Kevin, I'm really glad you spoke in favor of MS5 at the public hearing, and only wish you had spent less time in those remarks campaigning.

My personal opinion is that you would benefit from a better understanding of the parameters of the office(s) you seek. Your partyline touting of a changed process shows not only NO understanding of the division of duties of each elected body under state law, but a poor understanding of the actual comprehensive plan and land use issues surrounding the Lenah site, and others.

Schools are not growth control mechanisms, no matter what some of your compatriots tell you.

They are state mandated services that must be provided to those of us who, LIKE YOURSELF AND MANY OF THE PERENNIAL PROTESTERS, moved here and helped CAUSE the growth.

In addition, let's look at your stats. I'm sorry, but in 2007 you garnered 43% of the district votes, and lost Little River (your home precinct) as well as the other then-two South Riding precincts.

Keep supporting schools in our area, please do.

But if the only times you DO show up you make a campaign speech that favors the opinions of those who put your own neighborhood on a bus to Stone Hill so we could get a "better" site A YEAR LATER with the VERY SAME ZONING plus a portion LESS DENSE, then I don't think that's going to be enough to get you 43% in 11.

In fact, why bother if what you are essentially touting is the absorption of school board duties by the BoS?

Or are you running for that too?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 21, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Barbara!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 22, 2009 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't listen to Ms. Munsey. Dulles district residents will be lucky when Mr. Turner takes office in 2011 because, unlike Mr. Dupree and most of his collegues who have personal ties to LCPS, the public has confidence Mr. Turner will remember who elected him and that he will never "neglect his personal obligation to the community" over the influences of the Administration.

Once again Ms Munsey comes out of left field and spins words into other peoples mouths without basis. How can she have any credibility when she commends Mr. Turner's public support of MS5 when she then spews nonsense about not understanding schools are state mandated services that are needed. That’s some rabbit she pulled out I’d say. That trick suggests BM stands for Black Magic. I guess she and momof4 (we know!) desperately want to ignore the statements of experts with the Council of Educational Facility Planners, USEPA Smart Growth Program, Planning Commissioners Journal, American School Board Journal, American Planning Association, Knowledge Works Foundation, US Dept of Transportation's Safe Routes to School (to name a few). These and others agree, school siting absolutely does have significant impacts on development. Further, smart growth means placing schools close to the communities they serve - not away from them. I thought she was smarter than that and I guess I'm relieved she isn’t on the Planning Commission any more since she clearly has no grasp of planning and basic smart growth principles and is so eager to pitch Loudoun's Comprehensive Plan.

If the SB demonstrated any understanding of these concepts and a commitment to embrace smart growth principles, I’m certain citizens like me wouldn’t be urging for those who ARE committed to be point guard on school siting.

She talks about stats, she seems to forget the failing stats racked up in recent years by the LCPS' Site Acquisition team.

Momof#, go back and read some of your emails to officials of 2-3 years ago. I know I have read plenty of them lately in my FOIAs and it further saddens me to see how you have abandoned many of the fundamental reasons you first became involved. If you stay on the track you have recently taken, there will be much more to come out on that I assure you, because it’s out of my hands.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stinger, you imply that you know who I am and you seem to be threatening me. I am not sure how you 1) know my identity and 2) have any reason to threaten me. My actions have been completely above board. Are you saying that I have done something wrong? If so, you have the wrong mom.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No threats intended whatsoever. Sorry if my meaning was not clear. I only mean that emails sent to public officials stating a position are public information and when that person completely flip flops their position without any explanation, their statements will be viewed as hypocritical and thus will become even more public - that is all. Its all about accountability. It's quite possible I am wrong and it wasn't you that said those things - if so, no sweat.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)