Friday, November 20, 2009
Ashburn, VA
52 ºF Low
Last update: 11/20/09 8:20 PM EST

Editorial: Delayed Harvest for Wheatlands Schools

Rate this:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
 

It’s a lucky movement that unites both the need for western “viewsheds” and the belief that the schools need to exercise better financial discipline

The School Board contract for Wheatlands appears to be “dead on arrival,” due to opposition from local residents and several members of the Board of Supervisors. The plan had been to construct three schools (1 elementary, 1 middle and 1 high school) in western Loudoun’s Wheatlands along Route 287.

This is at least partially the School Board’s own fault. Staff members with the schools and the county both represented that the price of the land was reasonable. This hardly seems the case when the seller immediately lowered the sales price after the contract met with opposition. Whatever negotiations strategy is being utilized for land purchase needs to be reviewed in the most desperate way possible.

Whatever the truth of the matter is, it strengthens the perception that the schools have an intrinsic problem managing money. This new development will certainly rally those opposed to the relatively reasonable capital construction goals needed to fight school overcrowding and those against public schools in general.

Price notwithstanding, the failure of the Wheatlands project will be troubling. The opposition to the school complex is basically twofold: some opponents are opposed to any large development in the area, because of the increased traffic and decreased rural farm land—and other opponents believe that the project was two big and that new schools should be small and “community based.”

Both positions are taking money out of your pocket.

Everyone likes the idea of small, community-based schools with small class sizes. However, small class sizes cost money and three small schools cost more than one large one. Every parent wants their child in a 13-person class. However, there is a reckoning on its way when the parents of children in overcrowded schools at a maximum class size realize that they are paying the same tax rate as parents whose children are in “community-based” schools with class sizes of over one-third less.

And then there are the scenic views. Without being opposed to attractive scenery, it should be noted that no one owns a view of their neighbor’s property unless they have an easement preventing development. In years to come, the decision to oppose the schools may come back to haunt the residents of Wheatlands as the alternative to schools on the property is residential development—something equally likely to increase traffic, but without the guaranteed benefit to the community that a modern school would provide.

In the interest of amity, perhaps we should refrain from asking why a single complex of three schools is more of a danger to the scenery than multiple smaller schools. From a monetary standpoint, having three schools contiguous to each other makes sense as economies of scale allow for financial savings when services are split between them.

This appears to be Loudoun’s recurring conflict for our time. There will always be those in the west who oppose any construction or development, citing traffic, history, scenery and rural tradition. The truth in this is the sheer number of opponents to the school plan who immediately made the connection between the construction of a school and western Loudoun turning into downtown Fairfax. It appears that hyperbole is fair game on both sides.

If it were only a problem for western Loudoun, we could shake our heads and leave them to their own devices, but we are one county. So long as western Loudoun fights any sort of commercial development, then the commercial tax base of the country will be left completely to eastern Loudoun—who will be forced to recruit more new businesses into a confined space so that we can continue to pay for services (and the breathtaking views) in the western end of the county. 

 

Comments

haigek (not verified)

This is not an east/west conflict. This is about whether Wheatlands is truly a reasonable place for the proposed new schools for western Loudoun, and about the need for public participation in school sizing and school siting decisions. These concerns apply equally in the east as well as the west. Do not fall for "divide and conquer" and other strategies built on fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

emp (not verified)

There is ample proof that the rural economy generates the tax dollars needed to service the residents of the western part of the county. The goal of our Comprehensive Plan and of the Economic Development office at the county has been to foster the rural economy by encouraging agricultural business growth. A thriving wine industry is very evident - bringing in tourist dollars from all over the DC area. There are more horse operations, vegetable farms and specialty animal farms than ever. This is the rural economy that needs to be considered when siting public facilities. I submit that having schools built near towns makes good economic sense for towns also. Lovettsville desperately needs more businesses and customers. To build these three schools 4.5 miles south of town is to miss the opportunity for LCPS and the town of Lovettsville to actually work together on common goals - well educated kids, engaged parents, thriving businesses and a protected green infrastructure for ALL loudouns residents to enjoy.
When is comes to protecting the viewshed, the water table, the streams and night skies the 35 houses slated to be built here someday will be far less impactful than the 4300 member town of Wheatland School Complex.

