THANK YOU!!!!!

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm guessing that since you want schools in South Riding and are glad about this denial you won't have any children attending schools in Ashburn or Leesburg in the years it takes to find other sites,restart the process, get the approvals, and build the schools. Those of us who are directly affected by this decision with the possibility of having our kids bused for their entire MS experience are feeling pretty unhappy (understatement!) about this decision.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller thinks his responsibility is to the county at large before Dulles?

What's Scott York's job then? HE voted against the motion to deny.

Susan Buckley is a former county attorney, and this isn't the first time they haven't listened to her, after voting for her for Vice Chair. SHE voted against the motion to deny.

Mr. Burton hated every minute of it, but voted against denial because it complies with the plan and mitigates its impacts, and that was all that was on the table.

Not financials: already voter approved, Mrs. Waters. Mr. Miller.

Speaking of the empty suit who should have been told how hard his job was and how little he'd be paid for it: You can't deny something based on a set of policies for site selection you haven't made up and voted on yet. No matter how many hours you spend "under the stars, seeking divine guidance."

This is a new beginning, all right. You're only 10 months into your term, and it is going to be a VERY LONG one.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"You can't deny something based on a set of policies for site selection you haven't made up and voted on yet". Barbara and all, this is so true! Why is that so hard for people to see?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now it is time for Stevens Miller and his allies on the Board of Supervisors to deliver on his promise of a middle school for South Riding by 2011 and a high school for Stone Ridge by 2012. Dulles South awaits Stevens Miller's announcement of the location of these schools and their timeline for construction.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Miller has made a mockery of the entire public process. I sat in a meeting with him 7 months ago and he withheld his support for these schools then and clearly hasn't listened to a word said between then and now. He has been patronizing and arrogant since the day he took office. He needs to be removed from office because clearly he has some private agenda that certainly doesn't uphold his oath of office. He has a clear disregard for the facts and has created an untenable environment for our children. Whoever owns him must be crowing right now at our expense and our children's. Does anyone else find it interesting that he waited for 7 months before meeting with Dulles South residents, and that meeting took place 2 days after the final public hearing on this issue? Where has he been all this time? Who is he working for? Clearly not the residents of Dulles South. How do we get rid of this cancer on our Board of Supervisors?

Posted by acewriter63 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara my question is, what can we do now? The fact our Rep lead the charge against it is a simply not acceptable.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been asked this several times, and recall is a two part process.

The petition is the easy part: all you need is the signatures of registered voters in the district equal to 10% of the number participating in the election in which the individual was seated.

Not 10% of the actual people who voted in it! A number of registered voters FROM THE DISTRICT equal to 10% of the number that voted.

We could get that before close of business today.

However, for such a petition to actually kick off the process of removal from office, the individual has to be CONVICTED of something.

He doesn't actually do enough to be convicted of doing ANYTHING.

I don't mean to be flippant, I'm just disgusted.

What CAN everyone do now?

Procedurally, any member of the prevailing side in a vote can raise the issue for reconsideration at the next business meeting ONLY.

That means that Miller, McGimsey, Waters, Burke, or Kurtz could bring it up for another vote next time.

I wouldn't waste any time asking McGimsey: she is a pure ideologue and basicly clueless.

Ms. Burke is a teacher--what's up with that?

Ms. Kurtz? Who knows, but give it a try.

Mrs. Waters voted against it for fiscal reasons, when that was an issue that was NOT on the table, and the county attorney confirmed that.

I don't know if she's worth the effort or not. Her ambition may compel her to consider running at large. In that case, she needs friends all over. I noticed she cut the ribbon on our rec center in Dulles, when she didn't do much voting for it. Photo ops should come with some substance, in my opinion.

Miller? He flat out said he's responsible to the whole county before his own district. I would write and call him several times each day for the rest of his term to remind him what his job is, since nobody told him before he ran for it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I personally think it is worth the effort to get the signatures to remove him. If it's only an empty statement, at least it lets him know that people are serious about this issue. I will do it on my own if need be.
Thank you for the other options, I will contact the Supervisors that voted for it and ask that it be brought up during the next meeting.
I am still blown away he brought the motion forward, to me that screams arrogance of the 1st magnitude.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Something else everyone can and should do: Thank Eugene Delgaudio, Jim Burton, Susan Buckley and Scott York.

These are the three experienced Board members, and the new member who is a former county attorney for Fairfax.

They know that the only issues on the table were compliance and mitigation, and even though it pained Mr. Burton deeply, he "held his nose" and voted, because the Planning Commissions "findings" were weak, and a vote in favor of Miller's pusillanimous motion was a vote for arbitrary and capricious denial.

Please write and thank them for keeping the issues clear and voting accordingly.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great advice, I already sent them a thank you email. Delgaudio, Burton, and York were the only members of the board who actually wrote back to me (besides Miller and his ever changing excuses) about this.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One way to approach Ms. Kurtz might be through her commissioner.

I attended most of the planning commission worksessions, and Ms. Austin fought very hard for this application.

She is also an attorney, and although she is one of the new six members of the commission, she GETS IT.

She deserves thanks, along with Chair Christeen Tolle, Bob Klancher, and Helena Syska, and it may be worth writing to Erin Austin and asking her to please share her reasoning for voting FOR the application at the commission level with her supervisor.

I'm going to!

Again, it was the experienced commissioners and a new member who is an attorney who supported it at the commission.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I live in Dulles South and I have already written a polite but scathing email to Mr. Miller criticizing his position on this issue, and asking him to bring it before the BOS again and change his vote. What if everyone in the area who wants this school wrote to him? I included my name and address, by the way, along with my future voting intentions. His email is: Stevens.Miller@loudoun.gov

Go ahead and email him now!!!

Posted by octamatilda (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca,
No one cares!!!!!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why did the weasel Miller even bother to come to Dulles South after the Public hearing. I am dismayed that Mr. Miller cannot stand up for the residents in his district. My guess is in the end, the Lambert site will cost more than the Lenah site and logistics problems (ROW, blasting, etc.) will delay the MS until 2012. When we can we get rid of Mr. Miller? While we're at it, can we get rid of our planning commissioner too?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, A quick question. It appears the purchase of the Lenah property came as a surprise to the BOS. Was the BOS aware of the fact that LCPS was making this investment in engineering etc prior to the announcement of the purchase? If it was a such a non-starter they should have spent little or no money on the review. It appears a lack of communications between LCPS and the BOS is the root of the problem and doomed this project. How do we get the $1 million back?

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, lots of real people do care, and there are still things we can do.

Dean, if they are going to look only in the suburban policy area, as quoted in either LTM or L2day, the costs will be prohibitive.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LM, this BoS wasn't elected yet when the process began, and site selection is under the school board's dominion.

It isn't a non-starter, it was an arbitrary and capricious denial, and Mr. Burton and Mr. Delgaudio both referenced legal action in voting against denial.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IOW, we don't get anything back, including the deposit on the property.

We get to start over from jump street, apparently with much more highly-valued land, and bus people all over in the meantime.

Welcome to Fields Farm East!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the clarification. Not sure about your Fields Farm reference, but it sure seems to me that when the two new Boards came into office in January 08 that this issue/property should have come up as it was going to be on the BOS's docket sooner than later.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to clarify, I care deeply about the school issue. I don't care about tbellanca and his smug "laughing out loud".

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fields Farm, where the 99 Board selected a site, and it has yet to see an overdue high school, although the voters approved its construction years ago.

Meanwhile, the lawsuits and the costs pile up, with no school in sight, while western kids are stacked up beyond reason.

The issue came up in a timely fashion, as the currently adopted procedure was followed until it was approaching the Planning Commission.

That is when the Dulles Commissioner began to take action against it before the staff had even completed their review.

Mr. Miller took action against it on Ms. Chaloux' behalf by initiating a site search IN DULLES ONLY, again before the staff report was issued.

That may be part of why two of three experienced Board members referenced legal action in voting against denial.

If a private entity had been afforded the treatment this application has received, in light of its COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS and MITIGATION OF ITS IMPACTS, it would be headed to court with bells and whistles.

The Board is attempting to take over the duties of the (also elected) school board.

This was an Anschluss into their territory.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know, Momof2. I meant you are a real person, and you are not alone.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Supreme Court has ruled on a portion of the issues at Fields Farm. Others are active.

No suit has been filed on the arbitrary and capricious denial of this application, or on any separate but UNEQUAL issue in relation to service provision, busing and taxes.

On a side note, how much good do you think you're doing your candidate to inject this invitation into your gloating on an issue that should be apolitical?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep 'em coming, Dulles district chair of the big tent LCDC.

I don't know it all, and never said I did. Burton and York aren't Republicans, and they're a hell of a lot smarter than the empty suit on this one.

What I do know is a community of over 5000 houses is mad as hell, and only three people showed up from your hamlet last night.

So, the fix was in, they didn't need to.

I've told you before, you probably don't want to make this political--not with our Democratic supervisor sinking an overdue school for a site my Democratic delegate's kid has a secondary interest in.

Ahh, what happened to the Party of Education? LOL indeed.

I'm sorry if your professional investment realty expertise led you to trade up to a house that has lost so much value in the past year, and you didn't get free utilities out of this school.

What did you win exactly?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tbellanca I personally collected more than 300+ signatures of people from the South Riding area who supported the Lenah site so if you think it is only 30 individuals in this area you are truly delusional. I would also add that Mr. Miller underestimates his constituents. I hope he plans on running at large next time because there is no way on earth he will serve a second term from the Dulles District. You can take that to the bank and earn some interest on it.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Focus the efforts on getting Lambert going. The energy that the 5000 houses will spend on fighting Lenah through petitions and phone calls would be better spent on getting LCPS moving on Lambert.

Adamo's team looked at Lenah in March of 2007 but the wheels of site selection and permiting didn't start until October 2007. One year.

His team is smart and know what to do to get the property quickly and the site prepared. The BOS and LCPS will find common ground on this land. If they all want it, things seem to move quicker.

Barbara, most in South Riding, Stone Ridge and Lenah seem to support Lambert based on blogs, message boards, comments and discussions on the soccer fields.

Why can't all three communities work on getting Lambert done? Seems like there is overwhelming support for it.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lambert is a good “potential” site but it has serious issues. One is the fact that a road needs to be built to it and the life cycle of getting the road built is a very optimistic 27 months I believe. This involves FEMA and other parties outside of the counties control thus no fast tracking. I personally think it’s a great site but it cannot be built on now like Lenah and our children do not have 27 more months (at least) for a road and another year for construction and fitting out to wait. We need at least 2 more middle schools, logically why not build Lenah now and bring Lambert on line after it can be properly prepared?

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't need to put words in my mouth; I never said I conducted a poll, that is your projection.

I also did not say I spoke for anyone--that would be the realtor who got group time to speak on behalf of a deal in which she represents neither the seller nor the buyer.

One thousand people did sign a petition. You can get a copy at the county offices.

As for your real estate experience, knock yourself out. I'm only going by the public record in the parcel database.

More than a few people traded up in the past year or two, bought high and have been sliding in value.

It might improve their property value to have a school closer than Purcellville or Ashburn.

A lot of people already put their time and money where their mouth is on this one. The continued lack of representation by the empty suit is a great motivator for people who thought he would keep his word to support schools.

I must say, your gracious invitation is a fine advertisement for your party.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah that 6% was collected by two individuals spending about 12 man-hours getting signatures. If I didn’t have a full time job and secondary responsibilities that 6% would easily have been 12-15% before the vote. And it makes more sense than the 0% numbers you can show. Good to know you are an advocate of the Democratic party though, the party of good schools and education right? I guess that is unless the schools actually need to be built.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What guarantees come with Lambert? None.

It is three times more "fragile" than Lenah, by the Comp Plan.

Silly me, though! The Comp Plan doesn't matter!

Even if that is what these paragons campaigned on upholding.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tballanca,
keep talking so we all can see where you are coming from. Questioning the mental stability of those who participate in the political process - just because they disagree with you. Taking people's words and turning them against them, ie, gcasmith74 said they personally collected 300 signatures. That is but a fraction of what was collected. There were many more than 30 people supporting these school sites.

If you think this behavior will further your political agendas, think again!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It may not be within a year but I don't believe the 27 months.

Adamo knows these agencies and can get acceleration. He did it in Albuquerque Public Schools and he knows how to do it here. He's a smart guy and I have much respect for him. He knows the game. Planning and engineering is never an easy undertaking.

As for Lenah, the BOS voted it down albeit 5-4. Wasting time and lawsuit taxpayer money could be better spent on getting Lambert built.

I also understand that the transition area will not be transition forever. What I don't understand is how South Riding was developed without a plan for a middle school in the 20152 zip code.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With all due respect to southridingneedstheschools, I really haven't seen the overwhelming support you speak of for the Lambert site. I certainly hope, if that is the way this thing is going, that we can get this on this wonderful fast-track, but designing and building the necessary road is most likely going to slow everything down and cost a lot of money.

The interesting thing about Lambert is that the property has many of the same issues Lenah did, except the distance for the students and there will be no one living adjacent to it. It seems to me I heard at least a couple of supervisors mention the need for walkable schools. Where in South Riding can we build a middle school where there will be walkers? Why would it be a good idea to build a high school at the Lambert property when Freedom so close?

Where do we go from here?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can't accelerate the Army Corp of Engineers or FEMA studies that require taking a major flood plan into account or the submission and revision of those plans and gaining final approval on them. 27 months because of the road is a real number, 12 months to build it and equip it is a real number. That is 36 months at least, and that 36 month countdown can’t even begin until basic agreements are in place like they are with Lenah. I live in South Riding not far from Braddock Road up Lands End. I would love to send my children to Lambert but it’s at least three years out at the very best. I would personally estimate four or five years is more realistic, and we haven't even run into any public opposition to it. Lenah is two years at the worst. I agree better planning should have been done but that means nothing to the hundreds of kids in two years who will be bused all over this county.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm confused. The PC determined that the schools should not be built in the TA because the primary use would be by residents of the suburban policy area. The Lambert site is in the TA also. Is this a different transition area? Dr. Adamo also said that it is clear that the school board should look for sites in the suburban area and NOT the TA. I'm all for a school at the Lambert site (especially if it can be built to open in 2010 like at the Lenah site). So what if LCPS doesn't bother looking at it because it would just get rejected like Lenah for the same reasons. If it didn't rejected, seems to be just a little bit hypocritcal to completely flip flop on schools in the TA. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Chaloux-Conway and Weasel-Miller flip flop on the policy they just created/enforced.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mo2: I'm not due any respect. From what I read and hear, most not all, say that the Lambert property would be a "great follow up" site once Lenah gets approved. Now that Lenah is not approved....

If Lambert has many of the same issues as Lenah, then Adamo should take about a year to get all the proper requirements completed but i feel will take a little longer but not 27 months.

As for walkable schools, that has been championed by Dupree and reiterated by a few Supervisors as it should be. Little River seems to be the only walkable school that came to fruition. Neither school at Lenah would be walkable so the point is moot.

To respond to your question for school closeness with a question, why not?

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Bellanca, the county does have a GIS system, and many of its features are available online. Anyone can access most of its features, and the amount of parcel info it contains is extensive.

Dr. Adamo GIS codes every kid in the system from the September 30th enrollment each year.

All county planning staff, at both the schools offices and the county offices, use it in planning every day.

Yes, Lambert will take at least two years. IF the issues that supposedly sank Lenah are not equally applied to that three-times LESS dense property. The real issues that sank Lenah have nothing to do with adopted policy.

We have a supervisor who is MIA, and delegates every aspect of his responsibilities.

You're right that people who own significant property are concerned about their land rights--it may be part of why Scott York brought it up during the Board discussion later today of a land review of Route 28.

Now that a majority of this Board has succeeded in painting schools as a "greedy developer", it's time to urbanize the suburban, and continue the work of 1999 in making the "transitional" rural.

We are NOT wasting time in trying every avenue for these schools. Currently, there are NO OTHER real options.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hesitate to join this discussion because my opinion may easily, yet incorrectly by dismissed as “sour grapes.” However, when the education of our children is at risk I believe that not speaking on this matter is unacceptable. If ever there is a reason for one to put oneself at risk for criticism, it is unquestionably is for the good of our kids.

First let me say that I believe people on both sides of this issue want the best for our students. Loudoun has a remarkable public school system that we should all both value and appreciate.

One major factor to a student’s education is class size. According to a National Education Association study the most optimal size for middle school students is about 16. Even for those of us who think 16 is an un-realistically small number, we certainly don’t wish to double that number. Loudoun middle school’s are now well beyond 16 students per class and one of our premiere high school’s (Stone Bridge) has class sizes as high as 36 students.

The Dulles District is the fastest growing district in one of the fastest growing counties in the country. It is, at least in part poorly planned growth that has led to this situation we know face. While that is most certainly not the fault or the result of the current BOS, it’s unfortunately now on their plates to address; and address it they must.

There is two things we can probably know for certain. One, the fact is that the students in Dulles really don’t have two or more years to wait for a school to be built, and two the Dulles District may very well need another elementary and middle school campus in the fairly near future. Thus Lenah and Lambert are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, going forward we need to take a look at the school site selection process, yes the cost should be a major if not overriding factor, but as far as the Lenah site is concerned that “horse has left the barn.”

It is possible, and in my opinion preferable that this matter be brought back to the board for another vote. Lenah can be approved now, and Lambert, if deemed an appropriate land use can be brought on line for future needs.

I believe we can all agree that of all the issues that should not be politicized, the education of our children is first on the list.

Phyllis Randall

Posted by philarandall (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Phyllis, thank you so much! Not only for your sensible words, but for proof that Mr. Bellanca and Mr. Miller are not the only face of the local Democratic Committee. Somebody with brains, integrity and manners needed to step in, and I truly thank you.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"You're asking a landowner to give up a piece of land for a pretty long time" as studies and preparations are made for potential sites for schools. Adamo said he worried about the school system's ability to negotiate future land deals.
.
Well, Sam, it wouldn't be such a worry now if you had started looking for a middle school site about the time you began the THIRD elementary school building! Instead, you stuck your head in the sand, fingers crossed, hoping against hope for the CPAM to pass and Greenvest to hand over a proffered site. Tough luck, buddy. You should have spent your time out there searching for a suitable piece of land.
.
Right now, the developers are coming out of the woodwork trying to make reasonable offers, in order to reduce their inventory. Sure, they were far less likely to entertain offers back then, but the folks at Stone Ridge are begging to get both schools there now. Give them a call, Sam, and quit whining. Weakness is never a good negotiating position from which to start.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please stop associating tbellanca with the Democratic party!! Stevens Miller is a disgrace to our party, and tbellanca certainly doesn't share similar views with ME on this matter, and I'm a staunch Dem. Yes, this matter SHOULD be apolitical - so let's not give power to tbellanca to claim opposition to the Lenah site as a Dem issue.
Barbara does a VERY eloquent and thorough job of summarizing the issue,and from everything I've read and heard from her, she certainly speaks for ME on this matter.

Posted by JDN6171 (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stephen, you too have a lack of real info.

Do be smug though. It shines.

JDN6171, thank you for your kind words.

Bellanca is actually the Dulles district chair of the Loudoun County Democratic Committee. Amazing fellow, isn't he?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS" - hardly "and MITIGATION OF ITS IMPACTS" - not a chance - it did not. The PC denied the application, the BoS supports the denial. End of story.

Posted by lenahresident (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes compliance, or Mr. Burton wouldn't have called the findings weak, and York and Buckley wouldn't have supported it. They hate Greenvest.

As for mitigation, yes that too, but who is going to give you utilities, and buffers far exceeding the county requirement now?

You were going to get utilities from Greenvest after the CPAMs, yes? And be able to subdivide if they passed?

What exactly did you win? The by right growth is coming, and they aren't even going to talk about giving you anything, because they don't have to.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Miller has shown extraordinary talent for keeping things from getting done. I hope he can now switch gears and actually get something done, i.e. delivering a middle school and a high school in 2010 and 2011 at a site that is somehow cheaper, closer, and all around better than Lenah. If he does not, he will surely face the wrath of angry parents-voters all over Dulles South as they curse him each morning for single-handedly making their their children ride the 6:55 bus to Ashburn. I am angry that our representative blocked the will of the overwhelming majority of his own constituency, and without any clear rationale for doing so. I applaud the Supervisors from other districts who made their decisions rationally and objectively. And now I challenge Mr. Miller: Deliver the new schools on time at Lambert or somewhere else, and this strange stunt (poking the vast majority of your constituents in the metaphorical eye) will be forgiven. Fail, and you will surely be remembered as a uniquely poor representative of your district.

Posted by jonathan.nystrom (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I listened to the entire board meeting. Scott York stated that he helped create the transition area plan and schools are an allowed usage there. He voted in favor of the schools, opposed the denial.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southridingneedstheschools, my question is about the wisdom of having a high school on the Lambert property in such a close location to Freedom high school.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Weak doesn't mean incorrect.

Mr York did comment on the 'open space' as well - and seemed to be pretty surprised that the stadium field, ball fields, soccer fields, and playing fields would be considered 'open space'.

Bottom line - the application was too an intense a use in TR-1 given the way it was proposed. If the applicant had acquired more land so that it could truly keep within the spirit of 'transition' and mitigate its impacts on its own property, then perhaps the "needs of many" would have outweighed the "wants of a few." (Or perhaps not.)

Posted by lenahresident (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps this means we'll only be raped with a single-digit tax increase in FY09.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that Lenah decision has been made we need to keep the pressure on the School Board and BOS to move quickly on Lambert or another site using waivers if needed to get the approvals in place quickly. Let's not waste time trying to get the BOS to change decision on Lenah and further delay the needed schools!! We do need to be concerned that the School Board may slow down the process in trying to keep the heat on the BOS for decision on Lenah. If we have a one year delay in building then I sure hope we look at reasonable alternatives such as using modular space for classes and expanding the cafeteria.

Posted by afeinstein (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Weak may very well mean incorrect in court.

The Director of Planning told York that active open space is always counted as open space. I believe she also repeatedly told one lenahresident that there is absolutely no nexus for providing offsite utilities to private citizens through a public project.

If it is just "too intense" for TR-1, then it must be out of the question in TR-3 at Lambert, right? Since we all love and respect the Comp Plan?

Unless, of course, it needs to be changed for a small group of very special people.

There are no waivers on portions of the process afeinstein. It takes the time it takes. What the empty suit just told us is "tough $#!+, suck it up, I don't care".

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you been to Mercer? Where are you going to put the "modular spaces" to accommodate the hundreds of extra kids in two years? This is the problem, there is no quick fix. Lenah isn't a quick fix because they are busing at least 60 kids from Mercer right now. Lenah wouldn't have come on line until 2010. There is no magic wand you can wave to have another middle school by 2010. Lenah was the one shot we had at it. There are a lot of smart hard working people outside of the school board who looked at the options and came away with Lenah as the only current option. Most of us are driven by the fact we have children in the pipeline not because we have financial interest in the Lenah site.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, What tactics? Were you at the meeting? Since when is discussion grounds for back-up officers? That weasel Miller knew he was wrong! Civil people have civil conversations. Clearly Miller is poorly dealing with issues from his past where he perceives everyone is out to get him, and now he has a "f" "u" i'll show everyone who has the last laugh mentality. I found it laughable that he requested a police escort to his car following the final public input session Monday night. Who voted for this creep? Not I!!

Posted by acewriter63 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting comment about the police escort on Monday night. I was at the meeting and afterward I was stranded in the parking garage with a flat tire until AAA showed up an hour later. A couple of deputies walked by and obviously saw that I was hanging around. They never came over to inquire as to why I was there. They did not attempt to help me out but I had the feeling they thought it was suspicious that I was still in the garage.

tballanca, your comments are just wrong concerning who it is supporting the school sites, who they are, and why they are doing so. As far as I am concerned, you are the one spreading the lies.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The board approve the site initially, they spent over a million dollars on surveying etc. Now they want to kill the deal. That's fine but the school board will either have to refund the tax payers the million they spent or purchase the plot. After the plot is purchased the board should be fired. This type of poor decision making is what you get when the employees of the state are c+ students at best.

Posted by askgees (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was at the meeting and didn't even realize police were there until someone on the mic mentioned it. The discussion didn't even come close to being uncivil. Is the National Guard going to be standing by for his meeting on the hospital?

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice comment thread, but no mention of the 200k per acre price?

Posted by dfhaines (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't been following this as closely as some of you, but I thought I'd mention that the county has also rejected a site on Poland Rd that was proffered by the EastGate developers. The cited reason was that the land was too wet for a school.

That's fine, but I'm curious where all the other, more viable sites for building schools are located in Dulles South.

And as for "walkable" schools, that's a joke, right? This is Loudoun County. Who here walks anyplace?

As the parent of twins who will be attending Pinebrook next year, I'm going to be following this issue much closer now.

Posted by koolkat_1960 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me bellanca, but gloating about overdue schools being denied in the same paragraph with flippant non-sequiter invites to the Obama event are about as negatively political as it gets.

dfhaines, wait and see what land in the suburban policy area costs.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara has an excellent point - it is difficult to take someone (Tom Bellanca) seriously who begins with "LOL" as his initial posting in a thread based on an issue which obviously has many people incredibly concerned. I would be anxious to see how opposed Tom would be if he did not actually live in Leneah Run...

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like a great first step would be to have a community meeting with our planning comissioner, supervisor and Mr. DuPree to tell us what the next step in the plan will be. I have asked our planning commissioner what the plans are to get a a MS open by 2010, she passed it on to Mr. Miller about a month ago. Mr. Dupree and LCPS seem to be the only folks willing to have a open dialog on the issue. I'm sure it will pain Mr. Miller to have to come to Dulles South again, but I think he owes us a glimpse into his grand plan for how to build schools so cheaply and quicker than what is being proposed by LCPS. If Lenah is way too expensive, let's hear what Mr. Miller has to say about what price makes sense. The figures I heard on Lambert came out to more than the total cost of the Lenah site when you add in utility and road construction. The Lambert site cost does not include infrastructure costs. Based on the objection to the price at Lenah, utility and road construction must be close to free. Are any of the sites in Stone Ridge viable? The only things I have seen are the one next to the power line (try riding your bicycle under those power lines - be prepared for the shock) and needs to have a road removed and utilities moved. I only ask because I haven't heard much else concrete about the sites while everyone is focused on Lambert. can someone from one of the organized groups request a joint community meeting to get some answers?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

The Board of Supervisors has been sponsoring joint meetings with the School Board to try to correct the process.

Posted by johnwayne110408 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

deanzywicki has a great point. This meeting does need to take place soon. At the BoS meeting on Tues, Mr Miller said he thinks we can now move on to something "wonderful" regarding our school situation in Dulles South. I think we would all like to hear about it.

I need to check some facts, but Lori Waters brought up the plans for HS-6(?). There is a proferred HS site in Loudoun Valley Estates. I have a feeling she views that school as an acceptable site for the Dulles South students in the future, in place of Lenah. She didn't say that, it is just a suspicion of mine. It could be that when we vote on the referrendum for a new HS in the DULLES area, the BoS will link the Loudoun Valley Estates site to the bond issue. A question was asked at the BoS meeting on Tues whether the wording for the bond was specific to Dulles South or the Dulles District. I have not checked to see if this particular HS is even in the CIP.

Food for thought.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought building a school way out there was a TERRIBLE idea. So thanks for saving me $19MM!!!! The School Board wastes too much money anyway. Until they learn to budget & spend a reasonably amount of MY money, I'm happy when the BOS says NO.

Posted by ms1234 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wrt to a public meeting, I think at this point, we would like a lot more transparency from our supervisor and planning commissioner. There is a lot of distrust floating around for Mr. Miller and his planning commissioner. If they have a plan, can we the citizens hear about it too? I for one, have very little faith that our planning commissioner and supervisor listen to what the Dulles South residents want and are placing their own interests first.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Miller could probably use the help of an integrated Citizen's working group, representing the various facets of Dulles South - an "IPT" structure (Integrated Program Team), particularly for this school issue. This working group would meet at least 1x a week, and additionally conduct discussion online, operating in concert with the School Board along a practical yet accelerated set of milestones to get these schools built, and all options on the table.

Posted by Elise (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:24 p.m.

oh, and tb? I no longer have a party affiliation, since back before you moved in.

The same crowd that got these VLF jokers elected as Democrats ran the local Republican committee into the ground too.

I lapsed over two years ago.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ms1234 is failing to realize that schools are going to happen. Your'e actually losing money as a Loudoun County taxpayer by this deal for Lenah being rejected. Have you been to Lenah? Do you have children that may spend 2+ hours a day being bussed to Leesburg or Ashburn? Lenah's not as far as that!

Posted by staceyproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ms1234, do you have any children in LCPS?

Posted by klflora1 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, Lori Waters may indeed be thinking bait and switch. That school is in Briar Woods cluster, and relief was proposed for Freedom first because of the growth here.

We can't count on space in that cluster being sufficient for our kids too, while Miller fiddles around with purely imaginary wonderfulness.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bellanca, for some reason you flow off topic constantly. I mentioned nothing of the investigation, and in fact I support that and feel there should be a few more opened up - one that immediately comes to mind should be into Miller himself. What I want is not to have my children traveling hours a day to school, period - and for a school to be built nearby ASAP. I don't think that is too much to ask, considering that Stevens promised that to his district and likely that is why he was elected.

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to hear Supervisor Miller's contingency plan now that he cast the pivotal vote against Lenah. Actually I would like Supervisor Miller have a public meeting to explain the reasoning behind the way he voted and how he plans to move forward in the future.
MS1234 if you think Lenah was expensive wait until you see the final bill on the next site when it comes due.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NEWS ALERT:
They are broadcasting yesterday's fateful meeting on ch 23 right now. If you want to hear for yourself what ensued, now is the chance.

It is a very bad idea to send kids up to the Ashburn area to school. No matter what we said, though, some of the supervisors just did not seem to understand the distinction. They think we are just reacting to "scare" tactics.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bellanca, MILLER has the job now, not Snow.

Snow can't vote on anything.

What, the empty suit will magically listen to Steve Snow instead of the VOTERS?

Granted, I know Miller says he isn't running again, but seriously!

What, do you have a Magic Eightball you consult before you type?

Call mission control, you are recycling political talking points in an accelerating downward trend!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm extremely disappointed in this decision and I think it will significantly, negatively impact our children. I would like to see a meeting held to discuss what the county is going to do to alleviate the extreme overcrowding situation in our schools in Dulles South. This problem is long overdue in being solved.

Posted by DullesSouthParent (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's clear to me that all of the parents responding on this board (with the exception of a few arrogant smug know-it-alls , that I will not call by name, Mr. Bellanca)DO care for their children and for you to state or imply otherwise is a disgrace. You, my friend, should not seek (again, the year 2000 was it?) any type of position in public service as it is clear you only know how to insult and degrade rather than listen and respect the views that may differ from your own.

Posted by staceyproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At 2:30pm on Wed, its also on Ch 40 on Verizon FIOS

Posted by DullesSouthParent (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

10 miles equals the better part of an hour in this area as you know - in fact, we practice at Stone Hill for sports, and it has never once been less than a 45-60 minute commute during the week for myself or anyone else that I know. Is Lenah the optimal location? Perhaps not, but it is a more immediate solution. Should there always be a backup plan? Absolutely - shame on them. Do I care about my kids? Intensely. Do you have children's best interests at heart?

"Tom Bellanca, also from Lenah Run, thinks the co-location of the two schools and the supporting fields is too big for the neighborhood. He referred to the plans as "the University of Lenah" when he urged the commission to deny the application."

Sounds like a concern for property value vice best interests of the children to me...

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is really looking out for the children Tom. Are you saying schools are great unless they are in your neighborhood and you have no children who need to attend them?

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mpproc,
I focused on the TIME it takes to get from Dulles South to Stone Hill. My experience has been the same as yours. It takes 45-60 in traffic. Students going to schools in the morning will be in rush hour traffic. Somehow, when Andrea McGimsey drove from Little River to Stone Hill this week around 7:30 AM, it took only 20 min. Therefore, everything that has been said about the length of the trip by all of us is just hype. Frustrating.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

150K per acre? That's some pretty expensive weed there in Lowdown.

Posted by shhhhh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoqenishy, we haven't forgotten that you choose not pay your personal property taxes. Any comments you make in these forums, especially regarding tax increases, are null and void. Everyone, please ignore this criminal.

Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry, but I believe that we were being sold a pig in a poke. The Lenah location for two schools made sense only if the current transition zone would be eliminated and thousands of homes built in its place; the schools would be nicely placed to serve those houses, not South Riding. We were sold that location not to serve South Riding, but to support Greenvest's building plans down the road. The housing market here in Dulles South cooled off with the rise in gas prices; I don't think the houses envisioned by Greevest et al will be built any time within a decade, if ever.

So we need a middle school for South Riding NOW. Do we accept a bad location because we need it NOW? I think the school board dragged its feet and accepted Greenvest's offer with little critical evaluation of the choices. The school board got us into this position after placing all its reliance on a bad location. Now they can do the work they should have and find a location IN South Riding for the middle school, Now.

Posted by tws1372 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tws1372, the plan FOR the transition zone includes schools, as Scott York amply noted Tuesday: he helped WRITE the plan, he PASSED the Plan, and anyone who thinks schools aren't allowed is WRONG.

This is the whole "CPAMs are coming back" horse manure.

The BY RIGHT growth in the transition area (which is NOT RURAL) will total thousand of homes under the Plan that everyone who voted AGAINST these schools campaigned to uphold.

South Riding is a planned community, like Stone Ridge, and Kirkpatrick Farms. There isn't any spare land just lying around, and the land value in PDH-4 and commercial is multiples of the cost of a pad site in TR-1.

The residential LAND ALONE is worth over $700K per acre here.

And you know what vested rezoned land is in an economic downturn? Money in the bank. In fact, BETTER than money in the bank.

As for Ms. McGimsey making a light-speed trip up an industrial truck route in morning rush hour, maybe her new energy committee made her a prototype green solar teleporter.

Maybe we can fund mass production of it and that will take care of the busing problem.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig. Give money to Greenvest for a school, open up the transition zone to Greenvest. Does't take advanced math to put it together.

Can't wait to hear your reply Barbara. I wonder if you actually could not reply...

Posted by lucy11 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lucy11, what advanced math are you doing exactly? The kind that involves paying more for a site 2 years from now or the kind that involves the loss of monies already spent preparing surveys, permits, etc. for proposed Lenah site? Barbara Munsey has made so many things clear today re. this debacle, and for that, I can't thank her enough!

Posted by staceyproc (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Barbara Munsey:

Before you inaccurately and falsely associate funding of the Center for Public Integrity's Land Use Accountability project with the Soros fund, which is not true, you should also know that the Center has worked on land use issues going back to 2006, not "the week before the vote," as you stated.

The Center’s Land Use Accountability project examines local experiences and "connects the dots" in order to illustrate today’s national land use story, of which Loudon County has been a part of. The county’s Board of Equalization has a history of lowering tax rates for big developers, and doing so without the transparency required by state law. The Center’s project was funded by The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment; Prince Charitable Trusts; The Rauch Foundation; Town Creek Foundation; and Wallace Global Fund. All of this information is made publicly available on our website, http://www.publicintegrity.org/investiga....

Steve Carpinelli, Communications
Center for Public Integrity

Posted by scarpinelli (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Director of Planning told York that active open space is always counted as open space." - and his response was something like "You have got to be kidding me." and/or "Says who?" No real definitive answer from Miss Julie.

"I believe she also repeatedly told one lenahresident that there is absolutely no nexus for providing offsite utilities to private citizens through a public project." Don't know who she was talking to - but it wasn't me. But if she had been, just because there is 'no nexus' doesn't mean there couldn't have been one. As far as I know it just hasn't been done as common practice. Semantics aside, it could have been done but instead, an easement was proposed at the 11th hour before the final PC meeting which seemed to be fine with the other 'lenahresident.'

Posted by lenahresident (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Carpinelli, please reread my comments.

I am aware of how long the center has been researching land use. I waited quite a while before the project went online, as it seems to have been delayed for quite a while before it went live.

The introductory material was posted months ago, after a long delay, and the only update has been a small piece on assessments and the Lenah school sites.

Yes, I think the timing looks mighty funny.

And yes, a variety of entities fund the project. And a variety of people fund THOSE entities.

I gave quite a few interviews on the Loudoun project, as a "greedy developer's rubber stamp appointee" (not Dusty's words--he was a great reporter at Leesburg Today, and I always considered him fair there), so I know how long its been in the works, and how long it took to get what little there is on Loudoun out there.

Funny that you sound so outraged about Soros--he gave the Center over $1.25M since 2000, and funded part of the "Well-Connected" series, so yes, he is a contributor. Perhaps he has not (directly) contributed to the land use project?

lenahresident--are you saying that the taxpayers are supposed to provide free utilities offsite? How much of this was about fiscal responsibility? I thought every bit of it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Barbara that is not what I am saying. Once again, I said it could have happened, it simply didn't. Surely you know that easements are in no way the same as providing the utilities.

Posted by lenahresident (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let me get this straight... LCPS spends two years working on one site, but not every objection could be overcome and it gets rejected, but there's this other site that we can have ready if we really rush around and get going right now?
Must be the audacity of hope. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lenahres, my understanding of staff's responses at the PC worksession was that it is not permitted.

If the applicant were a private developer, that could be an agreement privately reached.

I was able to attend the last portion of the community meeting on the Broadlands Hospital tonight at Eagle Ridge.

Residents on both sides of the issue spoke about their concerns and desires, and some of the responses from our supervisor really struck me:

He stressed that when an application comes before him, he has to focus on compliance with existing regulations and making sure it mitigates impact, that he can't get too focused on what can be "squeezed out" of the applicant.

I hope he means that in his own community, because his remarks at the denial of Lenah were to the effect that he doesn't agree with the existing process, and that turning down Lenah was the beginning of a new and better one.

We have an existing process. Turning it down because you think there should be a different one BEFORE THAT NEW ONE HAS BEEN CREATED is not "focusing on compliance with existing regulations".

There was also discussion of "trust in government".

In the Lenah situation, a large part of his constituency here seems to fell that they did not receive trust, and it looks like the applicant didn't receive it either.

One woman stressed how it would look, what message would it send if the hospital were denied?

What message did it send if a public service that the county is required to provide is turned down at a site with a positive staff recommendation?

Part of me is thinking that, maybe after totally blowing off the responsibility down here (and the response that has received from so many people) has led him to take his neighbors concerns more seriously in his own neighborhood.

Part of me thinks the people in Broadlands heard exactly what we did before he moved to deny a school two years overdue.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read some of the postings and I'm not very impressed. In fact, I think there is a great deal of misguided criticism that would best be redirected at the school board as well as the staffers in charge of land acquisition. While they hide behind the tactic of "doing it for the children" and constantly try to justify exorbitant spending, they have managed to be very successful in deflecting blame onto the BoS.

The utter lack of negotiating skills by the staffers potentially leaves the county on the hook for double or even triple the actual value of the land for schools. In otherwords, they want to pay top dollar (times 2) for anything they can get their hands on. If you don't see that, then your blind. It seems that the BoS is tired of LCPS staffers' psuedo-negotiations, wasting millions of $$ in studies, forcing schools into areas where they don't belong (see their effort in the other side of the county by Wheatlands), then sticking the county with the bill.

The BoS simply made a stand and said,"Enough is enough! Stop offering land owners twice the value on their parcels and find a better way to negotiate!"

The LCPS needs a desperate overhaul. An overhaul which includes the removal of the current staffers as well as Superintendent Hatrick. They are costing this county way too much money and the proof is in your property taxes. That's right! Look at your tax bill and see how 75%+ of it goes to the school system. It's so tight right now that our government had to impose a separate emergency services tax on top of the total property tax rate. So, you not only pay a tax rate of $1.14 per $100, but an additional 3%, or so, on emergency services. That's like being taxed 103%!!

If the LCPS conducted business with the best interests of the ENTIRE county in mind, Lenah would have been negotiated at a more acceptable price, and the BoS would have approved the funding. Also, emergency services would be covered without an additional tax. You folks are blaming the wrong people while fighting amongst each other, and Hatrick & Adamo are loving it.

Posted by camram_8 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only one problem with your conclusion, camram: as confirmed by the county attorney during discussion of the item at Tuesday's business meeting, finances were not on the table. Already voter, AND BoS approved--by putting it before the voters!

The only thing they were (supposed to be) voting on was meeting the plan and mitigating impact.

If a different process is desired, there is a process for changing it.

That has yet to be followed.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:14 a.m.

tbellanca, the mention of Hitler in this context is evidence of your desperation in this matter.

Imagine, the school board's hidden agenda is to provide schools in service areas where they are needed and where the numbers demonstate an even greater need in the coming years.

Greenvest is a huge landowner in LoCo. Get over it! If they do not build the schools, they will build houses. I usually am not this petty, but I am very angry with the group of NIMBYs who did everything they could to get this disapproved. Therefore, I hope Greenvest builds their future homes as close as possible to yours. You could have had the open fields of schools and the sounds of the community coming out to support their school. You could have been right there when they presented their drama and chorus productions. And so on.....

I am guessing the mention of hidden agendas referred to the school system. The many, many, Dulles South residents who wanted the schools at Lenah do no have a hidden agenda. Our agenda is very clear. We want to have schools in our area for the children who are here now. Lenah, whether you like it or not, is in our area. Ashburn is not. To ignore the facts of the traffic patterns and other road issues and say it is apples to apples (as McGimsey did) is showing a lack of understanding of this issue.

In addition, the question was not put to the BoS, are the location of the schools right, or is the price right, etc. It was, does the application comply with the plan. The most eloquent explanation of why it does comply came from Susan Klimek Buckley. Anyone who thinks the BoS did the right thing in denying this application should listen to what she had to say. She got right to the heart of the situation and put into words what we have been trying to say.

cam_ram8, I am not impressed that YOU are not impressed! We are a community reeling from a decision that we know will have a huge impact on the future of our children, families, and community. We are looking at sending a portion of our kids to the Ashburn area for 3-4 years while this gets straightened out. The reality is that the traffic is going to be a nightmare, not just in getting to school, but also getting back to school for PTA meetings, sports events, etc. We have a difficult situation here and playing the blame game and putting down the hard working professionals working for the county and schools will not get us anywhere.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

With the all thunder and sniping, I've lost track of the debate.
Ms.Munsey, are you arguing that the Lenah site is the best site for a South Riding middle school, or that we should accept whatever is available given the time frame?
I recognize that the transition zone can include schools; I'm arguing that Lenah is a lousy site for THESE schools, especially a middle school. I don't accept the no-land-available argument. Literally miles of south side of Braddock Road is undeveloped, for one of many examples. I believe the school board was lazy and chose land that was handed to them, at whatever price and motive, instead of doing what I consider a sound approach: "where do the students live and where do we put a school that will best serve them?" Find a ground-zero and start moving outward until appropriate site(s) are found and negotiated.
As for this "planned community", the failure to include a middle school in the plan speaks to me not of incompetence but of callous greed on the part of the planners, and taking another Faustian bargain is no solution.

Posted by tws1372 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tws, the first misconception evident in your comment is that schools belong to a particular community.

There is no such thing as a "South Riding school" or a "Lenah Run school", unless you want to see the obscene cost model of the private/public school already extant run wild through each hamlet and cluster.

These are public schools, and planning is done by cluster.

Lenah is served in the Freedom cluster (and is nearly the geographic center of it)--except for the few who are bused to Blue Ridge to attend classes where entire grades have 20 kids--so it is entirely appropriate.

Is your argument that everyone from the transition zone be booted out of Mercer and Freedom pronto?

They don't have room for them in the rural Valley cluster, its been the victim of political overcrowding for years.

If you want to rank on planned communities (where many by right residents do their shopping, and banking, and eating out) be my guest.

The alternative (NO planning) is better?

South of Braddock has more "fragile" zoning than the land next to the most extensively developed area in the transition zone--Lenah.

Argue on the periphery all you like--the core issue and process remain the same (and violated).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms.Munsey, I don't think I'm arguing on the periphery; I think that the appropriate location of the next Dulles South middle school is the precise heart of the debate. I'll accept your statement that Lenah is part of the Freedom cluster. But I then ask you, where do the children live who will attend this middle school? I advocate an approach that we calculate a distance from each included home in the cluster to the site and minimize the total distance involved, and I seriously doubt that Lenah is optimal under that criteria. It's my belief every South Riding student incurs a long distance - perhaps the longest distance outside the rural zoning - on average to attend middle school, and that locating a school in/nearest to South Riding reduces those distances the most, thus I call it a South Riding school. I expect that students from Lenah Run and the surrounding areas will be bused to this middle school, but the total bus-miles will be dramatically reduced.
As for planned communities, no I'm not arguing that no planning is better, I am arguing for fixing the original plan rather than run to accept the next developer's plan. I will repeat my point: Greenvest is not offering this land for our benefit, but for theirs and only theirs.
Last, I don't understand the term "fragile zoning." Can you explain it please?

Posted by tws1372 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tws1372, The LCPS did look at other properties, including some south of Braddock Rd. If you haven't seen the list and reasons these properties did not work, the information is available at the following:

What other properties has LCPS looked at as potential sites for MS-5 and HS-7? http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5099051...

Susan Buckley said it best when she said this site offers short-term relief to the overcrowding while planning ahead for future growth approved for the Lenah area. My understanding is that a school is needed in the Lenah area and also closer to the South Riding area. What we have before us is a site that will serve suburban and transition area students in the near future that will serve more of the transition area students in the long term. By that time, there should be another middle school in the suburban area.

The subset of properties the LCPS can consider is limited by availability at the time of their search, costs, suitability of the land and so on. The fact that there is empty land in an area does not automatically mean it could be a school site.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it is sad. It's sad to realize that money for the middle school proposed for Lenah was approved in 2005 and the school scheduled to open in 2008. What has the School Board and LCPS been doing wasting that time getting MS-5 opened? It seems to me they have been working on a private deal with Greenvest to open land in the transition area to residential housing rather than paying attention to the children of South Riding. If LCPS was to have MS-5 open in 2008, why are the residents of South Riding pointing fingers at the Board of Supervisors for their Lenah vote? You should point your fingers and ask your questions of LCPS and the School Board. If those two entities can't get MS-5 open on time, why is it the fault of this BOS that they don't want to spend $20,000,000 of taxpayer dollars on overpriced Greenvest land? Let's give credit where credit is due...LCPS and the School Board are poining their fingers at everyone else and neither taking responsibility for their sorry lack of action nor accepting accounaibility for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a fishing expetition in a sad attempt to help one of the largest land speculators in Loudoun County...Greenvest. Planning Commission Chair DuPree couldn't or wouldn't see to placing a middle school in South Riding when on the Planning Commission so, now, 10 years later, he'd like to take over land use decision making as Chairman of the School Board. You can't make this stuff up. We have the shadow government of the School Board spending taxpayer dollars without accountability trying to make land use decisions which are above their pay grade. Now that the horse is out of the barn, let's use this opportunity to fix the process of buying land for county government purposes. Taxpayers deserve better fiscal management of our money than has been provided by the School Board during their attempt to help Greenvest open low density land for high density residential development. And, the residents of South Riding deserve a middle school close to their three elementary schools so their children don't have to sit on buses for any longer each day than is necessary.

Posted by shines3243 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there is some space in a few elementary schools in Dulles South? Maybe some students should remain in Elementary for 6th grade. That would buy a bit more time and bus fewer students. It won't solve the problem of needing a school ASAP. IT would only be a bandaid.

Posted by shellyvintage (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey:

The Center for Public Integrity’s Land Use Accountability project (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investiga... ) was launched on August 6, 2008. Any delays you cite are due to the coordinating of journalists who are spread out among three states (VA, MD and PA) and assembling a website that includes Freedom of Information Act requests, databases, real estate, court and business records - all of which takes weeks and months to obtain and format online. Any good investigative journalism takes time to write, fact check and publish and this project exemplified that.

There was nothing outrageous in my comments about stating how you incorrectly cited a funding source for the Center for Public Integrity’s Land Use Accountability project. The Center has received funding from The Open Society Institute for the Well-Connected project (which was primarily funded by the Ford Foundation) and several others, most recently in 2004. All of the Center’s funders, including a list of our individual donors, are published on our website. During a time when many newspapers across the country have slashed their investigative news budgets and laid-off investigative journalists, the Center is fortunate to have foundations and donors, like OSI, who believe in nonpartisan investigative journalism.

The Center receives no funding from governments, countries, anonymous donors and has no advertising. In addition, the Center has never endorsed any legislation, candidate, policies, programs or political parties.

Regarding the Center’s Land Use Accountability project, there are many useful online resources for you and other Loudon residents, including links to groups who work on land use issues, public databases (for example, in MD the Eastern Shore’s top 500 landowners has been made publicly available for the first time for free), how-to information on filing freedom of information requests and interactive maps. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the Center and its work.

Steve Carpinelli, Communications
Center for Public Integrity

Posted by scarpinelli (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, bellanca, you've been busy!

Mr. Hines, nice to see you back: I see you've cut and pasted the same thing on the Leesburg Today site.

Why do you never say you are the Dulles Representative to Parks, Recreation and Open Space when you are advocating against schools that the Parks and Rec department supports? Why did Mr. Miller appoint a Dulles representative who only believes in passive recreation?

Unbelievable.

tws, I would say that the whole "evil Greenvest CPAM" argument is pretty much blown as a talking point now that bellanca the Magic Eightball has said that a CPAM to reduce density is GOOD CPAM.

The only way any CPAM is coming back is if the Board votes to initiate one.

Magic 8, push whatever you like, but if you want to rezone the zone, you have no business talking about cost. The cost (if you are actually going to follow procedure and avoid lawsuits) is not small.

In addition, you still don't know what you're talking about: your little peice of the zone is TR-1. Some of it is already TR-3. Some of it is already TR-10, which means you wouldn't be DOWNzoning, you'd be UPzoning.

Mr. Hines would surely love that!

tws, everyone is tiptoeing around the elephant: we HAVE a policy and it has been followed, except for the arbitrary and capricious denial, and the actions by the Dulles Commissioner and Supervisor against the site before there was a staff report.

If we want to reinvent the wheel, that takes time and money too.

Fragile zoning? Read any of Magic 8's stuff, or the chorus: "schools are too big an impact in (my backyard of already developed ) TR-1--one acre lots; put it over there in TR-3--three acre lots".

It makes a great argument against Lambert--which will only produce three schools and a sports plex in one realtor's mind--while supposedly advocating for it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re evil CPAMs:

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:14:20 -0400
From: "Julie Pastor" <Julie.Pastor@loudoun.gov> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "Barbara Munsey" <barbara_munsey@yahoo.com>
CC: "Marchant Schneider" <Marchant.Schneider@loudoun.gov>
Subject: Re: question
Barbara, In response to your questions below, on November 8, 2006, the Board reaffirmed the Transition Area Policies and did not approve the Upper Broad Run and Upper Foley Plan Amendment. On November 21, 2006, the Board permanently limited the consideration of comprehensive plan amendments to those initiated by the Board of Supervisors. This ended the practice of acceptance of applicant-initiated plan amendments.

At this time, by majority vote, the Board may initiate an amendment to the Plan. Further, the Planning Commission by majority vote can recommend consideration of a Plan amendment. However, resources to work on such an amendment would be at the direction of the Board.

As an aside, most recently with respect to the Transition Area (July 2008), the Board considered whether to proceed with amending the Plan to eliminate the cluster requirements in the Middle Goose Sub-area/TR-10 Zoning District. They decided not to proceed with such an amendment citing the desire to maintain the existing policies.

Julie Pastor, AICP
County of Loudoun
Director of Planning
(703) 777-0246

>>> Barbara Munsey <barbara_munsey@yahoo.com> 10/16/2008 3:41 PM >>>
Dear Julie:

Information continues to be circulated (and
presented by the At Large Representative to the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Advisory Committee during
her remarks at the public hearing this week) that if
the Lenah SPEX is approved, it means "the CPAMs are
coming back".

I called the Planning Department, and was
referred to Marchant, who suggested I write to you for
complete information regarding my questions, which are
as follows:

1. Is there not a standing Board moratorium on
applicant-initiated CPAMs?

2. If so, wouldn't it require Board action to bring a
CPAM forward, i.e. Mr. Miller, or possibly Mr. York,
as At Large member, would have to put forth a motion
and receive a majority of Board members' supporting
votes for any CPAM to be initiated in the Transition
Area, or any other policy area in the county?

3. What would be the necessary process to be
fulfilled before any CPAM would be under consideration
in the Transition (or any other) Policy Area?

Thank you for your time on this; neighborhoods
in South Riding and Stone Ridge are being leafleted
with that CPAM "information", so it would be quite
helpful to have correct information for the residents
who are understandably concerned.

Hope you are well!

Barbara Munsey

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Scarpinelli, as I said, read my comments again. I said the Center has been funded by Soros, and you have confirmed it has received funding from them.

I am perfectly prepared to say that Soros is not funding the Land Use project--all the foundations you cited are involved in Chesapeake Bay activism, which makes sense given the focus on MD, VA and PA.

Where you may be feeling touchy is the ambiguity of my statement that Dusty is working there--he is working for the land use accountability project of the Center for Public Integrity.

If you choose to keep scrupulously separate that he is employed on the LAND USE PROJECT, of the Center for Public Integrity, which may not have received direct funding from Soros, as opposed to having it misunderstood that he works for the CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY, which has received funding from Soros, on a land use project, then feel free.

