Does Mr. DuPree have any specific concerns about the Lambert property or is he just sticking with generic negativity?

Posted by louiebird (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Val, who is the realtor for the sports company? They too have been in meetings on this, but the county correspondence between the realtor, the sports company, Economic Development, Planning and Zoning shows that they are primarily seeking in excess of 100 acres, with the 20 or 30 referenced being for some quick soccer fields.

The road and utility issues are significant, before we even get to the fact that Lambert is in TR3, which is a less dense (and currently much less developed) portion of the transition area than Lenah, which is TR1.

Indoor and outdoor recreation facilities are not permitted in TR, so to get the sportsplex, the property would require a rezoning at the very least, and possibly a CPAM.

There is also a small center parcel with someone occupying it.

That means condemnation.

That means cost and delay too.

And then let's add in the $4M to date on getting the Lenah SPEX through the process.

I can understand why Mr. Miller doesn't want to have to vote on Lenah, because it would pit some significant donors (three now in county positions) against thousands of constituents, but hey.

Consider the insiders' the win-win-win: one doesn't have to look at a school in her backyard, one gets to try to move the Tri County Parkway to 606, and another gets to maybe make a good commission on a future sale for business.

I think this property is worth looking at for future sites, and worth purchasing now if potentially viable.

It in no way replaces Lenah on the same time schedule.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Louiebird, it has part of Elk Lick Run and significant wetlands bisecting it, as well as only having access through a 1000 acre farm.

The farm is not afraid to engage in litigation to protect its concerns. There are historic (and I believe active) suits with the county over many years time.

Water is on the other side of a neighboring dirt road (that cannot be "paved in place"), and sewer has to cross other properties if it comes down from Braddock.

Then there is the matter of that non-included parcel in the middle with somebody on it...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just checked the county website AGAIN--the staff report is still not posted on Lenah.

It will be briefed to the commission on Tuesday, and heard Wednesday.

Great public (and private) process from our open government!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still no report posted for the only real site on the table, which will be publicly heard in three business days.

Maybe we don't need one now?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Report posted right before 3:00, so Planning Staff got it out there under the wire. Amen.

http://loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=32...

The report is generally favorable, and staff recommends going to committee.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this site looks terrific, and A LOT more affordable. I don't understand the School Board's obsession with buying this land in Lenah and dismissing this new site out of hand. They have been criticized because its far from South Riding and it costs a fortune. Why wouldn't they be excited about erasing those criticisms? The Lenah fixation must stop. Maybe they're too emotional about the land they buy. Seems like Miller outpaced the School Board on every count and did it a few months as opposed to the years it took them to find Lenah (years too late). Too bad he wasn't elected sooner. Even if the schools push through their ridiculous Lenah deal, I sure hope they involve Miller from now on. Seems like they could use him.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can say that I've been on Bull Run PO Road a lot, and the Lambert property is an absolutely beutiful piece of land. It would be a shame if s massive sports complex were situated there, but this is Loudoun County after all, so backroom dealings wouldn't exactly surprise me.

I wonder what the development costs would actually be for this once road improvements, water, sewer, grading, hauling in dirt, regulatory approval, zoning modifications, etc.?

Also, if the property in the middle were to be condemned, would that property go to the school, or the privately owned sports complex? If the latter, would this not be another Kelo vs. New London situation, where the county bullies the small property owner to benefit a developer? Sure hope not.

Posted by any1 (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 3:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

murphybrownthegr8pmpkn, I don't think anyone is dismissing the site out of hand as a purchase to landbank future sites, but it does not replace the only real site on the table at the moment. Lenah is not the only two sites that will be needed down here, in large part because of the by right growth that adds impact without any mitigation

Lenah fixation? The only folks I see with that are the ones who don't want to look at it or approve it, as opposed to those who know the middle school is already two years overdue.

Miller is working with bad info on how painless this will be.

He may indeed have quite a bit of power, but I don't think he understands its limitations--just like he apparently didn't understand how much work this job would be, or how little (!) he would be paid for it.

If a professional realtor and developer hasn't realized any potential on this site before now, that should tell people something.

Particularly the new realtor branching out from slow home sales into shopping TR3 for a non-permitted use just because of who they are related to.

Years too late is the status of the middle school--all proffered sites were shot down by the same little network.

Any site has to go through the established process, so the clock starts over on anything proposed to replace Lenah (and benefit anyone with a personal--or financial--stake in it).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

any1, I don't know if it would be comparable to Kelo, because ostensibly any condemnation would be for schools.

If the land is unable to support three schools and a sportsplex, or three schools, maybe if the portion condemned were to then be sold for private development, but that is getting a layer removed from direct benefit.

There is potential direct benefit to the realtor if the county purchases the land, and then sells it to the private company. It will be interesting to follow the purchase and see.

I believe the school board has condemning authority, but that would take 5 votes to implement it.

The BoS could probably do it if the school board doesn't, but that would hang them farther out over the line than Mr. Miller has already done by proposing this as a painless, cheaper replacement.

Delay, cost.

Those who will benefit from sinking Lenah welcome any delay.

Cost needs to be examined much further than presented here.

Possibly more delay.

Equalling more cost.

Lather, rinse, repeat, as is sometimes said.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. to murphybrownthegr8pmpkn, the site seems more affordable for two reasons--each acre is one third of a house, instead of a house, and it has no access except through neighboring property.

It is worth vetting for a future site.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cheaper is cheaper. I don't understand your point. Is it better for the county to buy land that represents one hosue per acre instead of a third of one? Why should I care about that.

As for the access, I think you're confused. It looks to me like a road runs all along the right side of the property in the above map.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

murphygr8, cheaper isn't cheaper if it costs more to bring on line, a year or more late.

One house vs. a third of a house means it's an apples to oranges land value comparison, and if one of the things we're looking at in taking taxable land off the tax rolls is what is eliminated (like commercial in a PUD), Lenah removes 129 houses, and this removes far less. That usually matters to the little group driving this bus.

It is cheaper because it is less dense, with no improvements, and has constraints. As I said, somebody would have developed it before now if it was cheap and easy.

As I also said, it is worth looking at and probably buying now to bank for future sites.

No, I'm not confused. Bull Run Post Office Rd. is a dirt track into the woods. Access to the site still requires obtaining land from someone else to put in roads.

Even though the realtor said it can be "paved in place", that is part of the Rural Rustic Road program, and has a cap on how much traffic it can support in order to be eligible.

Traffic for a middle and a high school are more than five times greater than what the state allows on pave in place, before we even get into what is now being touted in emails soliciting resident activity as a state of the art sports facility, Olympic swimming facility, and more.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would be curious to know what you think the biggest problems with the Lenah location are?

I thought there was more or less a dirt road to that location too.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that there is quite a bit of misleading information going on about the site.
Loudoun Water and Sewer could provide those utilities to the Lambert site a year sooner than they could provide Lenah, as I understand it.

http://thebulletproofmonk.blogspot.com/2...