New School Board Needed (not verified)

There is lots of research that refutes the writer's claim that large schools are cheaper. There are many costs which are not considered. Larger populations: reduce pedestrian options thus increasing the long term transportation costs; increase the cost of road improvements to address the additional car trips; intensify the wear and tear on the buildings; increase gang activity, violence and overall discipline problems and absenteeism; lower graduation rates; reduce opportunities for participation in sports, band, and other competitive activities, etc... The average county-wide Loudoun high school is 1500 why not keep it where the County has been successful? While it may not be as big as some in Fairfax, 1500 is considered a large population by nationwide standards.

Moreover, this isn't about where not to put these schools, it is where they SHOULD be placed - that is near to the highest population density and where commercial economic development is most likely to see the benefits of a nearby school thus increasing the tax base and where existing infrastructure can be upgraded instead of built from scratch. Lovettsville has a water/sewer infrastructure and an existing pattern of paved roads that meet in the Town. County planners worked hard to develop the Revised General Plan, yet LCPS and its School Board can't be bothered to evaluate sites near the Town. If they can't do it right, we need a new crop who can.

Pamela (not verified)

Firstly, let me commend the Loudoun Independent for staying late at the School Board meeting last night and promptly filing an excellent piece on both the public input session and the outcome of the Board's vote. This, on top of the equally good summary of the Wheatland schools issue filed the day before, is the kind of thoughtful reporting we need so badly in Loudoun.

I wish I could commend today's Editorial in the Independent as strongly. I believe your editor has mis-characterized the opposition to the Wheatland schools complex and trivialized citizens' concerns by describing them as being about "viewsheds" and protecting "rural scenery." The writer did not use the term "NIMBY," for "Not In My Back Yard" but the clear implication is that that is the basis for opposition.

In fact, there are a number of factors prompting the unusually strong citizen opposition to this 4000-student mega-complex. Let me highlight three.

For immediate neighbors, it is not about rural scenery but rather about survival of a thriving rural economy, consisting of a half-dozen profitable working farms (over 400 acres in all) that produce vegetables, berries, flowers, herbs, livestock and orchard fruits for farm markets, restaurants and weekly deliveries to Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) clients throughout the county and beyond. These farms depend on groundwater supplies via wells and septic systems for their crops and animals. If built, the adjacent schools will draw between 75,000 and 100,000 gallons of groundwater per day through large wells, and dispose of an equivalent amount through septic systems. To our knowledge, there has never before been such a large school complex built relying on well and septic systems. One reason Wheatland opponents favor sites closer to towns, like Lovettsville, is that public water and sewer are available there.

For people throughout the area who commute daily through routes 287 and 9, traffic is an overwhelming concern. The three schools would require 85 buses twice each day, as well as an unknown number of cars, to deliver and pick up students and staff. Middle and high school buses would have to cross route 287 on currently unpaved John Wolford Road, necessitating a new stoplight in addition to the one nearby at the intersection of 9 and 287 that already backs up traffic every day. For commuters just passing by, the entire area would be gridlock. No child would be able to walk to these schools.

For citizens concerned about historic values, a major concern is the destruction of an early 19th-century farm that includes an 1820 Federal-style brick home in perfect condition that has been recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Although there has been talk of finding a way to move the house to another site, that possibility is remote and demolition to accommodate the elementary school is highly likely if the project goes forward. Also to be lost are two barns and several other outbuildings, not to mention a lovely pastoral setting (including a long lane of cherry trees that have just finished blooming along the driveway).

True, there could be some economies of scale in co-location of three schools, but against those we need to weigh the tremendous impact a proposal of this scale would have at this location, and the real questions that remain about where, when and how big future schools need to be in western Loudoun. What we are asking for is serious study of those issues, with ample public input, to arrive at proposals that are truly designed to meet actual needs, not vague projections of population growth based on clearly outdated data, especially in light of recent economic trends. And we do believe that taxpayers' money would be better spent at this time expanding or building schools where students already live, not where they might live sometime in the future.

Woodgrove Grown (not verified)

The west wants schools. The west accepts growth. We just want a logical progression of where the schools are placed and where the growth is encouraged. HCA was killed because it wasn't consistent with the surrounding landuse, this is even less so. The school board has a clear agenda they are advancing. They knock on Mr. Grubb's door while spitting on Mr. Miller and now don't even bother to call Mr. Engle. Their preferential methods are transparent. Here's a prediction, LCPS will continue to wait until things get so desperate in Ashburn that when they threaten night school whatever lame solution they offer - like a commute to Wheatland - will sound like such a great deal you'll be signing up with a smile on your face!

