Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In the 11-14-2001 response to PATA and High Density, ''Informed'' writes:

''How can you condem another about lies when you yourself spread mistruths? I witnessed you firsthand at the CEDA hearings. I understand there is also a videotape of it. You implied that if Pickerington were not part of the CEDA it would hurt the PLSD. I don't believe the PLSD would be directly effected either way, in th eCEDA or not in the CEDA. BUT if Pickerington were able to honor the Wiser preannexation agreement, the Canal Winchester Schools would have been out a ton of cash due to the TIF that Pickerington promised to build him a road. Who put you up to speaking ''your'' mind. P.S. Congratulations on the cell tower and the fees to support the athletics at the high school.''

Dear ''informed'',

Since you were there at the CEDA hearings, I'm sure you will not mind my posting both of my testimonial statements. It will reveal how misinformed you really are. Please keep trying. Being informed is really a good thing. I'm glad I could be of assistance.

You claim that I implied that if Pickerington were not part of the CEDA then the PLSD will be hurt. I did reference the 97-98, Violet Township, City of Pickerington and PLSD officials meetings where the necessity of cooperation in the Diley Road area was discussed with a verbal commitment given from both Township and City officials to cooperate in bringing about a Commercial/Industrial Park that would benefit PLSD. The failure of cooperation in this matter was and continues to be a big disappointment. I also spoke about high density that in my opinion does not belong in the CEDA area at all. I also referred to the same kind of thing potentially happening in my school district due to buffering requirements of the Violet Township Development Plan. In addition, I also addressed Article IV in the CEDA where the parties addressed school district protection. I pointed out that only the school districts are a party to this as authorized in the Ohio Revised Code. They made an agreement on something in which they are not a party.

I believe that leaving out the City of Pickerington in this CEDA was not good for our whole community. All may read on to see my comments in their entirety. As far as ''who put me up to speaking my mind'', I really don't need such a push. I am rather vocal all on my own. Maybe....I got it from genetics. Perhaps that is a gift I received from my father.

3-1-01 Hearing Comments

CEDA Hearing
3-1-01
@ Canal Winchester High School in the Presence of Village of Canal Winchester and Violet Township Officials

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

I must strongly oppose this CEDA in consideration of the following:

1) I was in attendance at the Community Cooperative Meeting on October 22, 2000, where a very detailed synopsis on the legal methods for cooperation was presented. There was never mention of the proposed CEDA till after the signing of the Letter of Intent. This act sabotaged the very spirit of the Community Cooperation Meetings.

2) The language of the proposed CEDA in Article II, Section 9, requires the Township to refrain from encouraging opposition to annexations and to participate as a party litigant. I fully believe this language is too restrictive of a stance for our Township Trustees to take. As a resident, I expect you to continue in such efforts, not sign them away.

3) In 97-98, Violet Township, City of Pickerington and PLSD officials met where the necessity of cooperation in the Diley Road area was discussed with a verbal commitment given from both Township and City officials to cooperate in bringing about a Commercial/Industrial Park that would benefit PLSD. This CEDA closes the door to Pickerington.

4) Do approximately 700 dwelling units belong within the actual CEDA area? I still hold to my opinion that it is not appropriate. How do I know that the same kind of multi-family housing won?’t be permitted in the PLSD? No such assurances can be given because of requirements in the Violet Township Development Plan. Furthermore, the pre-annexation agreement between the Pifers and the Village of Canal Winchester specifies that the zoning as attached to the pre-annexation agreement, ?“is acceptable?” within Canal Winchester School District boundaries.

5) The future growth of Canal Winchester is totally dependent upon their ability to expand borders by crossing US 33 to escape their floodplain restrictions. Violet Township has established the need to consider floodplain areas and to preserve the Newark River aquifer that runs directly beneath US33. These topographical concerns will probably produce limitations that have yet to be disclosed. I do not have a problem with the viability of a community being increased. My concern is from the growth being encouraged at the malice of another. Will topography restrict further commitments to another entity?

6) What dollars will really be generated by such an area? According to figures of fiscal impact prepared by Mike Arcari, the total income tax generated for the Canal Pointe Phase I Project was $168,066.64 for a year. In this case, the 20% shared income tax dollars to Violet Township Trustees would be $33,613.33 for a year. I further conclude that this is not going to be sufficient for the dollars that will be required for expenditure by Violet Township.

7) The interchange at the 33/Diley Road corridor is the gateway to industrial development. This interchange is at the very heart of the proposed CEDA. It is being relied upon by Violet Township, Pickerington and Canal Winchester.

