Anonymous wrote:There is a planned housing development About a mile from the Blake Lane site that is planned for hundreds of townhouses and condos. Also another townhouse development across from Oakmont REC. Providence is near capacity and the City of Fairfax will not let the county overcrowd it. The city also has a ton of new townhouses coming online in the PES catchment area. These are actually under construction and the ones at Oakmont are in site development. It wasn't at all short sited to have had built a school at Blake Lane as it would have been coming online in time for these developments. It's also believed that Mosaic will still be crowded after the reno. There was a public meeting on the change 4 days before Christmas in 2021 and it was online. Oakton, Mosaic and Providence families had almost no waring and it felt like at the meeting a decision was already made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Frisch is a liar who made promises he never intended to keep, and a poor School Board representative for his district. His "signature project" as a School Board member is a wasteful elementary school that local residents do not want and which diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He's also engaged in a range of other behaviors that call into question his suitability for elected office.

DP and *yawn*, you keep saying the same tired things in different ways with broad strokes that underscore the PP's point about deflection.

On Dunn-Loring, the SB has asked Facilities to look into swing space solutions as a more time-and-cost-effective way to renovate schools in the future. I wonder if they might end up using Dunn-Loring for this purpose, though I have no idea where the surrounding schools sit in the renovation lineup. If not, they should be including it in the current boundary study. Even if it's not going to be ready for 26-27, we should know what the proposed boundaries would look like when it does open, given how much time and energy is being spent on this process. They can have an interim plan for boundaries for a year or two gap until it opens (I don't know the planned open date), but certainly shouldn't be ignoring the matter in their planning.

"Tired" is what we are of Karl Frisch and his incompetence.

You'll keep pivoting and making up new excuses for why Dunn Loring is getting built, whether it's to anticipate all the surrounding schools turning into Title I schools (that won't happen), using Dunn Loring as swing space for surrounding schools as they get renovated (none of the surrounding schools are identified in the current queue for future renovations), etc.

The fact is that this school only exists because Karl Frisch wanted to make sure a school was NOT built at Blake Lane Park. It's very odd to have a School Board members whose priorities are shaped by a desire to avoid an already planned school in his district. He is an incompetent flake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Frisch is a liar who made promises he never intended to keep, and a poor School Board representative for his district. His "signature project" as a School Board member is a wasteful elementary school that local residents do not want and which diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He's also engaged in a range of other behaviors that call into question his suitability for elected office.

DP and *yawn*, you keep saying the same tired things in different ways with broad strokes that underscore the PP's point about deflection.

On Dunn-Loring, the SB has asked Facilities to look into swing space solutions as a more time-and-cost-effective way to renovate schools in the future. I wonder if they might end up using Dunn-Loring for this purpose, though I have no idea where the surrounding schools sit in the renovation lineup. If not, they should be including it in the current boundary study. Even if it's not going to be ready for 26-27, we should know what the proposed boundaries would look like when it does open, given how much time and energy is being spent on this process. They can have an interim plan for boundaries for a year or two gap until it opens (I don't know the planned open date), but certainly shouldn't be ignoring the matter in their planning.

"Tired" is what we are of Karl Frisch and his incompetence.

You'll keep pivoting and making up new excuses for why Dunn Loring is getting built, whether it's to anticipate all the surrounding schools turning into Title I schools (that won't happen), using Dunn Loring as swing space for surrounding schools as they get renovated (none of the surrounding schools are identified in the current queue for future renovations), etc.

The fact is that this school only exists because Karl Frisch wanted to make sure a school was NOT built at Blake Lane Park. It's very odd to have a School Board members whose priorities are shaped by a desire to avoid an already planned school in his district. He is an incompetent flake.

DP. It's clear you're speaking from a place of anger. Not sure if that's based on the new boundary review, personal animus or something else altogether. Nonetheless, your tone is extremely off putting and it makes it hard to take your position seriously. The name calling, the unsupported conclusions make you seem irrationally bitter. As suggested by one of the previous responders, this forum should be a place for debate and discussion. The way you interact with others could be a lot more constructive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Frisch is a liar who made promises he never intended to keep, and a poor School Board representative for his district. His "signature project" as a School Board member is a wasteful elementary school that local residents do not want and which diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He's also engaged in a range of other behaviors that call into question his suitability for elected office.

DP and *yawn*, you keep saying the same tired things in different ways with broad strokes that underscore the PP's point about deflection.

On Dunn-Loring, the SB has asked Facilities to look into swing space solutions as a more time-and-cost-effective way to renovate schools in the future. I wonder if they might end up using Dunn-Loring for this purpose, though I have no idea where the surrounding schools sit in the renovation lineup. If not, they should be including it in the current boundary study. Even if it's not going to be ready for 26-27, we should know what the proposed boundaries would look like when it does open, given how much time and energy is being spent on this process. They can have an interim plan for boundaries for a year or two gap until it opens (I don't know the planned open date), but certainly shouldn't be ignoring the matter in their planning.

"Tired" is what we are of Karl Frisch and his incompetence.

You'll keep pivoting and making up new excuses for why Dunn Loring is getting built, whether it's to anticipate all the surrounding schools turning into Title I schools (that won't happen), using Dunn Loring as swing space for surrounding schools as they get renovated (none of the surrounding schools are identified in the current queue for future renovations), etc.

The fact is that this school only exists because Karl Frisch wanted to make sure a school was NOT built at Blake Lane Park. It's very odd to have a School Board members whose priorities are shaped by a desire to avoid an already planned school in his district. He is an incompetent flake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Frisch is a liar who made promises he never intended to keep, and a poor School Board representative for his district. His "signature project" as a School Board member is a wasteful elementary school that local residents do not want and which diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He's also engaged in a range of other behaviors that call into question his suitability for elected office.

DP and *yawn*, you keep saying the same tired things in different ways with broad strokes that underscore the PP's point about deflection.

On Dunn-Loring, the SB has asked Facilities to look into swing space solutions as a more time-and-cost-effective way to renovate schools in the future. I wonder if they might end up using Dunn-Loring for this purpose, though I have no idea where the surrounding schools sit in the renovation lineup. If not, they should be including it in the current boundary study. Even if it's not going to be ready for 26-27, we should know what the proposed boundaries would look like when it does open, given how much time and energy is being spent on this process. They can have an interim plan for boundaries for a year or two gap until it opens (I don't know the planned open date), but certainly shouldn't be ignoring the matter in their planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Frisch is a liar who made promises he never intended to keep, and a poor School Board representative for his district. His "signature project" as a School Board member is a wasteful elementary school that local residents do not want and which diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He's also engaged in a range of other behaviors that call into question his suitability for elected office.

Anonymous wrote:That's a deflection. If you want to argue about wasting $85 million, great! If you want to talk about overcrowded schools, great! If you want to talk about actual instances which make him unqualified, go for it. As a member of Fairfax County, I want to hear it. But to resort to insults and catty language, it doesn't help anyone.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't like seeing immature catty insults being thrown where there's an opportunity for actual discussion. It takes away from any real opportunity to persuade. Please, be more mature and deliberate in your interactions on here.

Anonymous wrote:This thread feels like an echo chamber with one person anonymously posting and responding to his/herself to suggest a consensus about KF. I wish these boards were better moderated to attract actual conversation and debate. Let's do away with the catty "mean girls" attitudes.