Friday, May 29, 2009

Wheatland Death Rattle

Author:
Some members of the public and School Board are still trying to resuscitate the Wheatland property for school use. There are suggestions fluttering around to nix the high school use and having only elementary and middle or to buy it for an agricultural center/park and then use it for schools if Lovettsville properties fall through. Even one of the most visible, vocal and staunch opponents suggested we could always open new negotiations with Cangiano should the Lovettsville options fail.
Labels:

50 comments:

  1. Eric the 1/2 trollMay 29, 2009 07:04 AM
    Why the drive to build yet another mega- elementary school in the west? Do you need to drain the existing schools even more than you already have? It is really time to rethink what Hatrick has you guys doing, John. Wake up already!!
    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Hatrick and the School Board have repeatedly, publicly and recently advocated building smaller schools than the 875-seat Elementaries and 1800-seat Highs. These larger schools are at the insistence of previous Boards of Supervisors. See the webcast of the May 14 Joint Committee meeting: http://tinyurl.com/lcpswebcasts
    ReplyDelete
  3. Death rattle indeed. Just how dense are your fellow SB members???
    ReplyDelete
  4. I am in the design building and real estate business and that land is still way over priced period and a horrible location for schools.

    Who is paying you people off, something very odd is going on here to bring this back up.

    Fix the problems in eastern Loudoun first before going out to who knows what will happen 10 years from now. Hatrick and some members of the SB are missing some brain cells.
    ReplyDelete
  5. I am heartened to read "Dr. Hatrick and the School Board have repeatedly, publicly and recently advocated building smaller schools than the 875-seat Elementaries and 1800-seat Highs." Then why are we even talking about this? These schools aren't built; so let's just not build them that way. Finito.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes we need bigger schools that are multi story with one foundation and roof for two or more floors. A bit cheaper and more energy efficient. Less land and larger schools require less staff to maintain and without so many multiple locations less driving for staff to visit schools and on and on and on in savings.

    If your architects and engineers think otherwise about multi story then contact me and I will put you in touch with people to can produce cheaper schools and then fire the rest of these people getting fat and happy on your gravy train.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, this death rattle needs to stop. Even a single school at the Wheatland site would be a mistake unless Wheatland is the focus of some invisible population cluster no one knows about. A MUCH better idea is to think creatively, and perhaps find a way to expand Hillsboro and Waterford (and maybe even Lucketts) to relieve some of the pressure now borne by Lovettsville. Or what about this: get out the population maps, plug in current statistics that recognize the sorry state of the real estate market, and then decide when and where a school is REALLY needed next. Maybe it's near Taylorstown. Maybe it's Paeonian Springs. It's time to go back to basics, but to do it creatively. It's NOT time to try to "salcage" the Wheatland deal. The Wheatland deal is dead for good reasons, and it should be laid to rest for good.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, "salvage" is what I meant to type. There is nothing to salvage there, but some good lessons to be learned. Follow the Plan. Get public buy-in. Use a real RFP process to foster real competition.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Jennifer, please just let it die.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Ironically, it was my public comment before the BoS that the Board should strongly consider accepting the Wheatland site as a gift of Mr. Cangiano, should he offer the site "altruistically" for free, to become a fine new agricultural/heritage park for the county. But I'll stand by that still: if Mr. Cangiano wants to donate his 60 acres gratis, by all means, the county should take him up on the offer. But -- and this is crucial -- I meant it when I said the site should then become a park. Schools on this site (even one of them) at this point in the evolution of this area would be totally out of place, are totally unsupportable under the Revised General Plan, and shouldn't even be under consideration.

    Speaking of parks, when the heck is everyone gonna gets off their butts and get the Lovettsville Park up and running. It's hugely frustrating to have it sitting there with fences and gates, totally unused, when it could (I suspect) very quickly and cheaply be opened for passive uses: horeseback riding, hiking, even grassland sports. Come on, now! How much would it cost? Really?
    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry. Another typo. Meant to say "160 acres" rather than 60.

