Planning Commission makes their vote to...

Jeanne and GCyr: (aside to GCyr, yes, good info) Your only option is to re-present this position to the BoS when it hits their table. More power to you in participation in the process, and a simple re-iteration of the same may not gain any better result than it did at the PC. A bundle of applications didn't fare well, and the same bundle may not either at the next level. Particularly since county planning is also at issue on healthcare in general.

AFGM: Does the Farm have a reciprocal use arrangement with Broadlands proprietary amenities? I'm just curious in light of your use of the inclusive "we" in statements about amenities lost. As to any negotiation with other development: Our HOA receives a multitude of presentations from people proposing projects near/adjoining our community. Many are simple common courtesy ("here's what we propose") some seek support, some even come in the early design stages and ask for input. There is no reason that anyone building in your community couldn't be worked with to the mutual advantage of both parties.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Barbara: Not directly.

I do sense, and have seen a great deal of cooperation amongst neighboring HOAs. My impression is none of us look at community issues in a vacuum. Reality is what effects our community effects all of us. Boundry lines between Associations don't effect an effort to share ideas, work together or debate.

There are several great examples of cooperation working for the betterment of the region. Examples include the Ashburn Library, Claiborne/W&OD overpass, and the bike path connector between Broadlands and Ashburn Farm. Another example is a current zoning application on a track of land between Broadlands and Ashburn Farm, near St. Theresa's. We are working together for what is best in that area.

The Ashburn Farm covenants administrator has been working with and sharing procedures and ideas with Ashburn Village and Broadlands. Our property managers talk regularly. We share ideas about trash service, landscapers, pool management, security and safety, etc.

Just a few examples of how well I think we are working together. Not sure if this answers your question, but it is my opinion "we" consider this as a community, not as a group of Associations or isolated communities. It 's a great model to follow and I continue to encourage this type of cooperation. Cliff may want to agree or disagree but that is my take on it.

 

Barbara, there is another option for this "good info". Get Steve Snow to read it!

 

I can neither confirm nor deny () that I have taken my children to Ashburn Farm's playground. (As my kids call it, the "windmill park".) They like the equipment and the pond.

So even if there is no formal reciprocal arrangement, we are so close together that there is bound to be some interaction between our two communities.

 

AFGM: What makes you think he hasn't read it? As in the larger debate currently raging on another thread, just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them ignorant, stupid, uninformed, etc etc etc

As to the question about reciprocal amenities, your use of "we" in relation to enhancements offered to the Broadlands HOA by HCA prompted it. Another reason I have curiosity about the topic is that some residents of several by-right communities in our region have approached our HOA about opening our dues-funded facilities to the region in general, on the grounds that we are kind of the big brother and it would be a nice thing to do. The general response in the community has been that the reason we chose to move here (with the understanding that we would be paying what is in effect a tax in the form of our mandatory fee) was because we understood the contract and the amenities it provided. Many feel that HOAs are the microgovernment wave of the future, and it certainly benefits the next level of government if the micros handle their own services (or those of others around them). Just curious, as I said.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

You are trying to put words in my mouth, I have never called Steve, "ignorant, stupid, or uniformed....".

To your question, I sure hope he has read it. I'd like to hear his response to our County's professional staff opinion. To date, the little we have heard from him, on this matter, leads me to believe he hasn't read it.

Nothing says he has to agree with it, but I certainly think he should respond or reference the specifics. The research, opinions, and experience reflected in this recommendation are significant to the debate. As a taxpayer, I would want to make sure the taxes invested in gathering this opinion are considered. If someone completely discounts the value of staff opinion, than suggest getting rid of them and save the tax money. Otherwise, use the opinion as a vehicle for discussion, at the least. And discussion seems to be something Steve doesn't want to engage in on this topic. This was evident from his "debate stiffling" tactic at the last public meeting. (Humm, similiar to what he did at Mt. Zion)

He absolutely has the right to come to a different decision than I may recommend, but I want to know it came by being informed, and looking at all sides of the issue, not just the view of a few.

Oh, interesting to see that South Riding is promoting isolationalists. I am most likely putting words in your mouth, and taking your comment to strongly, but if I lived next to "big brother", I might be a little resentful to the view.

Our HOA funded playgrounds, ponds, HOA owned and maintained bike paths, soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis programs, etc are opened to all our neighbors. We do limit pool memberships to members as we do not have capacity to accept outside memberships.

 

AFGM: Funny, it sounds like you're putting words in my mouth when you say I'm putting them in yours! To demand that Snow read it is to assume he is ignorant of the contents, is it not?

The County's professional staff can certainly make their recs, and those shouldn't be politically motivated. I wonder when it is going to hit the papers that Ms. Pastor is pretty much alone now, as Ms. Coyle has already resigned, left EO September, and has taken up the position of Zoning Admin in Round Hill, where her husband is mayor. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but the staff got whacked some months ago for that whole circular scare tactic where nobody could figure out where the fake figures came from, and I'm a little leery of the PEC party line that the poor "professional staff" should be followed to the letter. They pulled a doozy last month, where they were at the table at the meeting with an infill up for a vote, casting desperately about for a reason for denial, and came up with "If they annex into South Riding we'd approve." Since when did the "professional govt staff" have the ability to compel two private entities to enter into a contract before the staff would rule on whether or not their plans met existing regs?

Please give Mt. Zion a rest from the PEC position too: they're painting it as a constitutional right to assemble being attacked by a rightwing thug. But it is county property, and a 501(c)3 ain't supposed to politicize. So, insinuate whatever you like about Snow on that topic, but the facts won't support the insinuations.

Anyone around here can certainly come here too, because we aren't gated either, but the issue in question was in fact our pools. The feeling for some was that since the residents pay for them, residents should be the users. Neither did we wish to expand staff and raise our fees to administer opening them up as a user-fee/public facility.

To anyone (and AFGM): does the new separation of Broadlands and General Topics mean that people like AFGM and myself should stick to the General category? And if so, shouldn't threads like Planning Commission, Bond referenda, etc be in General?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

I, for one, requested the split because the real community issues were dropping off the forum screen for stuff like nails, potty training, fairy princess, etc. Not that those aren't important topics to the people who posted them. But somehow, they didn't raise to the same community issue or concern level as the hospital, traffic concerns, vandalism, etc.

 

Not to highjack the thread, but without another place to respond here goes:

Pools. For several years now we have had a very successful plan for the Association members use of our three pools. Association fees (quarterly assessments) are only used for capital requirements. i.e. pool house, pool, etc maintenance and upkeep. Thinking is everyone benefits (home resale value)from having pools as part of the Association. Actual operating costs are covered by members who use the pool. Each year we have a registration period. All those interested in using the pools for that year sign up and pay a usage fee. This usage fee covers guards, chemicals, water, etc.

We are close to capacity every year. We have had other HOAs, and individuals ask if they can purchase memberships, but we have had to deny that as we do not have the capacity.

We also rent the pool out. This is only available to association members.

 

I certainly agree it shouldn't be politically motivated. Nor should the PC recommendation be politically motivated. One can make similar accusations as made in your post, that the PC is acting politically and not based upon "facts".

 

AFGM: Yes, the PC may be acting politically. However, given that the PEC position on the facts is contradictory, it makes it very convenient to jump from one side of the argument to another in grandstanding. Take the petition against the CPAMs that the new "coalition" of PEC groups had at selected (targeted) polling places on election day. One position (stated by the petition-wrangler, a gent from Lovettsville who is concerned about how bad his commute TO DC has gotten) is that "the public should be given more voice" in the process. Well, the legitimate process allows public input at every PC mtg during review, and at the PC public hearing. When it goes to the BoS, same thing. The BoS can be talked to about it right now every two weeks. The next position (also stated when I said the preceding to the wrangler) is that "the opinion of the professional staff is being ignored". Well, if the professional (certainly not political) position of the professional staff is to not even accept any of the CPAMs for a review (except the high density ones in the areas targeted for vertical sprawl, or density packing), HOW does that "give the public more voice"? To deny even basic review is to give no one any voice. Except the uniform "NO!" people. And their position has certainly worked to date, hasn't it? Two mutually exclusive positions by the same "professionals" doesn't sound very professional to me.

The "accusation" got whacked in the Post on the fake figures, because the Post was part of the circle that was used to publically establish the figures. Remember? PEC states fake figures. Post prints them, crediting an unnamed source in the county staff. PEC, when asked, says they got their figures from Post article. County staff, when asked, states they have no clue where the figures came from and no they aren't true. Figures go away. Same thing on Mt. Zion: The PEC statement comes out with the Post article, and now we get to play chicken or egg while the sensationalist drama plays. And will continue to play in certain circles that are feeling devastated by the results of the election.

There is a big difference between a group reserving a public room for a meeting, and a 501(c)3 hosting a political rally for the press on county property for the press, and I'm sure you know that. Even the Leesburg today article on the Mt. Zion rally tied it to the Socas campaign event the following day at the govt center to protest the BoS--although Congress has NOTHING to do with local land use.

