The misinformation being circulated about these school sites is staggering.

One rumor is that "since this is a proffered site" (WRONG), it means the CPAMS are coming back. That one is probably the most over the top!

As Dr. Adamo displayed at the meeting, schools and other public facilities are considered appropriate uses in the transition zone under the comp plan.

Several people said "put it in South Riding".

South Riding is a Planned Unit Development, key word here "planned". I.e., there isn't just land lying around to put schools on (not to mention the four proffered school sites already in use here).

Another dead horse being mercilessly flogged is to "take back the old Arcola school on Goshen Rd". Aside from the fact that simply "taking back" land is much easier said than done, at least under current law, that site is only 15 acres and houses a few hundred kids tops. Not to mention the fact that it has been sold: Van Metre doesn't own it any more. Note to Mr. Miller and his county transition zone appointees: maybe that means its time to stop having little meetings about what to do with it.

Speaking of transition zone appointees, the fellow quoted in this article is the Dulles Parks and Rec appointee, but I was not aware he had children in school. Interesting.

As for the by-right residents of the transition area (some of whom are also appointees) who are stirring up mayhem with the goofy information about undead CPAMs and the like, I've got sad news for you:

You can't have it both ways.

Some kicked and screamed about theoretical houses to get people stirred up about planning future growth, with the result that there is now NO planning at all.

Guess what that means? The school system will buy what they can afford, what is available, what works.

The good news is this means there will be seats for ALL of our kids in the area.

The bad news is we will have these fights over and over again as we continue to go to hell in a by right handbasket.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 25, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why doesn't this article address the current reality? Dulles south students not already enrolled in the local feeder elementary schools for Mercer, or those registered after June will be bussed to a middle school in ASHBURN. In addition, if this school site is not approved, Dr. Adamo indicated it would be 3-4 years before we would even be at the point of discussing a new site. Dr. Adamo clearly stated several times at the meeting that there are no viable sites in or adjacent to South Riding. Perhaps we could condemn the golf course or a large section of South Riding to put in the middle school. I am amazed that many folks at the meeting didn't seem to accept the reality that there are few sites available for the new middle school/high school in Dulles South (none in/around South Riding) and if this site is not approved, Dulles South will be back to busing kids to other parts of the county for school seats. As far as I know, there were two middle school sites as part of development proffers the last 2 years(both much closer to South Riding), but those applications were rejected by the last BOS and 1 by the current (but was started by the last board). Continued by-right development without this school site will force a hard choice of who gets bused to Ashburn for the next 3-5 years (minimum). Could the reporter of this story please do a follow up and report of the facts of the current situation and how we ended up with this choice of sites and what Dulles South is looking at for the next 3-5 years as far as school sites and busing students to other parts of the county? $4/gallon of gas is going to cost a lot more going up to Ashburn for middle school events than it is going to Lenah.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on May 26, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am appalled at the clear bias this writer takes in reporting on this subject. The responsibility of a journalist is to accurately convey the facts of a story, which this author clearly has not done. Even a cursory look at the realities facing students in the Dulles South area overwhelmingly shows the dire need we have for both a new middle and high school. I APPLAUD Dr. Adamo and his office for their diligent and comprehensive hard work in identifying and working to develop this school site. BRAVO LCPS for hearing and responding to the needs of our children! Those opposed to this site need to educate themselves on the dire situation our children will face if these school are not built according to the proposed timetable. The facts are 1) there are no other sites to consider, 2) if these schools are not built, our children will not only be bused all over Loudoun County, but they will be forced into double shifts at both Merer and Freedom within 3 years, 3) schools DON'T cause traffic, 4)if you purchase a home in a by right development, you reap what you sow, and 5) if you don't like the reality of living in the fastest growing segment of the fastest growing county in the nation, then move. There are plenty of other people who care about the future of our children and the quality of their education willing to do what is right for the greater good. Thank you Sam Adamo and LCPS for a job well-done!

Posted by acewriter63 (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There probably is a need for a new middle and high school in Dulles South, but the Robert Dupree school board consistently tries to do what is in the best interst of developers. Dupree worked for developers and is constantly doing their bidding. Is he here?

Posted by louiebird (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Highly unlikely, louiebird.

Whatever information (and I'm being charitable here) prompts this question seems to be related to the undead CPAM stories.

The land is being purchased from Greenvest, if all goes well, which means fewer homes will be built in their by right application for the remainder of their land there--which means fewer cases of impact without mitigation, and sprawling large-lot land use with no infrastructure.

A woman at the community meeting made some preposterous claims about the land there:

A) that the 499 acres from which this school site will be carved would put 499 homes into the area by right.

On the face of it, this sounds reasonable at one-acre zoning. However, in reality it doesn't work that way. The land here is lousy land, which is why, contrary to popular fiction, there was not much productive farming here. The bulk of the soil is clay over diabase rock, which means the land does not perc. Hence, lots of unbuildable "wetland", and limited sites for drainfields, which often results in approximately a 30% reduction in buildable lots in any given tract. Land must also be subtracted from the total for access (internal roads, electric utilities, etc). No one gets one house per acre in Dulles South.

B) She went on to say that Greenvest had cut some deal with the county where they would get the full 499 homes on the remaining land AFTER the subtraction of the school site for selling the school land.

No way, not even with clustering, and even if this fantasy were true, that would not make this a "profferred" site.

A conspiracy theory seems to be being floated that Greenvest and the schools deliberately cooked this up to pay back the group of residents who used similar hysterical disinformation to keep the opportunity of planning future growth out of their comfort zone with the whole CPAM drama.

Again, preposterous.