Barbara Munsey (not verified)

Mrs. Balwin, you are incorrectly stating the water usage.

The state health department requires testing at 67,000 galllons for the facilities proposed, but actual usage documented as Loudoun County public schools is approximately one third of that amount.

In addition, emp, what is documented is that as of 2007, over three billion in assessed value was deferred in the rural policy area. Much of the supposed rural economy is untaxed--it is a personal economy in many cases, and not an economic driver for the county.

As recently as 2005, it was documented that the most expensive per capita school in the county, in the rural policy area, cost four times as much per seat as the least expensive per capita, in the suburban policy area.

If Catoctin County were a viable economic concept, it would have been created several years ago. There simply isn't the tax base present under the current structure of deferral and tax-supported advertising to support the level of service present there now.

Mrs. Waters was honest today in forthrightly stating that she'd like to see the Board of Supervisors take control of some of the school board's duties.

The process will thereby become much more political, but at least protest will be able to be more efficient!

Eric the 1/2 troll (not verified)

"As recently as 2005, it was documented that the most expensive per capita school in the county, in the rural policy area, cost four times as much per seat as the least expensive per capita, in the suburban policy area"

Not true - it cost more PER STUDENT not PER SEAT. A HUGE distinction (but one that does not add to Barb's east vs. west divisive rhetoric so she ignores it).

Barbara Munsey (not verified)

Eric I'm so glad to see you admit that it DOES cost more per student per seat. To my knowledge, you've never said that before.

Add in the tax deferral structure, and many of those who use those very expensive seats are paying in far less than they consume in service, particularly compared to the taxes paid by those served in more affordable and more crowded seats.

No mention of the huge distinction between state health department mandated TESTING levels and actual recorded water use at existing schools?

hmmm.

Anonymous (not verified)

"Eric I'm so glad to see you admit that it DOES cost more per student per seat"

No, Barb, I said it costs more per STUDENT NOT more per seat - as you contend. The per seat cost is less in smaller loudoun elementary schools than the larger schools (east OR west). The phenomenom you are referring to is one where the schools are kept 1/2 full or worse due to the LCPS administration and SB drawn attendance boundaries. Certainly you are not advocating tearing down perfectly usable classroom space (fully paid for) to build new larger facilities when a boundary adjustment will do the trick.

Of course none of this helps you build the all important east vs. west divide you so carefully cultivate does it? Feel free to continue driving your wedge.

Anonymous (not verified)

Ms Munsey, it's curious now that your paid position assisting developer shill Steve Snow has vaporized, why you continue to beat the drum for more development in Loudoun County. Thanks to the efforts of you, Snow and other unlimited development hounds we now have endless gridlock and a sea of orange traffic cones on Rts 50 and 7, countless half-leased strip malls on 606 and 50 and our tax-dollars are being used to pay for road infrastructure promised by Toll Brothers and skipped out on. (see Frank Wolf's latest communique) Oh, but I'm forgetting we ARE reaping the benefits of all those new business and services. Countless nail salons, work-out centers and asian take-out. Your views don't represent the taxpayers/residents of Eastern or Western Loudoun.

Barbara Munsey (not verified)

Eric, are you suggesting that dividing the cost of a school that costs close to $20K per pupil by 120 students instead of 100 will bring the cost down to 6 or 7K?

The smaller schools are more expensive any way you cut it, in having to provide federally and state mandated service, as well as attempt parity of local service, to many fewer children at a time.

Anonymous, the number of homes approved by the 03 BoS and actually built numbered less than 1000 when they left office, AFTER the crash had begun.

The gridlock is produced by those seeking affordability or emptiness who moved far from their jobs, often to large lot by right homes which provide no contribution to infrastructure, then lobby against roads and schools.

Most of the roads in Loudoun were built through proffered development.

My opinion is only my own, angry anonymous.

Since you are speaking for everyone else, maybe you should sign your name.

(Eric, for an example of division, see anonymous' angry generalizations. But that's different, right? lol)

Anonymous (not verified)

Actually, the smart growth board of 1999-2003 approved more housing than any BOS in Loudoun County history. By a very wide margin.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Loading...
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated.