Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

The county would first need to approve GF for sewer service. Like about 1/4 of the county, GF currently is not approved. Then the county would need to install sewer pipes throughout GF. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Do you really think the county is going to appropriate funds to lay sewer pipes somewhere where most residents don’t want them (or are ambivalent)? That’s just throwing money down the drain. And here’s the kicker: Even if the county approved sewer and laid the pipes, the county cannot actually force anyone to connect to a sewer line.

Same goes with wells vs. public water (except that much of GF south of Georgetown Pike is on public water).

One Fairfax means relieving Great Falls from its primitive conditions and poor infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:Bringing in an outsider with an equity orientation is a great idea. She might actually have the courage to call out the segregation at Langley the faux Democrats like Tholen don’t address.

Of course, she’d have to leave the sewage problems in Great Falls to others.

Anonymous wrote:We don't need to look at the favoritism towards Langley from space. All we need is for Dr. Reid to take a look.

Could be interesting especially if the inevitable opponents to Elaine Tholen in 2023 start to surface.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And that something will be the SB current clown car voted out next year. I am fine with diversity of all types - but not if it has to be socially engineered.

Social engineering - the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

So you're telling me the current status quo exists not due to social engineering? Are you saying "centralized planning" wasn't used by the School Board to define Langley's boundaries? Are you saying Fairfax County Dept. of Planning and Development doesn't centrally control the zoning regulations to limit residential development in Great Falls by restricting units per acre according to some old master plan document? The citizens of Great Falls don't plan at Town Halls to vote against zoning changes?

Residential development in GF is restricted by size because the lots are on septic - which yes, residents have voted to keep, as is their right. Even the GF shopping center is on a septic field, which limits development there (thankfully). What about that do you not understand?

DP, but serious question - what laws allow GF residents to decide what the zoning is in their unincorporated part of Fairfax County, or whether they should remain on septic (which of course limits future development)?

I ask because it seems like the Board of Supervisors and the planning commission just decide on their own where development, affordable housing, etc. occurs elsewhere. I don't think they specifically obtain approval from those most affected in each instance.

All zoning changes, even for a single lot, must go through rounds of public hearing and the county supervisors take community feedback *VERY* seriously. Unless there is a legal requirement or some other overriding public good that significantly outweigh the demands of community members, the supervisors will generally bend to the will of the community.

So the key is defining a “community” whose wishes must be honored? I guess that explains why Great Falls residents promoted a group called “One Great Falls” a few years ago opposition to the county’s “One Fairfax” initiative. Great Falls is an unincorporated part of Fairfax County like Burke and Springfield, but it helps if you have enough money and can hold yourself out as if you’re a separate jurisdiction even when you aren’t.

What an odd way of viewing the world. You do know that we live in a liberal democracy that protects individual rights and the right to freely associate in our private lives, right? Fairfax County government respects the wishes and desires of every community, including Great Falls - to the extent that it can while considering the needs of the larger public.

LOL. If you have more money, your "wishes and desires" are far more likely to be respected - or purchased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

The county would first need to approve GF for sewer service. Like about 1/4 of the county, GF currently is not approved. Then the county would need to install sewer pipes throughout GF. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Do you really think the county is going to appropriate funds to lay sewer pipes somewhere where most residents don’t want them (or are ambivalent)? That’s just throwing money down the drain. And here’s the kicker: Even if the county approved sewer and laid the pipes, the county cannot actually force anyone to connect to a sewer line.

Same goes with wells vs. public water (except that much of GF south of Georgetown Pike is on public water).

One Fairfax means relieving Great Falls from its primitive conditions and poor infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

The county would first need to approve GF for sewer service. Like about 1/4 of the county, GF currently is not approved. Then the county would need to install sewer pipes throughout GF. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Do you really think the county is going to appropriate funds to lay sewer pipes somewhere where most residents don’t want them (or are ambivalent)? That’s just throwing money down the drain. And here’s the kicker: Even if the county approved sewer and laid the pipes, the county cannot actually force anyone to connect to a sewer line.

Same goes with wells vs. public water (except that much of GF south of Georgetown Pike is on public water).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And that something will be the SB current clown car voted out next year. I am fine with diversity of all types - but not if it has to be socially engineered.

Social engineering - the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

So you're telling me the current status quo exists not due to social engineering? Are you saying "centralized planning" wasn't used by the School Board to define Langley's boundaries? Are you saying Fairfax County Dept. of Planning and Development doesn't centrally control the zoning regulations to limit residential development in Great Falls by restricting units per acre according to some old master plan document? The citizens of Great Falls don't plan at Town Halls to vote against zoning changes?

Residential development in GF is restricted by size because the lots are on septic - which yes, residents have voted to keep, as is their right. Even the GF shopping center is on a septic field, which limits development there (thankfully). What about that do you not understand?

DP, but serious question - what laws allow GF residents to decide what the zoning is in their unincorporated part of Fairfax County, or whether they should remain on septic (which of course limits future development)?

I ask because it seems like the Board of Supervisors and the planning commission just decide on their own where development, affordable housing, etc. occurs elsewhere. I don't think they specifically obtain approval from those most affected in each instance.

All zoning changes, even for a single lot, must go through rounds of public hearing and the county supervisors take community feedback *VERY* seriously. Unless there is a legal requirement or some other overriding public good that significantly outweigh the demands of community members, the supervisors will generally bend to the will of the community.

