Friday, June 5, 2009

School Bonds

Author:
While we have many commenters talking about school bonds, I thought I'd clarify something. A school bond vote is not a vote on whether or not to build a school. Schools cost so much to build that the county borrows money in the form of bonds, and pays interest as it repays the bond. The interest rate is dependent on a number of factors including the county's credit rating. A discount on that interest rate is available when the community votes on the bond, in effect joining the pledge to repay the loan. Lenders prefer this added endorsement, and hence cut the interest rate a bit if the bond passes.

The Supervisors and the School board vote on what schools to build, where and when. The community wants enough schools to educate its kids without crowding, and anyone who cares enough about the school system to devote their time to serving on the School Board will work to ensure that those schools are in place. I am confident that the community will continue to support the bonds, guaranteeing the lowest interest rates available in order to save our tax dollars. Remember that everyone who serves on these two boards is a neighbor, a long-time community volunteer and part-time official who pays the same taxes as everyone else.
Labels:

13 comments:

  1. John,

    Up to this point, I have voted in favor of every school bond since I’ve lived in Loudoun County. But, after having seen the way things have gone lately, I do NOT trust the School Board, the Board of Supervisors or the Planning & Legislative Services. There have been way TOO many instances in the last year or two that just don’t smell right. I mean, trying to pay for and build schools before they are needed AND after the BoS said there would be no new Capital projects approved, trying to bypass citizen approval for funding of that school, suggesting the money approved for one school be used to build that same school, trying to purchase land that is overpriced and before any studies have been completed and permits/special exceptions approved, I could go on and on.

    I could understand a mistake here or there, but a pattern seems to be developing, and Planning and Legislative Services seems to be in the middle of all of it. The perception I have of them is that they feel they can do whatever they want, to whoever they want and the rules that we, as citizens have to follow, don’t apply to them. Take the boundary process. They ask for the public’s input, give us specific guidelines to follow when coming up with our own school boundaries. And then when their recommendation comes out, they completely ignore all the guidelines they told us to follow in favor of a concept that is not even in the school board’s policy.

    To make matters worse, their leader, Mr. Adamo is quoted in the paper: "If they had two or three moves it was more the exception than the rule," Adamo said. To hear it from some parents, however, "you would think they were on the road like hobos, and I just can’t say that’s true," he added. This is after his staff recommended that some planning zones be moved for the 3rd time in 6 years. Thoughtless comments like that are offensive and degrading!!! I would expect more sensitivity from somebody with his education and background. I’m surprised he still has his job!

    I will NOT vote for another school bond this process is changed. Right now, it’s like we are giving you a blank check to spend as you see fit. And then, the citizens have to pay the bill. Show me a school that has a site, where the students are coming from (and the guidelines for boundary decisions are followed) , approved permits and special exceptions BEFORE the land is purchased AND it has been proven that all the rules and guidelines the citizens of Loudoun County are told to follow are followed by the staff running our schools! And then maybe I’ll vote for it.

    There are a lot of smart people in Loudoun County that have some very good ideas. However, when you make decisions without public input and then expect us to just take it, you really put our backs against the wall. What else do you expect us to do? It makes us defensive and situations like we’ve seen in the last year or so are inevitable. If you included the citizens and made them feel like part of the solution, I’m sure things would go a lot smoother.
    ReplyDelete
  2. If you "pay the same taxes" we would expect you to care more about the extremely inflated appraisal for the Cangiano property, and ask for reform to insure that appraisals really are reflective of fair market value, and not just tools to mask overpaying to a well connected individual.

    The School Board has a lot of work to do before the public will generally trust it in the future, in my opinion.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Voting down a bond is a political (albeit not a legal) rejection of a project. Essentially voters are saying "no don't borrow money for this!"

    Perhaps the voters don't want the project at all or maybe they want fiscal responsibility and want the county to pay cash for it. Sometimes a post-election survey is needed if the voter intent is not clear since, true, this isn't technically a project referendum.

    Since bonds come up yearly but we only elect representatives every 4 years a safe interpretation on a bond rejection is a no confidence vote on current leadership. Moving forward with a project using other financing (as the SB did with the school admin building after voters rejected the bond for it) is really a poke in the eye to voters when it is clear they are voting against the project.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't need a blog item to explain to me what a bond is. I already know that. And I agree with the first person who posted, with all their points listed. I also have given the blank check/ rubber stamp to all past school bonds. I just have no faith in the system anymore, considering my neighborhood is the only one in the county that it is okay to split up and the fact there is existing capacity that could be utilized. I say-use what you've already been generously given.
    ReplyDelete
  5. anon 7:39, my neighborhood is split up too, as we are under a busing boundary while they try to get a fourth version of an approved middle school site passed, all others killed by protest.

    Our high school is late by a year now too, even though it also has voter approval to buy land and fund construction, for the same reason.

    It fascinates me no end to see people (not you) complain of corruption and insider deals, when the two most recent sites for the schools here were shot down as inappropriately zoned, on behalf of a site Mr. Miller is still apparently pushing that is three times LESS dense than the one voted down, which, by protest-logic (often an oxymoron in Loudoun), would make it three times less appropriate.

    But it is apparently okay, since a prominent Democrat who just happens to be a realtor has a secondary interest in using a portion of the property for a nonpermitted use--lol!

    Heavy projection in some parts of protest land.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  6. Mrs. Munsey,

    Heavy projection is yours. And you are the major protester in "protest" land. Because you think we should hand out millions to your friends, with deceptive deals.

    Lenah was an insider deal, overpaying for land, and a shell game of sorts, with public improvements being built by Greenvest--without any public bidding. So they profited twice on the deal? or maybe three times, since the "public" improvements we were all paying for would really be a major improvement to the rest of their land...?

    So what about the other deal, with Miller. It did not happen.

    Look over there, while I pick your pocket? Look at what Miller is doing, so Greenvest can rob us?

    Baloney. You have no credibility, not sure why you continue on with your rant, when it just digs you a deeper hole.
    ReplyDelete
  7. rant on anon 8:35. How does angry anonymity give YOU credibility? lol

    Miller's Lambert deal was real enough during Lenah to take legislative action against the Lenah site before the staff report was even written.

    That's a violation of the oath he took to review land use decisions fairly and impartially, with an open mind.

    Since some people are (selectively) concerned with how things "look", it does NOT look good to have had an individual who doesn't even represent the property hawking it,for a subsequent partial sale to THEIR client for a use that would require a CPAM to even submit a rezoning application.

    Lambert is still on the table, if you watch Miller's disclosures, and now that the BoS has indicated it will be taking over some of the school board's statutory duties, he can indeed bring it back.

    Maybe not for a "friend", but for someone who can help him keep climbing that political ladder.

    He has made a mess of his brief time in Dulles, and he needs to clean a few things up before he hits the campaign trail full time to attempt the climb to Richmond.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  8. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 9, 2009 08:20 AM
    "...all others killed by protest..."

    Harmony was not.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric, is anyone talking about longer than ten years ago but you?

    If you have to go back that far (and rewrite it) to find an example, you're reaching pretty hard.

    I would venture that many of the people currently protesting any and all sites (as in within the past five years) didn't live here yet when Harmony was approved.

    Some didn't live here when the 2003 Board was in office!

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 9, 2009 09:38 AM
    Oh that's rich. Because it has been ten years since we have had success, ignore what happened to make that a successful outcome. It can't have any relevancy.

    BTW, there is far less turn over out here than you seem to think.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Eric, creative memories R you.

    So is grasping at any straw (man).

    I know there isn't a lot of turnover.

    I also know there has been a lot of (gasp) growth.

    Barbara Munsey
    ReplyDelete
  12. Eric the 1/2 trollJun 9, 2009 05:15 PM
    Still a fact that Harmony IS is aptly named, QH, and there have been secondary schools in the west built with community support. It takes community involvement.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Barbara Munsey,

    The Wheatland debate is not about growth. And you know it.

    This is about a perceived lack of honesty, integrity, transparency and fairness. And about the tremendous waste of the public purse proposed by the SB, and it's about abuse of power.

    No one will vote for bonds if they think it is a blank check or "mandate" to spend and give our money away with these types of frivolous high priced Cangiano contracts put forth.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)