Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Fleet building is minimally compliant with ADA. But that's a pretty darn low bar to aim for. It's not a huge ask to have at least one street-level accessible parking space for parents to drop off and pick-up children. And how humiliating and unwelcoming for the children. It's worse because it's a brand new building where everyone should know better and do better.

The playground is illegal, apparently, and there is some action proceeding on that. It's not just the mulch. There is not one single piece of playground equipment that is accessible.

Also issues with no evacuation plan. The whole thing is a disaster.

And neither APS nor the Fleet leadership is dealing with it. Shame on all of them.

Question- I’m thinking of a lot of our older buildings and I’m struggling to think of any assessable playground on school grounds. Is Fleet one of the k-5 life skills centers? I am sure as a cost savings measure APS would like all kids with needs described on that Fleet FB post to be in a life skills program rather than at a school without that program. But parents can decline. I believe Discovery has one of the elementary life skills programs and I bet they use the front playground as proof of accessibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

That’s not an argument. It’s some odd form of status worship.

Huh? It’s a fact. I have no interest in joining any country club, but I work with and live near many members of WGCC. You think they wouldn’t put up a legal challenge?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

World famous...in their own minds.

Um, ok. Point being that in an eminent domain battle between Arlington county and WGCC, WGCC could put up a formidable legal fight.

But the whole idea of AC attempting to take that land is stupid anyway, so carry on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a late bus at asfs, you can only take it if you are frl and an ell who is at least a grade behind in both math and reading. At asfs at least, it’s not for enrichment, it’s for kids who need extra one on one tutoring. Money comes out of a principals discretionary fund.

Funded by the highly-resourced PTA. High fr/l schools don’t have a PTA-funded “Principal’s Discretionary Fund.” It’s admirable that ASFS is using their money in this way. However, unless APS is funding such for all schools that don’t have well-resourced PTAs, it’s problematic from an equity standpoint.

Principals have some discretion with use of some of their APS funds. It may be coming from that. PTAs should not be allowing discretionary funds for principals at all. They can set-aside some money for uses throughout the year; but should approve those uses on a case-by-case basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a late bus at asfs, you can only take it if you are frl and an ell who is at least a grade behind in both math and reading. At asfs at least, it’s not for enrichment, it’s for kids who need extra one on one tutoring. Money comes out of a principals discretionary fund.

Funded by the highly-resourced PTA. High fr/l schools don’t have a PTA-funded “Principal’s Discretionary Fund.” It’s admirable that ASFS is using their money in this way. However, unless APS is funding such for all schools that don’t have well-resourced PTAs, it’s problematic from an equity standpoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

World famous...in their own minds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

That’s not an argument. It’s some odd form of status worship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

World famous legal experts are members of WGCC. Any attempt to seize it through eminent domain would be a foolish waste of money.

Anonymous wrote:I think the Fleet building is minimally compliant with ADA. But that's a pretty darn low bar to aim for. It's not a huge ask to have at least one street-level accessible parking space for parents to drop off and pick-up children. And how humiliating and unwelcoming for the children. It's worse because it's a brand new building where everyone should know better and do better.

The playground is illegal, apparently, and there is some action proceeding on that. It's not just the mulch. There is not one single piece of playground equipment that is accessible.

Also issues with no evacuation plan. The whole thing is a disaster.

And neither APS nor the Fleet leadership is dealing with it. Shame on all of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t put it past the county board to seize middle income homeowners property to make room for affordable housing induced overcrowding.

Oh FFS, stop with the scaremongering. When was the last time the county used eminent domain to seize homes? Like, the 1940s? What evidence is there that any county board member has any interest in doing that now?

If anything is ever gettin' eminent domain-ed, it's the golf course.