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I think you have been misinformed. According to
the staff report, all Lenah issues with Loudoun Water
have been resolved.

Water is not the only issue with Lambert, as you know.

I am interested in the advocacy email making the
rounds, linking to your new site:

"Subject: Check out The BulletProof Monk: Loudoun
Fiscal Conservatives.....What if?

Friends,

I need your support, supervisor Miller is trying to
save all of us 6 million for a school site please
voice your opinion. As you will see in the article my
complex is tied to this proposal.

Send the link to your friends and neighbors and
encourage them to ask the school board to take a
better look at the Lambert property. Push the cost
savings and the location. Schools should be where the
student population is located. Don't bus our kids
down Rt. 50.

What is DuPree thinking? Every Elementary school that
has been built, us the Parents have had to raise money
for a playground for our school. The schools in our
area Little River, Huchison, and Pinebrook have
terrible fields. Surely saving 6 million should, could
improve not only new schools but the existing ones in
are communities.

Please send this to all your friends, lets take action
against a school board willing to waste lots of money.
Read both of these links and respond with support for
Miller and the South Riding site that will include a
first class soccer/sports complex with an Olympic size
swim facility.
"Will Miller’s New Deal Trump Lenah School Site?" by
Living in LoCo | LoudounExtra.com | The Washington
Post

The BulletProof Monk: Loudoun Fiscal
Conservatives.....What if?"

My complex is tied to this proposal? My complex is
tied to this proposal.
Why?

Schools should be where the population is located?
Not many kids living in the woods on TR3. No one will
walk to this site.

I thought it was all about fiscal responsibility and
schools on time cheaper.

Looks like it is about starting a CPAM and a rezoning
on TR3 to get a "first class soccer/sports complex
with an Olympic size swim facility".

If there is any land left over after the high school,
middle school, and elementary school go there.

People do seem to be sending it to all their friends.
I got one.

murphygr8, read the staff report on Lenah. There are
three issues needing further resolution, and involve
the transportation improvements.

Three out of 32 issues.

The 10 Comp Plan issues are all good.
7 environmental review--all good.
4 out of 7 trans issues, resolved.
2 zoning issues--good.
1 emergency services--good.
1 County Attorney review of proffers in process,
disclosure met.

Looks like the Lenah application is 90% good.

Except for the fact that some very important people
don't want it.

That is still the major issue, gr8.

Along with that sportsplex that keeps getting bigger
and more important than the schools.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition, in response to your update on your blog, I did put two consecutive posts there, but apparently it was before you adjusted your filters.

I think I saved one of them, and will look for it.

I have quite a bit of documentation.

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

Send them over. I want both sides to be presented, along with information that you may have a conflict of interest on this in that you either work for Greenvest, or thru a friend who does, have an interest in seeing Greenvest prevail, no matter the cost.
Feel free to address this in the affirmative or the negative.

I did have a problem after I enabled the anonymous portion for responses, and I think I lost a couple. I okayed them from my panel, but they did not post to the thread.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, just posted to your thread.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not working for Greenvest, nor am I working with anyone who is.

Haven't even talked to anyone over there.

I'm interested in seeing these schools, one two years late, and one currently on schedule, not derailed for a real conflict of interest.

As I have said, the only real sites in process right now are at Lenah. Lambert and anything else may be worth exploring, but are currently pie in the sky. Which will involve buying land from developers too, in case you haven't noticed.

And no, I don't work for any of them either.

The conflict of interest is not on my part Dean, it is on the part of the individual who stands to financially gain from their connection to Supervisor Miller.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How is saving $8 MIL to the taxpayers of Loudoun a bad thing, again?
Purchasing land from developers doesn't even make me blink, Barb. But a School Board offer that leaves us paying more than we ever should have for a piece of land does bother me....immensely. No matter WHO we buy it from.
There's alot of misinformation about this Lambert property somehow ending up running past Lenah in development, as well as alledging that the costs will be more...all to the end that Lenah cannot compete with this site unless the Lambert Property pricing structure gets bloated by innuendo and outright lies. That's where I get suspect of the involvement of certain parties....because they've got a history of doing things like that.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I didn't say it was a bad thing.

I said we don't know if it is true yet.

Yes, there is a lot of misinformation about the Lambert property. The most significant is that it will magically produce not only a middle and high school in the same time frame more cheaply, but an elementary school, a soccerplex, an Olympic swimming facility, a pony, and ice cream.

You can get some basic info about the property from reading the rezoning application on it:

ZMAP 2006-0026

That will give you chapter and verse on the environmental constraints and road issues.

It will not tell you how three schools and a sportsplex will work there, if you can get utilities and roads in that will support the traffic generated.

That will cost some money to do, as part of the new SPEX application on moving the middle and high school there, which will cost time and money.

Let's get back to that sportsplex that will need to get a rezoning, and maybe a CPAM for the currently non-permitted uses.

How do you feel about the taxpayers providing the infrastructure through schools, if that is possible, and someone connected getting paid a commission on it?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason the School Board and Mr. Dupree are pushing the Lenah school site hard is that it's simply a great site for two much needed schools in an overcrowded area. They've got engineering studies that the schools will work there and they've already planned fixes to deal with potential traffic and water issues. They can get the schools open in 2010 and 2011 respectively. They are even paying $5 million less than budgeted for the land. The biggest defect with the Lenah property is that it is too close to politically well-connected NIMBYs (that's "not in my back yard").

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well hello again, tbellanca.

Actually, I've been talking to Dean and others, and no, they're not me too!

What school are you talking about in Leesburg?

There are two operating high schools there. Loudoun County was built in 1954, and was running at 96% capacity last year. Heritage was built in 2002, and was running at 109% cap last year.

HS5 was projected to open in 2010.

Which one did they open this year?

I don't believe they did, but one of my personalities may have missed it. Have your voices read the CIP?

Cornfield High was the nickname given to Broad Run when it opened in 1969.

To Charsj--Amen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, since you link to your blog in this thread, I'll address you here about my comment you moderated out.

I posted yesterday re for me it is about the schools, but it never appeared so I wondered if you were still experiencing technical difficulty.

I posted again today with the same info, and added a reply to the blog you spun off of, where it is now posted that I was offered a job with a PR firm, but have my own little firm.

I stated that I do not have a firm, a business license, or any contracts, but that yes I was offered a job a few years back, took the interview, but not the job, because I prefer to say what I think.

I then went on to say, which is pertinent to this thread, that two individuals now in county service who contributed to Mr. Miller's campaign are identified on VPAP as self employed in PR and direct mail marketing.

http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index...

http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index...

I said it made me wonder if they had been paid to crank out emails for the flock of Loudoun's Future groups they run/ran.

You replied with this, after posting my comment of yesterday:

"Blogger The Bulletproof Monk said...

Barbara, I moderated one comment (I believe it was
yours) regarding VLF financing, because quite frankly,
I'm not going to give you a soap box on my blog. I SAT
ON THE EX COM of that VLF, and I'm quite aware of the
financing, and exactly why it came about, and what it
was used to fight.

Now, with regard to you and Ken Reid's concerns on
fiscal responsibility... I see my duty in Loudoun to
watch the spending, and draw a hard line against those
that think there is a bottomless coffer from which to
draw.
Loudoun's citizens are tapped out....and the
spending at the County level had better reflect that,
or I will expose what I have to. I am not bought and
paid for, and anyone who thinks that needs to
re-examine my history. (Barbara---I agree that the
instant one takes money to represent a cause, their
objectivity is subject to scrutiny. At the same time,
it does take money to get a message out to the masses.
So, I watch which side of that fence the money is
dumped on)

September 7, 2008 12:02 PM"

Dean, I can see your point that it is your soap box, but your reply indicates to me the possibility that the answer to my question might be yes.

If you truly want to present both sides of an issue, do so, warts and all, even for those with whom you may agree on their paid messages.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, you're a friend of Dupree's why don't you talk to him about this issue? There are always two sides to a story and you have direct access to the other side. Until you can say you've had that conversation, you're preaching one side. Check it out, otherwise you'll continue to dig yourself into a hole. If after speaking with Dupree you feel the same way about the sites, then you'll stand with credibility. Reasonable minds count on as much info as possible. Give him a call.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I did dump the comment because it rehashes the old argument about the VLF...and I'm not going to allow you room on MY blog to revisit the evil PEC, et al....
If money is used to get a message out, I do not find fault in that, because the alternative is us talking to ourselves. Getting a message out and into homes regarding an iniative requires money...period. TAKING money from one entity, while standing in a spot that requires an official position to be represented on a given subject is entirely different. There was this case of a blogger who was being paid from a democrat's fund to blog favorably about a democratic office seeker, as well as invade other blogs to sew the seeds as an anonymous guest. THAT is a problem.
I do not believe any of the VLF's candidates have elevated to that bar. You may not like their politics, but their noses are clean, compared to the builder's nepotism with the one's they replaced.
To your other points, I thought I was pretty clear in my reply. I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. I posted the story to draw all the rhetoric, factoids, and innuendo into the discussion. That's how I get my broom out and sweep thru all of it to dispose of the factless drivel, keep the pertinent info, pull out a tally sheet and do the math. Until I see so much more documentation, there cannot be an end sum.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since you've got it figured out,Glen, why don't you.
If you think I'm one-sided after as long as we've known each other...we never really knew each other at all? eh?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Besides, Dupree and I are using a high fence right now.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, there is more to this, I am giving you a heads up, check it out.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I find it funny that it gets trotted out that I'm paid, on NO documented backup, while state links showing someone's self-registered occupation are not worthy of question.

In addition, I was talking about CAMPAIGN for Loudoun's Future GROUPS that rely heavily on emails for the political equivalent of direct mail marketing, which is why it is interesting to me that you replied by ditching my comment with an explanation about the PAC VOTERS for Loudoun's Future EXPENDITURES.

Again, the answer appears to be yes.

Of course its your blog, but Glenn is right.

You've had some technical difficulties getting started, but deep-sixing things you don't agree with, in conjunction with those difficulties, isn't getting you off to an auspicious start.

How is a high fence going to help you in your desire to present both sides?

You haven't called me, and I'm nobody.

You won't call Robert?

You are certainly entitled to your preconceived notions on your own blog, but I don't know if the world owes you a dance because you demand it.

And you know what? Supplying you with everything you determine you need costs money too.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, since Ms. TeKrony's new group has their website up, I went ahead and forwarded my FOIA material on the realtor's correspondence with Planning, Zoning and Economic Development to the Board and the Planning Commission.

It appears the same game plan is being run by the same people who gained office and appointments through their (paid?) direct mail marketing PR about the CPAMs.

In this version of that old favorite, the role of The Greedy Developer will be played by Loudoun County Public Schools.

The role of the flyers and email updates shouting "38,000 Houses! Half a MILLION cars!!!" will be played by the map entitled "35 Vacant Properties!!!"

This is that ridiculous map that included the quarry pit and other non-starters, refuted er, reviewed by lcps here:

http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5099051...

The role of Shafted will continue to be played by Mercer Middle School.

If the program has a successful run, Mercer will be joined in its role of Shafted by its colleague, Freedom High School

Sponsored by your Dulles Supervisor, with help from a private realtor, on behalf of his campaign contributors in County positions.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, Barbara... I'm trying VERY hard to walk the middle road right now. I asked you one time if you had ties to Greenvest. You said no, and that was good enough for me.WHY THEN, do you keep trotting that pony out before the masses? And then the comment at my blog regarding Miller's susceptability to $100 dollar bills when he's a very accomplished Attorney in his own right ---must have sparked the outburst of what I can only describe as Turret's Syndrome from you.
It is my blog, I know how it went down (because I was RIGHT THERE) and I refuse to let you reinterpret or speculate by-gone days on my site.
Stick to the present, pack up your factual information and come on back over. But leave the bitterness and the lies about the VLF over here, girl.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Perhaps in your world there is no way someone can support a candidate WITHOUT having their hands out. However here in the land of consciences that is a common, albeit not universal, occurence. There are terms for unfounded insinuation similar to what you are practicing - slander & libel.

For the sake of those who have short memories, here is the list of the "common citizens" (NOT!) who donated $ to your benefactor - funny how many of them did not reside in Loudoun at all. I can only wonder what their motivations may be be....$$$$$

http://vpap.org/candidates/profile/money...

Posted by tconway (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since you went all nuke-u-lar on me before I was able to sit down after being out all day... I got a tutorial on "Being Barbara Munsey" a couple of years ago from some who've known you, like, forever....
The simplest way to understand Barbara is that she will fight for whatever she wants for her. Whether it be schools for South Riding over the ones in the west, whether it be tax breaks for the east that break the farmers that were here a hundred years before her, or anything that benefits Barbara herself.
With your admissions that you only care about your own children...and the meltdown...came clarity. I understand where your horse is in the race, now.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there a way to set users to ignore so we don't have to see their comments? Some people seem to monopolize certain topics to advance their conspiracy theories and gain some kind of satisfaction in their perceived political retributions.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ouch!!

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, if you think this is a meltdown, you're reading in.

Who said Miller did anything for hundred dollar bills? The financial contributions by those rewarded with positions (and driving opposition to overdue schools through the usual modus operandi) are modest, but if, as you seemed to imply with your defensive outburst about VLF PAC financing, that there was indeed paid work to get a message out, then we wouldn't be talking about modest personal donations.

We'd be talking about managing large email lists, keeping them full of "PR", and whipping out a lot of "direct mail marketing" campaign work.

Which seems to be happening again, against schools.

Dean, as usual you seem to be the one going nuclear. You can certainly pick and choose on your own blog, but I think Glenn pointed out aptly that your notions seem preconceived.

Fine, on your blog.

Of course I want schools because I have kids in the ones that are being delayed relief! That's beyond "duh". You are headed off the reservation of reality with the rest of it--who in the east gets tax breaks that are driving hundred year old farmers off of their land?

I have been out all evening myself. Did they go ahead and come out of executive session and buy Lambert?

Or did they not, hence the rage and redirection?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Conway, slander and libel have specific definitions, and I can pretty much guarantee you that the Post is familiar with them.

In the world of "conscience", someone who takes a position with specific duties, including IMPARTIAL review of applications, does so to the best of their ability, regardless of their personal feelings. Which should include giving a county application on a county school at the very least proper procedure before coming out against it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, it's all clear now - you're one of the 'entitlement mentality' parents I've been complaining about all this time!
Sorry, but "it will be late" is NOT a valid reason to not save the taxpayers money. So sorry if your precious little darlings have to walk to onsite mobiles for their Social Studies class!

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoq, I understand I've just been granted the part of Crazed PTA Mom. (Not only here, but on the other blogs Dean visits too)

It is a convenient dismissal, but it doesn't prove the point of whether or not this saves money.

My kids will be on a bus wherever the schools go. I'm fine with that, unless it is to Leesburg or Ashburn because of a bad decision made for politically personal reasons instead of a sound evaluation of the only legitimate site in process--Lenah.

I thought Lenah was too sensitive for schools because it is in TR1. It's more developed than the site in TR3 with no road and no sewer.

Lenah is just too far! Leesburg and Ashburn are farther, and remember those fuel costs to the environment!

Insider deal to evil Greenvest? Yes, that is much worse than a politically connected soccer mom getting a commission on a soccerplex that the county will pay for improvements to through more expensive delayed schools.

You're okay with that, right?

Mr. Miller hasn't done his homework.

You are aware that one of his fellow Supervisors, who has been sitting in meetings on this, attempted to cancel the public hearing?

Yes, it will serve the taxpayers well to just drop it all and start over with a "better" site.

Now, back to that famous old chestnut of a play that has such a long-standing run here in LoCo:

The character of the Savior, previously played by Mr. Miller, has been renamed the Pig in a Poke, and will be played by The Lambert Property.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't like someone's viewpoint don't read their posts. I find Barbara's posts to be most informative - she actually looks up information and reports back her findings. The fact that you don't agree with her opinions shouldn't matter - if someone is quoting actual facts, figures and procedures or pointing out that others may have a vested interest in swaying the outcome of a decision, then to ignore it is just plain convenient. Isn't it? Because if you ignore the facts that don't support your position it is easier to convince others to agree with you so that you can get your way.

And no, I have never met Barbara and therefore you cannot say that I am her friend and therefore sticking up for her. Anyway, I don't really think she needs an advocate and what I am saying is that I am interested in finding the truth.

And it is very hard with all these half truths that are floating around. I wonder if our Supervisor, in all his wisdom, asked the school planning staff to give background on which properties they reviewed and ruled out before they decided on the Lehah property. I hope he did because that would be much more appropriate than forming a new committee to possibly do the work the schools already did. It appears to me that the supervisore are undermining the work of the school employees.

There are procedures. They should be followed until new procudures are explored and agreed upon. In the meantime, the building of much needed schools should not be held up.

I live in the South Riding area. Would I love to have the new schools almost across the street from my neighborhood. Absolutely! Unfortunately, because of all the studies and site work that would be required to find out if this site is even a viable option and/OR to find out if this site would really save the county $$ it becomes an unattractive solution for the two schools in question.

I agree with the post by charsj on 9/7. I think it is interesting that some responders seem to be disgarding this well-stated post.

By the way, to those who may accuse me of being of the "entitled" mindset - my husband and I are tax payers, have been prior to having kids in public schools and will still be after our kids have graduated. The government is charged with providing an education for the children and it needs to take place in school buildings. These are capital assets for the county that will serve the residents for years to come. The value is amortized and should not be the responsibility of one subset of the population.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2,
This describes the entitlement mentality perfectly. You pay your taxes, sure... but do you pay the fully-loaded cost of your children you send to school? Do you even pay half? Do you even know what the cost is? "The government is charged..." argument is not a false one, but bear in mind that a whole lot of cost-cutting can - and should - be done in Loudoun's school system, and the recent 'proposals' are nothing short of pathetic. Honestly, coming up with less than 2% of the total yearly budget to trim is laughable and on-par with the stereotypical inefficient local and state government image. "Real" companies facing the current crunch are mandating 10-30% cost cutting measures over a period of the next two to three years. Why? Because they can't simply hit up the "Taxpayer ATM" for more cash like LCPS can... and thus, the 'entitlement mentality' comes into play, where parents demand more and more spending every year for new services, or for services that go well beyond the legal educational requirements - but don't want to foot the bill.
Barbara,
I don't know where you live, but "politically motivated reasons" or no, if a solution is to bus kids to Ashburn or Leesburg, it really doesn't sound that bad. "Politically motivated reasons" are what increased my taxes by inordinate amounts this year to support LCPS, and they should consider bussing (so long as it isn't MORE expensive with your completely valid argument re: fuel costs).

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoqenishy,
You make assumptions about me that aren't true. I have never demanded more and more services, etc. I'm not sure how the schools can be expected to run on less money when they are serving significantly more students each year. They are also expected and/or requried to provide diverse educational programs for students - including special education, ESL, gifted and talented and so on. The school system itself is not a business. They are not turning out a product. They are educating children. It is to our advantage as a society to have educated and productive citizens.

The comment you mentioned that Barbara made: "and they should consider bussing (so long as it isn't MORE expensive with your completely valid argument re: fuel costs". This is but one of the costs involved but a very important one if the students are to be bused. My frustration with this process is that lots of ideas are being thrown around, such as bus the kids, without knowing if that would actually solve the problem. Here are some other factors that need to be taken into account: the time it will take to get these kids to the schools out of their neighborhoods will probably cause the system to employ more bus drivers and purchase new buses. The kids may well spend 1 1/2 - 2 hours per day on the bus minimum. The traffic between South Riding and Ashburn in the mornings can be quite backed up, so I believe I am being conservative in my estimate. The kids will have less time to get out and play or go to soccer before the sun sets during most of the school year. Putting more buses into the heavy traffic on those roads may cause additional safety considerations. Since I am not an expert in this, I can only imagine that there are other factors to be considered.

I am personally not against using trailers. I had classes in trailers in jr. and sr. high myself and I survived! It is definitely not ideal, especially when the weather is bad or when there is a tornado threat. But here again, it is being suggested but with no facts to support it: how many trailers would be needed, would they fit at the school sites, how much would the trailers cost, what are the installation costs and utility costs, would site work need to be done before installation.

Ok, that is all for now. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Definition of Libel

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. Alt: The act of presenting such material to the public.

Definition of slander

Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. Alt: A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Frankly I don't think the WPost would ever really care about enforcing these definitions because they would have to indict many on their own staff along with certain bloggers :)

Posted by tconway (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read again, Mr. Conway.

I asked questions.

In addition, don't any direct statements have to be knowingly false?

“Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper, magazine, or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.” VA Code Ann. § 18.2-209. Speaking or publishing imputations of a woman’s want of chastity is also a Class 3 misdemeanor; if the defendant disproves malice, he will lessen the penalty he will receive if convicted, but lack of malice is not a defense to the crime. Id. at 18.2-417

Perhaps people who habitually state that I am paid by greedy developers should consider prefacing those statements with "I think..."

I certainly hope the discussion never gets down to imputations of the participants' chastity, regardless of gender.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, I think one of the biggest issues for me, given the two year delay on the middle school already, is that the background noise of the land inventory doesn't delay things further.

We have a valid application on the table, which has and will no doubt continue to have one of the most egregiously disrupted processes in some time.

Two questions are pertinent:

Does it comply with the Plan and ordinances?

Does it mitigate its impact?

For some those will always be answered in the negative. However, the staff (most of whom predate this administration, and many of whom will postdate it) have issued their professional opinion in the affirmative.

Only three issues to work out.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Regarding your comment "We have a valid application on the table, which has and will no doubt continue to have one of the most egregiously disrupted processes in some time". This is the worst aspect for me - the power that a seemingly small number of people have in disrupting the process. The fact that this middle school has already been delayed two years should make it a top priority. Instead, it may be delayed for years to come, especially if the situation goes to the extreme of the proposed Purcellville site. Yikes!!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny that you should mention IMPARTIAL review of applications...
I've found three glaring contradictions with the school board's rendition of the Lenah/Lambert case already.
There was no mention of the 2006 USACOE's Wetlands delineation that has already been completed on Lambert, thus eliminating that delay.
There is no mention of the VDOT's delay on whether they'll be putting the turn lane/traffic roundabout on a 2 lane existing highway, or a new 4 lane highway at Lenah.
There seems to be some concern about ground water supplies that Lenah's planned irrigation well and system bring to the table.

And there is no list of the issues that will delay Lambert long enough to cost $16 MIL.
I need an itemization of their thinking on this, or else they could have plled it out of the air. Contrary to what you believe, I do want IMPARTIAL..but it's the LCSB that's not delivering here..
They've (purposely ??)left out so many things that will bring Lambert's cost down,and I've found Hatrick's thumbprint in so many places that I don't think I can trust the School Boards' "unbiased" reports.

I got to thinking about your "politically connected" statement... so I made a phone call today. As an accomplished attorney, Miller bills more than those $150 donations for a single hour. Thought that'd be handy for your comparison.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, "impartial review" is what the Board and the Planning Commission is charged to do with the application, and the staff review of it.

The staff report was not posted until Friday afternoon.

Mr. Miller had already taken significant action against the proposal before the report was even complete.

Ms. Chaloux was quoted in the press long before Friday that she thought a better site would be found.

Making up your mind, and taking action, in advance of the staff review is not using impartial judgment.

As to the wetlands, they are designated jurisdictional, which means they are under the Corps jurisdiction (and the Reasonable Duck rule no longer applies).

As I understand it, there can be no net loss of wetlands, and any impact must be mitigated. That's why the list is prioritized in Condition 12.

Are you saying they don't have a 404? Why?

There are three transportation issues that staff wants to go to committee on.

There is a commitment to a hydrogeological study for the irrigation well, and a monitoring program. Read Draft Condition 13.

Dean, go ahead and FOIA an "itemization of their thinking".

Lambert ended up on Miller's parcel review list--there's something for you.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, go to John Stevens' Our Loudoun Schools blog on Linked up in Loudoun.

He has posts about the flood of form letters the School Board and the Planning Commssion received from a Loudoun's Future alert.

A woman active in trying to move Woodgrove to Lovettsville who had been over here claiming she never wished upon anyone the conditions occurring in Purcellville is now over there giving Mr. Stevens the same workout Dean is having here--"create documents for me"--and has posted this amazing gem:

"treat all students in this County the same - as you do western children and let their high school populations expand to 2200 students"

I don't think what is happening in Purcellville is a good model to extend countywide.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S., Dean? There won't be any list of Lambert issues in the staff review of the Lenah SPEX.

Is that what you meant?

No. It doesn't work that way. Lambert has nothing to do with Lenah.

That's what impartial means too--Lambert is not on the table. Lenah is. Does it conform? Does it mitigate?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Barb...I DO NOT MEAN a listing of Lambert Issues on a Lenah report. I've never suggested that you were of less intellect than I am, so just do not go there.
Lambert vs. Lenah report. Apples to Apples.
When the *#$$#@ $16 MIL figure was put on that document, it meant something. What was that something. You cannot successfully argue away something that has no #@!$% value!!
And the Corps of Engineer's Delieation was completed a mere two years ago. As if it mattered. The total acreage that's affected is less than 11 acres.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Dean, that is where discussions with you seem to fetch up--that other people really aren't as bright as you are.

That wasn't what I was suggesting--the intellect issue. I was asking:

"And there is no list of the issues that will delay Lambert long enough to cost $16 MIL."

Appended to a list of complaints about the staff report on the application, it sounds like that's where you wanted it.

(And if you are speaking in %$#&%*, then it would appear that you are having some minor meltdown issues.)

The Corps of Engineers designation as jurisdictional wetlands on the Lambert site? 2006 would make sense, since the Lambert ZMAP is 2006-0026. Dean, that's an identifier, it isn't the study for the impact and thus necessary mitigation of what would need to be done to put 3 schools and a sportsplex and a swimming facility on it, let alone the roads necessary to handle that.

Those are referenced as significant wetlands as well.

You are usually the environmental guy, not me. If you want to go make the argument that the wetlands are not an issue, in advance of any study other than those done for a ZMAP filed 2 years ago--be my guest,

It isn't going to eliminate the issue from the process.

Something has finally damned on me, reading you in this go-round and Sarah here, on John Stevens' blog, and both of you on tc:

FOIA does not compel any public body to create new records other than the form in which they are used by the body.

If you want a spreadsheet collating three separate parcels for three issues tracked separately, they might give you a report for each parcel, and a report for the each issue. Nothing in law compels them to pull data from different departments and create a new record because an individual prefers to see it that way.

It's like a brain surgeon demanding data in MRI form because that's how they'd prefer to read it.

