Western High School Boundary Map options (A/B/C/D)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tactics 1: SLHS

Tactics 2: younger kids, older kids

Enough is enough! Any SB told you no more better option? If yes, please share.

Do you think people are personally out to get you or something? Your posts have an oddly paranoid tone. And you need to run your writing through a grammar check before posting because some of your rants don’t even make sense.

I suggest you take English AP course.

DP. It may be rude, but PP is correct. It is difficult to understand your statements. Perhaps you should take a course in English grammar. Learn what an "article" is.
Your taunt should read: "I suggest you take an English AP course."

And, I think this is what you meant to say earlier:

"Enough is enough! Has any SB member told you that there is a better option? If yes, please share.

Of course, this does not make sense to defend your rant. Because, obviously, the best option is to send Crossfield to Western. At least two School Board members have suggested that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tactics 1: SLHS

Tactics 2: younger kids, older kids

Enough is enough! Any SB told you no more better option? If yes, please share.

Do you think people are personally out to get you or something? Your posts have an oddly paranoid tone. And you need to run your writing through a grammar check before posting because some of your rants don’t even make sense.

I suggest you take English AP course.

Oh I took it honey, got a 5 on the exam! Loved skipping freshman English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities/building-our-future-capital-projects/western-high-capital-project/community-engagement

Has anyone received any information about these "Parent Zoom Information Sessions" that are supposed to be held Dec 1-8?

We received an email about naming zooms, but that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/12/01/townhouses-approved-to-complete-oakton-office-park-redevelopment/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news

581 new homes coming to Oakton.

Non Oakton parent here. This thread seems to be hyper fixated on bringing up the same issues that have been discussed at length. Oakton has new developments…Crossfield might get moved now or in the future. We get it! Some of the last few comments about TJ and upcoming events have been helpful but now we are just going to pivot back to infighting between Crossfield parents and those who wants to see RIO fail.

You are not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/12/01/townhouses-approved-to-complete-oakton-office-park-redevelopment/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news

581 new homes coming to Oakton.

Non Oakton parent here. This thread seems to be hyper fixated on bringing up the same issues that have been discussed at length. Oakton has new developments…Crossfield might get moved now or in the future. We get it! Some of the last few comments about TJ and upcoming events have been helpful but now we are just going to pivot back to infighting between Crossfield parents and those who wants to see RIO fail.

This is about the Western Boundary options. Not TJ. Oakton development has an effect. And, you do not sound like a non-Oakton parent. Why are you concerned about RIO failing? You really do not understand the ramifications of 500 new homes up the street from Oakton High?

I do understand the ramifications as does everyone else. At this point everyone is aware of that development you have provided nothing new and those who are committed to Oakton aren’t going to be dissuaded. I’m guessing you’re a Crossfield parent who is concerned that if you are not zoned to WHS now you’ll go to SLHS in the next review. Please write to the board so you can be heard.

Stop using SLHS as tactics. Do you know how many more homes are coming to SLHS soon? Few thousands!

Are you Oakton developer trying to scare crossfield family away?

Look, we can all recognize your writing style, we know you're a Crossfield/Navy AAP mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you asked Navy parents what do they think of this? Over 100 low income housing!

I'm not sure where you're getting this? The FFXNow article says 111 townhomes and 4 of them will be affordable. Out of those 111, probably half will have families. Most of those kids won't be in high school for another 15 years probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/12/01/townhouses-approved-to-complete-oakton-office-park-redevelopment/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news

581 new homes coming to Oakton.

Non Oakton parent here. This thread seems to be hyper fixated on bringing up the same issues that have been discussed at length. Oakton has new developments…Crossfield might get moved now or in the future. We get it! Some of the last few comments about TJ and upcoming events have been helpful but now we are just going to pivot back to infighting between Crossfield parents and those who wants to see RIO fail.

This is about the Western Boundary options. Not TJ. Oakton development has an effect. And, you do not sound like a non-Oakton parent. Why are you concerned about RIO failing? You really do not understand the ramifications of 500 new homes up the street from Oakton High?

I do understand the ramifications as does everyone else. At this point everyone is aware of that development you have provided nothing new and those who are committed to Oakton aren’t going to be dissuaded. I’m guessing you’re a Crossfield parent who is concerned that if you are not zoned to WHS now you’ll go to SLHS in the next review. Please write to the board so you can be heard.

I was aware that there was a proposed development. That article says it has been approved and that it is over 500 homes. i did not know that--perhaps you did.

I guess you really don't want others to know?

And, again, the options are mentioned on the name of this thread. This IS the appropriate thread. Sorry, you don't like it.

111 townhouses, not 500 homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/12/01/townhouses-approved-to-complete-oakton-office-park-redevelopment/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news

581 new homes coming to Oakton.

Non Oakton parent here. This thread seems to be hyper fixated on bringing up the same issues that have been discussed at length. Oakton has new developments…Crossfield might get moved now or in the future. We get it! Some of the last few comments about TJ and upcoming events have been helpful but now we are just going to pivot back to infighting between Crossfield parents and those who wants to see RIO fail.

You are not fooling anyone.

I am the original poster and I am in fact not an Oakton parent but believe what you want. The infighting I predicted to happen did over the last two pages which people now have to skim through and involved mud slinging on both sides including ridiculous accusations on English proficiency levels.

[Anonymous]

The fact is no one on the board cares thst much about Crossfield. Some thought those families would be happy to not have a longer bus ride but they didn’t expect the community pushback including McDaniel. Probably in 5 years they’ll be rezoned anyways. When Reid presents the new scenarios I bet Crossfield won’t even be on there and no one on the board is going to pushback because it’s not important but it seems to be to a few people in this thread.

I agree with this.

The final scenario will not include Crossfield and the board will not even discuss that school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/12/01/townhouses-approved-to-complete-oakton-office-park-redevelopment/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=nextdoor.com&utm_campaign=nextdoor_news

581 new homes coming to Oakton.

Non Oakton parent here. This thread seems to be hyper fixated on bringing up the same issues that have been discussed at length. Oakton has new developments…Crossfield might get moved now or in the future. We get it! Some of the last few comments about TJ and upcoming events have been helpful but now we are just going to pivot back to infighting between Crossfield parents and those who wants to see RIO fail.

This is about the Western Boundary options. Not TJ. Oakton development has an effect. And, you do not sound like a non-Oakton parent. Why are you concerned about RIO failing? You really do not understand the ramifications of 500 new homes up the street from Oakton High?

I do understand the ramifications as does everyone else. At this point everyone is aware of that development you have provided nothing new and those who are committed to Oakton aren’t going to be dissuaded. I’m guessing you’re a Crossfield parent who is concerned that if you are not zoned to WHS now you’ll go to SLHS in the next review. Please write to the board so you can be heard.

I was aware that there was a proposed development. That article says it has been approved and that it is over 500 homes. i did not know that--perhaps you did.

I guess you really don't want others to know?

And, again, the options are mentioned on the name of this thread. This IS the appropriate thread. Sorry, you don't like it.

111 townhouses, not 500 homes.

Read the whole article. From the article:
"In total, the Flint Hill and Redwood Plaza redevelopments will deliver approximately 581 new homes, 15 public parks totaling 4.5 acres, a 10-foot-wide shared-use path along Arrowhead Drive, three new bus shelters and multiple high-visibility crosswalks."

And, FWIW, townhouses are homes. Apartments can also be homes. What arrogance to think that only single family houses can be homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The fact is no one on the board cares thst much about Crossfield. Some thought those families would be happy to not have a longer bus ride but they didn’t expect the community pushback including McDaniel. Probably in 5 years they’ll be rezoned anyways. When Reid presents the new scenarios I bet Crossfield won’t even be on there and no one on the board is going to pushback because it’s not important but it seems to be to a few people in this thread.

I agree with this.

The final scenario will not include Crossfield and the board will not even discuss that school.

You must know something the rest of us do not know.

Crossfield was only left out of one scenario. It is included in three of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you asked Navy parents what do they think of this? Over 100 low income housing!

I'm not sure where you're getting this? The FFXNow article says 111 townhomes and 4 of them will be affordable. Out of those 111, probably half will have families. Most of those kids won't be in high school for another 15 years probably.

It's 111 in place of the Flint Hill 3 office building. They are also replacing buildings 1 and 4, plus the Redwood Plaza building. It's 581 new homes total for that office park. And any families moving in will have kids in high school much sooner than "15 years probably."

Don't forget, that's just one redevelopment out of many that have been approved. There's the Fair Oaks Business Park - over 700 more homes, Fairfax Ridge with 400 more homes, the AT&T site with 854 more homes, and the ICF International site with 550 more.
This surge in development isn't something that can just be shrugged off. It needs to be planned for.

[Anonymous]

The above is why I'm happy with the new 5 year review cycle in the 8130 policy. All these projects weren't shovel ready this past review so their numbers aren't reflected in the capacity projections. By forcing a review every 5 years the board will have to consider projects that are coming online rather than waiting until there are so many kids packed into a school for the principal to have to ask them to do something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The above is why I'm happy with the new 5 year review cycle in the 8130 policy. All these projects weren't shovel ready this past review so their numbers aren't reflected in the capacity projections. By forcing a review every 5 years the board will have to consider projects that are coming online rather than waiting until there are so many kids packed into a school for the principal to have to ask them to do something about it.

They may need it sooner than five years. Have you considered that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The above is why I'm happy with the new 5 year review cycle in the 8130 policy. All these projects weren't shovel ready this past review so their numbers aren't reflected in the capacity projections. By forcing a review every 5 years the board will have to consider projects that are coming online rather than waiting until there are so many kids packed into a school for the principal to have to ask them to do something about it.

Dumbest take. If it's a real problem the principal will speak up. If it’sa fake problem, then we need your idiotic approach.