This stench from this mess of a proposal grows with each passing week and each embarrassing revelation. In past weeks we had the school system flat out lying to us about their attorney’s relationship with the seller and the historic status of buildings to be demolished. Now, out of the blue, and for the benefit of the “health, welfare, safety and education of our children”, developer Sal Cangiano has decided to lower his price for his Wheatland land to $47,000 an acre from $62,031 an acre (letter here).
There is also tallk of changing the terms on the length of the study period, with Cangiano saying “please have your attorney contact my attorney to articulate the above in a contract addendum”. That should read – “Please have my former attorney who sued Loudoun County for me three times contact my current well connected attorney (they should have each other’s contact info since they were former Reed Smith partners together) to try to make this deal go through in the face of huge opposition.”
This site stinks no matter what the terms are – it is totally not in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the threats to a unique cluster of specialty farms are too severe. Loudoun County has spent millions of dollars fostering agriculture and rural economic development and this site puts a stake in the heart of those efforts.
And the worst thing of all in this latest “development” (intentional double entendre) is that is shows how absolutely unbelievably inpet this School Board is at negotiating land deals. If Cangiano is all of a sudden willing to lower his price so much and extend the terms, then how good of a job were they doing during their “negotiations”??? They told the public they did the very best they could on price and terms, now all of a sudden they are changed this easily. All for the “children”???
This entire School Board, with the exception of Bob Ohneiser who was the lone vote against this, needs to be unceremoniously tossed from office. Work will begin shortly to make this a reality. The Board of Supervisors, who control the purse strings in this county and who are responsible for the defense of the plan, needs to do whatever it takes to strip land acquistion powers from a School Board that has proven itself time and time again to be utterly clueless and dismissive of the citizens and the plan in their “process”. This long nightmare of Rouse, Lenah, Grubb, and now Wheatland demands permanent change.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
May 16th by Loudoun Insider
Doesn’t their string of failures go back even further? I’m thinking of …
- Red Cedar Elementary School (and swampland)
- a lost school site proffer in Ashburn (was it Belmont ?) and
- paying Hamilton millions to not build a school, then saying screw you to the other towns in the west.
Letter I sent this morning:
To: BOS BOS , Scott York , Susan Buckley , Jim Burton , Lori Waters , Sally Kurtz , Eugene Delgaudio , Stevens Miller , “Kelly (Supervisor) Burk” , Andrea McGimsey , lcsb@loudoun.k12.va.us, Robert DuPree , jwgeurin@aol.com, Thomas Reed , Priscilla Godfrey , Bob Ohneiser , Jennifer Bergel , Tom Marshall , Joseph Guzman , John Stevens
Subject: Wheatland Farm contract amendment
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors and School Board,
I am writing to you about the reported work to amend the existing contract with Mr. Cangiano and Mr. Burgess.
Given the precedents of Lenah and Grubb, the siting at the Wheatland Farm location cannot meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not justified to go forward with this contract under our existing laws. Also, the pump testing for 72 hours in a very wet spring is a meaningless test. That is the only test planned to be reviewed by the State. Many other tests should be required to measure the impact, and it is very doubtful the impact of developing the proposed complex on this property can be mitigated.
The current contract gives the School Board the option to cancel at any time for any reason before June 1.
Please cancel this contract.
And go slow. Mr. Cangiano’s property is not going anywhere at any time soon. I am sure he is desperate to unload it at this point. Lots of land is for sale in western Loudoun. We need time to make sure whatever purchase we make does not have the appearance of being a greased deal. In this case, true or not, it appears the School Board is bailing Mr. Cangiano out of a bad land deal he made just a few years ago at the height of the market. We need to make a purchase that maximizes the public interest in terms of price and location.
Again, the contract gives the School Board the absolute option to cancel before June 1, and this should be done.
And any contract entered into in the future must contain a contingency for zoning approval, special exception and commission permits in hand before settlement. This is the only way the School Board can legally purchase land under existing law, and it respects the public in the process, by allowing them to be part of the process of determining the appropriateness of the location under our plan, and the impacts of the development.
Thank you.
Price was always a secondary issue. Relatively speaking, a one time cost of $11 million for 3 schools was not that much. It will cost $50 million a year to operate the schools. If you want to save taxpayers money, then insist on trimming the waste from the big, fat operating budget. See http://www.loudountaxpayer.com for details.
These schools belong in Lovettsville. Period. The problem is the school board and admin don’t care much about location. Poorly located schools are the main reason for constant boundary changes in the east. Some of those school boundaries look as bad as the most gerrymandered congressional districts! Look at Heritage high school for a good example. It’s time to give this inept school board and Hatrick the boot!
and don’t forget to add the fields farm purchase to the list of debacles for which the county overpaid, it was in reality the first of the bunch. too add to what hillsboro identified as part of the payoff to “friends” over the hs-3 deal, the board gave round hill $8 million to pave a portion of a road not even studied under their traffic study or recommended by the planning commission. for this deal too those members of both boards should be tossed in addition to those mentioned above.
More FOIA documents uploaded, including a timeline that will be updated as we continue to sift through the truth that LCPS doesn’t want the public to know. Officials are showing how desperate they are to keep this deal alive.
The School Board has failed us and sadly Bergel continues to defend LCPS’ campaign to keep a high school OUT of Lovettsville and the community, and all children north of Route 9, denied the benefits of a community school. http://groups.google.com/group/smalltownschools?hl=en
LI suggests inept, at a minimum this all demonstrates a violation of the public trust and perhaps ethics violations as well. I have to believe Karmic justice will win in the end.
It is just astounding to look at the Crim proposal – that LCPS seems to be trying so desperately to bury.
http://smalltownschools.googlegroups.com/web/Information+LCPS+withheld+from+the+public-Part1+Crim.pdf?hl=en&gda=W80Dt2oAAADp5Cmo6BwzSRW6d9ISNVGF36QEn-lGJuOFZCiGaWKtME3amfGkQjsfHgL5VlrcVDKdXQGpGdoKkQl_PtRMFN_kwVPJc8PI5l_krGJEhrHfCbjMcxl-SbLymD-G1V08AM797daDQaep90o7AOpSKHW0
Frontage on Rte 9 and Mountain Road, contiguous on all three sides with Hillsboro ES’s site. Yet they describe it this way on the fact sheet:
Located in the Hillsboro area north of Route 9, this property needs on- and off-site road improvements and right-of-way acquisition. It also has flood plain and slope issues.
I’d sure like to see a comparison of slopes and flood plains on this site vs. Cangiano and Grubb.
Is this the right site? I really don’t know. Hillsboro has some major water issues. But a fair evaluation might come up with a solution that benefits everyone.
They tried to hide this one, but got caught. I wonder if any other RFP responses were submitted.
Wow, this just gets worse and worse. Thanks everyone for sharing all the information…as bad as it is, it’s still our right to know it, make others aware of it and hold our elected officials responsible for it.
P.S. Sally, your letter above (#2) is so good, please post any responses that you receive.
“and don’t forget to add the fields farm purchase to the list of debacles for which the county overpaid, it was in reality the first of the bunch.”
Let’s not.
It was an extremely good deal when it was purchased, and numerous MILLIONS less than if we’d have purchased it in 2008. Even with the land coming down in price. Still couldn’t touch it for what it was purchased for. And the athletic fields–to boot.
Did Lazaro and P’ville muddy the waters? You bet they did. That’s not the county’s fault. Court said so.
The engineering submitted with Crim indicates the soils are excellent, not flood plain. Very strange.
How about this – if they built an addition to Hillsboro elementary and maybe a future middle school there, then they could build a wastewater plant and water supply system in tandem with Hillsboro, which needs help in that regard. But nooooooo, they want to build it in the middle of nowhere, where they will create a need for more density and development, effectively making a new town. Just imagine the pressure there will be to put a gas station/convenience store at Wheatland. Which of course will help all adjacent property owner’s land value and potential for upzoning, including Cangiano and his remaining Wheatland holdings.
This deal is all about setting up future growth, not serving existing needs.
Just what percentage of the Crim property is steep slope or floodplain? Any decent sized parcel in western Loudoun will have a certain portion of those constraints. LCPS is blatantly stacking the deck for their pre-determined insider dealing choice.
LI, Aren’t you politically connected yourself? Are there other lawyers that are politically connected? Didn’t INOVA hire like 30 politically connected lawyers?
Fight the school site, but jesus man this guilt by association bullshit is getting old.
And Bergel setting up her anti-Lovettsville school group to fight for this deal is in total contradiction to her previous lobbying for a Lovettsville school. The School Board, led by new chief cheerleader bergel, will now spend thousands of OUR tax dollars organizing the PTA moms to lobby for this abomination.
Recall anyone???
Our paths crossed, ?. Of course a lot of people are politically connected, but if you want to talk about Cangiano’s attorney Dave Culbert, he has given directly to most of these supervisors and is in a high level political post in the Democratic party.
Am I ticked off about Bill Chapman’s past work for Cangiano and his past relationships with Culbert? You’re damn right I am. While Chapman’s situation may not be buy the book conflict of interest, every single person I have talked to about this, including many lawyers, say it is highly suspect and unseemly. How they never thought this would come back to bite them in the rear is beyond me. but I guess they just think they can get away with it. But as their last several bungled defeats show, they are no longer getting away with their bogus deals, and they won’t get away with this one either. Times have changed. They can no longer ramrod through stupid non-conforming sites for too much money.
An email just in from Jim Burton. Looks like they got an offer to sell for a land assemblage in Lovettsville:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Thank you for all your emails, both for and against, the proposed school sites at Wheatland. At this time I have only a few remaining unanswered, which require me to undertake a bit of research. At this time I want to inform you of two new developments that occurred this week.
As I mentioned in my email last week, school staff intended to further explore several properties closer to the Town of Lovettsville. On Tuesday, school staff received a formal, written sales offer from the owners’ representative of one of these locations. The offer encompasses six parcels totaling 108 acres for approximately $5.9 million. The land appears to have no topographical issues and Town water and sewer are feasible. The site will require approximately one-quarter mile of road improvements to provide two entrances, one from the North and one from the South. I have alerted several of my Board colleagues to this development and will provide them with a copy of the offer letter on Monday.
On Friday afternoon, school staff notified Board members that the owners of the Wheatland assemblage had offered the following concessions: a reduction in price to $8.9 million, an extension of the study period until October, and a promise to protect the structures slated for demolition under the original contract.
These are certainly interesting and exciting developments, which offer the School Board both time and the opportunity for thoughtful discussion. As additional information becomes available, I look forward to being able to share it with you.
I do have one comment, however, regarding the debate of the last few weeks. Much has been made of the recommendations of the Western Schools Task Force with regards to the selection of a site for HS-10. As the Chair of that Task Force, I want to clearly state that the scope of the Task Force did not include the selection of specific sites nor did the members discuss any list of proposed sites as has been suggested. For those who are interested in it, I have attached a copy of the Task Force’s final report. This report includes a summary of each meeting and the Task Force’s recommendations, which included an affirmation of the language in the current Comprehensive Plan for school siting and the recommendations of the 1999 Rural Loudoun School Study Committee.
As always, I hope this information is helpful.
Best regards,
Jim Burton
Notice: Please be advised that all correspondence to government officials becomes part of the public record and may be subject to inspection under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
If you would like to receive newsletters and alerts, sign up at http://www.loudoun.gov/subforms/sub6.htm
You are being so hypocritical LI. Dave Culbert gave a pittance compared to what the PEC has given almost every board member. The PEC is fighting this. Did they buy this vote? That stinks. Weren’t they Andrea McGimsey’s biggest donor? Hmmm, funny that she’s out there pushing this. Didn’t PEC give to Lori Waters too? And just about every BOS member not named Delgaudio?
Hopefully you’ll be consistent and point out everytime Gem Bingol gets up and lobbies the board just how pollitically connected the PEC money has made her. But for someone reason I’m guessing you won’t do that.
Gee, Sal lowered his price from $62k/acre to $47k/acre… apparently he also agrees that the price was grossly over market and that there ARE other viable options available… probably heard rumors of another pending deal coming down the pike too… amazing what a little competition can do. Don’t feel sorry for Sal though, he’s still making $10k/acre more than what he paid at the height of the market a few years back… I hope the SB realizes that Sal’s “amendment” makes them look bad because they should have gotten a reasonable contract in the beginning with a reasonable study period written in with permission to actually build the schools as part of the contract… let along the intense negotiations that they mentioned that ended up leading to a whopping $62k/acre price… So although the price was changed, this contract change still doesn’t address the big issues – which is THAT PUTTING AN EDUPLEX IN WHEATLAND STILL GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN… plus there is STILL a major impact on traffic, water, the farmers, etc… and a big price tag to follow after the land purchase… The SB doesn’t even know if they are going to get the money from the BoS… word around town says no… imagine that complete waste of taxpayers time and money! What a fiasco… I feel sorry for them… so misguided…
GO JIM BURTON!!!!! He’s got my support next time around!
Judge for yourself. Here’s a list of PEC donations from the last election cycle. With the PEC vehemenlty opposing, should we assume they are getting what they paid for? I’d bet this kind of money buys some pretty nice access.
$55,256 York for Loudoun County Board Chair – Scott
$16,224 Miller for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Stevens
$10,272 Waters for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Lori
$9,109 Kurtz for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Sally
$7,654 Buckley for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Susan
$6,898 McGimsey for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Andrea
$5,796 Burk for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Kelly
$4,711 West for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Jeanne
$3,206 Burton for Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – Jim
And what of Sal Cangiano’s 10,000 to the Republican Party of Virginia?
http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/money_out_details/67234?committee_id=817&end_year=2006&filing_period=all&lookup_type=year&start_year=2003
I bet some of that came back to Loudoun to help Lori Waters, Joe May, Tom Rust, Lynn Chapman, or any number of other candidates. What kind of access did that buy with the Republican Party office holders?
I come up with $7.5 MIL
Sound right?
“Didn’t PEC give to Lori Waters too? And just about every BOS member not named Delgaudio?”
Actually, they didn’t. You’re confusing the VLF (a bipartisan PAC) with the PEC.
And you’re beginning to sound alot like someone else …the PEC is the devil…yada, yada, yada.
More PEC conspiracy BS. Yes, there are a lot of people in common between PEC and VLF, but one thing both groups have in common is protecting the comprehensive plan. This stupid site selection goes directly against that plan.
I did point out that Cangiano only gave to one supervisor directly – $1,000 to Eugene Delgaudio, who apparently is the strongest supporter of this deal on the BOS, besides Sally Kurtz, who apparently doesn’t want a school anywhere near her or her next door neighbor Sam Adamo.
There’s a big difference in my mind with people fighting to preserve rural Loudoun and the comp plan and people looking to make a buck off the taxpayers.
The only people that don’t like the PEC are the ones that profit when development is allowed free reign. Thank goodness for non-profits like PEC who are funded by those of us that want to preserve open spaces and take care of the environment. It so much more conservative and cost-effective to take care of what you have, instead of trying to fix mistakes.
Burton’s email is interesting. His insistance on Fields Farm cost us dearly. Sure Monk, the initial price looks good now, but hindsight shows that Assad or Franklin Park would have been far cheaper, faster and less painful. It just seems too convenient for Burton to just blow in like the HS-10 knight in shining armor for me to bow down to him. He still stands by some transparent political promise to pave Alder School Road west, just like continued restriction of lights at Franklin Park. He is the classic politician and I remain very…wary.
Other sites are coming forward which proves LCPS staff did not, or were not directed to, do due diligence. Cangiano drops his price/terms so these newly identified alternatives must be viable competition for Cangiano. This contract needs to be killed now. While it makes me uneasy to see Burton be the go-to person for willing landowners, I guess the School Board isn’t necessarily putting out the message of being open to alternatives. After all Crim’s rep brought their site forward but it was excluded from consideration so… who can be trusted? It makes me nauseous frankly because the answer is no one.
Bottom line, all options and the priorities need to be weighed by the public before another contract is signed.
Yes the PEC VLF machine had everyones best interests in mind when they lobbied to kill much needed (and disguised!!!) cell towers in the west.
That was stupid, tnt, I never said they were flawless.
This site still stinks, no matter how “improved” the price point may be.
Between LCPS hiding the Crim proposal, lying about the historic status of the Nixon house, telling the Lennar rep that they already had a site, and the Chapman conflict of interest, it just gets dirtier and dirtier. How can anyone trust anything that LCPS tells us?
Every week, there’s a new revelation.
This isn’t just a bad deal, it is a corrupt one.
Dear “-” re #18
your data disproves your point. The supervisors who have received the most from PEC have been the quietest on this issue, those who received the least = Burton has been the most vocally opposed.
I think you cannot possible compare the political access gained by PEC (a citizen based non-profit serving 9 counties that push for conservation of water and land resources) with that gained by ONE MAN (cangiano who represents only his own financial best interest). That’s crazy talk.
You don’t think this School Board has real problems it should be attending to? They punted on the controversial Ashburn-Dulles redistricting plans, with some members even voting against their own proposals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050104251.html
What a dysfunctional irresponsible group of political hacks. Insteaf of working on that real problem they instead choose to spend all of this money and effort on buying land for schools that won’t be needed for years and years, if at all.
bpm:
court said no such thing about the hs-3 matter. what they did say was the county did not correctly follow their own planning process. they also said issuance of a commission permit, which is needed to site a public facility as a school if it is not already identified in the comp plan, is a zoning function, not planning.
as it relates to this same exact type of debacle unfolding in wheatland, the comp plan is irrelevent, the county doesn’t have to follow it, it is merely a guide. all they have to do is issue the special exception/commission permit.
School Board Members voting against their own plans is the tip of the iceberg. And PEC is not the devil on this one. The devil is idiotic decisions made by School Board members who are over their heads, and need new hobbies. The enrollment numbers do not support the expense for this deal, and the money should be spent to purchase a site that can serve high schools students who live between Leesburg and Rt 28, primarily north or Rt. 7, and Middle School students who live in the Ashburn areas. Those are far and away the biggest pressing needs, and these bozos completely missed it. Adamo is insistent that his “way” (doesn’t he work for us?) is the best, but completely ignores and even fabricates the data. He’s got to go, as does Hatrick, and most of this Board.
We gots big problems here.
LI – great reporting on the LCSB and their ongoing follies. It seems to me that the SB really needs to be flushed clean or at the very least we need to demand some type of audit or investigation of the SB members as it relates to land acquisition.
I am DONE with their land deal debacales and continued fiscal maleficences.
Sally – My hats off to you and a genuine kudo for such an articulate and concise letter to the BoS.
I think this is something that nearly all people of every political persuasion can agree on in Loudoun County – we need a new School Board and a new school administration. Pronto.
The first “error” that I see was the appraisal by the School Board. (Sarah has it online.)