I will continue to hold my opinion that it seems pretty touchy to chime in on a parochial thread to split that hair.

Particularly when also seems that you are advertising for traffic to the site.

You have a nice day now.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

South Riding needs a middle school. Mercer Middle School is not even in the same zip code. The school board with pressure from some people in the South Riding community opted to build another Elementary School (even though their was open space in other Elementry Schools near by) instead of building the middle school they needed, first. I challenge the concerned parents in South Riding to find a location in their own zip code 20152 and work with the LPSS to get a middle school built quickly. The money for the land was approved years ago. Please hold the School Board and Administration responsible and help them get a good price on land that is newly on the market as a result of the real-estate bust. The residents of the transition zone, Kirkpatrick Farms, Stone Ridge and other neighborhoods north of Gum Springs should work together with the School Board to find a location and build an academically excellent High School to serve their children. What’s wrong with some common sense and community cooperation? I’m tired of the polarization and adults setting a bad example for their children who currently attend school together.

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Little River and Hutchison Farm are close to capacity and do not have room to keep their 6th graders. I believe Liberty, Arcola and Pinebrook are not currently quite as full, but a 6th elementary school is planned in the Mercer/Freedom cluster in 2010 in Seven Hills to relieve rising elementary enrollments.

Another logicstical problem is that sixth grade in middle school is very different from 5th grade in elementary school. Middle school is operated like a high school with multiple courses offered and the students switching between classes. Perhaps the elementary school planned to open in 2010 in Seven Hills could be configured to house all the 6th grade in the Mercer/Freedom cluster on an interim basis. The schools people said they looked at building a middle school at Seven Hills, but the site was too small.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, who said anything about suing the county over this?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

charsj, is the elementary already approved and funded?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bellanca:
"I assumed that it would take Board Approval...now all we have to do is lobby a majority of the board to support it (which I might say is usually required in any Virginia county to approve planning).Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)"

What do you think "Board approval" IS? Count to five.

If you want to ask the Board to legislate your property and that of your neighbors into non-conforming lots, be my guest.

clmroche, zipcode has nothing to do with it.

"Aldie" is an unincorporated rrural village in the Blue Ridge district. (At least before suburban development came to Lenah in the form of Lenah Run and The Marches.)

It is now also a big chunk of the suburban policy area by zipcode, and most of the transition area.

Yes, suing would take money and time. That's why I'm sure the school board will think long and hard before taking that drastic action.

However, supported by the chorus from the small goup of activists who want suburban convenience AND rural ambience (and to hell with everybody else), the Board of Supervisors has taken an unprecedented incursion into OUR ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD'S duites and responsibilities, and they have done it in the name of a "broken process" BY SUBVERTING THE PROCESS.

If we have no accountability from our Supervisor, do we really want the board taking over the school board too?

I don't.

If this board campaigned on ethics and giving the government back to the people (ALL OF THEM, not just the ones they like or who contributed to them), then FOLLOW THE PROCESS for CHANGING THE PROCESS.

I would sue in heartbeat, but I'm not the school board.

I don't envy them being under this kind of attack not only from the ill-informed cadre with an agenda, but from their board of supervisors as well.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey,
Who made you the authority? And why don’t you want a middle school in your own neighborhood? Do you want every child in South Ridging to have to be bussed to Middle School? Do you think that settling differences of opinion by lawsuit is a good use of taxpayer money? What kind of example are you setting for our children? Please find a better use of your valuable time than inciting more polarization and wasted time/money.

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche - the children of South Riding are bused to Mercer right now, do you think they can walk there? Do you think there are 50 acres of cheap real estate currently with zero development on them in the middle of South Riding waiting for an offer?
While having never formally met Barbara I can tell you she is the dictionary definition of an authority on this issue. If you haven’t figured that out from her comments on this topic then I invite you to go to any meeting on this issue and hear her speak. Her grasp of the issue and articulation are immediately apparent.

Posted by gcasmith74 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2, I believe it is the Dulles elementary on the November ballot, but I may be wrong.

clmroche, Mercer and Freedom may be in different zip codes, but they are less than a mile apart on the map. I agree that building MS-5 east of Gum Spring Road is to be desired. The site should be out of a transition zone, have room for athletic fields, have no safety issues, and cost well under $200,000 per acre. If you or anyone else knows of such a site, please step forward.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I do think/know there is cheaper real estate near or in South Riding with water/sewer and paved roads near by on which to build a middle school. I suggest you avail yourself of another expert then Ms. Munsey. I have gone to meetings on this issue and heard Ms. Munsey speak and I have not heard anything but vitriolic appeals to parental fear, that if the School Board doesn’t pay Greenvest Millions of Dollars for over priced property, then “South Riding” children will be “bussed”. What she never mentions is that they are already bussed to a middle school out side their neighborhood and would continue to be if the Greenvest boondoggle was approved. I’m tiered of adults acting worse then children. What is wrong with South Riding coming up with a solution to their need for a middle school without trampling on any of their neighbors. Step up to the plate and find a place near your students and build a middle school and stop instigating and inciting problems.
My questions remain un answered:
Who made Ms. Munsey the authority?
And why don’t you want a middle school in your own neighborhood?
Do you want every child in South Riding to continue to have to be bussed to Middle School?
Do you think that settling differences of opinion by lawsuit is a good use of taxpayer money?
What kind of example are you setting for our children?

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr Bellanca -
I wonder if it might be possible for you to explain, without insulting, degrading or disrespecting anyone in the process, what you feel the best solution is to the overcrowding problem that our schools are facing at this time. Ms. Munsey does, to the parents here in South Riding that I have spoken with, including my husband and myself, seem quite knowledgable regarding the dire situation we are currently facing. You, on the other hand, have chosen to not offer a solution but simply to offer the follwing:
"Can you see the tears dropping from my eyes? Put your money where your large mouth is."
"Keep blaming Miller, it will do you alot of good for at least 4 more years. I see you REALLY care about your kids. Makes alot of sense to me. Very productive."
" The fact is, you only speak for yourself and about 30 other emotionally troubled people, some of which don't even reside in South Riding"
"Keep getting greedy and I will push this even more. I'm sure your buddies at Greenvest would love this to happen. How do you like me now?"
These are just a few examples of the harsh way that you have chosen to try to get your view and your message across. Hate to break the news, this method is offensive and sickening to those of us with children facing the real possibility of spending hours a day sitting on a bus.
I want to know how many children you have that will be affected the way that mine and those of my neighbors will be. Are you truly angry that Greenvest (as all developers do) stands to make a profit on the deal or, are you just angry that perhaps the profit isn't filling up your pockets? I have yet to see you speak of any concern for the true heart of the matter, THE KIDS.
I would invite you to speak to the parents of the South Riding community. Let us know what will happen with our middle school and high school children in the coming years. And Mr. Bellanca, try to do it in a less offensive manner. It might just earn you a little respect.

Posted by staceyproc (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I checked the County website and the school bond referendum questions are for an elementary and high school in the Dulles District. http://www.loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabi...

Ashburn/Dulles Area Elementary School

Question: Shall the County of Loudoun, Virginia contract a debt and issue its general obligation capital improvement bonds in the maximum amount of $21,810,000 to finance, in whole or in part, the cost to design, construct and equip the new Ashburn/Dulles Area Elementary School (ES-20)?

( ) YES
( ) NO

Dulles Area High School

Question: Shall the County of Loudoun, Virginia contract a debt and issue its general obligation capital improvement bonds in the maximum amount of $82,235,000 to finance, in whole or in part, the cost to design, construct and equip the new Dulles Area High School II (HS-7)

( ) YES
( ) NO

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche, about your comment, "Yes, I do think/know there is cheaper real estate near or in South Riding with water/sewer and paved roads near by on which to build a middle school". I am not being sarcastic here, I would truly like to know where that is. Please make this information available because this is exactly what we need.

You speak of treating each other better, as an example to our children. You seem to be blaming this issue on the people of South Riding. The schools are county schools, not schools owned or claimed by any given community. It is the responsibility of LCPS to purchase sites and build schools, per the Code of VA. The BoS is to approve the purchase. Sometimes, in planned communities the developer sets aside proferred sites, which is nice because it takes away all the associated issues and costs of purchasing said property. These developer proffers can not be relied upon to cover all the educational service needs of the region, partly because there are other by-right developments in the area which add additional students. I happen to live in a by-right community, I am not a South Riding resident. The schools should serve the students in the areas close to their homes.

I am tired of all the comments about who should have done this and that. People are very upset about this decision for valid reasons. Folks who are glad the application failed are happy now. If it had gone the other way, they would have been quite angry. There is passion here - one group defending what they feel is best for their community, one group defending what they feel is best for their children. I think it is best to stop demonizing people who disagree with us, unless they are making disrespectful comments.

I for one regret a comment I made this morning on this blog about hoping Greenvest builds their homes close to the homes in Lenah Run. I spoke out of utter frustration over this and I did not really mean what I said. Some of you seem to not understand that for the next 3-4 years (no guarantees either), some of our children will be bussed way out of our community to school, perhaps for their entire middle school or high school experience. Childhood is short - you can not recapture the years that may be spent in a less than ideal situation. As a parent we try to protect our children from situations we do not feel are in their best interest.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello Ms. Munsey...Your information is so yesterday. I haven't been associated with the Parks Board since August. It's difficult to refer to it as the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Board because the concern within 'official' Loudoun for Open Space is a joke. So, I'm not associated with the Parks Board, have no ties to Mr. Miller and am speaking as a concerned taxpayer. You remember us don't you?
I'm the person with no children in school that you announced should have no say in how our tax dollars are spent. There are 100's of middle school seats within close proximity to South Riding. Why can't South Riding children go there in the short term? Aren't they being bussed to Mercer now? I don't understand how your group can be so self-centered and fiscally reckless in pushing for schools in Lenah (that will require considerable, longterm outlay of taxpayer funds to move 100 percent of the children to those schools) when the County is facing a fiscal crisis. We need to all pitch in and help Loudoun solve the fiscal hole we're in, which has been caused in part by heavy residential development over the past few years, by identifying fiscally responsible solutions to providing schools for the new residents that have flocked to the county. We don't need to make our problems worse by spending $20,000,000 on land that Greenvest needs sold. And, as all of us know, that's just the beginning of the taxpayer's being forced to cover Greenvest's vision of the future. There is nothing those land speculators can bring to this County which is beneficial. They're a one trick pony looking for someone, like the citizens of Loudoun, to bail them out from their questionable land purchases. Let's not confuse Greenvest land deals with providing schools for Loudoun's children. The difference is stark and jarring. Steve Hines

Posted by shines3243 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, I have made the trip many times myself from Dulles South to the Ashburn area in rush hour. It depends on traffic, time spent at signals, etc. You did not say your route or time of day. You are misrepresenting this information. Many people who live out here are quite aware of how long it takes us to get from here to there for appts, soccer games, etc. We are not lying about this. Are you?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you momof2. And I also live in a community not in South Riding or Lenah Run or even the transition zone. I don’t think that people are served by name calling or infighting. That’s why I propose to channel our energies towards advocating for and assisting the School Board in building a Middle School in or near South Riding and a more Western High School. It’s pretty clear the factions don’t want to work together. So my suggestion is they separate and push to get a good price on the land and any zoning variances needed. There have already been two offers of property that would better fit the long term needs and cost less (based on the offering price before the school board negotiates) and from what I’m seeing with tight credit, real-estate values and construction costs going down it only makes sense to try to take advantage of these conditions and negotiate for two sites (not necessarly those two) that have community support, roads, water/sewer, bike and pedestrian access.

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche:
I agree with you. See my posts earlier regarding the collective effort.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*I am not the authority, or an authority on anything. However, I work hard to inform myself and over ten years I've been lucky to learn a lot. bellanca, you shoot from the hip too often to be credible.

*clmroche, if you are talking Lambert, it is cheaper as raw land. It will be neither cheaper nor faster to get on line. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. The clock starts over on each special exception. As for suits, someone posted on another blog that if Lenah were approved, the neighbors could sue. No. Wanting to sue isn't the same as having standing to do so. Which is why only the school board could take legal action on this denial, and would risk much by doing so.

*if the elementary school to be bonded is Ashburn /Dulles, then it may not be Seven Hills. That is on southern Gum Spring way below 50.

*Mr. Hines, I can't say I'm sorry you resigned over the break. Maybe if passive open space was to be the mission when this board added it to the parks and rec mix, they would have put it first in the name. We'll agree to disagree on evil Greenvest, but I have a question for you and the others who are stuck fearmongering in 2006: Greenvest owns a lot of land. If it is unacceptable to buy any from them, (or maybe even any other greedy developers), where the hell are these magical sites that everyone says we should be supporting?

Very few exist except in the magic activist land of "somewhere else".

Of course everyone would rather have their own kids' schools right next door when they needed them, and turn into something else when they didn't.

But even for us denizens of the suburbs, five miles isn't so far.

And the other side of the airport gets really far (and a lot longer than ten minutes, bellanca) when it goes on for years while the perfect site is sought, and studied, and protested, and redesigned, and every single special person is appeased.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bellanca, the school board isn't the one delaying schools.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom, there is no chance that in rush hour, you made it to Stone Hill in 10 minutes. It is simply not possible, even if the police were to close all of the roads for your driving pleasure. Especially from South Riding, although I realize you are coming from Lenah Run which may be a bit shorter. It IS about all of the children - the problem is, proximity-wise, if you can almost see a school from your home, why then should your kids have to ride on a bus for the better part of an hour past that school to another further away? Makes no sense, no matter how you slice it - period. Many people purchased homes in this area specifically because of the schools and the proximity. Let's look at factual data - every Thursday I have baseball practice at Stone Hill. I have never left South Riding no later than 5pm, and have never made it to Stone Hill before 5:40pm. Never. The school day begins in rush hour, and ends close to it - nothing can be done about that. If you re-read your posts through out this thread, and throughout all of the others you have posted on over the past months, it is always you who gets disrespectful, arrogant, and rude first - every time - take a look. You probably would not get dismissed is you kept your debates to a more cordial and respectful tone, but when you write in the manner you do, it begs opposition.

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca - 8.5 miles (rough estimate from google maps from Lenah/Rt. 50 to Stone Hill) in 10 minutes. With all the extra parents on the road driving their kids instead of having them sit on the bus, I would predict the travel times will degrade significantly going through Arcola. So what route did you take to make the trip in 10 minutes? I'd love to see it so I can save myself time whenever I go that way. Care to actually share the GPS data to prove it? Unless my math is way off, you averaged ~50 mph on the local roads to get to Stone Hill in 10 minutes? I sure hope that my kids are never on a bus that has to AVERAGE 50 mph in rush hour to get to school.
On a more serious note. Anyone heard anything from Miller or Chaloux-Conway on a community meeting to tell us where the next school can go since Lambert seems to be out too, since schools don't belong in the Transition Area?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Bellanca -
Let me begin by addressing your comments in order:
First, I invite you to come to my home and get me to Stone Hill in under 30 minutes time. In fact, I challenge you to do so. My son plays baseball at that field and with traffic, 45 minutes is making good time. Mapquest estimates the time for me would be 18 minutes. Factor in a little rush hour traffic....you're not there in 10 minutes! Also, I'm wondering if in your 10 minute trip, you stopped at the bus stops and allowed time for kids to load/unload the bus. Thinking you probably forgot that part of the equation....OOPS!
Next, if you are calling me selfish because my concern lies first and foremost with my own children, you are absolutely right! That's my job as a parent and I plan to be "selfish" until the day I die. That's what good ones do! I do have a vested interest in all of the kids in my community which is why my husband and I both coach little league sports as well as hold board positions. People that don't care about "the kids" don't spend hours of their days working to make them happy! I'd like to know how the things I'm doing are short-changing any kids. Please do tell.
Third, what kind of argument are you presenting when you say "What about the tax payers with no kids who pay for your kids schooling". I'm sorry, last time I checked, that's how this great country in which we live works. Do I get a refund for all of the years I worked but didn't have kids and my tax money was spent on schools/education for "the kids"? How ridiculous does that sound?!?! We all pay for things as tax payers that we may or may not use. It's life....move on! That's a silly point to try to argue!
Lastly, I would like to point out once again that it becomes difficult for people to see through your arrogance and obnoxious comments and actually find out the points you are trying to make. I wish you could answer my question "what is your solution?". I still haven't heard what we do now and how expeditiously your "plans" can take place.
I look forward to your answer!

Posted by staceyproc (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mpproc: Thank you for your comments.
clm: please give specific information regarding these two properties you speak of:

There have already been two offers of property that would better fit the long term needs and cost less (based on the offering price before the school board negotiates) and from what I’m seeing with tight credit, real-estate values and construction costs going down it only makes sense to try to take advantage of these conditions and negotiate for two sites (not necessarly those two) that have community support, roads, water/sewer, bike and pedestrian access.

tbellanca, referencing your comment, "Are you going to Soccer Games at the same time school is starting or stopping"? As I said, I have driven to work in Ashburn during rush hour traffic in the morning many times. There can be a huge variance in the time it takes. The roads from here to there do not have the same kind of traffic patterns we would have from here, down Braddock, to Lenah. It just isnt' the same. A point I have made before is that when we need to go to PTA meetings, pick up kids after activities, sports events etc, we will again be in rush hour traffic. It does make a difference to those of us who may have to deal with it. Over the course of a week, a month, years, it will add up. I just can't see how you think riding a bus to Mercer or even Lenah is equivalent to riding a bus to Ashburn.

Barbara, as always, thank you, too.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

staceyproc: wellsaid

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Land Purchase for Schools Rejected

Lenah Property is Overpriced, Majority of Supervisors Say

Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008

Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:44 p.m.

What is your point, Tom? I think you could make that argument for much of the land out here - it will be interesting to see what we actually end up paying for whatever land we end up using. I will go on record now, that when all is said and done, my bet it will be similar if not more from a total, developed, cost perspective (sewers, etc.).

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Land Purchase for Schools Rejected

Lenah Property is Overpriced, Majority of Supervisors Say

The County Attorney made it clear that this was not the issue they were voting on. They were to vote on whether the application was consistent with the CP. 4 supervisors said yes, including Scott York who created the plan, and their reasons were quite compelling. Anyone who wants to know can probably get a recording of the meeting.

tbellanca, it isn't about you but you are insulting people and putting forth information as fact that isn't fact. It is often more along the lines of polital rhetoric. Therefore, people speak out about it.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a feeling that the leader of the lawsuit is going to be running for BOS next time against SM.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by enies1 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:31 p.m.

Nice shouting there, bub.

I'm still amazed that there's this undercurrent of "LCPS took two years to fail the first time, but if we rush Lambert into position it'll all work out for the best". What part of that plan passes the sniff test?

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dulles South neighbors are second to none. Not sure what kind of neighbors you may have....join in with mine...they're fantastic. Or...better yet, get involved and listen and BE a good neighbor.

Posted by enies1 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ENIES, you are a WACK JOB

Posted by johnwayne110408 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa. everyone's been busy. Isn't anyone wondering why it took so long to find Lenah? I just don't understand how this is all the BOS' fault. These are my observations.

I don't believe all this time was spent "preparting" Lenah for a run at approval for a special exception. I think most of that time was wasted. How is it possible that Mercer has been allowed to get to this point and the school board did nothing until just now? Why on earth don't they have any other options?

Why is Stone Hill so far under capacity and Mercer is so far over? Why is there no other option but busing or split shifts? Other places have dealt with crowding. Is it conceivable that the school board didn't want to make the tough boundary decisions they needed to for Stone Hill and Mercer and instead of using trailers (like OTHER schools in Loudoun), they exploited a situation at Mercer that they themselves allowed to happen to cram the greenvest deal down the county's throat?

I have seen some very bothersome emails that practically threaten the idea of bussing students to Leesburg. Please don't tell me people believe that? Boundaries would adjust across the County. IF the school board actually did bus anyone from South Riding to Leesburg it would be proof positive of their ineptitude. The response to this whole situation is so exaggerated and disproportionate that its ridiculous. Put up some trailers. Find a site closer to where all the kids are and get it done.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GR8PMPKN:
Amen and Amen.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so what about enies' comments is untrue? forget about the fact that he likes caps lock, the meat of his message is 100% on the mark. johnwayne is as eloquent as tbellanca - nice contributions bud. dagger, what are you even talking about? tbellanca - why are you talking to yourself? does anyone even remember what this topic is about?

Posted by downwitdawayne (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca - "Nope (not lying) and I can provide the GPS data to prove it." Could you please post/provide the GPS data for your 10 minute trip to Stone Hill? Perhaps you are on to a million dollar invention here?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

murphygr8, there were several sites (and even one in an assemblage of which I believe Lambert was a part) proposed as part of planned communities during the term of the evil greedy developer board, and guess what?

Every single one was protested by the same charming folks who are helping drive this Lenah bus off the road!

NO WHERE has been suitable.

If you don't get them proffered, you have to buy them. Where was that one that would be not only cheaper than the one with the positive staff approval, that was coming with all the road improvements, but would be open just as fast in a better spot?

Brilliant negative marketing move by the perennial protest crowd: it is the GREEEEEEEEEENVESSSSSSST site (cue ominous music!), not the Lenah site.

Everyone needs to get over that, particularly all the folks who seem to think there are just acres and acres of land lying around cheap and ready!

This is one of the reasons why growth remains such an issue here: way too many people see large tracts of land, and think it's just LAND...not that anybody owns it, or that its zoned a certain way, or that it has restrictions on it, or anything else rational.

It's just...LAND....

bellanca has deteriorated into a troll; believe me tb, it isn't about you NEARLY as much as you seem to think it is.

They're right, you have no solutions. Focus on the schools? Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght, the fantasy ones somwhere else. Got it.

The school board, although it is a body with statutory rights and duties (that the board has fired a huge shot in the war to usurp) has been meeting with the BoS in good faith, as an avenue toward changing the process the BoS is so dissatisfied with.

While it is prudent to do so, as the Board does NOT have the authority to do their job for them, but does have the ability to cut their funds, what seems to be occurring is a blatant attempt to take over the school board.

If the guy who has the supervisor's job in the most populous, HIGHEST REVENUE PRODUCING DISTRICT in the county has zero accountability to his constituents, he is the very last person I want controlling school issues too.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank YOU, Momof2.

And thank you DeanZ.

Thank everybody who is concerned enough to be involved.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Great Pumpkin. Leave it to the voice of Charlie Brown to point out what should be obvious. Your are so right!!!
“I don't believe all this time was spent "preparting" Lenah for a run at approval for a special exception. I think most of that time was wasted. How is it possible that Mercer has been allowed to get to this point and the school board did nothing until just now? Why on earth don't they have any other options?
Why is Stone Hill so far under capacity and Mercer is so far over? Why is there no other option but busing or split shifts? Other places have dealt with crowding. Is it conceivable that the school board didn't want to make the tough boundary decisions they needed to for Stone Hill and Mercer and instead of using trailers (like OTHER schools in Loudoun), they exploited a situation at Mercer that they themselves allowed to happen to cram the greenvest deal down the county's throat?

I have seen some very bothersome emails that practically threaten the idea of bussing students to Leesburg. Please don't tell me people believe that? Boundaries would adjust across the County. IF the school board actually did bus anyone from South Riding to Leesburg it would be proof positive of their ineptitude. The response to this whole situation is so exaggerated and disproportionate that its ridiculous. Put up some trailers. Find a site closer to where all the kids are and get it done. “

I couldn’t have said it better. If the crew trading insults and arguing over drive times spent half their energy “helping” the School Board to do their job we would be on our way to solving the problems for the students. Our children deserve to go to accedemically excellent schools in neighborhoods that will support them.

PS I note that Ms. Munsey took time out from blogging another site to not respond to my questions. But she did take some time to continue to criticize and make snarky rude remarks. I recommend not paying attention to her since her only answer to my queries was “I am not the authority, or an authority on anything”. Please take her at her word and stop incouraging her in these personal insults.

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

School Board Chairman Dupree explained some of the history of the search for school sites in the Route 50 corridor in his July 22, 2008 letter to Supervisor Burton.

http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5097591...

I have a good friend who moved to South Riding in 1999. She sent her eldest daughter to Hillside Elementary for one year, Farmwell Station Middle School for three years and Broad Run High School in Ashburn for two years before Little River, Mercer, and Freedom were built. She is not irrational to believe that Loudoun County will bus her 3rd and 6th graders to distant schools. She has lived it before.

I can't think of any issue that raises more contention and hostility among ordinary citizens than school boundaries. Loudoun County is not going to going shift boundaries across the entire county to give relief to Dulles South.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche - "Yes, I do think/know there is cheaper real estate near or in South Riding with water/sewer and paved roads near by on which to build a middle school." Could you please let the cat out of the bag on this real estate? Sounds like you have the site we are all seeking. Perhaps you're worried that if the site location is known, the price will go up too much? Pretty please with sugar on top, can you let us all know where the site is so we can move forward to get our kids into a local middle school before 2012? Is the site big enough for a high School too?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI,
the references to attending school in Leesburg are regarding the High School situation. Freedom, based on current students and not accounting for additonal students, will be overcapacity soon. The new Dulles South HS apparently will not be built by 2011. The students will most likely be overflowed to Heritage HS on Evergreen Mill RD in Leesburg. The Ashburn High Schools will be overcapacity by that time. Check the current school enrollments. I am telling the truth. It is a reality that we must deal with. Why are we talking about driving times? We are trying to get people to understand that there is validity to our concern. Will we need to work to come up with an alternative? Yes. Do we want to ignore that we feel that an improper decision was made? No. Why shouldn't we voice our opinions? We can do that while we look to the future for a reasonable solution. I guess it would be more convenient if those of us who support the Lenah school sites would just shut up and not voice the opinion that we do not believe the proper decision was made by the BoS.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CLMROCHE, I think you are on the money. How do you propose we can get the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to work together? It doesn't seem that the School Board wants to have anything to do with working with the Supervisors. They have started this joint meeting, but do you think it will be successful? Are we to just sit back and wait for these two to work things out? It's seems like this power struggle will only end when one subverts itself to the other and they stop playing games. What do you think we can do as parents to get this done?

Posted by johnwayne110408 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche, there is a tool called spell check - it can be your friend, give it a try. Run "accedemically" and "incouraging" through it, and let me know how that works out for ya. Why are you monitoring Barbara's blogging anyway? She seems quite informed to me - she offered up a lot of helpful information if you read up. Loudoun does not use trailers - so that is not an option. South Riding already houses 3 elementary schools and a high school - where are they going to build a middle school?

