Letter to the Editor: Critics of Lenah Site Leave Out Key Facts

Monday, November 3, 2008

Let me respond to the disinformation in the letters by Laura TeKro8ny and Tom Bellanca in the Oct. 30 Loudoun Extra.

The Lenah site, currently offered to the school system at $18 million, would provide relief two years overdue to a crowded secondary school. The property owner’s appeal of the tax appraisal has not been granted and might never be granted. It is the right of any landowner to appeal an assessment.

This property’s state as of Jan. 1 was that it had no utilities, which the seller has agreed to provide for the proposed middle school and high school. It had no road access, which the seller would also provide. It was undivided raw land; the seller would bear the cost of subdividing the parcel for the schools.

In addition, the land is in the county’s land-use program, which affects the taxable assessed value. Selling the land to the county will mean paying rollback taxes on the land that have been deferred. Even “greedy developers” have the right to enter the land-use program and are subject to the same rules as any other owner when exiting the program.

Ms. TeKrony shows a lack of concern for the cost to the taxpayers of delaying overdue facilities. She does not factor the cost of busing and trailers into the delay in building schools that are already needed.

As for Mr. Bellanca’s argument that the project does not comply with the county’s Revised General Plan, of course the plan does not list specifics on schools by sub-area. A school is not a village residential rezoning, which is the section of the plan Mr. Bellanca is quoting. Schools are covered in the transition zone chapter as an appropriate nonresidential use throughout the transition policy area, to serve both rural and suburban residents.

Barbara Munsey, South Riding

Tagged: Lenah Run, Letter to the Editor, opinions

Your Thoughts...

Are you happy that the school year is over?