Because of his interest in education...

How noble! Why cant the School Board and Hatrick negotiate ever upfront. This shows how inept they are. I'm so tired of the complete lack of disregard for our tax dollars.

Posted by mwb2218 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He overpaid for the property when he bought it in 2007, which apparently had a vested A-3 prelim plat. But the county refused to vest the A-3 plat, and he has far fewer lots under the new (down) zoning. So this is his BAILOUT!

The new "negotiated price" is paying him his "cost" which is an inflated cost per acre that averages in extensive and expensive improvements that are not being sold...what a rip=off. (And for some reason the School Board's appraisal says his cost per acre was $34,600, but now we are being told his cost was really $47,500 per acre.) What? more double talk to benefit this seller? Why?

A larger farm (200 acres) very nearby, with excellent water and soils, and more approved preliminary lots has been on the market for some time asking 3.4 million-- so why are we still paying 9 million for 170 acres (Cangiano and Burgess?) The price is way off, and the appraisal for this property has so many errors, all of which benefit the seller, it is simply a joke. (And, the well(s) waivers were denied for the Cangiano property, and they need an offsite well, so it does not look like the water situation will work as designed for Cangiano.)

There are better properties out there, but we cannot consider them while this is under contract. We need to cancel this, and look at the Lovettsville properties, which is where the plan calls for the schools, any way.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mwb, I would say part of why negotiations are not done completely in the open upfront with full citizen participation is because it can produce exactly the circus going on all over the county right now.

Has Mr. Burton brought forward the contracts on the new assemblage to those in the school system currently empowered in land acquisition?

No one supervisor has the power to negotiate land purchases for the county, and the school board is its own coporate body with the power to enter into contracts.

This sounds similar to Mr. Miller "negotiating" a replacement for the Lenah site (which was turned down in a similar circus, with similar warcries, although it complied witht the plan and had voter approval to purchase, as well as voter approval to construct the middle school which was then only two years late) with a realtor who, in that case, did not even represent the owner of the property they were "selling", but another entity wishing to develop a non-permitted use on a portion of it.

We are currently operating under NO process. Yes, the BoS "gave the nod" under the non-process to pursue this property--and now they can "give the nod" in another direction.

They lose nothing, and potentially gain greatly if their ultimate motivation is to absorb the powers of the school board.

Then we'll see a real "citizen-driven" process.

But only by a very few citizens.

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

Barbara, I believe you are absolutely right. Strange that BOS members would not have had concerns about this property in the first place if it such a glaringly poor choice. Why did they not speak up before all this time, money, and energy was expended?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "circus" Ms Munsey decries obviously comes from a broken school siting and acquisition process whose remedy should include upfront disclosure of facts concerning school needs, design, cost, impacts and full citizen participation.

Beyond that, however, we need the Board of Supervisors in control of the system to address all the issues raised by school siting -- welfare of our children and impacts on communities, the environment, economic development, transportation, and fiscal sanity. Special interest School Boards are not equipped for this complex task.

Posted by MalcolmFBaldwin (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2,

Maybe the BoS members believed as they were told: that there was a fair RFP, that there was no property in Lovettsville to meet the Plan, and that the School Board would get fair appraisals, and negotiate well, with a condition for an SE and commission permit approval--so they figured the School Board would do the best they could, they would try to stay out of the way, but it would come back to them in the end.

What is clear is that there was no fair RFP, there has been a bias towards certain properties and against Lovettsville owners (and conformance with the Plan), the appraisal was incredibly inflated (why?) without any justification based on other sales or comps, and there was no contingency for SE or commission permit approval, which was an end run attempt to deny the public any say in the matter...and the original contract even called for them to settle knowing they would not be finished with preliminary water testing to see if the site met state minimums for water availability (the pumping test)--and they had no concern for other required tests on the aquifer, transportation, soils, impacts, etc...

The School Board blew it big time. Some might call it incompetence and arrogance. Some might call it worse. They have only themselves to blame for doing such a poor job. They have lost trust and credibility. The appraisal for the Cangiano property is an outrage, and that is only one example...

The contract should be cancelled, and the BoS needs to set better parameters for the School Board-- they should be required to consult with citizens affected (like they do with attendance boundaries), get three independent appraisals all made public (one appraiser picked by the BoS), make financing contingent on approval by the BoS finance committee or committee of the whole, and there should be a better and more fair, longer RFP, and/or search for properties that meet the plan, and a preference for properties that meet the Plan (as opposed to the opposite.)

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Baldwin, I think the process "broke" when the BoS decided they weren't going to follow their own plan and division of duties with the school board under state law.

I think it began to break when the 99 BoS bought Fields and Shellhorn without telling either Purcellville or the school board, and what has that whole debacle cost Purcellville and the County?

I don't think that is a shining example of letting the BoS select sites.

Perhaps you recall that Fields was bought for over 1M over the previously listed price, that a sitting BoS member basically served as the agent, and there were contributors involved as well.

Fast forward to the denoument of the Fields Farm saga, and what we will no doubt see as the most expensive high school ever built in Loudoun, and lo, protests pop up to deny any and every site, whether it meets the plan or not, because the process is "broken" and we need the BoS to take control!

I'm sorry Mr. Baldwin, but so many fundamental changes would need to be made to have what the protesters want, some at the state level, that I really do think this has very little to do with schools, and everything to do with picking up where the 99 BoS left of, and a continued consolidation of power.

We must perhaps agree to disagree.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, are you referring to the email Mr. Burton sent you, saying basically that he only voted for the site "in executive session" because the school board lied or tricked him?

Of course the RFP was flawed--staff hasn't finished writing one that complies with state law yet! But by gosh we had to have one, because that's what (some of) the citizens wanted. Right away!

I think the school board has only themselves to blame for not suing over Lenah, when it became clear that the BoS was intent on taking over their duties---plan, process and law be damned.

Feel free to spam on.

Momof2, keep every meeting related to MS5 and HS7 on your calendar! We may need to speak in support 5 or 6 to 1 instead of just 3 to 1 this next time, who knows. We are in no man's land as far as any rules are concerned. They are being made up as it goes along.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Mann, I have a hard time believing that the BOS were clueless regarding the site. In addition, the Comp Plan has been around and Mr York helped write it. Looks like politics as usual to me.

Barbara, my calendar is marked for these meetings and I have been keeping others aware of the schedule and issues regarding HS-7 and MS-5. I am hoping for a good outcome and feel optimistic (no, I haven't been drinking!! :))

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Cangiano dropped his price because of his "interest in education."

BALONEY! He owns hundreds more acres next to this site, and he knows that if three schools go in there he'll make a fortune building houses on his nearby subdivision!!

Posted by glastonbury27 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope that "the price" doesn't become the focal point as to why this is a bad deal. That's just one aspect. The much bigger problem with this site is water and the impact that pumping 70,000 gallons a day out of the aquifer will have on nearby farms and residences. All of us in that area are on wells and septic tanks. It scares me to think of what will happen to the groundwater when that amount gets pulled out -- and when thousands of gallons with antibiotics and other contaminants from the schoolkid an staff get pumped back into the aquifer.

