Irony. It is the BOS that gave the School Board $25 million to go out and proactively purchase future school sites. And, to return the favor the School Board picks the Wheatland site! Further irony is Burton, of Fields Farm fame, a piece of property that had all of the same issues, is now leading the charge against the Wheatland site. Leaves one to wonder why one is ok, but the other isn't? Then again it was Jim and his pal Eleanore who purchased Fields Farm in the middle of the night.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The proposed site is wrong, wrong, wrong. It sits in the middle of nowhere, far from any public utilities. Can you imagine 4,000 students plus maybe 1,000 adult staff and the amount of well water + water treatment that will require? On top of that, the site sits at the corner of one of the most poorly maintained and dangerous dirt roads in that part of Loudoun -- John Wolford Road. Barely wide enough for an SUV in some places, imagine what will happen when 16-year-old kids from the high school start trying to fly around its hairpin turns. The only person who benefits from this deal is the developer selling the land, because he then gets to market his other 350 acres as "within walking distance to schools!"

Posted by glastonbury27 (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I keep coming back to on this issue is the high price the County is offering Cangiano and Burgess for their property. I feel almost certain that if the School Board had offered a similar amount per acre to land owners near Lovettsville, a deal that fits better into the County's Comprehensive Plan could have been reached.

Posted by jillunit (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The owner benefits because he is selling 170 acres at more than 11 million dollars, when there is a 200 acre farm on the market "near Wheatland" with a preliminary plat approval for 38 lots, road frontage on three sides, and the asking price is 3.4 million.... and another farm on the market, also near by, 146 acres, not subdivided for 1.2 million... (look up multiple listings LO7027260 and LO7026145..

The Cangiano land has preliminary approval for fewer lots and has fewer acres than the 200 acre farm, but we are paying almost 4 times the asking price of the other property?

Rip off, plain and simple.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there any way that WE THE PEOPLE can file suit against our elected officials on charges of corruption and misuse of public funds?

Posted by GenuineRisk (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, as to the preliminary approval, hasn't the owner done all the engineering, identified drainfields etc and gotten the prelim simply to be vested?

Since it's vested, he can record at any time, but would be a fool to do so right now because then he'd be taxed on all those lots.

Taxes have a lot to do with this current version of the temper tantrum party that began with Grubb, flew with Lenah, and has been revived for this.

I'm glad the story on Potomac Vegetable Farms has evolved since Grubb, and I'm glad the absentee owner spoke the other evening.

I was disturbed by the recurring themes at public input; Maybe Mr. Kravitz wasn't here the last time Ms. Kasdorf performed "Stand By Your Plan". Go pull the webcast of Ms. McGimsey's presentation of her fake petition in 2005 to see the first performance, back when Ms. McGimsey was still concealing that she was paid $65K a year by the Piedmont Environmental Council to be a "concerned citizen".

This whole show has been done before, right down to the website with hotlinks to prepared advocacy emails sent with the click of a button.

I was concerned by the number of people who said the farms of the west are a "gift" given to everyone else; that's some gift at 50-75% tax deferral, with staff, website, promotion, and 75K advertising brochures twice a year. I don't need to go directly buy the products: I'm paying for their existence through my taxes already!

Then there was the lady who by her own admission moved a couple years ago for the tiny private schools available in the rural area. She expressed her anger at the disrespect shown to "the western Loudoun school system"...by the Loudoun school system.

There is SUPPOSED to be only one, and that's another tax issue.

The biggest talking point was "the school system is out of control", so oh please BoS, do something!

Like maybe take it over?

I think the Board was on the right track during the HS6 acceleration fiasco when they noted that they would be stepping into the duties of the school board.

Until state code is changed, we have TWO elected bodies here.

Until our county form of government is updated, I think the last thing we need to do is turn over all function to whoever bought the most recent swing of the pendulum.

It appears to me that NO site in either the transition or the rural policy area will be deemed suitable for some people EVER.

The perennial protest crowd is after a lot more on this one than a better price or site.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny, out of all of the negative comments no one is offering a solution to address the root problem...building schools for the 4000 students who travel far, a risk in itself and a waste of money for transportation, and reducing crowding in our schools.

If the site chosen is indeed poor, then come up with a better one and work WITH the board to make it happen. Just more "NO" from those who seem to only know what THEY don't want as opposed to what is best for the most people.

Posted by AfghanVet (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heres a solution, stop spending spending spending. So they can stop TAXING TAXING TAXING. Like apples? How do you like those apples? Good day, ph

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AfghanVet ... The fact that the contract settlement date is only 26 days away makes it a real challenge.

Many, many people have been involved constructively over the years, including the Western Schools Task Force, the Rural Loudoun School Study Committee, Small Town Schools, and others offering recommendations on school size, siting, and on reforming the land acquisition process. For the most part, their recommendations have been ignored.

I'm sure that a better alternative site can be found, just as it was for Lenah. But it is real tough for citizens to do this on their own. At the moment the focus is on stopping or stalling this crazy deal in the next few weeks.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, only one replacement site has been found for Lenah. We don't know if it's better or not, because it isn't approved yet. The same people who protested every iteration of that middle school, making it now THREE years late, are also chiming in on the Wheatland site.

We will not know until both the three-year-late middle and the now one-year-late high school (for which NO replacement site has yet been identified) are open and running whether they turned out to be cheaper or not.

With busing boundaries taking place this August, the cost for that begins to add to the ongoing tally.

Lenah is universally referred to by some of the protest folk as a "remote rural area".

Funny how the site was between an existing rural hamlet and two by-right subdivisions.

When Grubb was protested, over two dozen people gave eyewitness testimony that NOTHING was anywhere near the Wheatland area but farms, and they every one of them knew for a fact because every one of them lived right across the street.

Funny how there's a by right subdivision out there near the proposed sites.

Funny how if the Wheatland property was going forward in houses, I'd bet some of the same people would be protesting THAT.

There is way too much McActivism and hysteria for something so preliminary.

The calls for the Board to intervene in a system "out of control" are quite telling, given the cross-pollenation of the formula activism.

I'm sure the activism of the moment IS on stopping things.

Once every proposed site in the county has been torpedoed by the same people, then maybe we can get to the meat of the matter: turning over control of the biggest public service in the county...to some of those same people?

Who already benefit from a private system at public expense?

Or a tax and support structure that is the sweetest deal going?

W-a-a-a-a-y too much canned sound and fury. Time to take a deep breath.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"warned county officials that if they did "not use every power within your reach to kill this deal, you will be pilloried."

Can anyone say restraining order? Indeed, everyone needs to take a DEEP breath and get a grip!

AfghanVet - well said. Wish I had been brave enough to say it myself.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What overcrowding in the west??? LCPS keeps telling us they should close the small western elementary schools because they're under-utilized. This was threatened as soon as a couple months ago as part of the budget negotiations. And the second western high school has yet to even be built, and they're trying to spend way too much money for this site right now.

There are real needs for school sites, but in the Ashburn and Dulles areas, not out here.

Posted by jeffwolinski (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

First, after you have preliminary approval you are required to do A LOT more very expensive engineering, road design, storm water design, much more detail, and all kinds of other studies like archeology studies, more wells drilled, etc and bond (paying a bond fee, that is expensive) all the improvements or build them before the lots can be recorded. After my prelim approval, I was shocked at the costs for my tiny 5 lot subdivision.

Second, this is kind of like the hospital, where Route 50 was preferred-- here the comp plan says if at all possible, new schools should be sited next to our rural towns, and be on public water, sewer, etc... This is so kids can walk to school and for community, for one reason. It saves on school busses, since more than 50 percent of the children are from Lovettsville, it would be preferable to put the schools next to the town.

There are some larger scale commercial farms adjacent to this Wheatland site, dependent on well water, and the schools could easily devastate the water supply, which is artesian. The comp plan, like it or not, does prefer rural economy uses...and these kinds of decisions have to take into account these very real, not just hobby, businesses...

Third, these schools are not needed for ten years..why the rush to buy the land now, when there are lots of good options out there. Lots of land for sale, none of it selling, lots of foreclosures on large subdivided tracts--but foreclosures and short sales may be too difficult to work. Some one suggested paying landowners for a right of first refusal. Good idea.

Fourth, the contract was not contingent on any completed studies or the SE, so the school board could well be buying an 11 million dollar park--which is a bad idea in this economy. Only the Board of Supervisors can approve school sites with an SE.. so the purchase is "speculative" as to whether it can be used as a school. The school board has no authority to speculate that it "might" be able to use the property as a school, and has a duty to ensure that whatever it buys WILL be used as a school.

Fifth, the price! There is a 200 acre farm on the market, right now in Wheatland for 3.4 million dollars, and it also has 38 lot approved preliminary plat, road frontage on three sides -- Why are we paying 4 times more for less land and fewer preliminary approved lots? The price is insane, in my opinion. There is another farm on the market, 140 plus acres very close by, with no prelim plat for sale for 1.2 million dollars--all three of these properties are very similar in their location and impact. Arguably none of them meet the plan, but the other two provide a more realistic fair market perspective (and they are not selling fast..)

So, to me, the big question is WHY? something very screwy here...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, you are blatantly lying about the Grubb testimony. The video is still available on the Planning Commission website to prove that the testimony was not even remotely like you claim it was.

Anyone watching should stay to the end to hear most of the planning commissioners blast the hell out of the concept of putting a school at Grubb. They spoke to the importance of having schools in the community the serve, of protecting our rural economy, and how completely incompatible this proposal was with the Revised General Plan.

Then the Dulles District commissioner spoke. She complained that her son was not allowed to ride his bike to school, and how strange that seemed. Perhaps Dr. Adamo could look into that policy and get back to her? A few people took the charitable view and assume that this was her sly way of saying that schools should be a part of the community. But most others knew she was just being selfish as usual.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff Wolinski,
Thank you for your support of school sites in the Ashburn and Dulles areas.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff, blatant lying is pretty strong. Of course I know the video is still available, why do you think I referenced it.

Was it blatant lying when one of the farmers testified that they'd been farming 180 acres since the late 90s, or just a selective testimony instead of that they purchased 20 acres two years previously from the person who still owns the other 160, listed in the parcel database at a Vienna address? I don't doubt that they farm, I don't doubt that they've been farming there for 10 years. I'm glad they have begun to clarify how much they own, and speak in terms of their business instead of land.

Perhaps you should watch the vote--I was not prepared to send it anywhere but committee for further discussion, because there was as yet no guarantee that Fields Farm would yield a school anytime soon.

One of the reasons I did so is also on the record; the commission had voted, during the update to the CTP, to remove bypasses from the Hillsboro area, again based on passionate testimony by a good-sized turnout.

The newspaper articles are still online which followed that vote, where the Town of Hillsboro formally asked WHY that vote had been taken, when the Town was on record supporting a bypass?

Just because a group shows up and sings in unison doesn't mean the emotionally symapthetic decision is the right one to make in a hurry.

Yes, some of the same people are protesting this who protest quite a few things, and I would suggest that your own tension over this supports my opinion that this is a lot of hysteria that needs a deep breath before the talking point of taking over the system is implemented on an emotional tirade and a lot of click-and-send emails.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it is my understanding that a lot of the work has been done.

In addition, I believe a selective sampling of information has been pumped as widely as possible to induce, yes, hysteria.

After reading what was done to you in your small family subdivision, I can certainly see why this would be an issue that gets your attention.

This is very early in the process, and yes, a SPEX and CMPT would be required, but the school system still projects and generally sites schools.

Look at how well it went with Fields for the Board's chsooing of sites in a vacuum.

As for the rural economy, I don't dispute that there are farms there, some quite significant.

I don't think it is the best marketing to say they are a "gift" to everybody who picks up the difference. The people who work them presumably do so because they want to, and more power to them.

A "gift"?

Add in the concept of "the western Loudoun school system", and I think it isn't just the budget that's out of control.

Some people in Loudoun are drunk with protest, and it is counterproductive for everyone.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, Jeff, 7:49 was directed to anonymous windhunde. Long posts, and bad eyes on the laptop.

windhunde, I suggest you review the webcast.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Barbara, the Cangiano property is not anywhere near record lots-- pages and pages of engineering still remains, and construction of the roads, storm drainage, very expensive stuff still-- no where near final record plat or record lots, and still lots of risk, and expense, easily a million dollars just to construct the roads...

The problem is that the Cangiano contract calls for settlement right away, and the School Board will own it in about 6 weeks, without any studies, and no Special Exception, and there is a real cry for the schools to be next to the town of Lovettsville, as stated in the comp plan-- this is MUCH WORSE than Fields Farm...

Also, 287 and 9 are major thoroughfares for rush hour traffic, and 85 busses there will be an absolute nightmare, given the substandard condition of those two lane roads. Only way to make it right is to two lane both of those roads for miles and miles, and that will not happen in my life time, I am afraid. They are already at below a level F... a school nearer the town would be much preferable for many reasons, but traffic is one--you would need fewer busses on the road. And a school will help the town, business wise...

We should honor the Plan as much as possible, and this site does not-- same as with the hospital, the location is stated foe western schools (even more strongly than the hospitla) in the Plan, and this is not it...

But the biggest travesty is the PRICE! completely out of sight, not justified at all.... as I said, big RECORDED subdivisions, being auctioned at foreclosure, and no one is buying... the School Board is irresponsible to buy this at this price...

Where are the tea bags??? We need some fiscal responsibility... we do not need to spend 11 plus million when it is worth more like 3 or 4 million, especially when it might end up being a PARK... and the money is supposed to be for schools...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I have watched the webcast. The simple fact is your statement about the testimony is a complete lie.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, for one thing, I don't think any of us is privy to everything that has been done. In addition, this is a professional developer after all--the costs associated with recording the lots are a business cost, and I don't doubt that if they had a builder buyer and were recording them, some of the same people would be protesting with the same cookie-cutter methods.

Nor do I think this will be a "done deal" in a few weeks (although the school board already has the money, and the authority, to enter into a contract).

"Might end up being a park" is a leap. What might Fields have ended up as, had the county not prevailed in crucial aspects of the lawsuit on Fields?

I think there is less comparison with the hospital vote than there is with the attempted acceleration of HS6 and the Lenah debacle.

The hospital vote was not only a Comp Plan issue, but an attempt to rezone a portion of an existing PUD to a much more intense regional use.

The HS5 acceleration was viewed by some of the same supervisors who voted against the hospital as an attempt to perform the school board's duties.

Lenah was not only a disregard for the Comp Plan AND the majority of people who spoke in favor of it, but a disruption of the process.

This appears to me as the goal of some of the most committed, and perennial, protesters.

We have a process.

We have a process for changing the process.

To view these schools as all coming on line at once is as irresposible, and hysteria inducing, as any projected rezoning protested through the same methods.

Price is worthy of discussion.

A complete disruption of the process, in an atmosphere of hysteria, does not get any schools built, and quite frankly I don't blame the school system for trying to plan this far in advance.

Everything in the west will be a war, and regardless of the opinions of some that they are somehow different and more special than any other taxpeyer, they still need the services occasioned by their own choice to move there.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, again, that is a very strong statement.

Tell me, what is the "complete" lie in the multihour proceeding at public hearing?

How many people in Wheatland Estates lived "right across the street" from the site?

Did one of the farmers state they had "farmed 180 acres" for ten years?

Who made the motion, what was the discussion, and how did the vote go?

I still have my notes somewhere, if you need more help on specifics.

I repeat, the current hysteria is a rerun of some tried and true tantrum activist techniques on a variety of issues by the same people, and my personal opinion is that the motive is primarily disruption of the process.

None of which gets schools built.

At all.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"When Grubb was protested, over two dozen people gave eyewitness testimony that NOTHING was anywhere near the Wheatland area but farms, and they every one of them knew for a fact because every one of them lived right across the street."

That is simply a lie. And you're accusing others of hysteria and tantrum techniques?

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry windhunde, was it only 12 out of 26 that specifically used those words?

9 of 24? 7? 14?

Enough made the point that it made quite an impression!

Kind of like the several people the other night who referred to farms as a "gift" to those who pay the difference in taxes, or the individual who spoke about the "western Loudoun school system", or the many who, themselves short on factual specifics, spoke of a system "out of control" needing intervention by the Board?

Which was the point, right? In order to kill the site, and the process?

So a farmer never said they farm 180 acres there, and had been for ten years during the Grubb testimony at the PC two years ago?

What was the motion, who made it, what was the discussion and the vote?