The commitment of 1200 acres to one political entity for 100 years is too long of a term and too large of a parcel. All entities have been involved in the ODOT planning efforts. Let the agreement you build really be a milestone and bridge the gap that has been present entirely too long.

5-22-01 Hearing Comments

Second CEDA Hearing
5-22-01
@ Peace United Methodist Church, Diley Road in the Presence of Village of Canal Winchester and Violet Township Officials

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you for providing Violet Township residents an opportunity to speak to you within the boundaries of our own township and Fairfield County. I am a member of Citizens for a Strong Violet Township-Pickerington and a nearly thirty year Violet Township resident.

Having attended the Community Cooperative Meeting on October 22, 2000, I was very disappointed to discover no mention of the proposed CEDA till after the signing of the Letter of Intent between the Village of Canal Winchester and Violet Township. This act did indeed sabotage the spirit of the cooperation. Thankfully, discussions have been undertaken lately to seek areas of common ground between Violet Township and Pickerington. I strongly oppose any agreement that deals exclusively with the Village of Canal Winchester. Cooperate together prior to making any agreement. Economic development of this area is important for all residents.

High-density multi-family housing does not belong within the actual CEDA area. The pre-annexation agreement with the Pifer?’s gives village support for almost 700 units on over one hundred acres of the parcel. I have seen statements that this will go through the planning and zoning process. I do not see how such high densities will be forbidden since the earlier promise of the pre-annexation agreement. How do I know that the same kind of multi-family housing won?’t be permitted in the PLSD? No such assurances can be given because of buffering requirements in the Violet Township Development Plan.

Article IV discusses school district protection and that the parties agree that nothing in this agreement shall change school district boundaries. Neither municipal or township entities have been granted any such legal authority by the Ohio Revised Code and as such are not a party to this in their agreement. Such disputes solely belong to the school districts, as they deem proper to petition for changes to the State Board of Education. Pickerington Local School District has already been embroiled in a long-standing battle to maintain our current school district boundaries in a viable economic development area as challenged by Reynoldsburg City Schools.

I have watched a growing push to make school district boundaries contiguous with municipal boundaries. I urge much caution to the Township that if this were the case there would be a further loss to the township. I have also seen the same stand behind their doing so for the benefit of the school district. In reality, it is just another greedy land grab. The best way to genuinely help the school district is to understand the idiosyncrasies of the school funding system and what results will come from the actions of your decisions.

The interchange at the 33/Diley Road corridor is the gateway to industrial and economic development. It is being relied upon by Violet Township, Pickerington and Canal Winchester. Bill Yaple recently discussed the importance of further cooperation as being needed to bring the development of another interchange to the Violet Township area. The boundaries of the proposed CEDA do not give any consideration to Pickerington in this corridor.

The commitment of 1200 acres to one political entity for 50 years is still too long of a term and too large of a parcel. Bridge the cooperation and authority gaps. Clinch the best economic development tool possible for all. Sit at the table together.

Debbie Diverting

Debbie Carlier complains that, ?“leaving Pickerington out of the recent CEDA was not good for our whole community.?” That is one of the only things I find that I can agree with Mrs. Carlier on. She points to the wrong people for blaming the failure in the talks. We can all look directly to the Honorable Randall Hughes for this failure. He had meetings with Canal Winchester in early September 2000 and failed to answer Canal Winchester until December 12th 2000. During the interim Mr. Hughes made some outrageous statements that forced Violet Township and the village of Canal Winchester to make their agreement without Pickerington. Mrs. Carlier, that is all public record. That is if they (Pickerington) will allow you to see these public record documents. Remember Canal had to sue Pickerington for information.


It is interesting to note that she mentions the 700 homes (located in the Canal School district) in her statement at the CEDA hearing. I see nowhere in the minutes of the Pickerington City Council meetings that she mentions the 860 homes that M/I and Dominion are putting into the Pickerington School district. Why would she be so concerned with Canal school district and not PLSD. Go figure! These new homes are 1800 square foot homes and will more than likely have many children in each. I didn?’t hear her mention that fact to the paper during the recent meeting of that strong citizen?’s group for whom? You know the one where she is the communication?’s chairman. She seems to be during most of her communicating here on the PATA WEB site. Apparently her and Mark Uher are not the least bit concerned about the deal for the police station either. Mrs. Carlier is raising money to put a statue out front. Here again there will 50 acres of apartments. Both Mark Uher and Debbie Carlier were with Daryl Barry this week, neither said a word to him.






By Lori Love