By the way, I waited 15 minutes to get through the light at Routes 287 and 9 at about 4:30 p.m. on Friday. I was behind a long line of school buses. What will the traffic at that intersection be like when we're busing kids from South of Route 9 up to this school (don't think that won't happen, either!)

Posted by glastonbury27 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

glastonbury, 70K gal is the level at which the state health department requires testing.

Actual water usage at Loudoun schools is much lower.

The quote being mocked in the letter is a direct quote from the Comp Plan, by the way, and by right homes will be built on that land when the market dictates, whether it has a school next to them or not.

Think positive, as Momof2 is doing!

Maybe all the people who will buy those homes (including on the school site if it is killed like so many others) will consider themselves residents of the country, and help protest other public services in the future.

Momof2, I'm glad you're keeping an eye on it. With summer coming and the busing starting up for a lot of people the end of summer, I think so many people will be so busy, things will slip by for some.

I'm trying to be hopeful about our schools down here, but not counting any chickens.

We're back in 99 again, and that wasn't pretty the first time.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Another false assertion (like many that you have taken to...)
"Sally, are you referring to the email Mr. Burton sent you, saying basically that he only voted for the site "in executive session" because the school board lied or tricked him?"

You know that Burton has never supported this location, but you like to keep the issues confused?

Many of the others believed the School Board when they said this was the best they could do... But as we know now, even the most basic data was flat out wrong or misleading about the RFP, the properties that met the plan, the properties that could and could not be acquired (and their costs) --and the grossly inflated appraisal, which found the property was worth a multiple of what he had just bought it for in 2007, based on no comps or actual sales of comparable property... and a vested A3 preliminary plat, that the County later said was not vested?

So you think it is ok for the SB to rely on a grossly inflated and wrong appraisal? assertions that there are no other properties that meet the plan (when one came in with the RFP) and other erroneous assumptions? like the MIllers would not have sold, when they OFFERED to sell, more than once, in a written contract?

And do you think, when these false facts and glaring errors are brought to light, everyone should sit down and be quiet like they are told? because it is just a "circus?"

The "circus" is the direct result of the disrespect and power play maneuvering by the School Board ... and it remains a mystery why they would fight with property owners who were willing to sell, threatening condemnation if they did not agree to a lower price, which was already 1//3 the cost of Cangiano-- and then they would throw a multiple of top dollar at Cangiano based on an appraisal that should have raised several red flags.....

Fields Farm is not a good example of public input into the selection, which is what the public wants, early on.. and I think Burton, for one, has learned his lesson here, not to repeat it. The School Board, unfortunately seems not to learn, and instead of correcting their errors, they just get more bold in shutting the public out., As the 99 board learned, that is one way to leave office..

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, re: "Barbara,
Another false assertion (like many that you have taken to...)
"Sally, are you referring to the email Mr. Burton sent you, saying basically that he only voted for the site "in executive session" because the school board lied or tricked him?"

You know that Burton has never supported this location, but you like to keep the issues confused?"

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

It is not anonymous bloggers spreading rumors, it is an email from Mr. Burton. Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:07 a.m."

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

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

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

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

Here it is Memorial Day weekend and still no charges filed by two BoS members on their allegations of a flagrant violation of open government laws. If that really happened (which I seriously doubt) this could have been stopped dead in its tracks had either of the board members who made that outrageous allegation refused to vote to certify the session it supposedly happened in, as required by law if a violation took place.

Gee, HAS Mr. Burton learned a lesson?

Fields Farm is an excellent example of doing the process backwards.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I would say the 99 BoS was largely voted out because (partly through insider deals) they took massive action on the property of others for the benefit of like-minded contributors, and instituted a variety of expenditures (again, to benefit the like-minded) that no one got to vote on, that produced so little actual public benefit. Some, like the only rural economic development grant (that commercial kitchen) we are still promoting.

Many of those who strongly protested their actions had farmed here for generations.

Years of angst and wasted money, lawsuits and a ramrodded "plan" thrown out in court.

The last thing I'm interested in seeing is public services held hostage (again) as an excuse to start that process up again where it left of in 03.

And that is precisely what it appears to me is beginning to happen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I am sure you would like to discuss everything under the sun except this contract (FUD?) The simple truth is the contract, just this specific contract, is so bad, it must be cancelled. It's a dead horse, and the school board needs to get off. For lots of reasons that you want to ignore!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, this contract currently has an offer to drop the price and extend the testing time, and who knows what else.

Many of those things seemed to be what you wanted until it happened.

As for FUD, yes that is the pattern for most Loudoun activism.

The fact that it has been discussed at the op, and you are quoting it here tells me that yes, they are probably moderating your posts again.

I can think of no other reason for your failure to participate there, and failure to discuss that.

If that IS occurring, and your absence there is as noticeable as your repeated replies on other blogs to topics posted there, why is it occurring?

I don't doubt this contract will be cancelled or voided. The item on the table now is discussion of the new offers. Tell me, even if an entire aquifer study were suggested and approved, would that allow testing of the land for suitability to go forward, or would a new bar be set?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have consistently said I thought the property is worth less than 3.4 million. I think you are the only person who may think paying 3 times the property's worth (the "reduced price") is a good idea. Look at the second post on this blog that I wrote.

I have also said there is other property in Lovettsville that meets the Plan, and this property admittedly does not..

You only want to attack me, not defend this grossly overpriced abomination of a contract? So desperate!

Talk to yourself Barb, because this deal is DEAD.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, the only personal attacks that have occurred between us are the ones that have been levelled by you.

I have disagreed with you, and your methods here, pretty consistently.

The "deal" may well be dead.

What is most assuredly dead is any proper process for doing business on public service in Loudoun, and possibly any separation of powers.

I'm sorry if you ARE being moderated out over at the op--it could certainly explain your anger, and refusal to discuss it.

I hope you have a happy Memorial Day.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
A lot of folks are very angry about this, the price, the terms, the location, none of it makes any logical sense, and looks like either gross incompetence, arrogant possibly illegal acts amounting to disrespect for citizens and tax money or corruption to many. The article says "everyone and his cousin' has been calling about this--many people are angry, not just me. Why? it is pretty obvious to anyone in western Loudoun that the price was and remains ridiculous.

Why aren't you upset about this, if for no other reason than the gross overpaying for this land?

You, of all people, so upset about the failure to put a high school near you on the Lenah property should be able to understand why the population center of Lovettsville would want the school in Lovettsville--especially when the Plan calls for it there and there is land available there.

You should be upset at this very suspicious arrangement to put a complex at Wheatland Farm, overpaying by a multiple of fair market value, no impact studies, no zoning, rushed settlement? It makes no sense what the School Board has done here, ignoring properties that met the Plan, threatening the Millers with condemnation if they did not reduce their price,,,etc.

Try to twist my words or change the subject, but to most people this is very clear.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, "everyone and their cousin", besides being a non objective statistic, have been calling the assessor.

Have everyone and their cousin been receiving email alerts to do so? The assessor doesn't vote on this.

I am upset that any process for siting public services has completely and deliberately been broken down.

Protest demanded an RFP, got one before staff had finished writing one that's compliant, and is now complaining about what a bad RFP it was.

We do not, as you have pointed out, have the specific zoning that would make an RFP process function smoothly, instead of in circus mode. If we did, it would be a simple matter for anyone with properly zoned land to submit their property, and then the citizens could discuss it to their heart's content.

We DON'T have that kind of zoning. Is this really about opening up zoning again?

We do not have Maryland's land use or zoning, so we have no mechanism to compel any completely citizen-selected site to become a school site, other than through condemnation.

I've seen the alliance's non-position on that, that they're
neither for nor against it", but then they DO take a position: that avoiding condemnation is no excuse to avoid the plan.

That sounds remarkably like they support condemnation as a first option over a willing seller too near to them, adjoining existing and future large-lot homes.

Let's look at what your own interpretation of the ambiguous and indefinite language "near"and "whenever possible" in the plan has become: "be able to understand why the population center of Lovettsville would want the school in Lovettsville--especially when the Plan calls for it there"---nowhere in the plan does it say this particular high school should be IN Lovettsville.

Again, is this really about zoning?

And consolidation of power?

We currently have no process.

The BoS is making it up as we go.

Do I also have an answer on whether the land can even be tested to see if it is suitable? So it owuld seem.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have not gotten any email alerts, as you suggest. But I guess you think people are not smart enough to figure all of this out unless someone sends them an email alert and tells them exactly what to do? pretty condescending, even for you...

No one asked for the RFP to be rushed into last summer for a 2 week open period. That was the school board all by itself, trying to undermine a fair process. And I remind you (again) the State has standards for RFP's written into State law, so there was no need for staff to reinvent the wheel! LOL!

Mr. Dupre needs to stand down, and back out of this contract so that the other properties can be considered which WOULD have public support. And the public needs to be involved in the process, so what happened to the Miller property, adjacent to the Lovettsville park, does not happen again.

The public does want schools, and they deserve the respect of inclusion in the process from the very beginning, to vet the properties and also build support. It is a disservice to the county for the School Board to be so stubborn as to spend more time and money on this property if there are other properties that will garner public support from the beginning.. (price, terms, location, impacts...)

The School Board needs to get out of this contract so it can legitimately consider others... and there are others waiting, out there.

Not sure why the School Board has such a hard time canceling the Cangiano contract-- the County denied their well waiver, that was needed for one of the proposed wells for the schools and the pump test. And they need another offsite well, on property not even under contract/lease or easement. They can cancel for water reasons, or lots of other reasons.. no one will be buying the Cangiano property any time soon.

Why are they so stubborn in the face of such an outrageous price? poor terms (no contingency for an SE?), poor location according to our Plan? unacceptable impacts? It makes no sense, and that is why people think something grossly negligent/untoward/illegal or corrupt has happened..

The School Board needs to stand down and be more responsive to what the Plan calls for and the public wants...and to be more of a fiduciary with our tax money!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry Sally, but aren't you the one who pointed out that those areas in VA that use an RFP also have areas zoned for by right school usage, which we do not?

Haven't you also argued against deleting the required special exception?

If we did have schools as a by right use in certain zoning categories, then an RFP would probably be a snap.

As it is, the staff hadn't completed drafting one that follows those state guidlelines you keep talking about, so again, what are we doing here?

It would seem nothing more than responding to the flurry of the moment.

It isn't getting us anywhere, except possibly to the real goal as quoted here by Mr. Baldwin--that the system must be taken over.

Who knows what will happen with the contract Sally?

I have a feeling that no matter what it is, there will be something new to scream about anyway, again marching toward that real goal that has absolutely nothing to do with building schools---anywhere.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

Listen to what you are saying.

Ignore the outrageous price. Ignore the fact that there will be impacts to neighboring private wells and the aquifer, which could destroy businesses the County has tried hard to develop--businesses that are difficult enough without threatening their water source. Ignore the Plan. Ignore the fact that western Loudoun was downzoned and there will always be large parcels available unless they ever change the zoning back (not too likely.) Ignore the fact that there is a lot of land for sale right now at fire sale prices, and act as if this is the Cangiano property is the only property that will ever be available that will ever work. and we must pay a huge premium to get it?

Ignore the projected population centers. If what you are saying for this contract is true, just build schools anywhere, then we should build the schools for Dulles South in Ashburn, right?

If it does not matter where we build schools in terms of the population centers, then we will have a few school centers, Purcellville, Leesburg and Ashburn--put all the schools all together (for economies of scale/sending all the busses in the same place--all the arguments for putting this complex so close to Purcellville, which already has two schools.) Is this what you want? Elementary schools especially are important to communities, and this plan is inconsistent with community.

There IS available land in Lovettsville, which deserves first consideration here.

Tell Mr. Dupree to do what is right. Pretty shallow to attack the people who are opposing this to say they just don't want schools. That is simply untrue, and many are very dedicated to doing the job well, which obviously has not been the case so far.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, listen to yourself. I've said none of those things.

I realize it can be a standard formula to place words in others' mouths and then argue as if they were valid statements, but it doesn't really advance your ever-changing points.

By your method, are we to disregard the vote of the town of Lovettsville's council to endorse this site?

Funny, you argued equally passionately on Purcellville's behalf when they opposed a school on Fields, which also had town water and tax issues.

Again, if the ultimate goal is to take over the system and consolidate more power, then the schools themselves are immaterial.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the time of the Lovettsville Town Council's vote, were they told there was no property available for schools in or next to Lville which would meet the plan? Were they told that the Millers refused to sell? (Were they told that the Millers had offered several times to sell, but the School Board low balled them, threatened to condemn them, treated them with disrespect--all the while offering Cangiano and Grubb much higher prices?) I don't think anyone has known much about the offers the Millers made to sell (rejected by the School Board) until Sarah recently posted her FOIA information online... and it makes the School Board look terrible..
Like it has a huge bias against Lovettsville, and in favor of Cangiano.

Why were the Millers treated so differently from the Cangiano property? The Millers in town, next to the Park, and 1/3 the price per acre of the Cangiano contract was not low enough? Why did the School Board threaten them with condemnation if they did not further lower their asking price? and then jump in with a gigantic price for Cangiano?

None of it makes any sense. And that is why we need to start over, and this time involve the public, to make sure that if there is property in Lovettsville, it is properly considered... and it does appear that there is property in Lovettsville...

"standard formula to put words in others mouths?" YES, your standard formula, and you have demonstrated that you do this well! The School Board executes a huge power grab to cut out public input or the Board's SE process, but it must be some conspiracy --by others-- to take over their power! by people who don't want schools, EVER! You cannot defend what the SB has done so you just attack. It is looking pretty ridiculous at this point.

You don't even try to defend the Cangiano contract's merits, so, that means it needs to be cancelled.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Lovettsville Town Council never endorsed the Wheatland site. They endorsed properties north of Route 9. The Council was asked to specifically endorse the Wheatland site but they refused.

Posted by lov123 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets raise taxes for another farce. Brought to you by the LCBOS and LCSB. Good day, ph.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I'm glad you've progressed to saying I haven't tried to defend the contract, instead of continually reiterating that I HAVE. There's some progress.

"so that means it has to be cancelled".

Another sweeping generalization, which still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land is suitable for schools.

As for conspiracy over power consolidation, I don't believe I used that word either. Please see Mr. Baldwin's comment of May 23 at 2:29 p.m. in which he states: "we need the Board of Supervisors in control of the system".

