Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Dear Mr. Callison:

I would like to take this opportunity to address those issues and questions you wrote about in your editorial for the April 1st, 2002 edition of the Southeast Messenger. Please forgive me for not being bold enough to provide you with my name however I have a child and I do not wish that she be treated the same way one community activist's child was treated by Mayor Hughes (please see the 27 Feb 2002 discussion titled: ?“Who?’s In, Who?’s Out?” and the response entitled ?“HUGHES HURTS?” dated 3-4-2002)

The contact person for P.A.T.A. does not and cannot have in-depth knowledge of all P.A.T.A. member actions. No one purported to have this knowledge and I am not sure why you began your editorial this way. I am a member of P.A.T.A. (not the contact person) and I know that P.A.T.A. is not a PAC (Political Action Committee).

The city of Pickerington has been less than honest and forthright with the citizens they claim to represent. This has gone on for some time. I have lived here for 6+ years and since my arrival to this community I have witnessed blatant lies told by city officials. City council usually says one thing and does another. Case in point: Pickerington claimed that it was intent on protecting Pickerington Ponds when Columbus was proposing annexation near the area, but when Homewood Corporation offered to annex into Pickerington, the city did an about face and granted high-density residential zoning right next to the aquifer and right next to Pickerington Ponds. Water seepage, pollution, congestion, noise and a host of other problems are now going to threaten the very same Pickerington Ponds that the city and Mayor Hughes claimed they would staunchly protect. Forgive me for rambling but I am merely trying to point out that Pickerington's city government is a dishonest city government that says one thing and does quite the opposite.

One way to retrieve unbiased and factual information about issues that affect our community is to start an organization whose main goal is to get to the truth and present uncontaminated facts. The average area resident just could not get this (facts) from the city, so the founders of P.A.T.A. decided to take matters into their own hands. By no means is P.A.T.A. a PAC. It is an organization that collects and presents facts.

As far as accepting the challenges of growth?… Indeed, that is the problem now isn't it? You yourself admit that reckless growth has ruined this area. Unfettered and ill-planned Pickerington residential growth is degrading and will continue to degrade the quality of life for everyone in this community. The fact that the city is doing everything within their power to silence anyone who doesn't want more homes is very, very disturbing. When common citizens go to city council meetings and ask for controlled residential growth and then are attacked by immature and angry councilmen; that is also very disturbing to me. How can anyone in this city condone such behavior from his or her elected representatives?

Continued....

Dear Mr. Callison (2)...

continued...

You ask why some of P.A.T.A.'s ''voices'' are advocating giving the rest of the township property (near SR33) to Canal Winchester. The answer to that is very simple: Pickerington cannot be trusted with such a prime piece of commercial land. Case in point: In September of 1999, a motion was sponsored by Mayor Hughes (then councilman) and passed by a 7-0 vote. The motion stated Pickerington would not annex the Hiser property; now know as the Virginia Homes property. There were plenty of community leaders at this council meeting and you should have no trouble getting the minutes from city hall or just ask the Mayor yourself. Well, Mr. Callison, guess what? In 2002, Pickerington is not only trying to annex this very same property, but they have offered Virginia Homes many incentives (at taxpayer expense) to get the very same land they said they wouldn't annex. I don't want to sound redundant but the city of Pickerington cannot be trusted. Pickerington has a serious credibility issue ?– they cannot be trusted. Canal Winchester however has a proven record for developing land as commercial. They have done quite a nice job and we (school district taxpayers) would not lose a dime if Canal Winchester were to get this land. The property taxes generated in Canal Winchester on this land would still benefit Pickerington Local Schools. Also, having Canal Winchester develop this land would force Pickerington to look elsewhere for their ever-elusive commercial/industrial park. That would be a win-win for everyone, guaranteeing more commercial development within Pickerington School District boundaries. I said ?“ever-elusive?” because a commercial/business park was a high priority for Mayor Hughes several years ago but there has been no action on the city?’s part to establish one. Mayor Hughes and Pickerington city council did add thousands of homes since the announcement of their desired business park. Again, the city says one thing and does another.

Please let me give you another example of why we shouldn't let Pickerington annex to SR33. Pickerington chose to rezone the Diley farm that is a mere 1-mile from SR33, for more homes. Allow me drill this point home: less than 1-mile from SR33, Pickerington approved high-density residential zoning and passed it as an emergency. Hundreds of homes approved as an emergency to avoid voter backlash on very prime commercial property.

Should Pickerington be rewarded for such behavior? Let me give you another example of Pickerington city government corruption and voter disdain: Kohler-Painter Property. The developer specifically asked that the pre-annexation agreement be passed as an emergency. I know you're asking yourself, ''We have a city government that passes emergency legislation when requested by the developers?'' The answer to that is: Yes! Again, this illustrates how corrupt our city government is right now Mr. Callison. There were plenty of citizens that requested this ordinance not be passed as an emergency and one non-city resident (the developer) who requested that the ordinance be passed as an emergency. There were no circumstances that suggested passing the ordinance as an emergency would be to protect the welfare and/or well being of the Pickerington citizens. Simply put, the developer wanted to avoid a confrontation at the ballot box and the corrupt Pickerington city government was more than happy to oblige him. The sad fact is the developer doesn't even vote here in Pickerington. But city council refused to listen to voting residents and passed the measure as an emergency, despite citizen opposition. By the way, passing ordinances as an emergency keeps the citizenry for attempting a referendum. This is how Pickerington city council exercises ?“the will of the people''.

Dear Mr. Callison (3)...

Continued...

I realize there were mistakes made by the Pickerington city government in the 60's, 70' and 80's. Why do we have to continue to make these same mistakes? The people do want more controlled residential and more commercial development, but our city government wants no part of it. They do not care what the people want; you included Mr. Callison. You seem to support the city's lack of interest in your opinion.

I do not agree that we should pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for having minor conveniences within a stone's throw. I did not move here because I liked the distance McDonalds might be from my house. I moved here because of the schools and the educational advantages they provide. However, when my child has to attend class in a portable classroom, only months after we remodeled one school and built several new schools, I have a tendency to try and pinpoint where the problem is. In this case, the problem is Pickerington's refusal to control residential growth. Isn't that what you said you and everybody else wanted in your editorial? Your voice was heard and read by this community. Pickerington city council?’s actions are a slap in the face to every citizen in this community who wants controlled growth. They berate citizens who are simply asking for answers. I find it appalling that the city refuses to shoulder any blame whatsoever for the problems caused by their massive high-density rezoning.

Your editorial vaguely mentions horrendous traffic. Let me be the first to say, Mr. Callison, ?“You ain't seen nothing yet!?” Thousands of homes are coming in the next few short years. Double that and you'll have how many more cars that are going to be added to our streets. The city regularly complains about road maintenance. The costs associated with expanded city services due to the increased population will out-strip the receipts. In other words, Pickerington is going to need more money once all of these people move here because the tax receipts won't be enough to cover their added costs. The developers will be long gone by then after having made hefty deposits in their savings accounts.

Now please let me go back in time to 1996. You claim, in your editorial, that no effective effort was made to set aside commercial building sites. I beg to differ. The land behind Kroger was zoned for commercial. City council, at the request of the developer, changed the zoning to high-density residential. The effective effort made by individuals many years prior was quickly overturned by this current city administration. When the citizens tried to file a referendum, the city used the same stonewalling tactics Mrs. Ricketts and Mr. Hackworth are now receiving. So, where there was once property set aside for exclusive commercial development, we now see hundreds of houses. Again, this fact illustrates why Pickerington cannot be trusted with the south corridor.

continued...

In Closing, Mr. Callison...

continued...

I realize change can be quite disconcerting however the members of Pickerington city council and the city's administration must realize that the people they are supposed to represent do want change. The people do NOT want more houses! If you do not believe me, city councilmen and city workers, go to Hill Rd. Kroger and ask 10 people if they would like to see more homes in Pickerington. The resounding answer will be ?“No!?” As a matter of fact, aside from Pickerington's councilmen, everyone I have ever asked this question has said, ''No!''

The people do not want lies. The people do not want more homes. The people do not want to be treaded with disrespect when they are trying to get answers or trying to convey their thoughts on the city?’s residential growth. The people DO want to be heard and have our opinions count, even if we didn?’t give $500.00 to someone?’s campaign. We live here and we vote here. The people are restless for immediate change. Once the city councilmen, Mayor and city employees remember this simple fact, we will be well on our way to forging ''The cooperative and efficient workings of our City, Township and School District for the Good of the ''Greater Pickerington Community''.

Indeed, Mr. Callison, we all get one voice when we vote, but it appears that Pickerington city council is not listening to the voter?’s voices. Their business partners and campaign-contributing friends & associates have more of a voice at city hall than you or I.

Many voices agree that city council should immediately limit building permits and adopt a 2-home per acre policy. Surely you agree with this? Many citizens have tried to convince city council to adopt these very same policies, but our voices go unheard.

Finally, I would like to add that the mission statement for P.A.T.A. is simple: ''To consult, review and make public comments on issues that affect Pickerington area taxpayers'' and ''To encourage and provide a forum for Pickerington area taxpayers to speak out''. As far as I am concerned, P.A.T.A. has done just that.