Thank you Ms. Godfrey.

We keep hearing over and over about a "broken process".

I think it broke during Lenah, when Ms. Chaloux and Mr. Miller took action against the application before the staff report was written, including legislative action initiated by Mr. Miller.

We hear about "listen to the people".

More people spoke FOR Lenah than against, and FAR many more people voted FOR the HS7 bond, AND to purchase land for the schools now being protested, than spoke on the issue of either one.

When these school sites are killed (as was Grubb too) by protest, I think we can count the process as dead--broken by protest.

Perhaps the beginning of the end was the purchase of Shellhorn and Fields back in 2000--so much for the Board selecting sites.

I have even lower hopes for site selection (and cost) once the people who destroyed the system through protests of any and everything have it totally under their own control.

We won't see a school built anywhere in the county until the Board of Supervisors changes out again. Why, maybe that's the point!

Best of luck to you, and a very happy Mother's Day.

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

Perhaps if Ms. Godfrey cared enough to attend the April 29th community meeting in Lovettsville, she would have discovered that the site is quite a bit more than 3 miles south of the town that it is suppposed to serve. Instead, it is closer to Purcellville.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 10, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, out of curiousity, I looked up the 2007 election results.

We keep hearing "listen to the people". 50, 52, 56 people can speak for themselves, and that's fine.

They aren't ALL the people.

Neither are the people who voted in 2007 ALL the people.

But more of them voted FOR the money to purchase land, which is NOT being exceeded, than did not.

34,668 people voted FOR the purchase of land for these schools.

That was enough to get the financing authorized, and the money has been turned over to the school board to buy land.

Now, WHERE in Loudoun county is the land that is avaiable, suitable, and ACCEPTABLE to the 52, 54, 56 who spoke against this particular piece of property (not all of whom live here, own property here, vote here), that 34,668 who VOTE here authorized money to purchase?

Ms. Godfrey has lived here for a long time. I would bet she knows EXACTLY where the land is.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2009 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To imply that Ms Godfrey does not know where this school site is is silly. That is the type of argument that certainly does "muddy the waters" in these efforts to locate public facilities. I do not mean to single out windhunde - it seems that most who oppose something engage in that kind of suggestion.

I think it is a bit ironic that people are upset that this location is not right in Lovettsville - that the some of the students may have to travel 6 miles. Do you know that there is a high school boundary in the Ashburn area that would send some students to a school approx 6.5 miles from their homes when, for some, there is a school right across the street and for others, less than two miles away? In the suburban area, the expectation is that the schools your children attend will be fairly close to your home. In the rural area, due to the fact that the population is more spread out, there is an expectation that children will have travel a greater distance. It sounds to me like the children who will live in the 2000+ units that are approved, would actually live much closer to the new schools. The school board is trying to plan ahead. They have a willing seller. IS there a willing seller in a location closer to Lovettsville, with a better price, with all the necessary features and size? In other parts of the county, the school board is being criticized for not having enough school sites and yet every single site they have brought forward have had vehement opposition by some people.

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

Some might consider it highly significant that Ms Godfrey didn't attend the April 29th meeting, considering. Mom. Go to the meetings. Meet the people. Come see the roads.
.
Please don't sit back at your keyboard and parrot the opinion of those who actively strive to further the East/West division in our county.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AFF3. I do attend meetings. Watch webcasts. Read articles. I am highly offended that you would accuse me of "parroting" the opinion of others. You know nothing of me and the breadth of my experiences other than a few comments here and there.

The east/west division? I was told by another blogger on this subject that this has nothing to do with that. I certainly don't wish to contribute to the bad feelings, but I don't know why these comments made by me would fuel that fire in this case. If you are saying that simply by expressing my opinions I am adding to the East/West divide, maybe there needs to be more tolerance for others with differing opinions. Did you actually read and try to understand what my point is? I find that people who disagree with others in these blogs tend to dismiss them as dumb, uninformed, etc etc.

I did not say this is the right site. I am saying we have a real problem in this county right now trying to find sites for schools that can be approved because there is always a very strong, vocal, and powerful group opposed to every single one.

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

aff3, question for you: do those who protest schools as "megaplexes" inappropriate to the west strive to further an east/west divide? We don't have two different schools systems with one set of rules for those with one kind of zoning and another for others.

Making one and implementing it won't save any money, either!

Momof2 is spot on with the distance question. Truly completely rural counties often have ONE central high school, usually in the county seat, that everyone is bused from the four corners of the county to attend. Like Loudoun USED to, a long time ago.

You have to go back farther than that to the days when each far-flung hamlet of habitation had its own little school.

This is the 21st century, the county has over a quarter-million people in it of all ages living in all types of communities, and the biggest east/west divide I see is the argument that communities in one part of the county are deserving of different treatment.

The argument is often made by people who bought a new house that contributes to the need for schools, and claim that they need that different treatment because they live "in the country", often while commuting to jobs far from their homes (and then protest road improvements too).

Several public processes have been broken by protest, and schools mitigate the impact of the very people who protest.

They have to go somewhere, and until we get a green grant (of our own tax dollars) to implement mag-lev school sites, schools will be on LAND. Sometimes even LAND in the west, which has the worst make-do situation at the secondary schooling level in the county and has had for years---because of BoS site selection in a vacuum, and PROTEST.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2, I'm not complaining about the distance the kids will have to ride, I'm questioning her accuracy. The site is somewhere between 4 1/2 and 5 miles from Lovettsville, depending on who is making the claim, and where you're measuring from. LCPS says it is 4 1/2 miles on their fact sheet. As Barbara says, I'm sure Ms Godfrey knows EXACTLY where the site is. Why would she claim it is only three miles in her very first sentence?

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a quick check of county database seems to show that the 99 acres on the west side of 287 are being taxed at the land use value = it is being "farmed" right now.

Is that right?

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Polishuk, maybe it is being leased to someone who grows hay? Since the lots on the proposed school site are unrecorded, is it in "open space"? That's all legal, even if the owner is a developer.

Plenty of people who own land keep their taxes down by leasing to people who farm, but can't afford land.

I notice, through a check of the parcel database unchanged since the Grubb protests and killing of that site, that Potomac Vegetable Farms is 180 acres, with 160 owned by someone in Vienna who also has a farm near Tyson's, and 20 acres purchased by you from that individual in 2005.

As recently as two months ago, you referred to all of it as your farm.
http://leesburgtoday.com/articles/2009/0...
Whether you own it all or manage most of it for a partner, it is all in legitimate land use under current regulation.

Current regulation, in my opinion, makes little differentiation between those who bring forward products from the land they own or lease the use of as a majority of their gross income (as I believe you do), and those who are benefitting from rules that have done little to adapt to the massive change that has occurred in Loudoun.

Witness this special article in the Washington Post by a retired former Post editor, who details that his 20 acres must keep at least 2 cows to maintain his land use benefits.

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

Is he "farming"?

I would welcome an honest discussion of the regulations, so that people who farm for most or all of their living don't see their land taxed out from under them, and people who do the least necessary to keep their sweetheart tax deal see a much smaller benefit.

That might go a long way to eliminating a portion of a continued eat/west divide.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

Two steer are not enough to qualify 20 acres for land use. The state sets the standards, with animals per acre, and the state has a board who sets the agricultural value for ag land for assessment purposes for the whole state. Any change in land use standards/valuations may involve change at the state level....

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey
i'm not sure i've entered all the correct PIN numbers for the Cangiano site, but i was just saying that from the eyes of the government it is still considered farmland, which Ms Bergel and Ms Godfrey keep insisting it isn't. No actual farmer lives on the land. I think Cangiano is the "farmer" himself.

Posted by farmerellen (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Godfrey,

I don't think the kindergardener is thinking of much except lunch and play time. As for the unborn(?) kinder, they don't have a vote yet. Until you get a law passed that will exempt those of us without children in the system to opt out of paying for your overpriced land deals, we've got a say about what happens.

That was a pretty cheeky comment by Ms. Godfrey, but I've witnessed some of her past school needs speeches histronics. She usually says something very florid at the end, like "We must suffer the little children!", as she did before the Hamilton Planning Commission several years back. And her last sentance is just as over the top.

By the way Priscilla, would you please provide the school site acquisition information for the other 49 states that you alluded to.

Maybe the reason many people are opposed to this acquisition as well as the past debacles, is that many citizens see the deals getting worse for the public each time. Especially the way you and your LCSB comrades write lop-sided contracts. Or did you let Sal write this one?

The population center in the German Settlements is Lovettsville. That's where they're building the houses, that's where the need is, that's where the schools should go.

You better sharpen your property condemnation skills, because the way the LCSB, and the School System Administration have been going about it, it will be the only way you're going to get any future property because citizens are going to fight you each time.

Russell Beal
Hamilton

Posted by russell.beal (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, some changes may be made at the local level, i.e. the "open space" deferral. It only exists because the state allows exemptions that fulfill tenets of local comp plans, and ours "promotes open space"--a nice empty statement on several levels!

Ms. Polishuk, you know the bumper sticker "It isn't farmland without farmers"?

That kind of cuts both ways, in my opinion. Some blog posts about this site call the land farmland, saying it SHOULD be farmed.

Well, yes, if that's what the owner wants to do with it. Or they can lease it. Or they can let it just sit there. Or they can sell it.

On the other side of the coin, is "farm" a noun or a verb?

Some people seem to think it is pretty much a noun, and make the leap that use of the noun makes the verb implicit.

I don't think the low bars for some land use exemplify the verb very well.

I think the use of the noun should be earned by performing the verb--as Sally said on another thread: actually tilling soil and putting seeds in the ground (as you do), or raising meat or milk and so on.

A large lot isn't a farm just because it is rural. But you wouldn't necessarily know that from the land use records (not YOU you, anyone).

Mr. Beal, I think some citizens have been fighting schools for some time, and taxes make a very convenient cover for some of those. For a few, it is about control of their perceived enormous backyards---like the entire county is their backyard.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Open space is not a deferral (with roll back taxes assessed if you stop farming.) It is an actual exemption of part of your typical tax. It is always based on some sort of written agreement to take some specific actions to preserve land in exchange for the exemption. Some of the agreements are in perpetuity, and recorded in the land records.

Open space exemptions are available and used in all Counties in Virginia, not just Loudoun, per the State Code, again. Loudoun has a general minimum of 20 acres for open space exemptions, unless your land is part of a group of lots volunteered into the restrictions of an agricultural district and all the land total is equal to at least 200 acres. Then an individual parcel can be smaller, but I think any individual parcel in the group must be least 5 acres not including any home site, driveway or other improvements.

I see some problems with changing the rules on people who entered into binding written agreements not to develop their land and to take certain specific conservation measures in exchange for a tax exemption. The open space exemption is not as great of a tax break as the land use deferral, but it is still significant.

Even though Loudoun has a kind of bright line division between east and west, with very different uses allowed, Loudoun is not unusual in allowing these tax breaks, which are set into State Law. In fact, the State has adopted certain restrictions disallowing localities from taking away the agricultural tax deferrals and open space exemptions of Agricultural Districts.

We have a divided County in some respects, but I would hope we could all agree that the School Board should not be paying many times the going fair market value of land. I have several questions about this contract, but the price just blows me away... why would they offer such a huge premium?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, our open space land use deferral is the only one that intersects with Agricultural and Forestal districts.

That's where the five acre minimum comes from.

Anyone with a minimum of five acres (not including the house, driveway, etc) who is in an ag district can apply for open space.