The “appraisal” is just an assignment of value, with no support for the opinion, no comparables, no actual sales to back up the value. And it looks like he assumed the owner could just walk in and record his subdivision plat, which we know is not true (not even all the wells were installed or all the septic sites found.) He appraised it at more than twice what recorded lots were selling for at that time, according to my research.
I don’t see how there were any sales in Loudoun County that in any way back up this crazy value, but would be interested in how the appraiser got this figure. Did he use land values from Fairfax County or Alexandria to get this ridiculous amount?
Honestly, it looks like someone told him this is the value we need, and he just rubber stamped it. Most appraisals, even short form appraisals, cite three comparable actual sales to support their value, and include photographs and data to show how they are similar (location, soil, prelim plat approval, etc.)
Where is his justification for this sky high value? The appraisal says it is fair market value, with a willing seller and buyer at arms length.
The Board of Supervisors and the School Board members need to demand the back up justification for this appraisal, or throw it out. Probably throwing it out and starting all over is a better thought, if this is not enough to convince them to cancel the contract all together.
Who ever ordered the appraisal has some explaining to do, and so does the appraiser. We are relying on them to protect the public purse.
In the future, any land purchase should have three appraisals (they are very inexpensive) and at least one should be done by the Board of Supervisors. We can’t have one person determining value any more.
Of course you would think we could have some avenue for investigation into this, but Jim PLowman is simply way too close to all of these developer types and has NEVER looked into anything remotely related to developers, other than to say opponents were conflicted (later dismissed by a judge). And current AG Bill Mims is giving Plowman some award and is actually financially invested with a lot of these same people. We will get no investigation from either place. It is pathetic. We are left with the feds, who are over-worked and hamstrung by having only federal statutes to rely on. Neverthteless, if enough people make their wishes known, maybe something will happen.
This deal and appraisal stink more and more each passing day.
Email I sent this morning to both Boards:
“Information has been posted on the internet concerning offers that were made by the Miller family for 1/3 the price per acre offered to Mr. Cangiano. In response to the Miller’s offer to sell (extremely reasonable in comparison to the Cangiano deal) the School Board tried to get the Millers to lower their price and threatened condemnation. Why were the Millers treated this way when their property met the plan? And then the School Board offers Cangiano a huge price, many times the fair market value? These two owners were treated in completely disparate ways. Why?
Other information posted is the School Board’s appraisal of the Cangiano property. This appraisal comes up with an unbelievably high price based on what sales? What were the comparables he relied on? Most appraisals of land include at least 3 recent sales, with photos and a discussion of similarities in location, soils, status of plan review, etc. It looks like he assumed the final record plat could be walked in and recorded immediately, and this could not be further from the truth. The owner would have had to spend millions more on engineering and finishing the lots, with interior roads, storm water, etc. The appraisal admitted more wells might be required, and possibly more septic sites. The appraisal smacks of some inside deal. It looks really bad to anyone who knows anything about land appraisal. Or to anyone who has had land appraised recently. Or to anyone who has a fair knowledge of land values in western Loudoun.
There were no sales to justify this price, At the time of this appraisal, it was more than double the fair market value, and the sales today make the price look even more extreme. Why is the buyer’s appraiser appraising land so high, with so little data and no justification?
I think both Boards need to demand the supporting data, including the actual sales, that the School Board appraiser relied on to come up with this value, which is not related in any way to fair market value. I also think there should be another appraisal done, by someone completely independent, with no ties to the development industry, as Tom Reed (the appraiser) has (many years of working for developers) and I do not think the School Board should use Mr. Reed in the future.
At a minimum, for any property, I think the School Board should get three independent appraisals of property, and at least one of them should be selected by the Board of Supervisors.
Thank you,
Everything that has been done with this property is so flawed, it is beginning to look criminal. An examination of the “appraisal” –if nothing else–should convince the Board of Supervisors and the School Board that they need to cancel this contract immediately.
Is anyone going to speak at the BOS public comment session this evening (Monday) at 6:30?
On what basis should Jim Plowman be investigating this land deal? Does he really have a role in this? I ask this honestly, os save the snark.
The point regarding the PEC isn’t about that group being evil or on the wrong side here. My point was if we’re going to talk about donations impacting BOS member decisions, then we should be fair. Fact is the PEC has paid a lot to play. That doesn’t mean to imply they are evil or bad in this case. I tend to agree with their position. But if we are going to hammer away at one small donation then we should at least point a critical eye towards other donations that are relevant in this case.
And in my opinion the PEC donations are highly relevant. Just like they were relevant on other items before the board that western donors cared about.
Does anyone really think, regardless of what you think of their motives, that the PEC put out that kind of money in the 2007 campaign to just sit on the sideline? I think that bought plenty of political access.
Loudoun Lady,
It is a lot of money that we are talking about overpaying. A lot of government money is a good target for fraud.
The School Board did the appraisal. It makes no sense how the appraiser got the value he got–sky high.
The appraisal, unjustified and unsubstantiated, is the only basis of the School Board’s offer to purchase. One person’s opinion of value, without any data/actual sales to support it, and a superficial analysis at best, is the reason why we offer so much to this one land owner?
Too much power, no accountability. Too much room for not honoring the public interest. The way this appraisal and contract was prepared and presented is open to suspicions of corruption/fraud. Looks really wrong.
I see lots of problems with this appraisal, and someone needs to ask some hard questions about who ordered it, was there a value asked for, and what supported the numbers he came up with. Why would the appraiser assign such a high value? it makes no sense… and it has a very bad appearance to me.
?,
Dude. Get it straight please. You have been already told nicely by other posters that-
THE PEC DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OR TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES.
“The fact is”……the PEC hasn’t paid squat “to play”, ever.
Please stop repeating such falsehoods- you are muddying the water, perhaps deliberately.
The School Board is also asking for a waiver for the wells they would like to build on the Cangiano property, so that they can be closer than the 100 foot required set back from the creek. They are asking for a 50 foot setback waiver.
If they are closer to the creek, there are water contamination issues, but also, won’t this be a more severe impact to the aquifer?
Why should they get a waiver? Shouldn’t we expect what will be a public water supply off of these School Board wells to protect the quality of our children’s water and the aquifer according to our standard requirements (not waived ones)?
The waiver requested is also on Sarah’s site.
