I agree with Shoeless Joe. More schools will beget more houses, which will beget a need for more schools, which will drive up already high tax rates, all of which could depress the values of our homes. On the other hand, letting our schools overcrowd and deteriorate will, eventually, drive off potential homebuyers and kill the current building boom.
But I have a question: must we deal with these problems by making our community unattractive to homebuyers? Whatever makes Pickerington unattractive to them will also make it miserable for all of us. And if this is the solution, why stop with the schools? Why not let our roads fill with potholes, encourage pawnshops and strip clubs go locate here, or invite a rendering plant to set up shop on Refugee Road? Why not close down our police and fire departments? Such measures as these would stop residential development cold.
We will all suffer from overcrowded and downright bad schools, even empty-nesters like myself, and bad schools will make it hard for us to sell our homes and move elsewhere. High tax rates could depress local real estate values, but bad schools will drive them right through the floor. Compare Upper Arlington (high tax rates) and Groveport (bad schools). Where are home values higher? Where would you rather live?
Instead, why not hold the line on zoning, slow down expansion of sewer and water facilities, tighten building codes, slow down the process for issuing building permits, require environmental impact studies before approving subdivisions, step up building inspections, impose impact fees and, if all else fails, tie up builders in red tape and ration building permits? We must find some way to slow and manage residential growth, and to encourage commercial development, without making ourselves miserable in the process.
We know that we need more classroom space at the K-4 level. We also know that more trailers and spit sessions are not the answer. Trailers are costly to purchase, costly to move and costly to operate, they present security and safety problems, they have short economic lives, and they are flammable. And who wants our kids boarding school buses at 5:30 in the morning, or getting home at 6:30 at night, not to mention the destructive impact that spit sessions would have on extra-curricular activities and learning?
Let's vote for this levy. But let's insist that the city council and board of trustees take all reasonable measures to slow and plan for growth, and that the school board and PLSD administration hold down construction costs and return something to us. If they don't, let's replace them with people who do. We need to elect public officials who remember who elected them.
But I have a question: must we deal with these problems by making our community unattractive to homebuyers? Whatever makes Pickerington unattractive to them will also make it miserable for all of us. And if this is the solution, why stop with the schools? Why not let our roads fill with potholes, encourage pawnshops and strip clubs go locate here, or invite a rendering plant to set up shop on Refugee Road? Why not close down our police and fire departments? Such measures as these would stop residential development cold.
We will all suffer from overcrowded and downright bad schools, even empty-nesters like myself, and bad schools will make it hard for us to sell our homes and move elsewhere. High tax rates could depress local real estate values, but bad schools will drive them right through the floor. Compare Upper Arlington (high tax rates) and Groveport (bad schools). Where are home values higher? Where would you rather live?
Instead, why not hold the line on zoning, slow down expansion of sewer and water facilities, tighten building codes, slow down the process for issuing building permits, require environmental impact studies before approving subdivisions, step up building inspections, impose impact fees and, if all else fails, tie up builders in red tape and ration building permits? We must find some way to slow and manage residential growth, and to encourage commercial development, without making ourselves miserable in the process.
We know that we need more classroom space at the K-4 level. We also know that more trailers and spit sessions are not the answer. Trailers are costly to purchase, costly to move and costly to operate, they present security and safety problems, they have short economic lives, and they are flammable. And who wants our kids boarding school buses at 5:30 in the morning, or getting home at 6:30 at night, not to mention the destructive impact that spit sessions would have on extra-curricular activities and learning?
Let's vote for this levy. But let's insist that the city council and board of trustees take all reasonable measures to slow and plan for growth, and that the school board and PLSD administration hold down construction costs and return something to us. If they don't, let's replace them with people who do. We need to elect public officials who remember who elected them.