"Complete" is an all-encompassing word, and as such could be considered hyperbole, itself sometimes an element of both tantrums and hysteria.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so after these schools are built kids will be paying $500 for a parking permit and $500 per sport? Maybe we can make students pay for their own books and gas money for the buses...I thought the Loudoun County and the School Board were short on money....Loudoun County needs to wait, think and plan....something they rarely do.

Posted by purplehayes3 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, what they have submitted to pursue recordation of the lots is public information. They have stopped at preliminary approval, because to go any farther costs a lot of money, and there is no market for lots in western Loudoun right now.

Look at the contract, it is on line, They are going to SETTLE on this property in a few weeks, without any studies complete or a special exception in hand.

This is exactly the hospital issue: The comp plan says the schools should be located in western towns, adjacent to towns, or in urban growth areas in the west. Wheatland is not a town, nowhere near a town or urban growth area, with nothing there but farms, not even a light--all planned for rural uses. Lovettsville has been waiting for their schools just like Route 50 has been waiting for their hospital.

And there is a reason why people should expect the plan to be honored: it makes sense: public water, public sewer (which the towns all need help with) better transportation, and an economic boost to the towns..

This is exactly the same issue as HCA.

I don't know enough about Lenah, and the plan language for the transition area, or the contract/costs for that site, but I have looked at this pretty in depth, and this is not justifiable in any way--especially the cost.

The only out in the contract is the School Board can cancel it at their sole discretion by June 1. Or if the Board of Supervisors says they cannot settle, there is a condition precedent to settling that there must be no threats that the site cannot be used as a school.

This is not a good place for this complex, according to specific language in the plan, and the price is several times what people are asking for very similar properties on the market (which are not selling fast...)

It is a very bad deal for all taxpayers, not just a few disgruntled people who cannot be satisfied....

And one more thing, Fields Farm would have been a park, if that school had to be built somewhere else... that is an example in all respects how not to buy school property... we need an open fair process which respects the public, and we don't have it yet...

In any event, no contract should be allowed to be entered into and no settlement on any school property should be allowed without a contingency for studies to be complete and a special exception in hand,..

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'm sorry, but I disagree that this is "exactly" like HCA.

The county is not required by law to build hospitals. It is required to build schools, and the authority for projecting need, planning location and facilities, entering into contracts and holding title to the land and facilities belongs to the school board under state law. The Board of Supervisors and the Commission have a say on whether the specific land gets the SPEX and CPMT, but the job of schools is the school board's.

Broadlands is an established PUD with a recorded concept development plan. BRMC was an attempt by a private entity (a developer, if you will) to rezone a portion of that PUD.

Wheatland is not a PUD, but there's not "nothing there but farms" either.

The plan language says schools should be located in the towns villages etc when possible.

It doesn't look like anything is possible for some people anywhere in the rural or transition policy area.

Lenah was an acceptable use in the transition area, and both school and county staff agreed. Look at the Land Use section of the Transition Policy Area chapter of the RGP. Schools are an accepted non-residential use in that planning area, to "serve both rural and suburban residents".

The majority of those who spoke on that issue had kids directly affected, the application had staff approval, and the commission and board chose NOT to listen to the majority of the actual citizens.

It remains to be seen if it will be cheaper.

It hasn't been faster, which is not better.

You are correct it is costly to record lots, in more ways than one: who wants to pay taxes on recorded lots if they don't have to?

I too believe taxes are at the root of a lot of the controversy.

But as someone who saw their taxes rise this year, I have a very hard time hearing the entitlement mentality that small costly private schools are deserved based on zoning, and that land use is a "gift" to me.

You know that abuses exist in both land use and open space deferrals.

I am not suggesting that the large farm at the center of this is abusing the policy.

I am suggesting that it is less than productive if selective truth is hyped to destroy public services, required by law in return for our taxes.

Particularly when services of all kinds are protested by many of the same McActivists, for those who pay ALL of their taxes.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

purplehayes, planning is what they've been trying to do for years, all over the county.

These schools are a definite future need based on existing zoning.

Unfortunately, for some people schools have become just another greedy development (their own sometimes brand new homes are somehow different).

Gas is being wasted in the suburban policy area too, because NOWHERE is the right place for schools, for some people.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, here are two articles from 2007, apparently written by those who attended the same meetings I did.

It's all in there: two dozen neighbors, some who moved in quite recently, and a farmer at the center who had been farming "their" 180 acres since the 90s.

http://www.fauquiertoday.com/news/2007/j...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, this is not Lenah.

But given that the PC and Board voted not to grant an SE for Lenah, that is a very negative precedent for this property. If this Board and PC did not think a school should go in the transition area (because it would impact the "rural character") then how can they possibly think it should go in the actual rural policy area? They might have been wrong about the transition area, but how can they justify what they are doing here, given what they did there?

As for being like HCA, ok, there is no rezoning, but the plan language is very much stronger regarding the siting of schools near towns in the west than the plan language was about siting the hospital in the Route 50 corridor, so in that way, again, how can this board justify following the Plan only sometimes? To get an SE, there has to be shown conformance with the plan--they cannot show that with this purchase.. and especially since the need is so far out, how can they say there will be nothing available in the right location in the next ten years?

It may be that the developer does not want to go forward because he does not want to pay taxes, but trust me, he does not want to land bank his money in building roads (required for recorded lots) when there is absolutely no market for those lots. Several major projects have been foreclosed on. Right now, recorded lots are selling for less than the costs to "finish" them with engineering and roads.. I think I am the only person in western Loudoun pursuing subdivision, since I want to put lots in trust for my children (only taking me 4 years so far--and the cost has been ridiculous...)

Why would we pay Cangiano twice what he paid for this property at the top of the market in 2006? Why would we pay him four to ten times what other comparable property is selling for? This deal makes NO sense at all. There is a lot of land for sale, but it seems that the School Board is only interested in one property and overpaying by a mile for it... Why?

And Barb, as much as I like and respect you, the School Board does NOT have authority to enter into these contracts and spend the bond money unless is is Definitely for a School-- and if you look at their budget authority, they need the BoS approval to do this. Apparently they did go to an exec session and got approval, but I believe technically, the Board of Supervisors must be a signatory under state law...

Under our local law, the School Board has NO authority to site schools, and they should have no authority to make these kinds of contracts which have no contingencies on studies finished or approvals being granted by the appropriate authorities.

This is a mess, and has been very poorly handled. An extremely bad deal, applying double standards to ignore the Plan, shutting out the public process, and overpaying by a mile.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...which is artesian"

Well technically it is not.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I like and respect you too, and if anyone seriously believes that a vote took place in executive session (as is being bandied about by anonymous bloggers) then they need to raise the issue with the county attorney because as you know (and the anonymous multi-IDed activists know) FOIA does NOT allow action to be taken in closed session.

To state as breezy fact that is has occurred (as some few are doing) just feeds the emotional hyped conspiracy hysteria.

I'M supposed to be the one that sees a conspiracy under every rock, remember?

As for purchasing land that must be used for schools, you know that Mickey Gordon Park is actually a 99-acre high school site, right?

It was carried as such in the CIP until about 2000, even though it was leased to Parks and Rec for the vital recreation facilities it actually IS, and a portion was leased as pasture to a neighboring landowner.

May still be. Maybe even in land use! lol

I'm not suggesting that the county put the school there, but I do have a friend out past Middleburg who brings it up every time a school protest erupts.

I know you have a strong motivation to record your few lots for your kids, even at great personal cost and in spite of the many obstacles thrown your way. You are not a professional developer making a business decision, though, are you?

Some of the same entities who have made your life a living hell over your kids' lots are protesting every school that comes down the pike, through selective information, hype and hysteria.

Much the same formula that was used on you.

I know this isn't Lenah. It is the same formula, by some of the same people.

As tax issue, tell me how building multiple little private schools for each separate enclave is a good thing, when no land anywhere is acceptable to some of the protesters?

I wish someone could tell me why overcrowding, busing, and "stick em in trailers" is good enough for the suburban area, which receives the "gift" of other people's tax deferrals, and often the "gift" of protest by the entitled as well.

Seriously, deep breath time.

There is a much larger issue in play here than any of this overhyped potential purchase.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I got an email from Mr. Burton saying the Board voted to allow the School board to go forward to try to purchase this property in an executive session... I have not checked the records or the meetings. You are suggesting this did not happen?

It is not anonymous bloggers spreading rumors, it is an email from Mr. Burton. Anonymously, some are saying that the terms of the contract and the real estate comps were not given at the exec session and the BoS was mislead or tricked...

You are right, there are a lot of the same people who jump on the band wagon and protest everything, but in this case, I support what they are saying, because like it or not, I support the law, our plan, and an open process... I am not someone who is pressured into things, or who blindly takes positions.

And if anything what is most important to me is fairness in the process and integrity of our elected officials, which often, in my opinion is missing. Deals like this do not inspire me.

The price for this property is highway robbery...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, after your own FOIA struggle with Mr. Burton, who needed an opinion from the county attorney and then the court to understand that email from his Government account was not private, who sent your own contact information to his entire distribution list urging that they get in touch with you over public access to their inclusion on his government distribution list, I have to say that simply because Mr. Burton interprets something a particular way isn't gospel.

I recall that after he was unable to sequester his government emails, he then proposed a change in state FOIA law to comply with his personal preference.

So he admitted to all and sundry in his email that he participated in an activity--voting in executive session--that he knows to be illegal under state FOIA law? After his years of experience?

Mr. Burton is also on record that he'd like to take over the school system.

Was Delegate Poisson's abortive legislation to make schools simply another branch of government an accident?

I doubt it.

The perennial protest crowd was and is thumping another meme too in all of this: we elected you and if you don't do what we want, we'll get you.

Now that they've got the Board, and get to hire a new adminstrator (you do know a private input session was held for groups on that, separate from the very sparsely attended public one? For the PEC and various other entities?), it's time to take over not only the Sherrif's Department, but all schools too.

As long as the tax system is inequitable, and a duplicate school system is allowed, I would much rather NOT have the activists of "no" in charge of any other aspects of the government than those they already control.

I am not a tax farm for a small group of very special people, but that is how I, and many others who probably "shouldn't have moved here" are treated.

Seriously, Mr. Burton says a vote took place in executive session?

Gee, I wonder if he recalls how Delgaudio was pilloried by the rest of the 99 BoS, and in the press, for refusing to ratify an executive session held during the discussion of the Shellhorn and Fields properties, because of a voting issue?

Did Mr. Burton refuse to ratify the session he admits to voting in?

If not, why not?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Apparently they did go to an exec session and got approval, but I believe technically, the Board of Supervisors must be a signatory under state law..."

If they went into Exec Session, there should have been a public vote for this approval, no?

Sally has manny good points here. Barb states that everybody should take a deep breath. I agree - starting with the SB. They should stop this purchase in its tracks and take a deep breath - once its purchased, we own it (kind of like Iraq). Measure twice...cut once...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"As tax issue, tell me how building multiple little private schools for each separate enclave is a good thing, when no land anywhere is acceptable to some of the protesters?"

Step away from the hyperbolic mike please!!

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I am not a tax farm for a small group of very special people, but that is how I, and many others who probably "shouldn't have moved here" are treated."

Still beating the east vs. west - us against them drum I see...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These are the times I regret living in LoCo. However, to anyone who says my family shouldn't have come here in the first place, I say, we were free to do so, we have alot invested in it, we are going no where anytime soon because of the devaluation of our property, so we will have to deal with it as well as the folks in the west will have to deal with our presence.

Barbara, I agree with your assessment of the political implications of this. I have not formed an opinion about this property or the actions of the school board because I haven't had time to research it.

However, I am sick of the group who wants to tell our elected officials how THEY want everything or else. They don't speak for me and many others.

Anyway, if it looks and smells like manure, it is! Oh yeah, my mom grew up on a farm and I visited that farm many times as a kid. I am quite familiar with manure.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, if there was a private vote, as Mr. Burton apparently says there was, it was illegal. That should be the discussion, rather than hearsay about what was told to them to prompt the illegal vote. Was the session ratified? If a vote took place, regardless of what was said, it shouldn't have been.

In addition, let's step away from the hyperbole of 77,000 future gallons a day at buildout ten years from now, when maximum use at any school in the county is far less than one third of that. Sounds like 22, no 23, no 38, no 50! thousand homes in the transition zone/along the outer beltway/on route 50. Surely maximum water use at existing schools is a matter of public record, right?

As for east vs. west, I'm not the one that testified there actually is an official "western Loudoun school system", even if in practice that does exist.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, I think sufficient disruption of the process has occurred over the last few years that no one has time to sort it out, and that's what those with a political stake in this are counting on.

Yes, it smells like manure.

But where is that manure coming from?

I think some may have been hauled in and dumped down the proverbial well. And some of those doing the most hue and cry (not Sally) are doing some of the dumping.

Rushing in ANY direction because of hype and emotion serves the least benefit of all.

Except for a very few with specific axes to grind.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for posting the links to the articles about Grubb, Barbara. It just reminds me how reckless this deal is -- buying the properties with no contingency for getting the Special Exception or Commission Permit.

This site is less than 1500 feet from Grubb, and LCPS abandoned that contract once it became clear they had a very slim chance of getting their SPEX.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If a vote took place, regardless of what was said, it shouldn't have been."

Only if it took place in Exec Session. I agree with you (shocking I know) on this point. We don't know two things - first that an authorizing vote took place and second, if it did take place, that it took place in Exec Session not in public session. I doubt that an authorizing vote took place in Exec Session - that would be very foolish indeed and likely not allowed by counsel.

But listen to yourself - you are claiming that everybody needs to step back and take a deep breath and again I agree with you. But this leads directly to the conclusion that the deal should not be allowed to go through without thorough review and evaluation of the site. Your position argues that the deal should at least be delayed or renegotiated with more protective terms in place. Do you disagree? Do you contend that they should just ink the deal as quickly as possible while the citizenry takes a deep breath?

"As for east vs. west, I'm not the one that testified there actually is an official "western Loudoun school system", even if in practice that does exist."

No you are just the one continually quoting the supposed testimony in order to foment discord between the east and west.

BTW, I've provided no input on the hydro on this one. No horse in the race - I like watching from the sidelines for once. But it does sound like Sally's points are strong (I'm sure she is just as surprised to hear me say that we well).

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The law and our comp plan may not be perfect, but I cannot support those who want to undermine it because they are either above the law and the plan, or because they don't like it, or because they are powerful enough they can reward their friends.

This is very simple for me.

The plan does not allow the school in this location by its SPECIFIC language, and as represented by the Grubb farm vote, and the Lenah vote (which I understand you think was wrong, and may have been wrong--the transition zone is not the rural policy area, and should not be treated as if it is. BUT, THIS property IS the rural policy area.)

The price is WAY too much.

The contract was done as none others have been, not contingent on the SE being granted or studies complete.

Don't know anything about the "park" in Middleburg, how it was acquired, if it was ever zoned for a school, but this
Wheatland property needs an SE and must conform to the plan, which it does not appear to do. It could well end up being our next western park and at an exorbitant price! Can't believe you would support that!

Just because you think Lenah was wrong, does not mean this is right...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"However, to anyone who says my family shouldn't have come here in the first place, I say, we were free to do so, we have alot invested in it, we are going no where anytime soon because of the devaluation of our property, so we will have to deal with it as well as the folks in the west will have to deal with our presence."

Mom, you have been reading too much Barb Munsey. This issue is not an east vs. west - us against them thing. It is about the SB entering a contract for a western school complex - I doubt they will be bussing kids in from South Riding but with Adamo at the helm you never know...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're welcome, windhunde.

So, you noticed the erroneaous statements that the farmer owned 180 acres since the 90s? And that two dozen neighbors of the site spoke against it because nothing was there but farms (and their houses)?

Good.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, I know you have no dog here, now that it has been settled that no other school shall go near Hamilton, ever.

Eric, the Board took no action on Tuesday.

In spite of robo-emails, protests, recycled music, signs, everything but the sheep (and I'm sure they'll show up too before its over).

Why?

Maybe because there IS no action to take at this time?

There is a process. Because, according to some perennial protesters and political activists, it is "broken", a new process is under review.

Last I read, staff had found no way to implement all of what the protesters and activists are demanding.

What is being demanded?

That "something" be done, or else.

The disruption of the process is the main goal, in my opinion.

Sally and Eric: look up FOIA as it relates to exemption from open meeting. Before any such meeting is entered (from an OPEN, PROPERLY ADVERTISED meeting), the SPECIFIC section of state code authorizing the exemption from open meeting must be read into the record, and a vote taken to do so.