The vast majority of the last interim additions were too small to subdivide under our current zoning.

The ag districts themselves are interesting in their implementation. Parcels don't have to even be contiguous with the district, they must be a minimum distance from the core.

Don't know if it still does, but Hillsboro district used to have SIX cores.

Any time someone new opts in, anyone new who is now eligible because of proximity etc must be notified that they too can apply for inclusion.

I guess that's how Hillsboro got six cores, maybe?

And why we get so many interim additions?

Sometimes right up to the night of the vote on inclusions, with some parcels never even having been reviewed by ADAC?

I think the requirements of being certified as acceptable for an ag district was the bar to be set with open space, and it makes sense: the property must be well-maintained.

However, as you know, being in an ag district doesn't mean someone is farming.

It means that their land is being kept in a condition SUITABLE for farming.

Our open space deferral is the only land use deferral that intersects with ag districts--some people have the mistaken impression that being in an ag district guarantees a land use deferral--it does not.

Except maybe for open space.

And in Loudoun, on a LOT of parcels too small to subdivide.

I heard, but have not verified, that current open space deferrals total about $25M.

If so, that is well worth taking a look at.

"Open space" too small to subdivide isn't "protecting" us from jack.

I know that in 2007, the assessed value of all deferrals totalled $3 billion.

Yes, I WOULD like to see the county spend wisely.

I'd like to see them collect and distribute wisely too!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, to round up a few of the factual errors in Ms Godfrey's letter:

- The site is 50% further from Lovettsville than she claims.

- "They are being told that this land is farm property, which it has not been for three years" -- according to Loudoun County, the property is being farmed.

- They are being told "that we will be using 72,000 gallons of water per day. when the real figure is more like 17,313" -- it isn't the site's opponents that are claiming 72,000 gpd - it is LCPS's own engineering consultant - and that number excludes irrigation and fire protection.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

I see a difference between a tax structure, set by and regulated by the State, applied throughout the State, and this land purchase.

You can disagree with the way the tax is structured in the State, but how can you agree with a purchase price that is 4 times the fair market value? in this depressed market, where nothing is selling, especially expensive properties and land in western Loudoun?

How is disagreement with a policy that you think is not the best tax structure support for this total boondoggle waste of millions on property that many feel does not even meet the basics of our comprehensive plan for siting schools in the (actual) rural policy area? It is "friendly" deals like this, ignoring fiscal responsibility, that discredit our government and our politicians, who are entrusted to spend our tax money wisely.

Barbara, you may well argue the process is broken. And it is, if the School Board will pay this amount for this land... I have so much respect for you, I cannot believe that you would argue for us to waste our money like this...

Fine, argue that we should site schools without any public process, if that is your position... (BTW, for the School Board to do this with proper authority, it would require that we amend the zoning ordinance to take out the SE and commission permit requirements though.)

What I don't understand is how can you argue that paying many times the fair market value is justified in any way?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

One more thing, open space qualifies the owner for an "exemption," not a "deferral"--and the exemption, is always based on an agreement to do spend some money to do something to benefit the environment, like protect a creek, restore a pond, protect some woodlands, mow often enough to keep noxious or poisonous (to animals) weeds down, etc--a plan for the property is required as part of the process. The plan may not be to keep the property ready to farm, it may be to protect the water supply, the forests, etc, so that the "core" can farm...

Because it is an exemption (of part of the tax that would ordinarily be due), based on agreements--some very long term agreements, and some perpetual-- again, I think it would be difficult to unilaterally take the tax exemption away after there has been performance in reliance on it.... and since it is embedded in our State taxation structure. The State Code says that all property in an Ag district must be taxed at ag rates set by the State, and the locality cannot take the tax break away. Argument about this needs to be at the State level.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I know we are a right to farm state, and I know a lot of the state rules trump the local. That's why some things locally get deferrals or exemptions that would never seem like an agricultural use to many, because of the local interpretation of the state laws and enabling laws.

Look at the years-long struggles between the county and Ticonderoga. The county disallows many of the practices there, the farm invokes state law, the whole thing goes to court, and stays there a long time.

State law is also why the automatic notification kicks in on any application to ag, and the circus of interim additions has staff racing around with applications literally right up to the public hearing commencement.

They are required by law to follow the notification process, and to process for a vote, anything that comes in right up to voting time.

Loudoun is famous for some of its local "interpretations", isn't it? Look at the ban on alternative systems. The State allows them and we don't.

Yes, we are very special.

In fact, changing some of the things at the state level is what would need to be done in order to have the Board usurp the school board's power, as is being demanded by some.

Sally, I am not arguing FOR overpaying.

I am arguing AGAINST a protest-driven practice of changing process as we go, in response to activism by a very small percentage of the population.

If over 34 thousand people voted to spend no more than a specific amount to purchase sites, and one-sixth of one percent protests that when it is not being exceeded, using their displeasure as justification to suspend existing regulations, and attempt to change locally what should be changed at state level or beyond, then in my opinion THAT is how the process is broken.

Look at the varying twists of the argument on the site: It IS farmland, it SHOULD be farmland, it is CARRIED as farmland, it ISN'T being farmed, and it's all the same piece of dirt in the same place.

As the rest of the text of Ms. McGimsey's email says (after the ambiguous section implying voting in executive session), right now it is in the school board's hands.

The voters approved the funding, it is not being exceeded, and I have heard to date no discussion whatsoever of what the seller will be doing to prepare the property before transfer.

The words "when possible" become a self-fulfilling negative thanks to mindless protest of everything.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I just pulled a spreadsheet on all land use deferrals at the local level, and as recently as this board assuming office, open space was carried as a deferral.

They've taken no action to change that yet(unless they voted on it in executive session too, which I not only doubt, but to even have them suggest it on a regular basis lately is grossly at odds with their campaign rhetoric), other than to discuss lots too small to subdivide--last October at interim addition time.

Look up those interim applications: the vast majority were for open space, the vast majority were too small to subdivide, and the action most were taking was "brush control".

I'm not talking about conservation easements, state forestal plans on file, and the like.

I'm talking about our local land use deferral that requires inclusion in an ag district.

The spreadsheet is enormous, and I haven't found the school site parcels yet. I'm looking because I want to see what kind of land use they're carried in.

2k mb by pin # takes a long time!

Here's an interesting factoid from the beginning of last year's budget from the spreadsheet:

667 parcels under 20 acres (i.e. too small to subdivide) received local deferrals for open space, a total acreage of 7059.56.

The fair market value of this land totalled $279,151,800.00, the land use value was set at $96,645,600.00, for a total deferral of $182,506,200.00.

Adding in the other open space and all other land use (which I think is a bit of an oxymoron for open space) totalled deferrals of $3,009,903,800.00.

Yes, I think it bears some discussion on two steers (at the local level), and brush control (wait long enough, and you just have to file a forestal plan with the state?).

At the very least, if the argument is that providing a deferral for open space "saves" us from development, the deferral should only be available to parcels that could actually be subdivided.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Home school thats the answer. Good day, ph

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not sure the argument is now that the open space "saves" us from development for these smaller parcels. I think the argument is that open space agreements are used to protect the environment and working farms, creeks and ground water, forest, keeping noxious weeds away that are bad for crops and animals, that kind of think...they have to abide by whatever approved plan they submit to the county to be part of an ag district..

Barbara, I think you are dead wrong about what the School Board can do with the money they are entrusted with. They have no automatic right to site schools, to make that determination as to where schools can go. That is exclusively the Bos's legal responsibility. The SB has to get approval of the board of sups to spend that money. And they can only buy school land, so any contract has to be contingent on getting zoning approval from the Bos.

I think the SB did not like the required public process after what happened at Lenah, and they tried to go around it. If the public process makes it too hard to site schools, it is not a solution to ignore the laws. The solution is to change the laws.

And if the comp plan is too restrictive on where schools can be sited in the rural policy area, then the solution is not to ignore the comp plan, but the solution is to change it.

The School Board is claiming the process is broken, when really they just don't like it and their solution is to circumvent it. Adding insult to injury, they are overpaying for this property by about 4 times the market value, in a horrible market.

Mad as you are about Lenah, it does no one any service to strong arm a "change" by ignoring the law--if the laws are wrong, then they need to be changed.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MANN12- I am so glad we are on the same side for this one.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I don't believe the school board first said the process is broken. I believe that started with the perennial protesters. The school board may simply be pointing out now that no matter WHAT the process of the week is, they follow it and a new protest pops up, and it changes again.

Sally, the board has the right to deny a SPEX. They don't project schools. Saying that their right to deny a SPEX gives them the initiating right of siting, rather than the simple right to deny a site, is reversing the existing process.

Kind of like the idea that the words "whenever possible" in the plan really mean "never", especially in the atmosphere of mob rule protest.

The school board retains the right to negotiate, enter into contracts, and hold title to land. Given that the voters authorized the expenditure and the Board transferred the funds, how do you arrive at them having NO right to purchase?

Yes, it must be for schools.

Well, I slogged through all the documents, and there is a kick out clause for the purchaser if soil and water tests determine that the land is unusable for their purposes.

I guess that's what kicked off the next protest talking point about doing tests in July (after the kickout expires) when the stress on groundwater would be so much greater, and the needs of the farms so dire?

Haven't heard that one since someone pointed out that schools are NOT IN SESSION in July.

Sally, the only circumvention of the process is that of the BoS by catering to contributors and protest.

You bet I'm mad about Lenah, because an application for an overdue school (already twice delayed by the same protesters down here, and piled on by some of the protesters up there on the grounds that every school issue was going to be a platform for their issue of Lovettsville and nowhere else, AND by the same special interest group that protests every service since I moved in 12 years ago, AND a Saint consultant for Miller) was killed before the staff report was even written, and a site fully compliant with the comp plan was shot down for the sake of some very special people, and killing the legal process.

If the Lenah site was so very wrong, why does the new MS site that the BoS unanimously voted to expedite have the VERY SAME ZONING?

Gee, the comp plan only applies in the transition zone if it isn't the WESTERN transition zone near contributors, but the southern?

The only people strongarming repeated change here are the protesters--some of whom protest everything.

Including your small family subdivision.

Here's where we started on the other thread--there is a process for changing the process, and it doesn't involve a few dozen people with partial information shouting slogans.

But that's how it's changing, month to month, school by killed school.

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

Well said, Barbara.

I watched the public comment last night at the School Board meeting and caught Jennifer Bergel's disclosure. She listened quietly while the public made their comments. Why can't some people afford her the same respect?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The SE and Commission Permit processes are public processes. You are saying that the problem is that the public is too vocal and well organized, and therefore the public process should be abandoned.

The answer is to amend the zoning ordinance to delete the SE requirement, not to ignore the ordinance.

Why mention schools at all in our comp plan if we are just going to ignore what it says? Amend the Plan if it is wrong. The plan language is pretty clear for western loudoun, and for good reasons, which we do need to attempt to satisfy.

No one objected to my subdivision plans publicly. It was all behind the scenes, so at least having a public process, you can see or hear what is happening and have an idea of why. I sued because the law was not applied to my property as it was written.

There are remedies when the law or plan is not followed--like HCA did not sue to challenge the hospital language re Route 50--they had a remedy and did not do anything. Just mustering the political muscle to ignore the laws is not the answer.

The School Board has the power to hold title to land in its name, but it does not have the power to spend our money to speculate on land that needs to be rezoned to be useable as a school.