    Gettin' tired.

    ;-)
    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting point about the park, but to be more directly related to the School Board, just when are they going to start working on solving the real currently existing problems in the Ashburn-Dules area instead of wasting all of this staff and SB time on a bogus far in the future concern???

    Don't you people have more pressing problems to tackle than this? And you wonder why people think there might be corruption involved? There is no excuse for this continued obssession with Wheatland.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Stevens,

    Do you think the School Board has authority to buy a park? Most people would be upset to buy park land with school money. Future bond money might be at risk-- the public won't vote on school bond money if it can be used for other purposes. I think this is a terrible idea, if it is even legal to do.

    And if we buy a park, how will there be money to buy land in or next to Lovettsville? Seems to undermine what the BoS told the School Board, and the comprehensive plan.

    Why not just let this contract lapse? No one is going to buy it any time soon. And investigate the properties in Lovettsville.

    To continue with this site is bizarre after the clear direction from the Board of Supervisors. I think those who continue to support Wheatland are risking lawsuits, and no one wants that.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Eric the 1/2 trollMay 29, 2009 09:01 AM
    John, It is the school board that sets the policy on school size not the BOS. Until you change YOUR policy mega-elementary schools in the west will prevail. DO not deflect this issue to the BOS - take ownership and act.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Bergel no doubt SB member leading this charge. I can see Hatrick/Chapman anxious to give Sal the money and help him with his plans for a new commercial center, but why Bergel? Why isn't she focusing on Lovettsville? How can she be this way after everything she did before coming to the SB? FINALLY she had BOS telling her you HAVE to put it where you have been dreaming of for years and she can't seem to let go? BOS needs apply lesson learned at Fields and make an upfront committment to offer Towns incentives to have schools.
    ReplyDelete
  16. For the record, I was not referring Jennifer Bergel in my post.
    ReplyDelete
  17. i didn't think so, John, but you've lent your blog to her for so long to defend this crummy deal that it's an easy assumption to make.

    Is your School Board attorney going to sue the county again, just like he did three times for Cangiano? Will Cangiano be joining in?

    I'm also hearing a number of School Board members may not make the upcoming meeting, including various accounts on the three no votes. You all better show up to that meeting, who knows what DuPree and Bergel can do without you three there.
    ReplyDelete
  18. there is something fishy going on. How did Jen even get on the agenda at the town council meeting? Maybe our wonderful Mayor Walker. After all the work Jen's husband did to get signatures for a school IN Lovetsville how can she be so ornery? Where are those signatures now? Either she is CRAZY or has some other interest in the Wheatland site. How is it that Sally Kurtz let this happen at the town council meeting and why didn't she speak up at the meeting to defend the BOS? Why do we see inflated costs for the roadwork at the McDonough site and no costs shown at Wheatland? Something stinks here. It's time to get the disinfectant out and clean house.
    ReplyDelete
  19. In business when things are done under the table and cannot take public scrutiny it's called BAD business
    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm sorry, but some of the comments here lack reason.

    Saving money doesn't mean building many small schools on many contested sites.

    A "gift" from the greedy developer would be nice?

    So would free ice cream and ponies to passively ride in the park.

    An agricultural "park" in the middle of "nothing but farmland"?

    Are you serious?

    Talk about wasting money!

    And if Lovettsville is a sovereign governmental entity, why is it wrong to see Ms. Bergel on their agenda, and somehow right to think Sally Kurtz could dis"allow" that?

    The letters in this week's L2day are quite a collection: Wheatland is a still-extant historic town with many buildings that could be included in the National Register--a whole village worth! It is also entirely empty and remote. Obviously a magical place.

    Yes, negotiations could be reopened if necessary.

    Yes, it is probably worthwhile, in the case of a willing seller, to not write it off completely.

    Yes, the needs in Dulles are more pressing, but now that the BoS has put on the record that they want to be in charge of the School Board's job, do you think that will happen?

    No, a school will be built somewhere in Ashburn so that Lansdowne doesn't have to fill empty seats in Leesburg, and Dulles South will do without, because NO site will be suitable under the new non-rules of whatever the protest of the moment wants.

    And Lee, if you want to talk about what money buys, look at some of your wealthy friends you often reference and then look at the policy direction by this corporate BoS.

    Mr. Stevens, I can appreciate your pragmatism on the vote the other night.

    I hope you appreciate that the corporate Board of which you are a part will soon cease to exist on this road. The BoS has been chipping away at your statutory powers and duties, with no rhyme or reason other than a consolodation of power under their own aegis.

    Good luck to you, because very soon I think it won't matter how your board votes on anything.

    The BoS was required to publicly signal their intent, and so they did.

    Barbara Munsey.
    ReplyDelete
  21. For gods sake Jen Bergal, sit down, take a deep breath and get a grip. What you did the other night at the Lovettsville Town Meeting was deceptive, dishonest and exceedenly not helpful. Do you have no shame? How could you possibly still be considering a school site at Wheatland after the public spanking you recieved at the BOS meeting this week? Do you have no concept of what is happening? How about an honest attempt at a postive effort to find the best site available in Lovettsville instead of handing out that crap that Adamo put together?
    ReplyDelete
  22. Barbara,
    So how crowded is Dulles South, really? Got any trailers? Not good but everybody has to take a turn at waiting.

    If it's so bad, why can't your bud Dupree take care of it? Doesn't seem to be doing such a good job for you does he? Looks like time for a change down there too?
    ReplyDelete
  23. In the May 14th meeting Mr. Stevens refers to, Ms. Bergel pointed out that there was only a difference of a few million in the construction cost of Tuscarora and Woodgrove, even though Tuscarora would seat 200 more students. Hatrick pointed out that the operational cost for a 1,350 student high school like Potomac Falls is the same as the 1,600 student schools. Conclusion: building bigger high schools is cheaper on a per-student basis. Why in the heck would school officials want to consider a size smaller than 1,800 if they were really interested in saving taxpayers money? They should be building the schools even bigger. There's the added bonus that bigger schools would mean fewer parcels and fewer battles like this one.
    ReplyDelete
  24. Eric the 1/2 trollMay 30, 2009 01:04 PM
    "Saving money doesn't mean building many small schools on many contested sites."

    Nice rhetoric but not necessarily true - as usual for Barb.

    Smaller school require MUCH less land. The operating cost for smaller schools is the same (if not less) than larger ones. The capital cost is equal. Transportation costs are much lower. Only one layer of administration is required per school. The educational benefit is well documented. The research is out there. Barb just hates the idea - must be a developer thing...
    ReplyDelete
  25. Eric,

    It's not really true that smaller schools need much less land, especially in western Loudoun with the large setbacks. The school building footprint is not what takes up most of the land, it's the athletic fields. For example, a high school needs a football, baseball and softball field regardless of whether it has 1,800 students or 900 students. An 1,800 student school doesn't need anywhere close to twice the acreage of a 900 student school.

    I also have to question whether smaller schools are really better, but if y'all are convinced they are, then I would suggest you move to a rural county with a single 600 student high school, because it ain't gonna happen in a suburban county. Our taxes are too high as it is without peppering the west with undersized schools.
    ReplyDelete
  26. Eric the 1/2 trollMay 31, 2009 05:06 PM
    Anon,

    You might want to look up the acerage of Loudoun Valley - 1200+ and only roughly 25 acres...smaller schools are less costly plain and simple....btw, I'm not moving anytime soon and I intend to fight for smaller more fiscally responsible schools in the interim...
    ReplyDelete
  27. anon, Mercer has been on overflow for a while. Its relief is three years late, thanks to the same core protest crowd that protests everything.

    The new middle school boundaries that were just set? Included a busing boundary for Mercer.

    For some reason we don't "do" trailers here. First option for us always seems to be buses.

    Freedom's relief is now a year late, and with the silliness over HS boundaries, could slip further if we follow the idea that stability for Lansdowne is more important than NOT busing everyone in Dulles in a "move over, I want to sit here" strategy that serves one community at the expense of many others.

    Eric, two very tired points of yours: evil greedy developer Barbara (and you are farmer Eric, I know, but just for tax purposes), and smaller schools are really cheaper.

    No. Smaller is part of the idea that you moved into the country.

    And if your only counter to any of my opinions is that I am paid to have them, your argument is bankrupt. Easier, I know, but not issue-based.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  28. While there is certainly a study out there that will support almost any point of view, here's an interesting one which supports the position that small schools cost more, often much more, than large schools:
    http://tinyurl.com/highschools

    --Octamatilda
    ReplyDelete
  29. Octamatilda,

    Who is asking for high schools with less than 500 students? That is how your study defines a small school. They define large as anything over 1,000.

    Most requests for smaller schools that I've heard have been for them to be similar to the existing ones in the east - from 1,400 to 1,600. HS-10 is to be 1,800 - larger than any existing high school in Loudoun.
    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the point that we are spending to much time on Wheatland which isn't needed for 10+ years is right on track. I think we have a much bigger problem with the Dulles North High School mess. If land for a new HS is not found soon, no one will be going to HS in their community. We MUST find a HS to accomodate those along Rte 7. These schools are busting at the seems and need relief now. Shouldn't this be the focus? I thought this was the main reason that the joint sub-committee was formed, but we haven't heard anything but Wheatland, Wheatland, Wheatland for some time now. What about HS on 7?
    ReplyDelete
  31. Eric,

    Your numbers did not appear to be correct, so I did look them up. Loudoun Valley acreage is 36.33 and capactiy is 1,553, but keep in mind the older schools were built on smaller parcels back in the days when they met basic educational needs. Now, these "estates" somehow can't be built on less than 50 acres. Briar Woods, with a capacity of 1,600, is on a spacious 65 acre site.

    The study Octamatilda refers to is dead-on. Small school advocates often point to studies comparing rural to urban schools. Rural schools tend to be smaller, but the land and building costs are much lower. In addition, rural areas generally do not have as large a tax base as urban areas and thus cannot afford luxurious designs and wiz-bang technology.
    ReplyDelete
  32. Whenever you hear someone ask for a 500 student high school, be sure to show them that study.
    ReplyDelete
  33. What I thought was really funny was Dr. Adamo's comment: "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."

    Exactly the same feeling I had in regards to the high school boundary process. I'm glad he's getting a taste of his own medicine.
    ReplyDelete
  34. What happened at the meeting today????
    ReplyDelete
  36. The schools on Route 7 are not bursting at the seams; A new 1800 seat school (the current adopted high school size in LOUDOUN, which is why it was the size mentioned for Wheatland) is opening in Leesburg that will have many empty seats.

    I'd like for the kids bused north of the airport from down here to have a community middle school (and subsequent high school) to go to down here.

    We are three years late on middle school relief, and our high school has slipped one year.

    That high school slip may become permanent, if we continue to think of route 7 being overcrowded (without the new Leesburg seats).

    Barbara Munsey.
    ReplyDelete
  37. As a Wheatland resident, and a taxpayer, glad to see this idea get dropped. It was wrong on so many levels; if the school district's team had simply talked with residents FIRST, you would have saved yourselves a lot of time. Involve the public!!
    ReplyDelete
  38. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 1, 2009 07:12 PM
    Octa...

    The OPTIMUM HS size has been found to be about 8-900 students (optimum for the students that is). We are more than double that now. Mr. Stevens says it is because of the BOS thereby abdicating any responsibility on his behalf.

    BTW, do you have any study saying a 900 student elementary school is good? Dig hard - I don't think you'll find any.

    Who is calling for a 500 student HS? Not I, that is for sure...
    ReplyDelete
  39. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 1, 2009 07:29 PM
    Anon,

    FWIW, Valley's capacity is really about 1370. It is listed CURRENTLY at 15))+ because of trailers. Intersting how they can put trailers on the substandard lot of 35 acres. I guess that is plenty of land for 1300 students. How much money is saved over the 70 acre lots we need for these 1800 student schools? Also, the old days arguments do not pass muster with me. Valley is not short on space at this size. It continues to operate just fine (unless Barb starts gunning for it as an elite small school of the west that is - then she will send it to the chopping block to be replaced with a shining new 1800 student HS on 70 acres.)
    ReplyDelete
  40. Wheatland, talking to the residents first will be more efficient in terms of protest, that's for sure.

    It may prove expedient, given the minefield of Loudoun land use, to get it out on the table in the beginning what different groups feel is acceptable to them personally or not.

    How long will the NIMBY wars last, and will it get any schools built?

    Eric, as has been stated many times, fields are a colocated use with rec. That benefits everybody.

    Keep campaigning Eric. I'm not "guuning" for Valley, as you will no doubt continue saying.

    I voted for the bond to build its relief (which always amazes me, how the eastern precincts almost always support western schools, and the western precincts rarely support any schools other than the ones personally affecting their own use), and addressed the BoS asking that that bond NOT be site specific, so that there would be funding to build relief for Valley if the Fields property ended up unusable for that purpose.

    For you to talk about division relating to anyone else would be funny if it weren't so bizarre. You are as divisive as it comes in promoting your own interests, even against other rural residents, as in the case, again, of Woodgrove.

    As long as it wasn't in Hamilton, okay, huh?

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  41. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 2, 2009 06:13 PM
    "the eastern precincts almost always support western schools, and the western precincts rarely support any schools other than the ones personally affecting their own use"

    I watch this closely, and I have seen very few (if any) school bonds not pass all of the western district (east or west). More Barb cultivating the divide...

    "I'm not "guning" for Valley, as you will no doubt continue saying."

    Oh come on Barb, it is a small western school 1350 students is all. The new schools are a third again as big. How can you support such a drag on the operating budget. According to your math it must be less efficient then the larger new schools - all small schools are by definition.

    "You are as divisive as it comes in promoting your own interests, even against other rural residents, as in the case, again, of Woodgrove."

    As I stated several times before, I spoke to the school board several times in SUPPORT of the HARMONY site for the HS. Another lie, Barb? Tsk...tsk...
    ReplyDelete
  42. Eric, when your research is so spotty, you shouldn't be so quick with so strong a word as lie.

    In 2002, Blue Ridge and Catoctin voted no, but the school bond passed.

    In 2003, Blue Ridge voted no to the school bond.

    In 2005, Blue Ridge voted for Arcola elementary, and renovations at Hillsboro, Rolling Ridge and Sugarland, as well as the western HS.

    Also in 2005, Blue Ridge voted no to the Dulles MS and an Ashburn elementary. (missed your tracking here by a big one, eh?)

    The western HS passed overwhelmingly countywide, with the exception of Sterling, where it lost by a very narrow margin.

    In 2006 Blue Ridge voted against an Ashburn elementary.

    In 2008, both Blue Ridge and Catoctin voted against a Dulles HS.

    You may continue to believe if you choose that I will oppose Valley as a "small" school, but your own projection will not make that true.

    The FACT is that you are so desperately afraid that I might be running in a nonexistent election that you feel the need to repeat "lie" endlessly in the hopes of making your own creative remembrances perceived as true.

    Grow up a little Eric, or at least give it a small try.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  43. Ms. Munsey,

    No one really believes you would run. You have no chance, with your reputation, which most do think is deceptive and somehow on the take for developers.

    Maybe you need to grow up, stop playing games that EVERYONE is tired of--it is not helping your cause.

    You want to ignore the basic obvious truth: the SB for whatever reason was willing to overpay for this property by a huge margin, ignore the Comprehensive Plan language regarding water and rural policies, and ignore the SE process to finally determine if property is appropriate to buy for a school.

    There is no way this property was appropriate, unless it was shoved through in a power move that ignored the public, the law and all common sense (the price.)

    This is not an east west divisive issue, but County wide issues: not overpaying for land, following the comp plan and the zoning ordinance.
    ReplyDelete
  44. anon, I understand that those putting out the rumor that I was running in an election that isn't happening were interested in nothing more than having an opportunity to treat me as a public figure.

    One isn't supposed to say the things about a private citizen that are routinely said about me, so why not lie and say I'm running for something, then it's fair game? lol

    Very predictable, as is your use of same, as well as speaking anonymously for the universal county. My opinion is only my own. Disagree with it all you want.

    The Comp Plan language wasn't ignored, and neither was the SPEX process. No one even got to a full evaluation of that--not even water testing--because protest ruled.

    To say they were "ignored" is an exaggeration (or rather, untruth) to cover the fact that some people predetermined this site to be unacceptable to them personally.

    And that goes to a bit of the county division: some places are just too special to have schools, or anything else they don't like, anywhere near them.

    Some places, like where I live, aren't special ENOUGH to have even overdue schools built that already have voter approval, and sites that have full staff approval.

    See, the special people over here don't want to look at them either.

    Maybe the whole county should grow up a little, and start by admitting that it HAS grown, and will continue to do so.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  45. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 4, 2009 06:00 PM
    Barb,

    A. You stating supposed results of bond votes does not make them fact. You need to back such a post up with a source.

    B. Your entire post is still based on nothing more than "the west is bad...the east is good".

    C. I was serious when I said I hope you DO run. I think it would be ABSOLUTELY terrific. Nothing better could happen in Loudoun politics (at least from my persepective).

    Keep chumming the east vs. west waters - you might someday get a bite.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Eric, you can see those "supposed" results by going to loudoun.gov, selecting "Voting" from the pulldown menu on the left, clicking on the "election results" link on the page it brings up, then selecting from "General Election" results for each year.

    Those will bring up spreadsheets of the official results from the State Board of Elections.

    I consider that to be a good enough source to draw conclusions from, but you may not.


    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  47. Eastern voters are becoming increasingly disappointed in the School Board's ridiculous proposals, overpaying for land, hidden agendas, politics favoring insider developers over citizens, etc. and my guess is very FEW will be supporting bonds in the future, given the mismanagement, secrecy, deception and politics...
    except for perhaps Ms. Munsey who is all in favor of giving away millions to her friends. NO more blank checks--we see what that got us--something that looks like fraud.
    ReplyDelete
  48. Gee, more sweeping generalizations, personal attack, AND accusations of being paid, from an anonymous sniper self-authorized to speak for two thirds of the population.

    All debate must now be over! lol

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  49. Mr. Stevens,

    Have you read about the bid rigging and fraud in Prince William County? For their health care bid, the RFP was designed to favor the incumbent, and a secret kickback was discovered. And more fraud has been uncovered in their IT department, with millions going abroad, unaccounted for.

    This is what many fear when they see the process like Wheatland, a 2 week RFP, ending on July 3, not including the Hillsboro site, a mysteriously inflated appraisal, cutting the citizens out, demanding secrecy...it is all very suspicious. And even if we suspend the natural questions about the propriety of what happened, the appearance of impropriety is there, and very troubling to many.
    ReplyDelete
  50. If we are going to focus on appearances, let's be sure to look at how it appeared for Mr. Miller and Ms. Chaloux to take action against the Lenah site before the staff review was complete, and begin pushing a site that provided potential financial benefit to a family member of another prominent Democrat.

    Let's keep looking at how that appears as Mr. Miller uses the subsequent shattering of any process to continue to push that site, while he runs for a state office.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)