That sounds pretty open and direct to me.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lov123, what about these two (of several) news articles saying they did endorse this site:

http://leesburg2day.com/articles/2009/05...

"The choice of the site has received the support of the mayor and Town Council of Lovettsville."

and

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2009/ma...

"Despite the overwhelming opposition voiced by western Loudoun residents in recent days, the Lovettsville Town Council voted to support the Wheatland site."

The dates on those articles are May 4, 09 for L2day, and May 5, 09 for LTM.

Has the council since met to reconsider?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LCPS had an established process to evaluate sites but chose to ignore it when they selected Cangiano. Why?

Here is an example of the 1999 scoring method LCPS previously used for the only other RFP they have ever issued for site acquisition - a fairly standard government procurement tool.

http://smalltownschools.googlegroups.com...

Yet this method was not applied for the Wheatland acquisition - LCPS didn't even prepare site development cost estimates.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

I dare say there are going to be a lot of people in support of taking away most of the School Board's power if they continue on in such a bull headed manner that does not seem related to the public interest, but more in enriching Mr. Cangiano?
We have a terrible contract, over priced, bad location, no contingencies to determine or alleviate impacts, no SE contingency, cutting the public out completely, and here you are, blaming the BoS, the Town of Lovettsville, the citizens who want schools near their town, evil farmers who get tax breaks, Mr. Baldwin-- is there no end to the lengths you will go to help the School Board avoid any and all responsibility for overpaying in a terrible deal for the citizens, but apparently helping out Mr. Cangiano from the bad investment he made in 2007? buying property with what he thought was a vested A-3 plat?

I wonder if Mr. Chapman (or other Reed Smith employees) and Mr. Cangiano ever spoke about this property, or the possibility of the School Board buying it, while Mr. Chapman was still in private practice? While Reed Smith was representing both Mr. Cangiano and the School Board, as outside counsel? Why did Mr. Cangiano pay so much for this property? Did anyone in authority suggest to him if he bought it, the School Board would buy some of it from him (and defray his costs?) All of it raises so many questions. The price, terms and location make no sense.

Since there are other properties that are available in Lovettsville, the motivations of the School Board are called into question.

It is simply a mystery why any support for the Cangiano contract remains, and it should be cancelled so that other contracts can legitimately be considered.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, as has been stated many times, we are under no process now but protest, and have been for some time.

Grubb was torpedoed and withdrawn, Lenah was torpedoed in spite of the comp plan, and now Wheatland is occurring under the catch-as-can method and not working out?

What a surprise!

Sally, as I have said to you, that IS the point of the exercise; Shout that it's broken in order to break it, make it up as you go along then complain the makeshifts aren't good (after you get them), and drive home for consolidation of power.

The entire thing is being done backwards.

Why not begin with whose powers begin and end where, and actually communicate?

Instead of vote-of-the-week in response to protest?

Care to go around the whole mulberry bush again? Apparently so.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, you are the one going around the mulberry bush. All you have in nonsense and reasoning that goes nowhere but in circles at this point. The facts are horrible for this purchase, and every single school board member should be embarrassed and concerned.

Of course people will protest what looks to be either arrogant gross negligence and disrespect or corruption--resulting in unfairness, unjust enrichment for some, abuse of people like the Millers, misuse of our taxes and the public being ignored and cut out of the process.

You keep saying we have no process. The only reason there is no process is because the School Board unilaterally decided to ignore all established process and power grab.

Given the ultra vires action of the School Board, you are correct, there has been no process, the public has been cut out, and all we have is protest is more accurate.

I agree, clean up the process and follow it, but you apparently cannot bring yourself to admit how wrong this latest series of actions by the School Board is and looks or how bad this contract is. The contract should be cancelled, and we need to start over, respecting the Plan, the public and our tax money.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
Check yor facts. Do not rely on the press to get it right. Again, the Lovettsville Town Council refused to specifically endorse this site.

Posted by lov123 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lov123, until the TC minutes are updated, the press is the best we have. Can you link any story that says they have not? Are you referring to last year's vote endorsing locations north of rte 9?

Sally, too funny.

Negotiating and entering into contracts for land is an intra vires power of the school board.

You would have an argument (per Mr. Ohneiser) that they have exercised an ultra vires power if the land is determined unsuitable for schools yet is purchased nayway.

Testing will help determine if it is suitable.

The contract has an offer to extend to test, among other things.

Why not test it?

The BoS decided to stop following process when they turned down Lenah for the sake of protest that the process was "broken".

The process doesn't begin with the public here because we are neither Montgomery County nor Frederick County MD, we do not have schools as a by right use, and we do not have APFOs or impact fees.

We don't have a process any more.

It got thrown out about a year ago, and it's been downhill ever since.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara
Poor tactic, to hide behind the press or read more into it than was actually said. Check the facts... Perhaps you could call the Town of Lovettsville and get an official statement.

Posted by lov123 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
The Site Acquisition Process you speak of is how a selected site is approved. The document I posted is entirely different. It is a process for comparing site options. It is an example of a standard technique used to score proposals based on predetermined criteria with values assessed for each criteria. So here is my question to you...Yes or No, do you believe there is merit in such an evaluation tool for evaluating prospective school sites? While this question is phrased to elicit a Yes or No answer, I'm not sure you will be able to answer simply yes or no.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, put your head in the sand a little deeper. Testing will "HELP" determine nothing. Only a special exception determines any property's suitability for a school, and you know it. You also know that the School Board has all the authority in the world to include the public or PTA committees, or citizens for input in site selections.

I can't believe you sacrifice all of your credibility on this contract. If you had any good arguments for Lenah, you have lost them here, not standing up for our duly adopted Plan, for a decent location, a fair price, fair treatment of all land owners, a fair RFP, and process that includes a contingency to go through the public hearing process of the special exception to make sure all impacts are addressed......

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lov123, can you cite a reference? I have provided two, which you dispute.

Sarah, as we are in no-process land, please tell me why the BoS gave the go ahead on this site, and is now backing up?

Why post any documents if absolutely none, including the comp plan at Lenah, apply?

Sally, a SPEX does not DO soil and water testing to see if the water is there and the ground is suitable, it REVIEWS testing, IF it has been done.

An extension allows time for that, but we don't really want any testing, do we? Now that there's a chance for some to be done and monitored properly?

As for credibility, according to some of those for whom you are now blogging, neither you nor I has ever had any.

If you circle any faster, you're liable to discover spontaneous time-travel.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...why the BoS gave the go ahead on this site..."

The only approval that counts is the one that releases the money. The site can not be "approved" in a vacuum. The CONTRACT needs to be approved and that is done through approval by the FC and BOS in open vote. And even IF you want to contend the BOS "approved" the site, that would not be accurate. The BOS can only approve this site through a SPEX process.

To contend anything else would be blowing smoke.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara
I know the facts. Please contact the Town of Lovettsville. They can confirm the Wheatland site has never been specifically supported by the Town Council. Get the facts from the source......

Posted by lov123 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, unless you believe the one about the BoS only voting in executive session because they were tricked, misled, lied to, the BoS okayed pursuing this site.