And again, the price. It is an insult, and makes it look like an insider deal. The price gives no confidence that any honest negotiating took place, and the RFP (two weeks, ending on Thursday July 3) was no effort at all to find willing sellers--

Burton is saying they have located two previously unidentified sites next to Lville and are working on it.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Sally, I'm not saying the public is too vocal and well organized. I'm saying that the vocal, well organized protesters are not ALL of the public.

There is a VERY public process called a general election, and the people who spoke at public input last week were approximately one-sixth of one percent of the number of those who voted to fund buying sites.

I'm glad to hear you suggest that the special exception could be removed (via a proper process), because it has appeared that you've been holding the position that the check and balance of the SPEX approval is actually NOT a check, but the right to do all of the school board's state enabled duties.

Did I read somehwre in the reams of documents that Loudoun is the only county that HAS that check and balance? Gee, more state law that applies to the whole state, except for us because we are special?

Maybe it SHOULD be eliminated.

Back to plan language: "whenever possible" is not an absolute. If protest (and a process that changes by the week or month BECAUSE of protest by a vocal, well organized minute fraction of the public) makes nothing possible, when does that non-absolute language kick in?

I don't know if we'll ever get to talk about price (with those voter approved funds, which, if this were a budget discussion and the schools were something wanted, would be dismissed as a "sunk cost" since it was written into the budget back when the referendum passed), because it seems to be the issue of last resort.

Burton also said they voted illegally in executive session, but just not when state code says he should have said so--like right before he voted no on certifying the session, and filed charges about it--which never happened.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Momof2.

I think the water has been so muddied on this one, it will be dead before anyone finds out all the information.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

The State gives localities the right to adopt zoning ordinances and comp plans. And localities can make school uses special exceptions and put in language not to site them in the rural policy area unless no other options are available. The local Bos has the responsibility over the $$ for schools, to give it to the School Board for specific approved purposes. It is not a blank check. The School Board's budget expenditures for CIP's have to be specifically approved by the Bos, under state law. The School Board has no independent authority to spend this money, as much as you would have liked that to be the case for Lenah.

Hatrick is the one who said that Loudoun is the only county to have put this in their zoning ordinance in his presentation last November to change the process for buying school land. I assume he is correct, but do not know.

It was the School Board who went to the Bos last November to change the process because of Lenah. The only problem is their solution is to ignore the law, which is set up as a check and balance. If the Bos wants to give up that check, that balance, that authority, then they need to delete the SE and commission permit requirements from the zoning ordinance.

And I stand by what I have said before, the School Board has no authority, under our current laws, to speculate on land that is not zoned for a school.

They are trying to work it out, and find good sites next to lville, which do meet the plan-- why would you argue against that? True, some powerful in Lville will do anything to sandbag the process to put the school somewhere else. Why do you support them doing this?

Why are you so insistent on this contract? this price?

I understand that you and momof2 wanted your schools in the transition zone, and you think it was wrongly denied by the PC and Bos. Because that happened to you, you are now blindly supporting anything the School Board does? a rigged RFP? a totally inflated price? acknowledgement in their own staff report that the property does not meet the Plan? unwillingness to look at sites that do meet the plan? sounds like politics to favor a few in Lville who don't want the schools where the plan calls for them, and perhaps to favor Cangiano, and not honest government to me...

I am sorry that you feel the Lenah deal was such a disservice. I think that is clouding your judgment.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it was because I was involved in the Lenah process (when it was deliberately broken) that I am so sensitive to the rewriting of recent history and selective information being used so creatively.

Those protesting Lenah had as one of their main talking points that "the process was broken" and needed to be changed.

That is where the Lovettsville protesters chimed in on that issue.

After the comp plan was disregarded for that application (and two public officials violated their oaths to review applications with an open mind etc, and the BoS took action against the site before the report was written and so on), what choice did the school staff and board have BUT to go to the BoS and say, okay, we followed the process and you said no. Tell us what you want us to do and we'll do it that way.

In one way, that was the time for the showdown. The school board should probably have sued then over the denial of a compliant site, especially with all the shenanigans over a big Dem having a chance to make a commission on a $2M secondary sale of the alternate site then being pushed.

That wouldn't have solved anything, but it would have cut to the chase quicker.

A pilot program was to be tested, and has yet to be adopted. Right now there is NO process. Other than the existing one which the BoS made clear during Lenah that they had no intention of following, and were not challenged on (except by some of the public--lol).

The selective information on this is staggering.

I've seen the Wheatland group's counter to the school fact sheet. Why is a house that the contract stipulates must not be on site referred to uniformly as being demanded to be "destroyed"?

That isn't what the contract says--it says moved too. What it really says is that it can't be there by a date certain, and the seller has to pay for that. Loudoun Country Day is offering an old home for $1 to anyone who will move it. Has anyone approached the seller here about moving it? No, they put it out in the press that the school baord wants it "destroyed".

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that the school board can't speculate, and the contract allows for that--it can be cancelled by the purchaser if soil and water tests prove it doesn't meet their needs.

No one is talking about that part of the contract, are they? They are arguing about when to test.

In addition, I understand the date for that has been extended, allowing more time to monitor wells and testing. No one is talking about that.

The projected water usage is disputed.

Well, usage at existing schools is a matter of record and has been published.

The school board never said projected water usage would be 77K gallons. It said that's what they'd be testing for, because apparently state health requires that you do a maximum test at many times projected use.

Nobody is clarifying that either.

As for price, Ms. Polishuk pointed out that the Cangiano parcels are in land use. That goes way back. The rollback will need to be paid when the property either comes off the tax rolls for public use, or turns into estate homes (full of future protesters?).

If that's even only five years, that covers the boom, doesn't it? And the money won't go to the school board, but the county.

Sally, when have I said this is a good price? When have I said this is the best contract?

No one has talked about the contract accurately yet.

I have said, and stand firm in my opinion, that it is protest that has broken the process, which is NOT being followed by changing the unadopted pilot program every time someone pops up with a new outcry.

People shouting for transparency should be as accurate and transparent as possible, and that has not been the case for some time with Loudoun protest.

The school board has to project and plan schools, and whether the BoS likes it or not, the county is required to provide them.

Making up the rules on how to "work together" as they go along is a creative way for the BoS to avoid complying with existing law, isn't it?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Board of Supervisors (not the School Board) is required to provide schools, and the Bos is supposed to provide the money to the School Board to do that. The State Code says the SB needs to get specific approval from the BoS for its CIPs. Your interpretation of the school board's authority is way off base.

Yes, the contract is online and has been discussed. And the School Board has the authority under the contract (but not in the law) to settle even if the studies are not complete, and so far the studies are superficial. Also, the School Board has the authority under the contract (but not under the law) to settle on the property before the zoning is approved--and they ADMIT this property does not meet the plan language, which would warrant a denial of any SE request. They just don't like the SE process, which too bad for them, is still the law.

Barbara, the "new" process to fix the "old" process required under the law is simply to avoid the legal process. That is called illegal.

It's wrong.

There is land that meets the plan, why not seriously look into it instead of rushing this very poor and very expensive deal?

You don't like the personalities. That does not mean they are ALWAYS wrong. They are right this time.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'll see if I can go point by point:

The school board DOES get approval for its CIPs. Yes, one of the schools for this site is beyond the current adopted six year projection. However, it remains in the long range plan also published (and currently adopted too, as part of the larger adopted document?) The BoS recently entertained a notion (and thankfully chose not to go forward, saying, interestingly enough, that they'd be "stepping on the school board's duties") of going around that process by putting inthe county CIP a school not projected as net needed by the school baord, who IS charged with doing those projections. Remember HS6?

The contract (which has been discussed in a selectively inflammatory fashion) has been extended, so I hear. That will allow for extensive testing before any purchase is consummated. (And continued extensive inflammatory protest, with NEW selective information?)

Every property brought forward by the school staff and vetted through county staff and presented to the board beginning last February (when they may have voted illegally in executive session? When are Mr. burton and Ms. McGimsey going to step forward out of emails and up to the proper authorities to bring charges on that? Maybe they'll get a plea deal for testifying, and in turn will not be prosecuted for not only voting illegally, but also apparently ratifying the session and keeping mum about it until the wind changed?) was in the rural policy area.

They were given the go ahead to pursue the two properties recommended by staff, one of which was later taken off the table.

Remember, the plan says "whenever possible". It does not say "must be" or "always".

Yes, they need a special exception. If that is not the norm in the state, and if it is being misused on various whims by the Board (witness Lenah) to circumvent the process, then maybe IN LOUDOUN it needs to change so it can no longer be misused by those whose idea of controlling growth is to curtail services, like roads, and schools, and eco-friendly modern septic systems.

Sally, here you are spot on: "Barbara, the "new" process to fix the "old" process required under the law is simply to avoid the legal process. That is called illegal.
It's wrong."

Precisely my point, which is why I don't understand your seeming argument that continuing to make it up as the protests go along is better.

Consequently, I don't believe the personalities ARE right, if they are arguing for a continued avoidance and disruption of the only adopted process we currently have.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
They are not expecting the water studies to be complete and reviewed by the Health Dept until at the earliest August. The tests are superficial for a variety of reasons, which don't matter because they won't know the results before they have to make the decision any way.

The opt out provision in the contract was extended until early July so they could look at 2 previously unidentified sites that would meet the plan. It was not done for the water reason, because as I said, the results of the tests will not be finished until August at the earliest.

I think the process that went on with this contract is illegal, so I think we agree on your point that making up the process ignoring the law is wrong.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it is my understanding that the contract has been extended through the summer and into the fall.

I am waiting for confirmation that the new date is actually in October, in order to provide a greater testing and monitoring period.

If it also allows Mr. Burton to circumvent the pilot made-up-process that was being used instead of the existing adopted process, so be it.

Agreed, we don't HAVE a process right now, or rather the BoS is choosing not to follow it (and made that choice last July by adopting an alternative site search for a countywide "broken process" that was restricted to Dulles only, and later amended, after an executive session, to include a property in TR3, three times less dense than the Lenah site and the current proposed MS5 site, that just happened to be the one a very special and politically connected person had hopes of making a commission on after the county had improved it with roads and utilities), before the staff report on Lenah was written in September.

If the tests are in compliance with state code, how are they superficial in this case?

Especially if documented water use at existing schools is so much lower than the volume they will be testing at?

I am glad we agree that the current non process is a charade.

I hope we end up agreeing that continuing to shape it through selective misinformation and disruption is equally counterproductive.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

I think the selective misinformation is mostly coming from the SB at this time.

I have not heard October, and am surprised that I have not been informed since the Bos members have been good about sending me updates.

The tests are being done on the existing wells only, and not the whole or even nearby neighbors' part of the aquifer. So, if they think there is enough water to support the school then ok, does not matter if they are taking massive amounts of water from a farming neighbor... the published numbers (by the school board) about the expected use are all over the place...and they keep getting smaller, despite other data that they have found from other schools...

We do need a real process, but that would require a contract contingent on the special exception and commission permit, under our existing laws. A true RFP would have been a good place to start, and a price kind of close to a reasonable fair market value... to inspire confidence...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said, Sally, I'm waiting for confirmation.

I don't expect it to come from the supervisors because they aren't the "Purchaser" in the contract being extended. The Purchaser is the school board, as they are empowered to do under state law.

There will be monitoring on neighboring wells; property owners in the area were encouraged to be part of the process, and many elected to do so.

There is no RFP process for school site selection here; that is apparently the part county staff is having a hard time drawing to the demands of those who want one.

