Ms. Munsey misses the point. If the school board wasn't insistent on purchasing huge sites (among the largest in the country according to EPA school siting expert), then many sites closer to towns would be available. But when only big will do, and I mean real big, the options go down and the price goes up. What's more, the owner of those large tracts is usually a developer with surrounding land for houses that will sell easier with a school amenity. LCPS has failed to answer a myriad of questions that have been raised based on FOIA'd records and follow up research on statements made by officials - like why Crim site next to Hillsboro ES was excluded and why VDOT isn't consulted. It's pretty clear, Adamo has had his sights on Wheatland for years and anything else just gets in his way. People who want a better process are not the problem Ms. Munsey, it's public officials with agendas.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Stinger, good for you to respond to my letter without excess exaggeration, which was my point.

The devil is always in the details, and a better process will not be arrived at through misrepresentation to make a "better" point.

Large school sites are in part mandated through the plan itself: colocation of school and rec facilities means the fields, which are then available for county sports.

Add on the setbacks from various features, and any parcel has only a particular buildable footprint. The county has over the years increased the capacity of its schools, and I doubt it would prove to be more cost-effective to build many small facilities throughout the policy area.

Then don't forget that much of the rest of the land also owned by developers are primarily by-right lots, which means large lot homes that will be built anyway when the market dictates.

On the main page of your website at smalltownschools, you state "NOTE: There is no policy regarding non-residential development in the Rural Policy Area supposedly because it’s not in the Plan AT ALL!"

Please see Land Use Pattern and Design in Chapter 7, where in paragraph 2 it delineates some non-residential uses, such as "rural based public and commercial recreation, ancillary rural business and compatible rural institutional uses."

Schools are a co-located recreational use, as I said.

In Land Use Pattern and Design Strategies, Chapter 6, a variety of uses are outlined (including the words "where possible" in relation to housing them in historic structures), including industrial uses and bio-tech research. It also mentions medical facilites, private schools and conference centers, among other uses.

There is provision for non residential development in the rural policy plan.

Public schools are a state-mandated service.

Again, the devil is in the details.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 17, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Go to http://www.peterli.com/spm/pdfs/constr_r... to see some good research that proves bigger isn't necessarily cheaper. Add to that costs of bringing all the needed infrastructure and need for busses because no one can walk and the cost to build in remote areas sky rocket. The school board doesn't consider long term transportation costs in comparing sites, I know because they didn't have bus route mileages as readily available information when I FOIA'd that.

Anyway most would rather see less bells and whistles in community schools than fancy megacampuses where kids have long bus rides to isolated areas. Upzoning neighboring properties is a fair concern when you talk about such an intense land use.

You can't be credible using "whereever possible" in this situation because there has NEVER been a sincere attempt to put it in a town. Miller is a prime example, 2-week RFPs, half-truths (=lies by my standards) about alternate road alignments which wouldn't require condemnation, VDOT never being consulted yet referenced with authority, exclusion of Crim, blah blah blah. A clear bias for Wheatland is there...in the details to anyone with enough time to sift through it all, and I've got tons more I haven't even gone through.

What's more, you can't pull a few vague references out of the Plan and discard all the other references woven throughout with respect to preserving the rural character - it just doesn't pass the red face test Barbara. I'm sorry you don't care about protecting local food production areas but the petition and outcry prove you are in the minority on that point.

Godfrey doesn't have to say the Plan is irrelevant because her votes and actions of the school board demonstrate they believe it is irrelevant. This is based on the last two school contracts they have advanced in western Loudoun (Grubb and Cangiano) and others they were working on before (Danner, Legard) and the other one they plan to advance if Cangiano fails (Virts) all of which are not remotely in/near a Town. The one time they had a signed contract for a site near a Town (Miller) they intentionally sabotaged the negotiations.

Barbara, did you consider that IF they build this campus larger than they need (only 2900 more high school seats are projected by LCPS in the west at buildout, which equates to 2-1450 high schools) THEN they will have to bus kids from points east to fill those extra seats. Won't that be nifty!? It just isn't cost effective to build a bunch of seats that will remain empty unless you import kids from districts far far away.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, during the Lenah debacle, you made comments in your opposition to that site on various blogs that until every student had been treated as badly as rural students had during the Woodgrove process, that no one would be receiving fair treatment.

You at the same time were telling me you didn't wish that on anyone.

You need not try to frighten me with the prospect of my kids being bused west Sarah.

One is already slated to be bused north this August because MS5 is three years late.

------------------------------------------

Those are not vague references from the Plan Sarah, they are examples taken directly from the Plan.

Which would seem to be in contradiction with the exaggeration on the main page of your site that non residential development "is not in the plan AT ALL!" for the rural policy area.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When Steve Snow wanted to muddy the waters and poke a stick in the eyes of residents of Western Loudoun he chose the author of this letter to be his representative on the Planning Commission. Her hassling of regular citizens and witch hunts against the evil forces of urban planning quickly became popular youtube fodder- She and Steve Snow were thankfully removed from their duties last BOS election.
.
Barbara has now thrust herself into the Wheatlands school debate, not that she wants to talk about the actual school site. No. Babs wishes to talk about the "tone".
.

The LTE Barbara references can be found here http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n... In this factual challenged letter school board member Priscilla Godfrey refers to a farm near Tyson Corner as a fine example of how a farm can function just fine next to high density development.
.
Had Ms Godfrey been paying closer attention to the public debate she would have known the owner of the farm had already gone on the public record in reference to the Wheatland site, stating how difficult and undesirable it was to continue farming in Fairfax County. The farm owner went on to say how this model should not be followed in Loudoun County.
.

Despite posting thousands (yes, thousands) of words in the comment section below Ms. Godfrey's letter and penning a letter responding to the owner of the farm Barbarba seems to have missed the point, perhaps intentionally (??)
.
Considering the track record of Mrs. Munsey's (thankfully) short stint as a Planning Commissioner I am not surprised at her attempts to further muddy the water by changing the topic to anything but the merits of the Wheatland site.
.
The owner of the farm's letter can be found here- http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n...
.
Call me crazy, but after reading all the letters I (again) am left with no idea of what Barbara Munsey is talking about.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I have stated MANY times now (can't get past Barb's blinders though - Harmony Intermediate School is a perfect example of a school accepted by the community because the community was involved with its citing from day one. Yet Barb continues to say that such community support is not possible in today's climate. Not true, Barb.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The county has over the years increased the capacity of its schools, and I doubt it would prove to be more cost-effective to build many small facilities throughout the policy area."

Frankly, you have no basis for this contention. Not surprising...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey is the one exaggerating. The letter the farm owner wrote said her farm was "near" Tysons Corner. In fact it is in Vienna, and surrounded by single family homes, all on public water.

Read the link for the owner of the farm in the post above, and you judge who is exaggerating, and twisting facts.

The question, Barbara, is why are you doing this, supporting a contract to purchase property that is 3 times the cost per acre of property that other sellers offered to sell--when this contract does not meet the plan (which would like schools to be near towns with public water and sewer) and the other less expensive (by far) property was adjacent to the town of Lovettsville?

The appraisal for the Wheatland property is not supported by any sales data. How did the School Board appraise it for many times the assessed value?

Did you know that the proposed wells for the site do not meet County standards? they have applied for a waiver to put the well or wells closer to an existing creek, which has many issues. And one of the school wells they want to use is offsite? on other land they will have to either buy or ease?

The deal was a rushed deal, why? no contingency as has been standard to get the change in zoning, to address the required mitigation of impact. Why?

Barbara, your comments consistently attack people who have pointed out problems with the contract and process. And now you are not even quoting correctly the person you accuse of exaggeration?

Many questions about your objectivity here, and how you could support this awful deal.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Our Comprehensive Plan states that schools in the rural area should be located near towns and villages "whenever possible." In the constant climate of protest in Loudoun, where will that be possible? To date, nowhere."

Until LCPS actually attempts to comply with the Comprehensive Plan (instead of relentlessy working to circumvent it) we will never know.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are three sides to any argument. In this case we seem to have the Mann/Stinger/Wolinski side; the County side; and the third still to be determined side "the truth".
.
I don't buy the FOIA fed MSW conspiracy. As valuable as a FOIA can be, the more you get the less you understand. Looking at thousands of documents without context is like reading a Dicken's novel through a soda straw on pages that are out of order and not numbered.
.
The MSW analysis seems to chop out sound bites as their version of the truth and then stomp their feet with great joy that another lie has been revealed. What is in the documents that may not be supportive of their ulterior motive? Motive questions here are very valid.
.
Real value in FOIA comes from having a business like relationship with those being FOIAed so one can ask pertinent follow-up questions about context. Or being able to ask, "is this really what was meant?", "was this ever decided on?", etc. Context that will lead to accurate insights. Unfortunately the antics of MSW has made any valuable back and forth impossible.
.
What should be happening is a realistic discussion about site location(s) (pros and cons) financing (all facets with alternatives); and the needs of our children. I hear some of that happening but it's buried by the MSW side of this debate.
.
A little more reality and a lot less MSW will lead us to the real truth.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maravetz, the players at LCPS have had ample opportunity to put the FOIA'd information into context but they have yet to do so. You are right about one thing, the whole truth is, as yet, unknown and LCPS officials are not sharing.

Posted by sootiewebb (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know, maravetz, the MSW team has already done us taxpayers much goos in forcing Sal to preemptively and unilaterally reduce his price. They have done more than the school board could do in all their negotiations. Think how much lower this purchase could go if things really got competitive. Time to start this deal from scratch.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey, I did not threaten bussing your kids west, I simply point out that LCPS are more likely to do just that in 10 years when they have empty seats at an overbuilt 1800-seat HS-10 and have overcrowded conditions to the east. I would never wish long bus rides for any child, for you to suggest that is ridiculous. This concept that you intentionally muddy the water is making more sense to me with each comment of yours I read.

