Shame on the School Board for pushing ahead on a site that is grossly over priced. They send a message to greedy land speculators that they will pay any price. Given the number of schools that are needed, this sends the wrong message and forces taxpayers to swallow these over inflated prices. Then to blackmail the Board of Supervisors with holding up schools is outrageous and irresponsible.

Posted by councilmemberholmes (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(former?)councilmemberholmes, it sounds as though you have received the email alert disinformation about the price being the entire amount budgeted for site acquisition in this area.

Several transition zone activists (whose elementary children utilize the second most expensive school seats in the county) have repeatedly claimed that the purchase price is the entire $25M budget category.

I'm sure now that a contract has been finalized, more and better information will be forthcoming. Do yourself a favor and get it from a reputable county source, and not an activist email.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope everyone will send Barbara Munsey a bill for your increased taxes since she is the leading spokesperson for the pro-growth mania that has gotten us into this mess. She and Steve Snow deserve a lot of the credit for why we can't keep up with building new schools. It is her friends that are gouging the public on these land deals. My source for the cost is the County Assessor who has testified that we are being overcharged. The owners of the Lenah site are appealing their tax assessments down while jacking up the price to the public. Barbara's friends want to pick your pocket.

Posted by councilmemberholmes (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

formercouncil, I have been vocal for some time on the idiocy that delays services on behalf of a fantasy--ten years now, in fact.

If Greenvest is appealing their assessment (not unusual in Loudoun. In fact, many of those decrying the purchase of school sites had no kind words for the assessor the past two years and appealed themselves, but who's paying attention?), is this a current appeal or the one noted during the CPAM process by an opponent of the site (one who bought 15 acres already planted in trees about five years ago, and continued the 37% tax deferral for being a farm that is open two weekends a year)? At any rate, appeal of a tax assessment is a right for ANY landowner--not just the ones we like.

Again, back to land value, assessment and appraisal: when the CPAM was voted down, that prevented any planning of growth in this area. The land is limited to by right "McMansion" sprawl like the rest of the transition zone. The value will be much lower than commercial or residential land in South Riding--my .24 acre is valued at $174,900 this year. The land alone.

Looks like built residential is worth about $700K per ac in South Riding, but that is not surprising--back in 2000 when we were fighting tooth and nail to get ANY schools from that year's no-growth board, South Riding was paying about $22M in taxes at half of the residences occupied now.

Public schools are delineated in chapter 8 of the comp plan as a non-residential transition zone use to serve both rural and suburban residents.

The value of the Lenah site as something other than big houses on great big lots with no impact mitigation (usually also something criticized by those who already live in them, but again, who's paying attention?) will be much higher.

Feel free to divert this to being about me, but I already help make up the difference in taxes NOT paid by those who get deferrals on their hobby and lifestyle "businesses"--and I use quotes because many of those also commute long distance to their real source of income because "value add" voodoonomics doesn't allow some enterprises to cover even their reduced taxes.

I and my neighbors already have kids in schools with some services being literally offered out of closets to chairs in the halls because of overcrowding, while ALSO making up the difference on some small "public" schools that enjoy classes half (or less!) the size of my kids, at a cost of two, three or four times more per seat--while their parents protest schools for my kids and my neighbor's kids.

Send the bill to the perennial protesters of the transition zone, who made sure there would be no planning and no proffered sites, and who often eat services at a much higher per capita cost than anyone in my neighborhood.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is this about by-right developments or planned developments? This is about the prices being paid by the School Board and the location of student populations. I'm tired of hearing "approved by-right developments with no proffered sites." Proffered sites imply rezonings. All this emphasis on trashing by-right neighborhoods just makes it seem more and more as thought these schools sites really are about developers looking for back doors around a Board of Supervisors that has told them no. I don't think people in planned developments or by-right developments have any more or any less right to a school. It's not about keeping schools out of by-right neighborhoods. That is a red herring.

By-right neighborhoods do not have proffers, this is true. By-right neighborhoods also do not add nearly the strain (in the aggregate) on public infrastructure as planned developments. It's not about a south riding house versus a lenah house. It's about thousands of kids needing a school and where that school should be located, and making it into an argument about rezonings vs. by-right misses the point. We clearly haven't planned very well and it takes too long to find school sites.