Sally, this is unlike you: "So, if they think there is enough water to support the school then ok, does not matter if they are taking massive amounts of water from a farming neighbor... "

As I asked earlier, if the testing complies with state code, how are they superficial?

The only information I've seen that has water use all over the place is the various claims of destruction.

The actual water use at existing schools is a matter of record.

We had a real process (and still do, until a new one is properly vetted and adopted), but the BoS didn't like it, so they decided to stop following it.

The genie is out of the bottle now.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: "The Purchaser is the school board, as they are empowered to do under state law."

Please post a copy of the state law to which you are referring.

The state enabling legislation regarding school boards reads as follows:

§ 22.1-79. Powers and duties.

A school board shall:

1. See that the school laws are properly explained, enforced and observed;

2. Secure, by visitation or otherwise, as full information as possible about the conduct of the public schools in the school division and take care that they are conducted according to law and with the utmost efficiency;

3. Care for, manage and control the property of the school division and provide for the erecting, furnishing, equipping, and noninstructional operating of necessary school buildings and appurtenances and the maintenance thereof by purchase, lease, or other contracts

NOTHING about identifying or negotiating to acquire land upon which to build schools.

Posted by lnstrntv (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Board of Supervisors has asked the school board to keep it informed about all of these issues, so I am sure as soon as there is an extension, the BoS will know. I am just curious how you would know there was an extension, when no one else intimately involved has heard this... I would like to know if there is an extension in writing.

I think the State Code only tests for the quality of the water and the amount of gallons per minute for a well, which is only required to be something like 3 gallons a minute (very little.) Do you know what they test for, under what provision?

I think they are looking at other data, that does not require any state code approval, to see if they think they have enough water for the school. I have not heard there was any study of the aquifer or the effect on neighboring wells. And you are right, the water usage is public record, which now the SB is saying is less than what they have previously published... just curious how the numbers keep getting lower.

There was an RFP agreed to as part of the new "process," and done on this, but it was a silly RFP, two weeks ending on July 3rd, a thursday. Does not really sound like a real attempt to do an RFP to me. The "real process" in your mind is let the school board do whatever they want--full negotiating authority on price location and all terms, when our code and the State Code states this is the BoS responsibility?

Your suggestion of "real process" sounds like absolutely no process to me. And the "real process" you suggest is actually a deprivation of due process required by law...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

§ 22.1-71. School board constitutes body corporate; corporate powers.

The duly appointed or elected members shall constitute the school board. Every such school board is declared a body corporate and, in its corporate capacity, is vested with all the powers and charged with all the duties, obligations and responsibilities imposed upon school boards by law and may sue, be sued, contract, be contracted with and, in accordance with the provisions of this title, purchase, take, hold, lease and convey school property, both real and personal. School board members appointed or elected by district or otherwise shall have no organization or duties except such as may be assigned to them by the school board as a whole.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also copied directly from the Code of VA:

§ 22.1-127. Condemnation of land for school purposes; right of entry; location of school outside boundaries of school division.

A school board shall have the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and may condemn land or other property or any interest or estate therein, including dwellings, yards, gardens or orchards, necessary for public school purposes pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2 (§ 25.1-200 et seq.) of Title 25.1 and in the manner provided by Chapter 3 (§ 25.1-300 et seq.) of Title 25.1. To determine the suitability of the land for school purposes, a school board shall have the same right of entry under the same conditions as a county, city, or town pursuant to § 25.1-203. A school board shall have no authority to locate any school which was not begun prior to January 1, 1978, on property outside the boundaries of the school division unless the school board first obtains the approval of the governing body of the county, city or town in which a proposed school will be located.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

§ 22.1-128. Title to school board real estate.

Whenever any school board purchases real estate or acquires title thereto, the title to such real estate shall be certified in writing by a competent and discreet attorney-at-law selected by the school board, or title insurance, approved by a competent and discreet attorney-at-law selected by the school board, shall be purchased for such real estate. Such certification or policy of insurance shall be filed with the clerk of the school board along with the recorded deed or other papers by which the title is conveyed. No contract for any such purchase shall bind the school board until the title to such real estate is thus certified or insured.

The school board shall pay to the attorney reasonable compensation for these services.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Links to Code of VA:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504....

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504....

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2,

None of the code provisions you have cited say that the School board can buy property that "might" or "might not" be useable as a school. They can hold title to property that will not be used as a school (like gifts, or proffered land) but they cannot buy property with our bond money voted on to be used for specific schools unless it is absolutely sure the property can be used as a school. That's why they need to have a contingency in the contract, a zoning contingency, which is standard form for any business entity wanting to buy and develop property for a specific use.

The school board told folks that if they ended up not being able to use the property as a school, it could be used as a park, sold as "surplus" or "swapped." They simply do not have the authority to buy park land, surplus land or land to swap. Just like they don't have the authority to use voter approved bond money for a different school not yet voted on. They have no authority to do anything with the money except its specific purpose.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They simply do not have the authority to buy park land, surplus land or land to swap.

As far as I know, they want to buy the land for schools. Perhaps there was an understanding between SB and BOS regarding using the land for other purposes if the school plans didn't work. I don't know. However, the SB has been operating in conjunction with the BOS - if the BOS has the authority to find the school sites, why haven't they done that?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know there are a lot of posts, but earlier it was posted Mr. Burton has notified his constituents that they are looking at 2 previously unidentified sites that would meet the plan.

They were supposed to do a real RFP so that many more owners could participate. There is a lot of land available in western loudoun that is just as good as this site and a lot less expensive, some of it for sale and not selling anytime soon. No need to rush like this, or pay this price.

They "want" to buy land for schools. Then they need to make the contract contingent on all approvals for use as a school, and not gamble. No one who needed land for a specific purpose would buy land without a contingency, knowing zoning approval would be required through a public process. This is basic corporate common sense, that our SB seems to lack.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

instrntv, looks like Momof2 went to the source, which is chapter 22.1 of the Code of VA.

Sally, the school system website has stated (in the fact sheet so cavalierly dismissed by some) that it was seeking an extension.

I am no more intimately involved than any other citizen seeking public information.

Sally please go to this link and select "EGGI's pump test plan":

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

It is a third party document that appears to be the source of all of the varying numbers on water. The State Health department requires testing at an astronomical level that produces the 77K figure.

Actual use has averaged at the 17K figure.

They will be monitoring wells, the whole nine yards.

Given some of the "information" that's been flying around, the document seriously reads like it's been used as a weapon that no one has actually read.

Please read it if you have not, and say what you think.

Sally, re your earlier remark that "Barbara, the "new" process to fix the "old" process required under the law is simply to avoid the legal process. That is called illegal.
It's wrong.", there IS no RFP process vetted by staff and adopted through an open process to do an RFP.

The pilot program is obviously worth less than the paper it isn't written on yet, since it changes from protest to protest.

Go to the school system website to read the contract: it had a cancellation clause should soil and water testing reveal it didn't meet their needs, which has now been extended.

I've heard until October, but we'll see if that's the case.

In the meantime, Momof2, good on you for going to the source.

Read the whole chapter.

The BoS hasn't come right out and chosen a site, and I can think of a number of reasons why, none of which have much to do with providing secondary schools in a timely manner in certain areas of the county.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. to Sally: Mr. Burton also said he voted on this in executive session. Has he made that accusation to the proper authorities yet, or just sent it out to fan the fires?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I said I knew it had been extended, until July. Had not heard October until you said it first. So you tell me to go to the website where it says nothing about October?

They agreed to do an RFP, but didn't mean it. Yes that was supposed to be part of the process in this down market where many are interested in selling-- a way for interested sellers to submit bids to sell--a way for the School Board to seek out the most motivated sellers.

You want no process, we get that. You think the SB should not be accountable to anyone on location, price paid, terms, etc.

It's my money too. I want more public process here.

Until public pressure, there was no release of information and they were going forward with no testing complete, and only bare minimum testing at that. Hamilton is facing ground water contamination issues. Not unusual in a rural area. But who cares if the ground water for the Cangiano property has any issues? Buy it anyway as fast as possible, with no contingencies, so no one can complain. That was the obvious first strategy until some needled information out of the School Board. And now we are getting a delay (that they said was not possible only a month ago) to do more adequate studies, and I am suppose to trust the School Board now?

To agree to settle without studies complete was reckless negligence, in my opinion. But this is the government, they don't have to care, do they? So what if they waste our money?

They also have no idea of how much the road improvements will be or other costs, and NO zoning approval. It is a completely irresponsible way to do business. No private entity would overpay for land --at least 4 times the going market rate (in a down market,)

There are other properties out there that meet the plan, but those who are the most powerful live in Lovettsville, and they want a school for Lovettsville, just not in Lovettsville, (Wheatland is not a town, and it is a Purcellville address located closer to Pville than to Lville, so we will have three High Schools in Purcellville now--and that is supposed to be good planning?)

This can be an honest process with integrity. Bill Chapman should go back to Reed Smith if he wants to continue to represent Mr. Cangiano over the public's interest.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, I've read the code and remain unconvinced by what you copied and posted above.

The words "property" and "real estate" do not necessarily mean and definitely should not automatically be interpreted, as LAND. Property is also defined as possessions and real estate as buildings or structures.

The fact remains that in the Virginia state code, under "powers and duties" of a School Board there is absolutely no mention of identifying or negotiating for land on which to build schools, and there is definitely nothing about "banking" land that *might someday be used for a school.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504....

Posted by lnstrntv (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, did I say you would find confirmation of an October date on the website? I said the contract would be there, and other places as well.

As we have discussed on another thread
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n...
the source documents are available, and much of the activism and blogging reads as if the source documents haven't been fully read.

The contract has been extended--you've heard July, I've heard October. Neither of us is an official news source, so let's see what the county body who is actually a party to the contract has to say?

If an extension has been granted, as was said would be sought, then there is time to do proper testing and monitoring.

Wasn't that the goal of some of the protest, or now that it has been met, is it a source of further anger?

Please tell me where I said I want no process?

I have agreed with you that existing law is all we have, so I remain puzzled by your dogged argument that a non-adopted RFP process (which took the place of the only process we have when the BoS decided not to follow it any longer) was "rigged".

How do you rig a nonadopted process? The argument could be made that the fact that we are following a nonadopted process is the result of some rigging itself.

Given that one of the original comments on this thread was quibbling over the distance from Lovettsville to Wheatland, why is a site north of Route 9 (and I have relatives between Hillsboro and Purcellville off of 690, so I know where things are out there) that may have a Purcellville zipcode now being referred to as "in Purcellville"?

Sally, I disagree that the SPEX process (which is NOT a part of school siting in other VA counties) is proof that the BoS has the statutory right and duty to "select" sites. I believe it is a check and balance.

Much as I believe instrntv is splitting a very fine hair to argue that "property" and "real estate" do not necessarily mean LAND.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

I find your belittling remarks insulting. This is not "quibbling"--this is very serious over paying for land, ignoring the comp plan, serious conflict issues, serious issues about abuse of power, secrecy cutting out legislatively mandated public process, and misuse of tax payer funds.

So, if the School Board can buy any land it wants without regard to what it can actually be used for, then they could use the bond money to buy land in Ashburn for a different high school, under your logic.

Or they could pay you 5 times the value of your home, and buy it from you (would you sell it for 3.5 million?) like they are paying cangiano 5 times the value of his property--and then use your house for school purposes maybe sometime in the future.

Your arguments make no sense and are inconsistent.

