FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Yep. So again, bad mistakes and poor decisions made in the past. What to do, just leave things as is because that happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

So, you are now admitting the purpose of this "study?"

I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious if people would be in favor of closing Lewis and sending half of Lewis to WSHS, 1/4 to Hayfield and 1/4 to Edison? And closing MVHS and sending all kids to West Po and sending some amount of West Po to Edison. Just close the underenrolled “bad” schools and shoehorn kids into “good” schools. Because it’s clear that Lewis and MVHS cannot recover their reputations enough in this climate.

No.

Your suggestion makes no sense given capacity of surrounding schools.

You would need to add Annandale, Hayfield, South County and Lake Braddock to the mix, and remove WSHS based on capacity.

And then you would have to move from those schools to other schools.

The domino effects would be awful.

The smartest thing is for FCPS to take advantage of Lewis' low enrollment an schedule a 4 year renovation for the school. They could do it without trailers.

While renovating, close the IB program and stand up a fully functional AP program, even if that means class sizes of 10 students for the more advanced APs, just like private schools.

Take advantage of the tiny AP class sizes to push the students to get the AP pass rates up from their current 10% rate to a more palatable pass rate comparable to a Hayfield or South County. Or shoot for the stars and aim for something in the 60 to 70% pass rate. With tiny AP classes, that is attainable in 4 years.

Then, in 4 years, Lewis is now an AP school with a beautiful new campus comparable to all of their neighboring schools, and respectable AP pass rates so parents are no longer afraid to send their kids to Lewis.

With all the development in the area, Lewis could in 4 years go from a pariah school to one that is acceptable, or even desirable.

But that would take effort and smart planning by FCPS, which seems to be in short supply.

It is easier to rezone to mask the issues, even if the rezoning perpetuates the issues and makes Lewis even more undesirable from the bad press of the rezoning fight and the transient local population blacklisting the newly rezoned Lewis neighborhoods.

IOW, don’t re-boundary my kids to Lewis and don’t re-boundary Lewis kids to my kids’ school because Lewis kids are “pariahs” (to use your word).

Stop putting words in other people's mouths

No one said the Lewis kids are pariahs. Geez.

Read the above (that’s hidden but was quoted): “With all the development in the area, Lewis could in 4 years go from a pariah school to one that is acceptable, or even desirable.”

People are not “afraid to send their kids to Lewis” because of the physical condition of the building… that poster was referring to the kids themselves.

You are wrong.

No one was referring to the kids.

The entire post was clearly about the condition of the building and undesireable IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

So, you are now admitting the purpose of this "study?"

I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.


The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are yoi worried?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No more AAP in middle. Keeps kids at base middle schools and limits bussing needs. Start there before boundaries.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

So, you are now admitting the purpose of this "study?"

I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.

The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?

[Anonymous]

The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?

$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

So, you are now admitting the purpose of this "study?"

I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.

The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?

Clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

+1

You don't get it. It was the BOS and FCPS that approved it. Developers can ask all day long, but they are not the deciders. The SB and the BOS does not have to approve it. Why? Because of tax money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."

I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.

It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.

And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.

Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.

Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP

Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.

Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.

Why on earth would that reduce the incentives? They got rich on the backs of your neighbors and they would just do that again. You’re just approving a wealth transfer from Fairfax families to developers.

Shame. On. You.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?

$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.

Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.