And another thing. I wouldn't get into casting stones about who's children cost more to educate. What a horrible way to evaluate this issue. Do we really want to get into extracurricular costs, sports costs, special education costs, reduced lunch programs? The taxpayers foot the bill, and very few parents actually pay full freight for the costs of educating their children. Let's just agree that projects as large as schools should be thoughtfully considered and not rammed through just because it embarrasses the school board that they know so little about what goes on in the acquisition and site selection process in the agency they oversee.

Its worth noting that the money they're flushing away by overpaying for land would buy some teacher pay-raises or maybe some of those fancy white boards.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

murphy, it is about by-right vs. planning. As far as by right goes, it means NO planning for service land.

By right is a choice available, but those who choose it can't have it both ways on the value OR the tax argument.

A denser development pays more in taxes in the aggregate, and in this case has much cheaper per capita service cost.

Part of the crowding at Mercer and Freedom comes from the flood of by right development in this area--over 2000 units between 2000 and 2004 alone.

Land value bears inspection too, even if the argument is going to jump from subject to subject--kind of like busing is bad to Lenah for areas east of 15, but it is okay to bus *some* kids west of 15 for more expensive per capita services.

Is the site overpriced? A 3000+ sf home on a half acre lot in Lenah Run (state classification URBAN/part easement) has a land-only value of 474K per acre. If the school is not built and by right development takes place on one acre lots on the 100 acres, what does that do to the site valuation?

One acre in the Marches (state use classification SUBURBAN/part easement), in the Aldie Elementary attendance zone (cost per seat 12K in 2004), can have a land valuation ranging from 160K per acre to 240K per acre, depending on the size of the TAX VALUATION given to the (private) easement.

As for the Greenvest appeal of their land value, two sites with a state classification of transition range from 34K per acre to 39K per acre. (Land use reduces that to 15K per acre.)

The argument seemed to be between a 35K tax appeal with nothing on it, and a 200K purchase price for development of a service residents of ALL classifications in the area will use--which includes the cost of the seller building CTP roads to the site.

Even if only by right homes can be built on the site (and they can), the value will be much higher per acre than what is proposed to be paid for the site.

That is long before any discussion of a fictive rezoning that could raise the value to 700K-1M+ per acre.

So no, it is not horrible to note the difference in development and uses in relation to per capita cost of service.

Especially when some of the protesters have impact at both the tax base and service cost level, and still want things both ways.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree on the whiteboards etc, murphy.

There could be plenty of (perhaps larger) savings on what goes IN the buildings.

But it is county requirement to at least provide buildings.

Whether people (who will use them!) can see them or not.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear what you're saying, but I just don't agree. I dont' think this is by-right VS. planned development. I see that as a tactic for driving a wedge between two communities. Clearly, planned development folks outnumber by-right folks in that area. I'm not as quick with the numbers as you, but I found a population number for South Riding of 15,000. I couldn't find a quick number for Lenah Run, but there's only 250 homes in Lenah. That's a big difference. I think it safe to say that Lenah's houses are contributing a fraction of the students that SR is. That said, I don't think that means SR has to bear any special burden. I just think its irrelevant. You're trying to make this about something it's not and pit a larger community against a much smaller one.

You seem especially angry that smaller schools exist in the County and thus have a larger per-student cost. That means those less populated areas must accept large infrastructure and the students in the more suburban neighborhoods have to be bused out there to bring the per-student costs into balance? I don't get that. Smaller schools generally have less programming to go along with their smaller populations. I went to small rural schools and I often wished I had gotten the superior education of my suburban counterparts.

Finally, all this fuzzy math with Lenah home assessments proving that the School Board didn't overpay for the site is baloney. Did those Lenah homeowners appeal all their lots to get their tax bill down? Greenvest appealed a lot of land down there to avoid paying taxes for their planned development. Yet, for purposes of selling to the public schools, the assessment was deemed too low. Talk about having it both ways. When its tax time, the assessment is too high, but if the County wants to buy some land, the assessment is too low? And not by just a little bit on either end I might add.

We do agree that the County must provide buildings for the students, and I'm glad you agree that some of what goes into these buildings is a little absurd.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Murphy, it is fuzzy math to compare population in South Riding to homes in Lenah Run.

South Riding has approximately 5000 resiDENCES, so by comparison Lenah may have about 750 resiDENTS. Some are indeed middle and high school students.

South Riding is not the only planned development feeding Mercer and Freedom--add in Stone Ridge, Kirkpatrick Farms and more. Lenah Run is not the only by right community served by Mercer and Freedom--add in dozens tucked away here and there.

Unless you want to buy the bs that this is only about South Riding, in which case who is targeting particular communities?

Under that bs it is urged to condemn land in South Riding for a school (removing highly valued land from the tax rolls entirely). At what cost, not only per acre but including court, and what delay, which has additional costs of its own?

I saw over at tc that you are concerned that the cost of the Lenah site includes "some special premium to build the road that will support Greenvests’ development."

The seller will be building the CTP roads to the site, as well as to their by right land (just as they have put in the utilities to their by right land--that seemed to be one of the items of concern at the Mercer community meeting. Some Lenah Run residents seemed to want the school to pay for their hookup to utilities, as their communal system has been substandard from day one--what special premium will that cost the taxpayers?).

It is cheaper to have the developer build the roads (which they will build portions of anyway whether the school is built or not), and the cost per acre is still not out of line for the area. The CTP roads are in the county plan whether ANYTHING is built or not.

Is that why one of the transition zone residents (with a county appointment that requires them to work WITH schools on shared facilities) not only protested the schools and rec facilities at Monday's input, but asked that the roads be removed from county plans as well?

Whether Greenvest builds the roads for the school, or no one does at this time, they remain in the County Plan. If transportation is a top county concern, why would we remove roads from the plan? Transition zone residents commute too, farther in fact than many suburban policy residents (oh, the environment!)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I admitted to not finding a comparable number for population in Lenah, so touche, but I think your numbers actually makes it even more clear.

Have a happy 4th of July.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Same to you Murphy--sincerely.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Ms Munsey,
Your comment that Lenah Run residents seemed to want the school to pay for their hookup to utilities, as their communal system has been substandard from day one, does have a small shred of truth to it. The system that yet another big builder Winchester Homes was allowed to use a community well system. This utility can become stressed due to mechanical limitations at times and cause a water shortage to some residents. The builder was made aware at the time of planning by the County that the system was probably substandard based on average requirements. The community of Lenah Run has been working with Loudoun Water for 2 years now on solutions. Later this year the community will be joined with the county water system, and in case of an emergency, the community can get water (at a premium rate) from Loudoun Water. And it didn’t cost the school a single penny. Potential future costs that may occur are by chance the schools contaminate the community well system,(it is being built on the well influence area) or because their intention is to irrigate all their play fields with well water, that the Lenah wells run dry. Lenah Run has the utilities. It’s the cost that Loudoun Water would charge to supply. Rumor has it as $10,000 a home. Just a drop in the bucket for ‘McMansion” owners, right?

Posted by imagemaker1 (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is those hookups at $10K a pop that were mentioned. No, that hasn't cost the school a cent. Yet.

It was interesting that some residents seemed to think the entire complex would be on well water.

Lenah Run's communal system? Talk to the previous no-growth Board--they would do whatever was necessary to keep modern utilities away from new houses, and that's where yours came from. Do you think they gave a damn? No--you were just "cookie cutter" "McMansion" people buying from a "greedy developer". If your system didn't work too well, then that was your problem and another reason your houses shouldn't be there in "their" "pristine" county.

You see, the term "McMansion" is not original with me, and I never used to use it as it was also often applied to me as a resident of a new, non-historic home.

However, I have begun to use it in full irony, as so many of the email activists who have arrived in the past few years seem blissfully unaware that the same paid lobbyists they get their secondhand partial information from used to refer to THEM as "McMansions", when protesting THEIR (new, non-historic) homes.

The paid lobbyists seldom use the term anymore, because they currently need to use the people who live in the homes they protested as such in order to stop whatever they are protesting at the moment, which seems to be always everything.

I think the term should be memorialized, as the hypocrites who invented it shouldn't get away with pretending they never said it (about you, too).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. to Murphy: I did some digging on the assessment appeal, and the valuation is supposed to be as of January 1, 2008, i.e. what was the value of the land last year, BEFORE the utilities got there?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)