The bond money can only be spent for a very specific purpose, and must be approved by the Bos. To buy land without completing studies, or having zoning approval is not complying with the state code's limiting requirements on how the bond money can be spent.

Only the Bos can site schools in Loudoun. You don't like it, and it may be that they are the only county that does it this way (another rumor or have you verified this) but the fact remains THAT IS THE LAW. Here. And we have to comply with the law. There has to be consistency, or it is all meaningless.

This contract is a sham, and totally indefensible in all respects, but especially the price.

I am sorry but I cannot respect your position in any way, and it seems like you have taken over to partisanship against some that you don't like and you are unwilling to recognize just how corrupt things really are that would allow us to pay someone so much in this market for land that is not zoned for a school and without any tests complete.

Yes, the contract is online, I pointed it out to you a long time ago. It is online because of citizen pressure and I say Bravo to those citizens.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I did not say that the school board can buy any land it wants regardless of whether it can be used.

The contract has a cancellation clause if testing proves it is inadequate, and may indeed have been extended to allow extensive testing and monitoring in compliance with state code.

To make the leap that a specific referendum can be changed re the Ashburn schools is akin to the argument that has been used in this issue that land purchased for a park, by Lovettsville citizens, the county, and by referendum, can simply be flipped to a school site.

What do you feel is superficial (your word describing the testing) about the process outlined in the EGGI document?

I am not going to get emotional, and had no intention of being insulting.

I am trying to be specific, and seek specific answers under existing law, which you have stated was a goal too.

If the testing period has been extended, then the argument about testing and water can wait for the results.

If the contract has been extended, there is time to discuss price, and a lot of other things.

Until a process is adopted, the current variable non-adopted one simply doesn't hold as much gravitas in my mind as the existing one that has been discarded--without a process!

Please, what do you feel is inadequate about the testing outlined in the EGGI document?

That is something we can specifically discuss without getting emotional or personal (I hope).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lnstrntv:
I find it odd that a school board would be given power to take property by eminent domain, as state in § 22.1-127 but would not be allowed to purchase real estate.
"A school board shall have the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and may condemn land or other property....."

In addition, § 22.1-127 states "land or other property" which implies that "land" is "property", as well as other things like buildings, mowers, etc.

§ 22.1-128. Title to school board real estate.

Whenever any school board purchases real estate or acquires title thereto, the title to such real estate...

It states here directly that a school board may purchase real estate.

The land banking - I believe that was an idea the BOS came up with or at least they cooked that one up together. Do I think it is a good idea at this time of financial uncertainty - probably not, but should be a case by case decision.

The site selection process-the school board is not operating in a vacuum. They are acting in accordance with the BOS and actually discussed this site with them.

Does the process need to be changed, improved, in my opinion? Definitely! It must be done in accordance with the Code of VA and in such a way that small, vocal groups of activists don't have more than their share of influence in the decisions that affect so many.

I am not referring to the Wheatland Alliance. I am not familiar with them or their platform beyond the few statements I have read here and there.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2,

This is a state statute, and most jurisdictions have zoning that permits schools by right in certain locations. The School board could condemn or purchase land zoned for schools in those jurisdictions.

But in Loudoun there is no land zoned for schools. Our comp plan only allows them in certain areas, and in western loudoun they are supposed to be near incorporated towns to use public water and sewer. Any school is a special exception and requires in essence a rezoning to allow the use.

That is the problem, and that is why the School Board has no authority to purchase land (it can be gifted land) without a contingency that the property will be rezoned. To purchase it without any contingencies on getting approval for a school use is to gamble, and that is why they said if they could not get all the approvals or if the tests did not work out, they would simply use the land as a "park", or "surplus" or "swap" land. They cannot do this, and I am surprised that any taxpayer thinks this is a good idea.

Barb,

The water issue is a side track. It is all "guessing" with estimates being manipulated and revised down. When there is no public water, these issues are problematic for neighbors. If they would buy land in Lovettsville and use public water, this would not be a problem. As I said, contamination of water is a serious issue when you have private wells. Since the School Board has only said they intend to go forward without completing the tests, I am not sure why you want to debate the tests that are being performed? So far, all we know is they intend to settle before any tests or studies have been completed. Do you think that is a good idea? or do you think the citizens are correct to ask them to at least extend the contract until necessary tests and studies can be complete?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2:

The "land or other property" line to which you refer above is in the paragraph of code discussing condemnation--it seems quite the jump to say that because property is equated with land in the case of condemnation it means that a School Board is accorded the power to contract for and purchase land.

I *don't find it odd at all that School Boards may take land/property by eminent domain but may in fact not be authorized to purchase land. Those are two completely different processes and to equate them is pointless.

"§ 22.1-128. Title to school board real estate.
Whenever any school board purchases real estate or acquires title thereto, the title to such real estate It states here directly that a school board may purchase real estate."
Again, "real estate" may be defined here as buildings and structures and/or the land on which they sit, not necessarily raw land.

Since the framers of the VA code did include
"3. Care for, manage and control the property of the school division and provide for the erecting, furnishing, equipping, and noninstructional operating of necessary school buildings and appurtenances and the maintenance thereof by purchase, lease, or other contracts" in the code under School Boards' powers and duties, why do you think they did not include a specific line item regarding the contracting for and purchasing of land in the same "powers and duties" section?
It may be of interest to note that the fact that there is no specific directive in the code under "powers and duties" for the School Board to identify or negotiate for land on which to build schools was pointed out in another forum discussing the Wheatland contract by Bob Ohneiser, a LCPS School Board member and attorney. He suggests that the School Board only has the power to erect, furnish, equip, etc. school BUILDINGS, and has no power to identify land for schools or purchase land for schools. He apparently agrees that the School Board is acting beyond their authority in entering into the Wheatland contract. (He was the lone dissenting vote on the contract.)

Posted by lnstrntv (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, yes, the plan says that schools should be located near towns "whenever possible". That is not a mandate, because the language is not absolute.

Where in the rural (or transitional) area has protest made it possible to date?

The contract has apparently already been changed through an extension. The length of the extension is currently unconfirmed.

If it has been extended in response to the water testing issue (and says in the original that the contract can be cancelled by a date certain if soil and water tests prove it does not meet their needs), then why not discuss whether the testing to be done is adequate (under state law) or not?

I don't believe the water issue is a side track.

Have you read the EGGI document? Will you do so if the extension is confirmed as October?

Simply because Lovettsville has utilities doesn't mean water is not an issue there. It will be an issue for those who pay town taxes to take on the schools, and for county taxpayers if Lovettsville needs help in meeting the demand should the schools end up being placed there.

Witness the protracted court battles over extension of utilities to Woodgrove in Purcellville, based on the 99 BoS selecting that site in a vacuum.

I think the extension is a good thing, and that's why I'd like to know your opinion on the EGGI doc. Are the tests and monitoring outlined there "superficial"?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

instrntv, Mr. Ohneiser is selectively quoting code, as you are. The position that real estate doesn't mean land is an interesting one.

Mr. Ohneiser's specialty is not land use, so perhaps that is why he was the only vote in support of his reading of the code.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Selectively quoting code"? Read the "powers and duties" section of the code here! http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504...

There is no line item which gives the School Board the authority to identify or negotiate for land on which to build schools. How is that "selective"? It's either there or it isn't and one does not need to be an attorney specializing in land use to see that.
(If you know of a School Board member who is an attorney specializing in land use, please publish his/her name here.)

Posted by lnstrntv (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, the state enabling budget provisions specifically address how the SB can use this money and they have to get approval of the BoS or appropriate local legislative body in all cases in all jurisdictions in Virginia.

Mr. Ohneiser is the only attorney on the School Board, and he is right. The rest are of the opinion they can do whatever they want with this money, even speculate on land that they admit does not conform with the comp plan, using Mr. Cangiano's former attorney to negotiate the deal for them, and paying at least 4 times what the property is worth.

Would you sell your property for 4 times its fair market value? five times the assessed value? Sweet deal, if you have the right friends.

He is not selectively quoting anything. If you can find some provision where they can spend bond money to buy land that may or not be used for the specific purpose that the voters voted on, go at it. It does not exist, and the School Board is just plain wrong here.

Ms. Bergel is reporting that they cannot re-negotiate the price and that they are trying "if possible" to extend the contract date to settle from the first week in July. No extension for completed tests reported yet. Her letter is on John Stevens' blog.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, Momof2 raises a good point, that school boards have the authority to condemn. Interesting that code would allow the taking of land, (in addition to the ability to acquire and hold title) but not to negotiate and purchase.

I know of no school baord member who is a land use attorney. That's why the board pays one, and I know it is a bone of contention for some that he has done work in the past for the seller.

If there is a legitimate conflict, is anyone going to file charges?

Mr. Ohneiser may be a great divorce lawyer for all I know, but the only leg up that may give him on land use is how contentious the process is in Loudoun.

instrntv, Read all of 22.1 (and your link didn't work for me).

More than one place refers to real property and any improvements, which would seem to imply that property is also considered land.

Sally, I see one reference to counties acquiring land though gift, bequeathment etc, which then goes on to discuss condemnation as a corporate body.

The specific section discussing condemnation specifies school boards, which also apparently have the right to purchase anything from "the United States or any agency thereof" in 22.1-130. They can do it from the entire country, but not from an individual?

I'm sorry, but if the original contract had a cancellation clause if testing did not show that it could be used for their purposes, I do not see any purpose in maintaining that they intended to purchase without ascertaining its suitability.

Particularly if it holds true that an extension has occurred.

I read Ms. Bergel's letter, and it shed some interesting light on Mr. Burton's "interpretation" of the other sites, as well as the private individual who brought forward a speculative assemblage to how many people exactly, and how many of them empowered to negotiate?

Gee, we had a private individual bringing forth at least one site over here too.

They were primarily interested in a secondary sale by the county for a non-permitted use for their client though, and did not represent the owner of the land they were pitching.

I will keep reading 22.1, but I doubt I will find a section specifically allowing bond money to be spent for land that can't be used.

Neither, in light of the cancellation clause referencing that very issue AND the possibility of an extension to resolve it, do I think that is what has ever really been proposed here.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, you have asked about the pump tests performed. First, they are only being performed once over a 72 hour period, this week, after a very wet spring. Because of all the rain we have had they are not even testing the creek in the north.

At my house, I have a creek that runs behind me. It has been mostly dry these last few years, with all the drought we have had, but it is very high now.

The test is insufficient in terms of any kind of true "stress" test or of the impact of such an intensive use over time.

They have not made any attempt to actually study the nature of the aquifer, to determine where the water is coming from, how deep, where it goes, to see exactly what the impact of this large facility on adjacent private wells will be. Schools belong on public water.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where in the rural (or transitional) area has protest made it possible to date?

Harmony IS - as I've noted before...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My understanding of the powers of the two bodies is that it is the role of the BOS to fund the SB and the SB can use those funds only after they have been specifically appropriated. I still do not know if the finance committee and the BOS have specifically voted to appropriate these funds but if they did not (I have seen no evidence that they did - officially), then I think the SB over stepped their bounds by committing funds of the county that have not been appropraited.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'm glad to see your response. Is that based on your reading of the tests EGGI will conduct?

Are the stress tests you desire part of the existing state and county process, or something that would need to be changed?

What is your opinion of the monitoring outlined, and what would be your opinion on an extension of that monitoring through fall?

As to code, I started with 22.1 Chapter 9, and I am looking at 22.1-128:

"§ 22.1-128. Title to school board real estate.

