|
|
Annexation Agreements
The city's many ill-conceived annexation agreements with builders and developers, viewed in their most charitable light, were the product of unproductive rivalry between the city and the township. They will make commercial development of the 33 corridor considerably more difficult, and they have already clogged our roads and swamped our schools. But we can still recover.
I cannot imagine the vote 4 change folks ever doing anything so foolish, but we need to eliminate all future opportunity for such nonsense by combining the city and the township under a single government. This community belongs to us, not to the BIA, and we need to plan for our future together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not MY Attitude
I think you misread what I wrote. I made an observation about what has choked off commercial development out here. I did not say that was my attitude.
I am all for commercial development to help ease the burden on the taxpayers.
|
|
|
How does this sound?
So Bruce, the overarching question becomes this for you and the taxpayers:
Should the city pursue a settlement with the landowners rather than move forward with the annexations and pay off the agreements?
If the city looked to settle and for argument's sake, let's say the city had to pay $1 Million to all the landowners to buy their way out of the preannexation agreements. That's a one-time payment. Expensive, but just once.
Now let's say that the city proceeded with the annexations if all went well in the courts. The initial pay out is over $3 million. That is if memory serves from the discussions back when issues 17, 18 and 19 went to the ballot. Now we?’ve tripled the ransom. Oh wait ?– we get to keep paying. See back somewhere on this site I was looking at the discussions regarding the costs of services. That is the amount that the city has to pay to support each house. I recall that it was over $1 in cost for every $1 received in tax revenues. So after we pay over $3 million in cash or discounts, we get to keep paying and paying. Taking in more houses is an exercise in deficit.
OK, there?’s the dollars and sense angle. Back to my question. Pay once or continue with the annexations (the gift that keeps on giving)?
Now to the political angle. This new administration campaigned on responsible and manageable growth. To my mind that means properly proportioned commercial and residential. Walk away from the annexations and you are potentially walking away from viable commercial and leaving it in the township. What will the naysayers say about that? Will they call for the heads of the administration majority for failing on campaign promises? Take the annexations and the continued deficit spending, and the likely required income tax increases to support it that comes with it and then will the naysayers say they wasted money and should be run out?
How can anyone win in this situation? Who wins, who loses? City, Township, Schools? Does ANYONE win or does EVERYONE lose? Well, the developers certainly won?’t lose. They get to develop no matter if the land is in the city or township. I am sure the developers are hoping the city drops the annexations because all the services they were to receive as part of the $3 million ransom are now available from the county. PLUS ?– they get to develop at a much higher density in the township. The property owners are winners because they still get the millions in profit ?“selling the farm?”.
I challenge the city, township and schools to come up with the best plan for all 3 to win or at least assure no one entity comes out the biggest loser. Bruce, perhaps you are right. Merge the township and city, make the school district a city district, combine all of the big thinkers from all the entities and march forward. Set a vision shared and supported by all.
Pollyanna signing off?…?…..
By Pollyanna
|
|
|
Island Jumping
It appears Pollyanna is confused about Mergers and annexations. A merger would do away with the annexations for the most part.
I believe your figures are incorrect on what it will cost for the city to annex the lands south of Pickerington I believe the costs were around $1 million but who is counting? As I remember there are a number of over lapping annexations that I have lost track of and some those annexations that obligated the city for some huge pay outs.
First please consider that there is a new city administration in town. They will not be bringing Bob Mapes back to work through these deals. As I remember the city obligated itself to follow these annexations all the way to the Supreme Court. Now if you are one of these land owners with this big promise written on a piece of paper that has already spent four years in court and the interchange is open now do you really want to continue this annexation and miss out on potential buyer?
One of the policies pursued by Joyce was that she would annex all the way to U.S. 33. That is a flawed policy in that on her march to Richmond she was developing residential properties along the way and by the time she did get to an Industrial Park development it would be TOO LATE.
A merger would allow the City to jump over all of these potential residential lands and go directly to the commercial properties along U.S. 33. A merger would also annex land south of U. S. 33 and the transportation plans and funding could come from the City who has more ability to get funding than a Home Rule Township. It would have a common zoning and it would be much more attractive to commercial developers.
I have read that we must do massive give-a-ways to attract new commercial development. What we have allowed to be done here is to let the local developers to control our future. Canal formed a Public Development Cooperation to buy development land. A merger would allow the City to form this type of investment cooperation and they could go out and buy the properties they would like to commercially develop. After all the cost of the land is a much bigger factor in commercial development than TIFs, abatements and other incentives. I understand to buy into the Canal Point development, Canal is selling that land at $60,000 per acre and in Pickerington it is sometimes five times that amount. The city could buy these lands before they rezoned them thus getting them for a much lower price. So if you are a developer and you come to Pickerington and they want $300,000 per acre and you go to Canal and they want $60,000 per acre how can I convince you to buy in Pickerington with a tax abatement? Remember the City Manager will not be holding options on these land purchases.
By MacArthur
|