Given that the woman who floated this as fact not only gets a hefty tax break for operating a rural business that seems to be open approximately two weekends a year, but is a huge proponent of the small rural school her children attend--which is getting full day kindergarten at one of the smallest schools in the county, and the second most expensive per seat according to the last report showing true cost per seat by school:

The last year it was broken out we had a countywide "average" cost per seat of $11K, which was really a median: Little River cost less than $5K that year, and this woman's small school cost $14K.

I'm sorry, but anyone paying reduced taxes and getting so very disproportionately much in service has quite some nerve spreading disinformation about schools that her child may one day need a seat in.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, don't faint and I too will try not to. I agree with you.
.
Louiebird, Dupree has never worked for a developer.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, I won't keel over if you won't.

As with much of the activism in Loudoun, a grain of semi-related truth can go way too far.

Didn't Robert briefly work for a homebuilding-related association or lobby several years ago? I want to say something to do with affordable housing, but I honestly don't remember the particulars. You might?

I don't remember the name of the organization, but this is the kind of thing that can gladly get blown way up by semi-informed people with an agenda.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I remember the same thing. As I recall Robert did work as a consultant for aan affordable housing association for a few months. Something like that, but it certain didn't have anything to do with development. I don't even think it had anything to do with lobbying. Other than that I have no idea how louiebird could have been told Robert worked for a developer.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Use your imagination Glenn: anyone in the crosshairs of certain advocacy groups is by definition an evil greedy developer, or paid by them.

We could always be grownups, call Robert and ask him, which I think I may do!

I did find out what may have provided the impetus for the bogus story on Greenvest getting 499 homes on only 80% of the property by "proffering" the sites:

A by right application on the property is tracking concurrently with the school application. I would imagine this is the usual prudent business "plan B", i.e. Greenvest getting their administrative approvals on a by right site plan in case the school gets chased out of the area. (Very common practice here in extra special la la land, and with good reason: Remember Wolf Furniture deciding NOT to come to Loudoun after all, after spending two years and how much money in the process, with no resolution in sight? Speaking of which, Dr. Adamo said they've already spent quite a bit getting this site to this point--our tax dollars, which we are already spending LOTS of on the folks driving this anti-school nonsense)

At any rate, it should have told people something that the same PIN numbers were present in both applications, one administrative and one legislative. If they are for precisely the same pieces of land, a rational person would not assume they were going to do all of both, let alone project it as "fact".

In addition, I find it more than curious that two appointees to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board are working so strongly against these schools--which will bring in fields and facilities woefully lacking in this area. I don't know if either one of these people has kids remotely near secondary school age, but their appointed JOB (albeit unpaid) would seem to be to seek out recreational opportunities and find out how they can work better, rather than advocate against an opportunity, in the case of the Dulles rep, or spend time on semi-secret meetings planning for the old Arcola Community Center on Goshen Rd, as well as expect a derelict structure on Gum Spring chock-full of asbestos, with no viable plumbing or roof be renovated at outrageous cost by the county, or soak a youth sports league to fix up the building in order to get the opportunity to improve the county-owned fields.

If this is our Parks and Rec representation at work in the largest, most populous and most prosperous (in terms of tax revenue) district in the county, then God help us.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara... while I still find your per-seat argument to be pure poppy cock...get ready for it.....I agree with the basis of your points, just not that particular jewel. Put the school there.
Are you still sitting there? Or did you have to get up off the floor?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Dean, didn't have to get up.

Actually, the per seat argument is not poppycock: it goes along with the "you can't have it both ways" aspect of the situation. Someone who is advocating massive per-pupil costs, above and beyond the stated "average" that already has so many people up in arms, for a very small number of kids, cannot and should not at the same time advocate for massive expenditures of tax dollars to move overdue schools to a mythical "someplace else", harming a far larger percentage of kids (whose parents pay MORE OF THOSE TAXES) in the process.

In addition, scope out the two Loudoun Times articles posted today: the Dulles Parks and Rec rep, without disclosing himself as such, gives his version of the school meeting which the reporter did not attend, without disclosing that he IS the district representative advocating AGAINST facilities under another hat.

In the other article, the At Large Parks and Rec rep is crowing about getting the Gum Spring property declared endangered historic. She wants it renovated because the new "South Riding center" (does she mean the Dulles regional facility? Seems like the At Large should know the difference.) isn't big enough.

Again, we can't have it both ways.

This woman put out her petition to "save" the building with some very creative info: the "South Riding" center is only 20K square feet, but the building on Goshen Rd is 40K!

(Guess what? The county didn't FUND 40K square feet of programming at Goshen Rd, but why let facts get in the way of self interest?)

Obviously, this means the county MUST open up a facility with (currently contained) asbestos and completely renovate it for the people who don't want to go to the regional center in South Riding.

The per-pupil you see as poppycock is just the most aggravated symptom of the county doctrine of separate and unequal, now also exemplified in the private rec center issue.

I'm glad you agree the schools can easily go where the system proposes.

p.s. to Glenn and louiebird: I did call Robert, and for six months in either 2005 or 06, he worked for a 501c3 Educational Foundation called Housing Choices for All, which covered (duh) housing choice issues including affordable housing in the Arlington to Fauquier region of Northern VA.

So Glenn, looks like we were about right.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, thanks for calling Robert and confirming. He always answers on the first or second ring, we should have done that first.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My pleasure Glenn.

I think the people purporting to "inform" others, some of whom are county appointees pursuing their personal agenda instead of fulfilling their job descriptions (and in one case, their oath) should do things like that first.

Posted by barbara_munsey (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tb, this is more of your preposterous disinfo. Whoever you are getting emails from, they are NOT informing you.

Posted by barbara_munsey (anonymous) on July 30, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)