Pataskala Library Levy May 2, 2006

UPDATE May 8, 2007
Another try. This time 0.5 mill for 5 years for current expenses. This is to cover parking lot and replacing carpet. These are items are normally budgeted for within the current State funding allocation.

Concerns:

o The library is for books. Why expand its function beyond that?

2007 Primary Election May 8, 2007 Southwest Licking County:Pataskala Public Library (SWL) - Additional

FOR THE TAX LEVY 847 49.9%
AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 850 50.1%

UPDATE May 3, 2006:
2006 Primary Election May 2, 2006 Southwest Licking County:

Pataskala City Public Library (Yes... the term "Pataskala City Library" was on the ballot)

FOR THE TAX LEVY 1786 42.19%
AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 2447 57.81%

UPDATE April 27, 2006:
The April 15, 2006 letter below was published in the Pataskala Standard, April 27, 2006, "Opinions", page 9A. It may contain the only anti May 2 Library levy info ever printed. Well, I put "it may contain", because contrary to my search, the Standard says there are opposing views in the paper. I never could find them:

05/04/2006 02:38 PM
From: Joseph A. Williams Jr, Pataskala Standard Interim Editor

"Mr. Charles: I know of at least three letters to the editor that we published while I have been here that opposed the tax. And Chad assures me his stories included opponents. "

* * * * * * * * * * * *

April 15, 2006

Dear Editor of the Pataskala Standard,


I love the library and may vote for the levy. However, I have concerns. I go into detail at gravaman.com . Here is a summary.

The levy is being used to encourage the growth of the city of Pataskala by providing a large library with many expanded social service features. We outside Pataskala will share the increased tax burden at the same time we endure an increased threat to our way of life. Pataskala annexed Lima Township to protect us from Columbus and Reynoldsburg. The undesirable growth of Pataskala now presents the same kind of threat to its neighbors.

The SWL School Board, not the city of Pataskala, is the taxing authority for the Pataskala Library. Only the voters who live in the SWL School District will be burdened by the 15-year 1.99 mill Library levy, even though the city of Pataskala is served by two school districts.

The SWL School district is going to need those 1.99 mills and more in the near future. The mills will not be as easy to come by if they are tied up in the new greatly expanded library.

The SWL School district is going to need more money in the near future. That will not be as easy to come by if taxpayer money is tied up in the new greatly expanded library. [Note: The wording of the striked paragraph was mis-leading. At the editor's suggestion I rephrased it. I had copied the Library Director on the original letter when I sent it to the Standard.]

If we vote for the levy lets try to change the name of the library to the SWL Public Library and push the board to allocate more money to books, less to meeting rooms, big offices and dangerously misused computers.