Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

emergency legislation

From Colubus Alive in 2001

Emergency sprawl
Pickerington developments approved ?“by emergency?” cut democracy out of the process

by Harvey Wasserman

Pickerington City Council has sent a clear message to its citizens and to the Pickerington Ponds Wildlife Refuge: Drop dead.

As for the messy process of democracy, the council apparently doesn?’t believe in it.

Case in point is a referendum petition circulated by Pickerington citizens earlier this year. In December 2000, the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance mandating extremely dense development?—known as R-4?—throughout the city.

A broad coalition of voters objected. Despite a series of cynical manipulations by the city government, the citizens in a single day collected roughly 500 signatures?—289 were needed?—to put a repeal of the ordinance on the ballot.

In other words, the city as a whole would vote on the future of development densities. Democracy! What a concept!

Too radical, apparently, for Pickerington City Council. It repealed the ordinance, thus making the referendum moot and denying the citizens their vote.

Can you guess what?’s happening now?

One by one?—by ?“emergency?” resolution?—Pickerington is approving massive developments on an R-4 basis. The emergency status has one basic legal function: It stops the public from reversing the decision by referendum.

There is, of course, no real emergency?—except the possibility that voters might stop developers from totally pillaging the area.

These phony emergency votes are being used throughout the state and nation by bought city councils to let developers destroy as much farmland, wetland and other open space as possible while denying citizens a say in the process.

Last year there was an attempt in the Ohio legislature to curb this travesty and to democratize the annexation and rezoning processes. But the bill was killed by former House Speaker Joanne Davidson of Reynoldsburg, now retired. Pickerington City Manager Joyce Bushman is now leading a statewide charge to defeat this year?’s attempt to open up the process. And Pickerington?’s city government, which Bushman runs, is marching in lock-step.

Aside from the last few acres of open space in this sprawl-malled community, at stake is the future of central Ohio?’s prime wildlife refuge. Pickerington Ponds is an irreplaceable habitat for more than 260 species of birds?—at least three endangered?—as well as a vital recreational resource for all central Ohioans.

You may recall that Columbus citizens won a valiant campaign to save the Allen Glen land northwest of the Ponds from suburban sprawl. After Columbus City Council rezoned the ecologically crucial 242-acre parcel, more than 12,000 voters petitioned for a public referendum. Facing certain defeat, the landowner withdrew his rezoning request, then sold the land to Metro Parks.

The process was a triumph for the environment and democracy itself. Though Columbus City Council?’s vote to rezone was unfortunate, it had the integrity and good sense to avoid doing it on an emergency basis.

emergency 2

Pickerington seems to have no such qualms. Two major Homewood and Dominion developments now threaten the future of the wildlife refuge. The city does hold hearings?—another is scheduled for 7 p.m. on September 4 at Pickerington Town Hall?—but after dutifully listening to the projects?’ dozens of opponents, the city invariably gives the developers whatever they want. And it uses the emergency resolution scam to deny the public an actual vote.

Tragically, this land may actually be more critical to the survival of the Ponds than the parcel that was saved on the Columbus side. The area?’s underground water flows from east to west, i.e. from Pickerington toward Columbus.

Despite the usual verbal contortions by the city and the developers, extensive tests show these tracts are vital to the entire wetlands system. Some of the lands in question sit directly between the Ponds and the well fields that feed them. Their destruction by development could doom the park.

In 1998, while the fight to save the Ponds raged on the Columbus side, Pickerington passed a resolution supporting ?“responsible development?” in the area. Mayor Lee Gray emphasized that ?“high density development is not in the best interest?” of the community.

But Gray now works for the Homewood Corporation, which has joined Dominion and other developers in the race to cram as many houses as possible upstream of the Ponds.

August 16, 2001

Last night's vote

Last night's vote on the charter change that would end the madness of emergency annexations and rezonings was 4-3. I'm sure you can guess who the 3 were. This is likely to fail the third reading and the voters won't have a say. 5 votes are required to send a charter change to the voters.

While it appears Wright, Parker and Sabatino do not intend to give the citizens a voice like they haven't in the past, at least this council can't give 6 votes for the emergencies.

Please do not forget this vote and this issue. The 3 dissenting voters from last night will try everything to make you forget it between now and November. Give this council a couple of more seats this November and let them continue their pledge to return government to the citizens.

An a warning to O'Brien - if they kill this at the next meeting and you still entertain Sabatino's bull$hit charter change, you and I will have words.

Keep up the good work.

Update....

Pickerington charter revisions need more votes

By TAMARIA L. KULEMEKA
The Eagle-Gazette Staff
tkulemeka@nncogannett.com

PICKERINGTON - It doesn't look like enough votes will be secured to make revisions to the city's charter - unless some major changes are made to the proposed legislation in the coming weeks.

Three of the seven council members say they will not support the proposed legislation as it is. The three council members, Michael Sabatino, Bill Wright and Doug Parker, voted against the second reading Tuesday.

The proposal needs five council votes, according to the city charter, to pass and be placed on the ballot.

''Personally, I suspect that the (Mayor David) Shaver group wasn't aware they needed five votes to make it to the ballot,'' Sabatino said.

The proposed legislation would address the way City Council fills vacancies, eliminate emergency language on zoning and annexation legislation, and give those who want a referendum on the ballot access to the city's law director.

Parker, Sabatino and Wright agree that the proposed changes should be voted on as separate issues and not grouped together.

''If they broke them out, I would've voted for two of the three,'' said Parker, who was absent during the first reading of the proposed legislation.

Parker and Wright agree that eliminating emergency language on zoning and annexation legislation would put the city at a disadvantage.

''I'm not going to vote on anything that limits the city to exercise its Home Rule status,'' Wright said. ''It's taking away the ability of future councils to exercise their right of emergency language if and when it will be needed and, it will be necessary at some point in the future.''

Parker and Wright said they will vote against the proposed legislation at the third reading if the revisions aren't separated.

''(I will vote no) unless they break them out or (unless) there are changes that would make it more workable, but I don't think the changes are going to come,'' Parker said.

Councilman Mitch O'Brien, sponsor of the legislation, told council that the proposed legislation will be tabled at the next meeting so the Rules Committee can further review some additional proposed charter changes that Sabatino introduced at the committee meeting Monday.

Sabatino introduced two revisions: one would divide the city into wards and require ward representation from council - similar to the system Lancaster City Council has in place. The other proposed change would give council the responsibility of supervising the city manager. Presently, the mayor supervises the city manager.

O'Brien said these issues require in-depth discussion with the city law director, who was not present at the committee meeting Monday.

''Most of the questions will be for (the law director),'' O'Brien said. ''I want to give (Sabatino's) proposal the consideration it deserves and look for any potential conflicts between the two charter proposals.''


Originally published June 8, 2005