http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2011/05/23/fairfax/news/fe80f2.txt
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of Sun Gazette Newspapers. Total Comments: 3 comment(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hill wrote on May 26, 2011 7:17 PM:
" Ms. Bradsher, You have no credibility and not too many people care what you think anymore. November can't get here fast enough. When you want to criticize for not having facts straight, you should try to do the same. Here are just a few areas you missed.
1. You led the argument that Clifton was too costly at a sum of $11M to renovate for the low head count of 366 students. However, Garfield Elementary apparently isn't too costly. They have a head count of 332 students and are getting a total sum of $14,158,193. Unless my math skills are sub par, that looks to be a bit more costly for a smaller school.
2. Are you really going to try to say the the $13,686,696 that is going to the 3 schools the Clifton kids are being re-located to has nothing to do with the closing of CES? Good luck selling that one.
3. CES radio active well water. Oops, you missed on that one as well.
Strike 3, your out. I will give you credit for at least using your real name on your post.
Another fact, for future reference, if you ever find yourself testifying in court again and are asked that tricky question "How many school board members are there", the answer is 12. It is truly sad you did not know the answer the last time you found yourself in that position. "
Grossed Out Granny wrote on May 26, 2011 5:59 PM:
" Lizzie Lizzie Lizzie:
Is THIS the truth?
"Supervisor Herrity's comments about schools requiring renovations due to the admittance of Clfton students is incorrect. The system is not renovating any schools due to changes in the Clifton boundary. Only one school will be receiving a brick and motor addition in his district and this is due to a boundary changes for students other than those living in Clifton. Another school will be receiving minor interior modifications over the summer."
OR is THIS the truth?
Since Clifton is not near the areas of overcrowding, the capacity at Clifton cannot contribute to solving the issue. Additionally, the schools adjacent to Clifton ES have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional students from the school.
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf
OR is THIS the truth?
"Clifton Elementary School has 366 students and all students can be moved to successful nearby schools without the necessity of additions or renovations." Bradsher
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/story.php?id=2343
OR is THIS the truth?
"There will not be construction loans to fund the proposed additions."
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf
OR is THIS the truth?
http://bit.ly/imxEM5
Walking - you - away - is what will benefit all of us. The two way street you need to travel on is away from public service. Forever. "
Elizabeth Bradsher wrote on May 18, 2011 11:53 AM:
" As the School Board member for the Springfield District I remain very pleased the Supervisors approved the 2011 Bond Referendum for our county's schools. However Supervisor Herrity's comments about schools requiring renovations due to the admittance of Clfton students is incorrect. The system is not renovating any schools due to changes in the Clifton boundary. Only one school will be receiving a brick and motor addition in his district and this is due to a boundary changes for students other than those living in Clifton. Another school will be receiving minor interior modifications over the summer. I would argue that "Transparency is a two way street" and it starts with getting the facts correct for the public.
Per Supervisor McKay's comments, I agree we do need more walkers. The system as well as our county needs to address the need for walking paths to our schools. It will benefit all of us. "