After emerging from the closed session, the meeting must be certified, by which it is read into the record that NO BUSINESS other than that for which the meeting was SPECIFICALLY ENTERED, under the SPECIFIC section of state code allowing the exemption, was discussed, and that NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

I personally find it preposterous that anyone, particularly an experienced board member, would claim that a vote occurred in executive session, and then go on to say that what they were TOLD (also not something to be discussed) is what made them vote the way they did.

This doesn't mean that both boards are knee deep in a conspiracy against Wheatland of epic and biblical proportion.

It should be easily verifiable, and the real question is, IF such a vote took place--which is highly unlikely given the number of experienced members AND the number of lawyers in the two boards, WHY did no one refuse to ratify the vote, LET ALONE PARTICIPATE IN IT, REGARDLESS of who said what?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, in an application of the PUGAMP case, because there is no "h" on the Wheatland site, does the plan language "when possible" specifically preclude the specific piece of property?

I know Lenah was wrong, and I don't know if this is right.

I am convinced that disruption of the process by mob is not the answer in any of the cases, and that's what's been happening for a few years now.

For some, nowhere is right.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. to Sally re Mickey Gordon Park:

You'd have to go back to maybe the Barton board, or further.

A 99 acre parcel that IS the park was carried in the CIP as a high school site for several years after I moved in (1997).

I'm not suggesting that it should be used for a site, or ever will be in the next few centuries. It is a vital part of the rec system and has been for a long time.

The fact remains, it was purchased for a school and was carried as such for years, even as it developed as a park and was leased out for pasture.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, your statement was a lie, and it just undermines your arguments.

"When Grubb was protested, over two dozen people gave eyewitness testimony that NOTHING was anywhere near the Wheatland area but farms, and they every one of them knew for a fact because every one of them lived right across the street."

It is sad, because the citizens paid you to be there and listen to their testimony. Neighbor after neighbor spoke about the Comprehensive plan and how incompatible the application was. Your takeaway from it was to wonder why your son couldn't ride his bike to school. Did Dr. Adamo ever get the Bike Policy to you like he promised?

And now, I promise to let this go. You can deny once again that you've mis-characterized their testimony if you think it adds value. I know that I cannot keep up with you.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For Afghan Vet,
.
From a recent LTE in the L2D-
.
"The population of the proposed complex is more than twice the current population of Lovettsville, Waterford, and Hillsboro combined. This would make Wheatland Farms the largest town north of Rt. 9........"
.
"The Mall of America (The world's largest undercover shopping center) and it 520+ stores sit on 78 acres, less than half the size of the proposed mega-complex."

. http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/200...

.
Many, many citizens have been working with local government in helping to plan for the future. Unfortunately, this contract is on the fast track.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said windhunde, is your point that only x out of 26 used the exact words I paraphrased?

As for my son and elementary school (he will be on the bus to the other side of the airport next year for middle school, thanks to the protesters who have succeeded in breaking the process), that was a very short addressal of the statement made by many that school should be where the kids can walk or ride their bikes to them.

Other than those in Wheatland Estates, the subdivision in the "nothing but farms" area, possibly walking to a school located there through a trail system, who realistically will walk to schools in a rural area?

Very very few, unless of course each hamlet and hollow gets its own little tiny one.

My statement was made to illustrate that even though I live in an area of much greater planned density, traffic safety issues precluded the school system from permitting bike transport to the elementary school down the street from me.

I said a lot more, most notably that I was not afraid to vote in the minority if necessary, but that I felt after the CIP vote on the bypass (where I was the only commissioner to vote against summarily removing them on the basis of that night's quite emotional testimony) that we should send the application to committee to address the issues and concerns, because I felt that a school, particularly in an area of the county seeing ridiculous make-do situations because of the unconscionable delay of Woodgrove, was too important to summarily dismiss because two dozen people strongly wanted that to happen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The disruption of the process is the main goal, in my opinion."

Perhaps, in this case, the process needs to be disrupted given the amount being paid for this land and the lack of protection provided by the contract for the taxpayers of Loudoun County.

Curious, Barb, what is YUOR dog in this race? You a FOS (friend of Sal)? $11M goes a long way...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, aside from the fact that the only way the process has been "broken" is to allow it to be leveraged by small loud groups of well-connected very very special people, how very predictable of you to move on to the tired but tried-and-true attack talking point that I MUST be paid by developers.

Nope.

The only dog I have in the "broken" process is that once it has been completely turned over to the mob, late schools will continue to languish where I live.

While my taxes go up.

And others continue in their writeoffs.

And the very special continue to enjoy small private schools.

While my kid rides a bus to the other side of the airport.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, I know this isn't really an East vs. West struggle. I spoke out of anger and frustration. However, I do not feel we should have one standard of education in the suburban area (large schools, larger classes, less opportunities, less individual attention, etc) and adifferent one in the transition and rural areas (small schools, small class sizes, etc, etc). At the core of this fight we have the people advocating for this difference.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The answer is Home Schooling. Good day, ph

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"However, I do not feel we should have one standard of education in the suburban area (large schools, larger classes, less opportunities, less individual attention, etc) and adifferent one in the transition and rural areas (small schools, small class sizes, etc, etc)."

Indeed I do not either. I have NEVER met a person who DID. Besides Barb's boogeymen that is.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just speculating out loud, Barb. So you are contending that if this school land deal does not go through as is - with no questions asked - that schools in the east won't get built on time? That's a different take, I'll grant you. Further, just making sure, you don't care if we are paying 3 times the going rate for a school complex that may never get built? As long as no one mucks about with the "process"? Just want to be clear....

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And the very special continue to enjoy small private schools."

Even though you are clearly trying to derail the subject from Sal's sweetheart deal, I'll bite. Why, Barb, did I not hear you complain about the so-called private schools
during the recently adopted western school attendance boundaries? Why did you (through your silence) support even SMALLER western elementary schools and smaller class size. I assume you know that they just cut Hamilton Elementary from nearly 30 kids per class to 15 don't you? And did you not notice the "well-connected very very special people" you love to hate so much openly lobbying for MORE kids to be districted into their schools. Um...that's a call for BIGGER class size not SMALLER. Guess you missed that part. Not paying attention?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, there's a little bit of manure.

Eric, if that's how you choose to image your years-long crusade for your own small school and no big ones anywhere near you, and damn everybody else, feel free.

I can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

I'm laughing, but it really isn't funny.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, I've tried to stay out of the boundaries out west, because my own kid was busy getting screwed here, and the high school boundaries that DIDN'T get set are another potential screwing for all of Dulles.

Of course I know we have a special opt-in policy for the special schools so that they can stay open for the few people lucky enough to be served by them.

That's not news.

Don't put words in my mouth on Wheatland, Eric, even though that is your forte whenever you get into blog wars.

Answer my question: why was no action taken by the Board Tuesday after Monday's Roman Circus?

The advocacy is directed toward derailing the process, which is used countywide (although a very special one was concocted for Lenah before the staff report was even written).

Once all process is suspended but mob rule, then yes, everyone's schools will suffer including the ones overdue to serve my area.

That's the point, isn't it?

Since Dulles South was "prematurely opened for development"...back when they built Dulles Airport?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, something's been nagging me about Grubb, so I called the county and they are sending me the documents.

I didn't recall Grubb ever getting to a final vote, and I was right. It didn't.

As I said to windhunde, it went to committee from public hearing at the commission, and before it could be scheduled for a worksession, the school system withdrew the application.

There is therefore no vote on record that Wheatland is inconsistent with the plan.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice try, Barb but the fact are the facts. I heard no complaint from you in this redistricting (when you could do something about the very issue you say bothers you so much). You could have done something and you chose not to - to keep quiet. While the very people you complain about did not. You have, therefore, lost any standing to complain about these school in the future. That's what happens when you opt out of the "process" - like you are suggesting we all do on Wheatland. If the citizenry take your deep breath and Sal and the SB do not, the citizens lose their opportunity (slim as it is) to make a difference. All the complaining afterward won't amount to a hill of beans.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, That's pretty much what the article above states

There's also a rumor out there that one of their wells ran dry. They came back long after the water testing was done and drilled another well for some reason.

That doesn't bode well for the current plans, but they clearly learned one lesson: Do your water tests right after 9 (11?) days of rain.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, nice try to you too: "Why did you (through your silence) support even SMALLER western elementary schools and smaller class size."

The absence of a negative doesn't make a positive in the real world Eric, regardless of what it means in your world.

I spoke on the boundary that directly affected my own child, at the middle school level, and my cluster at the high school level.

The subject on the table with the western elementaries was how to draw the boundaries for Culbert.

I had a different boundary issue to participate in, and did.

You're confusing a budget issue with a boundary.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd be

Posted by jay.kennedy (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, I may go back and get out the well tests for Grubb again.

I heard a rumor myself that the largest farm in that area does not use drip irrigation, which I find puzzling in a sustainable endeavor, but again, I stress that is a rumor.

I'll wait till I see the old documents again, and the new ones.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, that is interesting that Grubb was never voted on finally. What happened there?

Yes, I am all for derailing this, because of the process that is typically followed, which was ignored here. No final studies and no special exception contingency, fast track settlement, at a sky high price...

The deal stinks, no way around it. It is indefensible.

I don't care about the size of any of the schools proposed--and I don't honestly see that as an issue here, but I would like to see a more reasonable and transparent process, a fairer RFP process, and I think the Plan should be strictly followed. Any contract has to be contingent on all necessary approvals to build a school at the site... to me, as I said, it is a simple issue. Follow the rules that are pretty clearly set out, and pay a fair price.

Some are obviously trying to get around the rules and assert their power in unfair ways, that is my opinion. That kind of stuff drives me nuts. We all need to operate under fair and consistent rules.

Nothing east or west, nothing about tax breaks, all of those things may be issues for another day, but not in this deal, to me.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was withdrawn before it ever got to a worksession.

When the docs get here, I'll share.

I don't think the issue is simple as some would have it seem, and that is not directed at you.

I think there is a lot of disinformation and selective information that is being so emotionally flogged that in my opinion, some of the protesters actions are not well defensible.

And that is not directed at you either.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

:You're confusing a budget issue with a boundary."

In this case, as you pointed out to me many eons ago - the boundary issue IS a budget issue. And you know as well as I the "I was busy" doesn't fly when it comes to these issues.

Now see, you HAVE derailed me from Sal's deal of the century. I can't wait to hear you post about the fallacy of this deal after its inked and we end up with a park. Oh how you will deride the so-called western elitists then....

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

From John Stevens blog:

"Prior the the School Board's approval of the contract, the County planning staff and a majority of the Board of Supervisors gave their support to all of the terms based on their review and expertise."

They are all saying there was "approval" by the BoS in an executive session... I have no idea if this really happened or not, or if it was an "informal" approval...after discussion of a potential contract, for information purposes only, something like that... but everyone is saying there was an "approval.'

Should have been a public approval, you are correct...not done in secrecy...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GGH Holdings property might be the one you are thinking of, but they're not growing vegetables for human consumption. They have almost 200 acres without irrigation, and alternate between alfalfa, soybean and feed corn. The site is also blessed with a whole bunch of springs.

GGH is the site that is currently on the market for $3.4 million, with preliminary subdivision for 38 lots.

That works out to $17,500 per acre vs. the $67,000 per acre that LCPS is paying for Cangiano/Burgess

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I'm thinking of Potomac, windhunde, but again, just a rumor. What kind of irrigation do they use, if you know?

Eric, I haven't derailed you from anything. You don't have a dog here, remember? lol

Sorry, how many eons ago did I say to you that a boundary issue is a budget issue, or is that another of the word games you play with yourself?

Eric, I have to go out for a bit, but I'll play with you a little when I get back.

Sally, I've read Stevens' blog, and the bulk of it seems to be anonymous people (or person) ranting.

"Gave their support" can be a variety of things. It might have happened in the open, in a proper meeting.

I'm thinking of the email you said Mr. Burton sent, stating there had been a vote in executive session.

Again, given Mr. Burton's strong personal interpretations of some issues, I'd like to know more about that email.

Back later, all.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, how can you justify a $11M land deal and a follow up $~200M construction (today's prices for the 3 schools) being valid based on a 2-week RFP?

Posted by sootiewebb (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, just FYI, but I was quoting John Stevens from his blog where he says a majority of the BoS approved the proposed school contract/site-- not any one anonymous... real people are saying this in their own names..apparently Sam Adamo said the same thing at the meeting in Lville, which I did not attend...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey: I am Ellen Polishuk. I am one third owner of Potomac Vegetable Farms. I own this business with Hiu and Hana Newcomb. The acreage is owned by Mrs. Newcomb (160 acres bought in early 1970's) and by me (20 acres bought from Mrs. Newcomb a few years back). This land has been actively farmed since it was purchased.

We have irrigated with trickle methods exclusively since 1992.

I am not a member of the PEC. I have never attended any other protest of any kind. Never.

Please stop attacking my business. We are an asset to this community. Plain and simple.

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sootiewebb, I'm not trying to justify the deal.

I know the money, approved by referendum for the schools to purchase sites, has been turned over to the school board to do so, and I believe this is less than half of it.

What I can't justify is the formulaic attack on any and all school sites on behalf of a process that the staff has yet to find a way to legally make what the perennial protest crowd demands it be for them.

Sally, there are several anonymous posters commenting on that blog in full rant. I read Mr. Stevens post, and again, I'd like to know more about the email where Mr. Burton said there had been a vote in executive session.

Was there a meeting of the joint committee at which a straw vote was taken? Was it in a worksession? Those would be advertised open meetings. Apparently in an email to you/his consituent list, Mr. Burton characterized this vote as occurring in an executive session?

That would be illegal, and I find it very hard to believe the Board--either Board--would be so stupid as to do that.

I am not doubting that you received an email, I'm just wondering how much of it is one of Mr. Burton's "interpretations".

Ms. Polishuk, thank you for answering the irrigation question. As I said, it is a rumor, and I'm glad to hear the answer.

What political groups you belong to are your business, and I don't recall saying you belonged to that one.

I am not attacking your farming business. As I said, I don't dispute that you've been farming for years, or that you have a significant business.

Do you truly believe that schools are a completely inappropriate use anywhere in the rural policy area?

Or primarily in proximity to the land you farm?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ma'am, i believe that any land use of this magnitude in impact, whether it be a prison, a factory, or a condominium is inappropriate for a rural area. For me, it's not that it's a school as much as such a huge complex that will rely on substantial quantities of groundwater, then reinject that wastewater back into the ground, and generally create quite an intense flurry of activity. I also truly believe that putting all three schools together is not healthy for the children and makes a bad neighbor for any adjacent landowner. It is not a reasonable expectation for any resident 5 miles from even a small town to have to accomodate a project of this scale.

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Wheatland Alliance is not just made up of farmers... it is made up of a group of residents, farmers, and other citizens (from all over Loudoun County... and beyond) that are concerned about protecting an area known as the "Agricultural Jewel" of Loudoun County. One of their main concerns is the fact that this monstrous 4000+ student eduplex project is (to quote Susan Buckley referring to following the Revised General Plan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakgLqMsj...) “...inconsistent with the language in our plan...will simply create an intensity of use that will change the characteristics of the neighborhood… traffic, public safety, light, and noise… inconsistent with the expectations of the residents of Loudoun County that reside in that community”…

The Revised General Plan was adopted by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and is intended to serve as a guide for development over the next twenty years. It is the foundation for amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to ensure the county's goals are implemented through the regulatory process. Its goals include promoting reasonable residential growth, alleviating future traffic congestion, promoting a diverse economy, protecting the rural economy, and preserving environmental and historical features.

So don't be confused... they are not against schools... and it isn't "just a NIMBY issue"... this issue is far more reaching... this "project" is not good any way you look at it... it is too expensive, too big, and too remote... just to scratch the surface of the problems...

Posted by trankovich (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Polishuk, prisons and factories are an interesting comparison to make with a school site.

A total of three schools serving approximately 4000 students total colocated on 170 acres doesn't equate to a prison or factory to me, but granted I live in a more dense area.

I have a hard time understanding why 40 or 50 acres isn't enough land for two houses in some places.

A prison, a factory or a condominium development is also around the clock activity--schools aren't.

We are often told here that five miles isn't far, and in a rural area I don't see five miles as somehow farther.

I can see your point, but the comparisons (in my opinion) are out of proportion.

trankovitch, no one likes to have the NIMBY issue raised, but please someone tell me where in Loudoun are schools NOT protested anymore?

You may be right that it isn't "just" a NIMBY issue in this case.

I'm sorry, but it looks like it is far beyond that for some.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it's probably safe to assume there will always be dissenting opinions regarding any major project. But, the process that LCPS has used over and over again expressly excluding public input until it's almost or in this case is too late is a guaranteed way to make more than just a few people upset. The Western Schools Task Force met for many months, included elected officials and citizens and made some excellent recommendations. Everything they came up with was ignored. The "process" is broken. In this Wheatland case, LCPS invented a new process that gives the public 120 days to consider a project with no scientific data, no site conceptual drawings, NOTHING but the price and the assurance that after the $11 million is spent THEY will make sure it's an appropriate site. That's crazy behavior. No other way to see it.

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not to change the subject, but the BZA recently said a 200 seat restaurant is "agricultural" as part of a "winery", and therefore exempt from getting an SE, site plan approval or even building permits! all that is required is a zoning permit to site a 200 seat restaurant facility...no fire marshall safety inspections, no building code review, no nothing, because it is "agricultural."

I certainly have a problem with that, i.e. the broad expansion of the definition of "agricultural" under the right to farm laws so that anything in a structure that resembles a "barn" is an ag use exempt from all regulation. And you can put anything agricultural on 5 acres?

Barb, so do they get a land use break for having a restaurant?

What I see is there are many problems with supporting "agriculture" with all the attendant tax breaks and regulatory exemptions as the definition of agriculture evolves. (A 200 seat restaurant would use a lot of water too...)

However, the farmers next to this Wheatland site are about as traditional farmers as they come, actually putting seeds into soil, growing food, and selling it on a fairly large scale. This is something that our comp plan and zoning ordinance has made a strong point of protecting, and there just are not that many people who do it any more. I totally support their business, and do believe that all these schools next door well could devastate them and their only source of water---so we pay 11 million to buy land which then condemns the neighbors' true supposedly protected farm operation without compensation?

Basically, I object to this based on the process of shutting the public out here with a non contingent contract due to settle in just a few weeks, the price and the language of the plan requiring the siting of schools in towns, wherever possible. I don't live over there, so not a NIMBY issue for me---just a matter of consistency and fairness in the application of our laws.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Western Schools Task Force met for many months, included elected officials and citizens and made some excellent recommendations".

farmer ellen, were any members or elected officials of LCPS included in this Task Force?

There is an underlying struggle here that has been present in all of these battles throughout the county. This struggle has to do with an attempt by some to obstruct the school board in it's attempts to exercise it's authority that is established in the Code of VA. I am in no way defending this particular plan, as I have not had any time to research it and form my own opinion.

The Board of Supervisors is an equal, not superior group of elected officials. Each has their own seperate authority.

Regarding the process, the School Board and BOS have been working on improving the process. However, until that process has been officially changed, the current process must be followed. Should people protest, support and give their comments to each group of elected officials, Absolutely! However, I read a Letter to the Editor in another paper that discussed the level of intimidation a community member and her friends felt when attending a recent meeting on this topic and it was alarming. This is why I am saying people need to calm down.

My hope is that all of this can be worked out in such a way that the current farms will be fine but that the children in the west will have schools to attend. Where is a good place to put a school in western Loudoun if not in the location proposed by the School Board?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Western Schools Task Force
22 August 2007

Members Present: Sally Kurtz, , Frank Etro, Jim Burton, Mark Nuzzaco, Tony Cockrell, Ray Whitbey, Bill Druhan,
Absent: Bob Lazaro, Betsy Davis, Roger Vance, Elaine Walker, Priscilla Godfrey, Karl Phillips
Guest: Tom Reed

document found:http://groups.google.com/group/smalltownschools/files?hl=en

Many people have been working with the new joint committee (SB and BOS) on creating the "new" process. Unfortunately while those talks were going on, the deal with Cangiano was well underway. We've asked Kurtz in particular, why the rush into this very unfriendly contract? She has no answer.

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof 2:

Only the BoS has the statutory authority to site schools. You are incorrect in your assertion that the School Board has any authority in this respect. They are ONLY given money to purchase land that will actually be used to build schools, and it is outrageous that in this instance they agreed to a contract that was not contingent on studies being complete or BoS official approval with a special exception.

The School Board is upset that they do not have zoning authority to change our comp plan and zoning ordinance to site schools where ever they want? they have full authority to decide on a price for a property but they do not have the authority to demand the siting of a school. That is the problem, and that is why people are saying the School Board is out of control.

Where you are, you need schools now, and I can kind of understand paying a big premium for land if you need it right away and are in a hurry. Where we are, the schools will not be needed for ten years. This contract price is many times the market value. I am not sure why you or Barbara think it helps you in any way to spend all this resource to buy overpriced land in western Loudoun now. We have been angry about the huge delays in Woodgrove, and the mismanagement of that project, and can understand your frustration, but what they have done out here with this contract, is just wrong.

We need a good RFP process, a fair process to evaluate sites and for public input. That was not the case with the Wheatland property. In fact, every effort was made to strong arm the process, to cut out the public and to ram this through at break neck speed, whether appropriate or not. They are "guessing" that the water issue will work out, and do not care about the comp plan or our zoning ordinance.

Just wrong.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Polishuk, re your comment of 7:32, what Momof2 has to say about process is spot on.

That was part of the problem with the first downzoning: process was not properly followed in some cases, and the end result was a court decision that voided years of expense and acrimony.

There are always complaints when property is posted for hearing, that citizens are involved "too late" in the process.

Granted, it takes a lot of work to visit county offices on a regular basis to keep track of preaps, but on the other side of the coin, someone who owns property and wishes to enter the process of seeking a use on THEIR LAND has a right to do so.

To some degree, the person who owns it comes first because it is theirs and they pay taxes on it--if they wish to enter a process it is their decision; the person who wants to buy it or is the other part of the equation comes second because in a free country, they have the right to seek legal opportunities; the process comes next because it is the regulatory format that governs the transaction and provides protection to buyer, seller, and the surrounding community; neighbors come next, and then comes anybody else with an opinion.

In my opinion--lol!

It often seems that in Loudoun people resent not being able to insert themselves not only between seller and buyer, but between the owner and their own property.

In my opinion, it is simply no one else's business FIRST if someone wants to sell their own land.

In that sense, any move toward large groups of people organizing protests FIRST is a move toward a permanently broken process.

In regard to the changing process of school site selection (which is a public service the county must provide in return for taxes--not a prison or a factory), LCPS hasn't "invented" anything.

They are participating in a change with the Board, staff and activists as a result of a complete destruction of process on the Lenah application.

Ms. Chaloux and Mr. Miller not only formed an opinion before the staff report was complete, in violation of their oaths to review applications with a fair and open mind against EXISTING regulations, but Mr. Miller took legislative action against it, again before the report was complete.

That was fuel on the fire of those who seek power and policy change far beyond where schools go.

Staff has yet to come up with any way to implement legally some of the changes demanded, yet it is now described as variously a new process that is being violated, although it is not yet adopted, or apparently as conveyed to you as something "invented".

Emotion serves nothing but to increase confusion, and ramp up the power play.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2, at the meeting yesterday, other potentially more harmonious sites were discussed that have not been looked at before. See the email from Mr. Burton:

'Thank you all for your emails regarding the School Board's proposal to purchase the Wheatlands properties. It remains my intention to address any questions you may have asked me individually. However, this will take time and I do want to quickly address the meeting today, which Supervisor Sally Kurtz arranged with Lovettsville Mayor Elaine Walker, School Board members Tom Reed and Jennifer Bergel, members of School and County staff and me.

In short, our discussions broke out into three subject areas. Supervisor Kurtz provided us with a quick sketch of the current position of each Supervisor; school staff then indicated their plan to sit down one-on-one with as many of the Supervisors as would schedule a meeting. Staff then informed us of their efforts to request an extension of the study period to July 1st. Finally, we discussed three alternative sites closer to the Town and determined that school planning staff had already directed their engineers to investigate the two closest to Town. Two of these three sites, which I raised during the meeting, have not surfaced publicly prior to this moment.

Overall, the tenor of the meeting was quite cordial. However, there was no new information presented that would change my opposition to the Wheatlands purchase. Thus, I am heartened by the news that the school's engineers will take a more detailed look at the two alternatives which would be in far greater compliance with the County's plan.

I hope this information is helpful.

Best regards,

Jim Burton"

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, re 8:52--the BoS has the power through SPEX to withhold approval of the school board's selection, so technically yes, only they can "site" schools.

However, they are not charged with projecting and prioritizing need--school boards do that. They would not be given the authority (in my opinion) to negotiate and enter into contracts, as well as hold title to land and facilities, if the process BEGAN with the Board.

If the process is changed to begin there (as it was preemptively done with Fields Farm--how well did that turn out, with the same ideological group in the majority on the BoS?), then it logically follows that Del Poisson's proposed legislation be next--schools will simply be another branch of government under direct control of our pendulum politicians.

Until we have a form of government more suited to the reality that this is actually NOT primarily a farming county any longer, I prefer to be able to vote for things like Sheriff, and school board, etc.

Sally, it apparently IS in fact the demands about RFP that are causing the most trouble in attempting to make it all public from the get go.

Think about the exemptions to open meeting under FOIA--one is to discuss acquisition of real property.

Shall that then change too at the state level, perhaps only for Loudoun, like the other bad state law that is accumulating for us just because we're so amazingly special unique and different?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"trankovitch, no one likes to have the NIMBY issue raised, but please someone tell me where in Loudoun are schools NOT protested anymore?"

When Harmony IS was built there was no NIMBY. Why? Because the citizens were part of the solution not excluded from the process. Hatrick and Adamo, however, HATE having the citizenry being involved in the process because they have more trouble controlling the outcome with them involved. EOS.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"My hope is that all of this can be worked out in such a way that the current farms will be fine but that the children in the west will have schools to attend."

We are fine out here, Barb. There is no emergency need for seating at this time - no need to rush this deal. Like you said - take a deep breath - but really that needs to be directed to Sal and the SB not the citizenry (who are about to be steamrolled).

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, re the 400-seat rstaurant: surely you remember what may to date still be the only rural economic development grant, by the 99 BoS?

A commercial kitchen was installed for two individuals (apparently also contributors, as is their individual right, but as people are fond of selectively saying sometimes, it looks bad).

It is now a value add organic restaurant, and you can't open a paper or go to a news site without ads, features, and promotions of it.

Did we get to vote on that?

Like PDRs?

Do we get to vote on how much of the budget goes to promoting that, supporting that, and other ventures?

Now that there are very few applications in the County, our massive regulatory process needs to keep busy--we just funded it for another year.

How will they spend their time and our money?

On policy, of course. There's nothing else to do.

I have seen on blogs some saying that if a real downzoning were revisited, it would "eliminate" the need for schools.

Well, no. We'd still be required to provide them for the people that live here.

A lot of them do, and they are still having kids--even some of the protesters down here.

There would still be a need for schools in the rural area even if we erected armed guard towers at the border and surrounded them with minefields (kind of like the industrial spot-zoning adjoining the transition zone in Dulles South under the 99 BoS).

In addition, if a massive rural downzoning were to be revisited, there goes the "fiscally responsible" argument right out the window. The costs of doing that (AGAIN) would be outrageous.

Another individual, a Dulles South perennial protester, has posted on one blog that the lc2007 PAC would be revived to take out the school board.

As you know, this is the attack PAC that was primarily funded with HCA money through back channels and hidden filings to take out the last Board. That's the only threat I've seen so far that this is really like HCA in any way--and is it a good idea for that individual (who was one of only three to contribute to the PAC besides HCA) to advertise that political threat?

Yes, I know there are real farms in Wheatland--there are also houses.

The parent farm of the one that Ms. Polishuk is a partner in, according to their website, is surrounded by development over near Tyson's.

I think, but am not sure, it is the truck farm referenced by some.

It is apparently doing just fine.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry - last message directed to Momof2 - not Barb.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"To some degree, the person who owns it comes first because it is theirs and they pay taxes on it--if they wish to enter a process it is their decision; the person who wants to buy it or is the other part of the equation comes second because in a free country, they have the right to seek legal opportunities"

Ah, but when the second party is a public governing body and is spending public dollars, the public suddenly can and will become involved - in this case should. Especially if those dollars are being mismanaged.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, glad to see you corrected that--for a minute my conspiracy brain was thinking, "okay, we're moving on to imply that anyone who disagrees is me in disguise?".

I see by some of the other blogs that you think Mr. Cangiano sent me here to derail the topic? I'm a "friend of Sal"? Well, when all else fails, say Munsey is paid by developers, right?

Eric, what "solution" has Harmony been able to provide since it opened but a stopgap partial middle, partial high school because of the outrageous delays of schools in the west?

Is the reason you seem to like Harmony now is that it was such a good bargaining chip for Hamilton to use to make sure they would never be considered for another school period?

I saw that you were very active during Fields as an "anywhere but Hamilton" guy, as some of those who disagreed with you were calling you.

Your business out there, but let's not pretend, for the sake of pretending everyone who protests schools really really loves them, that you have not done your own share on that stage.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, as has been noted by some in other forums, if the money has been approved by referendum, and been turned over to the body with purchasing authority to spend for the purpose, what process MUST be followed to rescind that?

Haven't they been given $25M in voter-approved money?

This is well less than half, for three sites.

Until existing process is changed and a new one adopted, how do we "just stop everything!"?

For the sake of many other agendas, like:

taking out the school board via attack PAC?

promoting state legislation to eliminate them?

adadpting the purchase and siting process to that protest can be made more efficient?

revisiting a complete remapping of the west?
(how will that be a good use of public money? The last downzoning would have made 11K out of 13K existing lots non-conforming, before the compromise so hated by some was adopted. How many lots would be non-conforming now--Not a cheap or easy fix by any means, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the schools the county must provide for the people who ALREADY live here).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why the hell does Loudoun continue to build schools on greenfield sites? LCPS does more to spur future sprawl than any other organization in the county. The schools could, should, and maybe still can be incorporated into the downtown redevelopment plan for the Town of Lovettsville.

Some people may even be able to walk to work and school! What a crazy, extreme idea. I guess it would never work in Loudoun because it makes way too much sense.

Posted by grl7 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, I am only saying you agreed to obfuscate the issue because you clearly are trying to do just that (perhaps inadvertantly if I am being charitable). Case in point - starting a spin on Harmony which I cited as an excellent example of involvement of the public in a solution (possibly the first and last of its kind) and the resultant LACK of negative reaction from the citizenry.

But to correct you - Harmony was built and serviced LONG before Hamilton entered into any negotiations with the school board regarding the HS site. That negotiation revolved around the demand by the SB that Hamilton provide utilities to Culbert Elementary after nearly purchasing Nichols and siting the HS there (and expecting the town to provide serves to THAT one as well). And for what its worth - I personally spoke very publically to the SB and BOS several time in SUPPORT of citing the HS on the Harmony site. Of course you are well aware that I care very little what "some" call me - you are familiar with the phenomenom I am sure.

Nice obfuscation, btw. Say "hi" to Sal for me.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It could also save money on infrastructure improvements, runoff prevention, and land. You would never need 150+ acres within the Town of Lovettesville for a school site. While the price per acre may be more, you could use dramatically less acreage with, (dare I say), a more urban school design.

Posted by grl7 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay Eric, I see that the talking point shall be I am paid.

Well, sorry, but I've never even met the man.

You want to play the I'm paid game? Knock yourself out.

"I agreed to obfuscate the issue"?

Really. With whom? People I haven't met?

It would be nice to say prove it, but pointless, because you really don't care when you're in word game mode.

I remember when Harmony was built.

Right after the former head of VSS, 2007 spokesperson for VLF, the guy who used to go to the 99 BoS and say "this is my board and here's what I want you to do"--gee, deja vu--spoke to the BoS and advised them to extend help to towns on utilities in exchange for their urban growth boundaries..

Whoa, next thing utilities were voted to be extended to Harmony (spawning some lawsuits from people whose properties were crossed, but couldn't tap in?) and Hamilton eliminated its UGA to shrink it to the boundary of existing built features, thereby "eliminating" growth!

I remember lots of things Eric, and I remember the meetings they happened in.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

My understanding is that while $25M has been approved by teh voters, it is still the BOS that has to formally GIVE the money to the SB. This is a finance committee issue of that step has not been taken already. Who is the Finance Committee chair, btw?

If that step has already been taken (I don't know honestly if it has or not), then it is solely up the SB to stop the process and renegotiate the contract. If they don't, the deal goes through and the people get a REALLY expensive school site or maybe even park - and almost certainly an expensive lawsuit to boot.

Like you said, take a DEEP breath before you ink this deal...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

grl7 are you talking about a complete redesign of the Main Street project? Isn't that already approved?

