Thursday, May 14, 2009

Bergel on Wheatland: Responding to Burton

Introduction Post

This is one of a series of posts relating a letter from Catoctin District School Board representative Jennifer Bergel to her constituents regarding the Cangiano/Burgess Wheatland property acquisition. This section addresses statements made by Blue Ridge Supervisor Jim Burton in an email to citizens.
Jim Burton has sent an email that includes the following information:

During a meeting in which I participated last week, we discussed three sites closer to the Town and determined that school planning staff had already directed their engineers to investigate the two closest to Town. While I do not know the [sic] what the price of these alternatives might be, they would certainly be in far greater compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.

Because constituents whose emails in support of the site have received responses with these words, it is imperative that I set the record straight.

1. After the community input meeting in Lovettsville on April 29, I spoke to staff about whether or not the “Engel/Schoene” potential site would be possible for the hypothetical price of $13 million. This possible alternative was mentioned in this meeting, and I asked staff to look at it because it linked a parcel in the town to a parcel out of the town. I had immediate reservations about the price; immediate reservations about the viability; immediate concerns about the impact on a town that currently has very few middle/high school buses driving through it. I also had concerns about the bank and a historical home; but I asked them to look into the site to get a snapshot of its possibilities. Mr. Engle has not mentioned an intention to sell; Schoene is advertised by the developer as for sale. I should have information to share on this concept - but again, it is only being looked into because of public interest in this option.

2. Before the community meeting took place, I was approached by an individual about a possible assemblage in the Lovettsville area. This person asked me to keep things private in order to “protect the landowners”. I asked this person to whom else he was speaking so that I could cross reference the parties. Furthermore, I informed him we are under contract and that I am no longer able to speak to land deals. I directed him to staff, mentioned the community meeting, and upon my arrival staff indicated a meeting time and date had been set with this person. Last Thursday I found out that this person had spoken to Mr. Burton about this assemblage. I was quite surprised to hear this testament from Mr. Burton because the potential “broker” had acknowledged a concern for those local residents involved yet he went to an elected official that did not represent him. Furthermore, I began to wonder to how many had this person spoken.

I assured Mr. Burton that indeed staff had already started to look at this assemblage, but even if it were to come together, it still did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. And, there was a need for serious road improvements, among other things, IF it were a viable site. I stated that I was alarmed that someone was shopping a “potential” assemblage. As of yesterday (5/13), Mr. Burton is the only one who has seen the contracts - LCPS staff continues to ask for them to determine the validity of this "possible" site.

3. The other site Mr. Burton mentioned, and I challenged, is the Wheeler Farm on Irish Corner Road. I mentioned to him the number of historic structures on the site, the fact that a dirt road (Dutchman's Creek Rd.) runs through the two properties, the flooding of the creek along the road and by the water treatment plant, and that again, the Comprehensive Plan is not in place with this site. Yet, this site is one that he mentioned may be viable.
Next post: Conclusion of May 14th Letter

11 comments:

  1. Bergel says, "I stated that I was alarmed that someone was shopping a “potential” assemblage. "

    If LCPS won't do it, someone has to. Why does this "alarm" her? We have a capitalistic society. If someone can pull together an assemblage and the public likes it and the price is good, the "broker" has every right to set up a possible deal and God Bless them for trying to pull together a win-win - the win for us is saving a few extra greenbacks and maybe get better options to the table.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I appreciate Ms. Bergel's new found concern for historic structures. Now if she would just do something other than offer "hope" for the Samuel Nixon homestead, it might be saved.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Bergel is gone, as well as John Stevens for posting this drivel. The School Board is either corrupt or hopelessly incompetent in land purchases. You people want a public war you got it.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe they went to Burton because they don't trust the School Board to give them a chance. Good for Mr. Burton, looks like he got his assemblage in Lovettsville.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Trust the School Board and the school administration? You mean the people who consistently lie to the citizens they supposedly serve?
    ReplyDelete
  6. love the idea of a new site option ilo the travesty at Cangiano

    but...
    can we trust Sir Burton?
    our knight in shining armour that brought us Fields Farm?

    sorry - having a little trouble turning over that new leaf
    ReplyDelete
  7. So you're still loaning out your blog to Jen Bergel to stump for this horrible site?

    Don't you guys and gals on the School Board have other things to worry about, like your deadlocked Ashburn boundary issues? Shouldn't existing students be a priority over over-priced deals for incompatible rural land?
    ReplyDelete
  8. Though simplistic, would it not be more reasonable to build schools where the majority of children actually reside? Maybe then we would not be having these boundary issues every year and arguments about where school should be built!
    ReplyDelete
  9. What were your thoughts about the Special Ed Town Hall Meeting earlier this week?
    ReplyDelete
  10. See next post for Special Education Town Hall Meeting information.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Stevens, people are saying you are in favor of canceling the Cangiano contract, along with Mr. Ohneiser and Guzman. Rumnor is that Mr. Guerin and Marshall may be with you three on this, but they might be wavering?

    Seems so obvious with the very poor appraisal, other property for sale for SO MUCH less, and all the errors, and now the possibility of other property available in Lville.

    It is a mystery why Ms. Bergel, Godfrey, and Mr. Reed continue to favor this... and Dupre, no surprise..Please do what you can to cancel this, it is not in the public interest, and a waste of tax money...
    ReplyDelete