It apparently has been a source of some angst in Planning, with some individual(s) demanding reports be generated that would require an expenditure of staff time and monetary resources that would require an action of the corporate body as a whole (and sometimes the Board, which explains Miller's Item 17) to initiate.

You may have to read several reports and compare the data you're interested in.

I would then recommend sitting down with staff to check your conclusions.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 10, 2008 at 1:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara....I did not think that the school board was going to hand me a spreadsheet. I meant that with all the information they put out (which after what I've seen from their hands-on position....I do not trust in any way)after it is checked for accuracy, we would have to build that comparison ourselves.
The Army Corps of Engineers report defines the wetlands, and whether they have juristiction of the area, Barb. I have a consulting ecologist working on it from the last known study. Bright guy that I am, I wasn't smart enough to read it, so I passed it along to an expert.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 11, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Off topic but wanted to provide you w/ accurate facts. Mr. Settle will loose a gasket, but here goes. You previously stated, "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." NOT TRUE. The facts are: In 2006 Jennifer Bergel, lifelong resident of Lovettsville looking for solutions for the west’s school crisis, asked Maryland resident Mr. H Miller about HS-3 being sited on his 156-acre farm (zoned commercial/ag) located across the street from the Community Center/Pool. He told her he liked the idea. In Feb 06 LCPS made Mr. Miller an "offer" (something <$5.4 appraisal). No other written offers were ever made to him. The next month they offered Mr. Grubb $40,000/acre for his 104 acres in Wheatland for MS-10. Meanwhile, still in 2006, Jennifer and Noah Bergel obtained ~400 signatures on petition supporting a Lovettsville HS-3. It was ignored by LCPS who assured all Fields Farm would be fastest option. After Grubb SPEX stalled in July 2007 (yet still under contract), without prior consult with Town officials nor any 2007 contract offers to Mr. Miller, LCPS shocks the community w/ their plans for 3125-student MS/HSs on the Miller property. Admitting it would be ~25% larger than needed at full build out. Further, to fit the huge regional complex on the site, they would need 20% of the Park too. LCPS/Burton also presented a long list of demands the Town would need to meet before the project would advance. The following month (Aug07), the Lovettsville Town Council held a local resident workshop and distributed a survey. Councilmember Efthim reported that 85% of survey respondents supported a high school. In a single day during Oktoberfest 2007, I personally obtained over 100 signatures on a petition in favor of a high school (the Town got more yet). Disregarding the small yet very vocal NIMBY group, the Town Council responded to the overwhelming community support with a Resolution supporting a high school within 3 miles of the Town and sent it to the School Board. The rest of the sordid facts comprise more chapters in this saga. So.. I trust that, for once and for all, these facts dispel the misinformation you and others had (including a reporter today). Make no mistake, the community and Town Council FORMALLY responded in 2006 & 2007 with a big fat "WE WANT A HIGH SCHOOL". Hope remains for one in the future. By then we hope NIMBYs like the industrious Mr. Settle will be a measure more accepting so the majority (>50%) of the students going to MS/HS-10 will have it in the only community in the entire northwest tier that has central utilities to offer and the density to justify.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)

I'm not going to lose a gasket, but I will correct your "facts". The petition did indeed have 400 signatures, but it was emblazened right across the top "NORTH OF ROUTE 9." It did not say Lovettsville. And I never had a problem with a school NORTH OF ROUTE 9.
The group in Lovettsville region was loud but small.
I thought we could help each other on the overall of the LCSB dilemma, but I see that option is probably the baby that went out with the bath water. I've never been called industrious before. Pit bull (no lipstick), yes, but industrious...no.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
PS - in Jan 2008 Mr. H Miller finally decided to "take his marbles and go home" because he "wanted no part of" any dealings with "rude" LCPS officials. This is the way LCPS deals when they don't really want to make a deal. They disrepect, sabotage and misrepresent. As Burton said last year, a viable Plan B "could become a self-fulfilling prophecy". So... with the Fields Farm lawsuit, a Plan B is the LAST thing LCPS/BOS wants out in public, it just weakens their beloved case against the underdog Pville who just wants a fair trade like Hamilton got for approving Culbert ES. Because of all this history and the County's negligence of OUR kids for SO long, it will be very difficult for people like me to ever trust LCPS, especially when they say, "this site is the only one where we can get a school opened in time to relieve overcrowding". It all sounds like another load of horsesh*t.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your efforts of late to pull out the facts on Lambert/Lenah earn the "industrious" title in my book. I applaud all you have done on that issue and are trying to do to keep LCPS' feet to the fire on putting schools where they belong. I hope one day you will reconsider the logic of a high school for Lovettsville in 2017. Mayor Walker says "north of Route 9", probably b/c she's a good politician and doesn't want to alienate even a single voter. But the fact remains, the Resolution definitely said "within 3 miles of Lovettsville". Go to the Town office and check it out if you don't believe me.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean - the top of the petition says, " I support immediate efforts to locate a high school within three miles of the corporate limits of Lovettsville and constructing it as expeditiously as possible."

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
I have never suggested "moving Woodgrove to Lovettsville". I HAVE suggested accelerating HS-10 (LIKE YOU GOT YOUR FREEDOM EARLY!!!!) so these kids have something while Fields Farm lawsuit/negotiations work through and eventually provide Woodgrove. Sorry that when I hear how bad a 1-1/2 hr bus per day ride is for your kids, I laugh. Our kids have been riding a bus for 2-1/2 hours per day since 2002 when Harmony opened (WHEN YOU GOT YOUR FREEDOM EARLY!!!) because LCPS won't pay for more busses and these kids have to ride to all 3 schools first before heading home. LCPS won't provide us enough busses because many Lovettsville area busses (maybe others too) are so full that kids have to ride 3 to a seat (and it will be worse when sports are over and the weather is bad and driving students try to squeeze on the bus). The school system seems to have little money for us but lots for $20M sites. If this County were willing to spend A DIME on interim solutions like renting office space or lab trailers or willing to fund splitting the cluster now so these kids can have opportunities like Varsity letters/scholarships OR funding settlement w/ Pville and allow them to provide central utilities instead of LCPS building their own wastewate treatment plant OR funding HS-10 early, THEN I would be thrilled to share the wealth and for Dulles to get their schools on time. However, since we have been squeezed for so long, ESPECIALLY since 2002 when Dulles GOT THEIR FREEDOM EARLY and apparently with funding originally earmarked for HS-3 AND we see NO RELIEF in sight, I think many of us out here just feel that all districts should get squeezed equally. Salt is rubbed into the wound when we see Freedom and Briar Woods with white boards in practically every class and Valley HS had none until this year and our middle schools still only have a few. Can you HONESTLY say if the table was turned, you wouldn't feel the same?

Can schools go on the new 250-acre Dulles regional park?

All these sites coming out of the woodwork now begs for a RFP process where competition is allowed to give Stakeholders options and taxpayers comfort.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, perhaps we both need to clarify.

Before the application to put Woodgrove on Fields was approved by the Board of Supervisors and went to court, you were an active advocate for another site.

As your interchanges here and elsewhere with Dean/honcho show, there are hairs to be split on whether that was IN Lovettsville, north of rte 9, or within 3 miles of the corporate limits.

I agree that it would be wrong to say that you advocated placing it within the corporate limits (which I never said), but would you be satisfied if I changed my phraseology to "the Lovettsville area"?

I see you have now gone back to a theory that you have also published elsewhere--that Woodgrove was delayed to build Freedom and Briar Woods early.

Freedom had already been delayed three times before people down here had enough.

The Valley cluster was doomed to what is dragging on right now the minute the 99 BoS bought Fields in the backroom.

In fact, this whole Lambert mess is shaping up to be putting a Fields Farm mess in Dulles South. Great idea, except for the fiscal responsibility and building schools in a timely manner argument.

Freedom and Briar Woods (HS2 and HS4 respectively, so Briar Woods was the only one actually accelerated past Woodgrove, HS3) were bid together "to save money", when it was actually more interesting than that from a political standpoint--at least before that bond passed.

The bond approved by the school board that year had those two schools plus renovations at Broad Run and Hamilton ES.

By the time it got out of the BoS, Hamilton had been sent to VPSA with no voter approval, thus leaving three high schools in the same district on the bond.

What a great growth argument.

Fiscally, the Hamilton VPSA had a higher interest rate, but Freedom and Briar Woods were listed on the ballot at $52M and $54M respectively. After the bond passed, both bid at $~32M and $~34, and came in under budget enough that the school board gave between 11 and 12 million back to the BoS during the subsequent budgeting process.

What is Woodgrove going to cost by the time it is built? Including delay and court cost?

If you are at all about fiscal responsibility, get your facts straight before you go there on "early" Freedom shafting Woodgrove.

All these sites coming out of the woodwork should go into the parcel review study for future sites, and a possible adjustment of the process.

They shouldn't be an opportunity for people with an axe to grind to further mire the issue in delay and cost.

Not to mention somebody potentially getting a commission on a $2M private sale paid in tax dollars.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I never was involved in any school issues until the Woodgrove boundary hearing at Loudoun Valley HS in March of last year, you may have me confused w/ someone else.

Will respond on other points you make soon but, can you interpret the Supreme Court ruling out today?

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/o...

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, I got my schools confused, HS-3 was delayed when Briar Woods (HS-4) was accelerated. For whatever the reason, the fact remains HS-3 was delayed and our funding was reallocated to another district. You have so much more history and knowledge than I so thank you for clarifying. I'm glad money was saved by building concurrently, I just wish some of the savings would be provided for something concrete for these kids instead of educating 2200+ as a single high school cluster with the associated loss of opportunities for those kids. The message from BOS and SB is crystal, western Loudoun kids don't deserve the attention and funding provided other districts.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A brief reading looks like you might be getting a school. I hope so!

As for the town vs. county--as I said, the minute Fields was bought in the back room by the last no-growth board, public facilities on the site were a (costly, contentious) done deal.

Even though Fields is in Phase 4 of the old UGA, Phase 1 was in the south where gravity runs the sewer, and we can't have P-ville growing south, can we?

Just like down here with this "buy Lambert so the soccer realtor can get a commission on $2M!"--Lambert is less dense and less developed than Lenah, but we need to go south instead of west.

Your south and our west kind of butt up together, don't they?

Now, back to fiscal responsibility: How much has it all cost to get to this point for the Valley cluster, and WHY in deep-frozen hell should we repeat the mess over here by letting the Board of supervisors get in the back room with their cronies to buy land?

Fields is what happens when the UNprofessionals buy schools sites.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But Barbara, the PROFESSIONALS wanted to buy Grubb Farm. The LCPS Administration is just as proficient with back door deals as both no-growth and growth BOS members. The process needs revision to keep everyone from doing just that.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading the Leesburg Today article opens up a new window of horror.

The required CMPT from the COUNTY planning commission could be a doozy.

I've watched public hearings on things as simple and discrete as minor alterations to a sign package for already approved and under-construction commercial projects, and a couple of the commissioners spend half of their questions trying to open up the underlying rezoning.

Staff patiently re-directs to the issue on the table, but it still takes hours.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I sincerely expect you have the truth behind this one: Why were Round Hill developments allowed to proceed w/ only an elementary school proffer?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean Grubb Farm, which was in a totally pristine and completely untouched area with nothing going on around it but organic farming, and most of the 26 people who came to testify to that fact could attest as eyewitnesses because they ALL lived right across the street? In that low-density subdivision?

There were some tenant farmers there too, as I recall. One from Bluemont who raises blueberries in Wheatland.

Yes, I remember Grubb. It seems there are groups out in your cluster that actually don't want schools built anywhere.

Except for maybe someplace else.

We have those here too.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was before I moved in Sarah, but it dominated the papers for the first few years I was here.

I will tell you that the Villages and the uproar they caused was why HS3 didn't go out to that one place near Round Hill.

I understand there was a court trial, resulting in a certain agreement.

One of the RH sites proposed brought the citizen side of the old agreement out to say "we went to court and won and we're prepared to go back".

I think a member of one of those citizen families is on the PC now.

Sarah, I agree the school situation in the west is a mess.

No reason to repeat it over here!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The point being that the possibility of back door deals, whether real or perceived, exist. Public officials need to be held accountable with an auditable process. LCPS negotiates with their old friend, a Wheatland area landowner, about his property for the high school (where central utilities will NEVER exist) while at least 3 other landowners much closer to Lovettsville are disrespected, resulting in Lovettsville (WHO UNDENIABLY WANTS IT) loosing its only chance to ever host secondary schools. Does that make sense? Perhaps you didn't know but many of the people who spoke to you at the Grubb PC Hearing are resident farmers that rely on groundwater to sustain their COMMERCIAL fruit and vegetable farms - a land use this County supposedly embraces and even fosters. Perhaps that argument is not relevant to Lenah, I don't know, but all this illustrates the public facility siting process needs to be revised, preferably before we spend $Ms at Lenah, but definitely after.

What about the new 250-acre regional Park?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for RH info!

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last summer while the SPEX was being reviewed by PC and months BEFORE the SB voted to withdraw their contract with Grubb, LCPS opted to abort the Grubb Hydrogeologic Study. Drought conditions at that time provided the best opportunity to collect valuable data to support their plans. That opportunity was lost and now LCPS is poised to purchase HS/MS-10 land in Wheatland when only groundwater models, with a variety of available default values to choose from, will be available to simulate those conditions.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand that well tests actually indicated that a larger scale neighboring farmer was drawing down the wells with irrigation during the drought.

I don't think it's Lovettsville's "last chance", because of that whole "what direction can we grow in" idea.

