School bonds on November ballot
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
See how you feel after voting yes on the bond for over 20 years and still not seeing your school which is in need make the cut. |
Anonymous
|
You McLean people always want to make everything about yourselves and complain whenever anyone else in the county gets something nice.
But when they proposed the boundary adjustments, all the McLean parents wanted the option that had the fewest amount of changes. Meanwhile, there are other schools like Chantilly and Centreville that are even further over capacity and don't have a school right next to it so far below capacity. |
Anonymous
|
Different McLean parent here; my thoughts:
1. The Purvis article doesn't argue against renovating or expanding schools. If I understand correctly, he's arguing against authorizing the issuance of more bonds in 2023 because the county already has over $500 in authorized but unissued school bonds. So the county could go ahead and issue more bonds now for school projects - they just wouldn't have as big an untapped line of credit with taxpayers to draw upon the future. 2. Even if bond proceeds pay for capital projects, the interest payments on bonds still come from real estate taxes. School bonds aren't revenue bonds that get repaid from revenue-generating activities. 3. I vote in favor of school bonds despite FCPS's mistreatment of McLean HS because I've no interest in seeing other schools suffer and we'd get screwed either way. It just pushes everything further out, and voting against bonds - which always pass anyway - is a very "noisy" way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the current School Board and the shortcomings in the current facilities planning process. If a bond offering failed - which, again, is highly unlikely - all that people would infer is that county residents don't want to pay the taxes needed to support the interest payments. They wouldn't assume it's because of specific concerns with FCPS's planning department or spending priorities. |
Anonymous
| Have bonds ever not been approved for school construction? I think not. |
Anonymous
Thanks for conflating McLean and Langley again - to you, I guess, we are all the same. In fact, it was Langley residents from Great Falls who successfully lobbied Elaine Tholen, their neighbor on the School Board to reject an FCPS staff proposal that would have moved more kids from McLean to Langley in favor of one that redistricted fewer kids to Langley. Centreville is already in the pipeline now for a big expansion - while some might say the planned expansion is too big (to 3000 seats), they are slated for a major renovation and addition, unlike McLean. Chantilly is in a similar boat as McLean (the overcrowding is worse, but the building is in better shape and there isn't nearly as much future growth projected in the Chantilly catchment area as in the McLean area). Once the Centreville expansion is finished, it's quite possible they might decide to adjust Centreville/Chantilly/Westfield boundaries. |
Anonymous
I believe Fairfax taxpayers last rejected a school bond referendum in the 1970s. The county has changed a lot since then. |
Anonymous
|
For the first time ever I will be voting no strictly due to how neglected Mclean HS and the school boards refusal to do anything about it.
I am also so tired of reading people on this Board say that because my kids are getting a good education I should be fine with them going to school is a run down completely overcrowded building. |
Anonymous
There are lots of schools in need. |
Anonymous
And McLean is at the top of the list but no where in the queue therefore my vote is no |
Anonymous
I am inclined to do the same for the first time ever. Some of my kids' McLean classrooms don't have functioning AC in 95+ temps. This is not in the trailers where the AC works full blast, to the point where they need a sweatshirt. It is in the main building, where they have to strip down to their camis and shorts to make it through class. They have two full sets of clothes just to get through the school day. And of course, no time to even get to their lockers because it takes them every second of their breaks to get from one class to another in the cramped and crowded hallways. It's a joke. |
Anonymous
Well, if this isn’t McLean in a nutshell. |
Anonymous
|
I will vote no. More so for the projects they did that should not have happened.
West Potomac expansion with room next door at Mount Vernon. Out of cycle no less. Expanding Springfield Estates to accommodate the growth of the AAP program, then turning around and opening another AAP center at Bush Hill. Now Springfield Estates is well below capacity. I believe it was Bucknell - renovated and left to sit at a fraction of its capacity for years. Still less than 50%. Renovated Lee\Lewis back in 2005 to a design capacity of 2139. This was close to the enrollment at the time. Then turned around and moved hundreds of students out and now the enrollment is 450-500 students below the design capacity. Advertising a West Springfield enlargement of one size, and then twice increasing the size of that expansion. With room next door at Lee. It is these wasted efforts that show the School Board should not be given more money until they fix their procedures. And changing boundaries would be part of that. |
Anonymous
Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that. |
Anonymous
Anti-education, I see. |
Anonymous
+1 |