So the key is defining a “community” whose wishes must be honored? I guess that explains why Great Falls residents promoted a group called “One Great Falls” a few years ago opposition to the county’s “One Fairfax” initiative. Great Falls is an unincorporated part of Fairfax County like Burke and Springfield, but it helps if you have enough money and can hold yourself out as if you’re a separate jurisdiction even when you aren’t.

What an odd way of viewing the world. You do know that we live in a liberal democracy that protects individual rights and the right to freely associate in our private lives, right? Fairfax County government respects the wishes and desires of every community, including Great Falls - to the extent that it can while considering the needs of the larger public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And that something will be the SB current clown car voted out next year. I am fine with diversity of all types - but not if it has to be socially engineered.

Social engineering - the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

So you're telling me the current status quo exists not due to social engineering? Are you saying "centralized planning" wasn't used by the School Board to define Langley's boundaries? Are you saying Fairfax County Dept. of Planning and Development doesn't centrally control the zoning regulations to limit residential development in Great Falls by restricting units per acre according to some old master plan document? The citizens of Great Falls don't plan at Town Halls to vote against zoning changes?

Residential development in GF is restricted by size because the lots are on septic - which yes, residents have voted to keep, as is their right. Even the GF shopping center is on a septic field, which limits development there (thankfully). What about that do you not understand?

DP, but serious question - what laws allow GF residents to decide what the zoning is in their unincorporated part of Fairfax County, or whether they should remain on septic (which of course limits future development)?

I ask because it seems like the Board of Supervisors and the planning commission just decide on their own where development, affordable housing, etc. occurs elsewhere. I don't think they specifically obtain approval from those most affected in each instance.

All zoning changes, even for a single lot, must go through rounds of public hearing and the county supervisors take community feedback *VERY* seriously. Unless there is a legal requirement or some other overriding public good that significantly outweigh the demands of community members, the supervisors will generally bend to the will of the community.

So the key is defining a “community” whose wishes must be honored? I guess that explains why Great Falls residents promoted a group called “One Great Falls” a few years ago opposition to the county’s “One Fairfax” initiative. Great Falls is an unincorporated part of Fairfax County like Burke and Springfield, but it helps if you have enough money and can hold yourself out as if you’re a separate jurisdiction even when you aren’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

The county would first need to approve GF for sewer service. Like about 1/4 of the county, GF currently is not approved. Then the county would need to install sewer pipes throughout GF. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Do you really think the county is going to appropriate funds to lay sewer pipes somewhere where most residents don’t want them (or are ambivalent)? That’s just throwing money down the drain. And here’s the kicker: Even if the county approved sewer and laid the pipes, the county cannot actually force anyone to connect to a sewer line.

Same goes with wells vs. public water (except that much of GF south of Georgetown Pike is on public water).

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a proposal to force Great Falls residents to abandon their wells and septic tanks?

I don’t live in great falls and I didn’t know and don’t care about their sewer system.

Why do you care?

We live in McLean. We looked at one house that was septic and passed. I don’t think it has anything to do with me if someone else’s house has a septic tank.

Does it bother you that this makes the lots harder to divide and make high density housing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And that something will be the SB current clown car voted out next year. I am fine with diversity of all types - but not if it has to be socially engineered.

Social engineering - the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

So you're telling me the current status quo exists not due to social engineering? Are you saying "centralized planning" wasn't used by the School Board to define Langley's boundaries? Are you saying Fairfax County Dept. of Planning and Development doesn't centrally control the zoning regulations to limit residential development in Great Falls by restricting units per acre according to some old master plan document? The citizens of Great Falls don't plan at Town Halls to vote against zoning changes?

Residential development in GF is restricted by size because the lots are on septic - which yes, residents have voted to keep, as is their right. Even the GF shopping center is on a septic field, which limits development there (thankfully). What about that do you not understand?

DP, but serious question - what laws allow GF residents to decide what the zoning is in their unincorporated part of Fairfax County, or whether they should remain on septic (which of course limits future development)?

I ask because it seems like the Board of Supervisors and the planning commission just decide on their own where development, affordable housing, etc. occurs elsewhere. I don't think they specifically obtain approval from those most affected in each instance.

All zoning changes, even for a single lot, must go through rounds of public hearing and the county supervisors take community feedback *VERY* seriously. Unless there is a legal requirement or some other overriding public good that significantly outweigh the demands of community members, the supervisors will generally bend to the will of the community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And that something will be the SB current clown car voted out next year. I am fine with diversity of all types - but not if it has to be socially engineered.

Social engineering - the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

So you're telling me the current status quo exists not due to social engineering? Are you saying "centralized planning" wasn't used by the School Board to define Langley's boundaries? Are you saying Fairfax County Dept. of Planning and Development doesn't centrally control the zoning regulations to limit residential development in Great Falls by restricting units per acre according to some old master plan document? The citizens of Great Falls don't plan at Town Halls to vote against zoning changes?

Residential development in GF is restricted by size because the lots are on septic - which yes, residents have voted to keep, as is their right. Even the GF shopping center is on a septic field, which limits development there (thankfully). What about that do you not understand?

DP, but serious question - what laws allow GF residents to decide what the zoning is in their unincorporated part of Fairfax County, or whether they should remain on septic (which of course limits future development)?

I ask because it seems like the Board of Supervisors and the planning commission just decide on their own where development, affordable housing, etc. occurs elsewhere. I don't think they specifically obtain approval from those most affected in each instance.