Part of pursuing would seem to be testing, which may or may not occur. Filing a SPEX is a long way off, and may never occur on this site.

None of it matters much anyway, because as long as the county is flying without a net, the BoS can change their corporate mind as often as they wish.

lov123, has the Town of Lovettsville contacted any of the papers that ran the information in the past few weeks to tell them they need to issue a correction?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

IF they approved "pursuing" this property, it means nothing if done during ES. All valid votes must be in public - so the approval was in no way official - IF it happened at all.

None the less - IF they approved "pursuing" the property, they did not approve the purchasing of the property nor did they approve this particular contract. They are fully in their rights to say this is a bad deal and we do NOT approve this property under these terms.

One of the terms SHOULD be that the property will successfully win SPEX approval - without that, the property is worthless t the county.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
I figured you couldn't answer my question. The document posted shows criteria and ranking for one of several sites that LCPS evaluated in 1999 for the Harmony IS site acquisition. Do you think it makes sense to use a weighted criteria evaluation system, or do you think that subjective selection is superior?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For anyone who wants to read them, the Lovettsville Town Council minutes are on line, beginning with June 2007, at http://www.lovettsvilleva.gov/default.as...

Posted by Catherine9 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, I think it's probably safe to say you and I both know it is total bs that any vote occurred in executive session.

If it had, the two BoS members flirting with the rumor would file charges, right? They wouldn't just float it out there as a tool to stir the pot would they? lol

The sequence of events is published in the transcripts: schools and staff go to bos, present properties. Staff recs two, one of which is later withdrawn. Schools ask BoS "if we go ahead on your ok, what is the likelihood that you'll pull the rug out from under us later?" BURTON replies "anything is possible" (no kidding) "but that would probably be unlikely".

Yes, anything is possible in no process land.

They have the authority to contract all on their own Eric. Sally will now start saying "ultra vires", but that may only be an argument if the land--the physical land--is unusable for schools. Not that it meets all requirements but 5 votes. That's another argument.

The BoS can say whatever they want, Eric. We've gone far beyond any statutory division of powers and duties.

Sarah, that's why I DIDN'T, as opposed to couldn't. None of it makes any difference if whatever supposed process being used changes by the day. You are jumping between what was and what you'd like to see, with an occasional reference to what is (this week).

I've no interest in coulda/shoulda unless the subject is properly changing what process is used , through an open process instead of protest-of-the-week.

Catherine, I checked that before I first answered lov123. The minutes are not current through this year. Several months have yet to be posted.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara-to your post #3 responding to mwb:
I don't care about the public involvement for a school site selection. What I do care about is an ability to at least negotiate a contract in the interests of taxpayers. Have you ever paid a certain price for something because you beleive "The seller could wait and sell this for more in the future so why not pay the higher price now?" (Closely mirrors the words of LCPS)

I sure would love to sell my house to you then! :)

Posted by fuzzyturtle35 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fuzzy, a few members of the public very much want to drive the bus, whether state law and local ordinance fits with what they want to do or not.

Lots has changed since post #3--as of last night, the contract has been extended at a lower price, with sufficient time to do thorough testing and monitoring--if that's what the citizens want: to find out if the land will work or not. They may not want that any more now that there's time to do it.

Stay tuned--the BoS will maybe have to take a formal position and either refute their previous go-ahead, or change it now that it's been protested.

We may, on BoS direction in a nonadopted process, have already wasted money to continue to operate without a process.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yes last night the School Board agreed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars evaluating a site when there are other sites that could be evaluated with that money and maintain the intent of the Revised General Plan. The Plan says, "whereever posssible" so it seems reasonable for the school board to at least be willing to investigate the possibility of complying with the plan before they spend thousands of more dollars. Everyone has always said we just want near Town sites to be considered, why is that too much to ask?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, is it true that one of the parcels in one assemblage is zoned in such a way that school use is not permitted, thus requiring a rezoning?

Is it also true that the new assemblage was previously proposed when the realtor (has Mr. Burton tendered the contracts yet to those actually empowered to negotiate and purchase county land, as he is individually NOT empowered to do?) was still on town council, and worked in the same realty firm with a sitting school board member, thus occasioning a host of potential conflicts?

Is it also true that the new assemblage lacks some crucial parcels needed for access?

It certainly isn't too much to ask to look at other suggestions.

Neither should it be too much to ask to have some kind of process that isn't being drawn backwards, and parcels able to be professionally evaluated on their merits without a fog of FUD.

It will be interesting to see what the BoS does, now that the school board didn't fall for the setup of their corporate body.

The BoS will have to take a public position, and if it is protest-based instead of objective reality-based, especially after Lenah, that won't look too good for their corporate body.

It will be tantamount to saying "there are no rules until we think them up". Which, in practice, is what current policy IS.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. McDonough has not been on the Town Council for awhile. His involvement with selling this land is perhaps comparable to Dale Polen Myers' involvement with other land deals so you are barking up a well known tree in Loudoun. The hydrogeo contractor LCPS hired is the same as the ones Cangiano paid a short while ago. LCPS didn't even write a scope of work, they just handed the hydrogeo task to Cangiano's consultants - so please Barbara spare me the one-sided COI whine. A SPEX will be required for Wheatland so getting caught up on a rezoning seems trivial. I agree, let's stop throwing money away when there are so many questions unanswered. You point out several. How about what is planned for getting access to one of the four community wells that isn't even on the Cangiano/Burgess parcels under contract? How much more will that parcel cost? How much will the water/wastewater and traffic improvements at Wheatland cost? Yes, lets get independent cost estimates for all options, including Cangiano/Burgess and apply that information to a firm process that all will commit to up front. Then and only then will any of this make sense and the fog of FUD can be minimized.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, very different than tossing out Dale Myers name.

When the former ISA property was listed for sale with her, she had been off the Board for some time. She immediately went to Economic Development and made it very clear to them up front that the property was listed with her, so that there would be no confusion if there was any interest in the property.

You did not answer the question: the first time this assemblage was brought forth, was the realtor still on council at the time they brought it forward, and were they at the time working with a sitting school board member professionally?

Were they then referred to appropriate staff (as Mr. Burton should have done) and did it not have many potential conflicts in moving forward?

Does it not still require additional parcels not included in this representation to be fully functional?

You are so focused on getting a school IN Lovettsville that you seem willing to gloss over things that you put under a microscope anywhere else.

The town will have to cooperate with your wishes--do you live, vote and pay taxes there? What about the people who do?

This will be interesting as it unfolds.

I hope your "better faster cheaper" sites work out better than they're doing down here.

MS5 in land use process only three years late, and no site yet for HS7.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes indeed, what IS happening with HS-7?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good question Momof2.

Tonight when the BoS voted to backtrack on Wheatland, Lori Waters was forthright in saying that she thought it was time for the BoS to take over school siting.

Given the progress in Dulles since our own supervisor led the charge to kill our relief schools with no relief in sight, maybe we need to go to every BoS meeting and ask.

Since the public drives the process and all.

lol

(but it isn't really funny, is it?)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What IS funny is that Eugene the supposed only fiscal conservative on the board voted FOR this contract. Well, there goes his claim to the conservative title....

Barb, what really bothers you and your developer friends is that the public may actually have a SAY in the process after this....wouldn't that be nice.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In my opinion, based on what I heard him say, Eugene did not vote FOR this because he was "FOR" this deal. He voted against the motion because it bypassed what little process there is left.

Eric, the public should have a say. As I watch, though, I am wondering how the boards should balance the public input they receive. What should they do when two or more groups of citizens with different agendas present their opinions and facts with equal intensity and numbers? One group vehemently wants "their" representatives to do one thing, the other group wants "their" representatives to do the opposite? Each group angrily threatening to end the representatives' political careers if things don't go their way, the obvious "right" way? What if every single school site brought forward by ANYONE has as much opposition as Wheatlands/Lenah/Rouse? We don't know, that is in the future. While public input is important, what is it's proper time and place and how should it be weighted?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mom,

I am not just talking about "public input". I am talking about incorporating the potentially impacted citizens into the process. Create an ad hoc citizen's committee for each site selection process. Put representatives of any conflicting parties on the committee with generally equal representation. Let them reach a consensus reconmmendation on the issue independent from control by staff. Then incorporate these recommendations into the resolution reached by the SB. Look, who is going to participate in this committee? The ACTIVISTS. Will everyone be satisfied? No, but if the results of this process are actually followed by the SB (and they are not just given lip service) then the public outctry that is indeed somewhat inevitable will be largely muted.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2,
.
Eugene has a long history of siding with developer interests over the community's wishes. One election year he campaigned on the promise to make developers part of his "Shadow Board". Go back, watch the old BOS meeting starting in the late 90's- Eugene has made a name for himself by openly mocking the citizens from the western part of the county. Where do you think the orange hat came from?
.
Eugene was the only supervisor to receive a campaign donation ($1000) from the developer/seller of the Wheatland Land. You'd think he would have recused himself, unless you'd been watching local politics for awhile.
.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara May27 1:35,
You wouldn’t answer my question but I will at least try to answer yours:
1. first time this assemblage was brought forth, was the realtor still on council at the time they brought it forward, and were they at the time working with a sitting school board member professionally?

I don’t know, I believe Mr. McDonough hasn’t been on the Town Council for the last several years. This site has never been identified before. I know very little about that assemblage since it was just revealed last night and I wouldn’t think it is FOIA-able information at this stage. I believe the Scott’s are part of the assemblage and they submitted a 57-acre assemblage for consideration in last year’s RFP.

2. Were they then referred to appropriate staff (as Mr. Burton should have done) and did it not have many potential conflicts in moving forward?

It is my understanding that Ms. Bergel directed Mr. McDonough to staff as soon as he approached her about it. I don’t know what Mr. Burton did, ask him.

3. Does it not still require additional parcels not included in this representation to be fully functional?

Ms. Howard O’Brien said based on their preliminary evaluation, acquisition of additional properties may or may not be necessary – seems pretty vague and premature. Again, how would I know?

4. You are so focused on getting a school IN Lovettsville that you seem willing to gloss over things that you put under a microscope anywhere else.

Barbara, you seem to have much more information than I do. How is it you know so much about this property when none of what you mention was presented by Dr. Adamo or Ms. Howard O’Brien?

5. The town will have to cooperate with your wishes--do you live, vote and pay taxes there? What about the people who do?

I don’t pay Town taxes but I do pay County taxes. The Town will now have a chance to decide if they are for or against hosting these schools. I find it interesting how Townspeople have gotten the false idea that they will have to bear the cost burden of the water/wastewater infrastructure and maintenance.

Would you now return the courtesy and answer my one question about site rating procedure merits?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was only commenting on what I heard Eugene say yesterday. These campaign donations do seem to be a huge problem. Why not have people donate to their political party and let the party distribute the funds?

Eric, I like your idea but I am wondering if you are saying that the citizen committee would actually be making the decision for the Board.

I think one thing we can all agree with is that our boards need to get this process straightened out. Things can not continue this way. Too much time, energy, and money have been wasted already. I think they all need to take a step back, put their own agendas and preconceived notions aside, and try to look at the big picture. And yes, I think they need to consider the public input of a wide variety of citizens.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, it would seem I was correct, given Eric's response.

Not only might the process be turned over to the protesters, but we will get to spend tax dollars trying to facilitate a consensus of protest.

It may actually BE fiscally prudent, as giving them what they want upfront will save time, at the very least.

Eric, still with the developer meme. Shall I talk about your "farmer" buddies, and the tax writeoffs and subsidies that also allow you to pay so little on your assets?

Sarah, how funny! You have had absolutely all of the only true answers, except for now on the sites you absolutely knew were better?

It is my understanding that yes, this was brought forward before. And yes it was directed to staff.

When it came forward this time, Ms.Bergel did the right thing.

Rules don't apply to Mr. Burton.

"The Town will now have a chance to decide if they are for or against hosting these schools. I find it interesting how Townspeople have gotten the false idea that they will have to bear the cost burden of the water/wastewater infrastructure and maintenance."

How well did that work out with Woodgrove, Sarah? And the town won't have to pay for it, the rest of us will?

Wow.

We will both have to pay for it.

Let's run a tally, shall we?

When these schools are open (unless Woodgrove is the last one you ever get to see--crowded IS the norm out there now, except for the small private schools we also pay for), let's see if it was all cheaper.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not only might the process be turned over to the protesters, but we will get to spend tax dollars trying to facilitate a consensus of protest."

Barb, what a jaded view of life after your time in power. A. An ad hoc committee of citizens providing input and guidance to thier elected representatives is hardly a novel idea. B. A consensus of interested, concerned, and impacted citizens is hardly a "consensus of protest", and C. Where was your concern for the taxpayer during your frenzied push over the past few weeks to accept this contract as written? I read nothing in you little notes here - not once - that said that the contract was bad for Loudoun taxpayers. And if you want to contend that it was a GOOD deal for the Loudoun taxpayer ... well I just don't think that passes the sniff test.

I stand by my assessment - you are against (to the point of distain) any meaningful citizen input into the process - I guess that is why you made such a good PCer.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"When these schools are open (unless Woodgrove is the last one you ever get to see--crowded IS the norm out there now, except for the small private schools we also pay for), let's see if it was all cheaper."

When all else fails - go back to the old tried and true East vs. West divide arguments.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, your quote: "who is going to participate in this committee? The ACTIVISTS."

A tiny percentage of the population as a whole, with a unique and committed agenda, often microscopically personal.

More people pay taxes than vote, and many more vote than participate at the micro level.

Momof2 raises valid question: where does this input come in the process?

If it drives the process, I don't think the larger populace is any better served.

Sarah has worked like hell to force a school into a town she neither votes nor pays taxes in. So much for Lovettsville thinking it has a position. Kind of like so much for Purcellville when the BoS bought Fields.

No, I never said the contract was good or bad. It would seem everyone had faults with the original one, until it looked like it could be extended and some of those faults addressed. Then the points changed, as points often do with clamorous and disingenuous personal activism.

"Meaningful" citizen input leaves room for ad hoc committees--but the only "meaningful" input in this process was driven by the personal goals of individuals. Who have some more of their personal way now.

And they are what percentage of "the people"?

As for my comments about crowding, your talking point of east/west is misplaced.

Funny how all the imprecations hurled at a megaplex of prisonlike intensity permanently despoiling the pristine farms (adjoining low density subdivisions) with the trappings of the sprawl that has ruined Loudoun for the real people was never once seen as "divisive". Double standard not new in Loudoun.

My crowding comments had to do with the execrable conditions forced on everyone west of Route 15 while a BoS selected school site was forced into Purcellville. And my suspicion that now that grotesque overcrowding has become the norm, Woodgrove may be the last high school seen in the west.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"More people pay taxes than vote, and many more vote than participate at the micro level."

A. Whose fault is that? and B. So this means the citizens should have NO meaningful voice in the process? This is your alternative.

My suggestion one that has worked in the past. It is meant as an ADDED level of citizen involvement in the process over the standard public comment and SPEX process NOT to replace. But as a previous PCer, you are showing how little regard (to the level of disdain) is actually givene to citizen input or involvement in the process. I expect that the LCPS administration and their SB would fight this sort of thing tooth and nail. They can not control the process this way and they can not allow that development.

Finally, no Barb, the crowding part was not the east vs. west divisive part of your statement - of course you know this - you wrote it.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, you have such a love for forcing words into people's mouths, it's like you're trying to create mental foie gras.

"So this means the citizens should have NO meaningful voice in the process? This is your alternative." No, it is NOT my alternative. See Momof2's question. What WEIGHT is to be given to the input of the chosen citizen activists, and WHERE does it come in the process?

As a previous PCer, I know quite well that citizens have a great deal of immunity in expressing their opinions, as they have every right to do.

They need not be factual or even polite.

To whom will the "citizen activists" of the protest consensus be acountable?

To whom ARE the current activists responsible, with the speculative accusations of corruption, threats, the whole nine yards?

No one but themselves.

If that is who the process shall be turned over to, there needs to be much better accountability than just "whose fault is it if you don't participate".

No accountability will not represent anyone well but the individuals themselves, and anyone who by chance happens to agree with them.

If by "divisive" you mean my pointing out that the only schools in the rural area that are NOT crowded is the small very expensive ones benefiting a minute portion of the population, pointing it out isn't the thing about it that is most divisive.

The fact that they exist is.

Or wait? Are we one county again, where everyone is treated the same, now that a small group of people is getting the process rewritten to their liking?

Oops! My bad!

lol

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb,

So in your tirade where is YOUR alternative? Hmmmm.....tap, tap, tap...

You have none. I did not say that committee should be unaccountable - in fact, if they are appointed, they ARE accountable. TO the representative that appointed them. Again, this is hardly a new idea - and again, of course, you know this - but keep playing dumb.

Including citizens in a process in a real way does not equate to turning the process over to them. It just really bothers you though apparently.

"...the only schools in the rural area that are NOT crowded is the small very expensive ones..."

Not to reiterate too much but (and again you know this) the schools are not by definition expensive nor uncrowded, it is how they are used that makes them so. Your beef is with the SB not the west vs. east. In fact, these schools are very inexpensive given that they are paid for versus new space for these students which is VERY expensive. Of course, agian, you KNOW this but you choose to ignore it sao that you can promote you tired old east vs. west rhetoric yet again...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, most of the folks protesting this time (who also protested Lenah, and Rouse, and Grubb, and...) have been saying they want the citizens in at the beginning.

The processes they reference (in other areas with different land use laws) have the process staring there.

They also want more and smaller schools.

Then they talk about money, which is laughable after the other two.

Under this board, who do you think the citizens will be? I can guess a few, and from their track records so far, they will not be putting anything first but themselves.

I hope they prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

As for the little schools being paid for, well of course they are.

Guess what?

So are most of the other schools in Loudoun.

Do you think they put them on 30 year mortgages?

No. They're paid off in a few years.

For the rest of it, it isn't like we're talking about the difference between Hong Kong and Idaho, Eric.

The extra-specialness argument gets really old, and it is where most of the geographic division comes from.

The first bombs usually come from the other side of 15, and are frequently modified by "cookie cutter", followed closely thereafter by the contrast of "fragile" and "pristine".

ARE we one county?

It seems that depends.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, who are the folks that protested all four schools? I'd be amazed if there was more than one. Or was that just yet another a lie under the guise of bitter sarcasm?

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know if the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) was on record yet on the Wheatlands site, but they have protested against many of them.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, PEC was on record against Wheatlands and I know they spoke out against Lenah.

Charsj and Barbara, I think we should join in the movement for smaller community schools, too. I think all students in the county should have that same benefit.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mom - you are absolutely correct. All new schools in this county should be smaller (building 900 student elementary schools is wrong). And yes indeed they should be community-based schools. In fact, more of the eastern schools are community-based when compared to the new clearinghouse schools in the west. I've asked this before - what community does Mountain View serve? It and Culbert are regional clearinghouse schools plain and simple.

Barb, in your "I hate the west" diatribe, you said:

"So are most of the other schools in Loudoun." Paid for that is. This may be true although I believe the bond period tends to be 20 years. But what you appear to be suggesting is to close the smaller (paid for) western schools and build new space for the children (NEW as in NOT paid for). Wouldn't it be better to just FILL UP the schools that are paid for first and use the space you have? No, you don't like this because then the "western schools cost more" argument you like to make so much goes away and YOU must continue the east vs. west argument.

You and your developer buddies rode this argument into power in the past (of course it did not serve you so well last cycle). Apparently you want to try it again. I will call you on it everytime, Barb until you start being honest in your rhetoric.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The extra-specialness argument gets really old, and it is where most of the geographic division comes from."

I made no "extra-specialness" argument in this discussion. You making up this argument is just one more example of you trying to further divide the citizens of this county. Did I really read that you may consider a run at the BOS seat? Oh please do, Barb, please do...

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To my recollection, Gem Bergel of PEC did not argue against Wheatland; she spoke up to advocate for a new process including real RFPs and public input.

PEC had no involvement in Grubb. The only people that spoke up were us 'special people' that were in the vicinity of Grubb. That is why I called out Barbara on her lie.

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on May 30, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To me, the rejection of this site has nothing to do with an east or west divide.

It was more about the fair and consistent application and enforcement of the comprehensive plan and our laws, including our zoning ordinance, County-wide. We have a Comp plan that went through a long public process, setting out policies about water and schools for western Loudoun. Are we going to apply the Plan consistently, or ignore it when it is convenient?

And the other issue was about a more transparent acquisition process, with an appraisal that is based on actual sales, so that it can be justified as representing fair market value. The appraisal here seemed to be pulled out of a hat, and was extraordinarily high.

It has nothing to do with east or west. The issues are consistency, transparency and fairness in the County, for the benefit of all citizens and taxpayers.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on May 31, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yes, PEC put official positions on the record against Lenah and Wheatlands, and I believe Rouse too. Both official positions included offering to help the county draw up a better citizen-driven process. I can only imagine the group structure that would be created for that!

Lenah and Rouse had the Imperial we of Dulles South on the record in spite of their county positions in rec.

The same political blogs were out in force, in spite of very little actual knowledge of the unfunded mandates at the fed and state level we must provide, some of which affect spatial needs.

Sarah used every opportunity to apply her own agenda, whether it applied in the specific case or not, and now we get to see what happens to the incorporated town of Lovettsville now that she has "given" them the schools she knows they really want but just aren't saying so.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, yes, the official position included speaking against the site, not just for a new PEC-driven process, with a seat at the table for PEC, who will be only too happy to help the county do a better job.

More unelected non-accountability.

Eric, I think your real fear includes the fact that once any of these schools closed, they would need to meet current code before being reopened. Even more costly.

The argument that because they're paid for they are more cost-effective to keep open?

At a higher per pupil cost? Uhh, no. Before we even get into parity, no.

Eric and windhunde, feel free to trot out "developer" and "lie" as often as you like.

If you believe that new blog that supposedly tells the inside skinny on Dulles politics, feel free.

They have some of their ionfo wrong, and I hope they'll let me know if I open a campaign office--lol.

Eric, you betray both your fear with that question, and your sense of specialness: if I did run (and that is a figment of the new blog's imagination, along with the given that Miller only moved to Oak Grove and rented his house in Broadlands to resign--like he isn't going to hedge his bets? lol), what on earth business would it be of yours? We aren't in the same district.

Unless we need to hear how everything in the county affects you personally, so if Miller wins the 86th and resigns, the first requirement of any replacement is that they be acceptable to Blue Ridge and Catoctin?

We don't vote by the acre.

The BoS does, but now we're back to PEC. lol

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again Barbara ignores a challenge and just blusters ahead.
.
Why won't you answer Sarah's question?
.
Why won't you answer my question?

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The argument that because they're paid for they are more cost-effective to keep open?

At a higher per pupil cost? Uhh, no."

Per-pupil cost has nothing to do with the facility itself but HOW the facility is used. You continue (I assume intentionally) to use a measure that has nothing to do with your arguement. East vs. west is everything, eh, Barb?

As to your potential run at BOS seat, Barb, the minute you stop discussing the doings of Jim Burton, is the day I take my nose out of the politics of your district.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, I answered both your questions.

If you want to play let's pretend, feel free to do that too.
-------------------------------------------

Eric, how are you going to use the facilities so that the costs per pupil becomes equal?

Even if they were full (not overcrowded, but at capacity) they still wouldn't be commensurate--the cost differential is much greater than simply filling the extra 30 seats in the buildings!

Eric, you are laughable in your continued chanting of "I know you are but what am I?"

Discussing Jim Burton is very different from driving out to Blue Ridge and pounding the pavement against him, which is what you (and some others of the "special" crowd) bragged about doing in eastern districts in 07.

I don't think Mr. Burton always makes the best decisions for other areas than the portion of the county that he regards as his constituency. In some issues, there are no district lines that are meaningful to him.

Have you ever seen me door-to-dooring against him?

You won't, either. I can't vote in Blue Ridge.

You will never take your nose out of everyone's business Eric; it is ALL your business in your book.

More double standard from one of the special.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I seem to have missed your answers to this:
.
"Barbara, who are the folks that protested all four schools? I'd be amazed if there was more than one. Or was that just yet another a lie under the guise of bitter sarcasm?"
.
and this (from Sarah):
.
"Yes or No, do you believe there is merit in such an evaluation tool for evaluating prospective school sites?"

Posted by windhunde (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Even if they were full (not overcrowded, but at capacity) they still wouldn't be commensurate--the cost differential is much greater than simply filling the extra 30 seats in the buildings!"

I suggest you look at the figures for Hamilton Elementary at capacity - it is BELOW the county average.

"...which is what you (and some others of the "special" crowd) bragged about doing in eastern districts in 07"

This is a lie - I never bragged about nor went campaigning in any eastern districts ever.

"You will never take your nose out of everyone's business Eric..."

Again, another lie - I never did any campaign work in your district - EVER. Oh I will take that back, I called ONE single close family friend who lives in Braodlands on election day and encourage him to "get out there and vote!" Sorry I stuck my nose in your business.

Wow, your truly have no shame, Barb. You say this after hijacking each and every thread on here about a Western school? And I never once said ANYTHING about Lenah (frankly, I know little about it to this day - not my business you see).

You really have some nerve, Barb. You now will outright LIE to advance your east vs. west agenda. Sad, really, sad. Do you really miss the power so much?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

windhunde, then read back. Some only protested one, some two, some three, and Sarah and a few bloggers all four.

I didn't answer yes or no, because Sarah doesn't make objective arguments. It is immaterial what process has been used, because none is being used right now, as I also said. As for her question about the weighted evaluation versus subjective judgement, what difference does it make? I see definite merit in the weighted criteria, but Sarah seems to feel the judgement was subjective on the part of the school board. I also believe she wants purely subjective judgments in some cases, because that has been the objective (oh, pun) in much of the protest.

Eric, I guess you've forgotten joining an eastern HOA forum to blog against eastern candidates, and your many posts on this site about how often you are on Gum Spring Rd. or jogging around the Ashburn lake.

Words don't seem to be vehicles of specific meaning for you, but playing pieces in a game.

Lie is a strong piece, and tells me that yes, you fear any candidacy that isn't to your liking.

You are already campaigning, and there's no election.

This tells me that maybe yes, the new blog is fake, and serves no other purpose than to provide a vehicle to say something is happening that isn't, so you and the like-minded can start (or rather continue the constant) campaigning.

Do you honestly think that the BoS would rather hold a special election when they can just appoint someone if Miller wins?

You are campaigning early for 11, in a district you don't live or vote in.

And, as usual, being far less than truthful about it! lol

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...many posts on this site about how often you are on Gum Spring Rd. or jogging around the Ashburn lake."

What, Barb, am I not allowed to jog in the east now? If I do, I am sticking my nose in politics of the east. As I said, contrary to your direct lie, I NEVER campaigned in the east. NEVER. End of story.

To refreash your memory:

"...very different from driving out to Blue Ridge and pounding the pavement against him, which is what you...bragged about doing in eastern districts in 07." A lie. I never campaigned in the east...ever. I drove Gum Spring Road (and made observations on same) and jogged in Ashburn - oh when will I EVER take my nose out of the business of the east!!

"Words don't seem to be vehicles of specific meaning for you..."

Again YOU are typing this stuff - unbelievable!!

"Lie is a strong piece..."

I lie is what it was and that is the appropriate word it.

Barb, is it campaigning to ask if you are actually thinking of running as the (you say fake) blog reported? Apparently you have given it a great deal of thought. I really want you to run, Barb - I want to watch that show. It would be very entertaining....

And, btw, if you WANT to campaign in the west - by all means, please come out and do so. I will not have a problem with it. It is your RIGHT and I respect your RIGHT to do so. If you do, come by for coffee, please.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I lie is what it was and that is the appropriate word it."Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 8:56 a.m.

Well, that's about as coherent as a lot of what you write politically Eric.

Angry too?

Tell me, why is the new fake site purporting to tell the inside "truth" about Loudoun politics, by suggesting that three people will be running as Republicans in a so-far nonexistent special election that would require a resignation of a sitting Supe to go forward, and all three AREN'T members of the local Republican committee?

lol

Keep chewing the scenery Eric.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)