sycamore Creek.
 That volume was 1.8 million gallons of treated sewage per day.
 In late 2000 the Ohio EPA granted the City of Pickerington permission for an expansion of water from the Diley wellfield of 3.5 million gallons of water per day. Citizens requested a public hearing regarding the issue before any OEPA approvals to the increased water pumping and were denied that hearing.
 Early 2001, pump test of the aquifer supplying the Diley wellfield showed a connection of the underground aquifer and the source waters that maintain the Pickerington Ponds state wildlife preserve. Drawing any more that 2.2 million gallons per day would jeopardize this valuable natural preserve.
 Now the City of Pickerington wants to expand its sewer treatment outflow to 3.5 million gallons per day. Citizens have again requested a public hearing before any permission for this expansion is given.
 A June 2, 2000 report from Enviro Science found water species impacts of 42% and 15% in aquatic insects and minnows. In light of the OEPA?’s letter dated Sept 14, 2001 noting ?– ?“increased in the pollutants will be negligible..?” Is the OEPA really going to listen to local residents concerns?
The Public Meeting of the OEPA is:
January 10, 2002 (Thursday) 6:30 pm
Peace United Methodist Church
235 Diley Road
Pickerington, Ohio
-or write to ?–
Ohio EPA
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Oh 43216-1049

It?’s your quality of life,
its your community,
its your welfare!




So, PATA forges ahead into 2002. All of us within the organization are looking forward to more positive change in the coming year. By continuing to bring issues to your attention and asking for your help with our ?“Call to Action?” we feel that the PATA organization is making a positive impact on the community.
If you are at all interested in learning more about what is going on in our community, put down the local newspaper (you just might learn more of value) and surf to the PATA web site:

www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata

If you like what you see here (or there) please feel free to make a small contribution. PATA is a citizen based organization that takes no money or in kind contributions from any organization, advertiser, or company. This newsletter is written, produced, and distributed all on the few dollars sent in each month from readers like you. Any little bit you can do will be greatly appreciated.

Send your check to?…..

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA)
P.O. Box 518
Pickerington, OH 43147

Thank you.