Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am doubtful but hopeful. She is natively European though, so perhaps she grew up with different altruistic values compared to our homegrown school board. Different enough to actually call out the gerrymandering and economic segregation going on throughout FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am doubtful but hopeful. She is natively European though, so perhaps she grew up with different altruistic values compared to our homegrown school board. Different enough to actually call out the gerrymandering and economic segregation going on throughout FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am doubtful but hopeful. She is natively European though, so perhaps she grew up with different altruistic values compared to our homegrown school board. Different enough to actually call out the gerrymandering and economic segregation going on throughout FCPS.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. The county doesn’t need to waste money and tear up the environment running sewer lines to GF. It’s not equity for government to give well off people more infrastructure when they actively choose to handle it themselves.

It's not equity to let one community function as a semi-private fiefdom while the rest of the county is required to function as one entity.

DP. So you’re advocating FxCo pay millions (billions?) more than they currently do in order to bring sewer to GF, in the hopes that this would then trigger high-density housing there? Wow. Do you lay awake at night, seething in resentment about this? As the PP stated, this community has taken it upon themselves to handle their infrastructure (septic) on their own - thereby relieving FxCo of that burden. And you have the gall to refer to them as a “fiefdom”? Get a clue.

Wasn't it Great Falls residents who started a "One Great Falls" group to express their opposition to "One Fairfax"?

Maybe you're the one who needs to get a clue.

The county is not going to spend millions running sewer all up and through Great Falls because you are mad that a handful of mommies formed a group with a name you don’t like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. The county doesn’t need to waste money and tear up the environment running sewer lines to GF. It’s not equity for government to give well off people more infrastructure when they actively choose to handle it themselves.

It's not equity to let one community function as a semi-private fiefdom while the rest of the county is required to function as one entity.

DP. So you’re advocating FxCo pay millions (billions?) more than they currently do in order to bring sewer to GF, in the hopes that this would then trigger high-density housing there? Wow. Do you lay awake at night, seething in resentment about this? As the PP stated, this community has taken it upon themselves to handle their infrastructure (septic) on their own - thereby relieving FxCo of that burden. And you have the gall to refer to them as a “fiefdom”? Get a clue.

Wasn't it Great Falls residents who started a "One Great Falls" group to express their opposition to "One Fairfax"?

Maybe you're the one who needs to get a clue.

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:

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.

Nah. The county doesn’t need to waste money and tear up the environment running sewer lines to GF. It’s not equity for government to give well off people more infrastructure when they actively choose to handle it themselves.

It's not equity to let one community function as a semi-private fiefdom while the rest of the county is required to function as one entity.

DP. So you’re advocating FxCo pay millions (billions?) more than they currently do in order to bring sewer to GF, in the hopes that this would then trigger high-density housing there? Wow. Do you lay awake at night, seething in resentment about this? As the PP stated, this community has taken it upon themselves to handle their infrastructure (septic) on their own - thereby relieving FxCo of that burden. And you have the gall to refer to them as a “fiefdom”? Get a clue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. The county doesn’t need to waste money and tear up the environment running sewer lines to GF. It’s not equity for government to give well off people more infrastructure when they actively choose to handle it themselves.

It's not equity to let one community function as a semi-private fiefdom while the rest of the county is required to function as one entity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. The county doesn’t need to waste money and tear up the environment running sewer lines to GF. It’s not equity for government to give well off people more infrastructure when they actively choose to handle it themselves.