Posted by downwitdawayne (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8pmpkn: part of the problem in all this is the assumption people make that they know how to solve the problems without actually knowing the full extent of what is involved and the ramifications of their actions. IE, putting up trailers sounds like a reasonable short term solution. However, do we know if the cafeteria can accomodate hundreds of extra students every day? Where would the lockers be, and so on . The nitty gritty of making this work logistically. I have been through nine years of boundary changes as a parent of students in this county and I can tell you, they are just as contentious as this current situation. Start changing the boundaries across the county and there will be a massive uproar because some of the people are going to be moved from schools in their neighborhoods, schools they have strong ties to. Boundary adjustments are inevitable. The county had a reasonable explanation for why they did not adjust the Mercer boundaries this year and I am just too tired to go back and explain it.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnwayne: I agree that the schools and the board need to work together. I have been living in this county for 15 years and the problem has existed that entire time.

The school board has authority that is established in the Code of VA. The struggle comes in when the BoS tries to usurp that power. I am sure there are problems coming from both sides, but the school board does have authority given to it by VA law and that needs to be respected.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

downwitdawyne, I did not notice the spell check on the Post site, perhaps you can tell me where to find it? I'm so sorry I did not waste more time composing and editing my comments so as not to offend you. My facts are correct though. Loudoun does use trailers. They have them parked at Banneker Elementary in Middleburg, it is an option for the poor Elementary students there. Now please explain why South Riding with three elementary schools and a high school should not have a middle school? Good night.

Posted by clmroche (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clm, actually - you are right, there is no spell check on this site - mine is built in - it is called a brain. Why should South Riding not have a middle school also? Where are you going to put it? i would love for a middle school to be built in SR - but why should the South Riding community house the schools for the whole area, because people in Lenah don't want the schools in their backyard due to the "noise" - fine to build them somewhere else, just don't clutter up my area. nonsense. so there is one school in Loudoun with trailers - oh boy.

Posted by downwitdawayne (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clmroche - "Yes, I do think/know there is cheaper real estate near or in South Riding with water/sewer and paved roads near by on which to build a middle school." Could you please let the cat out of the bag on this real estate? Sounds like you have the site we are all seeking. Perhaps you're worried that if the site location is known, the price will go up too much? Pretty please with sugar on top, can you let us all know where the site is so we can move forward to get our kids into a local middle school before 2012? Is the site big enough for a high School too?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, Wasn't it a disagreement over the planning of the size of the schools partly the problem here? It's the school boards responsibility to contract and purchase the schools right? Then it is the Board of Supervisors responsibility to make sure the school is in the appropriate area or meets budgets right? It seems as in this case the Board didn't agree with the schools interpretation of what can be built in Lenah. This seems that they really have joint responsibilities to work together and meet both boards requirements. Any power struggle between these groups seems gauranteed to result in failure. Isn't that right? How have the board taken over responsibilities of the schools? I don't really understand.

Posted by johnwayne110408 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnwayne,
The size of the school was not the issue with the board. It was an issue with the surrounding residents in Lenah. There has been an outcry in the area to build bigger schools, two story schools, so that is what they were going to do. The neighbors didn't like it.

The county planning staff reviewed the plans for the schools and recommended to the BoS that they were in full compliance with the comprehensive plan. The planning commission disagreed even though the Director of Planning for the county (not the schools), advised them that their interpretation of the plan was too narrow.

The BoS was split on this. The interesting thing about it is, Scott York, who created the transition area, voted yes to the schools and stated that they were in compliance with the plan. There is a clear and strong disagreement amongst staff and BoS regarding this. How could the LCPS possibly know in advance that this would happen?

I think whatever improved working relationship the schools and the board can achieve would be in the best interest of everyone.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca - "Nope (not lying) and I can provide the GPS data to prove it." Could you please post/provide the GPS data for your 10 minute trip to Stone Hill? Perhaps you are on to a multi-million dollar invention here?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2,
You are right to point out the disagreement. Obviously, this site had consensus problems. I'm not terribly impressed with York's statements. I would imagine he did not personally write the transition area policies and it seems that people used one policy to support the location and other people relied on another policy in their opposition. I've read Barbara's comments in the past and I must say she is a very informed individual, but I think she spends a little too much time taking swipes at Miller and others to not be considered every bit as agenda-driven as bellanca, whom she criticizes.

As for LCPS not knowing this would happen, I really have to disagree. I think it has been clear for months that this site was problematic. The scrutiny of the cost alone should have caused the school board on their own initiative to go back to the greenvest and renegotiate. After the assessment appeal came to light they should have renegotiated at the very least. Quite frankly, the BOS should never have needed to raise the issue and have people harp on them as to whether or not it was their duty or school boards. The school board should have done it on their own if they had any sense or any allegiance to the people they serve. The deal looked horrible and trying to rationalize it after the fact just made it look more and more ridiculous.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't speak for all of South Riding, but I personally am not angry with the School Board. Instead, I have thanked the School Board for pushing hard for the Lenah sites. At least three School Board members spoke at every public hearing. The School Board, and particularly Mr. DuPree, have taken a lot of verbal abuse. The Board of Supervisors has repeatedly delayed School Board requests for Dulles South schools in the CIP. The School Board scrambles to get school sites based on priorities the BOS sets and then changes. I can't blame the School Board and Dr. Adamo for lacking the omniscience to predict in January 2007 when they began planning the Lenah school sites, that an anti-growth Board of Supervisors would be elected in November 2007 and that in October 2008 this Board would reject a site 20% under budget on the grounds of cost and also as not fitting in the Revised General Plan when all the county planners believed schools were allowed in the transition zone. Chairman York, who wrote the plan for the transition zone, is on record as saying schools are allowed in the transition zone.

Stone Hill was built first because it was an available proffered site in this general direction. I can't think of a Dulles South school that isn't built on a no cost site. Loudoun County has valued cheap school sites over good locations to keep the property tax rate down. Seven Hills is in the middle of nowhere, but that is where the next Dulles South elementary school is planned to go because it is a proffer. No one will want to bus their kids there either. We keep repeating our mistakes. The problems caused by the delay in finding sites for MS-5 and HS-7 have been apparent for quite a while, but no solution has been discovered. Yes, the School Board and the Board of Supervisors need to get on the same page and figure out together where to put the schools and how to pay for them. I have no love for Greenvest, but children I love live in Blue Springs, South Riding, Stone Ridge, Lenah Run and other developments. They ALL deserve to attend a community school. Unfortunately 24 eggs don't fit in a 12 egg carton. I am for whatever solution will get the needed schools built as soon as possible in the Route 50 corridor.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people with vague easy answers (who I would bet do not live in the area or have children affected) seem stuck on the idea that South Riding is wrong not to want "their own middle school" to go with "their" three elementary and one high school.

"Solution" people: none of the schools that happen to be located in South Riding belong to us.

There are kids from Blue Springs all the way out to (real) Aldie at Freedom.

There are kids from a variety of communities in this area at the elementaries.

Arguing a "solution" when you don't have the tools to do so isn't productive either.

If the school board has been meeting with the BoS in good faith to address the problems the BoS seems to have (with controlling the school board, who have their own STATUTORY RIGHTS AND DUTIES), how is the BoS showing good faith through an arbitrary and capricious denial?

It seems to me that the BoS has fired a huge shot in taking over those rights and duties.

Some may applaud that concept.

BUT: like the land use application process, changing authority has a process to be followed too.

It's up to strike two for the corporate board of supervisors in following process.

Were they elected to UPHOLD the plan and rules, with ethics and transparency, for all the PEOPLE, or did winning give them a mandate to change the rules as they go along, regardless of what their staff and attorney answers to their questions, for some of the people they agree with?

This is 1999 again, and it wasn't pretty the last time.

clmroche, I join DeanZ, Charsj, and Momof2: where is the site? What's the PIN number? What's the price? Does it have roads and utilities? What is it zoned--will it need a rezoning (with a CPAM first?) as well as the special exception required by all schools?

Any time now...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca - "Nope (not lying) and I can provide the GPS data to prove it." Could you please post/provide the GPS data for your 10 minute trip to Stone Hill? Perhaps you are on to a billion dollar invention here?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GR8PMKN, regarding your comments:

As for LCPS not knowing this would happen, I really have to disagree. I think it has been clear for months that this site was problematic. The scrutiny of the cost alone should have caused the school board on their own initiative to go back to the greenvest and renegotiate.

I believe LCPS planning staff initially checked with the county planning staff to be sure the property at Lenah was in conformance with the plan. I just can't believe they would invest the time and resources (including $$$) without checking into this fundamental issue. It was obvious after the info meeting on 5/20/08 that there was opposition to the site from it's immediate neighbors. By that time they had made a significant investment in time and money and to back down and scrap it at that point would have been reckless. You know, I was hoping that there would be a renegotiation of the purchase price because that was such a hot topic. I am not a business person and do not think like one but I would think that if the seller wants to sell and the price could be a oondition for refusal, I believe I would compromise on the price. It is entirely possible that the LCPS tried to negotiate a lower price but the seller would not agree to it. Making that public would just incite more anger towards the school sites that they were trying, in good faith, to get approved.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2, i don't fault any of the staff. I bet you are correct that they were very thorough in checking with County staff. The problem is that staff are not the final decision makers and getting an initial nod of approval from staff, even if its the director whose email was pasted somewhere above, does not guarantee anything. If the BOS had done a big bait and switch I could understand their shock, but that is not so. The dismay over this site has been very public from a variety of directions.

You mentioned something else I found interesting:

"It was obvious after the info meeting on 5/20/08 that there was opposition to the site from it's immediate neighbors. By that time they had made a significant investment in time and money and to back down and scrap it at that point would have been reckless."

Shouldn't they have had a meeting like that before they were too far gone to seriously reconsider? Shouldn't they have gotten an impression from the Board? I mean, this whole thing just came out fully formed, deal done, and anyone with any objections, serious or not, has been consistently swatted away by LCPS. I think LCPS was stubborn and arrogant through this whole thing. Their mind was made up and no other options were going to be entertained. This has been one long slow painful march to reality for them, but they cannot possibly be surprised by the outcome.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

murphygr8, doing a big bait and switch is exactly what some members of the BoS did. They campaigned on upholding the Comp Plan, which allows schools in the transition zone. The reasons some voted against it were not items that were up for a vote on the application.

If this is allowed to stand, not only will very few places in the county be "suitable" for schools, we face the possibility of spending huge amounts of money and time changing the "sacred" Plan to agree with the opinions of those currently in power.

That very thing has been suggested in the Planning Commission worksessions on the application, and on this blog by bellanca.

LCPS has met for quite some time with adjoining neighbors, and have agreed to provide (with our tax dollars) OFF SITE buffering and mitigation far beyond what is required by the "sacred" Plan, and nothing is ever enough.

Long slow painful march to reality?

Reality is the Plan and processes available to us through the current rules and regulations, some of which are statutory under state code.

They aren't supposed to pick and choose which ones to follow, especially if they campaigned on ethics and fully transparent open government.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca - "Nope (not lying) and I can provide the GPS data to prove it." Could you please post/provide the GPS data for your 10 minute trip to Stone Hill? Perhaps you are on to a multi-billion dollar invention here or perhaps just lying. I was really hoping to see how you made this happen.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DeanZ, he isn't going to answer you, he's going to change the subject. You know, a bait and switch?

I guess we're supposed to conclude that we're back to the argument that a site that meets the plan, is under the voter-approved budget, and is ready to bid is much too expensive when there are cheaperquickerbetter sites immediately available in Neverland.

Funny, but at the last Planning Commission public hearing, during the discussion of the flood of additions to the Agricultural and Forestal districts (which is the only qualifier for applying for an "open space" tax deferral, whether you own enough land to subdivide or not) it was apparently elicited from staff that the total amount deferred for ALL open space--that "land use" break for having land that doesn't produce anything--happens to be about $176M.

Gee, doesn't that correspond remarkably closely with the $176M budget gap we need to close?

The ten year report of "The 200,000 Acre Solution" was very positive on the rural economy--maybe in these tough times we can't afford to subsidize open land that doesn't produce anything agriculturally.

Just as we shouldn't tax airplanes less.

Or hybrids only a penny.

Especially since Dulles assessments are projected to drop only 2-8%, while the rest of the county is falling in double digits.

Yes, let's continue to pay more while getting less! That's the Dulles way!

So bellanca, do you have the GPS data for DeanZ?

....chirp....chirp...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

deanz, a shame, I was also interested in the GPS data - I was looking forward to cutting my drive by 3/4 of the time...

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, you are such an alarmist. We've had similar headlines just about every morning since this crisis started. We'll see what the day brings.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey

RE"LCPS has met for quite some time with adjoining neighbors, and have agreed to provide (with our tax dollars) OFF SITE buffering and mitigation far beyond what is required by the "sacred" Plan, and nothing is ever enough."
This statement is not correct, While LCPS met with one neighbor to the west and had began some negotiating on buffers, no agreement had been reached, and the LCPS had never met with Lenah Run residents to offer off site buffering or to suggest anything more than a type 2 enhanced buffer on LCPS property as indicated in the last application

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scooter, yes, no agreement has been reached with the individual who is being offered all the offsite improvements, which could indicate that it still isn't enough.

They were willing to monitor Lenah Run's wells for the irrigation of the sports fields, but they removed the irrigation well (and are STILL willing to monitor Lenah Run's wells). Still not enough.

They can't and won't hook Lenah Run and the other residents up to water and sewer for free.

bellanca, glad to see you corrected the distance. I was squinting at that.

Now, how do any of those numbers prove the 10 minute timespan?

Unless "morning" meant 3:00 a.m.?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for posting the data tbellanca. could you add one more piece of info for our amusement? The time of day you made the drives?

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This proves nothing about the drive from South Riding. How many people live at the intersection of 50 and Gum Spring anyway?

I am still waiting to hear about the wonderful properties available now in the South Riding area that have utilities in place, roads, that are suitable for schools in size, zoning, price, and everything else. I am wondering, just to insert a little humor into a humorless subject, would these sites come with the ice cream and pony?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed - 8.5 miles anywhere in this area is just not possible in 10 minutes. Additionally, throw in commuter rush hour traffic, parents trying to get their kids to school that don't want them on the bus, and the actual school bus stopping at all the stops, and you are looking at an hour each way easy. In fact, I have been stuck behind a school bus on the way to South Riding schools such as Little River and Hutchinson, and you are looking at 10 minutes to go through 3 blocks...

Posted by downwitdawayne (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for posting the data tbellanca. I actually believe the data that was posted on the 10 minutes on the route you posted (rt 50/Gum Spring to Stone Hill). It's the traffic lights that double and triple the time. I live south of 50 off Gum Spring. Between 7:00 and 8:00am, it can take 10-15 minutes just to get across 50 and then another 10 minutes to get through Arcola onto Evergreen Mills (that's if traffic isn't backed up to the firehouse). Once you make it through there, it's not too bad. I have driven up to Brambleton after 8pm and can usually get to the Brambleton town center in about 10 minutes. Mornings and evening peak hours are a totally different story. And obviusly a bus is a completely different story. So just out of curiosity, what time of day was the drive to Stone Hill? Perhaps we should take this data and present it to Andrea McGimsey abut how convenient it is to get from Mercer to Lenah. She seemed concerned that the Lenah site was too inconvenient and would take too long to bus kids all the way out there. If tbellanca can get from Mercer to Lenah Run in 4:15, it surely can't take that much longer to get kids from South Riding to the Lenah site on a bus. Maybe McGimsey is the supervisor that could change her vote based on this evidence from from tbellanca. She said it took her 30 minutes to get from South Riding to Stone Hill in the morning in a car(obviously no bus stops along the way). I can believe that number in a car on an average morning. Perhaps Miller was on to something with his campaign "Our roads are choked twice a day because we have too many people using them in too few hours to go in too few directions. Try them out at 11:00 in the morning, during mid-afternoon, or anytime on Sunday, and you’ll see them as they should be: fast, safe, and lightly loaded." If only the rest of the area would catch up to his vision and we could shift school hours and work hours the problems are solved.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, if we don't have someone reconsider, they better come with LOTS of ice cream and ponies!

Here's to you!

DeanZ, I am struck by all the rural advocates who are so worried about suburban residents traveling ~5 miles to Lenah on a secondary road.

It is almost a bit patronizing.

Yep, the solution MUST be to send them up a choice of industrial truck routes to the other side of the airport while we make a new process, do a thorough land inventory, plan, replan, get neighborhood buy in, maybe condemn something, go to court, set aside MORE money....

Bring on those ponies!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. McGimsey was adament that we muct have a middle school in South Riding so we don't have to travel out of our neighborhood. (But it is OK to go to Ashburn because Lenah is too far,too). Will the county be willing to pay the price, if any such land does even exist? I know there is commercial property, but is anything else even left? It appears that anything across Braddock Rd will have the same problems as the Lenah sites.

I certainly hope one of the Supervisors will reconsider.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, she seemed very concerned with how FAR it was to Lenah, because no one in South Riding can walk or bike there.

MUCH better for the environment (and the kids, of course) to bus everyone in all of the communities here to Stone Hill until there is something walkable for South Riding!

Any site in this community would probably be commercial at a price multiples per acre of Lenah, or condemnation if they are bound and determined. If option B, then probably lawsuits.

Land across Braddock depends; difficulties would make sense if the process was going to be consistent. But don't forget what comes with the ponies and ice cream besides three! schools.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lenah is permanent. Stone Hill, which is in Brambleton, not Ashburn, is temporary and is already reality. Trading a bad temporary fix for a bad long term fix doesn't make any sense to me. And can we quit talking about Ashburn. Stone Hill is not Broad Run. You make it sound like the buses are going to Rt. 7 or something. I don't mind a little lack of precision, but repeatedly saying Ashburn seems a convenient form of mild exaggeration.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

murphygr8, "temporary" is flat out horse manure.

Stone Hill is in another cluster which is also a growth area, and our entire cluster can't rely on being able to absorb all of THEIR seats.

In addition, the middle school at Lenah has voter approval for the site purchase and voter approval for construction, one four years old and one two years old.

It is two years late because of the same little band of political activists.

We've been hearing "just temporary" for two years now.

This is purely political, it was done for political reasons that could land them in court, the realtor who started the whole thing with their non-permitted sportsplex they thing they're going to get a political rezoning and CPAM for also wants to be hero for "finding" a "cheaper" site, and there are already about 70 kids that could make a nice class action because they are already being bused from a school two YEARS overdue for relief because of "temporary" solutions to appease the well-connected.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stone Hill Middle
23415 Evergreen Ridge Drive
Ashburn, Virginia 20148
PH: 703-957-4420

http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/shms/si...

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It is two years late because of the same little band of political activists."

Exactly how do you figure this? Which band of political activists have been conspiring to delay this for the past two years? What actions have they taken? What other school sites have been turned down due to this band of activists? I would really like to know.

The school is two years late because the school system spent all that time waiting to see if a proffered site would get approved.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8pmpkn: I have taken quite a bit of time trying to make my statements factual and base my opinions on these facts, no matter what my heart was telling me. I have copied the address of Stone Hill Middle School for everyone to see, from the Stone Hill Middle School website. Here it is:
23415 Evergreen Ridge Drive
Ashburn, Virginia 20148

You are flat out saying we are misrepresenting the location of this school. This is obviously not true. No one has said the school is at RT7. Anyone with a concern, wanting to get the facts for themselves regarding the location of Stone Hill can do as I did, get the address and google the location and directions. People who have written here about the TIME it takes to get from our area to the school because of commuter and truck traffic are speaking in terms of their real life experience. Whether you or anyone else wish to recognize this, it is still a valid concern

Not everyone agrees with you that Lenah is a long term bad fix to the problems we are currently having here, which is why this dialogue continues.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

charsj: Would you say Mercer is in Aldie?

Mercer Middle School
42149 Greenstone Drive
Aldie, VA 20105
Main Number - 703-957-4340

Many addresses in South Riding have a Chantilly mailing address. I concede that Stone Hill probably has its mail delivered from Ashburn postal facility. My point remains the same. The overflow school is in the Brambleton area, which has an Ashburn mailing address. It is not in the area we commonly think of as Ashburn.

From LCPS' website:
"Monday, July 2nd, was move-in day for Stone Hill Middle School; a greatly anticipated milestone for the administrative staff planning the opening of a new school. Located in the Brambleton area, Stone Hill is the newest of Loudoun County Public Schools’ 13 middle schools."

http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5097591...

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

look, I don't really want to split hairs over Stone Hill's location. I recognize its not a very good solution for people south of 50. My point is that I think there's an element of hyperbole in all this. I've seen emails talking about sending South Riding kids to Leesburg or Sterling, which is ludicrous. I think Brambleton is closer to Route 50 than what people think of when you say Ashburn. That's all. We should probably drop this. It's not helpful and I should have left it out of my comments.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following is copied from an article in the Loudoun Independent, by Julia Stewart, 10/22/08 edition:

“The question I am suppose to answer about this application is, ‘Does this location for a school comply with the county plan?’ I believe it does,” said Buckley. “This process started with the plan and ends with the plan. The Transition area allows for the construction of schools, that can’t be disputed and the plan is the result of a public process.” Buckley said she had spent “Countless hours defending that plan against additional 38,000 homes, and now I am defending the plan for the construction of two schools.

“The location of the school is within the focus of the attendance area. This board is a relying on a snapshot view. We can no longer make decisions based on the short term. The plan and this application provides both short term and long-term goals,” Buckley continued. “Price is not the basis for denial. Price is not before us. This passed on referendum and on CIP adopted by this board. The process was a legitimate one and it played out. We may think another location is better, but that does not make this location not right. Deny Mr. Miller’s motion,” Buckley urged.

Ms. Buckley's statements could be a summary of my own opinions in this matter. I believe she got to the core issues and stated the case very eloquently. I only wish one more supervisor could have been persuaded by her words.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8pmpkn,
Again, I have said it before, it is not ludicrous to anticipate that the high school students from Freedom will overflow to Heritage High School. (Mailing address, Leesburg, but closer to us than the town of Leesburg). The Ashburn high schools will reach capacity or overcapacity at the same time Freedom will reach capacity. These numbers are reflected in the LCPS current enrollments by schools as of 9/30/08. Heritage is the next closest high school for our area. Why should the Ashburn/Broadlands/Brambleton students get shifted out of schools in their own communities to accomodate the students from Dulles South. It kind of pokes holes in the reasoning of rejecting the Lenah sites because we need something closer to where we live. You know, some people are raising the issue of empty seats in the county schools. Perhaps they will stop building schools until every seat is full!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GR8PMPKN No one disputes that Mercer has an Aldie zip code. Mercer and Freedom are relatively close together, but have different zip codes. Zip code is irrelevant. Distance and time are relevant.

Some believe Stone Hill is a reasonable time and distance from the Mercer/Freedom cluster, others do not. The divide appears to fall along the lines of whether you have a school child who will be making the trip.

GR8PMPKN said "Stone Hill, which is in Brambleton, not Ashburn . . . . I don't mind a little lack of precision, but repeatedly saying Ashburn seems a convenient form of mild exaggeration."

I believe Stone Hill is in Loudoun Valley Estates subdivision. To some who live south of Route 50, Stone Hill does indeed appear to be an Ashburn area school.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, if the seats are open in an elementary school and the needs are at the high school level, how does that help us? Numbers are meaningless taken out of context.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

murphygr8, overflow goes where the bucket is.

When kids south of 50 have filled the seats also being filled by kids adding to the Briar Woods cluster, yes, the next stop at high school is Leesburg.

The next HS opening north of Leesburg will create a boundary line adjustment, which will provide (some) seats at Heritage (which will be there primarily to accomodate the growth along Evergreen Mills, with Red Cedar, etc).

The crux of the matter is that the Route 50 corridor growth is somehow seen as "temporary" by the anointed.

In fact, we were served for years by a tent and doublewide trailer for our public safety station. It was voter approved in 1999, but didn't open until about 2005 or 06.

Everything for us is "just temporary", while the county continues to cash tax checks from the most prosperous district in Loudoun.

Go back and look up Braddock South Village: the current At Large rep to Parks and Rec, and the realtor who "found" Lambert (and will make the commission on a $2M subsequent sale by the county to her client--as she requested at the September PC hearing on Lenah when urging the county to deny the site), and others in the front line of Lenah protest all were loud on that too.

The At Large rep to Parks and Rec actually asked where the next MS was going to be after the proffered site was nixed.

A small group of self-interested people spread fear on nearly every issue, while policy is ignored or changed for their benefit.

And by the way, I didn't notice you or anyone else talking about "real" Aldie when it didn't suit the talking point of the day.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n...

Posted by lenahresident (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8 - bottom line is, Stone Hill is in Ashburn - it may not be the Rt. 7 side of Ashburn, but it is Ashburn all the same. And, I drove out to the movie theater in Brambleton today, midday from South Riding, and it took us over 20 minutes with 0 traffic. Throw in rush hour and a bunch of bus stops, and you have an hour on the bus - easy.

Posted by mpproc (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the community meeting at Freedom, Mr. Miller finally shared his vision for the future students of Dulles South. Temporary trailers are good enough for education, he said he was educated that way and it's good enough for our kids. The other solution is to 'redistribute the capacity'. HE will take an inventory of all the open school seats in the county and redistribute the 'extra kids' to those seats wherever they may be. And lastly, he will explore the option of leaving some 6th graders in elementary schools. Not sure how that will work when the students switch classes to be int he appropriate academic track. A great vision of the future for our kids.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wasn't able to attend this meeting. I wish I had been there.

It sounds to me like Mr. Miller is trying to do the work of the LCPS and School Board. If in fact he intends to take these steps, he will be grossly interfering with the statutory authority granted to the elected school board by the code of VA.

Dean, was there any other important news from this meeting? Thank you for posting this important information.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I want to know how he's going to shoehorn another grade into Little River?

That should be simply fascinating to get enlightened on...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some of the 'hot items' as I remember them. The Arcola Center. He spent a significant chunk of time discussing his efforts to overhaul the sign zoning ordinances (a lot of time..). The 250 parcel that the county acquired for a park, but has no money to improve, a proffer/VDOT swap so we can get another park and ride lot on Rt. 50, redirect/consolidate proffers to consolidate 8 million dollars for unspecified uses (he thought he could create at least twice that amount?). I can't think of anymore offhand (I had trouble listening all the way through the sign zoning ordinance and potential new park and ride lot).
One question was about the BRMC. After hearing him talk, the hospital will be going in BRMC and Dulles South isn't going to see a hospital for a long time (I don't think Dulles South will be getting much of anything anytime soon with Miller at the helm). Som eone did ask the obvious question: "I didn't hear you mention schools as a hot topic". He said he had covered it previously and didn't want to repeat himself. It was pretty comical to see how fast he wanted to get off the stage when ti got to the schools topic. He did emphasize that bussing and trailers were good enough for him and they are good enough for our kids too. Glad he's setting the bar so high for our kids. As all the schools in the other districts are built before those in Dulles South, I'm sure he'll be laughing on the way to the school openings everywhere except in Dulles south.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)