I would bet big bucks it will keep going north near you, and even bigger bucks that no stone will be left unturned in every effort to keep it getting a micron further west down here.

Lenah is IN process, under current rules.

Other court cases that bear recalling are the
659 rezonings. Several rezonings in process when the 99 Board was elected were turned down, in spite of positive recommendations from the 99 Bos' PC, because they were GOING to change the rules.

You may also wish to look at action taken on Dominion HS, which was accelerated past Freedom (one of our pushbacks)--and the numbering of schools changed about then--when some of the same players in the Lenah hearing the other night (not Lenah Run, they weren't here yet) demanded that RSCOD and the Green Infrastructure policy be applied to public facilities as a "good example", since they were "going to be passed" (!), in advance of their passage!

That resulted in changes to a school already under construction that cost $Ms, and eliminated a tree buffer and setback between existing neighbors and the site (great picture in an old Loudoun extra, of a kid on a trike next to a house with a green lawn, and at the edge of the yard a cleared pad site with a parking lot going in).

But hey, the new setbacks from the policies that WERE NOT YET ADOPTED made it so.

And then, RSCOD and GI were thrown out in the Comp Plan suits, which is why they will be readopted by this bunch.

I wonder if they'll try to reapply them in advance again?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"while at least 3 other landowners much closer to Lovettsville are disrespected"
I sure hope you're not thinking Opeka was one of those who was disrespected. His parcel (and he) had issues that went beyond the selection process. His land use was in heated review, as I understood from staff.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only thing I know about Opeka is for years we have gone there to pick and cut our Christmas tree. The 3 landowners that I know of include: 1) Mr. Herbert Miller - already discussed above. 2) Mr. Hunter who was surprised when he found out his property was included on the HS-10 list issued to the public by LCPS. He called me very upset about it because he never even received a phone call. I gave him Dr. Adamo's phone number. 3) Mr. Mercker (also included on the HS-10 site list) who verbalized to all in attendance during the May 2008 informational meeting his frustration with LCPS officials. I'm a neophyte and I know of these, so it makes me wonder how many other good sites escape consideration based on bias.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 13, 2008 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the new 250 acre park has easements on it that prevent a school from being built. But the County might be able to put fields in there that are shared by different middle schools and high schools, and that may allow the County to purchase smaller high school sites in the future....have practice fields at the schools, and big lit game fields, astro turf, bleachers, time/score keepers, etc. at the new park... I think the new 250 acre site can specifically have fields...but has to be used for limited conservation/recreation purposes...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on September 13, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can someone explain to me how the commute to the Lenah Road schools is going to be significantly shorter than the current commute to Stone Hill? I drove it this morning at about 8:00 and the ride from what seems to be the geographic center of South Riding (Planting Fields and Golf View) was 6.9 miles. The drive from the same point in SR to the area of the Lenah Road schools was 7.5 miles. I say the area of the schools because the road to access the front of the proposed schools doesn't yet exist, but the area behind is on the current Lenah Road does. It was pointless to try to determine driving times since the entire infrastructure of the "Lenah Connector" is non-existent. Anyway, with the schools being about .6 miles different in distance, and traffic being relatively the same on the way to Stone Hill (since the time of day was approximately the same), why all the gnashing of teeth about how far it is to Stone Hill and how conveniently close Lenah Road will be?

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stephen
While LCSB attendance boundries have not been set, I think the intent is to make Stone Ridge's community school Mercer, into a bussed school for South Riding, then bus all the kids from Stone Ridge out of their community to the 100% bussed in school at Lenah. What proactive forward thinking folks we are...
Its just my opinion... I could be wrong

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Forward thinking, indeed, Scooterama. In fact, when they built the third elementary in the SR area, they were *already* thinking about a middle school to take care of the potentially continuing education of all those kids. I believe you are 100% right that the plan is to bus all the SR kids to Stoneridge, then bus all the Stoneridge kids to Lenah. I suppose it's not too far-fetched to think the long-term plan -- if such a thing is possible -- is to bus the Lenah Run kids to something over in the Middleburg area, after it's built.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scooterama,
The idea of sending the South Riding kids to Mercer and bussing the Stone Ridge kids to Lenah is ridiculous. Where did you get your information? Is that information from a school source?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, is the plan to leave Stone Ridge at Mercer and bus the SR kids past Mercer to the Lenah Road school? That makes even less sense!

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The distance from South Riding to Stone Hill Middle School versus the distance to Lenah is not the issue. The main issue is capacity. Stone Hill has room for Mercer's overflow this year, but Stone Hill's ability to serve as Mercer's overflow runs out. Mercer's program capacity is 1187 students. In only two years (2010-11), Mercer's projected overflow is 736 students. In three years (2011-12), the projected Mercer overflow rises to 1087 students, and in four years (2012-13), Mercer's projected overflow rises to 1474 students. Stone Hill's own regular enrollment is similarly expanding. Capacity is the reason why some people are desperate to get a middle school open by 2010. When you add thousands of middle school students to Dulles South, you have to build a new middle school somewhere.

The projected number of students at Freedom High School (capacity 1600) is similar in two or three years. What high school will have room for the 891 overflow Freedom students in 2011-12 or the 1669 overflow students in 2013-14?

Having been through the boundary process several times, I predict that the walkers to Mercer will stay at Mercer and the walkers to Freedom will stay at Freedom. The Mercer/Freedom cluster will be geographically compact and those furthest from the schools will be sent down the road-even if they have to pass by them on the way.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stephen, your chosen route of comparison has nothing to do with bus routes, which not only have to pick up kids near where they live, but must be structured in such a way as to get maximum use from the buses (and their fuel).

Ideally, given the staggered times for school start times, a bus will pick up a load of elementary, drop off, pick up a load of middle from that relative area and drop off, and then ideally pick up a load of high school if possible.

This was all presented at the PC worksession last week. Along with the *average* cost of busing a child ($221, which I found quite modest given the numbers of children served countywide), which they were quite clear was very different in true cost if separated out.

A compactly developed area runs fewer buses shorter distances with more riders.

The transition and rural areas use more buses over greater distance with fewer riders, consequently the actual cost per child is higher (kind of like the seats in 100 student schools).

But the system works on averages.

Back to your chosen route versus bus routes.

The primary bus access will be Braddock Road in Lenah, which does make the distance shorter. In addition, while Braddock carries a great deal of pass-through and "rural" commuter traffic, it does not carry the industrial truck traffic of the 606 and 659 corridors used to access Stone Hill (ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DULLES AIRPORT).

Charsj is right: Planning is done by service area, and the Freedom cluster needs relief.

There will be no ultimate settling of boundaries until the service area is built out (at whatever planned density). The only place in the county with relatively static boundaries is in the northeast, primarily because of buildout.

The only thing that will affect boundaries there any more will be changing demographics of existing development, and that will be a much slower sea change than that being experienced in Dulles South for years to come.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)