Thursday, May 7, 2009

Western Schools Controversy

Fresh on the heels of a tough budget process and an extremely contentious (and nearly county-wide) boundary adjustment at all grade levels comes another explosive controversy surrounding schools: the potential purchase of land south of Lovettsville for building new schools.

I first brought this to readers' attention by publishing Catoctin District representative Jennifer Bergel's original letter to her constituents on the subject, in early March. There was a little coverage when the contract was originally signed: (Loudoun Times Mirror, Leesburg Today, LCPS).

It wasn't until the past week that the issue hit the headlines though:

Loudoun Independent, Leesburg Today, LoudounExtra, Loudoun Times, Beyond the Blackboard

My own approach to contentious issues is to focus on the facts that I can find from the experts hired to provide them. If you're interested in finding out more, LCPS published a Wheatland Fact Sheet online (PDF) this week. I also found memorandums drafted back in February by LCPS staff and County staff addressing concerns about the property's price.

Prior the the School Board's approval of the contract, the County planning staff and a majority of the Board of Supervisors gave their support to all of the terms based on their review and expertise. A professional appraisal confirmed the property value. The deal had the support of all four of the area's elected representatives: Ms. Bergel, Ms. Kurtz, Mr. Reed & Mr. York. This was the basis of my support. The Lovettsville town council voted unanimously to endorse the location. To my knowledge, none of this has changed, and no new information has come to light since the aforementioned backed the project.

Last night, Blue Ridge District representative Priscilla Godfrey wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors, who are now backing away from the deal. I am quoting it in full below, and highlighting what I found to be of particular interest. I'll leave you with her thoughts.
I am writing the Board to provide more compelling details of the decision to purchase school sites just three miles south of Lovettsville. Just before the supervisors changed the zoning in western Loudoun, many properties were sold to developers who have since subdivided and placed wells so that they would be grandfathered in at greater densities (one house per three acres). Over 2,000 homes are in place to be built in western Loudoun, many of them in the northwest corner where these schools are planned. Another 266 homes have pending applications for approval. At our current rate of .83 students per single family detached, we will have 1,894 students in need of classroom space.

We just finished a boundary process for elementary schools in western Loudoun; our total student capacity is 4,544 and by 2013-2014 we will have 4,165 elementary students which means there are only 379 elementary seats not occupied in 2014 hence the urgency to site another elementary school as soon as possible.

Throughout the state of Virginia and in every other state there are schools built in rural areas, often on their own private utilities and surrounded by either grazing cattle or growing vegetables. In Loudoun, we should have disallowed all residential building in western Loudoun if we were going to refuse to build schools for the children. We can't pay Maryland tuition to educate our students living in northwest Loudoun; they are our RESPONSIBILITY and they must have classrooms somewhere near where they live. If we can't build on dirt roads (Grubb property); if we can't use private utilities; if we can't be within reach of a farm; if we can't build in Lovettsville because the streets are too narrow for buses; if all the property we are able to use are owned by developers or farmers who are not willing to sell, we are in deep deep trouble. The school board is advised to plan ahead and then when we do, we are criticized for either paying too much money or putting the schools in the wrong place.

The families who do have children affected by this decision are writing. But there are children who are not even born yet who will need the kindergarten classrooms to be built there in six years. The majority of those who are protesting do not have children in the school system; are told that this property is farm property which it is not and has not been for three years; are told that we will be using 72,000 gallons when the real figure is more like 17,313; are told that this spells the end for farm businesses nearby when that is not the case (they have their own access to their property, their own wells and their own customer base). Just look to Tysons Corner where houses abut the truck farm that is still doing business on Route 7. We will not be polluting the soil or water and we must prove no disturbance of water resources in the immediate area way before we build.

Both boards have treaded softly on condemnation and rightfully so which makes us even more anxious that if we do not secure property now, the only land left will have homes or businesses on it or will have an unwilling seller. The only way to avoid condemnation is to seek a willing seller (which we have) and purchase property before it has people living on it or businesses in operation (which we have).

I ask you to think of the kindergartner I referred to above; he is counting on all of us to think of his future and the future of his friends.

Priscilla Godfrey

20 comments:

  1. Now LCPS is changing their story. In the February 27, 2009 Hydrogeo proposal estimates 65,490 gpd + 10% leakage x 150% for Maximum Peak Demand of 108,058 gallons per day. The 65k estimate is based on 10 gallons per day for the 875+90 staff at the ES and 16 gallons per day for the 1350student + 140 staff for the MS and 1800 student+200 staff for the HS. LCPS has not presented how they derived their new reduced estimate.
    ReplyDelete
  2. What is your proof that Scott York was for this? He's not for it now, that's for sure. If you want to get into a battle of who said what between Scott York and any School Board member, York wins handily. Please do throw yourselves into the firepit of public opinion yet again.

    And who cares what Godfrey has to say about this, she couldn't even be bothered to show up to the public meeting.
    ReplyDelete
  3. "The deal had the support of all four of the area's elected representatives: Ms. Bergel, Ms. Kurtz, Mr. Reed & Mr. York"

    Geez... check your map, John. The largest portion of the site is in the Blue Ridge District. Represented by Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Burton.

    Burton has been solidly against this from day 1.
    ReplyDelete
  4. No new information has come to light? How about the deception regarding alternate access routes to the Park from Loudoun Street... LCPS May 2008: "condemnation of the Moore's property is required for school options in Lovettsville"

    How about Mr. Miller only being offered $4M for his 156 acres? Since SB policy is against condemnation, why was Miller's property paraded to the public in July 2007 and again in May 2008 when LCPS asserted he was unwilling? Where is their analysis of the Shoene/Engle assemblage, P&H Miller/Park flip, McLearen,OBrien, et al assemblage?

    Where has LCPS ever admitted their RFP was issued on June 17 and responses requiring several documents were due 2 weeks later on July 3?

    How about Mr. Chapman working for Mr. Cangiano on a lawsuit against the County in 2003? Who knows when he started working for LCPS while employed at Smith before he came to work FULL time for LCPS in March 2006. Because Priscilla had better things to do than listen to her constituents on April 29, she didn't hear Adamo assert Chapman hadn't represented Cangiano for 15 years.

    How in the heck can anyone say with any credibility that they can accurately assess potential water resource impacts based on a pump test conducted during these conditions? AND WHAT ABOUT THE COST TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS? WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL VDOT ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT?

    The Crim property owner responded to your RFP -- that property would work great for an elementary school but for some reason LCPS refuses to consider that community-based option. That fact somehow hasn't been mentioned in any of LCPS' news releases.

    So I beg to differ - much has definitely come to light, and there is likely much more around the corner.
    ReplyDelete
  5. As usual, the "planners" at LCPS are focused on mega school mega complexes instead of more reasonable options. Why should they care, it's only our tax dollars?

    Interesting that all of Chapman's revealed work for Cangiano involved suing Loudoun County. Just the guy LCPS needs working for them! Since they love to stick it to the BOS and citizens whenever they can, he's the perfect choice for counsel by the School Board.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Loudoun Inciter, what's your proof Susan Buckley supported it? You have none but want a double standard.
    ReplyDelete
  7. When all is said and done, I think Andrea McGimsey will get credit for getting on the correct side of this issue early.

    More and more taxpayers are learning that LCPS is paying $67,000 an acre for a site when larger comparable parcels are on the market nearby for $17,500 an acre.

    Potomac District residents should be proud of her.
    ReplyDelete
  8. I feel sorry for a kindergartner who gets mixed into a vat of a 4000 student complex.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric the 1/2 trollMay 7, 2009 11:59 AM
    Amen, Farmer, Amen. Priscilla Godfrey - she's not MY school board rep. She is Ed Hatrick's school board rep.
    ReplyDelete
  10. As for which Supervisors went what way in the secret non-vote held in executive sessions we will never know. Only McGimsey and Burton have come our publicly against this project. Kurtz was certainly defending it last week at the "information" meeting in Lovettsville. Burk engaged wit the crowd at the protest. Buckley has been absolutely silent.
    I still don't see how the LCPS and Adamo can claim to have full support of both Boards when there is no actual public record of BOS taking a stand. Seems like a wobbly leg to stand on to me.
    ReplyDelete
  11. This potential school complex is beyond anything that Western Loudoun needs or wants. I find it very disturbing that following the latest controversy surrounding the opening of 800+ seat elementary school, Kenneth Culbert, that there is a true need for another in addition to the "super school" plans for the site. I can agree as I am sure others also do that we need another school (smaller in nature) and have options of adding on to the ones we already have, regardless of the untrue comments made saying that there isn't land adjacent to Hillsboro, although it may NOW be under contract, which has been available for many, many years. LCPS didn't pay it any attention - they didn't want to. Dr. Sam Adamo made comment during the School Board meeting regarding WL boundaries that "we can't afford neighborhood schools." Well, in a rural environment that is what people want - that is why we moved here. There is NO place in Western Loudoun for a campus environment this large, nor a need. A "regional" school would bus students from so far away at this size and although those students in that town may now not have to drive far, THE REST OF US WILL when the school is open looking far and wide to fill it! I find it very hard to believe that the LCPS can't "afford" neighborhood schools. Pricilla Godfrey then babbled on about not being able to add on to a "circle." Really? I think everyone needs to take a BIG step back and think about what is happening here and REALLY think about what they are saying in "public."

    What I want to know is who made a deal with the devil? (developers)
    ReplyDelete
  12. If this BOS had real backbone and political courage, they would reinstitute a real rural zoning policy for western Loudoun. That would be one way to eliminate the need for these schools. But if they succeed in buying this land and building these schools, that will be further justification for more development, especially immediately surrounding the new school complex. I know of at least one adjacent landowner who will immediately file plans for rezoning should this go through.
    ReplyDelete
  13. This is called, "Talking out of both sides of your mouth..."
    ReplyDelete
  14. Michele, that is all you have to say?
    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous @ 4:35pm - are you saying the Crim property is under contract and no longer available for a Hillsboro ES annex?

    You are right about bussing kids into this area with a school complex this large. Folks in the east should be concerned when a school so much larger than the need is opened far from them - it may be their school in the not too distant future because LCPS would rather spend the money on fuel instead of taking the time and effort to do real planning.
    ReplyDelete
  16. When asked in the SB meeting by the board if Hillsboro had the ability to be expanded or if it was locked in by houses (which was not answered) Adamo's reply was that the adjacent property to Hillsboro was "under contract." The suggestion to the SB long before now was to purchase that land and expand Hillsboro to hold current and future growth. Hillsboro does have the ability but no attention has been given to it. They are determined to build another new, super-huge school as you can clearly see rather than a more reasonable solution for neighborhoods/communities. In addition, Hillsboro will now go on the under-utilized small school list as a result of the current boundary changes made along with the others in attempts to fill Kenneth Culbert and newly stripped Mountain View. Hillsboro parents will fill out special exception paperwork to keep their children at their own newly under-utilized school, for years given the space in the school in addition to the double bussing that will now occur up and down Route 9 for both schools - so yes, the care for fuel & energy must not be a concern now so I would guess not later. If this new school goes in it will likely affect everyone to include Pricilla Godfrey's district, west. Does that answer your question?
    ReplyDelete
  17. I for one am concerned about the fuel costs- but the planning staff is not. They seem to think it ok to bus kids to an entirely different neighborhood 6 miles away when they can WALK to their current high school. What a bunch of twits! Has anyone looked at the future transportation budget if the staff boundary plan is passed for Dullen North and what it would be for this Wheatland project? And where are they going to get the drivers and the new busses that will be needed? It is not like we have people clammoring to be bus drivers. I think my tax money can be better spent.
    ReplyDelete
  18. School bus drivers are easy enough to find and cheap compared to the other resources being allocated. Gas prices too are not a primary concern in the big picture since a reasonable distribution of students will give you the optimum rides for everybody, not just a few. It doesn't make sense to tout the savings of a handful of students living close to one school at the additional cost of shipping hundreds clear across the county.

    6 miles is a reasonable (and even short) commute compared to many parts of the county.

    I had a 15 mile ride to middle school when I was a kid. It was nice to unwind on the ride home from a long hard day at school. There were middle schools that were closer to my house at that time too. No big deal, we had fun on the bus.
    ReplyDelete
  19. "It doesn't make sense to tout the savings of a handful of students living close to one school at the additional cost of shipping hundreds clear across the county."

    ....the problem w/ Wheatland is it dismisses the costs of "shipping hundreds" of kids (Lovettsville area kids) all so a handful of students don't have a long commute (Between the Hills).

    When I moved to western Loudoun all the kids went to school in the TOWN OF PURCELLVILLE. That is a community school - that is the standard that I expect. I would rather my kid have a 30 minute commute (now its an hour and half) assuming their school is in a community where they can work and socialize in, as opposed to a 15 minute commute to a school in the middle of nowhere.
    ReplyDelete
  20. Lovettsville FarmerMay 12, 2009 11:03 AM
    I think Tyson's Corner as an example of agricultural vitality speaks for itself. I commend the Newcombs for sticking it out in Vienna, but using that as an example of why development around the Wheatland Farms wouldn't effect the adjecent farms is not reasonable. One of the reasons Potomac Vegetable Farm expanded to Wheatland was the dwindling and then complete lack of land for farming in Vienna.
    Speaking as one who has to navigate Lovettsville and Wheatland area roads with farm equipment, you cannot tell me that placing a 4000 student complex there would not have any impact on my farming operations.
    ReplyDelete