1. My concern is that we give away all the green space in that area. Once it is developed, we can never get it back. I would prefer to have one of the alternative plans (~$70 million) and keep the green space for future FALLS CHURCH CITY needs instead of giving it to developers. Benefits:

    1. Less Costs
    2. More Green Space
    3. Less Congestion

    Why aren’t we getting all the details for other options? Right now, I have to vote NO so maybe they will address less costly options.

  2. You are not going to learn all of the details because they don’t want us to know all of the details. They are going to spin this in a way where the $120 million borrowing is the only one way to go. Don’t believe it.

    Push and push these candidates for office in November to provide completed details on both revenue and costs and other options. They want to saddle taxpayers with the borrowing and a message that says trust us on the revenue side, it will come in the future.

    Part of the solution is to to elect some new members to elected office in November who commit to providing a complete picture and unless a whole lot of more information is forthcoming to vote down a $120 million referendum because you won’t have enough information to make an informed decision on such a huge borrowing.

    Finally, don’t believe for a minute the spin you are going to hear read in the Falls Church News Press because they are partnering with those who refuse to provide all of the information that taxpayers are entitled to receive.

  3. Hi Dale,

    From what I gather the following City Council Candidates are FOR the $120 Milllion school:

    1. Marybeth Connelly
    2. Ross Litkenhous
    3. David Snyder

    I believe Daniel Sze is against it

    Unknowns to date:
    1. Daniel Maller
    2. Spencer Parsons

    The city needs to discuss the other solutions so we are informed. I don’t know how to get them to have an honest discussion on all the options because they appear to not want to talk about it.

  4. Ms. Connelly is little more than a community school organizer, who works for the school superintendent’s office. She is not much more than an advocate for a bright, shiny, new $120 million high school (and don’t think for a minute that it is not going to cost a lot more than $120 million. You think she is going to take a tough stand when she is an employee of the school superintendent who she works for. I don’t think so. She cares a lot less about affordability and those who are are no fixed or stagnant incomes. She would probably favor a $200 million bond referendum. She favors more and more taxes. In my opinion, she needs to not be reelected.

    As for Mr. Snyder, he has been an elected official for years and years and has participated in creating the current financial dilemma. Need I say more. He, too, should not be re-elected unless you want more of the same.

    I was hoping Mr. Litkenhous would bring some strength and a new voice. I guess not.

    But I will be voting for Mr. Sze since he is talking more rationally. Not sure about the others. No incumbent seeking election for the school board should be re-elected given the Mount Daniel fiasco which they have never apologized to the community for and which has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in wasted money while they performed little or no oversight over a mis-managed project.

  5. Do you know which School Board candidates support the $120 million school plus 20-25% overruns? I have read their reasoning as to how the financing scheme is great (it is not) and so I don’t think they are logical in their thinking.

    The following have said Yes:
    1. Richard Crespin
    2. Shawna Russell
    3. Lawrence Webb

    Not specified:
    1. Gregory Anderson
    2. Sahnnon Litton
    3. Alison Kutchma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *