They Promise But We Get
The often-cited Township survey was based on a 1.5 Mil Levy   The Levy on the ballot is a WHOPPING 4.6 Mills
Some seniors won’t pay anything to use the Rec Center Seniors’ property taxes will go up big – just like everyone else’s – whether they use the Center or not.
Levy dollars will pay for building & operating the Center Maybe. The ballot language is for a “Parks” Levy that can be used for any “park” related project, such as miscellaneous landscaping or fixing up parts of the Wigwam. “Rec Center” is not in ballot language.
“Donated” land makes the Project less expensive Wrong! The “Donation” deal has lots of strings attached. Road improvements and sewer extension will cost Violet Township, Pickerington, & Canal Winchester taxpayers 5.25 MILLION DOLLARS in new additional property taxes.
A Rec Center is widely supported by local residents The Violet Township Feasibility Study projects that only 8% will pay for a membership to the center, meaning that 92% of us will pay much higher taxes to subsidize 8% of the people, even if we never use it ourselves.
The Rec Center will be a magnet for Economic Development The main backer (“Land Donor”) of this project is a local
real estate developer who owns substantial acres adjoining the
proposed site. “Who knows what zoning Violet Township will allow for the development of surrounding land.”
A Community Center will be good for Violet Township No mention of a community center in the tax ballot language. Some other communities do not use tax levies for funding. Why not embrace a public – private approach. Why should Violet Township citizens in Canal Winchester and other far away places in Violet Township pay for a facility they likely will never use?
A swim facility A very expensive swimming complex that benefits primarily Pickerington school swim teams, and a small percentage of the tax paying citizens.

This Rec Center is a want for a select few and costs too much !

This rec center is poorly thought out and is being rushed before the taxpayers without adequate regard for cost and need. Please vote NO on May 7.