Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

KAA does not affect GF in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

Grumble grumble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

They think everyone else is out to get them and that every decision FCPS makes should be made with a view towards making sure they stay zoned to Langley forever. There's no proposal to move any Great Falls kids and yet they still scream and yell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

They think everyone else is out to get them and that every decision FCPS makes should be made with a view towards making sure they stay zoned to Langley forever. There's no proposal to move any Great Falls kids and yet they still scream and yell.

But your argument doesn’t works. Your logic ain’t logic-ing.

[Anonymous]

Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

They think everyone else is out to get them and that every decision FCPS makes should be made with a view towards making sure they stay zoned to Langley forever. There's no proposal to move any Great Falls kids and yet they still scream and yell.

But your argument doesn’t works. Your logic ain’t logic-ing.

It's not an argument. It's a diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

It wasn't just random remarks by SB members. The SB adopted revisions to a policy on boundary changes that suggested transportation times were going to be a big focus in the boundary review, and then Reid's consultants ignored the longest commutes in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

I just don’t understand why people are okay with developers getting a hand out, then having the current residents hold the bag. If developers received a premium for the house back in the 90s, then an equivalent decrease would only hurt the current residents, who had nothing to do with shady back room deals of the 90s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Falls kids are not being moved on any of the scenarios. Why are they screaming? I will say they seem to especially hate the purchase of KAA--and I think I know why.

They think everyone else is out to get them and that every decision FCPS makes should be made with a view towards making sure they stay zoned to Langley forever. There's no proposal to move any Great Falls kids and yet they still scream and yell.

But your argument doesn’t works. Your logic ain’t logic-ing.

It's not an argument. It's a diagnosis.

Got it, so you’re just projecting, no actual thought went into the post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

I just don’t understand why people are okay with developers getting a hand out, then having the current residents hold the bag. If developers received a premium for the house back in the 90s, then an equivalent decrease would only hurt the current residents, who had nothing to do with shady back room deals of the 90s

The BOS likes the tax money. That simple. Not complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KAA does not affect GF in any way.

Per an anonymous FairFACTS Matters poster tonight:

"This is the setup to move Forestville to Herndon. First overcrowd Langley, then the shuffle for the new high school will leave Herndon with lots of space, then next year they will cry 'transportation efficiency' [and move kids from Langley to Herndon]."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

you think they are on the chopping block this time when they haven’t proposed a single proposal in scenarios 1-4? with no real community feedback after this iteration i don’t see how a brand new proposal can come up (with the exception of KAA and chantilly and westfields meetings are after they will have those maps out)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

It wasn't just random remarks by SB members. The SB adopted revisions to a policy on boundary changes that suggested transportation times were going to be a big focus in the boundary review, and then Reid's consultants ignored the longest commutes in the county.

We all know why. Look at the composition of the BRAC. We know those people had a lot of influence. Look at the guy who got his neighborhood moved to Oakton. Reid admitted he was the reason that change was made.

I wonder about BRAC and that tiny part of Fairfax High that is in Scenario 4 for Chantilly. It is tiny. Make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a Great Falls resident, but I do think there were remarks early on by SB members that might have made one think they were on the chopping block.

And, to the poster a few pages back about the developers and Langley. That is absolutely true--we had a neighbor that moved to one of those developments on the Herndon side of RT 7 because it was zoned for Langley. That was their reason for moving there. Honestly, I was a little insulted--and I didn't even have a kid in school yet.

It wasn't just random remarks by SB members. The SB adopted revisions to a policy on boundary changes that suggested transportation times were going to be a big focus in the boundary review, and then Reid's consultants ignored the longest commutes in the county.

Transportation costs are what matters.

The inconvenient truth is that the amount of buses that need to be on the road are very inelastic and primarily based on the number of students in the county. Sure they might be able to take one or two buses off the road if they prioritized commute logistics above all else, but that’s pretty far down on the list of priorities, all things considered. Also, they can really only do that analysis with a fully baked map, so it’ll always have to be an afterthought to the boundary review. I think most SB members recognize that at this point, hence focusing on the other categories.