Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

You must be joking. So it's somehow ok for us to pay exorbitant taxes, yet not see any benefit for our own kids? Gotcha.

They are not exorbitant. 1% of property value is squarely in the middle, and at the low end if you want decent local services.

The real issue is that there are more students in Fairfax public schools as a percentage of the total population than there are in neighboring districts. This is true wherever in the county you live. This means that we have to spend more as a percentage of our tax base to provide similar services. For example in Arlington, the percentage of the population in public schools is less than 10%, in Fairfax it is nearly 17%. Families with children, regardless of income, are the population problem. We need more dinks and that takes time. We should put a moratorium on the building of more single family houses and concentrate on building the kind of housing that attracts dinks. Until then, we need to pay more taxes to pay for our schools, we are a wealthy county, we can afford it.

Exactly.

Another issue no one wants to talk about is all of the illegal immigration in FCPS that are taking resources away from all of you lovely tax paying citizens-and all the liberals say, oh no problem, bring more, we will support them at the expense of the stu.dents in "wealthier" schools. At least some of us want to say that's crap-everyone who wants world class schools can also contribute to pay for them. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

AMEN. I agree completely.

Thanks!!! I am glad there are still some realistic and sensible people out there!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

You must be joking. So it's somehow ok for us to pay exorbitant taxes, yet not see any benefit for our own kids? Gotcha.

They are not exorbitant. 1% of property value is squarely in the middle, and at the low end if you want decent local services.

The real issue is that there are more students in Fairfax public schools as a percentage of the total population than there are in neighboring districts. This is true wherever in the county you live. This means that we have to spend more as a percentage of our tax base to provide similar services. For example in Arlington, the percentage of the population in public schools is less than 10%, in Fairfax it is nearly 17%. Families with children, regardless of income, are the population problem. We need more dinks and that takes time. We should put a moratorium on the building of more single family houses and concentrate on building the kind of housing that attracts dinks. Until then, we need to pay more taxes to pay for our schools, we are a wealthy county, we can afford it.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

You must be joking. So it's somehow ok for us to pay exorbitant taxes, yet not see any benefit for our own kids? Gotcha.

They are not exorbitant. 1% of property value is squarely in the middle, and at the low end if you want decent local services.

The real issue is that there are more students in Fairfax public schools as a percentage of the total population than there are in neighboring districts. This is true wherever in the county you live. This means that we have to spend more as a percentage of our tax base to provide similar services. For example in Arlington, the percentage of the population in public schools is less than 10%, in Fairfax it is nearly 17%. Families with children, regardless of income, are the population problem. We need more dinks and that takes time. We should put a moratorium on the building of more single family houses and concentrate on building the kind of housing that attracts dinks. Until then, we need to pay more taxes to pay for our schools, we are a wealthy county, we can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, to stay on topic, it's the same sense of entitlement that leads some Langley pyramid parents to imply their AAP kids shouldn't have to attend Cooper, their under-enrolled base school, until it has been fully renovated. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Kilmer has been overcrowded for years or that Longfellow students attend school in trailers. They want to pay less in taxes, but still have a local public with state-of-the-art facilities.

PP - Langley pyramid AAP students are attending Longfellow, in the trailers. It's not actually any students' fault that when they redid Longfellow they did not make it big enough. The issue with not wanting to attend Cooper for AAP is that Cooper doesn't have AAP. And as of a couple of years ago, had no teachers who seemed interested in teaching at the AAP level, sponsoring academic activities, or being involved and engaged in the academic life of students. Lots of metrics support this -- TJ admissions (which are highly dependent on teachers' willingness to submit recommendations); nonparticipation in various academic clubs/pursuits (for example the TJ IMO); etc. Cooper is likely getting better because the word got out that they had to improve and hopefully they will be ready next year. But as of 2 years ago, Cooper was not ready to teach AAP, in trailers or anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

You must be joking. So it's somehow ok for us to pay exorbitant taxes, yet not see any benefit for our own kids? Gotcha.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

AMEN. I agree completely.

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, to stay on topic, it's the same sense of entitlement that leads some Langley pyramid parents to imply their AAP kids shouldn't have to attend Cooper, their under-enrolled base school, until it has been fully renovated. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Kilmer has been overcrowded for years or that Longfellow students attend school in trailers. They want to pay less in taxes, but still have a local public with state-of-the-art facilities.

PP - Langley pyramid AAP students are attending Longfellow, in the trailers. It's not actually any students' fault that when they redid Longfellow they did not make it big enough. The issue with not wanting to attend Cooper for AAP is that Cooper doesn't have AAP. And as of a couple of years ago, had no teachers who seemed interested in teaching at the AAP level, sponsoring academic activities, or being involved and engaged in the academic life of students. Lots of metrics support this -- TJ admissions (which are highly dependent on teachers' willingness to submit recommendations); nonparticipation in various academic clubs/pursuits (for example the TJ IMO); etc. Cooper is likely getting better because the word got out that they had to improve and hopefully they will be ready next year. But as of 2 years ago, Cooper was not ready to teach AAP, in trailers or anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

And, of course, to stay on topic, it's the same sense of entitlement that leads some Langley pyramid parents to imply their AAP kids shouldn't have to attend Cooper, their under-enrolled base school, until it has been fully renovated. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Kilmer has been overcrowded for years or that Longfellow students attend school in trailers. They want to pay less in taxes, but still have a local public with state-of-the-art facilities.

Apparently you can't read!!

Agree with this poster. Have seen too many parents like this in the area.
I can read fine, but stating you are not for "a tax break" is not exactly acknowledging the issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

And, of course, to stay on topic, it's the same sense of entitlement that leads some Langley pyramid parents to imply their AAP kids shouldn't have to attend Cooper, their under-enrolled base school, until it has been fully renovated. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Kilmer has been overcrowded for years or that Longfellow students attend school in trailers. They want to pay less in taxes, but still have a local public with state-of-the-art facilities.

Apparently you can't read!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh you die hard limousine liberals are so holier than thou!

I am not for a tax break or saying the neediest schools should go without-simply that Cluster 1 deserves their fair share of lower class sizes and resources too! I am all for a meals tax to raise revenues, but I do pay my fair share of property taxes and my kids schools shouldn't always get the short end of the stick just because my school board representative thinks I am "wealthy" and can afford to supplement everything the schools lack. So there!

There's nothing holier than thou in pointing out what it really means when some of the richest people in the county clamor for their "fair share," while steadfastly refusing to pay for it.

And, of course, to stay on topic, it's the same sense of entitlement that leads some Langley pyramid parents to imply their AAP kids shouldn't have to attend Cooper, their under-enrolled base school, until it has been fully renovated. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Kilmer has been overcrowded for years or that Longfellow students attend school in trailers. They want to pay less in taxes, but still have a local public with state-of-the-art facilities.