Some expect accuracy in blogs. For the sake of accuracy -
The Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) is a 501(c)3 organization which cannot contribute money to any political candidate or campaign. Voters for Loudoun’s Future (VLF)is a Virginia Political Action Committee which endorses candidates for the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and runs an independent campaign for each endorsee.
It is true that in 2007, VLF and PEC had members in common. I believe there were two or three and only one was an active member of both organizations, The National Zoo, I suppose, has more members in common with both PEC and VLF. The zoo, for conspiracy theorists, does not involve itself in politics and houses no political animals.
The VLF had no position on school sites and never discussed any potential school sites with any of the candidates it endorsed. VLF consistently promoted ethics and fiscal integrity and focused on electing a pragmatic Board of Supervisors. Check the website: http://www.takebackloudoun.org ,
thank you Joe for this information.
Joe, the PEC and VLF are one in the same. Why try to hide it?
Let’s put it this way. When the PEC’s staffers are lobbying against or for something in front of the Loudoun Board of Supervisors (or in other jurisdictions where the PEC is active and has a PAC arm to distribute funds) who is it do you think Supervisors see? They see the PEC and its political arm VLF.
And there’s nothing wrong with that, but transparency seems to be a good idea. So, why so defensive?
To AFF, this statement by you …
“the PEC hasn’t paid squat “to play”, ever.”
…
is delusional.
Just the fact that Sal will drop his cost preemtively shows that this deal was not vetted properly by the SB.. It also begs the question how much of a better deal CAN we get from here. Which begs the question – why don’t we send this whole thing back to the drawing board?
“Please stop repeating such falsehoods- you are muddying the water, perhaps deliberately.”
It is what “?” is supposed to do – she is doing a fine job of it as well – she always does.
I knew the National Zoo was behind the eeeeevil PEC’s conspiracy to protect our farms, our drinking water and our tourism dollar.
Eric, what do you think of this one ? ?-
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2009/may/17/letter-editor-critics-school-site-guilty-exaggerat/
Pot, meet the queen of misrepresentation… er Kettle
Sally,
From the LC Prosecutor’s website:
“When local, County, or State police officers charge someone with a criminal offense within Loudoun County, it’s the job of the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney to represent the people of Loudoun County in the prosecution of charges.”
Does the Commonewealth’s Attorney Office have the ability to bring charges on their own? I think their sole job is to prosecute, so someone would have to bring charges of fiscal fraud on the part of the School Board, namely another County official. Maybe I am wrong, so I may stand corrected.
AFF, why do you think it is so heinous to acknowledge that the PEC uses its political arm VLF to impact politics? There’s nothing wrong or illegal about it. Unless of course they work together. Do they? Do PEC staff go to VLF meetings? If they do, that’s a problem.
If they don’t, it’s just pay to play the Virginia way. And all that’s required is transparency. AFF are you opposed to honest and open transparency?
Someone would need to file a complaint for them to investigate. Section 18.2 of the Virginia Code covers misuse of public funds and Sec. 2.2 of the Code enumerates lots of responsibilities for school board members which if not followed are considered crimes under Section 2.2-3120.
§ 18.2-112. Embezzlement by officers, etc., of public or other funds; default in paying over funds evidence of guilt.
If any officer, agent or employee of the Commonwealth or of any city, town, county, or any other political subdivision, or the deputy of any such officer having custody of public funds, or other funds coming into his custody under his official capacity, knowingly misuse or misappropriate the same or knowingly dispose thereof otherwise than in accordance with law, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony; and any default of such officer, agent, employee or deputy in paying over any such funds to the proper authorities when required by law to do so shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his guilt.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-110; 1960, c. 358; 1973, c. 15; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 585
See also:
§ 2.2-3108. Prohibited contracts by members of school boards.
A. No person elected or appointed as a member of a local school board shall have a personal interest in (i) any contract with his school board or (ii) any contract with any governmental agency that is subject to the ultimate control of the school board of which he is a member.
And see:
§ 2.2-3120. Knowing violation of chapter a misdemeanor.
Any person who knowingly violates any of the provisions of Articles 2 through 6 (§§ 2.2-3102 through 2.2-3119) of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, except that any member of a local governing body who knowingly violates § 2.2-3112 A or § 2.2-3115 C or E shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. A knowing violation under this section is one in which the person engages in conduct, performs an act or refuses to perform an act when he knows that the conduct is prohibited or required by this chapter.
(1987, Sp. Sess., c. 1, § 2.1-639.17; 2001, c. 844.)
The BoS needs to ask questions about the appraisal, the supporting documents, who was involved, how the contract was prepared, what the negotiations were, the presentation to the Board, etc. They need to look carefully to see if they think anything happened that should not have happened.
The State Code has several provisions for fair RFP’s and ethics in contracting. One is:
§ 2.2-4376. Misrepresentations prohibited.
No public employee having official responsibility for a procurement transaction shall knowingly falsify, conceal, or misrepresent a material fact; knowingly make any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations; or make or use any false writing or document knowing it to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry.
(1992, c. 761, § 11-79.2; 2001, c. 844.)
There are also a myriad of Code provisions , including the Governmental Frauds Act, the State and Local Conflict of Interests Act, Malfeasance in Office provisions (allowing the public officer to be removed from office…)
I was speaking with some neighbors about this and was interested to hear that there are people that would like a school — anywhere. They are concerned their kids are going to be in trailers if this site goes down.
They see this growing anti-Wheatland movement as a problem to getting a school — not a problem of site selection.
Anti-Wheatland groups need to say to them: hey, we want a school too — and we’ll help you get one — just closer to town.
Anti-Wheatland sentiment would become broader-based.
And BlackOut makes his triumphant return! Apparently his master feels that this would be a good time for a realistic discussion about site location.
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2009/may/17/letter-editor-critics-school-site-guilty-exaggerat/?opinion
Must be getting just a bit desperate over at 21000 Education Court.
Re: #56:
What’s the best way to get this message (”hey, we want a school too — and we’ll help you get one — just closer to town) out? I truly believe people who live in/near Lovettsville and are for the Wheatland site have been mislead into believing that it’s the ONLY site and the only way they will get a school north of Rt 9. Amazingly, LCPS has been able to spin all the many negatives of the site and contract, i.e., the two week RFP advertised in one paper, the withholding of information about at least one of the responders (Crim), lying about VDOT site assessment, the (one) appraisal, conflicts of interest with the water testing company as well as the attorneys, lack of contingencies in the contact, the projected water usage (the numbers keep changing), the impact on the surrounding farms, the outrageous PRICE (still, even though it was lowered for the good of the children…@@) and finally the failure of the site to fit the County’s own Comprehensive Plan. I have to give them one thing: they can lie and spin with the best.
I live right outside Lovettsville and nowhere near Wheatland , and have two kids in LCPS.
I would be thrilled to have a community based school here.
Jennifer Bergel’s secret meetings not withstanding, what’’s the best way to get the word out to other Lovettsville parents?
From my perspective it is, and has ALWAYS, been about having these schools in/near the Town. Anti-Wheatland is the negative twist that some may want to spin. My preference is pro-Lovettsville. The only reason Lovettsville would be reluctant to host is if the County jams these things down their throats without upfront committment to mitigate the impacts. Hopefully Fields Farm taught everyone a valuable lesson, that is – let’s find a way to work things out to a bring a win-win solution so these kids don’t have trailers, and instead everyone involved can enjoy all the benefits of a real community school. I know that sounds idealistic but Loudoun Valley HS is a perfect example of a community school that seems within reach for HS-10.
RE: #59
Thanks for the reminder, Sarah! I agree that positive trumps negative any day.
Your thoughts on getting the “Pro-Lovettsville” message out?
LCPS has the information about the price drop on the Wheatland property up on their WEBsite…too bad they didn’t include Cangiano’s letter as well.
http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/509759161361/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=559023&C=92956
This is so ridiculous – once again the School Board, instead of doing their damn jobs, is fostering a sense of panic to push this site.
Kids will be stuck in trailers??? While they tell us every year they need to shut down the “under enrolled” western community elementary schools? And do we really need a third western high school WHEN THE SECOND ONE HAS YET TO BE BUILT???
This School Board has no shame when it comes to getting whatever property they have their hearts set on = no matter what the cost.
This deal is going down just like Lenah – a last minute, last ditch effort to save the deal by a miraculous last minute price reduction “for the children”. And it will end up just like the Lenah deal – in the trash heap of history.
Edmund: Not to get too far off the subject, but next time you talk to your neighbors, would you please ask them what their problem is with trailers? I remember having a few classes in trailers during high school and thought nothing of it. Does anyone know how much they cost?
LI,
Apparently there are a few water issues. One is they need a waiver because the well(s) are about 50 feet too close to the creek.
The other issue is, one of the necessary wells is offsite. It’s not even on land under contract. Why are we extending this contract to test wells that are not even on the property?
Wells too close to creeks have contamination issues, and the County should not grant any waivers for wells that will be used “for the children” –too dangerous… also, would wells closer to the creek do more damage to the aquifer?
No waivers. The county needs to enforce the laws strictly here to protect the public.
Waivers? Offsite wells? Cancel the contract.
Loudoun Insider, you make a valid point about our commonwealth’s attorney. Jim Plowman and Eugene Delgaudio are two Republicans the Loudoun GOP should distance itself from.
Not only was Jim Plowman’s arrogant and misguided prosecution of that high school assistant principal obviously motivated by politics, but Plowman has always been tied (just like Delgaudio) to the worst parts of Loudoun’s development industry. Plowman has consistently sided with conflicted office holders or appointees with development ties and against those on the conservation side.
Jim Plowman and Eugene Delgaudiov were Both bought and paid for a long time ago. And both need to go.
Unbelieavble news about the hydrology study going on. One well practically on top of a stream and another off-site??? Who in the hell is doing this study? Oh, of course, Cangiano’s handpicked consultant who did work for him on this site before. How convenient!
You would think we would be able to go to the Commonwealth Attorney to complan about the conflicts in this case, but Plowman has never found any conflict anywehre with anyone connected with the development industry. Remember the stink about larry Beerman voting on issues as a Planning Commissioner that he was soliciting or doing mortgage business with? Plowman issued a ruling saying that was A-OK. We absolutely will not get any help there. That’s unfortunate, but it’s the deck of cards we’ve been dealt in this county.
Those idiots!
The big price drop is now the lead storyline at the LCPS website.
Here’s the main page:
http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/loudoun/site/default.asp
And here’s the “story”:
http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/509759161361/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=559023&C=92956
What a great deal – it was intially offered” at $15 million!!! EVERYONE except LCPS knew that was a ridiculously bogus price, and apparently they’ve still not yet arrived at the right price after halving that ridiculous “offer”.
Don’t they have other more pressing concerns to worry about???
So at the BOS public input mtg tonight, low and behold there were a couple of “Pro Wheatland” speakers, none made any sense, then, wouldn’t ya know, they all mill around and then leave with Cangiano. It certianly appeared he had to bring in his own supporters. How much is the going rate anyways?
Were they part of that Jen Bergel support group, whose upcoming meeting got cancelled because, heaven forbid, the public she supposedly serves found out about it?
Bergel is the sacrificial lamb on this one – Adamo and Hatrick just not men enough to take on the responsibility that is clearly theirs alone. It’s pretty disgusting when you think how these puffheads (PhDs) have taken advantage of her inexperience and enthusiasm and now push her out on a limb that is clearly about to break out from under her soon. What kind of guy lets a lady do his dirty work and then abandons her when she needs him the most?
I used to think that, JB, but don’t anymore with how gung-ho Bergel has been for this. I’m not letting her get away easy anymore by blaming this on others. She’s bought into this hook line and sinker and will have to deal with the consequences.
The Board of Supervisors needs to cancel this contract for so many reasons.
First is the sky high appraisal, not based on any sales?
An artificial assignment of value? why? this could even be said to be fraudulent, it is so high. The Board needs to cancel and do its OWN appraisal, and investigate how the School Board’s appraisal was done. Seriously, it looks criminal, and could be.
Second, the Board should cancel so they can consider other options that would satisfy the plan, like the assemblage in Lovettsville.
Third, the Board should reject this contract since the well or wells is too close to the creek, and one is off site. No waivers, no off site wells.
Fourth, the Board should require any contract be contingent on the proper zoning and other necessary approvals, so the Bos can provide proper mitigations to the town or neighbors.
Another reason to cancel it now, the State has a Fair Procurements Law that regulates all local or state employees and RFP processes. Jack Roberts is looking into this, but the process for this RFP may not have complied with the fair practices required by State law when you decide to do an RFP.
The presentation or briefing to not only the School Board but also the BoS could be said to be misleading. Certainly the appraisal could be said to be misleading–in that it is so high and not justified by actual sales. This contributes to the faulty RFP process, not to mention the inadequate advertising, etc.
Such rushed, shoddy, mistake ridden, faulty (or worse) thinking is not tribute to those who have done this to us. We need to start over here.
“…what’’s the best way to get the word out to other Lovettsville parents?”
In a word ORGANIZE. Hamilton parents did it in the past (twice) and it works. Use this forum to publicize a concerned citizens meeting – get out the cheese and crackers but have an organized agenda and steering committee. Put together community flyers. Have a group responsible for letter writing and editorials. Have a group tasked with meeting with administration and the SB. Organize a group to speak at EVERY SB and BOS public comment period. It is hard work but its not easy fighting city hall. A lot of the work is already done so coordinate your efforts with the existing groups but be a local COMMUNITY group first.
Re:#74
Thanks for the advice, Eric, it makes a lot of sense to work with existing groups. I do think that the BOS and SB (rightly or not) really want to hear from PARENTS, not *just parents of course as I totally agree that this affects ALL LC taxpayers. I know I’m ready to go to work…anyone else?
Vic, as it happens, I also had classes in a trailer and mentioned that to my neighbors. I’m not sure why there is a stigma associated with trailers.
…back to the thread…
Comment #1 Maybe your right the SB should not have paid ONE million dollars for a site that has one elementary school built and land available for a second 2 story elementary. 500,000/per site what a screw job. Oh and to build it adjacent to a residential community that can walk to school is just plain stupid. The point is when can a site be picked that everyone agrees on?
not bobby o -
Hell, they out to buy up ALL of Sal’s land and put 3 high schools in Wheatland.
our school system’s professional planners assured everyone that the site would hold an elementary school and a middle school. Hmmm what happened to those plans? Surely anyone can see that having 2 elementary schools on one site is a fantastic idea
Three high schools in Purcellville aren’t enough?
The appraisal is really bothering me.
Bill Chapman comes to work in December (?) 2006 for the School Board after representing Mr. Cangiano for 20 years (?) according to Adamo, and after recently suing the County for Mr. Cangiano? Then Mr. Cangiano settles on the property in June 2007, and weeks later the School Board hires Tom Reed to appraise the Cangiano property.
His appraisal is a multiple of the recent price paid for the property. And the appraisal does not seem to be supported with any data, and relies apparently on some erroneous assumptions, like the plat was ready to be recorded.
I wonder how close the relationship is between the appraiser Tom Reed and Bill Chapman, since Tom Reed has been an expert witness used in litigation for years by the development industry and Hazel Thomas (the predecessor to Reed Smith) and probably Reed Smith.
Did Bill Chapman ever use him as an expert in private practice? Did Reed Smith use him in their litigation or for their clients? Did Mr. Cangiano ever use Tom Reed for appraisal purposes? Does Tom Reed do all the appraisals for the School Board? or was this a special deal for Mr. Cangiano? What other appraisals has he done for the School Board? There could be serious conflicts in this, and I wonder if anyone asked about this? this could violate the Conflicts in Government provisions in the State Code…Jack Roberts should look into it, and Mr. Chapman/Tom Reed should also make a full disclosure.
Who did the appraisal for the Miller property or the Grubb property? Were there comparables. actual sales in those cases? Did the appraisal for the Miller property justify a demand to lower the price?
Is the appraisal that was done for Cangiano standard form? Do they require actual sales to justify a value, or do they allow someone to just assign a value–apparently arbitrarily in this case.
The appraisal is really wrong, and whoever ordered it, reviewed it, and passed it off has a lot of explaining to do.
I want the BoS to investigate the School Board’s appraisal practices, because we cannot trust them any more on value or negotiating price, in my opinion. It looks like they are unjustly rewarding some, and why would they do that?
One other thing, I know this is a long post, but Mr. Chapman having sued the County so many times… does he dislike the County? land use public processes that may have derailed clients? the BoS? You have to wonder if he is not sitting back advising his client to @#$ the BoS, and has forgotten how important it is to respect the proper process…speculation I know, but so much of this seems so wrong..
sally,
At the risk of sounding like BlackOut, I should note that it is possible that I didn’t flag ALL the pages of the appraisal so if there is something you think should be there, it may be. I have paid so much for copying that I am becoming more discriminating with each FOIA pass – figuring others can ask for the entire package if they like. It could be everything, but then again, maybe not.
Also, as School Board At-Large rep Tom Reed reminded me at the Apr09 Lovettsv meeting, Mr. Chapman had been working for LCPS prior to March 2006, that was just when I suppose they decided they had enough work to hire their own full time staff attorney. Prior to that, they just contracted legal services through Reed Smith and Mr. Chapman was their man. I have never asked what date Chapman first did work (as outside legal counsel) for LCPS.
Thanks Sarah, for the clarification. I don’t see how the appraisal could have been justified with actual sales, and would be interested in having the School Board explain the appraisal.
Has anyone else seen the red and white sign on the left side (as you leave Lovettsville) of Milltown Road that says “For Sale by Owner 67.5 K/acre”? (It’s right across the road from Sally Kurtz’s Water Ways Farm, and just East of the “Milltown Farm” sign, so I’m not sure if that is part of the Miller property? or ?)
I first saw it Sunday afternoon and had to laugh.
And the School Board wonders why they pay too much for land? They make their own market! Guaranteed there’s a lot of land owners willing to strike a deal with the School Board at that price.
Actually, I take that back about the School Board wondering why it pays too much – they obviously could care less about cost. Hell, it’s only taxpayer dollars – it’s not much out of their pockets.
I have little doubt there would lots of sellers if the school board advertised around Lovettsville that they would pay $67,000 an acre, or even $47,000. There are several large parcels of land in Lovettsville that are unoccupied. I found 100+ acres and an absentee landlord, very close to the town. I found several like that, just poking around the tax maps. One would think that the county could do the same thing, identify 5 or so properties, then ask the owner if he’s interested in selling. Why is that so difficult? If I can find the properties, anyone can, even the brainaics who work for the county.
What identifying creative ways to offer County tax advantages to landowners who are willing to put their land into the mix for consideration…and further tax incentives to landowners of selected sites who must wait for land use approvals? we can’t afford to pay exorbitant prices for land, but it seems if we can offer tax breaks to Howard Hughes medical center, we could offer the same to landowners who otherwise might be reluctant to deal with the hassle.
What exactly is the chain of events that needs to occur to kill this deal? My SB reps (Godfrey and Bergel) seem as entrenched as they were on day one, so nothing that’s been said or done or uncovered has changed their minds. Not sure about the BoS…Burton seems to be against it but I couldn’t say definitely about any of the others. June 1 is SIX business days away…what has to happen between now and then? Supposedly the SB can pull out of the contract at any time before June 1 with no penalty, but at this point I don’t see that happening, at least not by their decision…so what needs to occur? (BoS vote? or what?) for this contract to be canceled?
I think if the Board of Supervisors voted on a resolution that they could not support this site then the School Board would have to cancel the contract.
Don’t think they can consider other sites while this one is under contract….so that may put the Lovettsville assemblage on hold.
Burton needs to come down hard on the appraisal, the RFP, the conflicts, the water issues (waiver denied/offsite well), the comp plan (how can it not be “possible” if the assemblage in Lville is available), and the other issues…
I am not sure the contract has been officially extended yet… does anyone know? need to get a copy of that contract, because the cancellation rights may be redefined it it…
I forgot about the extension…but was that only to allow various testing to be done or did that extend the “recision with no penalty” time frame too?
There is no way to know what the new terms are without seeing the new contract, if there is one. All the LCPS website says is that Cangiano has offered to reduce the sale price and extend the contract. Does not say that the offer has been accepted or formalized into a contract that the School Board has agreed to…
If it has, it will be the new terms to define whatever opt out rights they might have… looks like it was only being extended for water testing. If that comes back acceptable to the state, then are they obligated to buy?
The BoS needs to say something here.
I agree that the BoS needs to say something or better yet ACT in some way. However, by email today Jim Burton said, “The contract is between the School Board and the landowners. Thus, they must be the ones to withdraw from it.”
Which may be true but I have to say was not what I wanted to hear…
Theoperativeword blog is reporting that according to her sources, the School Board is going to back out of the Cangiano contract next week at its meeting.
That’s what some are saying, but apparently DuPree is resisting putting it on the agenda. No big surprise there.
if it’s not on the agenda, then nothing happens?
They would have to suspend the rules to do it, which would require a super majority.
Rumors were going around my neighborhood yesterday that the whole thing was about to go away.
Can’t a board member introduce it at their next meeting? At most meetings a motion can be made, even if it’s not on the agenda. If they get a second, then they can discuss it and vote. Does the school board work that way too? Jen Bergen can vote for it, claiming she’s done her best to get a high school for Lovettsville, while the others vote to nix the deal.
I thought this deal might be headed south when Cangiano sent his letter. Why else would he bother to lower the price and extend the time?
I guess the crack “negotiators” at LCPS worked their “magic” on Cangiano to get those terms changed!
The Op really has taken the LCPS bait on the “intimidation” smear campaign against Loudoun citizens. Another great display of small mindedness by our county’s School Board.
Why can’t LCPS just come out and help the public understand the questions that have caused the public to get upset? The anger in Lovettsville on Apr29 was focused on the officials who were trying to restrict questions and who avoided answering direct questions. Anyone who was at that meeting who felt intimidated were probably only those people who were feeling empathy for public officials. If we have misinterpreted the information, why don’t they just set things straight so this strife can dissipate? Just explain:
1. 2006 Miller/Grubb/Rackam contract value discrepancies
2. why Grubb’s $40k/acre was preferred over Miller’s $31k/acre “in lieu of condemna” offer
3. Crim RFP response dismissal
3. 2-week RFP justification
4. failure to disclose Park access alternate routes
5. urgency to advance a spring hydro study
6. why they are including testing a community supply well on a Cangiano parcel that isn’t part of this contract
7. their plans for renegotiation now that the price has dropped to $47k/acre
8. what is this new mystery assemblage
9. their evaluation of the Shoene/Engle assemblage
10. why VDOT isn’t consulted in siting decisions
11. why designs can’t be modified to fit available/affordable sites
12. is the SPEX process going to be eliminated for school sites
13. is co=location the criteria that trumps all others combined
These are valid inconsistencies that seem reasonable for LCPS to address. If mistakes were made, all they have to do is say so. If there is a reason, all they have to do is explain.
Judging from the meeting in April, they don’t think they have to answer those questions. It’s none of our business.
Just fork over our money to them, don’t ask any questions, and no one gets hurt.
Sarah,
Barabara Munsey made a blanket assertion that a fundamental change at the State level would be required to bring in citizens to review contracts or give input.
This is incorrect, she has no cite for this. What State Code provision needs to be changed? She is wrong. It’s called diversion.
The Dillon rule does not prevent the School Board from letting concerned groups review say the RFP’s or a group of invited sellers…
All of the Western Task Force recommendations could be implemented, even the ones calling for review of contracts, or potential land purchases by PTA groups.
Good God Sally do you read anything anyone posts before typing!!! Barbara has been very clear what needs to change or why the plan poses problems. You should go back to your personal attacks against her. At least those were entertaining.
I know it pisses you off to no end but she has trumped you again.
Yes, I can read just fine, BO!
She made a sweeping statement dismissing Sarah’s suggestion that we could follow some of Montgomery Co’s way of doing things, like involving the PTAs or citizen committees in the site selection process. Barbara dismissed it saying the Dillon Rule would not allow it! WRONG! She likes to lecture, but not so good at listening sometimes (or trying to understand what others are saying…)
It can be done. No Dillon Rule problem..
Not pissed off at all, she is simply wrong. I think she agreed that she did not mean to say that the Dillon Rule prohibited what Sarah was suggesting. Honestly I don’t think she read Sarah’s post right, but assumed something else about the way Mont Co acquires land..
And we will see who trumps who!!!
You are the one who’s pissed! at the revelation of truth in all of this, with your good buds making so many stupid (or worse) decisions… sunshine hurts sometimes?
Oh by the way, you should check out my assessment, got the house reduced too.. after the land was reduced…now I am paying quite a bit less than I paid last year (-$1200) but I did pay $1800 more in 2008 than I paid in 2007…so I am still paying $600 more than I paid in 2007… just because you were SOOO interested in my personal assessment…thought I would bring you up to date.. and I did not have to file an appeal with the BOE.. the assessments office did it on an equity basis.