To avoid building a school?

What would that cost Lovettsville, and would IT spawn any lawsuits?

Who will walk to a school in the town from the rural areas served by the same schools? There will not be a lot of walkers in any rural area school.

I guess take it up with the Town Council?

I don't know if that's a "solution".

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, we can both check, but my understanding is they have the money.

Yes, I know who's the chair of finance.

Maybe that's why the story got sent out that the Board was "tricked" into voting for it...in executive session?!?

Back later.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice obfuscation, Barb. I would love to debate the reality of Hamilton's abondonment of its UGA but it really has very little to do with this issue.

Fact remains, Harmony was a publically acceptable solution to the problem at that time largely BECAUSE the citizens were involved with its conception. First and last time Hatrick and Adamo allowed that much input from citizens on a school siting issue. Fact of the matter also is that the reason they abandoned the citizen input model is that they could not control the outcome as completely. I think they learned this with the Hamilton ES renovation decision - didn't go their way if I remember rightly. Of course if it had, Culbert would be chock full of kids right now, eh?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The School Board's purchasing authority is limited to purchasing school buildings or land that CAN DEFINITELY be used as a school. Any contract for raw land has to include a contingency for zoning approval by our BoS--or it has serious legal and other implications.

In addition to the limitations that the law puts on any purchase they make, the SB has ethical and fiduciary responsibilities--which look compromised here, with the extreme high over market price and contract terms not even calling for the completion of studies or the SE in hand and some relationships.

We could blog for years about all the crazy inequities in LoCo, and wrongs done, but this is the chance to do ONE thing right--back out of a sky high priced bad deal, and respectfully go through the whole process. Either that, or if these two boards cannot work together, then maybe the whole legislative scheme needs to be changed.

Right now, only the BoS can site schools, and the SB can only purchase land contingent on the BoS giving formal zoning approval through the public process. There is no other way to share the legislative responsibilities, unless the whole scheme is changed.

The contract for the Cangiano property raises serious legal, fiduciary and ethical issues. This is another bad deal we cannot afford, and do not want. You are so fond of bringing up all the bad deals from the past, this is another boondoggle that is bad for taxpayers, and wastes our money overpaying for land we should not be buying...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, say "obfuscate" ten times fast!

Talking point.

I see you are one of the other blogs where a multiple poster has been outed, and are saying its me too.

Don't you think the admin that did the outing would have said so if it WAS me?

He knows I haven't posted there, and I'm sure he would have had no problem saying it was me if it were true.

Doesn't matter to you though, does it?

Kind of like the Hamilton renovation, when it came out of the school board approved to go to bond with the Broad Run renovation, and the HS2 and HS4 bonds.

Gee, the 99 BoS removed the Hamilton reno and sent it directly to VPSA without voter approval at a higher interest rate, leaving only three schools in Dulles on the ballot!

Funny, those two schools together are going to prove to be the cheapest school (and I use the singular for a reason) Loudoun ever builds again, especially as each school is shot down at great cost, and process is endlessly sliced and diced by mob rule.

Funny also that someone very involved in the ongoing western schools saga got involved in Lenah, and had much to say about how Freedom had jumped past HS3/Woodgrove, and now Lenah was going to be built to relieve it before Woodgrove had broken ground?

When I pointed out to them that HS2-Freedom had NOT been accelerated past HS3-Woodgrove, to their credit they apologized for the mistake.

How many IDs are they using on how many sites? Doesn't matter if you agree with them, does it?

Sally, perhaps if the process were not being derailed by a lot of "shoot first" McActivism, we could find out if they can be used for schools.

What has been the cost of viewing schools as an evil greedy development impact, instead of the public service required by law to mitigate the impact of the children of some of the very people protesting?

What has been the cost of changing process as we go along, through mob outcry?

What will be the cost of changing everything from the state down and starting over?

I think there have been too many public sites derailed through primarily YES nimby protest.

I don't think it justifies turning process over to the protesters.

Are we one county or not?

Is the Comp Plan a guideline or an ironclad bible? That changes too, even for staff and the elected. It often seems what they want to say no to.

The language "when possible" cannot be disregarded, and if it is too ambiguous, it should be changed.

The change that has been happening in the last few years has been a de facto one, where no site has been allowed to be "possible".

Yes, we could go on forever about the vagaries of Loudoun, but for me, the pattern repeating itself is not one that should be.

It is entirely political, and while I know everything IS, public services should not be, as they are really the only things government is REQUIRED to do.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will only say obfuscate ten times if you continue to do so, Barb. Case in point - your last post (go back and read - I never said you posted on TC) - doesn't matter to YOU though does it?

The way your posts read, though, you are suggesting that the process must be blindly followed with no citizen involvement no matter the ramifications. You are suggesting that our elected representatives be allowed to do whatever they see fit with no one looking over their shoulders. I think this is a recipe for disaster.

You will be the first to say "look at those western elistists with their 170 park paid for by eastern taxpayer dollars when this goes south. Well, for the record, we western elitists don't support this deal and you easterners are pushing for it - regardless of how much money is wasted.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And before you jump on it, please forgive my gross generalizations in my last post.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, you said:

"Sally, perhaps if the process were not being derailed by a lot of "shoot first" McActivism, we could find out if they can be used for schools."

I don't mind finding out (although I think the plan language is pretty clear) BUT the contract does not allow us to find out--because it requires us to buy the property first and find out later.

We have to shoot this down right away so we have time to find out...

This is not "McActivism"-- this is demanding that we do not buy the property without all the studies complete and the SE in hand. It is outrage at an outrageous price, horrible terms that favor the seller and not the taxpayer, and outrage at the rules being changed for this contract, when all other contracts (like Lenah) were contingent on SE approval...

Barb, there is simply no justification for the price. Why are we paying many times the value, rushing this deal, when the market is horrible, no one is buying large tracts, and there are a lot of tracts of land available-- AND we are not even in need of the schools for ten years? To me, there is either some corrupt inside deal, or they are incredibly negligent and unintelligent, did not ask any questions, did not do any independent due diligence, trusted too much, maybe...

Why does anyone want us to waste so many millions? No one does. The process has been broken and still is. We need to work on a better one. But one thing is for sure, what they did here, is an abomination.

Also, because you are interested in the so called "story" about a vote in exec session, I got another email, this one from from Andrea McGimsey, reaffirming there was a vote in executive session. She says in her email:

"I voted against this purchase when it was discussed in the Board's executive session."

I don't know what happened, or how, but something is not right.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"May 8, 2009 at 8:13 am

See what I mean - Preschool Mom - FOS. She/he comes on the scene the same time Barb shows up attempting to muddy the waters at the Wash Post thread. An orchestrated attempt to obfuscate. LI, Sally - stay on message and retain the higher moral ground - you guy are dead right on this one.
- Eric the 1/2 Troll"

start counting Eric: I didn't say you had said HERE that I'd posted on another blog as someone else.

You're putting words in my mouth again: I don't think what shreds of process remain after the protesters have had their way for a couple years now should be completely turned over to the same protesters.

And I don't.

As to the evil spectre of a possible future park and how much you just know I'll yell about it, think back to the glory days of PDRs: if it does end up turning into a park, at least it will have some public access, unlike that PDR gravy train we didn't get to vote on. At least we got to vote on the school money under discussion.

Sally, have you visited the Wheatland Alliance site? It has an entire page of contact info for every member of both boards and the commission.

Each government address is actually a link that brings up a pre-written letter to that official to be signed and sent, and "personalized" if desired.

That is A+ tupperware McActivism.

I've honestly thought of sending it to all those officials and saying "here, eliminate the middleman", but they know better than anybody when they're the vicitms of robo-letters.

Sally, I know you want a fair process for everyone, and consistent treatment under stable regulations.

To me, this looks as if some of the people who are yelling the loudest about a broken process have themselves helped break it, and some few of whom also receive special treatment in terms of not only enjoying the smallest and most expensive schools in the county, but have as one of their desires replication of small schools everywhere in the west.

That isn't fair treatment for everyone, and it doesn't make a good companion argument to the claim of fiscal irresponsibility against spending a portion of the voter approved money on land for three schools. How much will it cost to buy sites all over western Loudoun to create a larger separate and unequal system?

As for Ms. McGimsey confirming Mr. Burton's contention that there was a vote in executive session, I remain puzzled as to Supervisors who are blithely admitting grossly illegal acts in emails, and not to the county attorney, who was presumably present when this took place.

Sally, I don't think it ever happened.

And I'm sorry, but the fact that Mr. Burton and Ms. McGimsey said so does nothing to overcome my skepticism.

Unless of course that is the next step of the ongoing farce, and they will be opening an investigation into their own body and the school board to completely trash everything in the county.

Will they next say the FBI is coming back?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, gross generalizations forgiven, and thank you.

Although I must say after the years we've duked it out, there are certain things I gloss over naturally in your commentary, as I'm sure you do in mine.

lol

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,
If you think momof2 is preschoolmom, you are wrong. Couldn't quite understand what you were saying. And momof2 isn't Barbara, either. Whatever I post is what I want to say.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, Eric may just be trying to put it out there that we are all (whoever some of the rest of you are) an organized group for the developer, the school board, etc.

Someone apparently wrote over at the other blog under several different names, and the admin put them all up and said "pick one", which is legit.

I wish ALL sites would do that--lol!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb the "O" read your post and then read what I said:

"I see you are one of the other blogs where a multiple poster has been outed, and are saying its me too."

I did not write that you and preschoolmom are the same person - just that you showed up at the same time and both with an agenda of muddying the waters - there I used another term for you.

Nice job, btw.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Note - subject of Barb's posts include: multiple posters and management of same on other bolgs, robo-letters, PDRs, Hamilton's UGA, the deal Hamilton made with the school system, BOS voting in exec session, McActivism, financing of the HE renovation, Lenah, VSS/VLF, western rezoning past, predictions of western rezonings future, small school activists, LC2007 PAC, Ms. Chaloux and Mr. Miller... ANYTHING but why she thinks this contract is a good deal for Loudoun taxpayers. No a word on why we should pay >$60K an acre for this land. Nothing about why we should enter a contract that has no escape clause in case the site won't work as a school site.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, Sam Adamo said the board had voted on it too, apparently. Lots of strange things about all of this.

The biggest red flag to me though, is the price of this property. Why are we paying many times the market value in a declining market, where lots of land nearby is on the market, and rushing this through with a non contingent contract, when we are not even going to build the schools for ten years?

The RFP is fishy too, advertised for only two weeks ending on July 3, a Thursday, when half of the US is with family on vacation? Just seems very manipulated to "say" they had "tried" to find land near or in Lville, when it looks like they had made their minds up and did everything in their power to make happen what they predetermined to happen.

I cannot support any contract to purchase raw land by the
School Board that does not have a contingency for the approval of the zoning.

Barb, as I have said before, two wrongs don't make a right, and this is just another wrong. The School Board can cancel the contract for any reason before June 1, and I think they should do this, as the ethical, just and right thing to do, given their fiduciary responsibilities and the very large concern that this property may never be appropriate for a school.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, believe what you will about me, but even Momof2 said she had a hard time making out what you were implying.

I had a pretty good idea, given "friend of Sal", after I figured out you didn't mean Sally!

Sally, I don't and never have disbelieved that you have emails from now two Board members saying a vote took place in executive session.

Here's where I have a hard time believing what they apparently want people to believe from those emails:

First, the absolutely ironclad boundaries of FOIA on exemptions from open meeting, which this Board, the last Board, and even the 99 BoS (after the shenanigans over Shellhorn and Fields) meticulously adhere to.

Second, Mr. Burotn is either second only to Scott York in experience, or his equal--I can't remember if York has one more term than Burton. I do not believe for a minute that he is ignorant of the strictures on voting in a closed meeting. I also don't doubt for a minute that he might imply it if it were something that would feed a hue and cry, or cover a change in position for purely political reasons.

Third, closed meetings have attorneys in them--and the BOARD has attorneys ON it, one of them a very sharp former county attorney herself in Buckley. Nobody spoke up? Nobody followed code and refused to ratify the session, stating their reason at the vote for said refusal to ratify? Burton didn't speak up? And the explanation for "oh by the way the only reason I VOTED THE WAY I DID (illegally) in executive session was becuase I was tricked." Burton is neither stupid nor gullible. I just don't buy it.

Fourth, McGimsey's quoted text in your post is semi ambiguous. She's very good at that with her own career in community organizing/interactive marketing. She also, for a YEAR, got a lot of mileage out of going to the podium and complaining that the old board was just so mean to her by implying she was paid, when she was just a concerned citizen who cared, and in 2005 when the 990s were filed for the PEC, lo and behold it turned out she'd been paid $65K in salary and compensation in 2004, as one of their top five highest paid employees. I REALLY don't believe it for a minute.

Is there any reason to believe that the contract won't be extended, and more questions answered?

Not to mention give more time to organize more protest?

Is there any reason to believe that the Board did NOT authorize the release of the voter-approved funds to the school board for pursuit of this site, and some are now backing up (and implying illegal activity) simply because the circus has begun (again)?

I got the letter of withdrawal on Grubb. It never went to a vote at even the commission, other than the one to go to worksession.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara-

You are correct, it's way too late to incorporate a school into the Lovettesville Main Street plan but it should have been done from the beginning as it has been known for many years that northern Loudoun would one day need a school. You are also correct that the school will never have a lot of walkers but it definitely would have had more in town than when being located out on the highway.

Posted by grl7 (anonymous) on May 10, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

grl, I was afraid that might be the case.

Well, 20-20 hindsight, but one thing that hasn't changed (IMO) in Loudoun is the failure to address change with little other than "no".

Ten or more years from now, I wonder how many killed sites will be referred to in hindsight as something that could have/would have/should have been done?

Ah, for a real crystal ball instead of soggy tea leaves!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are there any sites available for redevelopment abutting the Main Street development? it seems that this is the most logical place to start. I use to know Lovettesville pretty well, but not anymore.

I must say I no longer live in Loudoun, or even in Virginia for that matter, but i grew up there and it is sad to see what it has become. I remember the old bumper stickers "Don't Fairfax Loudoun". If only it had become like Fairfax. I hate to say it but what Loudoun is quickly becoming is actually worse than Fairfax.

Posted by grl7 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

grl7, I grew up in McLean, back when IT had dirt roads, one stoplight, horses, cows, chickens, NO TYSONS, if you can imagine that.

The most awful way (in my opinion) Loudoun has been "Fairfaxed" is in the stupid--yes, stupid, because the definition is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome--refusal to meet change with anything but a big "no".

Why does Fairfax, and now Loudoun, have such bad traffic?

Maybe because NOT building roads doesn't stop growth?

Some of the worst offenders are those who continually move out to the bleeding edge, not for affordability but for emptiness, and drive longer and longer distances to their work in an urban or suburban setting while continuing to "feel like" they live in the country.

Guess when it stops being the country?

People are free to make that choice, but I sometimes wish they'd be more honest about it.

Public facilities are required when people move into an area, whether they like to think of it as rural or no.

Public facilities, like roads and schools, aren't built with public funds for "just us" and no one else.

Again, check with Lovettsville. The town council has unanimously endorsed this site, so I hear.

Of course, that means they are evil and must go!

Not necessarily.

The fact remains, the county in general is behind on services (primarily because of "no"), and the wastern area in particular is behind on secondary schools.

They have to go somewhere, and NO ONE seems to know where that might be.

Soem people are loudly crystal clear on where they CAN'T go, and that seems to be just about everywhere.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

There are two previously unidentified sites that meet the Plan, that Mr. Burton is pursuing with the School Board in Lovettsville. That's one reason the opt out period in the contract has been extended from June 1 until early July.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it is my understanding that the contract has been extended much longer than that, to include a much greater testing and monitoring period for the Wheatland site.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where did you get your information about the extension until the fall and the nature of the water testing? Is the extension or the nature of the testing in writing?

No one else is saying that...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard it, and would like to see it in writing too.

Then we can have fun watching people tear that apart.

A greater period of testing and monitoring, yes. Afforded by the extension.

If no one else is saying it, maybe no one else asked the question?

I asked whether there would be an extension in discussion on one of these threads some time ago, in response to the hysteria that the contract would close before ANY testing was done. No one answered, so I called some county offices and asked there.

That is the answer I heard, and I too would like to see it in writing.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, what's the story on the 100 acres on the north edge of Lovettsville, behind the library and community center?

Posted by sootiewebb (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Others have asked. It was reported by Mr. Burton that the extension was only until early July. Now TC is also reporting the rumor of a longer extension...

Originally the contract was binding to settle before any testing was complete. I think folks validly complained about this fact, and it is a good thing to complete all necessary testing before buying any property. What if the water or soil were contaminated with some sort of toxic material (not uncommon when buying large tracts) and could not meet public standards?

Not all public involvement is hysteria, some is valid watch dog. Too bad some feel they have to act like watch dogs over their money... with contract prices and terms like this one, people are justified to feel concern that the public interest has not been the highest priority.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't know, sootie.

Sally, Mr. Burton also said he voted in executive session. I'm still waiting for the FBI and film at 11 on that.

That someone anonymous is saying it at TC may only mean that someone read it here and put it there.

The original contract, which is posted a variety of places including the schools website, said the purchaser could cancel if water and soil tests showed it would not meet their needs. That would seem to be in conflict with rumors that it would settle before any testing was done.

Sally, here are two links.

One is the school website fact sheet so easily dismissed by a variety of anonymous people:

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

The other is a third party source document, on the water testing and monitoring.

It appears to contain ALL of the varying numbers on water, so misused and misunderstood in a variety of places.

It states it will be testing at State Health Dept recommended levels, which is the source of the 77K number.

It also states that actual use at Loudoun schools is less, and quotes the 17K figure.

It details the well monitoring, and process re state requirements.

Go to this link and select "EGGI's pump test plan":

http://groups.google.com/group/smalltown...

From what is circulating in relation to the document, it is almost as if the people who FOIAed it didn't read it.

Sally, if you haven't read it yet I hope you will, and say what you think.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

If you look at the contract, it gave them until June 1 to finish testing or to ask for an extension, but the extension was not to be longer than the first week in July. The testing was never planned to be complete before August. And the School Board reps told citizens they were going to settle without the studies being complete, because they could not extend it further. Now the story changes.

The school fact sheet is riddled with misinformation, and is insulting propoganda to support paying at least 4 times for a property that admittedly does not meet the plan, when there are other properties out there (they are looking at two now, previously "unidentified") that do meet the plan.

The "water" numbers and game is also insulting Barbara. Why do you care so much about playing the game, when the basic facts (the outrageous price, rigged RFP, conflicts galore, other properties could be purchased for much less that do meet the plan, the list goes on) show this is a sham and political abuse of power and waste of taxpayers. money? this is government at its worst, and you are trying to defend them... I have a lot of respect for you, but I think you are so angry at what happened in Lenah, with what you consider a political interpretation of the plan, that you cannot see straight.

You are angry you did not get your high school where you wanted it. So, why is it you cannot understand that some people actually read and believe the words of the Comp Plan that put the next western HS in Lville, and want the Plan that was publicly adopted to be enforced? You are so cynical, you will not even give the process a chance to see if there is property in Lville?

Barbara, you are better than this.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'll try a point by point again.

1. The contract: It's before June 1st, isn't it? It's before July too, and October is after August. You have suggested that I get that October date in writing, and I agree with you.

Do you have the statements supporting your beliefs about the contract story changing in writing, other than on blogs or in emails from activists? If not, how do you know what was said, when and by whom?

The contract is a source document. An extension has been sought and apparently granted before the drop-dead date to do so.

Why is that somehow nefarious?

2. Are you discussing the content of the school fact sheet, or switching to price, as is suggested in the Chavez letter available at the same link as the water study? The two properties for which Mr. Burton says the extension has been sought--do you have that in writing, other than Mr. Burton's email? You stated previously you also had an email from him stating the serious charge of having voted in executive session. I'm sorry, but communications from Mr. Burton on this may fall into the category of activist emails.

3. The water study plan is also a source document. You had previously stated that tests are ridiculously low, and mentioned a 3 gal threshold. Perhaps that is true for a well to build a house, but building a school seems to have a threshold much higher than documented use. As I have asked you previously, what specifically do you find to be superficial about these tests? Calling them an insulting game is not specific complaints about the process of testing.

4. "Rigged" RFP? Sally, your argument, and a very good one, all along has seemed to be comp plan related, other than getting back to price when necessary. Sally, you have stated many times that the law is the law whether we like it or not, and there is a proper process for changing it. On another thread you said something to the effect that my referencing the only process we have is "in my mind", which I chose not to address because I believe you are better than that.

Sally, if there is no properly vetted and adopted RFP process, how can there be a "rigging" of an unadopted process? If law as it exists is the only thing we have?

I think we've done a good job of arguing extremely vigorously without getting personal, and I intend to continue. I have a great deal of respect for you and your knowledge, and feel statements like "in your mind" and "not see straight" are not worthy of the image I hold of you.

Please tell me what you feel are the inadequacies in the testing program outlined?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, YOU are the one saying October. The contract says July. I am not relying on any anonymous internet source, I am asking YOU why you said October. The public was told that the contract could not be extended further than July and the testing would not be complete until August. So who cares about the testing? It will be irrelevant.

You don't like Burton, and I have been very angry with him, but he has never lied to me. I have it in writing from him, and that is all I said.

The law says the BoS has responsibility for siting schools, and does not give authority to the School Board to do what it has done. That should be the end of the story, but the story is so horrible, with the price, and the conflicts, and all the other gory details.

I really do not get why you are arguing so hard for this. If you have some ideas about a fair process that should be adopted, put it out there, but right now, in my opinion, any contract the SB enters into needs to be contingent on all studies being complete and acceptable, and zoning approval.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, if an extension has been granted until October, why will that make the testing irrelevant if the clause in the contract has been exercised to extend the period?

As I said to you on the other thread, the school system is one of two parties to the contract, and an official source. If and when they confirm an October extension, will you then tell me what you feel are the inadequacies outlined in the EGGI document?

I don't dislike Mr. Burton, but neither do I agree with everything he says and does.

Mr. Burton never "lies". He "interprets", and then sometimes "does not recall", or "differs" with others' "interpretations".

The law does NOT say the BoS has responsibility for siting schools, it provides through the SPEX process a check and balance on the school board's siting of them.

The SPEX is NOT part of the process in much of VA.

What the school board has done is try to do their job in a morass of protest and rumor, with a refusal by the BoS to follow existing process, and now under an unadopted process that changes by the week.

I would argue that what we are now seeing with schools is quite similar to the actions of the 99 BoS, the doppelganger of this one, in applying RSCOD and Green Infrastructure policies to public facilities before their adoption, which added millions to the cost of already-under construction Dominion HS.

It is akin to the 659 rezoning lawsuits, which were the result of the 99 BoS denying applications with staff recommended approval under then-existing regulations, because they were GOING to revise the Comp Plan.

If your argument is that the law is the law, what does that become when we are in unadopted process land?

In case it is true that the extension is until October, and I have no reason to doubt my information but agree it should be stated by an official source, what do you feel about the proposed testing is superficial or inadequate?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

We disagree on the law, which in my opinion gives absolutely no authority to the School Board to purchase unzoned property without approvals for the specific use the bond money designated.

The law requires the SB to go through a public process to site schools. And they don't like that, so they just ignored that. This is really the end of the argument. It is illegal what they have done. But they have also agreed to pay many times the worth of the property, Huge red flag that this is an insider deal.

As far as the RFP, it is not a legally mandated process like the SE and Commission Permit, but it was a legally authorized process (unlike what the SB is trying to do to shove this purchase through.)

And no one can verify if there was an extension until October-you are the only one saying this as far as I know. So what difference do water studies mean when they are finished after the settlement on the property in July? Obviously the SB did not care what the results were enough to make the contract contingent on finishing the studies.

Barb, I like you, but you are all wet on this. As a former planning commissioner, I would expect you to have more respect for the Plan language, dotting the i's and crossing the t's to comply with all mandated public process, and more respect for our democracy and law.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it currently does not require the school board to go through a public process to project and negotiate for them.

That is why I believe the SPEX is a check and balance, rather than a starting point.

You feel that should be changed, fine. But then process needs to be followed to get there.

I don't think the testing is immaterial, especially since now it would seem (once confirmation from an official source exists) that there is ample time to do extensive testing and monitoring.

The contract has changed.

Is that a good thing, or a bad one?

I like you too.

As a former commissioner, I am very well aware that the plan is either revered as a bible, or dismissed as a guideline by various parties depending on their desired outcome.

The language currently states "whenever possible". As a former commissioner, I don't disregard that ambiguity, especially in the current climate of protest.

In addition, as a former commissioner, I know that email alerts to bring out the troops bring out whoever got the email.

In a county of over a quarter million, even 100 people are not ALL the people.

I do have respect for our republic and law.

I don't think demanding that proper process be followed to change that law or process shows a lack of respect.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

You are advocating for the "process" that was employed here, the "new" "process" which is to allow the School Board unrestricted, secret authority to use funds authorized for a specific use to purchase land that might not be able to be used to that specific authorized use.

You think they should be allowed the unfettered right to use that money however they want, even if it looks like the property cannot get zoning approval, and even if tests are not complete at the time of settlement. Yes, there was a contingency that if the SB had tests that were negative they could back out by June 1, but since they were not even planning on having any completed tests until August, after the required July settlement, the contingency that you keep speaking of is meaningless.

The "change" since Lenah, is that the contract is not contingent on getting all approvals. Without the approvals in hand, we do not own school property, but may own a park. Illegal use of the bond money.

You are the one advocating for this change. The change is to avoid the public, and this means no process and no public involvement. Because it was the public process that derailed the high school that you wanted close to you.

So you advocate against the comp plan supported by an overwhelming majority of people who want the new western high school in Lovettsville. That is the population center.

You are part of a small minority here, and you think the minority should tell the majority what to do? I don't think there is anyone in support of this other than a few big whigs in Lville who are doing everything in their power, including over paying for property, to keep the school away from them.

Would you sell your home for 4 times the market value (with lots of your neighbors' homes on the market not selling at distressed and marked down prices) or 5 times the assessed value? Would you take 3.5 million for your home, when others are selling for $700,000? The conflicts of interest in negotiating this contract are contrary to good government.

There is a lot of land for sale in western Loudoun, many large already subdivided properties with actual recorded lots, in foreclosure. We don't need to over pay like this for land that they are up front in stating does not meet the plan.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, you are making a lot of statements that I have not.

No, I am not advocating for the process used here.

I agree with what have I perceived to be your position, that like it or not existing law and regulation is what we have until it is changed through a proper process.

By that belief, the only process we currently have that is valid under both state and local law is the one violated at Lenah, and thereafter trashed.

We now have a pilot program during the process of writing a new one, which there are conflicting reports from the two boards and a boatload of activists on how it's working out (apparently not well), and seems to be changing by fiat of protest.

That doesn't seem to be in line with any existing regulations at any level, other than mob rule. And in that, I feel the minority is already dictating to the majority--we have an elected school board, and we have referenda passed by many more people than have ever spoken on a school issue since I've lived here.

Sally, I have been to no meetings speaking either for or against the site.

My house is not for sale Sally, and I don't know why you are so focused on that.

The fact that there are other properties which may or may not be suitable (under code and specifications, as opposed to pleasing to those displeased with this one) for sale does not address the rights and duties of each Board operating under an unadopted process, or whether this site can be tested or even discussed productively.

It is almost as if those most vocally opposed don't want any discussion of this land at all, regardless of work done to date by both boards supposedly in conjunction, and are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The School Board has no "rights." They have a duty to follow the law strictly and to act in the public interest. I don't think this contract does that.

Amend the contract to make it legal, ie, contingent on zoning approval and completed tests-- and then there is something to "discuss." They won't do that though because there is no support for the high school in this location. People want the high school nearer to Lovettsville like the plan calls for, on public water and sewer, to support the town's economy, too. It will never get an SE.

Right now, the School board has stated they are going through with the purchase despite the broad public outrage at the ridiculous contract price and terms. No one has any problem "discussing" this site, but it looks to me like discussion was cut off at the knees because the officials did not want to hear it...

We have a very different view of the issues here. I have a great respect for those who have spent a lot of time and effort with FOIAs and public pressure to learn the truth. I don't see them as the "mob" issuing fiats, etc. I see them as doing a valuable public service, highlighting the truth for all of us to see. Truth which has been hidden by the school board, and had to be forced to light.

The fact that there are other properties on the market nearby, very comparable, for much less has nothing to do with the school boards "rights" or "duties" but has everything to do with showing how ridiculous the price and terms of this contract are.

In private industry, the person who negotiated a contract like this would be fired.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am currently an unemployed architect/urban planner. Does anyone here have an email address that I could send an image? Without any knowledge of who owns any of the land, I have put together a VERY rudimentary site plan of Lovettsville identifying possible school sites.

I am hoping this lack of knowledge may actually allow me to think "outside the box". It may be too late for any of this but thought it may be worth a try.

Posted by grl7 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, they do indeed have statutory rights and duties under code.

Several have been discussed here and on the opinion thread.

We currently have no process being followed except an apparently mutable unadopted pilot program.

Protest by a fraction of the public has driven, and still drives, the mutability of the process.

FOIA is a valuable tool, but how the tool is used determines its value to the issue at hand.

If the school board is stating they are continuing with this (where, and when?), are they adhering to the guidance (I won't say direction, because that is what one corporate body does with its staff, as opposed to another corporate body) is it because they believe what they were told by the BoS when told to proceed with the sites recommended not only by school staff, but by county staff?

Or is it because there is no other option open to them until the BoS semi-states what the new unadopted process is?

Sally, until we have a new process thoroughly vetted and properly adopted, we have little other than mob rule if procedure degenerates into "he said, she said" in a trial by internet.

Are you certain that the public pressure by some individuals is actually discovering the truth?

Or is it providing cover for a dissolution of the elected body, with (some of) the BoS to take over the responsibility?

For THEIR friends?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

grl7, who knows?

Contact the Board at bos@loudoun.gov
and the school board at schools@loudoun.k12.va.us

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Duties yes, rights no. They have no rights except for maybe personnel type rights. They are public servants, they have duty. I don't care if it has been discussed on blogs before--it is a ridiculous assertion to say they have "rights" to do some of the things they have done.

The public is not to blame for a bad process, the elected decision makers are.

Not "mob rule" but tyranny by a few powerful elected (and their bureaucrats) who want to make all the decisions, avoiding the public process, that is the problem.

We would not have the contract if not for public pressure. Is that not truth? What a horrible contract, and sky high price.

They should cancel this contract until some proper "process" is decided. Agreed? or no, you think the SB should be able to over pay by many times for land everyone agrees does not meet the comp plan based on a rushed contract to settle before anyone could complain, and studies that will be completed after settlement?

oh, I forgot, you have no opinion, you are just here to sow seeds of doubt about citizen activists challenging our government and question anyone who to opposes this bad deal? Even when the facts which have come to light make our government look outrageously negligent or even corrupt?

Barbara, you are a smart person. You are on the wrong side of this.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, although referenced in Chapter 7 of 22.1 as powers, would you characterize the ability to sue, be sued, and so on including contract for, purchase, and condemn as rights or duties?

If the current non-process is the result of the BoS refusing to follow the only one we have last year, as a result of small focused protest, then while the entire public is not to blame, some blame could certainly be said to lie at the feet of the percentage of the population that sometimes represents itself as all or most of "the public".

Sally, I have no objection to an open process of change. That is not what we have at the moment, and it was arrived at through a failure to comply with the Plan and law.

"you think the SB should be able to over pay by many times for land everyone agrees does not meet the comp plan based on a rushed contract to settle before anyone could complain, and studies that will be completed after settlement"

That's what I think, is it?

Everyone agrees?

Has the contract settled before testing is complete yet?

"you are just here to sow seeds of doubt about citizen activists challenging our government and question anyone who to opposes this bad deal? Even when the facts which have come to light make our government look outrageously negligent or even corrupt?"

Am I?

Everyone, again?

Are they all facts?

Sally, it is a lot more compelling to me to be concerned over the means used to alter procedure into its current sorry non-state. Which to me appears that it has not been an open procedure, but a continuing one of appeasing small mobs.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again with the person who claims to have no opinion on all of this!

Barb, this contract is completely indefensible, and the School Board has no "right" to enter into it. No "rights" to buy land. No "rights" to contract in this manner. Any "right" they have is a duty or obligation to do what is required of them by law. The code speaks only of public "duties" and "obligations." They have no right to waste public money on contracts for land that may or may not be useable sometime in the future as a school. And they have a duty not to enter into contracts like this.

The only attorney on the School Board agrees the contract is ultra vires, since it is not contingent on zoning approval or completion of all necessary studies. You poo poo his opinion, and put him down as a divorce attorney, but you take no position!

The School Board's atty used to represent the seller. And is interested in helping the SB shove this through. Don't let friendships (at Reed/Sm) blind you. What has happened here is wrong. Money is what is at issue here, and it is more important than honor to some, apparently.

I am not sure why you want to engage me Barb, but none of what you have brought up is related to the horrible contract that we have and the agreement to overpay by 4 or 5 times for land that will be settled on before studies are complete or before it is clear that it can be zoned for a school. Yes, the contract calls for settlement before any studies are complete. You 'say" it "might" be extended. So what? That is not what the contract says, and not what has been done to date. And the school board member says they were working on an extension, "if possible." Not a done deal at all. But can't change the exorbitant price! (or the comprehensive plan language, btw.)

I think your calling citizen activists "small mobs" is disrespectful, condescending and not helpful--they have done the job that democracy allows them to do, and it is a great testament to our country and government.

The process is broken, we agree. We disagree on who broke it. I say the people who make decisions, our elected officials, broke it, and it is not productive to blame others.

Don't you agree that since the process is broken, the contract should be cancelled until a "good" process can be worked out? Especially since there is so much land for sale in Western Loudoun, and since the need for these schools is so far out, with Woodgrove not even built yet?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, we've been around about this before.

22.1-71 would seem to indicate that buying land is an intra vires power. Is a power a right, when the duties on how to use it are delineated?

I would say the contract is voidable as ultra vires IF the land proves unsuitable for schools.

Buying land is not an ultra vires power, and you frequently seem to be stating that it is.

Today's date is May 15. The kick out clause, based on suitability, hasn't reached the drop dead date yet.

We don't know if, and how long, an extension has been sought or granted.

The testing has not been done or evaluated, and we don't know yet how long monitoring will go on.

How can an intra vires power be ultra vires right now in this instance if none of the conditions that would make it so have happened yet?

Sally, if small groups of connected protesters diseminate selective information (and in some cases lies) to leverage the process for their own benefit, as occurred with some few at Lenah, then they are not doing democracy much good, in my opinion. I have seen some selective information on this process, and it looks familiar.

I have an opinion on the way this is playing out. Perhaps after we see the results of any testing that is allowed to be done under whatever the process is at any given moment, then I'll have an opinion more specific to the particular site.

I know people who worked at Reed Smith, and a few that still do. I don't socialize with them, so what are you saying?

That I love the firm so much I'd do anything for them, or that I'm being coached or paid?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. I would have to say that I think the fact that Woodgrove hasn't been built yet is an indication of WHY it is imperative to get land for future needs started NOW.

No matter what site is selected, it may take 10 or 20 years to get the NEXT one built too!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell me the "lies" that citizens have circulated? Pretty serious charge. Let's get specific. What "lies"?

As for Woodgrove, it was bought without a contingency, and isn't that why there was so much fighting? because it was already bought, it was forced on Pville, and now a third high school forced on Pville because "wheatland" is really Pville...

After ten years of litigation, you would think the SB would have learned its lesson to abide by our Comp Plan and get agreement of the community first.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am talking about "lies" with respect to Wheatland. Not every lie that you may think has happened in the history of politics...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

grl7 - send your drawing to schools@loudounwireless.com and I'll post it for you at our Googlegroup website.

Barbara, Sorry to break it to you but any self respecting government contracting officer would be non-plussed with advertising a 2 week RFP. If you think it is valid, please explain how that timeframe encourages landowner responses.

So, why are you defending Wheatland over looking at possible options adjacent to Lovettsville?

Over the weekend (or sooner) I plan to post an assessment of LCPS' planned hydrogeol study, which was presented to the BOS by a qualified independent geologist. I agree with assessment, the planned hydrogeologic study scope is far too narrow to adequately provide adequate water resource protection.

So keep an eye out for that and more unsettling information from LCPS files, as well as responses from VDOT and EPA.

Sarah

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, Fields Farm was bought by the Board of Supervisors without thorough consultation with either Pucellville or the school Board. Being the Board of Supervisors, what contingencies did they need?

Some people actually are advocating for the BoS to take over site selection.

That is how we got Fields.

--------------------------------------

I did not say lies in relation to Wheatland. I said: "Sally, if small groups of connected protesters diseminate selective information (and in some cases lies) to leverage the process for their own benefit, as occurred with some few at Lenah, then they are not doing democracy much good, in my opinion." There were lies at Lenah.

I then said: "I have seen some selective information on this process, and it looks familiar." There has been selective information about Wheatland.

A letter in yesterday's paper suggest Ms. Godfrey want Wheatland to emulate Tyson's Corner. When did she say that?

Is a school comparable to a prison?

This week's update article in Leesburg Today still refers to Ms. Polishuk as the owner of Potomac Vegetable Farms. Why is it somehow more compelling to say that, which is not entirely true, as she is a co-owner and manager--than to tell the story printed on the PVF website?

http://www.potomacvegetablefarms.com/abo...

Granted, it needs an update because it says the Newcombes own all 180 acres and the parcel database shows Ms. Polishuk as an owner of 20 ac since 2005, but the story there is a compelling success story.

Why not tell it as it is, instead of the way it's being told?

The contract stipulates that the house on site must not be there by a date certain, and places the cost for either moving or demolition on the seller. Either moving or demolition. Why has it been said repeatedly that the school board wants it destroyed?

Future provisions in the contract are discussed in the past tense, like testing (which I don't think is immaterial, and I'm the greedy developer stooge here, remember?) and cancellation or lack thereof.

Myriad small things that add up to a repeating pattern in this county Sally.

_________________________________________

After ten year's of litigation over forcing schools onto a BoS selected site, should the BoS select a site and force it into Lovettsville when the TC has endorsed this one? Where should the BoS select a site and force it?

Where do (some of) the people want it?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For some of the lies at Lenah, as opposed to "the whole history of politics":

When they said moving the schools to Lambert would provide three schools and a sportsplex, when the only vetting process done at that time was on a previous application to build some residential, a daycare, and provide an elementary site.

A significant wetland bisected the property, and rights of way and easements would have needed to be obtained to bring utilities and roads to the site.

It was said that the road could be paved in place under the Rural Rustic Road Program. It could not, as the traffic generated by the schools proposed vastly surmounted the vehicle cap for pave in place.

Recreation indoors and out is not a permitted use in TR, so the sportsplex would have required an enabling CPAM and then a rezoning to construct, and no one mentioned this while saying if schools were built at Lenah, it "meant the CPAMs were coming back", even though the old Board took action that ensured the only way there will ever be another CPAM in Loudoun County is if the BoS initiates one.

It was stated (even by our representatives) that there were no utilities at Lenah--I guess they never drove out there and looked at them, or noticed that they received an award on the process of installation, presented at the BoS the same fall.

For a few of the lies at Lenah.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I will.

Since the RFP process is incomplete, unvetted, and unadopted, what do you think they were seeking?

I would venture that it may only have been getting owners of property to put in writing that they'd be willing to sell it for this public use, instead of having other people say "this land is for sale".

When it is said that the school board lied and said only four people entered, is that the interpretation being placed on the four presented to the joint committee after a vetting through both staffs?

Sarah, that is nice of you to post grl7's plans. I hope she does send them to the county too, though.

Sarah, as this is supposed to be a public process, I'd like to see Wheatland actually go through whatever one we currently have.

Then after testing and vetting by publically accountable bodies, maybe there will be some public information to discuss.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, I'd just like the same consideration for sites that comply with the General Plan and could afford community benefits. That clearly hasn't been the case and likely never will if this deal continues.

The Joint Committee has made it clear they intend to work toward eliminating the SPEX process, so while you talk about Wheatland going through a process, by the time they actually build the schools, the public process in place right now will no longer exist.

Barbara, LCPS' website states, "LCPS placed requests for proposals (RFP's) for land in western Loudoun County north of Route 9 in the June 18, 2008, edition of the Loudoun Times-Mirror and the June 20, 2008, edition of Leesburg Today. Four people responded representing the Scott Property, the Danner Property, the Cangiano Property and the Virts Property." They haven't responded as to why they failed to mention a fifth respondent who sent in a response on July 3. That 70+ acres site is contiguous to an elementary school. So why was that RFP response kept out of the BOS briefing packet? Particularly since it was the ONLY site that complied with the General Plan?

You didn't respond to my question about the RFP. If LCPS really wanted to know if people were willing, they would have simply sent out invitations to the owners of the 14 sites considered, in addition to advertising the RFP. However, they chose not do that. Sure doesn't seem like a genuine attempt to find out who was willing - they had already decided before the RFP even hit the papers! Some of the people on previous versions of that list (Mr. Hunter site #8) were never even asked by LCPS staff if they would be interested in selling before their property was listed by LCPS as a site "under consideration". After he called them, they took his name off.

So, again, why is it you are so interested in Wheatland?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Lies for Wheatland? Glad you admitted that. Very confusing/misleading to talk about lies on a Wheatland blog when the lies you were talking about were about another project.

I think the things you are complaining about for Wheatland are immaterial. So what if she is a co-owner and not a 100 percent owner of the land? Is she a 100 percent owner of the company that farms the land? Does she lease the land? Does it matter? We don't know the specifics of the ownership agreement, or the partnership, or if there is a lease, and it's not our business, and it is not important detail to know. It is her company, she is the farmer there, no doubt, and that is what is important.

Ms. Bergel has stated that the house would be destroyed. Are you familiar with the house? no way to move it unless you dismantle it brick by brick, not like the Loudoun Country Day School house, which could be picked up and moved. False to keep saying they "might" move it, they are not.

No one compared a school to a prison. That is putting words into Ms. Polishuk's mouth... I heard what she said.

The testing is being discussed only because it is not slated to be complete until after the contract settles. There is no selective information there. The contract has been repeatedly referred to for anyone to read in its entirety at the webpages set up by Wheatland opponents.

The problem with the contract is it is due to settle soon, and before studies or the SE. Nothing misleading there.

Maybe it is you who is taking things out of context to accuse good citizens wrongfully here in the Wheatland case? I don't like that tactic.

Have you seen all the misstatements and changed facts by the School Board? "Bill Chapman has not represented Cangiano for at least 15 years." No, he represented Cangiano in 2005 in litigation and up until he first went to work for the SB in 2006. Misinformation? Intentional? there are lots of examples.

People like Sarah Stinger have done an unbelievable job to protect the public interest in this one sided, sky high priced contract for land that may not even be useable as a school, without the SE in hand, with the comp plan against it, and with no idea what the necessary impact studies will show until way after we own it... I honestly do not see how you can continue to argue about the merits of this, the whole thing is so wrong..

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, did it occur to you that the name Potomac Vegetable Farms may be the name of the business, so when she said she owned that, she meant the business? not the actual "farm" as in land?

This is an older computer and has me with a different user name, not sure how that happened...

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I'm interested in Wheatland as a continuing pattern of schools that die by protest.

Small, vocal, sometimes interconnected protest.

I am not as convinced that this is as indicatative of a need for the BoS or the protesters to take over the school system as it is of seeing public service as something to be abhorred, unless it is exactly what I-the-protester want, just for me-the-protester.

As Sally says, the law is the law, until we properly change it.

It isn't being changed properly.

As there is no fully staff vetted RFP procedure that has been adopted (or not) through an open process, what exactly did you expect?

It will be interesting to see where this all ends up. From past experience with the 99 BoS, and watching 12 and a half years of orchestrated protest, the tea leaves say it may not be a very good place.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, the first time I heard about PVF was from the other side of the dais during Grubb.

A woman testified that she had a 180 acre farm that she had been farming since the 90s, and I thought "this is one of the real ones".

(I say real because you know we are in some cases liberal with the use of the noun "farm" here.

I went into the parcel database after the meeting in preparation for worksession (which never came) and began to look at both how many parcels had occupied improvements, or were single owner.

I wanted to see how close "right across the street" was for the many who had testified to that effect, I wanted to see the 180 ac farm in relation to the site.

I never found more than 20 ac under the name, but I did find the 160 adjoining it occupied by the seller of the 20.

I wondered why it was told that way then.

I read some of the PVF website after the BoS testimony last week, and found the history section I posted a link to.

Why NOT come in and tell the real success story, about always wanting to be a farmer, apprenticing with the owner, getting a degree in horticulture, managing the large farm, and culminating in buying her own farm?

Then say "I am concerned because of this, this and this, and I am asking you to protect me as you move through this".

Very different impression than "you will be pilloried".

As for price, why does everyone keep saying Cangiano is getting 67K per acre? That is the average price per acre for the site as a whole. The other seller is getting 147K an acre, and Cangiano is getting 62K.

I'm not saying the other seller should now be attacked, reviled, and accused of conspiracies.

I'm saying quoting a higher price per acre for "the greedy developer" and not even mentioning the other is again a selective telling of truth.

What's most wrong is trying to change the rules as we go along (by the BoS). Then there are no rules, and that's the point which has ME concerned.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

Funny how you were the only one who knew the contract was going to be extended. The school board members weren't sure, but you were. And how you claimed that water is the only issue, and now lo and behold, the contract is being extended so water testing can be completed?

Why are you blogging for Mr. Cangiano?

Is there still going to be a period of time where the buyer can back out in its' sole discretion (very broad cancellation clause in the existing contract) or with the extension can the cancellation only be because of the (inadequate) water testing they are still trying to complete? So if the water is ok, they have to settle? I am sure you know the answer to that,,,or, just ask your friend.

The contract can still be challenged. They can use the template for the lawsuit Reed Smith helped me with. And Judge Horne will help them, even if they are pro se. He likes pro se litigants. And he is a true conservationist who appreciates the rural policy area and ag districts. Ask Reed Smith.

Those horrible citizen liars. It's ok for the School Board to lie A LOT, big lies, and for you to twist all the facts around.

Poor Barbara, can't figure out why the discrepancy in price. GEE. What a mystery. I am sure you know that the other seller actually does have recorded lots, unlike the representation that the school board made about Mr. Cangiano's lots.

First I thought you were just upset about Lenah, and blinded by loyalty to folks like the Reed Smith partners who supported you and were so nice to you, who helped you out, and gave you informal advice. I believed you were bright, honest, principled.

Sorry, not any more. Have fun at lunch Monday.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah,

In my opinion, the RFP process was legally authorized, so it complied with the "law is the law." I don't know why Barbara keeps insinuating that I said that was not legal. Please stick to quoting your own opinions, Barb.

What is blatantly illegal is the school board purchase contract. They are authorized and duty bound under strict rules to buy land only for school purposes, and for very specific schools under the bond voted on by the public.

Especially given Grubb and Lenah which are the only precedents interpreting whether a school can be sited in the rural policy area or the "rural" area of the transition zone, the Wheatland siting would not be legal. So what are they buying? a park? they can't do that. And they can't bank on changing the zoning ordinance either. They have to buy land that is zoned or their contract has to have a contingency for zoning approval.

The School Board has a duty to the public that they are breaching with this contract, and they should amend it to make it contingent on all zoning approvals.

The BoS needs to step in and take control, or they are just as blame worthy.

They need to vote on this to tell the SB that the contract must be contingent on all zoning/SE/commission permit approvals, or it must be cancelled before June 1. They should not agree to extend it, even with a reduced price, without the contingency for a special exception.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 1:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I find it interesting that you are accusing me of "having friends at Reed Smith" and am blogging for them, then go on to discuss your friends at the same firm, and how they will help you.

In my opinion, you have not been consistent with this.

No, Sally, I understand the discrepancy in price. The difference between $62K and $147K per acre shows what land will cost after everything in the rural area gets recorded in lots so property owners can insure some value in their investment in a constantly changing climate of protest (whether they want to sell for schools, houses, farms, equestrian centers, or just be able to retire when they're ready).

What I do not understand is why the average price per acre for the entire assemblage has been attributed as being paid to one seller at 67K, as an example of the greedy evil developer getting too much again, when the rest of the assembly is getting over two times that.

It's part of that selective and leveraged truth telling I've been concerned about in Loudoun protest, since I've moved here.

Speaking of that, have you no other argument now than that I must be paid or coached?

How did I "know" the contract would be extended? I didn't. Recall that I said I heard, and agreed with you that I wanted to see it in writing.

It said an extension was being sought on the LCPS website, but everything there is a lie?

I called county offices and asked if there was one being sought. (I didn't issue a blanket FOIA of every government official for the past six months, threaten legal action, etc. And I don't mean that YOU did this. I called a few offices and asked. As a citizen.)

Now it is in writing. Why does that seem to make you angry, to the point of making baseless insinuations? You know better.

How was the RFP process legally authorized, if staff hasn't finished developing it yet? Then that must mean the pursuit of this property was authorized as it is being done, since it was authorized in the same way as the RFP. In a make-it-up-as-they-go joint process, driven by citizen protest.

It looks like there could now be thorough testing on water. If the kick out has also been extended, then there's a good chance that it will be clear whether or not the land can be used for schools before any settlement date.

Are you angry about that too?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, you have lost all credibility here.

A one acre lot is assessed at $150,000 that is $150,000 per acre. A three acre lot is assessed at $200,000. That is about $70,000 per acre. A twenty acre lot is assessed at $300,000, that is $15,000 per acre. And plenty of larger tracts are assessed at between $8,000 and $10,000 per acre. Some with preliminary approval. Because preliminary approval for subdivision is filled with risk and it is very expensive to finish the subdivision so you can sell the lots individually. You have to build roads, and Cangiano would have had to spend millions to finish this subdivion.

The other ten acre total landowner had several three acre finished lots and his home, which was also factored into the price (which I agree was a high price too.)

But the real outrage was that the School Board agreed to pay Mr. Cangiano millions more than he had just paid to buy the property two years ago at the height of the market. And there is a lot of land for sale, right there in Wheatland, not selling, for more like $15,000 an acre--one 200 plus acre site with 38 preliminarily approved lots (on the market for 3.4 million)

A former planning commissioner, who takes so much time to research and quibble about the exact ownership of Potomac Vegetable Farms, looking her up, pretending like it makes a difference if she owns it all or some of it, and you play dumb on this?

This contract has every evidence some sort of insider connection, You have been leaking details that no one else knew from the sellers side (there would be an extension, etc.) and you are obviously here blogging for Mr. Cangiano.

Times are tough though, for former planning commissioners too?

A former planning commissioner who has no respect for the law, for our comp plan, or for the blatant misuse of our tax money in a very very suspicious contract. Over paying by a mile, no conditions on full tests or getting all necessary legislative approvals, SE etc.
A former planning commissioner pretending not to know that larger lots sell for less per acre than smaller lots, a former planning commissioner thinking it is no big deal to pay as if all the improvements had been installed and the lots recorded, blurring the difference. Pay more than even what recorded lots are on the market for...when large recorded subdivisions are beign foreclosed on. Shame.

I do think you are on the payroll because I cannot fathom why you would spend all this time nit picking nothing, trying to make issues over nothing, and ignoring Huge issues, Huge lies by the SB, and what looks like complete negligence or even corruption that is staring at us...He made a bad deal just two years ago at the height of the market, and he is desperate to unload this land. He does not live there, he is just a speculator, with the right friends. Wrong.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I too will cross-post my reply from the other thread.
Two things I will stress, (and I will reply to your points later--my son and I are rearranging his desk) is that you know better, and 1:45 a.m. isn't necessarily the best time to post on the internet.
--------------------------------------------
windhunde, the comp plan does say "whenever possible". The ongoing discussion will no doubt prove where "possible" might be, including nowhere.

Sally, post the time stamps on your other posts too.

Sometimes 1 in the morning isn't the best time to hit send.

As I said to you on the other thread, this is beneath you.

I will point out that, over the years on this site and on a variety of issues, you have demanded that posts be removed and threatened legal action if ANYONE has even inferred a connection or impropriety about you.

I have no intention of doing that here, but suggest that as a trained attorney, you do know better than to accuse people of the things you are accusing me of.

Are you so invested in this that anything is just further proof of a bigger conspiracy?

It seems that one of the goals of the conspiracy theorists is to have no information be taken as credible other than their own.

Which could be quite effective if the goal is not water, price, plan, or anything else it jumps around between, but what I said it appeared to me to be some time ago: taking over the school system, by the BoS and the protesters.

It also seems apparent that this is only a matter for all citizens who agree with the conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else is obviously on the payroll and being coached, right? The conspiracy runs very very deep--right to the New World Order. That's who I'm really working for, but only as a low level stooge.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is way far off the reservation. Legally too, as you know, since if I were saying comparable things about you, you'd have already contacted the site and threatened legal action.

I'm going to chalk it up to one in the morning.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, did not like what I said about the price of land in western loudoun, and your absolute lack of any good facts, just continual meaningless drivel.

This deal stinks of corruption.

Are you part of it? Who is your 'source" that you were checking with about the contract terms? County employees, yeah right.

Even the School board was not saying what you were saying at the time you were saying it.

You got a source alright.

A paycheck too?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Sally, I'm not paid, but that would be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

As I said, since everything the school system says is a big lie, it must be a lie that I heard it by calling offices there.

When did I say I was checking contract terms?

I said I called and asked about an extension, whether it was being sought.

The first time I called, over a week ago, I was told they were seeking one.

That is confirmed on the fact sheet, but since that is a big lie---

I called a couple offices at the school system this past week, and asked again. That's when I heard there was one.

I said it here, and you responded somewhat angrily that you hadn't heard that, and you found it very odd that I had since the BoS was keeping you informed and no one intimately connected had heard that.

I agreed with you that it should be in writing, because until it was, it wasn't real.

Is that what this is really about? If so, it's way too personal for some of you.

I admit to needling you a bit, saying that the BoS wasn't a party to the contract.

Since that leaves the school system and the seller, how funny (but not really) that you would now assume I heard from the seller, who must be paying me.

Since everything the schools do is a lie.

The whole school board, too, except for Mr. Ohneiser?

Since all the rest are big lying developer tools in service to Dr. Hatrick who must go and an attack PAC is being formed this weekend to take them out (except for Mr. Ohneiser) and turn the school system over to "the citizens".

But only a few of those intimately connected citizens?

Gee, looks like I'm straying into conspiracy land!

As I said, if anyone else had said even one tenth of what you are accusing me of, about you, you'd be threatening legal action and the posts would already be gone, and an apology to you in writing would be being drafted.

No, I am not paid. I won't say prove it, because what would be the point?

Perhaps the intimate circle should consider using FOIA as a way to actually become informed, instead of as an adversarial tool to select inflammatory propaganda from.

But that might interfere with what appears to be the actual goal of some.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I can "kind of" understand how the School Board might be clueless about land development issues, price, the comp plan, the zoning ordinance, and how they might just trust staff to do a good job. But you have sophisticated in depth knowledge of our Comprehensive Plan, our Zoning Ordinance, our development standards, the difficulty and expense of our development process, the risks, etc.

For you to try to blur the difference in price between preliminarily approved lots shown on a prelim plat, and actual recorded lots where the roads have all been built, storm water installed, engineering done, bonds, costs of just county review fees in the thousands... It is wrong.

There is no justification for the price the SB originally "negotiated" millions above what he paid at the height of the market. And now, because he realizes the jig is up on that ridiculous price, he is willing to accept what he paid for it at the height of the market. Oh boy what a good deal for the taxpayer. There is no justification for paying him what he paid at the height of the market just a few years ago, when prices of everything has dropped so dramatically, and no one can sell big tracts in western Loudoun.

I can understand that the SB may be clueless, but not you. For you to come on this blog and try to spread misinformation about the smaller ten acres, that really was subdivided into recorded lots, was the final straw for me. You are not interested in the truth, or the public interest.

Yes, you did blog that the contract was being extended for water testing before anyone else reported it. And when I asked you if it was in writing, or who told you that, you started to back peddle, saying no one else was as smart as you to ask, blah blah blah.

And for you to say that the plan language "if possible" should be ignored because of course you know it is not possible, more BS. Arguing about "rights" of the School Board, more BS. As a former planning commissioner I would hope you would have more respect for our laws, our public process and OUR PUBLIC. You are no better than those that cut themselves special deals, or those who unfairly punish others by bending the rules. We need consistency and fairness, not BS contracts like this one. You need a moral compass here. It's stuff like this that makes taxpayers not trust any public official. Maybe you were a public official too long, and now are addicted to spin it for friends instead of fighting hard for truth and fairness.

I don't believe a word you say now. Sorry.

This is an incredibly bad deal for every tax payer.

The contract should be cancelled.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I see a conflict between being being both a repository of sophisticated in depth knowledge and meaningless drivel at the same time.

Read back, Sally. I did not state it was being extended for in-depth water testing.

That is another rearrangement of words to suit what you currently believe, rather than know.

Neither did I try to spread misinformation. I asked why the rallying protest cry was quoting the average price, rather than the actual price, being paid to one seller, and no mention was being made of the actual price being paid to the other.

I went on to say this was one of the small details that make me doubt some of the more sweeping conclusions that, of course, have no proof because of the ever-growing conspiracy.

As I said with FOIA, it can be a tool to actually gain information, or a weapon for those who actually seek nothing of the kind.

What-if:

Citizen goes to county office, says "Since everybody knows this big secret thing is happening, I demand that you give me all of the evidence which I know exists, because I'm entitled to it, and if you don't cough it up I'll sue you."

Staffer says "What exactly do you want?"

Citizens says "Aha! I knew you'd stonewall me!"

And it goes downhill from there with the non-communication providing "proof" of an even bigger, more insidious and all-encompassing corruption.

A self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

Like I MUST be paid.

I also never said the plan language "whenever possible" should be ignored. I continue to disagree that the plan really says "must always".

I continue to believe that for some, no site will be allowed to be possible until they get what they personally want, which for some of the coalition operating on this, may actually BE nowhere.

Dismiss it as blah blah blah if you like, which you have always seemed to enjoy when people say it to you.

As for the extension, it still has not been confirmed other than it is being discussed, if the PDF scan posted on other sites is all there is.

I also never said I was the only one smart enough to ask about that. (What an interpretation!)

The only thing I may have done differently was ask one specific question politely.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>> Like I MUST be paid.

By the word, apparently.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there is such thing as a wordburger Babs would be the Wordburgler.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, you are down to making up conversations now to belittle bona fide FOIA requests.

On Stevens blog you said you were not for or against this school location, but you are the ONLY one here typing incredibly long false innuendo obviously in favor of the Wheatland deal.

If anyone has time to look at all the FOIA docs and timeline at the smalltownschools site Sarah set up, it is incredibly revealing about how the School Board made low ball offers to the Millers, and threatened condemnation, when the Millers had offered to sell for a really reasonable price. The School Board would not agree for example to the $50,000 down payment the Millers requested, and would only agree to a $10,000 down payment. But for Cangiano, they contracted at more than 3 times the price per acre and gave a $250,000 down payment. If you read through the docs, none of it makes any sense why they ended up with such an expensive contract for Cangiano, after other very reasonable offers from properties that would meet the plan.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'm sorry, but after the accusations you've made about me, giving an exaggerated example (which I don't recall saying really happened) of the kind of behavior staffers and officials have to put up with sometimes, you're doing some pot and kettle here.

I do have to laugh though at you complaining about the length of my posts! I'd say we may be about tied.

Haven't the Millers put on the record that their property is not for sale?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Millers tried for several years to sell their property to the School Board, but were treated miserably. It is all outlined and documented, all the offers and counter proposals, on Sarah's smalltownschools site--

I guess you are not willing to read or acknowledge the FOIA information that Sarah fought so hard to get.

You just want to belittle the public process and people who ask for FOIA docs... because you have a "source" and ask "politely" and get information that is not even being released to members of the BoS or SB! and they don't charge you for FOIA searches, because well you are a citizen, just a citizen. Wow, that's some kind of polite.

As polite as you are slamming the citizens who have questioned the school board, its lies, its tactics, its outrageous deals, here?

Hard to believe Barb.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is no wonder the Millers told LCPS to pound sand. The Millers were offered 143% of assessed value for land that complies with the plan. Exactly a month later, Mr. Grubb was offered a whopping 320% of assessed value for a parcel far from any paved roads. LCPS treated the Millers horribly.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I have read the timeline, and the gaps are filled with a great deal of speculation. The last reference to Miller (most of which were in 05 and 06) was the reference in Dec 07 of the neighbors approaching Miller about withdrawal. It is withdrawn, so no longer on the table.

In addition, asking one question and getting a verbal answer (unconfimed still, other than the letter making the offer posted on a nonofficial site), is very different than paying for staff time or broad document searches going back years.

They don't charge you for being able to say "we're trying" and "yes".

How polite are the questions, the protests, and the accusations?

Keep pounding the source Sally. It is called calling the county.

I am not belittling the adopted process; I wish we were currently operating under a properly adopted one. The current climate lends itself to nothing other than mayhem, which as I've said many times, may be the point for some.

windhunde, I don't personally know how either of those owners feel about that.

Both were over assessed value, and neither is on the table at this time.

It will be interesting to see how the new assemblage and Crim factor into the ongoing non-process. As both adjoin incorporated towns, we may have two new versions of Woodgrove here, what with one of those towns already on record supporting Wheatland (unanimously by their TC?), and one facing severe commuter traffic issues for which they are in the process of instituting traffic calming.

We'll see where it goes.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, a Milltown Rd resident confided in me that she corresponded with Mr Miller (Christmas cards) and told him he could write a letter. If you don't believe me, just send me an email and I'll give you her name so you can check it out yourself. I don't fault her for that, it was her right and frankly a smart thing for her to do because she honestly saw a megaschool across the street as a threat to her quality of life. The Miller's land is by all accounts definitely off the table, that is for sure. But the story told reveals a bias, plain and simple. When you have a bias, other sites which ARE available and have willing sellers aren't given fair consideration. According to the 2007 LCPS appraisal:
http://smalltownschools.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Cangiano paid $34.6k/acre in 2007. Now he is willing to sell it at his cost of $47.5k/acre "for the children". LOL. Give the man a medal of honor for his selfless generosity.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is something very off about the appraisal to me, linked in the post above.

First, all the beautiful homes and other improvements on the 550 acre property, worth quite a bit, are averaged into an average acre value, of $34.6 per acre for the sale price to extrapolate the value of the raw land. That's not right. The actual price of the land should have attempted to exclude the improvements, and then the land should have been averaged--and the average would have been a lot lower.

Second, he met with Cangiano, then drove by the property a few times to do the appraisal. He did not know how many more wells needed to be drilled, or how many more septic sites needed to be located. He stated that Cangiano had 36 lots, as if that was a done deal, and does not mention that there would be any costs or risks associated with finishing the subdivision so lots could be recorded.

It looks like he appraised the subdivision as if Cangiano was ready to record the lots the next day, a complete misunderstanding.

Having watched land values in western Loudoun, the appraisal is twice what I would consider to be a fair price. And it is strange that the School Board's own appraiser would appraise land so high. You might expect that from the seller's appraiser, but the buyer's?

Lots around an acre were selling at around $150,000 before the market crashed (now three acre lots have sold at auction for less than that) and the 16 acre lots would have sold for around $300,000 (if he was lucky.)

For this appraisal, he is saying the 100 acres had 4 sixteen acre rural economy lots (total value 1.2 million) and 15 lots under two acres (total value 2.250 million.) That means that the total for the property IF THE LOTS WERE RECORDED would have been around 4.450 million (and the lots were not recorded.) In 2007, there were one acre finished lots for sale in Hamilton for $115,000 that had been for sale for over a year, and I believe are still for sale. Did he look at what was on the market? what are this appraisers comps? I do not believe that any sales support this value.

This appraisal raises a lot of troubling questions to me. It would be interesting to see just what he relied on in coming up with his figures, which are out of sight.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, you're missing my point in the comment. Here is what was on your timeline yesterday (I don't know what's on it today, I'm getting a message the document was modified and it won't open for me):

"Christmastime 2007 Milltown Rd neighbors contact Mr. Miller and informed him he could remove his property from consideration by writing a letter to LCPS."

I don't dispute that that may have occurred, and don't need to know who did the communicating and what was on the Christmas card.

I'm saying that the site and the content, no matter how much FOIA material you've got there, has so much else mixed in that it can't be substituted for THE official source, just as protest is not a substitute for process.

Sarah, you do know the seller is quoting the Comp Plan in the paragraph you're making fun of, right?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, How do you defend an appraisal that was done by the School Board which has no sales or other data to support it, and is sky high? not supported by any sales? Don't most appraisals include comps? with pictures? actual sales to support value?

Since you are not answering my questions on the other thread, I will repeat them here:

You don't want to look at the Millers' offers to sell that were turned down? Why, because that makes the School Board look bad? because the Miller offers met the plan and were 1/3 the cost of the Cangiano property per acre? Because the School Board threatened to condemn the Miller property if they did not come down in price, and then threw a very rich offer at Cangiano?
You didn't answer my questions.. I will repeat them:

How can you explain the differences in the way the property that met the Plan was treated as opposed to the Cangiano property?
How can you explain that other properties that meet the plan are ignored completely?
How can you defend what the School Board has done?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)