Killing of 3-School Deal Offers Lessons
Article Tools
Share This +
Process to Acquire Land Might Change
Originally published at 12:00 a.m., May 28, 2009
Updated at 12:00 a.m., May 30, 2009
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors' vote last week to strike down a plan to build a three-school complex near Lovettsville might have far-reaching consequences, including strained relations between supervisors and the School Board and a revamped process for purchasing land for schools.
A contentious, weeks-long debate between supervisors and School Board members over the proposal ended Wednesday night when the supervisors voted, 8 to 1, against funding the Wheatland Farm project.
It was a startling reversal by the board, which had all but signed off on the "edu-plex" three months ago. Since February, when the $11.4 million contract was drawn up between the county and the landowners, developer Salvatore J. Cangiano and cattle farmer Alvin Burgess, officials had given an informal nod to build the elementary, middle and high schools on 170 acres along Route 287, just north of Route 9.
But support for the project quickly eroded last month, as a group of western Loudoun farmers waged an aggressive campaign to stop the deal. The Wheatland Alliance, an advocacy group composed of eight farms in the Lovettsville area, organized a 1,200-name petition opposing the plan, and 65 people spoke at a lengthy county board meeting, arguing that the schools would damage the area's rural economy, cause traffic congestion and create water shortages.
Sarah Stinger, a Lovettsville area community school activist and member of the Wheatland Alliance, x said she was happy about the supervisors' vote, and she called on county officials to "take charge with a sincere willingness to find a way to bring these schools to Lovettsville."
INTERNET ENHANCED
Related Stories
Related Stories
- May 23, 2009 -- Board Might Vote Soon On 3-School Campus
- May 5, 2009 -- Rally Held to Protest 3 Schools
- Feb. 4, 2009 -- Supervisors Vote Down School Plan
- Oct. 25, 2008 -- School Board, Supervisors Find Common Ground from Divide
- Oct. 21, 2008 -- Land Purchase for Schools Rejected
Related Letters
- May 17, 2009 -- Critics of School Site Guilty of Exaggeration
- May 14, 2009 -- Tysons Corner Isn't a Good Model for Loudoun
- April 16, 2009 -- It's the Wrong Place And the Wrong Cost
- March 8, 2009 -- Don't Rush the Decision To Buy land for 3 Schools
Advertisement
"Now that the Board of Supervisors has effectively killed school sites in Wheatland, we trust Loudoun County public schools' apparent agenda to accelerate Loudoun development will finally come to a halt, with the county taking the lead on land-use planning," she said.
The chief concerns cited by county officials Wednesday were the $62,000-per-acre original price of the property, which was eventually negotiated down, and the often-secretive nature of negotiations between the Loudoun school system and the landowners.
Cangiano, the Leesburg developer who two weeks ago agreed to sell 160 acres of his 550-acre property to the county for $7.6 million, about $2.4 million less than the original asking price, said in an interview that he was not disappointed by the vote. He said he will go forward with plans to develop three-acre and larger estates and an equestrian center on the property, called the Reserve at Waterford. He called the controversy "the best advertisement I've ever had."
"I don't have an ax to grind. I'm not a politician, and I don't know what happened, but that's their job, not mine," he said. "I offered to sell it for what I paid for it, but, like my brother said, 'The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.' "
Cangiano said he thought problems with the county's official assessment of the property created the false appearance that he was receiving a sweetheart deal from the school system. He said the final vote on the project was a "fiasco," adding: "If I ran my business like that, I don't where I'd be."
In recent weeks, the public debate over the project led to an unusual display of sniping between county supervisors and School Board members, damaging the already-fragile relationship between the two bodies. The Wheatland vote marked the third time in the past year that supervisors had rejected the school district's school construction plans.
Before casting a vote to move forward with the Wheatland plan Tuesday, School Board Chairman Robert F. DuPree Jr. (Dulles) said he was sending this message to supervisors: "These are the options. If you still don't think this is the best option or something worth pursuing, then tell us on the record that you've changed your mind — don't just send us to do the dirty work."
The next day, Board of Supervisors Chairman Scott K. York (I), in voting against the Wheatland deal, said the public had not been given enough time to weigh in, adding that a discussion period should have been "built in for when both boards come together."
Sam Adamo, the school district's director of legislative and planning services, said officials knew the Wheatland site would involve a "dogfight." But he said that after considering the pros and cons of more than 30 other sites, school officials considered it the most ideal location. Adamo attributed the collapse of the deal to policy differences and an "issue of leadership."
"We followed exactly the process outlined by the Board of Supervisors. We did everything they asked us to do," Adamo said. "I can't figure it out."
During Wednesday night's meeting, supervisors indicated that they would explore ideas on how to retool the county's land purchase process.
Board Vice Chairman Susan Klimek Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) acknowledged that private discussions have taken place about whether the county board should "take over the school site acquisition process." Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) called the appraisal process used to negotiate the terms of the Wheatland deal "mysterious" and "imperfect," and Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said the "time has come for the School Board and school system to focus on education."
The lone dissenting vote, Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling), called the decision to cancel the contract a "hijacking based on a public outcry."
Tagged: Loudoun County Public Schools, Lovettsville, school board, schools
Deal of the Day
$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!
Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.
• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals
Latest Deal
• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
Are you happy that the school year is over?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
LOL
Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said the "time has come for the School Board and school system to focus on education."
Maybe Ms Waters should focus on fiscal responsibility for Loudoun County instead of trying to influence the school boundary by building unnecessary schools before they are needed.
Posted by yind2b (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too much money is spent in Loudoun on schools!
Posted by dnaich (anonymous) on May 29, 2009 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WHEW.....thank goodness....I did'nt want to have to pay more taxes to build more schools, we can't afford what we have now...did'nt they just decide to charge students to play sports and parking over budget mistakes?
Posted by purplehayes3 (anonymous) on May 31, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Too much money is spent in loudoun on schools" "I didn't want to pay more taxes to build more schools"
What, you people think they will just appear out of thin air? That the developers can still afford to provide land for schools? I hate to break it to you but given the current economic climate those days are pretty much over. The bottom line is that portions of Loudoun have schools on all levels that are overcrowded. Kids are forced to commute more than an hour to compensate. Forcing kids to overcrowd schools just so the select few can enjoy their rural equine pseudo-paradise is both selfish and unrealistic.
Posted by crazyha (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one is talking about building more schools in western Loudoun right now (Woodgrove and Culbert will take care of the increased need for the next 4+ years). Those who opposed Wheatland aren't angling to enjoy a "rural equine pseudo=paradise". The goal is to secure land for future schools and ensure growth in the County proceeds according to smart planning principles. Hopefully the SB/BOS will work together and take the extra time to find good sites, be willing to commit to mitigating the impacts on the Towns by the time the schools are needed and finally allow designs to fit available sites located close/in Towns so kids can go to school in a community. It will be worth the effort and ultimately the taxpayers will be getting a far higher rate of return on their investment.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"hopefully the sb/bos will work together".
Sarah, so far this has meant that the BoS makes up the rules of the week based on protest, and the school board is the fall guy.
The BoS has made it clear that they intend to continue usurping powers of the school board, so it appears "working together" means smiling every time you get stabbed, and thanking the stabber instead of yelling.
As for a "rural paradise", maybe people protesting didn't actually end up projecting the message you now wish to reshape.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh No. Big Muddy in the house! Is she going to start post multiple thousand word wordburgers on yet another thread?
.
We can save her the time- the PEC is eeeeevil, the west is full of elites, and citizens who petition their government are rude protesters.
.
Absolutely crazy.
.
Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barbara,
There were no rules. The "process" used to attempt the Wheatland acquisition was a preliminary process that was NEVER voted on by either Board of Joint Committee. The Committee chairs suggested they give it a try for 6 months to see how it worked. The process flow chart says there was a vote, but the minutes don't reflect any such vote ever occurred. That draft process didn't work because it was never officially agreed to - someone just threw out the idea and crossed their fingers.
BOS was given misinformation and we brought attention to it. Once the history and hidden information was revealed, BOS saw their mistake and didn't allow a bad decision to advance. I know, you think my conclusions were wrong - so please take one and provide the basis for a different interpretation. Otherwise you will be just like Mr. Dupree, when he said my map was wrong but never countered with an "accurate" one. Step to the plate or quit fussing about those who do their homework and challenge bias.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MS Waters please, you know your time is running out and your trying to go out with a smile. Your done, you have spent your reputation and our tax dollars dont leave with a smile just leave. Good Day, ph
Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah, I see you are all-knowing again. Okay.
And buying the version that the BoS was lied to, so that's why they "voted in executive session"?
I see we're back to conspiracies and malfeasance. Okay again.
Of course there were no rules. The BoS decided to stop following them last year.
You've been fussing for several years for a school IN Lovettsville, where you have said you neither vote nor pay taxes.
Has Lovettsville ever formally supported your wishes for the town?
No.
Is that why the slogan that "the process is broken" was invented?
So that it could be broken?
It will be interesting to see if we DO get another Woodgrove, Sarah.
The BoS has already ridden roughshod over the school board, so they're certainly warmed up for the town.
It will be interesting to see this play out.
Who are you going to blame, and what will you accuse them of, if your chosen sites don't work out?
----------------------------------
As always, aff, an intelligent and productive contribution on your part.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 2, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barbara,
Yes, Lovettsville had formal resolution of support http://tinyurl.com/omjfuu
which explicitly states their willingness to work with officials to provide utilities.
According to the Lovettsville Town office staff telecon last week, no resolution of support of Wheatland was ever issued. You assumed newspaper/blog statements were accurate.
I vote and pay taxes to Loudoun. I have been a member, volunteer and local consumer in the Lovettsville community for 20 years, but no, I don't pay taxes to the Town.
BOS WAS misinformed. The briefing packet provided to BOS supposedly included all RFP responses:
http://tinyurl.com/opzgk5
But it didn't include this one, a 70-acre site next to Hillsboro ES that could be used for ES-25:
http://tinyurl.com/pt2xg4
LCPS says it didn't count.
I looked and could not find any record of the preliminary site acquisition process being formally adopted. Maybe you can. Please share if/when you do.
I have provided references/documents which support my statements. If I have stated anything in error, I beg you to please provide basis of your alternate conclusion.
Yes it will be VERY interesting to see how this plays out. Will it be SB saying, "It's our way (Cangiano) or nothing"? Or has SB already begun work to look for compliant sites?
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, I have to admit I have not read the last few posts. My take after months of observation is that the School Board and LCPS have become the scapegoat for all that is wrong. Nothing that they say is true or accurate, according to their critics. Everything they say and do can be explained away, no context needed, no due process required. That is my take, that is my point of view at this time.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah, I was not counting on blog accounts, because so many of the anonymous identities are the same few people. You've been at least three, and maybe more.
I was counting on the copy of the resolution, until the meeting minutes for this year are posted on the website. Why not ask Ms. Bergel for a copy?
So you support replacing Hillsboro elementary (cap 100) with ES25?
I thought you were for small schools?
Hillsboro is another incorporated town; are you speaking on their behalf as well as Lovettsville?
That resolution is two years old Sarah, and supports "or in close proximity", as well as containing "to the extent possible" on sewer only.
It states the town will be an active participant, but it appears that you believe you are the official spokesperson for the town.
Yes, it will be interesting.
The barking dog has caught the car. Now let's see what unaccountable protest does with it.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
no Barbara, let's see what our elected leaders decide to do with it. If they believe the need for school sites is real, then they will keep looking and encourage price competition to get a better deal. If they give up, then it will look like the whole deal was more about making Wheatland a new commercial district and nothing to do with education. Good luck getting that resolution you keep waiting for, why don't YOU ask for a copy? LOL! Towns speak for themselves, but their words fall on deaf ears.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL, stinger. This whole argument that the LCPS is trying to influence future development is ridiculous. The BOS is responsible for zoning. The BOS has already approved homes to be built in the Wheatlands area. Again, I am not in support or against the Wheatlands site. I am against these preposterous arguments the opposition throws out that, yes, muddy the waters. I am guessing the next step for some is to try to get the zoning changed and fight the building of homes that have already been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah, if the current administration gives up, it will look like what it is: using every method of providing service (or NOT) as a means to further the growth agenda of their contributors.
I haven't been waiting long, Sarah, and will be happy to post what I am sent.
If towns speak for themselves, why have you been speaking for Lovettsville? Does this go back to your statement on another thread that now Lovettsville will HAVE to step up?
What, are you trying to politically eliminate any option BUT another Woodgrove?
Yes, the towns' words DO fall on deaf ears. Maybe they've been deafened by the activism of those who don't live in them.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And Sarah, since you don't pay taxes in Lovettsville, don't let Barb catch you jogging there - she considers that sticking your nose in other's business (ironic as that statement from her is)...
Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
momof2 - upzoning and commercial development would face opposition but the 30 or so new homes that will eventually go on the 170-acres is the reality most have accepted. Greenstone Fields is among several startup growers in that area so who knows what could happen there? Although I know you don't think wineries and all this new non-traditional farming is as worthy as the dairy farms of your youth.
Barbara - if the administration gives up looking in the west, they will prove they were only interested in the site not the need.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stinger, why on earth are you accusing the SB of trying to turn Wheatlands into a commercial district?
BTW, I don't favor dairy farms andI'm not sure why you would assume that I have a preference. I think the wineries and non-traditional farms are great. I also think schools are great as well as due process.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eric, I don't care where you jog.
I do, however, find it interestingly disingenuous for you to have mentioned it a few years back, when you were also blogging on an eastern HOA site, while giving forth your opinions on eastern candidates as a long-term resident of....where, exactly? lol
"While jogging around the lake in Ashburn/while stuck in traffic on Gum Spring" could certainly make you sound like a much nearer neighbor, when holding forth on who other districts should vote against.
Sarah, if the school board needs to worry about basically being dissolved (and I think it might need to worry about that), it may decide to stop wasting time and money in protest land.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mom of 2. I also like due process as well as due diligence. A 2-week RFP hardly qualifies as either. The fact that Cangiano dropped his price so fast when viable sites were raised proves competition drives down costs. So tell me why did the SB withhold cost estimates for Wheatland infrastructure yet give estimates for McDonough? As I said, if the administration decides to quit looking for sites in the west, they will prove they were only interested in Wheatland, not what's best for these children...see new study at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg...
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stinger, didn't they invest a alot of time and money in the selection of this site? Have they told you they are not going to pursue other sites for these schools? I thought they were already looking at 2 or 3 others. Aside from that, they still have the Dulles South schools to address. No site has been made public yet for HS-7. We are anxious to hear some news, as some BOS and SB members think our kids should sit on a bus and travel to the Loudoun Valley Estates for HS, to a school that is behind HS-6 in the CIP. Frustrating since some of the loudest protesters of Lenah said that Lenah was too far away -these students should go to school much closer to where they live. Lenah would have been closer than the Loudoun Valley Estates location. I hope they come through with a Dulles South site soon.
I'll read the study tonight. Thank you for posting it.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant to say to HS-7 instead of HS-6 in the above post. Some want to bump HS-6 ahead of HS-7.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
momof2:
Yes, they need to immediately address existing needs in Dulles/Ashburn. In fact, they have several needs to be manaaged. I don't understand why they make new goals when they have yet to finish the tasks set out earlier. Goals are great but did they establish priorities and schedule for achieving those goals? Perhaps they do need help from the County to get it all done - it's just too much for one group to manage.
Yes, they invested over $400k recently on Wheatland Farm site, possibly $30k or more on Danner site, $700k on Grubb site, and who knows how much at Legard - none of those sites are "in or adjacent to" a Town. Look where all those investments got us. I doubt a tenth of that was spent on trying to make assemblages or investigating sites near Towns. How is it that not one but 2 new 100-acre assemblages could be identified by citizens yet LCPS' acquisition department missed both of them? Half of the McDonough assemblage was a RFP response - so why didn't LCPS take that opportunity last July to pull the Scott's neighbors together as McDonough has done? Their records indicate they never even contacted those neighbors nor Mr. Engle before they signed Cangiano's contract. That RFP meant nothing - they didn't even score responders as they did respondents to their previous RFP, the one that resulted in Harmony site acquisition.
I was hoping SB reps pushing hard for western sites would now show initiative and leadership in spite of having their pet project rejected. In fact, I was under the impresssion announcements of community workshops would be made before school dismisses in 2 weeks. But that doesn't look likely now. Sorry, it just doesn't breed much hope when the only thing we hear is stuff like:
School Board member Jennifer Bergel (Catoctin) noted that information presented on two alternative property assemblages presented to both the School Board and Board of Supervisors last week had been for "informational purposes only" (LeesburgToday)
and
"We are terminating a contract today, and we are not entering into a contract for any other sites," said School Board member Jennifer Bergel (Catoctin). (Loudoun Times Mirror)
If Dulles/Ashburn needs are immediately addressed, then they will reduce alot of heat but they opened the box on western acquisition urgency so it's something they need to address or be willing to lose a measure of credibility.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah, I asked you back when you were inserting your issue into Lenah whether that was just a vehicle to keep flogging your own project, and you demurred (while writing on other blogs that until every kid in the county had been put in the same conditions being suffered by those at Valley, justice wasn't being done).
If Dulles needs are so great, why did you help kill a compliant site over here, where you ALSO don't live?
In addition, if the school site needs are not crucial out there, why are you now complaining that they haven't announced the workshops you want to discuss your preferred sites yet?
You only succeeded last week in blowing up Wheatland.
If site needs aren't crucial yet, why is it crucial that they book and have your meetings right now?
Are they not turning the system over to you fast enough?
Sorry for the heavy sarcasm, but really!
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Momof2, Barbara is responding for you but I'm more interested in your thoughts on my points.
Barbara, what interim measures to Dulles area MS overcrowding would you suggest?
Your sarcasm points back to LCPS/SB - they were the ones that placed the urgency on Cangiano acquisition.
With so many sites that need to be acquired, it looks like LCPS could use all the help the County can spare.
Posted by stinger (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No Sarah, I was responding to YOU.
The interim measures are the busing boundary, because the current site for MS5 is the fourth that has been to process and been blown up by our own band of anointed.
Those kids will feed the cohort survival numbers in the Briar Woods cluster, and provide "reason", as the BoS continues to twiddle its thumbs on HS7, to build another Ashburn school--which will dovetail nicely with leaving seats empty in Leesburg, in response to community pressure that moves everybody ELSE around.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BArb,
Are you dinying I was regularly stuck in traffic on Gum Springs Road? Are you saying that I have no right to post my opinion on same (given that I was the one stuck in traffic)? Are you saying I in ayway was not open about who I am and where I live (I was open about that subject, btw)? Is anything I did even remotely equal to the amount of thread hijacking you have done on this school issue? I am good with you commenting on issues outside your eastern region. Perhaps you would grant me the same courtesy.
Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment