So let's see here. The owner of the property has an appeal of their assessment saying that the property is worth less than $4 million, but LCPS is willing to pay $20 million. And, to boot, they are paying the owner of the property through a separate company a commission on the sale of the property! No wonder my County taxes are skyrocketing.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you read the article? "The seller (Greenvest) agrees to pay a commission" NOT the County.
.
As for the $4 million appeal, isn't that what every landowner wants; a lower assessment for tax reasons? I know I do, and a lot of my neighbors appeal their assessments to get the lowest assessment possible. What's so nefarious about that?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, the way appeals seem to work is on value as of Jan 1. I.e. the preceding year's value.

The preceding year there were no utilities on the Greenvest property, so the value under discussion on appeal is transitional ("buffer". yikes.) sans water and sewer.

The value sought is approx $35K per acre, which places it in the range of two of the top transitional protesters' land, which clocks in at $34K and $39K an acre.

If Greenvest leased the land to someone who runs cows or grows grass on it, they could get land use deferral, which would mean they'd be entitled to the same kind of huge break on of the protesters gets on their land.

I hope Mr. Miller is ready to listen to more of his voters weigh in than just the contributors he appointed to positions. We'll see.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just gloss over any quote from a LCPS representative - I know that it will be a demand for more money or more spending, without an accompanying suggestion to produce that money from internal cost savings.
To the Board and the school system, the taxpayers of Loudoun are just ATMs that convert oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the property owners believes their property is worth only $4 million that would serve as the basis for LCPS to condemn the property at that value as opposed to $20 million. With respect to the real estate commission, the overall sales price of the property is obviously inflated by the commission. The fact that the owner of the property is also receiving the commission is an insult to taxpayers. Barbara brings up good points with respect to the responsibility of an elected official to listen to all sides of the argument.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where do you get the idea that taxpayers are paying the commission? Tax assessments and assessed (sale) price are two different things. I want the lowest possible County assessment for my house, and when I sell my house I want the highest value I can get for it. I am not going to be asking for "only" my tax assessed value. Neither will you, unless you're crazy.
.
Look at Nicholas property right near the Lenah property, Nicholas wanted to rob the County at a 45M price tag. Thank god the new board came in before that deal could go through.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoudounModerate, I'm sure the county attorney could bring up that point in the court case that would come with condemnation.

While we're talking cost, let's not forget the cost of condemnation proceedings, the cost of busing during the proceedings (long time to put that extra diesel parts per billion on the poor environment!), the escalating cost of construction, and one of the most important issues that will be further exacerbated under condemnation--the DELAY.

I don't think "quick take" proceedings would apply for an entire site--make that two!

Mercer is already overcrowded. Freedom is on the way to historic overcrowding. I posted the numbers for hoq on another thread. I copy them for you here:

(taken from the Adopted FY 09-14 CIP)
Mercer building capacity = 1187
07-08 1267 enrollment
08-09 1468 projected
09-10 1702 projected
10-11 1923 projected. MS5 (capacity 1300) has already been moved back to this year (10-11 IF it stays on the current schedule), because every proffered site, and in some cases the possibility of proffered BUILDINGS, was protested by smoe of the same people. These are the numbers projected if it does NOT open as currently scheduled.
11-12 2274 projected (if no relief)
12-13 2661 " " "
13-14 3038 " " "

Freedom building capacity = 1600
07-08 1217 enrollment
08-09 1486 projected
09-10 1745 projected
10-11 2114 projected
11-12 2491 projected, if HS7 (capacity 1800) does not open as currently scheduled.
12-13 2879 projected, if no relief
13-14 3269 " " "

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Greenvest will let the County lease the property so we can put classroom trailers on it. That should handle the projected overcrowding. I hear FEMA has a bunch of trailers they no longer have a use for.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I drove to Lenah yesterday to see for myself and was surprised to see a fairly large neighborhood of single family homes on small lots (kicking myself now that I didn't notice prsesence/absence of sidewalks). However, I remain unconvinced this is a wise choice and need answers to a few questions to help develop my position on the topic. Erica, I sincerely appreciate your offer to obtain answers to citizen's questions:
1. How many of the 3,638 residential lots are actually approved (NOT pending)?
2. What are the total capital costs to bring utilities and road improvements to the proposed Lenah school site?
3. What is the actual cost of commercial property in the South Riding area where most of the students live that are currently overcrowding Mercer and are projected to overcrowd Freedom? Specifically, what is the estimated cost to purchase the commercial site and the estimated amount of projected tax revenue it would otherwise generate? What are the estimated costs (if any) for road improvements/utilities to serve a school on that property? How many students are in pedestrian/bike range of it? What are the annual estimated costs to bus students living within the target area to the site (assuming ~$4/mile)?
4. Now let's compare the cost (and lost tax revenue) of that site with those of the Lenah site - Specifically, what is the total cost of the Lenah site, starting with the $20M price tag, adding costs from question #2 above, plus the annual cost for bussing students to the property?
5. Lastly, will a school amenity in Lenah in any way help Greenvest (and other developers with residential lots pending approval) help them sell those homes? If the answer is yes, what specific road/utility improvements to support their development (and the school amenity) will they agree to fund?

If a quanitative cost comparison/ analysis isn't done at this level to provide key supporting data, I simply can't blindly accept the wisdom of, "The school system steers away from commercial property which tends to be more expensive and would mean the loss of valuable future tax revenue for the County."

If in the final analysis, the Lenah site can be demonstrated to be cost effective for Loudoun taxpayers from a comprehensive and life-cycle cost perspective, I would totally support a school there.

Posted by schools (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Schools, glad to see you've now seen the development of Lenah Run.

I can respond to some of your points:
1. "Approved" is a fluid word, depending on who is doing the talking and about what. It may mean here the total potential by-right lots in that subarea of the transition zone. There are no pending rezonings there, which is why I would bet these are by right numbers.
2. There would be no public capital costs to bring the utilities to the site, as the developer is bringing them to their by right land anyway. They are also constructing roads to serve the by right development. Upgrading the roads to serve the schools would be included in the contract, but it is my understanding the money is held in escrow for the schools to build the roads if they are needed before by right development progresses to that point.
3. We'll leave for a moment your assumption that all the students are in South Riding. The commercial site apparently under the eye of Mr. Miller and Ms. Chaloux comes with the pricetag of the interchange at 606 and 50. Not cheap. Residential in South Riding is $700K per acre and up. I do not know the exact value of the parcel targeted by the politicos, but do know (because he confirmed when I asked him) that the Treasurer spoke at the August Finance Committee meeting to make clear in no uncertain terms that commercial land in SR should NOT be removed from the tax rolls. We could balance the budget for 10 years into the future selling tickets to the condemnation proceedings if they persist in going after Market Square.
4. Good comparison--and let's not leave out the cost of busing kids FARTHER to Ashburn (and wherever else they will go) from ALL OVER Dulles South, starting this year (Mercer is already on overflow), as well as the total cost of condemnation proceedings.
5. Remember, "pending" may be used to mean by right. There are no rezoning applications by Greenvest or anyone else "pending" any sort of "approval" other than administrative. The continued deliberate disinformation on this point remains stupefying.

IOW, even if they are only by right homes, thousands more (just like the by right homes in Lenah Run, the Marches, and so on and on) are coming. That they are coming by right means yes, no sidewalks, no streetlights, no road improvements, no planning, no nothing...and no schools, either. Just kids who will need seats in them.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is my understanding that since the Braddock Village rezoning went down in flames that Nicholas/Farkas and Crerar properties are no longer tied at the hip. From looking at the rezoning documents it appears that Nicholas/Farkas owns about 48 acres and Crerar owns about 100. The $45M price tag is attributed to the school board staff while the property was still active in he rezoning process. Has onyone approached either of them separately about a school site whether proferred or purchased? They might be willing to sell at a reduced price since their rezoning went nowhere. The school board is not to be trusted on this one. On the condemnation issue, I don't believe you can do a quick take for a school site, it is too risky anyway. If you take the time to look at all the land south of Rt. 50 you will not find much of any size for a school site that is not in the SBPL process(preliminary site plan, "by-right"). Perhaps the community should ask these questions directly to the school board at their Public Hearing on Sept. 10.

Posted by Loudoun_Resident (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there are any open seats at Freedom, then there is absolutely no reason children from Mercer should be bussed outside of their district for the short term. Easier to bring some teachers to Freedom than send busloads to overflow in another district, particularly since some 8th grade Mercer students might be taking some freshman classes anyway. Why has no one suggested this option? Also, trailers exist everywhere else, so why are Mercer/Freedom exempted from this option? Sure its expensive, but at $100k/trailer, you could buy 10 for $1M, thus buying time to fully evaluate other options.

Back to Lenah - An interchange at 606/Rt 50? That sounds like a convenient excuse, similar to ones used in the past to dispute good sites in western Loudoun. I don't buy it for several reasons mostly because there are NO other interchanges currently along Route 50 in Loudoun (Rte 28 is the westernmost interchange). I'd like to see the specific terms of the Lenah contract to see exactly how much infrastructure Greenvest is really on the hook for providing. Sorry - I am extremely skeptical. However, I will remain open minded. Like I said, Loudoun citizens demand to see a quantitative balance sheet and until then all these vague qualitative statements being thrown about are frankly irrelevant.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Stinger, just as OTS is expecting the Lenah site to provide signalization or a roundabout at Lenah Rd. (per the transportation plan, whether the roundabouts on 50 have been surpassed years ago by traffic counts or not), any proposed development (other than by right) at a PLANNED interchange goes on the hook for that improvement as well.

The current proposal for completing the commercial land in South Riding includes both a park and ride lot and a good chunk of the PLANNED interchange.

Just like development heading west on 50 from South Riding is on the hook for the PLANNED interchanges at other major intersections.

Granted, if everything fronting the corridor were to go by right, those interchanges will never happen.

But if the argument is about relative cost of the dual site in Lenah versus condemning commercial property in a PUD, let's not leave that interchange out of the equation.

That would be kind of like leaving the carbon footprint of the fleet of collection trucks out of the equation for the benefits of recycling (and the taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits of the collection workers too, on the fiscal side).

Glad you are open mindedly skeptical.

I*'m sorry the town of Lovettsville never formally responded to the idea put forth by some residents near there that the town desired the school. Western Loudoun is grossly overdue for secondary relief.

Does negating a site for which the voters have already approved the purchase price (which has not been exceeded) and the construction of the middle school somehow relieve Blue Ridge, Emerick, Harmony and Valley?

Granted, the county already owns the Fields property. But the controversy continues, as do the bills.

But see what court does to service delivery?

Does it benefit "the taxpayer" to have the entire county hamstrung over schools?

Or is this site a convenient leverage point?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey, I would never ever wish the western school overcrowded conditions on children anywhere else. The trailers and seats at Freedom are suggested as interim measures to buy a little time so taxpayers have the assurance that a costly hasty decision isn't made that will be regretted later. Surely you understand the wisdom of running the numbers and convincing the taxpayers of the value of their investment before they are asked to spend more. It shouldn't take months and months to conduct this analysis. It seems fair to expect that most of these numbers to have already been developed before signing the contract anyway. Skeptical, absolutely - because of historical context - LCPS has used scare tactics in the past to justify shoehorning the sites they want. Nothing like double shifts to freak out parents let me tell you - LCPS knows it too. This "wait until everyone is so desperate they don't care where the school goes" tactic has got to be stopped. Openminded, absolutely - in fact, I promise to encourage our members to rally behind the Lenah site if the numbers to support the assumptions are there. I believe a cost analysis to be fiscally responsible and a very reasonable expectation for taxpayers to have of their government. Don't you?

Since you bring up Fields Farm, I'll wager LCPS is working hard on the Cangiano site as their Plan B. If they lose their court case at Fields Farm, they will have the desperation of western parents to facilitate shoehorning the school where they'd like one - in Wheatland at the Cangiano/Grubb properties. If Jim Burton and his collegues would consider these clear consequences and simply reallocate the $7M he budgeted for paving a few miles of country lane to improving existing overburdened travel routes between Round Hill, Fields Farm and Harmony (through and around Pville), Woodgrove groundbreaking could start and the Breadbasket of Loudoun would be preserved.

No leveraging at all. The Wheatland and Lenah areas are vastly different in the level of existing and planned residential density and feasibility of central utilities. However, I do see one distinct parallel - A failed site selection process and associated lack of public outreach.

By the way, Lovettsville Town Council issued a Resolution for a school within 3 miles of the Town and hundreds of citizens signed petitions, one in 2006 and another in 2007. So I don't know where you got your misinformation on that. Despite being told Lovettsville would get their school after HS-3, sadly these requests mean nothing to LCPS and perhaps even the BOS. Instead HS-10 will likely be placed where limited irrigation water resources supporting commercial fruit and vegetable farms could be compromised. Sincere regards.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Stinger, part of what "broke" site selection is the same thing that has broken a lot of land use in Loudoun: aggressive misinformation campaigns to drive NIMBYs into disrupting the process.

The only thing your membership could do to positively affect these schools is to vote to authorize construction of the high school, wherever it ends up being placed.

As I said, the voters already authorized site purchase money in the amount of $25M, of which 80% is proposed to be utilized to acquire these two sites.

The middle school construction has also already been authorized by the voters, and every application containing an acceptable site has been driven down by the same NIMBYs driving opposition to Lenah.

A neighbor used to serve on the local community center advisory board with the current at large rep to parks and rec (another campaign contribution reward), and this paragon, in the same breath of crowing over the defeat of Braddock South Village, said "now where is the next middle school supposed to be?"

The middle school is already several years overdue.

Yes, Lovettsville was told it would get a high school AFTER HS3. I am talking about the previously failed efforts to move HS3, which included going to Lovettsville, going to Franklin Park, going anywhere but where the county owns land supposedly purchased for the purpose. Take that one up with the remaining members of the 99 BoS--both Shellhorn and Fields have cost the county far more than their original inflated purchase price, with very little in the way of realized public service to show for it.

As for "misinformation" about Lovettsville not participating, I sat on the commission during both the Fields application and the Grubb application--Grubb, where 26 people came to testify that it was a pristine location of nothing but working farms that they could assert for a fact because all 26 had homes right across the street. Low and behold, the parcel map of that site showed an adjoining subdivision of land. Low density, but there.

The Chairman spoke to those urging the school to be moved to Lovettsville, and laid out that the commission had invited ALL the western towns to be a part of the process on those applications, and the silence was deafening. Look up the meeting and listen to his words: he thanked everyone for speaking, but said "we need to hear Lovettsville say 'we want the school'" and that had not occurred.

Endless cost analysis can surely continue to drive delay. Again, make sure the equation is complete--with inclusion of the cost of delay.

It is the first of the Three Ds of land use: Delay, Defeat, Deny.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey. The point remains, provide the data and support will come. It is reasonable due diligence. The public never approved a particular site or a specific dollar amount, only a school in the Dulles area, so keep the facts clear. Otherwise there is a public perception of developer back room deals. When people make mistakes, rules are put into place to keep them from happening again. That is what is happening now and I'm glad the new BOS wants assurances, most taxpayers do too. With all due respect, just because you and the School Board say it's the most cost-effective doesn't make it so.

Lovettsville has spoken for HS-10 and unfortuneately unless the process is fixed, it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The public never approved a particular site or a specific dollar amount, only a school in the Dulles area, so keep the facts clear. Otherwise there is a public perception of developer back room deals."Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Stinger, it is this kind of misreading of fact that keeps things unclear.

As I said: The voters approved $25M for site acquisition, of which it appears 80% is proposed to be spent. Of course they didn't approve a specific dollar amount for this specific site, but they did indeed approve a specific dollar amount total for expenditure. This site comes in under the voter approved amount, for two schools.

For you to then make the leap to a developer backroom deal goes hand in hand with the deliberate disinformation that is being pushed to keep this school out of the backyards of campaign contributors who were awarded county positions. There may be your backroom deal.

Greenvest owns the raw land. Should they sell it to someone "appropriate" before it can then be considered for a school?

Good for Lovettsville to speak for HS10. When it makes it to bond, I'll probably vote for it to be built.

The school on the table now out west is HS3. I voted for that one too. By the time it is built, I wonder what it will cost?

The search for the perfect frequently derails a lot of good--as it is no doubt intended to do.

The data is there. As a taxpayer, I often wonder what it costs to continually recollate and re-present it for the benefit of those who count themselves informed because they are on a political email list.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The data is where? Can you please be very specific as to where it can be found?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can start with comparative value of sites by looking at two applications: the Lenah school SPEX and the Market Square II commercial application in South Riding.

Take parcel PIN numbers from both and run them through the Assessment database.

Those applications will also give you the road improvements attendant on each, i.e. who is on the hook and what for.

Bear in mind that Market Square II is not a real site in the rational world. It is the only unbuilt commercial of any size in South Riding, so by default would be the only mythical "somewhere" available in the development.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You want me to start with the applications? Do you have a link for them or do they have to be obtained by FOIA? Do you honestly expect taxpayers to dig around and find all these pieces? "The data is there," you say. Are you saying the bus mileage comparisons and number of student pedestrians for the sites are on the applications? Or are you suggesting taxpayers need to get bus runs and calculate mileages themselves when LCPS won't even provide their bus route mileages in a spreadsheet format that can be analyzed? If there exists no comprehensive balance sheet that has already been pulled together (which is my original point), how can you credibly say "continually recollate and re-present?". What the taxpayers want appears to have NEVER been compiled in the first place. A good salesman puts together a convincing proposal. Those who strongly support this option are the ones with the incentive to put it ALL in one place like a spreadsheet and get LCPS to post it on their website. If no one has ever done this analysis, how in the world can anyone be expected to believe Lenah is the most cost-effective? It may very well be, but we just need a little more convincing than, "because I said so".

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I do want you to start with those specific applications.

If the argument is cost-based, that is. I thought that was your original point.

You need not FOIA them. The applications are both currently active, so the reports (including proffers on Market Square II) are posted online.

You now want a spreadsheet of mileage and walkers? First, we need a building to measure from within an attendance zone, and to do that we need a site to compare the Lenah site to.

The prevailing fantasy is that one exists in South Riding.

If your argument is truly cost based, look at the land cost before you get into diesel fuel and walkers; while the students are counted by planning area (as you know), there can only be guesstimates based on bus service provided (from an attendance area to a BUILDING) and a walk zone.

Neither can predict how many WILL walk or be driven. Number of people ON buses affects the cost of the bus too--just like number of people in a building affects the cost of a seat.

And aside from the fact that your desired spreadsheet is more appropriate to a boundary process, land cost alone will make any such spreadsheet little more than expensive busywork if the comparison is between transitional land in Lenah and commercial land in the suburban policy area, because that cost will more than double to move a site into SR before you even get to court costs for any condemnation.

Utilities are moot; they are going into Greenvest land in the transition area, paid for by Greenvest, whether the schools go there or not.

The roads are not a good place to go either. While OTS wants and needs its improvements at Lenah Rd. and 50, they also want and need the massive improvements at 606 and 50 currently tied to commercial land.

Is cost the argument? If so, bus routes on a spreadsheet aren't necessarily the magic bullet.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey, I sincerely respect and appreciate the many many hours you served on the Planning Commission, your knowledge base and your convictions in these matters. However, we may have to part unsatisfied here. We both essentially keep saying the same things. Yes, cost is the fundamental concern and we want numbers. You either don’t have them or understand the taxpayers need to be more convinced. The life-cycle cost analysis I seek is similar to that which corporate executives often hire experienced independent consultants to prepare. Essentially it would have the data you describe distilled into easily understood tables and figures. The analysis would employ the best estimates of qualified individuals with their assumptions clearly stated and consistently applied. The County frequently outsources tasks to qualified consultants, this is no different. It won't be free but it would be a small fraction of, and therefore justified by, the hundreds of millions of $$ to be spent over the life of these projects. Nothing will be perfect but it would better ensure fiscally responsible decisions and go a long way to address the concerns of severely overburdened taxpayers.

If the $20M purchase contract with Greenvest specifically includes bringing ALL the needed central utilities to the site and road improvements to serve the additional traffic associated with the co-located schools AND these improvements will be in place on or before the middle school opens and not tied to selling their xth lot, I would agree the case for Lenah would appear very compelling, that is, assuming the site doesn’t have significant hidden costs (e.g., grading/drainage) to prepare it for construction. However, these points have NEVER been clearly stated and simply need to be. If, as I suspect, it isn't this simple, all the more reason for costs, details and clarity.

Understand, I am neither for or against Lenah. It should seem pretty obvious that my issue is really way beyond Lenah. I see the implications for future school siting in the rural areas, as very soon will be the case for MS/HS-10. I am advocating for what I believe to be a reasonable expectation - a fiscally responsible and objective siting process that MORE effectively identifies and evaluates sites; and, that is understandable and transparent to taxpayers before a public hearing is advertised. Clearly, it will have limitations but it will be something tangible. Thank you.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Ms. Stinger--I wish this had been your first comment instead of "buy trailers while we look at this again". I am of the opinion that the western secondary situation is execrable, PREVENTABLE, and the worst possible model to inflict on anyone. It should not be occurring at all, let alone multiplied across the county.

I'm sorry if it appears I'm not sensitive to your desires, but a word I've been biting back is "spoonfeeding". There is a process in place, what CAN be public IS (we have already plowed the row on keeping real property transactions exempt from open meeting under state FOIA code--the public weighs in after the various entities do their jobs--THEIR jobs), and anyone interested can look up the info, follow the paperwork, become informed.

All of the new specifics you raise are covered in the documents on the SPEX. If there is a staff comment or policy reference you do not understand or seek background information on, the department is clearly identified, as is the staffer handling the project. Call them.

I don't mean to be blunt, but the number of items derailed by yes, UNINFORMED people (and I mean those who do not take the basic trouble to inform themselves from the buckets of tax-funded information sources available, but the ones who get an activist e-mail and join in making demands that would be embarassing if they knew what they were talking about) is the curse of public service sites in Loudoun.

People play the Loudoun game they've been taught so well: everything is a burden, I'M not pleased, move it, change the configuration--and when that little group is appeased with more jumps through hoops (that have often already been cleared before their majesties the activists drew their eyes out of their navels to start yelling) what happens next?

Someone closes on their new pristine property down the street from wherever it was moved to, and the circus starts again.

I understand what you are seeking. There is something more fundamental in play: not all land is available, and determining a site by committee of whoever is excited this week is doing the process backwards.

Until you have a site to compare to, what are you going to run your comparison reports on?

Seriously.

Throwing a dart at a parcel (however zoned, however located in terms of road planning, existing overlays--don't forget those LDNs at Dulles!) brings another set of costs with it when the location decided by committee is thrown on the table.

Read the entire documentation on Lenah. I believe most of your questions will be answered.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One additional thing: I can appreciate any desire to improve site selection in the rural policy area, but bear in mind the Valley cluster is quite different in land use issues than the Freedom cluster.

While it may be the opinion of some that the transition area is rural, it is not. It is often called a "buffer zone"--squish--that includes both suburban and rural uses in a "visual and spatial divide". No man's land (the point in Loudoun?)

Non residential uses (and by god if we have to have uses in Loudoun, they should be non-residential! Like all those magic businesses that will come!) specifically include schools.

Best of luck to you and yours on getting relief at Valley. I hope you have schools (and am past cringing at the cost) before your children have graduated.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting new information:

A new group called something like Citizens for Community Schools (apparently related to Families for Dulles South, which is one of the names used by the county appointees to Parks and Rec lobbying against the schools that Parks and Rec have no outstanding issues with) presented information at the August joint meeting of the BoS and School Board.

It included a map of "vacant properties in Dulles South", of 35 sites that this group thinks should be considered for moving the Lenah schools to, prepared by the PEC.

PEC's standard disclaimer, "Map created by PEC for presentation purposes only.Although efforts have been made to verify data, accuracy is not guaranteed" has never been funnier (in a truly black humor sense), as the properties include working quarries. As in literally, an operational pit.

Golly, maybe we could design a context sensitive building that draws from native american cliff-dwelling architectural techniques, with programs focusing on the benefits and environmental dangers of our historic diabase mineral extraction industry!

I hope whoever paid a "real estate broker" to do this search didn't spend too much!

Preposterous.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wasn't Stone Hill designed to be a reliever school for Mercer? I think that was part of the justification for opening it with such a low enrollment.
Stone Hill isn't too far from "Dulles South".
Just wondering.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, Stone Hill is in Briar Woods cluster--it was designed to relieve Eagle Ridge, and has.

It isn't that close, and the roads that would be used to access it are a lot more congested (with industrial truck traffic) and dangerous than Braddock. Granted, Braddock has plenty of rush hour traffic--but a good whack of that is people who live in "the country" and pass through to work well east of Loudoun.

The fundamental issue is never addressed: whether one agrees with the FACT of growth in the 50 Corridor or not, the services need to be provided for the growth that is already here. Purchase money has already been approved, as has construction of the middle school.

Is anyone running a tab on the dog-and-pony show of staff, commission and board time that will be devoted to responding to this bs list? Which also includes Knop's Mountain, and the Dulles South Multipurpose Center, along with the quarry pit?

Be happy people are getting screwed on their schools down here again, Cliff; it keeps them from focusing on the hospital issue.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the Lenah site is going down the tubes. I'm willing to take a friendly wager with anyone that the BOS will scuttle the deal. Also, in the next week or two look for a major announcement on land acquisition policies from the BOS. I can hear it in the wind.

Posted by Loudoun_Resident (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It wouldn't surprise me.

They will pass the HCA deal for their campaign contributors in contravention of the Comp Plan they campaigned to uphold.

They will delay schools for other contributors.

They will re-enact the zoning overlays that got thrown out on the first downzoning, adding multiple layers of cost to any land use that remains allowed, while expanding programs to subsidize the tax write offs of other constributors.

And when the dust settles, and the 5 year sunset they placed on the Inova Route 50 zoning expires, they'll take that land and grudgingly put a school on it.

No, nothing would surprise me at all.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Barb. Oh, and what hospital issue??

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on August 23, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, you're a scream.

You're probably right; there are no real issues. Just the predetermined ones these paragons were elected to railroad through.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on August 23, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erica, question 5 needs to be asked again, but in connection with the Lambert property.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)