Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

To me, the most appalling thing is not that a group of citizens are greedy and self-absorbed, bad as it is. The most appalling part is that the School Board, ever mindful of the feelings of the upper-middle class, will capitulate to the whining of the AF parents.

Stop calling me and asking for support and donations, Arlington County Democrats. Your opportunistic capitulations are why I send my money to actual progressives in other states.

AMEN!

Anonymous wrote:
We are so glad we left. The services have not kept up with the population growth. Everything there was becoming a hassle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people cling to Arlington. Is it the commute? If not, cash out and move. Trust me, you'll feel so much better.

Yes. Duh. It's absolutely the commute. The longer I live in Arlington, the less I like it. That commute though...

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people cling to Arlington. Is it the commute? If not, cash out and move. Trust me, you'll feel so much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

To me, the most appalling thing is not that a group of citizens are greedy and self-absorbed, bad as it is. The most appalling part is that the School Board, ever mindful of the feelings of the upper-middle class, will capitulate to the whining of the AF parents.

Stop calling me and asking for support and donations, Arlington County Democrats. Your opportunistic capitulations are why I send my money to actual progressives in other states.

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

Well said.

No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

But if you want to argue about this after last Tuesday and show up in your orange shirts, you go right ahead. You already look like total assholes, so I guess you can't look any worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np - sorry AF advocates, but you guys and your terrible attitudes have brought this animosity on yourselves. Totally shamelful that you are arguing to increase any poverty at Wakefield. Yes, we need to see Wakefield's overall FARMS number down at least 10%. Well, two percent now is a small step in the right direction. You guys are really acting despicably.

I don't know what they said exactly, but I can't imagine it was "let's increase poverty at Wakefield!!" Wasn't it simply "we'd like to stay at Washington-Lee"? Why is it so horrible that they'd like their children to stay at WL?

Anonymous wrote:Np - sorry AF advocates, but you guys and your terrible attitudes have brought this animosity on yourselves. Totally shamelful that you are arguing to increase any poverty at Wakefield. Yes, we need to see Wakefield's overall FARMS number down at least 10%. Well, two percent now is a small step in the right direction. You guys are really acting despicably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the

But if you want to argue about this after last Tuesday and show up in your orange shirts, you go right ahead. You already look like total assholes, so I guess you can't look any worse.

You are pretty funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion must have an orange shirt and live in AF.
Sorry, but I don't have an orange shirt or live in AF, and my children are not affected by any of these options. I'm not sure why you're spewing such vitriol against people who don't share the same opinion as you.

All of these numbers are subject to error anyway. These percentages are not real, they are plus or minus 1 or 2 or more percent. Who knows? They are assuming that not all of the siblings will choose sibling preference. That may or may not be true. They should go with the option that is the least controversial. If you think all of Wakefield's FARMS problems are gonna be solved by option 3, the ONLY option in your opinion, you are nuts.

But your hatred towards the AF advocates is truly stunning.