Whenever any school board purchases real estate or acquires title thereto, the title to such real estate shall be certified in writing by a competent and discreet attorney-at-law selected by the school board, or title insurance, approved by a competent and discreet attorney-at-law selected by the school board, shall be purchased for such real estate. Such certification or policy of insurance shall be filed with the clerk of the school board along with the recorded deed or other papers by which the title is conveyed. No contract for any such purchase shall bind the school board until the title to such real estate is thus certified or insured.

The school board shall pay to the attorney reasonable compensation for these services."

I am struck by the fact it begins : "Whenever any school board purchases real estate".

It would seem the right is implicit.

(Eric, there were protests about that ten years ago too.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or maybe it was just previously laid out here in Chapter 7:

"§ 22.1-71. School board constitutes body corporate; corporate powers.

The duly appointed or elected members shall constitute the school board. Every such school board is declared a body corporate and, in its corporate capacity, is vested with all the powers and charged with all the duties, obligations and responsibilities imposed upon school boards by law and may sue, be sued, contract, be contracted with and, in accordance with the provisions of this title, purchase, take, hold, lease and convey school property, both real and personal. School board members appointed or elected by district or otherwise shall have no organization or duties except such as may be assigned to them by the school board as a whole."

I see the inclusion of the words "may sue, be sued, contract, be contracted with and, in accordance with the provisions of this title, purchase, take, hold, lease and convey school property, both real and personal."

Most notably "purchase, take, hold, lease and convey" "property, both real and personal."

As elsewhere in Chapter 9, in 22.1-126.1, real property is referenced as "real property and any improvements thereon", I tend to think that in spite of instrntv's argument that property doesn't mean land, in actually does.

Your point that they cannot buy land that is not for schools is not addressed by this, but I believe it will be addressed by both the cancellation clause included at the beginning based on testing to determine if it can be used for schools, and any extension for that testing to be done to be confirmed.

But I do believe the section on powers of the corporate body address the ability to purchase land.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

If you read the whole of Title 22 you will see that school boards only have authority to purchase "school property" or for "school purposes." This is not school property. It is speculative that it will be used as school property or school purposes.

They do not have unfettered ability to purchase any and all property that could maybe one day be used as a school, especially not with bond money which was voted on for a specific purpose. You need to read all of Title 22, which momof2 posted above. "Whenever any school board purchases real estate" has to be read in context of their limitations in purchasing real estate to be actually used as a school.

Most jurisdictions have land zoned by right for schools. That is the only reason why the SB could condemn land. It is questionable if our SB has the power to condemn, since we have no by right school zoning. In the past, they have always contracted to purchase land contingent on zoning approvals, but here they skipped that, knowing that there would be virtually no support for this contract-- except for you Barabara and momof2. The vast majority in western loudoun are against this.

Barbara, you apparently have not been keeping up with what has happened here because the SB made quite clear that they intended to settle before all the testing was complete and with no SE or other approvals. So the contingency is worthless. It says they can back out if their tests say the water won't work, but they won't be finished with their tests before they settle on the property.

As for the "stress" tests, I think they are required to show what impact this development will have on the adjacent properties, under our SE procedure. And I think the one they are doing is superficial and meaningless.

To approve an SE, there will have to be a showing of impact and any required mitigation. I assume that is why they are doing this, but I am not privy to any of what they are doing. This pumping test, performed once, over such a short amount of time, in an extremely wet season, is not a "stress" test, and shows nothing about the true impact to the aquifer, nothing about the aquifer.

And EGGI -- don't they work for Cangiano? did they do the original hydrogeo for the land owner? I think so. So, they are the ones saying that even though the State says 77,000 gallons a day will be necessary, really only 17,000 gallons will be required. So, EGGI works for both the land owner and now the School Board? to manipulate the numbers?

Like I said, the conflicts of interest abound and do not look good in any respect.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, as I said, it does not address your point of land being suitable for schools.

Can you please cite the section stating that condemnation is only applicable in counties which have schools as a by right use?

I don't read the EGGI document as saying the state says 77K will be used, I read it as saying they will be testing at a maximum of 67,490 gpd, in congruence with State Health Department mandates of 10 gpd per person at an elementary, and 16 gpd per person at secondary schools.

That is a boatload of water, so it would seem the State errs on the side of caution in testing.

It goes on to state that documented use in Loudoun schools averages 3.1 per person gpd at elementaries, 2.9 at middles, and 5.0 at the high school level.

EGGI are not the ones saying it, they are quoting the State Health Dept guidelines and "actual potable water use as reported by Loudou County Public Schools for the time period January 2005-January 2006."

It's footnoted.

You feel there is a conflict here too?

Who do you feel would be a better, more qualified choice?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, the code says that school boards can only purchase real estate to be used for school purposes. I think you have to read the condemnation authority in context. Condemnation is a form of purchase. Therefore, my opinion is that any condemnation would have to be done in connection with an SE at the same time here in Loudoun.

And the bond money has to be spent for the specific project voted on, not a "park," "surplus land" or "swap land." This is the last time I am going to type this. I think this is an obvious point.

Yes, I do see a conflict with EGGI, and apparently you do not think there is any problem with the same company representing the landowner and the School Board. And I guess you think it is fine for Bill Chapman to also have represented Cangiano and the School Board. I don't.

The numbers for water usage have changed on the School Board's website, so all the numbers are suspect.

The State is the only neutral party in this, and they say 70,000 plus gallons a day. My faith in the School Board is zero. Sorry, but this is such an obvious bad deal with so many conflicts, and the bald admission by the School Board that the property does not meet the plan... and the facts that the School Board puts out being wrong, and then changed or revised every other day... it all looks terrible.

You want a fair process, this is not it. Just a power grab because they felt the public process (our democracy!) was too difficult and contentious... I am not buying it. Very disrespectful of those "smelly" tourists (to quote Harry Reid.) The public process may not always have perfect results, but it is far better than not letting anyone have any say, and giving up all power absolutely so a few in power can take advantage of the majority and make an incredibly lucrative deal for a friend, which is what has happened with this Wheatland deal.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, several points:

I don't think the intent was to purchase land to be used for something else, given the clause present from inception that the purchaser can cancel if testing proves it will not meet their needs.

The date to change, and any date of extension, has yet to be reached, so in my opinion the amount of angst spent on indefinite "definite" worst case scenaria has been to a degree misplaced.

As for conflict, I don't know how many comparable groundwater testing firms there are, and where they are located.

Is EGGI the east coast gold standard? Perhaps out of a very few who test at public facility magnitude?

If they are, perhaps it is less significant that a major developer has also previously employed them. If that is the case.

Has the state said 70K WILL be used, or that it requires testing at that level?

According to EGGI's doc, the number of wells being tested will pump between 30 and 60 gallons per minute during testing, which covers 15 gpm +/- the state requirement.

Perhaps what should be FOIAed is B&D's response to the letter in question?

The school board is not the only body that admits the plan issues.

So did staff in presenting the sites to the BoS under the new pilot non-process.

Did the Board really give the go-ahead to continue on two sites, later only this one, or is that the abortive executive session vote issue?

I agree this is not a fair process, but I disagree it is a power grab by the school board.

Given the pattern present since this BoS took office, I see a naked power grab by some on the BoS, with facilitation from some with an axe to grind, and a lot of misinformation gone viral.

I disagree that no one has had any say.

Some have had a very large say, and that is why we currently are operating without any firm process whatsoever.

Last, on condemnation being just another form of purchase: Is condemnation of alternatives on the table?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 14, 2009 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

For someone who claims not to be for or against the school in Wheatland, you sure have spent a lot of time here with your non opinions (which contain a lot of contempt for the public process, and anger at citizen activists) trying to justify a meaningless contingency in a one sided contract that will settle without any studies or zoning for a huge price tag.

Why do you keep trying to engage me with questions? You know the answers to all of your questions above.

I suggest you reread what I have written above if you are confused about my opinions. I don't think that is really the case though-- you want to ask me questions, say about, the State Code and the authority to condemn, and then suggest somehow that condemnation is on the table, which I know you know is false--

If you have something to say, say it. Why don't you answer the questions yourself about EGGI? You know the answers to those questions.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(Eric, there were protests about that ten years ago too.)

Not the Harmony School, Barb.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"... I believe it will be addressed by both the cancellation clause included at the beginning based on testing to determine if it can be used for schools..."

What about its failure to obtain a SPEX? Certainly this will be based on more than just water testing?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That is a boatload of water, so it would seem the State errs on the side of caution in testing."

You think that is a bad idea?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Yes, I do see a conflict with EGGI, and apparently you do not think there is any problem with the same company representing the landowner and the School Board."

And sitting as the only non-Loudoun resident on the Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee as well. A little too close for comfort in my opinion.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Is EGGI the east coast gold standard?"

I think not.

"Perhaps out of a very few who test at public facility magnitude?"

There are many who can and do perform this magnitude of work. Was there an RFP put out for this work or did Sal just wire the work to them?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"According to EGGI's doc, the number of wells being tested will pump between 30 and 60 gallons per minute during testing, which covers 15 gpm +/- the state requirement."

That (as I am sure you are aware, exPC- Barb,) is not the point in aquifer testing.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you have something to say, say it. Why don't you answer the questions yourself about EGGI? You know the answers to those questions."

Because, Sally, her role here is to create confusion in your message. She does a really fine job doesn't she? Stay on topic - keep hammering your points.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, by point: *Have you read the transcripts of the discussion on pursuing this site from the joint committee? County staff said the risk is always present, but advised proceeding.

Mr. Burton's remarks are interesting too--"anything is possible". It sure is.

*No, I don't think it's bad to err on the side of caution with water. What about my remark leads you to believe I was saying I did? (or make you feel the need to imply I was--lol)

*I repeat, Eric, are they considered a gold standard in the industry? Non-Loudoun residents are fine if they are agreed with, aren't they?

*I don't know if an RFP was put out for the work or not. Has the county used them on other projects? Is that who the county uses in general? Is that why they are the non-Loudoun participant on the board? Sal C. conspiracy, Eric.

*It isn't a proposal for aquifer testing Eric, which I don't believe is mandated, is it. If aquifer testing were conducted, and showed the water was just fine, what would the response be then?

*I have been asking questions, because I remain confused by what appears to be an argument both for and against law/statute/regulation at the same time. Consequently, the messages taken together seem contradictory on some point to me.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

*Sally, neither one of us has children in a western public school. If it is a matter of concern for all citizens, then why complain about my participation and denigrate my "nonopinions"? We are both discussing something that directly affects NEITHER of our children, so are all citizens allowed or not?

*I'm trying to be clear on your positions, because I hesitate to respond to some of your letters by saying "since you mean this" when maybe you don't.

As I said to Eric, it appears you are arguing for and against established procedure at the same time. Please note I said "appears". To me. So I ask questions.

*I have read everything you've said. That's why I have questions on some things.

*The issue of condemnation has been raised several times in the past year, quite cavalierly at Lenah by a contributor and appointee (no insider deals there, at all--lol) who said "go condemn something in South Riding, we have too much retail", and during this process as well.

You had discussed condemnation several times when referencing what code does and does not allow, and I asked if it is on the table.

As a part of code, in rights and duties, I guess it could be argued that it is always on the table.

Is it for some, in this specific instance?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, by point.

*If staff says the risks are present, wouldn't it be logical to include an escape clause in the contract to that end?

*The fact that you pointed to these figures as being overly conservative in comparisons to the school's projections.

*As I said - No. And I don't think non-Loudoun residences should be on this committee whether I agree with them or not.

*Who is actually paying for the tests EGGI is conducting? If the county, you would think they would bid that work out and not sole source it to Jamie Emery. If it is Sal, well need I go further...

*It would depend on how the tests were performed and analysed I suppose. But that SHOULD be a part of the SPEX case - mandated? Perhaps not - you should be more familiar with that issue and I am.

*Um...I think the argument is that this deal is a bad deal (except for Sal that is). That is the argument. Clear enough for you?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Godfrey wrote:

"We just finished a boundary process for elementary schools in western Loudoun; our total student capacity is 4,544. By 2013-14, we will have 4,165 students, which means there will be only 379 elementary seats not occupied in 2014."

Therefore, by staff's own figures we will not need a new ES in western Loudoun until at lease 2014. Staff projects that they can build new ES in a minimum of one year. Build in an extra year for siting, zoning and other land issues and we are at not needing new ES land until 2012 at the absolute soonest. Which begs the question - why the rush to close on this property in June of 2009 - three full years before the earliest date it would be needed to meet demand?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

You are the one who claims not to have taken a position on this and at the same time takes cheap shots at "activists" who have exposed some pretty serious issues here, and the public process. I am not criticizing your opinions, just making fun of you pretending not to be taking a position, when it is pretty clear how contemptuous you are of the people opposed to this purchase.

Apparently, for you, it is a few in the public who did wrong in Lenah, instead of Mr. Miller and the Bos, our elected officials. This is backwards Our elected officials are the ones charged to properly apply our Plan. If there really are so many people upset about what happened with Lenah, then there will be consequences in the next election.

Same goes with Wheatland, Elected officials know they will not be re-elected if they go against the majority.

I think all taxpayers should condemn this deal as a boondoggle inside deal overpayment horrible contract! I welcome everyone to look at the contract, especially the price and take the time to look up all the foreclosures of large tracts and property for sale right now. That should settle it for anyone who cares.

As to condemnation, you are the one who raised it here, with just a question :) and now want to turn it into an issue. Good try!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, re 10:14:
*there is an escape clause in the contract, which has not yet closed, the property has not conveyed, the testing is not complete, and the date to extend or cancel has not yet been reached.

*They are not the school's projections, but the documented use over a one year period. I did not say they were "overly conservative", but that it appears they "err on the side of caution". If that standard phrase causes you to focus solely on the word "err" and then extrapolate that I obviously think being cautious is an error, please forgive me for forgetting I was talking to you for a moment. State guidelines for testing are many multiples of documented use here,which I think IS good if the tests are allowed to be performed, because if they go well, it should alleviate some of the very real fear about water.

*Do you think that all testing in the county should only be performed by county residents who are in the appropriate discipline? Please note that I do not accuse you of saying that. I do think it could open up not only a different kind of potential for conflict, but close us off from the potential benefits of outside resources (which do seem to be okay on some other issues).

*As the letter outlining the testing is from EGGI to B&D, I'd think it would be the school system paying EGGI. What was B&D's reply? Do you know that it was NOT bid out? (Would you have bid on it?)

*If not mandated, "should" is certainly a legitimate thing to lobby for--through the proper, open procedure.

*That hasn't been the only argument presented. Sounds a lot like the Lenah conspiracy theory, in fact. But I know that one was different. The site was fully compliant with the plan, for one thing.

**Yes, this method of response by you is much more clear, thank you!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, given the number of years it is taking to get an overdue high school open at a BoS selected site, I see no reason for the school board not to start early in getting land.

Is there any reason to think that there will be appropriate sites available when it is time to begin construction?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The "urgent" need is for an elementary school. Remember, Priscilla admonished us all to think of the unborn kindergartner and all of his little friends.

I don't think they'd have all that much trouble siting an elementary school on 25 acres somewhere.

The owners of the former Crim property next to Hillsboro ES even responded to the RFP (a fact conveniently left out of any public statements or "fact" sheets put out by LCPS - they keep claiming that there 4 responses). This parcel could easily be used to build a larger replacement Hillsboro ES.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I have taken shots at some exaggerations and selective information. That doesn't serve the process well, or the people crafting the message.

When have I driven out west or up to Leesburg or Ashburn to place my opinions into the official public record on this issue?

This is just a blog.

Yes, the (corporate) BoS and the (corporate) PC did wrong at Lenah, with our own representatives there working with some protesters and taking action against the application while it was still in process. Perhaps the members of the public who did so can get a pass (except for the protesters who also held county appointments that they did not disclose on the record when lobbying against the application their agency supported) on simple self interest, which is certainly allowed! You are correct that the officials who encouraged it and acted on it are the main ones at fault.

That is where the process broke, Sally. Has it been working well since?

We may or may not have the opportunity to vote on this in 2011, as our representative is seeking greener pastures in Richmond.

Sally, I did not raise condemnation, it was part of the discussion when instrntv was arguing that real estate and property didn't mean land, and the issue of whether the school board was allowed to buy land.

You referred back to it in the post preceding my question of whether or not it was on the table, which is why I asked.

"Good try"? A legitimate question, I think.

I'm glad to see you couch this as your opinion: "I think all taxpayers should condemn this deal as a boondoggle inside deal overpayment horrible contract!"

Take off the first two words, and the tone and even meaning change, don't they?

None of us can speak for anyone but ourselves (unless officially empowered to do so), neither can we control or dictate the opinions of others.

The little things make all the difference, and it is some little things and the way they have been presented that create my own skepticism over some of the protest.

But that's just MY opinion--lol!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, was it stated that there were only four responses, or that four was the number brought to the joint committee with the BoS after reviewing the responses though county staff?

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

some very artful wording on the "fact" sheet:

"Four people responded representing the Scott Property, the Danner Property, the Cangiano Property and the Virts Property."

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb:

*It is my understanding that there is NO escape clause in the contract for the issue being discussed (failure to get SPEX approval).
*I'll drop the err issue - semantics - it was clear what you were saying.
*No I don't
*Like you I was asking questions not answering them. It does seem strange that the school board would not bid this sort of work out though. No I would not respond to such an RFP.
*I think you know that the SPEX process is intentionally flexible. I said "SHOULD" as in industry standard SHOULD result in appropriate aquifer testing being performed as a part of the demonstration of lack of negative impact to local groundwater supplies.
*All of the aruguments I have heard have supported that conlusion - this is NOT a good deal and the SB has entered a bad contract.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, that doesn't answer my question, but maybe all that means is both of us don't know.

Eric, sometimes it's hard to tell which issue is being discussed at the moment; water testing, RFP, SPEX etc.

It appears to me the contract is placing water as the major issue, since the cancellation clause is tied to testing (which some have intermittently criticized as insufficient, and dismissed as immaterial).

If testing is allowed to be done and reviewed, it may settle the issue right there.

It seems, however, that we'll never get to discuss the process of a SPEX, since the testing period is going so very well, eh?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can certainly look at the fact sheet yourself if you think you'll get a better answer.

They only presented these four to the BOS:

"Four people responded representing the Scott Property, the Danner Property, the Cangiano Property and the Virts Property."

It is intentionally misleading. Who knows how many other RFP respondents there were?

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, I did look at again.

As we are operating under a make-it-up-as-we-go process, I don't know what to expect from any unadopted RFP procedure.

While I was there I saw again something I noticed the last time.

Why is the average price per acre being ascribed to only one ?seller?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, I have no idea, I guess you'd have to ask the school folks... their facts have a lot of people scratching their heads.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So do some of the protesters have me scratching mine.

The average price per acre is 67K for the entire site, which has two sellers.

One seller, the evil greedy developer, is getting 62K per acre, and the other is getting 147K per acre.

One is recorded in lots, and the other (the evil greedy one) is only vested in a preliminary subdivision, which means they can process the recording of their lots any time they want to start.

I wonder what land will cost (and where it will be available) once everything west of 15 that isn't in a permanent conservation easement IS recorded in lots?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course Cangiano could complete his subdivision at any time. It'll just take a few million dollars worth of engineering, road improvements, internal streets, storm water controls, bonding, etc. Then it might be worth the comps LCPS is using - at least on a per-lot basis.

Now Cangiano has dropped his price in desperation to save his bailout deal.

But a better price doesn't make it compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since you asked the same question on the other "rally" thread, I will post the same response here:

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 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need more integrity and guts in our politicians to say no to greased deals like this one, and to say yes to a fair public process, respect for FOIA's and open government, fair and consistent application of our laws, fair use of our tax/bond money.

The School Board has an option to cancel this contract for any reason before June 1, Do it. They should not extend it or renegotiate it, but should cancel it.

Exercise the contract option to cancel, and Go slow.

No big tracts of land are selling at all in western Loudoun and a lot is on the market. Some large subdivisions with RECORDED lots being foreclosed. Lots of fire sales, and builders going under.

Wait a little longer to see what other properties can be turned up in the town, which is what the Plan calls for and what most people really want.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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)

Good to see you finally address the comprehensive plan. And thank you for supporting Supervisor Burton and all of the "activists" that have been asking the county to play by their own rules.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, I've addressed it several times. The words say "whenever possible" regarding school placement in relation to towns and villages in the rural area.

It remains to be seen wherever that might be, if anywhere.

If the goal of some is to take over the school system and have it under their personal control, no, I don't support that, whether it is by Mr. Burton or any other activist.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The school system's version of "whenever possible" is to hold a two-week RFP, and only consider those responses. And then to ignore and hide the only response that actually meets the "in or adjacent to" towns and villages requirement (Crim).

I certainly wouldn't support Mr. Burton taking over the School System. Wow, thats scary. But, as someone said... "The conspiracy runs very very deep--right to the New World Order."

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"low level stooge" you said it, not me.

Good description, except that it does not convey the destruction to the public good, to honest spending for our school projects, to the faith that we have in public officials... in my opinion.

Good for you, you think the price that we originally were going to pay was not so bad, in relation to the price per acre for the smaller actually recorded separate parcels, with a home.

Go ahead, keep asking questions about how much land exactly does Ellen own, and what percentage does she exactly do, and is she really a farmer? You are just making yourself look ridiculous.

Big Picture time.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, again, you are rearranging words in order to attack me for things I haven't said.

If your current position is that I have no credibility with you because you now "know" I am paid, how does this semantic tactic on your part support your own credibility?

windhunde, I'm glad you don't want to see Mr. Burton in charge of the system either, unless you are being as sarcastic I acknowledged being with the New World Order.

But if things keep going as they have been for the past few years, schools may very well end up a subcommittee of Finance.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, You are the one who rearranges words and distorts truth. Now how does the higher value per acre of the smaller ten acre total Burgess property (that they live in and will have to move from) already in recorded lots have any relation to the very high price we are paying for Cangiano?

Have you looked at the comparably very low offers the Millers in Lovettsville made to sell? and the low ball counters by the School Board? They are on the smalltownschools site Sarah set up. Look at the timeline and the FOIA docs.

I'd like to hear you explain how that makes the Cangiano deal acceptable, not conforming with the Plan, with a price three times per acre that the School Board tried to get the Millers to sell for (threatening condemnation to the Millers, but blythely overpaying for Cangiano)--

This should be good.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, if I imitated some of the things you've done in your attempted cross examinations here, the Post would be getting threatening phone calls from you about my posts.

The current status of the Miller property is that the owners have put on record it is not for sale, correct?

All sites given the go-ahead to pursue (by the BoS to the school board--whether at a joint meeting, or as Mr. Burton and Ms. McGimsey apparently interpreted, as executive session, where they voted, but only because they were tricked) were outside the plan.

Is the BoS culpable in that too, by allowing the made-up process to proceed on two sites (one of which was Miller--until their statement of record) that staff had advised them had that status? Or does Mr. Burton's ambiguous language at the meeting read in hindsight like a setup?

At this point we don't know whether the land is even usable because no testing on soil and water has been completed and evaluated.

The price is apparently coming down some.

The improvements necessary for any of the sites on the school board website have no listed price tags, so it remains to be seen what any will cost by the time a school or schools open on them.

One thing I do know, in staffspeak "significant" (as in wetlands, or floodplain, and so on) is a very ominous word.

Who knows what the rules will be next week Sally?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 16, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read the FOIA docs Sarah fought so hard to get.

You will see the reasonable and respectful offers (compared to Cangiano, especially) that the Millers made in 2006 and 2007 to sell their property. And the responses from the SB that if they did not agree to a lower price, condemnation would be considered...

Don't you think it is odd that we offered such an outrageously expensive contract to Cangiano at a site that did not meet the Plan? We never tried to low ball him. We never threatened him with condemnation.
The FOIA docs show water contamination nearby, too-- toxic stuff.

You are so blind in your bias, and so stubborn, you will not admit that this time the citizen activists are right. They have done a fabulous job, that we should be proud of.

Barbara, I have done nothing but give opinions about you and ask questions. I cannot fathom, with your expertise and knowledge, why you are here ignoring the big picture and picking fights about nonsense. You are just here picking angry fights.

You don't like what I say, complain to the Post! You complain to everyone else about everything else! That's your "right," exercise it! Or, Call your source! very politely! and they will give you information they are not even releasing yet to either School Board or Board of Supervisor members! LOL!!!

It is more than bizarre that you seem to advocate so strongly for a contract that was 4 to 5 times over value, in a place that did not meet the Plan, that looks like an insider deal, that the great majority of folks have questioned...

An assemblage outside of Lovettsville was put together this week with an offer to sell--Mr. Burton is handling it. Maybe to make sure it is presented and considered? Your source didn't have all those details? There is other property too.

Deals like this are why the public is angry with public officials. And maybe this is why Steve Snow did so badly. Stubborn denial is not good Barb. All across the nation voters want accountability, and this is a good example of how the government was prepared to casually waste millions, overpaying for a property that is inappropriate.

For someone with your expertise and intelligence, you should be using it for good, not this kind of BS... Read the FOIA docs on Sarah's webpage, and support the Plan and the law, and push our public servants to do the best they can.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If the goal of some is to take over the school system and have it under their personal control, no, I don't support that, whether it is by Mr. Burton or any other activist."

And you accuse Sally of being a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I have reviewed the timeline.

There bulk of the information on the Miller property is in 2005 and 2006, and has enough gaps in it that conclusions can be drawn, but not necessarily proven.

The gaps allow the redlining of questions, exclamation points, and speculative conclusions some of which take some pretty large leaps into yes, conspiracy.

Are the gaps all the result of withholding of information?

Some perhaps, and perhaps legally.

You are familiar with the exemption from FOIA for working documents?

Anything exempt under FOIA (as in state law) isn't being criminally withheld.

In addition, some of the redlines have to do with transportation issues re roads, access, and projected plans.

Have these been cross-reffed with the CTP and State plans, and how many of the gaps or inconsistencies speculated about there in the redlines have to do with the difference between county and state plans that may still be under discussion, or were working docs when FOIAed?

The last reference to Miller was in December of 2007 (long before Woodgrove was ultimately decided in court--the annexation was only finalized last week), in which neighbors apparently approached the Millers and discussed the withdrawal of the property.

As it stands, the property is not in play, and apparently will not be until the owner chooses to change that.

IOW, interesting, but neither complete, nor on the table at the moment.

If they really want to try to prove what they are speculating as fact, they may have to go after phone records, or bring a suit to go after face to face verbal evidence, which would still be back to he said/she said if there were no other witnesses to a conversation.

Phone records are very costly and difficult; we explored getting that, on the conversations between Sup. Miller and the realtor who did not represent the owner of Lambert, but was shopping someone else's property that their client was interested in for a nonpermitted use, for which the adopted process and plan were broken during Lenah.

It was pretty expensive, which I guess is why some things are done on the phone.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition, Sup. Miller had no authority whatsoever to negotiate property under adopted process--when the realtor who did not represent the owner of that property in TR3 approached him, he should have referred them to proper staff.

Just as apparently Ms. Bergel did with the representative who has now made an offer to Mr. Burton, who is equally not authorized to negotiate. he has announced it by email, and it will be intersting to watch whatever process is currently being used to evalutate it, and county conclusions on it.

Re conspiracies Eric, Sally has done her fair share with that, most notably her unfounded allegations that I am paid, which she continues here. I have no intention of following her practice of threatening the paper, because I'd rather her words stay right here.

Sally, I've argued from the beginning that we currently have no procedure, and that changing what little we have through the protest of the week isn't good government either.

How odd that Snow was one of the few who defended you and your property rights when you were involved in FOIA disputes, and representing yourself in court seeking proof of conspiracy against you involving some of the same people you are working with now.

Yes, principles are important.

Consistently.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Documents that say it all:

The offers the Millers made to the School Board, very reasonable in comparison to the Cangiano offer (1/3 of the price per acre) that were rejected by the School Board (why?); and the documents from the School Board, who threatened the Millers if they did not further lower the price, that they would condemn the land. These documents are not "incomplete" as you suggest... They do not need "telephone records" like you suggest to prove what is right there--the apparently unsavory games that have been played sacrificing the public interest...

The other stuff that you blog about is not worth responding to, more picking fights, bringing up the wrong Miller (Supervisor Miller.)

Again, don't you think it is odd that our School Board, that you think is so wonderful, would offer a contract to Cangiano for 4 to 5 times the value of the land, more than 3 times per acre that they offered to the Millers? when the Miller property meets the Plan and the Cangiano property does not?

And don't you think it is odd that the School Board you revere threatened to condemn the Miller's land, and never blinked an eye at offering such a rich contract with a down payment 25 times the down payment offered to the Millers? the Millers wanted a $50,000 down payment, the School Board was only willing to offer $10,000--and made such a big deal about that. Then they offer Cangiano a $250,000 down payment? Weird, in my opinion...

How can you explain the differences in the way the property that met the Plan was treated as opposed to the Cangiano property, which does not meet the Plan?

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 17, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, if you are concerned with government misbeavior in relation to school sites, then the Sup isn't the wrong Miller to be looking at.

The Miller tract is not for sale, so I don't see the point in discussing it as if it were.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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 17, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read it Sally.

You don't need to repeat anything, believe me! (teasing)

I have answered your question, but you don't like the answer.

I have answered many other questions, and you changed the subject, or position.

I have answered still others, and you've accused me of being paid.

Is there a point?

Why do you seem to be arguing in favor of ad hoc process by protests, fueled primarily with emotion, rather than a proper open process to change the current one you don't like?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

You did not even attempt to answer my questions. You can't. Because there is no way to justify the fact that the Millers' offers to sell were turned down in favor of throwing three times as much money per acre at Cangiano. And how can anyone justify the School Board's "appraisal" which looks like a rubber stamp of a figure he was told someone needed?

I think this contract should be cancelled until we get a good process in place. Whatever has been done here is so flawed that it is looking almost criminal.

Don't you agree the contract should be cancelled until there is a better process?

In any new process I think they should require at least three appraisals for purchases, with at least one by the BoS. This appraisal shows us why. It is over inflated and unjustified. One person should not have so much power to determine value, with many millions of tax dollars at stake, and with so little accountability. It is a situation that is ripe for accusations of insider dealing and corruption, and needs to be changed.

Especially,given all the irregularities we see in the disparate treatment landowners who met the comp plan and Cangino were treated? And given the "appraisal" by the School Board, with no actual sales to justify a ridiculous way above market price? Don't you think we need some methods of insuring accountability in our process?

If you also believe this process is broken, demand that it be stopped in its tracks. And demand that this contract, the flawed product of a flawed process, be cancelled immediately.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Miller tract is not for sale, so I don't see the point in discussing it as if it were."

Barb,
Are you being INTENTIONALLY obtuse here? The issue is not whether the Miller tracts is currently for sale or not. It is the discrepancies in the manner each potential purchase was handled. Sally is dead on here.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, if part of the evidence in the timeline is a Christmas card, and a lot of the rest is gaps filled with red text caps and exclamation points, I see no point in discussing a property NOT for sale based on a speculative interpretation posted on a nonofficial site.

The same pattern is being run here as was run at Lenah and Grubb on the citizen side, and, as Sally argued until she decided to start making speculative accusations, until we properly change what process we have, we must abide by the one we do have.

As other posters have said, if you disagree with it, discuss changing it.

The proper way to change it is NOT through formulaic protest and disruption.

As for comps, that was an issue at Lenah too.

The appeal was discussed as a huge conspiracy, and guess what?

They won most of it.

Just more proof of conspiracy, I know.

I'm the conspiracy kid, right?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Most of the "protest" that you belittle, is pointing out how the process is flawed, how the flawed process lead to a flawed contract. We do need a good process, with bureaucrats and politicians being watched by the public to make sure they apply fair standards of review to all properties, and fair contracting standards to our purchase agreements. And follow our laws. That is not happening right now.

So people should shut up and just let the bureaucrats appraise property for whatever sky high price they want, and pay someone three times or more what the property is worth, when other just as good and better property is out there, on the market for a third of the price or even less? So we low ball folks who want to sell land that meets the plan and overpay by many times someone whose property does not?

So what is the "proper" way to change the process, if not through public input or "formulaic protest" as you so snidely refer to the public outrage over this contract.

I think the contract should be cancelled for a variety of reasons. You just take potshots. What do you think should be done? What are your suggestions for a fair process?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

DO you really wish us to believe that YOU of all people (who find boogie men everywhere you look) do not value so-called "speculative interpretation posted on a nonofficial site"? Come on now, Barb. You KNOW Sally has made a good case here - heck, SAL knows she has made a good case - that is why he unilaterally dropped his price after all. This just leads us to question the whole "process" you cite even more - looks like NO process was followed here to me. Time to start from scratch - think of the deal Sal will offer if he actually has to honestly compete for our tax dollars.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The proper way to change the process would be for the school board and the board of supervisors in conjunction to direct their staffs to draw one up in conjunction, send it through review, public hearing etc.

If it involved a change to an appointed school board I would think that should go to a vote.

Sally, all I think the formula protest on every site that comes down the pike is is marketing for a change in power--to have enough vague public opinion of corruption floating around that people think it's a good idea to transfer MORE power to whoever the BoS is at the moment--it sure would make it easier on some power wallets if they didn't have to try to manage quite so many elections, wouldn't it?

Eric, we are currently operating without any valid process, because the BoS decided to simply stop following the one we had.

Certainly in their interest, if they want to take over the school system, as I said to Sally.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cancel the contract and work on a good process then.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Eric, we are currently operating without any valid process..."

So therefore you support entering a contract signed in the absence of any valid process? Sally's right - admit it - frankly given history, it should be harder for me to say that than you...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So, to round up a few of the factual errors in Ms Godfrey's letter:

- The site is 50% further from Lovettsville than she claims."

It's hard to support your argument when you engage in number spinning. 1.5 miles may be 50% but is hardly a hardship. Ask Ashburn Farm.

Posted by bschweiker (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)