Let's get back to the petition: how come the signboard was all about the CPAMs, but the piece of paper to sign had nothing about the CPAMs on it? How come the folks soliciting signatures had either conflicting or incorrect information about the CPAMs and the public process? How come they solicited signatures by planting themselves in front of the exit and using simple push-poll statements like "Do you want more traffic?" "Are you concerned about schools?" "Do you want unlimited growth?" Some people actually signed their names with nothing more to go on than that, maybe because getting in an out of the polls is such a gantlet anymore that lots of people will take or sign anything just to get through. Again, with 1500 newbies each month, most of them aren't going to remember that the same thing was done in 2000 ("Do you like crowded schools?"), when immediately after the election the PEC/VSS presented a petition to the BoS that "8000 Loudoun voters strongly reaffirm smart growth!" In a few weeks, when this petition is presented, most of the people who signed it aren't going to recognize themselves as part of the "XXXX Loudoun voters overwhelmingly reject the policies of the current Board!"

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

I was amused by the attempt of the "PEC", if it was them, to get signatures at the polls. It was misleading, and I for one did not sign their petition. As I stated to them, "I've no idea what you're going to use these signatures for, nor do I know what your entire agenda is. I'll speak for myself, thank you very much". That pissed them off.

Anyway, my point is, they absolutely have a right to speak their mind. They absolutely have a right to use creative ways to rally their agenda and they are a valuable voice in the debate. If there is not open discussion, then good ideas get lost, and concensus is impossible. That is my beef with efforts to stiffle discussion.

If one is confident in their view point, then hearing alternatives should not be a threat. If one has an open mind, then the alternate may allow things to morf into a stronger position embraced by both. I think this is called compromise. In fact, I yearn for the old days, when opposing views worked together. Everything seems to get polarized these days. Slamming someone for meeting, regardless if it may seems a little out of line, is not a way to foster a positive environment for ideas to nurture each other.

 

AFGM: It was PEC. The day of the Mt. Zion rally a new web appeared hosted off the PEC site, for the group whose name was on the petition. The list of member groups had the PEC second on the list, and it rotated to the bottom after people started raising Cain about the rally. Three of the other groups are the same two people. This is a credentialing exercise, and I think with the gravity of the election, they made a decision that probably was based on pure expediency.

Of course they have a right to speak their mind, and of course that is not Snow's point. They can think whatever they want, and say whatever they want. If, however, they are doing it on county property through a 501(c)3 by exploiting a grey area for political purposes (which they have never used that site for before), then the objection is to the method and not the content.

Pardon me for needling you, but I find it kind of humorous that you would characterize the petition as "misleading" (I agree with you 100%) and say that they are not revealing their agenda (they can't, because it is misleading), yet refer to the shenanigans by the same incarnation of the same parent group as "creative ways to rally their agenda". Both ways?

I agree about the polarity, and I think a great deal of it would be alleviated without the partial truths and misleading agendae. But that's how you DO polarize people, if that is your agenda. Not yours personally--I am not referring to you in specific, but to the practice in general.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

I'm glad you two are enjoying yourselves!

Mind you, I'm not implying that you shouldn't be posting this stuff (remember that I have always vigorously defended the rights of non-Broadlands residents to post here), but I am just curious whether anyone INSIDE Broadlands is interested in this stuff. (Replies in the negative not required.)

Personally, I could print out this thread for an instant insomnia cure...

 

Last word, as stated before, I don't see the big deal in letting them meet and speak their mind. I personnally don't have a lot of heartburn over their use of Mt. Zion. So what if it was political. Taxpayer funded and owned facilities are used for "political" stuff all the time. Visit the Govt building and you can't miss seeing it. PEC et al pay taxes like everyone else. It's not like they barracaded the place, and took hostages.

It takes a strong leader with confidence to be able to sincerely listen to alternate ideas, even if they do stretch one's view. If you don't do that you end up polarizing. That's what I am opining for, open discussion, open minds.

Partial truths and misleading agendas tend to be in the eye of the beholder. I'd venture a guess PEC et al, think Snow is using partial truths and misleading agendas.

And so we get stuck. Polarization. No blended solution. No consensus.

 

Now that is funny!! What makes you think Barbara and I aren't using it as insonmia medicine. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

How did we get off topic again?

The last few postings are from two non-Broadlands residents discussing views that don't belong here. Can we stay on-topic and move your personal discussions to the Internet?

 

Aren't you glad we don't have opinions on potty trainingSuggestion accepted, back to the regular scheduled programming.

 

Sorry GCyr. The thread is on the Planning Commission, and had incorporated staff aspects so I did get carried away. Point of clarification: since the categories have been separated into community only (where AFGM and I should certainly not be duking it out, and you're right. Thanks for the affirmation, Pats fan) and general, I think at your request?, is there some reason a discussion of Planning Commission/county staff activity in re a hospital/hospital planning is only pertinent to Broadlands? Potty training is indeed universal to the species and a common ground with all parents, but I'd hate to think that the somewhat bizarre inclusion of that topic with national politics is any sort of comment.

AFGM: I will be writing you about a point you raised on pool policy in your community that I'd be interested in learning more about, at which time I'll tell you the particulars of the situation we encountered here. Thanks.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

maybe we should have a "Barbara/AFGM" thread