Sootie - You hit the nail on the head - we continue to wait for LCPS to fill-in the gaps.

Mr. Maravets, until LCPS tells us the "rest of the story", what do you suggest we do? Do you propose we agree with the School Board to happily give Mr. Cangiano a contract for lots of extra cash that we don't have to spare just because his proposal is under our voter-approved bond budget?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sootiewebb,
.
LCPS or for that matter, any agency or individual FOIAed is not required to "put things into context". The only thing legally required is to turn over responsive documents. Your comment about LCPS having "ample time" is an uninformed one. An individual can't command via FOIA for a government agency to create a custom report, or to compel them to pour resources into a specific request. Documents are the only thing that is responsive. Nothing else.
.
My point is one needs to be able to work with the producer of the FOIA or erroneous conclusions are very possible. And more likely as the number of documents increases. Especially if one side has an agenda. MSW has created a contentious relationship that causes great difficulty at getting to the truth.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I appreciate Mr Maravetz reasoned approach to this discussion which in some cases seems to be a witch hunt.

Ms Stinger, I respect all the research you are doing and continute to do and your commitment to the education of western Loudoun kids. However, I wonder about your statement: "Mr. Maravets, until LCPS tells us the "rest of the story", what do you suggest we do"? Unfortunately, it seems that some believe that everything LCPS tells them is a lie. If that is the case, what is left? Will this have to be worked out in a legal proceeding or some other public hearing where people are put under oath, evidence is presented, and all the various players testify?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2, you have been reading Barbara's exaggerations. No one is saying "everything" is a lie, but there have been some whoppers, on material issues, that are alarming.

As for the FOIA, Sarah has managed to obtain some pretty damaging information--damaging to the trust we put in our public officials. Nothing out of context, no misinterpreting, straight forward documents that I am sure the School Board is embarrassed to have discussed publicly. And BlackOut is trying to minimize somehow by saying we don't understand the documents that have been provided through FOIA.

Like the offers from a seller in town that the School Board tried to low ball and threaten with condemnation, and then the documents to throw money, 4 to 5 times the real value-- at Cangiano. And the Cangiano appraisal, is not related to fair market value in any respect. It is a summary assignment of a value, with no justification, no comparables, no sales. The appraiser did a minimal job, and noted that he did not know how many more wells would need to be drilled, or how many septic sites found. And it is a multiple of fair market value, not fair at all, but sky high.

The process is broken and public trust is gone because of these maneuvers by the School Board. If they had done what they had been charged to do, to look for properties and negotiate in good faith with property owners with land in or adjacent to towns, then there would be no problem, but they insist of veering off course with these wild overpriced contracts, for property not allowed as a school under our Plan.

This contract needs to be cancelled and we need to start over with real parameters, a mechanism for public input, and careful appraisal from the beginning.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

aff, since when is a school all of Tyson's Corner? If you are having trouble with that concept, then why not ignore the discussion?

--------------------------------------

Eric, Harmony was built as an middle school, and opened as a hybrid middle/high, which it has been for nearly ten years as western students have been housed in ever more execrably creative ways. A great deal of the community involvement there had protest as well, because that was back before Mountain View too. The boundaries for that one looked like an octopus when first set, so the people in the small school could remain islands, and long arms reached past them to take others to Fields.

btw, do you honestly think if that were me at tc, that LI wouldn't have outed that? He knows every IP on there. But the point is to SAY it's me, I understand that.

------------------------------------
Sally, here is a direct quote from the letter I responded to:
"I am astounded that she would use our farm as a model to emulate."

Emulate: 1 : to strive to equal or excel. 2: to equal or approach equality with.

Where did Prsicilla Godfrey suggest that the farms of the Wheatland area "emulate" the one referenced in the Newcombe letter?

I did not write the headline, just the letter.

Sally, this is apparently an issue for all citizens--as long as they agree with some of the protesters.

How are we going to get a BETTER process in the county for anything, as long as everything is driven by protest? I'm not happy with the way everything is done here, but I don't think handing the reins over to a different set of axe-grinders will necessarily be better.

------------------------------------------

windhunde, Lenah complied with the Comp Plan, both York and Burton acknowledged that when voting, and they were part of the primary drivers of the 2001 revision.

The Board chose as a body not to comply with the plan then.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Barbara, did you consider that IF they build this campus larger than they need (only 2900 more high school seats are projected by LCPS in the west at buildout, which equates to 2-1450 high schools) THEN they will have to bus kids from points east to fill those extra seats. Won't that be nifty!?"

"You need not try to frighten me with the prospect of my kids being bused west Sarah."

When did I say you were threatening me, Sarah?

-------------------------------------------

Glenn has a lot of it right on FOIA. Without context (and none is provided without a lot of cooperative question and answer discussion, in order to know what ELSE to ask for) it is possible to make a pile of documents look like anything.

---------------------------------------

Momof2, I have no clue where this will end up. I don't have high hopes for it being a good place.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lenah isn't in the rural area, Barbara. I'd think an ex-planning commissioner would kmow that. It was you that I was quoting, wasn't it?

Keep on muddying the waters...

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, Priscila Godfrey said the farm was in Tysons Corner. She got her facts wrong and you repeated wrong facts. The farm is not in Tyson's but a few miles west, in Fairfax County, with a Vienna address, across from Great Falls, surrounded by larger lot single family residential on public water.

You got your facts wrong, twisted it to try to misinform, and you complain that others are hard on the School Board for blatant and serious lies?

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

.

aff, since when is a school all of Tyson's Corner? If you are having trouble with that concept, then why not ignore the discussion?
.

I read what she writes, but I have no idea of what she is trying to say.
.
.
No. A school is not all of Tyson's Corner- no issues here with the concept

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am beginning to agree with Eric, she is only here to confuse and misinform. Really nothing she says is constructive or makes any sense. There are real problems with what has happened, gross negligence if not absolute corruption staring right at us, and she is making headlines accusing someone of having a farm in Tysons Corner, when the farm is not in Tysons Corner, and then extrapolating to make the false argument that if a farm can survive in Tysons, it can survive anywhere, right? on well water? Yeah, it would be interesting if Tysons had well water...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, I didn't say it wasn't in the transition area, I said it complied with the Plan and the BoS turned it down.

That's when the school process "broke", although some of the same people protesting Wheatland (saying "the process is broken") also protested Lenah (saying "the process is broken").

Sally, the Newcombe letter is signed with Vienna and Purcellville adresses.

Those are perhaps the zipcodes of the farms?

Here is how Ms. Newcombe referenced her own property in her letter: "But the detail that caught my eye is her mention of our farm on Route 7" and "At the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors meeting last week, I used our farm near Tysons Corner as an example"

Are you quibbling about "near"? You've referred to it as "across from Great Falls".

Ms. Godfrey said "Just look at Tysons Corner, where houses abut a farm that is still doing business on Route 7." That is a fairly good synthesis of Ms. Newcombe's points.

I would suggest that your use of "You got your facts wrong, twisted it to try to misinform", and "accusing someone of having a farm in Tysons Corner, when the farm is not in Tysons Corner" is its own version of the twist.

As I said in my letter, Ms. Newcombe's quote of Ms. Godfrey is where an extrapolation occurred, in stating that Ms. Godfrey wanted Wheatland to "emulate" those conditions.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"she is only here to confuse and misinform"
"You got your facts wrong, twisted it to try to misinform"

Welcome to my world, Sally. I told you she twisted and misinformed. Believe it now?

Posted by Bulletproof (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"windhunde, I didn't say it wasn't in the transition area, I said it complied with the Plan and the BoS turned it down."
.
then you're twisting your own words around... you were talking about NEVER getting a school sited it the RURAL area, remember.
.
Last I checked, Woodgrove is in the rural area. Wasn't pretty, but definitely puts the lie to your NEVER assertion.
.
But keep on whining about Lenah...

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bravo windhunde! so, when you say:

"then you're twisting your own words around... you were talking about NEVER getting a school sited it the RURAL area, remember."

you're talking about THIS letter for this comment thread.

When you said:

"Lenah isn't in the rural area, Barbara. I'd think an ex-planning commissioner would kmow that. It was you that I was quoting, wasn't it? Keep on muddying the waters..."

you were responding to:

"windhunde, Lenah complied with the Comp Plan",

or so I thought, which is why I replied:

"windhunde, I didn't say it wasn't in the transition area, I said it complied with the Plan"

but it was REALLY the set up for:

"you're twisting your own words around... you were talking about NEVER getting a school sited it the RURAL area, remember."

Back to the letter.

Masterful.

And you think this is providing a good example of the talking point that I twist, misinform, and exaggerate?

Okay.

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

Lenah is in the transition area, but some of the residents who fought the schools talked about retaining the rural nature of the area. Unfortunately, Lenah set a precedent, others are now using the outcome to bolster their arguments, when Lenah really doesn't fit. County staff said Lenah complied with the plan, 4 out of 5 supervisors said it complied. Supv. Burton voted FOR the Lenah sites because he knew there was cause for a lawsuit if it didn't pass. There wasn't a lawsuit, but there probably should have been one to help sort out all of these issues we continue to struggle with.

Anyway, if there have been lies, cover-ups, misuse of funds, and other improprieties, these should be explored through proper due process. Everything needs to be put into context and people need to be given an opportunity to explain.

Ms Mann, you think I have only read Barbara's comments, but it isn't true. I have been to Ms Stinger's site and some of the political blogs. I know that some are claiming to work towards the removal of the SB (except Ohneiser) and other LCPS officials. They are taking extremely serious actions.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, read the very first sentence of your letter. You claim Ms. Newcombe states a desire for the Wheatland area to "emulate Tysons Corner." That is a complete made up lie. Her farm is not even in Tyson's Corner. That is not what she said, that is what Priscilla Godfrey said, exaggerating and misstating what Ms. Newcombe said. Read your own article.

Barbara, I cannot believe how desperate you and your school board buddies have become that this is the best you've got-- to make up supposed protesters statements, and then criticize the statements you made up.

Yes, I am surprised a former Planning Commissioner would stoop so low, to argue not to enforce our zoning ordinance or our plan, and to pay 3 to 5 times the fair market value for this property...

McActivism, does that include making up citizen statements to criticize? is that part of your formulaic attack?

Being near Tyson's Corner is a lot different from being in Tyson's Corner. It's kind of like saying Wheatland is in Lovettsville. It is not--it's about as far away from Lovettsville as Ms. Newcombes' farm is from Tyson's Corner.

Since Ms. Godfrey did not know where Wheatland was, I guess it is too much for her to know that there are no farms in Tyson's Corner any more.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, How do you defend an appraisal that was done by the School Board which has no sales or other data to support it, and is sky high? not supported by any sales? Don't most appraisals include comps? with pictures? actual sales to support value?
Since you are not answering my questions on the other thread, I will repeat them here:
You don't want to look at the Millers' offers to sell that were turned down? Why, because that makes the School Board look bad? because the Miller offers met the plan and were 1/3 the cost of the Cangiano property per acre? Because the School Board threatened to condemn the Miller property if they did not come down in price, and then threw a very rich offer at Cangiano?
You didn't answer my questions.. I will repeat them:
How can you explain the differences in the way the property that met the Plan was treated as opposed to the Cangiano property?
How can you explain that other properties that meet the plan are ignored completely?
How can you defend what the School Board has done?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, you read it please. Just scroll up.

I said Ms Newcombe's letter SEEMS TO IMPLY that Ms. Godfrey's letter STATES A DESIRE for Wheatland to emulate Tyson's, i.e., in my opinion, Ms. Newcombe seems to be saying that that is what Ms. Godfrey said, and Ms. Godfrey did not.

Those who appear not to know where Wheatland is are the ones saying a high school north of Route 9 is "in Purcellville".

Sally, feel free to follow the pattern of projection exhibited by some other bloggers, who used to sharpen their knives on you, with whom you currently sing in tune.

I'm sorry that right now it seems to be the best you've got.

I am not defending the Miller appraisal Sally.

If I do, will it make the property come back?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poetic, absolutely poetic:
.
"Sally, feel free to follow the pattern of projection exhibited by some other bloggers, who used to sharpen their knives on you, with whom you currently sing in tune."
.
What IS the motive of those so adamant about not letting the other side balance out debate?
.
We need to get to the third side of the argument.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mom of 2 - I am NOT advocating for any person to be replaced, that is, unless they are simply incapable of telling the WHOLE TRUTH. All this stuff is driving the public nuts - why not just come out with the answers? Everyone is allowed to change their mind and make mistakes, as long as they are truthFUL.

Maravets - there have been many opportunities for officials to respond. After my March FOIA request, I was asked to come meet with Mr Chapman, Mr Byard and Dr Adamo. We met for 1 hour, but they didn't make any attempt to set the record straight or explain anything to me. A few weeks later Dr. Adamo was peppered with questions from the crowd in April at Lovettsv ES, but he dodged all opportunities to explain the context as well. Had he taken that opportunity, the night would have had a different tone and outcome.

LCPS quickly posts responses to various statements (e.g., historic Nixon house), so why not present the story behind the Miller negotiations, 2-week RFPs, Crim, etc? I hope you understand that silence breeds suspicion. The expectation is simple, either break the silence to restore trust or make a living doing something different.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Stinger, I was just saying I visited your website to see other viewpoints. The cries for removal that I read were on some of the political blogs.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the headline for Ms Newcombe's letter. I don't think Barbara inserted the Tysons Corner location. It isn't surprising, though, that Loudouner's may not know exactly where the farm is located.

"Letter to the Editor: Tysons Corner Farm Isn't A Good Model for Loudoun"

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I asked you to defend the Cangaino appraisal! Not the Miller appraisal... I asked you how you could defend the disparate treatment in the Miller and Canginao properties, AND you CAN'T. There is no way any logical person could understand why the School Board would low ball someone who wanted to sell land that met the plan and then throw many times the value of land to someone with land not meeting the Plan.

Formulaic McActivism, that is what you are doing right now instead of dealing with real facts.

Like an appraisal for 15 million dollars for Cangiano! a one page appraisal with no actual sales or comparable properties to base it on? Where are the sales to justify that value? does not matter to you, does it, whether the appraisal was totally bogus or not? or the price we are paying? looks like the appraisal was just a we need a document that gives us this price--no justification offered, or possible.

There is property that many do want IN Lovettsville. Why are you arguing so hard to ignore what the Plan says, just a blanket, oh we all know "everyone" will protest and "nothing" will happen. Wrong.

I am sure you saw that the wells on the Cangiano property are too close to the creek and they need a health department waiver -- and one of the wells they need is offsite. So, we are studying what now? We will give health waivers to the School Board that we would not give to a farmer? And we are testing offsite wells? with no agreement to buy or lease or ease? How will those wells affect the aquifer, and the water supply to Potomac Vegetable Farm. Oh, you don't care about their property rights to the underground water? There is no public water in Wheatland, so putting this large facility there has many consequences for water. You don't care, since you'd like to see them all destroyed anyway? That's what it sounds like...Put the schools in Lovettsville on public water, is the solution we need.

You really do not want to deal with the actual facts here, only your silly spin about a farm that is not even in Tysons Corner, and blame it on the editor when both YOU and Priscilla Godfrey were the ones who misspoke. Your only tactic here is to criticize the people asking that the plan be enforced or questioning sky high unjustified appraisals, the facts here. But it was fine to argue to enforce the plan for the hospital. HYPOCRITE!

Too bad Barbara, I used to respect you for your research, for you reliance on real facts, now I see you for the hack and cynic that you are. Really makes me sad to be so wrong about you. I really put you up on a pedestal, because I thought you were funny and smart and fair. I see now how wrong I was, with this, There is no defense of what happened here. A lot of people wonder about this agenda you have.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, the headline was quoting Ms. Godfrey. Read what Ms. Newcombe said, nothing about her farm being in Tyson's Corner. It is exaggeration on the part of Ms. Godfrey and Ms. Munsey. I know you can't believe it, because you think that some evil group killed Lenah, and the plan supported Lenah. How come the plan is so important in Lenah, to you, but we can throw it out in the REAL rural policy area? where no public water or sewer will ever be? We want our schools on public water and sewer. What is your interest in arguing against the Plan, here. Even the School Board admits that Cangiano does not meet the Plan.

Do you think it is wise to pay 4 times the price a property is worth? in a down market? where large lots are not selling, on the market? where large subdivisions (as large as this) with recorded lots are beign foreclosed on? Why do you want to waste all this money?

Your arguing here, is it just because you are angry that the Plan was misinterpreted in Lenah? You need some perspective. Look at the actual facts.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Eric, Harmony was built as an middle school, and opened as a hybrid middle/high"

No, Barb, it was designed from day one to open as a hybrid school and eventually convert to a middle school - those plans are still intact. The citizens were instrumental in creating this solution and it faced very little (none that I can recall) opposition.

"...because that was back before Mountain View too. The boundaries for that one looked like an octopus when first set, so the people in the small school could remain islands, and long arms reached past them to take others to Fields."

Um...Barb...MV is an elementary school and has nothing to do with Harmony - attendance boundaries are not related.

I know you have a problem with citizen involvement in any SB process but the fact remains that the very few times it was actually tried resulted in almost complete acceptance of the result by the community.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

Sally has a valid question - try answering it:

"Barbara, I asked you to defend the Cangaino appraisal! Not the Miller appraisal... I asked you how you could defend the disparate treatment in the Miller and Canginao properties, AND you CAN'T. There is no way any logical person could understand why the School Board would low ball someone who wanted to sell land that met the plan and then throw many times the value of land to someone with land not meeting the Plan."

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn,

Third side of the argument? Are you kidding me? I would like Sally's hard questions answered not some LCPS spin.

Sal unilaterally and preemptively lowered his cost. The man counter offered HIMSELF! Do you NOT think this should be reason enough to kill the contract and start from scratch? Frankly, the SB and BOS have a fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers to get the BEST deal possible for this land. They have clearly fallen down on the job and Sal's counter offer to his own contract proves that.

This is no longer a "debate". The SB and Administrations actions to date are indenfensible.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MANN12, I am not arguing against the plan. I have never said I am "for" this deal. If it were up to me, they would scrap it and start over.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh ya here it comes. Sooner than usual I might add. When Barbara hits a nerve the action always turns to disparaging her testimony and integrity.
.
There is no denying Barbara has a knack for yellow lining the issue and punctuating it with facts. Frustrating isn't it fellas. Hard to fight fact based logic with sound bites.
.
Hey, I bet someone is now going to say Barbara is paid to do this.
.
BTW, momof2 I agree with you at 10:15

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn takes a page out of the Barb book. Way to avoid the issue, Glenn.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Accepting the appraisal on the Cangiano property, for one thing, looks like it violates all of the officials public and fiduciary duties.

At a minimum, the BoS needs to cancel this contract and do their own thorough appraisal (and if they recontract with this seller, they need conditions for zoning and all necessary approvals.)

In the future, the BoS needs to demand more than one appraisal, and demand detailed (not BS short form) justified appraisals with actual documented sales to justify the valuation, and at least one of the appraisal has to be done by the BoS--

We cannot have the School Board arbitrarily appraise property for what they arbitrarily want to reward a seller with.... what they have done in this situation has been to take advantage of the public purse, and it does not look totally above board here-- lots of things about this deal to question...

the RFP process may not meet the State Code requirements for RFP's and ethics in contracting, for one thing.. (bogus appraisals don't sit well with these code requirements),

The offsite wells, wells too close to the creek that need a waiver... why would we extend the contract to test wells that don't meet code or are offsite?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So if everyone agrees to scrap this deal and start over what is the problem? Well everyone but Barb and Sal anyway...oh, and the SB, Hatrick and Adamo.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From what I understand, and Barbara can correct me if I am wrong, she is not supporting Sal or the school board. She is advocating for working through the process and allowing the process to play out. Ultimately, this application will fail if it is not consistent with the plan.

Beyond that, I think EVERYONE here agrees that the process is broken, if not shattered, and must be fixed.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One problem momof2, with this Cangiano contract, is it is not contingent on getting zoning approval (like Lenah was.) So they can buy it, even though they admit the property does not conform to the plan. So, we buy it and can't use it as a school? None of the properties that the School Board presented to the BoS met the plan, according to their own briefing docs, and they somehow argue that no properties that met the plan were for sale. At the same time the Krim property came in as part of the RFP, 70 acres adjacent to Hillsboro Elementary, available for town water and sewer, met the plan, and it was not even included in the briefing docs to the BoS. The School Board says there are soil issues, but the engineering submitted with the proposal to sell shows the soils are not just good but excellent. The Krim's submitted information about their soils that is public record, available on Loudoun County's mapping site--would seem to be indisputable, but the School Board dismisses the soils.
Who is telling the truth?
And the Millers offered to sell their property for a comparably very low price, but the School Board played games with them, threatening condemnation if they did not lower their price.
True, the process is broken, but it is not because of formulaic protesters. It is because of the boneheaded, wrongheaded, very questionable things the School Board has done--only one unjustified sky high appraisal for Cangiano? at many times any possible notion of fair market value? unquestioned, when properties that met the plan are threatened with condemnation after they offer to sell for one third the price offered to Cangiano?

Barbara belittles all the innuendo of corruption, and there is no proof, but what are citizens supposed to think when there is no logical reason why we would turn down an offer to sell that met the plan and offer many times that an acre for property that does not? And the blatant attempts to manipulate the spin (with silly articles about a farm in Tysons Corner, when there are no farms in Tysons Corner, and no wells in Tyson's Corner.)

Momof2, if you care about the process, then you have to say this contract is flawed, and a result of a very flawed process, where public officials have abused their public roles.

We do agree the process is broken, but it has been broken by power players who are public officials, not by the citizens who raise real concerns about contracts, over paying, unreal appraisals, serious water issues, our Plan, etc.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll start at Glenn 12:34 a.m.:

As long as we continue to make the rules up as we go along, ON BOTH SIDES, citizen activist AND BoS, there isn't much hope of getting anywhere.

But bravo to you for giving it a try!
---------------------------------------

Sarah, if you had the LCPS PIO, the head of Planning and the LCPS attorney in facetime, and they didn't tell you what you want, it isn't necessarily proof that they must be hiding something big if so many big people got together to stonewall you.

It may also be possible that some of what you want them to tell you is either legitimately exempt as a working document, or doesn't exist.

A meeting of that calibre may have been in response to your demands, and as such may have been the measure of what you got.
----------------------------------------

Sally, what you are asking changes both subject and format fairly frequently. Asking how I can defend Cangiano when I have never done so seems a pointless "question" to attempt to respond to.

It is akin to the flurry of attempted cross-examination on what I said (and didn't say) in the letter reprinted a few inches above what you were misquoting.
------------------------------------------

Eric, see above to Sally. Asking how I can defend something I haven't isn't a question worth answering. It is a game Sally is playing to repeat memes and hope I'll say something differently so she can pounce on that and repeat other memes.
--------------------------------------------
next:

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, I have outlined my view of the issue as best I can. I happen to think this is a communication issue. Re-read my post on "three sides to a debate". Somewhere on the third side is the truth.
.
I have never professed to know all of your "issue" concerns with this school site, but I do think the debate is being jaded by the SMW approach. I am not familiar with the site to debate it with you.
.
So for me, I have not avoided the "issue", you just want it to be your "issue". Which is fine, but don't be so demanding that I only see it your way. You're only highlighting what I am trying to point out.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You finally admit that you can't defend what has been done here by the School Board, with its ridiculous appraisal and inconsistent attitudes towards property owners, some in town being low balled or ignored, some who don't meet the plan being rewarded richly.

So you think the process is broken. Good so do I.

If you cannot defend the merits of what the School Board has done with this Cangiano contract (price, process, meeting the plan, disparate treatment vis a vis properties that do meet the plan) then
why are you here arguing and what are you arguing about?

Cancel the contract, time to start over.

We have learned from this we need to be more specific with the parameters. We need a longer RFP that meets the State guidelines, a briefing that discloses all the RFP information, certain minimum information (price of all offers/all assessments, accurate information about all engineering submitted, etc), appraisals supported by real sales of comparable properties, more than one appraisal, all contracts contingent on getting SE and other required approvals, public water and sewer first priority, etc.

Do you agree?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, Sally has already said I'm paid, by Sal Cangiano, and Eric has chimed in on that as well.

Yes, the usual pattern is playing.
------------------------------------------

Momof2, we are currenlty operating outside the only adopted process we have, because protest said the process is broken.

The BoS promptly broke it for protest at Lenah.

Protest demanded an open RFP process.

Staff has yet to write one, but now that a made-up one was put out partially to satisfy protest, protesters are protesting that the RFP was no good.

Well, no $#!&, Sherlock.

The BoS authorized the pursuit of this property under these conditions (John Stevens has meeting transcripts up on his blog), in response to protest, which produced the current non process being protested.

My personal opinion is that the land, the contract and everything else are only vehicles to move toward the real goal, which is subornation of the elected school board, and replacement with an appointed county advisory body, as a department of government under the BoS.

We are in no-man's land as far as proper site selection and everything else is concerned, which is a very bad place for the county to be, but a goldmine for those who protest a variety of things on a regular basis.

I see little point in discussing the specifics of things that have yet to be tested, reviewed, or further negotiated (under a non-adopted process), when a) it will likely change once another demand is met or mitigated, and b) we are operating under "rules" not accountable to anything but protest at the moment.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Sally, I said I will not respond to your "question" that states I DID defend it, when I did not.

I also said the process has been deliberately broken, for reasons that have very little to do with providing schools.

I most emphatically do NOT agree that parameters should continue to be fiddled with in response to the activism of the moment.

You know as well as I do that land use decisions must be decided under existing law until a new set of regs is properly drafted, reviewed, heard and adopted in a public process under state law.

I do agree that the BoS has a lot to answer for in refusing to follow process for protesters, and setting the school board up to fly blind on make-it-up-as-we-go(-protest) "rules".

The BoS made this bed by giving the school board the go ahead on this site.

In an open meeting, not in an illegal vote in executive session.

Until the rules change again (and they surely will, if everyone just screams loud enough) we are here where the BoS placed everybody.

For protest.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I sure hope you are wrong, and the MSW effort isn't illuminated with this comment, "...the land, the contract and everything else are only vehicles to move toward the real goal, which is subornation of the elected school board, and replacement with an appointed county advisory body, as a department of government under the BoS."
.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised as I am sure Lori Waters would love such a thing. Now if that is the real motive here, then I have major problems with this effort.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ultimately, this application will fail if it is not consistent with the plan."

And we will be stuck with an expensive park? Not with MY tax dollars.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Maravetz, you and Barb are getting your wires crossed... Babs' theory is that eeeevil Jim Burton that wants to take over the schools and turn them into PEC protest academies.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"No Sally, I said I will not respond to your "question" that states I DID defend it, when I did not."

Arguing semantics Barb but here you. Do you, Barb, think this contract should be signed as is given the issues Sally has identified?

"The BoS made this bed by giving the school board the go ahead on this site."

If the money was not appropriated, the go ahead was never given. No specific vote approving the money to buy this porperty has been identified. Also, this statement implies that the school board has no responsibility for entering a bad property purchase contract. They DID vote to approve the contract and they should be held responsible for same.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, I will repeat, the MSW effort that you love to denigrate has ALREADY resulted in a substantial, unilateral, and preemptive counter offer by Sal to his own contract. Too bad we don't have MORE MSW's out there keeping an eye on things.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The School Board was given the go ahead to negotiate for this property as I understand it. And I think they violated the law when they entered into a contract to buy it and settle, without first getting the SE approved (and other required approvals) especially since they admit it does not conform to the Plan. Yes Barbara, I am well aware that there is a legislative process required. Why is the School Board buying property without following that legislative process.

The SB mislead the BoS with the appraisal in my opinion--heads need to roll over that one, and someone should be fired for such a ridiculous document not being questioned.

Barbara, the State Code sets out regulations for RFP's and fairness in contracting, pretty tough rules about using misleading information to purchase too (the appraisal is completely misleading in my opinion)--I am sure you would like to ignore that, since what the School Board did was so unfair.

I asked you to defend the contract, and you refused. You can't and no one can. That is why it needs to be cancelled, and we do need to dot our i's and cross our t's and do a professional appraisal that the public can rely on, and a legal RFP, and we need to see properties that meet the plan too.

This process has not been broken by protest but rigged by insiders who have lied to us. The process needs to be cleaned up with some light shining in on it, too. Sarah's FOIAs posted on the internet (gotta love it) that you belittle so, were very instrumental in all of this. Great work in the public interest. It has already saved us a minimum of 2.4 million dollars, and hopefully will do a lot more.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, I'm very much afraid that is the agenda of some, who have also discussed a complete rural remapping to eliminate the need for any further schools. Not with my tax dollars to go through that again!

And not as if that does the trick either, but now that the rural area has gotten used to ridiculous conditions, maybe they'll stay used to it with the same conditions eventually at Woodgrove.

Remember Poisson's abortive legislation to make the schools just another dept. under the BoS? The last thing I think we need is a consolidation of more power for the BoS under our antiquated form of government, but it sure makes it easier at election time, right?

Re-forming the attack PAC, but to now take out the school board has also been discussed.

Eric, the voters approved site acquisition money, and it was turned over to the school board. When the protests fired up, that's when Sally got the email from Burton saying they'd been ticked into voting illegally in executive session to pursue this site.

No charges on that one yet, hm?

Speaking of which, has Mr. Burton turned over the contracts on the new assemblage yet?

He is not personally empowered to negotiate land deals for the county.

When the anonymous representative approached him, why didn't he do what Ms. Bergel did and refer him to the proepr staff? Funny, why did the rep tell her not to tell anyone, then go to Burton?

This whole thing gets crazier by the day--which is part of the point.

Eric, you've forgotten: Sally knows for a fact that since I am a paid blogger for Sal the contract was extended AND the price dropped, right?

Keep up.

Sally: yes, there are state rules on RFPs. One was sent out before staff had finished drafting a policy in accordance with all laws and requirements, (not to mention before that drafted policy was reviewed and adopted through a public process), because the protesters wanted one.

The BoS has put the entire county in a precarious place, and set up the school baord like there's no tomorrow.

There may be no tomorrow for the school board under this non-process.

How convenient for the BoS.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Barb, I would like to know who ordered the appraisal. I just find it very suspicious that Bill Chapman represents Mr. Cangiano over a period spanning 15-20 years according to Adamo, and in litigation just prior to coming on as the School Board general counsel in 2006. And then I find it interesting that Mr. Cangiano finally settles on this property in June 2007 and the school board has it appraised--just a few weeks later-- using an appraiser well known to Mr. Chapman and Reed Smith, and lo and behold it appraises for a MULTIPLE of the recent purchase price.

None of it looks good, and we should not be putting up with appraisals (and purchase prices) which are not supported by any actual sales data to arrive at fair market value--and which are completely out of touch with reality in a market where a lot of land is for sale, nothing is selling and large subdivisions are being foreclosed on...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Eric, the voters approved site acquisition money, and it was turned over to the school board."

Voers did not approve site aquisition money. They approved for us to borrow money to be used for site aquisition. The BOS MUST appropriate money to the SB. It is s specific vote by the BOS (not the voters). IF the public approved the referendum and the BOS never approved the appropriation, the money can not be spent and we would not actually enter into debt. In short, just because it was approved by the voters does not mean it will actually be spent. Furthermore the vote MUST be in public by both (first) the finance committee and then the full BOS. Of course, you know that.

And still no answer....

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara @12:56 and Maravetz @ 12:57 - therein lies my concern.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, the School Board has set itself up. They have done some boldly inconsistent and unjustifiable things that don't appear to benefit the public interest, and from the outside look even fraudulent-- like they unfairly enrich some with millions of our dollars -- all the while ignoring our laws, our public process, our plan. The School Board, all by itself, has done a good job at destroying any trust anyone had in them to do a fair job.

The appraisal is especially troubling to me.

The School Board (or their staff) have a lot of explaining to do to the public and the BoS, in my opinion.

By the way, the public does not make the rules, our elected officials do, and we should be able to trust them to do that responsibly, within the frame work of the law, and ethically. Don't blame Sarah for FOIA's which have exposed the soft underbelly that looks a little rotten to an objective observer...

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, If protest is so bad, then what are you doing? You are the one protesting the loudest against the BoS? so, it's ok when YOU protest, but everyone else is McActivism formulaic not real protest but canned protest?

I for one have serious doubts about this specific contract. You will not defend it, cannot defend it, but somehow you want it to go forward? to punish everyone for the broken process that you complain about so vehemently?

I agree the process is not working, and needs further work. You would think that we would be agreeing. Momof2 agrees this specific contract should be cancelled and we should start over, apparently.

Barbara, it seems you are just screaming, and don't like things, but offer no solutions...

I think it is a far stretch to claim that if we cancel this contract, no schools will be built--they want a school in Lovettsville, and there is land there. I believe that will happen, but support from our pubic officials is crucial here.

And for another rural downzoning, I think that is far off speculation. I know Scott York is on record, as are several of the Supervisors that they do not favor that. Scare tactics? If we cancel this over priced contract then we are sure to be wasting money on another rural down zoning... not so convincing to me.

Last point, if the School Board is not going to do a good job with things like its appraisals, and if it raises so much concern with its actions in offering high priced contracts with bad terms for land that does not meet the Plan, then it needs to be challenged by the BoS, who holds the purse strings and is responsible to the public for its spending in a fiscally sound way... that is the BoS's responsibility, so why are you complaining about that?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On another thread, Sally wrote:

"...And it is strange that the School Board's own appraiser would appraise land so high. You might expect that from the seller's appraiser, but the buyer's?"

This is an excellent point. Who was the appraiser representing here?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Three schools, of increasing enrollment and intensity, on one site portends a steady, dirty, busy, and dangerous traffic situation on a country lane and 2-lane road. Not only does it mean many filthy, belching, aggressive parades of buses, but it concentrates harried parent- and student-drivers into an already congested roadway. Besides the excessive traffic and the heavy pollution, it unfairly taxes the surrounding residents their own access to their lands, businesses, homes, and ways of life. Finally, and most importantly, it compromises the pristine quality of the food they produce from some of the few organic farms still existing in this county. So, the many of us who buy local organic food will suffer from having fewer "clean" acres from which to harvest these crops.
I have had 9 years of experience living across from one middle school (not one of three schools), breathing diesel fumes from the many shifts of buses, being unable to leave or enter my driveway when bus parades hover down the street and around the corner, and having several pets run over by racing cars in the daytime.
This proposal is the height of absurdity! It is the worst selection so far in the LCPS search for a western high school(as well as elementary as well as middle school!!!!!) site.
Look again, LCPS!

Posted by catherinefalknor (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Yes - you seem to know the answers that were given to my questions. They were pretty universal:
1. we already gave it to you and
2. if you don't have it, it doesnt exist

and don't forget the classic... you should first ask us for permission:
1. ask for permission to distribute flyers at a public meeting held in a public place,
2. ask for permission to tape a meeting and certainly...
3. ask for permission to look at public documents left in our meeting room that, altho' you have already submitted a FOIA request to see those documents, we have yet to pre-screen. Because if you don't ask for permission first...well that's like LCPS "looking in my purse"

and - while you are looking at all these documents, we insist on "babysitting" you (Adamo's phrase for PIO office staff to monitor me at all times when reviewing documents now). I think his email to Byard suggested I was also supposed to pay for babysitting, but so far that is one thing I haven't seen on any of the receipts.

Can anyone explain if draft documents that do exist but were never finalized are/are not FOIA-able?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, the only way the school board has set itself up is by acquiescing to the non-process.

Even if the BoS votes to say "here's how we're doing it this week/month/etc until we get a process together", witness the things Mr. Burton has been releasing autonomously in emails.

Look at this exchange from Stevens' blog:
http://blog.loudounschools.org/2009/05/h...

We are in noman's land, as I've said.

Sally, when you see me at the BoS with a sign and music and petitions, then I'll be protesting.

The BoS can certainly use their purse strings. That is within their parameters.

But if they aren't going to follow their own plan when it is met, then make up new rules but not vet or adopt them, then change the cardboard rules via email or priavte conversation, they aren't fulfilling open government in accordance with the rules that they campaigned to uphold either.

That's why I'm complaining.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I've spent hundreds of dollars and hours on the phone over the years with FOIAs of my own.

I know it isn't easy or cheap.

Your paraphrased replies in the first numbered list don't indicate whether the tone present is how it sounded to you, how you feel about it, or how you think they felt about it.

There may be a strained relationship there, yes?

As for the rest on the second list, depending on the kind of meeting and the property, yes the ability to solicit may be limited, or restricted to certain areas.

Any public meeting may be taped, but the announcement should be made at the beginning asking if anyone wishes to, because there are rules on that too.

Taping cannot interfere with the meeting, so it is usually asked at the beginning to give the individual or group the ability to set up their mike where it will pick up well, but be unobtrusive.

I've seen someone in a worksession sit with a video camera in their lap, and then when the item they were interested in commenced, stand up and literally lean across the table with it, in the face of the people speaking.

I'm not saying you did that, but just illustraing why there are rules.

(Ms. MgGimsey was a feature at old BoS meetings for awhile with her camera, pacing in front of the dais and snapping photos in front of it)

It is not uncommon for there to be staff present if the documents are not ones being copied--for the simple reason that documents can disappear.

I've reviewed court records, and even though they give you a desk area for privacy in reading, there is always someone nearby.

Working papers, on which a final decsion has not yet been rendered, are legally exempt.

Some drafts are able to be reviewed etc, but here is where context is crucial. If a draft that was never acted upon, or even presented, or was no more than an exploration never fully developed, is released as REAL information without those qualifiers, you tell me what the potential result may be?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

For someone who has taken no position on this, and who is not protesting anything, who can't say whether she is for or against the Cangiano contract we are talking about--you sure write a lot. So you have to sing a song or carry a sign to be a "protester"? I guess that means I am not a protester, because I have never done that. But I am getting credit as part of the MSW group "protesting" this? If I am a "protester" than you ARE TOO! with a pretty formulaic approach, I might add, Ms. McActivist! distort, distract, accuse the farmers of being evil and exaggeration (when it is You and Priscilla Godfrey who made the offensive statement /assertion!)

Barb, non position, non protester, 3000 word posts one after the next! But not complaining about anything, just Babbling...

The School Board has done all the things that I think are wrong, an unsupportable appraisal, an RFP that may not be according to State Guidelines, conflicts galore, telling the Board os Supervisors (and the public?) there were no sites meeting the Plan that came in with the RFP, pushing a site for an exorbitant amount of money that does not meet the Plan when other properties in Wheatland, bigger acreage (and more lots approved preliminarily) are on the market for 1/3 the contract price, the list goes on... low balling people willing to sell with property that meets the Plan then offering a multiple of fair market value to an owner, with relationships to key people at the School Board--when that owner's property did not meet the plan...

The BoS can't be blamed for any of this... the School Board did it all on their own, and should have gone back to the Board for approval of what they had negotiated, and at a minimum the contract should have provided for BoS approval through the SE process...but the School Board and perhaps their attorney have decided to stick it to the Bos for turning down Lenah? they are going to buy whatever property they want? at what ever price they want to pay?

You are a School Board hack, we know that, but it is impossible, even for you, to be persuasive enough to blame what has happened on the BoS....

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 19, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This personal debate between two or three posters is BORING!!!!
Take your banter to another forum.

Posted by catherinefalknor (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't that part of the discussion, Ms. Falknor? How people are using public forums, input, comments?

If you are bored, there are any number of other avenues available to you on the internet.

Don't read it; problem solved!
-------------------------------------

Sally, you are misquoting and misattributing again.

Please show me where Ms. Godfrey stated that she wished Wheatland to EMULATE Tyson's Corner?

The word "emulate" has a specific meaning, and nowhere did I see Ms. Godfrey make that statement.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Based on FOIA requests I have conducted as part of my environmental remediation consulting work at agencies in Virginia, Maryland, DC, New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia, LCPS' method is outstanding - and not in a way favorable to the public. Unlike VDOT and even County government offices, LCPS REFUSE to provide documents electronically. When asked to provide emails, instead of just forwarding the email to the requestor (with copy to the Public Information Officer (PIO) the responder has to print it twice - one for the requester and one for the PIO file (so they have a record of their response). If LCPS' contractors don't provide their deliverables and correspondence electronically, then they are operating even more inefficiently. Yet they refuse to provide me documentation in that format. Instead what happens? I have to pay for them to make two copies of all documents (and pay for the paper copies of my set). When I go down to the PIO office I sit at a table sandwiched in between the two receptionists - hardly a private desk within view. They have a relatively brand new building and could have set up an open cubicle where staff could observe the public reviewing files, but no, they DESIGNED it as they did. It drips with maintaining a tight leash of control which intimidates some I'd imagine. As an aside, the reception staff in the PIO office were extremely gracious, helpful and professional at all times - despite the obvious inconvenience my presence represents.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LCPS said they were recording the Apr 29, 2009 meeting but they have yet to provide those transcripts. I was setting up a videocamera on a tripod along the side wall in the Elementary school cafeteria with handouts ready to distribute when two LCPS officials approached me asking what I was doing and stating their expectation that I ask for permission first. We know the rules about obstructing access and was always respectful, albeit not to the absurd point where we ASK for permission beforehand.

As I told those LCPS officials I learned I have a legal right to what I was doing back from the time Jeremy Lundberg demanded Sally Kurtz get a legal opinion from Jack Roberts about me distributing a map showing LCPS' student distribution data. That map (something LCPS won't prepare for public viewing) showed the majority of students projected to live north of Route 9 live in the northernmost districts around and east of Lovettsville. Apparently Mr. Lundberg didn't like me distributing that information to the public. Perhaps it was because he lives next to the two Lovettsville sites being discussed at that August 2007 meeting held in the Lovettsville Fire Hall. I'm guessing he was very relieved when the Millers said in Jan 08 their land was not for sell, further when officials falsely presented in May08 that the Moore family's land was the only way to provide access to the Park from the west side, and even moreso when in Feb09 when the Cangiano contract was signed.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Relationship strained? that's obvious, but as I have said MANY times - the only reason I am here today doing any of these FOIAs is because at the Feb07 HS-3 boundary input meeting at LVHS Dr. Adamo refused to provide his enrollment projection spreadsheet (provided to the public during the meeting in hardcopy form). During the meeting he denied my multiple requests for the spreadsheet to be emailed (a file sized less than 300kB). The only reason given was that when a spreadsheet was provided in the past, the data was changed in error. I explained his original would remain protected but he wouldn't budge. After the meeting even Tom Reed (AtLarge rep) told me he can't get it either. (The SB can't get his electronic data - who is the boss of who here?) Officials who invite the public to submit their own boundary ideas yet who are unwilling to provide the data in a format where that can be done reasonably is not a sincere invitation and was the spark that raised my suspicions long ago. What did I do? I went home and made my own spreadsheet - all 10 columns and 80 rows (more or less) from which that we prepared that color map despised by folks who don't want Lovettsville schools and which Chairman Dupree has stated is wrong (no one has ever told me exactly what is in error - just that it is wrong). Since that Feb07 meeting, the following two+ years have been nothing more than "peeling back the onion layers".

As repeatedly stated, I have no ill intent - just an expectation for full and honest disclosure by officials. If that is not possible, then we just need to find people entrusted with our money and future quality of life who can.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I would bet Adamo's database (and any snapshot, printout, or spreadsheet generated from it) is a working documnet for most of the year.

Until those ongoing projections (altered by rezonings, subdivision approvals, building permits, and a host of other items) are finalized through a decision, such as becoming part of the Superintendant's proposed CIP in late Oct/Early Nov, they are most likely a working document.

Check the footnotes on anything passed out at a public meeting: they will tell you where the data comes from, often the most recent adopted CIP, which may have had its own working documents during the process of the Board adopting a final product in late Dec/early Jan from the one proposed.

Sometimes specific projections are done for specific planning zones, such as for a boundary process; that is the result of the decision to direct staff to provide those.

Are you merely requesting an electronic COPY of a spreadsheet handed out at a specific meeting?

Before discs and webcasts, North Street would copy any tape if you brought them a cassette (audio or video). Harrison Street today will provide multiple documents on disc, with a small charge for the disc, plus time if it requires an extensive search and collation.

I can see a sensitivity toward electronic data, not only with the possibility of manipulation or editing and display out of context, as well as political use of much on websites and youtube as campaign fodder. (and I am not accusing you of doing this)

Again, context is everything, and as Glenn recommended, a professional working relationship helps.

Are you as personally invested in similar work you've done for professional purposes?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

I doubt Sarah needed a lecture on FOAI from you, especially since it contains errors.

Any document made available to the public at a meeting is not a "working document" or exempt from FOIA.

Working documents are in essence unfinished documents, and exempt. Sarah said she asked for a document that was presented at a public meeting. Any document given out to the public is a public document that must be provided, you know that.

"A professional working relationship" helps? You mean like Cangiano and his professional relationship with Bill Chapman would help him? I guess so! or your "professional relationship" with the School Board as a former planning commissioner very biased in favor of anything they wanted to do? You betcha, they probably give you whatever you want, so you can blog all day and night...

Citizens are supposed to be given documents and not the run around. And we know you always get your documents because you are polite, and you aren't "personally invested" (LOL) but the government is not allowed to withhold docs unless they state what the exact exemption is...if they did not say it was a "working document" then they can't with hold it on that basis.

And you are the only person who said anything about "emulating Tyson's Corner," based on Ms. Godfrey's misunderstanding that the farm in question was in Tysons Corner. There are no farms in Tysons Corner, as you undoubtedly know. But the truth? accuracy? who cares???

If she said it, and not you, then where is the quote? There is no quote, you just took an error, and something out of context, and turned it into an "argument" --part of your formulaic McActivism?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, you are in such a rush you are making either more mistakes, or deliberately misquoting again.

I know that anything passed out at a public meeting is not a working document--and I didn't say it was.

A working document or working papers can be any material relating to a subject on which a decision has yet to be rendered, not an "unfinished document".

Did Sarah simply want a softcopy of something she already had a hard copy of from the public meeting, or did she want the entire projection spreadsheet in a workable electronic form?
--------------------------------------------
As for the rest of your continuing and increasingly irrational misstatements regarding the letters these threads relate to, here is the link to the Newcombe letter:

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

click on it, then read paragraph 3:

(Here is what it says) "But the detail that caught my eye is her mention of our farm on Route 7 — the last commercial vegetable farm in Fairfax County. I am astounded that she would use our farm as a model to emulate. We would not wish our situation on anyone who is currently farming in a rural area. Farming in the high-traffic suburbs is not in the Comprehensive Plan."

My letter quoted Ms. Newcombe's use of the word, which yes, does have a specific meaning.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say, "Are you as personally invested in similar work you've done for professional purposes?"

All the FOIAs I have done for my work are related to obtaining historical environmental data/reports/correspondence for petroleum hydrocarbon and hazardous waste sites ...nothing whatsoever to do with Loudoun County or schools.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah said she FOIA'd a document that had been previously presented at a public meeting. It was not a" working document." Apparently you did not read what she said closely enough.

And, I am glad to see you use the actual quote for the farm in Fairfax County (which said NOTHING about being in or emulating Tysons Corner--because the farm is not in Tysons.) You put words in her mouth, twisted what she said and tried to make an argument, that simply is unfair.

I see now on theoperativeword you are finally taking a position. Good. The School Board should cancel this contract at its meeting next week, and the staff for both Boards need to work out a better process which better respects the law, and better insures the public interest (like more than one appraisal, and using actual sales--to avoid as much as possible the appearance of intentionally inflated numbers for inside deals.)

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, you are obviously very personally invested in this school.

When you are FOIAing for your paid profession, is there any reason there to suggest that a conspiracy of insider deals or corruption might withhold those documents of record from you on historical environmental docs, or do those suspicions color your work? Do you start websites and speculate your suspicions, or what kind of relationships may be coloring the old data? I doubt it.
------------------------------------

Sally, I'm not sure what benefit you seek to derive from ever-changing misquotes, but have at it.

Ms. Newcombe stated Ms. Godfrey wanted Wheatland to emulate Tyson's and that's what I referred to. And that's what it says.

As for taking a position at the op, again, you are misquoting.

I do NOT think the contract should be cancelled simply because of foot-stamping and the like.

Testing has yet to be completed on whether this land is even physically suitable or not.

What I said was if the process is to be changed, it must be changed in a proper and open fashion, and not piecemeal by protest, which is exactly what I've said here.

I'm sorry Sally, but as I've said here many times as well, I do not agree with several of your positions here, and no amount of verbal rearrangement and personal attack on your part will cause that to occur.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She did not say "Ms. Godfrey wanted Wheatland to emulate Tyson's." Her farm is NOT even in Tysons!

She said, "But the detail that caught my eye is her mention of our farm on Route 7 — the last commercial vegetable farm in Fairfax County. I am astounded that she would use our farm as a model to emulate. We would not wish our situation on anyone who is currently farming in a rural area. Farming in the high-traffic suburbs is not in the Comprehensive Plan."

They are different statements completely, which you choose to ignore. You are stooping pretty Low, there!

Saw you were the first post over at OperativeWord... good thing she put the word out... Did you get advance notice the post was going up? funny how you were the first post...

Was getting a little hot there, with all the relationships exposed and questioned, the ridiculous indefensible appraisal, the tactics (low ball or ignore the ones that meet the Plan, and overpay by many multiples to those who don't!), the docs that Sarah has now posted on the internet, the well waiver (denied), the off site well not part of the contract, etc..? they want the public viewing of their terrible deal to stop? and of course you agree! Now that the School Board has leaked what they are going to do, you agree, again, with what they will do! Good for you, such independent thinking! in the public interest!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So you are now saying that I conspire with op too?

That's interesting. Completely illogical, but interesting.

I think the only thing that may be getting too hot here is you.

Who knows what the school board will do? If the extension and price offer are to be taken (along with any other points to be negotiated) I imagine this contract will be voided, won't it?

Will it be superceded by a new one on the same parcels?

Remains to be seen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like you agree with OP, and that's good.

Just wondering if op emailed all the school board big supporters and said to post in support, since you were the first post, and then BlackOut? Praising Op. Just looks that way, but I guess it is wrong of me to even ask you a question? a little touchy? conspiracy? I did not say that, but I forget, the rules are (your rules) I can't point out that you have misquoted someone. Makes you verry verry angry...

Cute how you keep accusing me of misquoting you! and attacking you (by asking a question?) while you attack Ms. Newcombe as EXAGGERATING about a statement she did not make --turning Wheatland into Tysons Corner!!! Talk about exaggeration! :)

Or maybe you are upset I asked you if your twisting the statement was "formulaic McActivism?" If that is an attack, then you have used it quite a bit. I think it is an opinion.

Next week if they cancel the agreement, I hope they will responsibly look to a new more comprehensive process with better parameters for land purchases.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara - yes I guess I'm personally invested. I have spent too much time researching. It started when it looked like my daughter was going to go to high school in the evenings (Dr. Hatrick's solution to the overcrowding mind you) so I guess I was pretty motivated to invest some time - just as you would have been I'm quite sure. Frankly I am not even slightly relevant to this issue so don't bother to respond anymore to the whole "investment" thing.

So... let us suspend any motives and theories and please just tell me, without getting off topic, your thoughts about the story told by the 2006 Miller/Grubb/Rackam correspondence.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, that's why I got involved ten years ago in Freedom.

It had become apparent to me that if everyone down here didn't act, by the time my kids needed secondary schools (and they weren't old enough to go to school when we moved in), there still wouldn't be any on this side of the airport.

That pattern is repeating again down here.

I spent time then on FOIAs and attending meetings.

The week the budget was adopted to put Freedom to a referendum, I put 500 miles on my car just going to county meetings for both school board budget worksessions, and BoS meetings, and picking up documents.

Another woman and I hired a little bus from Loudoun Transit to take county officials on a tour of the area. Some even came!

Been there, done that too.

We discussed Miller and Grubb during Lenah, remember?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 20, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The information about MIller contracts was not known during Lenah Barbara, well at least not by members of the general public. That information was protected up until the Cangiano contract was signed. So no we didn't discuss it. If you haven't bothered to look at the documents which I am referring to, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The ultimate irony! you got involved because you wanted schools on your side of the airport.

The population center we are talking about today is Lovettsville, and the issue is some, like Sarah, want a school near them, in or adjacent to the town, like the Plan calls for "if possible." So many good reasons for this outlined in the Plan. Many think this location has been, is and will be possible, but the SB for whatever reasons is fighting doing what the Plan calls for...

Been there, done that? So you figure since you didn't get your way, you will lobby against the Plan for others? Since the process is "broken" that causes citizens (like you, blogger, non opinioned protesters even!) to be shut out, that its challengers should be belittled with put downs of formulaic McActivism?

Makes no sense. Seems like logically you would empathize with their good efforts to bring about what many worked hard on in the Comprehensive Plan and the Western Task Force, and seems like logically you would be asking that efforts be made to follow those plans, put the Schools closer to the population centers and the towns for public water/sewer.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I have read them.

We discussed Grubb in some detail, Rackham (Cangiano, now) was not yet on the table, and Miller was mentioned as well.

Miller and Grubb are not on the table. Is there a point to continuing to dissect these?
-------------------------------------

Sally, I asked Sarah those very questions during Lenah, as to whether she was joining that process as a vehicle for her own issue.

In addition, you are misrepresenting my comments at the op over at tc.

If you would calm down and read before you sieze on words to repeat attacks, you would see that I said that we do not have the power in VA to carve out land from any project BEFORE it is designed, and take possession of it for pre-planned and adopted sites.

We are a by right state as you know.

We also don't have APFOs or impact fees.

We can set up as many committees as we can think of to look at whatever anybody wants.

But some of the fundamental steps in making the recommendations of those committees reality involve land use changes at the state level to enable, BECAUSE we are a Dillon Rule state.

In addition, public water and sewer is not a magic bullet that maufactures the fundamental resource.

Lovettsville gets its water from somewhere too!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, I am perfectly calm! You are the one saying I am accusing you of "conspiracy!" I never said anything of the kind!

Maybe you should calm down, and also think before you post, because you ARE misquoting people (including me)-- and you are the one exaggerating, misstating facts and the law...

For example, the Dillon rule does not prevent PTA participation in site selection (or school design)--just like they include the PTA's and citizen in attendance zone changes, they can include PTA's or a designated group to review RFP's or to assist in soliciting contracts for sale, and they can ask for the guidance of the PTAs just as easily as they asked for the BoS guidance on what to negotiate on and parameters, with this contract.

Of couse the Dillon rule requires the locality to be the one to change laws, or buy the property, or condemn, but I don't think there is any suggestion that the PTA's do this... intentionally confusing issues, are you?

No State law overhaul is necessary to include citizen or PTA input. LOL! Public participation is always allowed, that is as fundamental as it comes. But maybe you are here on behalf of some to fog the issue, and discourage public participation, or "formulaic McActivism" as you so kindly refer to it...because of course it is all canned "protest"? and the evil farmers just want their tax break for their organic vegetables, which you belittle as a business...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, perhaps that is why I never said PTAs had anything to do with the Dillon Rule.

That seems to be your chosen misdirection.

PTAs and any other citizen committees can meet now and stick pins in a map however they like.

If any of those pins are to become actual functioning schools in our lifetime through a process modeled on Montgomery County's, then Virginia will need to pass some enabling laws to allow Loudoun to emulate their land use process more closely in that regard.

As I said at op, I thought this was about schools?

Why don't you participate in the discussion there?

It makes little sense to me to argue about it here, unless using a separate venue allows you more leeway in misquoting my words there.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Miller doesn't need to be on the table to tell a story. You just can't come up with a reasonable story behind those documents that supports your position, and apparently neither can LCPS.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, if you are primarily interested in retelling the story, then you don't need me to discuss it with.

It was one of your topics of conversation when you joined the Lenah debate, as I said, where it was also not on the table, except as a vehicle to discuss the "broken process" instead of that application.

Retell the story as many times as you feel the need to do.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You and Blackout have accused me of unfounded conspiracy theories so I am simply asking what your take on the information is. During the Lenah debate, it was truely a hypothesis. Now there is real data and I'm just looking to get your input so that a conclusion can be drawn which is perhaps more favorable for LCPS officials. If you can't respond, then I understand - you can't respond.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Sarah suggested that the recommendations of the Western Task Force be followed and you said that would take fundamental change at the State level. Not so. The recommendations were to include the affected PTAs in site selection, and school design. It is true that Montgomery County has a different set of laws for zoning, etc, but that is not what was being discussed, just site selection... negotiation, contracts--put them out for public input! It can be done, and the School Board needs to listen to their constituency instead of doing these apparently back door secret deals for their developer friends...

Sarah, don't listen to Barbara telling you you can't implement the recommendations of the Task Force-- you can! and I have no doubt, that you will!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, again you are rewriting my words.

I did not say anything about the recommendations of the task force, or that state law would need to change to implement them.

I said to implement the policies of Montgomery, law would need to be changed here.

Don't you have any interest in seeing the sites selected by any kind of citizen group you want to have actually turn into schools?

In order for the site selection to have meaning, there needs to be an apparatus to follow up on those citizen selections.

We don't have the same apparatus Maryland does in Montgomery, as you yourself acknowledge.

As I said, please join the discussion there. It makes a lot better sense than misquoting over here, unless that IS your motive.
-----------------------------------------

Sarah, I have no real interest in engaging in speculation about possible conclusions to be drawn. It isn't that I can't respond, it is that I won't contribute to the speculation.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are no Dillon Rule restrictions to including citizens or citizen groups in school site selection, and you are the one trying to confuse the issue, to put off Sarah after she suggested this was a good idea. The Western Schools Task Force was talking about siting schools, and consulting the PTA's in that process, like taking contracts to a citizen or PTA committee, to get input. That does not violate the Dillon rule, as you suggested to Sarah.

Glad you agree, and I think it is a good idea to have citizens look at the appraisals and even offers and to be consulted in the process earlier, so we don't get contracts like the Cangiano contract which causes so much public outrage.

Did you know that the School Board's own appraisal says he paid $35,000 an acre in 2007, which averaged in all the improvements. Why do they say that $47,500 was his cost per acre now? they keep saying that they reduced the price to his cost per acre (which is a little deceptive because the cost per acre included all the improvements, and he is not selling all the improvements on the 550 acres he bought--a beautiful manor estate house, bank barn, etc.)

SO the "cost per acre" is INFLATED to begin with AND, we are paying him $12,500 more than his supposed cost in 2007??? What a bad deal for the taxpayer...

And did you know that when he bought the property he thought he had a vested A-3 subdivision, but the County challenged it, and he had to re-do it to the downzoned density, an AR-1 cluster, with fewer lots?

So, he OVERPAID for the property... and we are bailing him out?? why???

And if you look at the appraisal for one of the parcel on line at the School Board site, the appraiser used the value of finished, recorded lots (high prices, I might add) to appraise lots that had only be through prelim plat approval, and not only did not have any roads designed or built, but did not even have all the wells drilled or all the septic fields found... the appraisal is so bogus, it is really unbelievable...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, the only person attempting to connect the Dillon Rule to citizen groups is you, and apparently only for the purpose of saying I said so on a different blog, that you are NOT posting on.

Is the reason you are discussing this here instead of at op because they are holding your posts in moderation again?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought my last comment noted that you now agree that there is no Dillon Rule impediment to forming citizen committees, or PTA groups to review siting decisions, to consult/guide the School Board and have meaningful input into contracts to purchase. So why are you complaining? We agree on this point.

Did you notice the price Cangiano paid was based on an approved A-3 preliminary plat, and that the county then challenged that plat, and the one we are looking at now is a plat which shows fewer home sites under the downzoning to AR-1? So, he overpaid for the property?

And what about the School Board's own appraisal that said the Cangiano original cost per acre (with all the improvements averaged in-- many of which are not being conveyed!) was less than $35,000 per acre--actually $34,600/acre. So why does the School Board contradict its own appraiser, and say they negotiated the price down to $47,500/acre, the original "cost" to Cangiano? The price we are supposed to think is so wonderful is still $13,000 more than he paid for it in 2007, when he overpaid because he thought he had more lots than he ended up with (the A-3 plat was not allowed by the county.)

The original number of $34,600 per acre was inflated, since it was based on a a supposedly approved A-3 plat and it included all the improvements on the whole property (520 plus acres), most of the improvements to be retained by Cangiano? So how are any of these numbers trustworthy?

And the only "approval" was a preliminary approval of lots, with wells still to be drilled, roads designed and built, etc-- and the appraisal erroneously assumed the lots all had final approval and were finished, with roads built... the only comparables used were finished lots... this is wrong..

Totally bogus appraisal... how did this happen?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, actually it was the third time I'd reiterated that it was solely your construct that Dillon had anything to do with citizen groups.

I alos find it interesting that you are suddenly focused on the price per acre, when you had a conniption when I asked about the practice by some of quoting the average price per acre of 67K to one seller, when one was getting 62K and the other 147K.

You no longer wished to discuss that when I said perhaps that pointed out the difference between recorded lots and prelims, but suddenly that is an issue worthy of major spamming---everywhere but the op.

Seriously, are they holding your posts again?

In addition, why was the A-3 subdivision mistaken on grandfathering? Is that owner-specific or land-specific? I would think it would be land specific, or those who wanted to have the value set would have nothing to sell or bequeath.

If it is owner specific, couldn't an heir be basically robbed of what was attempted to be set aside for them, or is grandfathering treated differently based on the manner of transfer?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 21, 2009 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The appraisals that showed that Cangiano bought the property with what he thought was an A-3 preliminary plat are apparently not now posted on the School Board site. Maybe you could "politely" ask them to repost all the appraisals? They are very important for everyone to examine.

The School Board is the one who variously uses the cost per acre, and that is what is being quoted. People only quoted what the School Board posted as information. And so much of it is wrong.

I was disappointed in you because you tried to blur the cost per acre of finished lots and proposed lots only shown on paper, with no road designed, no roads built, wells to be drilled, septic sites to be found.. If you misunderstood me, hopefully this clarifies...

And the School Board is somehow justifying the most recent reduction in the price to say this is what Cangiano bought it for... but even this is contradictory, because the School Board's own appraisal said Cangiano's cost per acre was $34,600 per acre and now they are saying he "bought" it for $47,500 per acre..

The School Board's numbers on the cost per acre keep changing. Can you explain this difference in position ($47,400 K vs. $34,600K) as the original "cost" per acre by the School Board now?

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No Sally, I was talking about the many small discrepancies in talking points that added up to a tendency to exaggerate, one of which was the battle cry about "67K an acre for the developer buddy!", when that was an average price for the entire site, with one seller getting 62K and the other 147K.

You got quite angry, and stated I was pretending I didn't know the difference between finished and unfinished lots.

We had already had that conversation re vesting, and recorded lots.

I don't think I misunderstood you, I am just still puzzled by your tactics here with words. Usually when you decide to blog for a cause you hammer on solid points, instead of misquoting the people who disagree with you in order to spam fake ones. The real point here is hardly ever acknowledged: some people don't want any change, ever, period.

As of this morning, the appraisals are still posted--I don't think there's any need to FOIA them again.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, it is the figures from the School Board site and handouts that have been quoted.

Also, I am not even sure there was an approved preliminary plat for the AR-1 cluster. There was an approved A-3 plat that the County refused to vest, but the appraisal says for the AR-1 cluster, septic field sites still needed to be found and wells drilled. You cannot even submit an application to the County (they won't accept it) without first getting health dept approval of all your septic sites, and designating approved wells for at least half of your lots.

Does not appear there was even a submittal of an AR-1 cluster plat, and supposedly the School Board relied on an "approved" AR-1 cluster plat..

What another farce--so the appraisal was based on what he might be able to submit to the County for approval if he could find more septic sites and drill more wells that could be approved for residential output and safety, and do all the engineering to make sure there were the appropriate set backs for the wells and septic sites... in reality, the appraisal was based on a sketch of what MIGHT be possible given perfect conditions (which we know hardly ever exist.) And the appraisal assumed all of this was done, roads built and lots recorded--because the comps were finished lots...

Do you have any information on this?

What a joke!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barabara, you are the one who keeps attributing erroneous statements by the School Board to citizens. The press picked up on the statement by Priscilla Godfrey about a farm in "Tysons" and also the cost per acre, which changes on the School Board website fairly frequently. I am hammering on real solid facts, and you are the one who has nothing but confusion left..

What about that AR-1 cluster plat that the appraisal was based on? the supposedly approved preliminary plat, that you claimed they had done more work on, and justified being appraised as if they could walk in and record it?

Looks like there was no AR-1 plat ever even submitted. And no approval. Only the A-3 plat which the County refused to vest. And to revise the A-3 plat to submit an AR-1 plat (losing 17 lots on the 160 acres) they would have had to find new septic sites to reflect the new required cluster configuration and they would have had to drill new wells...but they never did this... hmmmm.

No AR-1 plat even submitted, much less approved. They had not even done the preliminary engineering to be able to submit a plat to the County, and yet the appraiser appraised the "preliminary plat" showing 36 lots as a done deal, and appraised it as if they were finished lots, with all the interior expensive roads built etc?

Tell me what you know about the AR-1 plat...needed to find more septic sites and drill more wells to even be eligible to submit an AR-1 cluster plat, didn't they?

Don't you think it would be in the public interest to cancel this contract, on the basis of the absolutely BOGUS appraisal? Especially since 200 acres with a real actual preliminary approval for 38 lots is on the market (and has been for a while) near Wheatland for 3.4 million? Looks like the Wheatland property without any preliminary plats should have been appraised solely on the basis of the existing recorded lots and no future speculative subdivision potential...after all that is what fair market value is supposed to be..

Mr. Dupre is in a lot of trouble on this one, if he does not change his tune... as well as Ms. Bergel, Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Reed. Kudos to Ohneiser and Guzman and Stevens for opposing this, and hopefully Mr. Marshall and Guerin will not waver under pressure to go along with this very poor, conflicted, incredibly overpriced, unwarranted under our Plan, deal..

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, it amazes me that you can continue to misquote letters printed above, and linked in the same section.

Granted, it does give you the opportunity to continue to spam speculative conspiracies and now political threats.

Enjoy.

p.s.--are you now touting a different property near Wheatland, when previously you seemed to hold the position that it is the very last place on earth that should ever be considered for a school?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess we disagree who is misquoting whom. I think it is funny you continue to assert you quoted Ms. Newcombe correctly when your own quote shows you did not! And, I have never said anything about "conspiracy" --those are your words. Don't put words in my mouth!

My post was about the appraisal being based on an A3 plat that the County would not honor as vested, and then a proposed AR-1 cluster (with 17 fewer proposed lots) --and further that the appraisal valued the paper only lots (no roads engineered or built, wells needed to be drilled, etc) as if the interior roads and all improvements had been installed and the lots already approved and recorded--none of which was true?

And I only point out the larger tract (200 acres) nearby with more approved lots (38) for sale for 3.4 million--with no one dying to buy it-- to show the true value of the property is probably less than 3.4 million. So even though the price is now reduced to something around 9 million, it is still way too high...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)