What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?

Fairfax County Park Authority begins Master Plan process for 68-acre park, which may or may not have an indoor rec center in its future.

Reston is changing. How, if at all, should Baron Cameron Park change along with it?

That was the question posed to the community Tuesday night at a Fairfax County Park Authority meeting on the master planning of the park.

Baron Cameron Park has been a subject of discussion recently as Reston Community Center is looking into the feasibility and the need for an indoor recreation center (featuring a new year-round pool) to possibly be built at the park.

Emotions ran high on Monday as RCCfrom consultants - and residents who are mostly opposed to the facility for a variety of reasons. Consulting firm Brailsford & Dunlavey said it will have its complete report, including operating costs and revenue outlook, on June 3.

FCPA Chair Bill Bouie said Tuesday that the Baron Cameron planning process is a separate one from the RCC process.

Baron Cameron has been a park since the early 1970s, when the population of Reston was about half of what it is now. Until 2011 the land was held by the school system. Now that the park owns the land, it needs to determine what improvements to make, especially since Reston is expecting, over the next two decades, a big population increase to come after the arrival of Metro later this year.

Bouie emphasized that Baron Cameron is a District park, not a Reston park.

"A district park serves those in communities of Reston, Herndon, Vienna, Great Falls and surrounding areas," he said. "All of those folks use the park and we will be soliciting their input. Now that we own the land, we must consider future investments to transform it so it better serves Reston and surrounding communities."

The master plan process will likely take more than a year, FCPA said.

Here is what is at the park now:

68 acres of land (46 percent developed). The land includes 35 percent forested area.

Nine rectangular fields (average use: 1,000 hours annually); one lighted diamond field (average use: 1,600 hours annually); picnic area; playground; dog run; 32 community garden plots; and 430 parking spaces (some used for park and ride).

Some of what the park authority will look at in the process:

Issues raised by public; increasing field capacities; enhancements and or improvements to non field park facilities; increasing or improving service delivery to meet community needs in Reston.

Park officials said it will be examining environmental, traffic and noise impacts as well.  Some 35,000 cars travel down Baron Cameron Avenue (and 16,000 on cross street Wiehle) daily, the FCPA said.

Here are some of the main points made by the crowd at Buzz Aldrin Elementary on Tuesday:

* Is it a conflict of interest that Bouie is involved in the master planning of Baron Cameron and the RCC proposal for a new indoor pool? Bouie is the chair of the FCPA and on the RCC Board of Governors.

"My job is to make sure on the RCC side we have two strategic initiatives – the need for recreation center and a performing arts center," said Bouie. "We have a number of Park Authority needs - all of our current funded projects through 2021. I have nothing to hide.  I am trying to do what is best for this community. Nothing has been decided. These are two parallel processes."

* Many residents said it is unfair for residents of Small Tax District 5, which supports RCC, to have to pay for a regional facility. 

"This plan calls for Small Tax District 5 to pay for capital costs of new complex," said Belcastle Cluster resident Steven Kanner, who has spoken at several meetings. "Fairfax County and the park authority have no money, but county is financing additions at [county rec centers] Oak Marr and Spring Hill but we have to pay."

* Don't let history repeat itself. In 2009, RC and Reston Association looked into a plan to build a $100-million indoor pool and tennis facility at Brown's Chapel Park, an RA park that adjoins Baron Cameron.

That proposal was met with huge dissension and never moved forward.

"If you look and listen we just did this four years ago," said a Newport Shores resident. "Pay attention – it came out very solidly against. A facility is wrong. Improve what we have there. I think you will make 85 percent of the people happy."

* Don't mess with the dog park. Many residents spoke of happy times at the off-leash area, and a regional dog park advocate spoke of the benefits of such play areas for canines.

"Baron Cameron is the only place my dog can run free, sniff butts, meet other dogs and watch a soccer game," said one resident.

* Keep open space open. Many residents suggested finding an alternative site to build such a facility.

"This shouldn't disrupt current value and civic uses," said Reston 2020's Terry Maynard. "A recreational facility ought to be where the people are."

Maynard suggested looking into building on park authority land near Reston Town Center or in the southwest corner of Lake Fairfax Park. 

He pointed out that 22 ½ percent of Reston is open space.

"The point of open space is deeply inside our beliefs," he said. "It is part of our vision as defined by [founder] Robert E. Simon. It is something we need to continue to share."

* Simon was at the meeting, and he encouraged people to "open their minds" to the possibility of better parks.

"Reston now has something like 60,000 people," he said. "We are scheduled to have about 100,000 people. We will need more facilities."

Simon, as he has in the past, says Reston needs a 50-meter indoor pool and also needs indoor tennis. He encouraged RA to borrow money and pay for a tennis facility.

He said even building these things will still keep plenty of open space.

"I have read and heard alarmists suggests this would drive the dog park out would destroy all the ball fields," Simon said. "This facility would take about 5-6 acres. There is no reason why people should feel their park is being destroyed." 




RCC Considering New Facility

RCC Sizing Up Pool Competition

What Will Happen to Baron Cameron Dog Park?

Indoor Tennis Not Likely at New RCC Facility


Save the Date: Park Master Planning Meeting

Citizens Speak Out on RCC Proposal


What improvements do you think should happen at Baron Cameron Park? Tell us in the comments.


Reston 4 life May 10, 2013 at 07:17 PM
Yea Jim. And you know what they say about ignorance.
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Because our Reston governance Boards have never protected our interests there. We have had limited use of the fields, we appealed to the county and to our Reston governance boards for support in securing fields and facilities (like Aldrin for basketball) near our homes for neighborhood teams and in my 11 years here and several kids in Reston sports, we have never been given preference to fields near our home, despite the fact that rearranging use would surely save traffic. Further, I have no faith that anyone will address traffic issues. After a horrific accident here on Wiehle several years ago, the community begged the Reston governance boards and the county to examine the speed limit, and all pleas were ignored. A girl lost her legs, and they turned a blind eye. Do you really think they will do something now when there has been no such tragedy?? Further, we asked the county schools to move our bus stops off Wiehle - we didn't want our kids out on this busy thoroughfare waiting for the bus. All requests were denied. The county knows the traffic is bad. They bus our kids (who are closer than a mile) because they don't want to assume the risk of children crossing Wiehle. Multiple pleas to reduce the speed, help reconfigure the traffic during major soccer tournaments so our street isn't so blocked that a firetruck cannot get by all were met by stone cold silence. I have no faith the traffic will ever be addressed. We have no voice. Don't kid yourself.
gj May 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Hmmmm, fill in more swimming pools? Really? And how does that make sense?
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 12:32 AM
P.S. I wish I had a voice with what happens there. I would say "DON'T BUILD IT" And here's a 1962 quote from Jane Jacobs, great American urban planner: "So many problems need never have arisen. If only well-meaning officials in departments of the city government or in freewheeling authorities knew intimately, and care about, the streets or districts which their schemes so vitally affect -- or if they knew in the least what the citizens of that place consider of value in their lives, and why. So many of the conflicts would never occur if planners and other supposed experts understood in the least how cities work and respected those workings. Still other issues, it appears, involve forms of favoritism, deals or arbitrary adminsitrative acts which outrage votes but for which they can find no effective place to...seek repair. In many cases...the hunderds of people [who spend their time and money attending community meetings] are being hoaxed; it has all been decided before they are heard." Exactly. It has all been decided before they are heard.
RestonResident May 11, 2013 at 12:58 AM
I wish I could understand what all the fear is about. I live just down the road from this park and every weekend it is packed with cars of soccer families. Not once have I ever thought...geee...there is a lot of traffic on the road because of those soccer fields. The fact that hundreds of families come to play soccer has absolutely no impact in my ability to drive around, exercise, play with my kids, etc. Why do people think that a community center will suddenly turn this area into gridlock? If someone wanted to put a metro station there, I would agree with the concern, but a community center is barely going to have any impact. The dog park is not going anywhere and if we lose a soccer field or two, then hopefully the Great Falls Soccer League will go play in their own neighborhood. There is plenty of land and a nice facility will save people from North Reston having to drive to South Reston. This should actually alleviate traffic (and address the ridiculous pollution concern from earlier). It would be nice if one small area didn't have to pay for the entire facility, but frankly, I constantly hear complaints about how the state tax from Northern Virginians pay for public works in the rest of Virginia. Now we have a situation where we pay for something that is going to be a nice benefit for us and everyone is still complaining.
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 01:40 AM
The RCC committed SD#5 funds for SLHS soccer fields, and has said that one of the reasons why they want to build this pool is to provide swimming for SLHS swim team. So SD#5 taxes pays for more than just the RCC. Many feel that FCPS, not SD#5, should pay for these improvements, especially if they are on school property. Many feel that if the Board allocates $50K for fields to SLHS, they should provide an equal contribution to Herndon High School, where North Reston kids attend (that did not happen). Bottom line is that the SD#5 funds way more than the RCC. Those funds have become discretionary funding for the Board, similar to earmarks, and many do not like that. They are intended to improve community-owned facilities, and many of those facilities have not been maintained - many swimmers spoke about the poor condition of the pool. Why are we giving $50K to SLHS, which serves half the community, instead of to the RCC ventilation system, which serves the whole community? Bottom line is that these funds have funded way more than the RCC (including some school projects) - look at their minutes.
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 03:44 AM
I think it's the combination of traffic and speed - folks coming flying over the hill right before the park...ask the neighbors here how many times they have been honked out as they are pulling out of the neighborhood or how many times they hear horns from folks pulling out...my elderly neighbors spoke at the last meeting, saying how difficult it is to pull out for them...and right now on Save Baron Cameron Facebook Page, someone just posted: Two teens were ticketed for speeding on Wiehle this afternoon. Caught within 20 mins of each other. The speed limit is 40mph. One was going 70!! The officer told me that he caught [another] going 65mph. Houston...there's a problem. Vienna solved it by making their residential areas 25mph. Falls Church added speed bumps by parks. People need to slow the heck down. We live here. Our kids wait for their buses there. Police are getting it...last week, they parked right behind our houses here during rush hour last week, stopped several for speeding, apparently got three more today. We have new drivers and elderly drivers, and runners, and kids on bikes and even "bike to school" coming up...right along side this road where folks are going 65-70mph...surely the police presence should provide some legitimacy to the claim that speeding is a problem along this strip? The county should not just throw another facility up here without addressing traffic flow and speed.
Jim Hubbard May 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM
User fees for RCC? A relevant question new facility or not. It would seem obvious that folks who don't pay STD 5 taxes should pay the full cost of whatever services they use. Current RCC practice, instead, generously subsidizes non STD 5 residents. (If user fees average 14 percent of costs, non residents should pay 7 times what residents pay: a $2 fee for residents, a $14 fee for non-residents.) Setting fees for residents requires determining how much non-users subsidize users. One can safely assume that only a small percentage of residents use recreational facilities like the RCC pool. The County's practice is that users pay 40 percent of the actual cost; RCC practice is to collect only about 14 percent. The County's approach seems more reasonable, but there's plenty of room for debate. Where the RCC board has really fallen down is their failure either to have clear coherent policies about fees or to articulate them clearly to the whole community. Instead they have simply left the same fees in place for years and left the community in the dark as to why and how they set fees.
Tom G. May 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM
gj, no, not really. Obviously, that is not what I said. Please read what I said and pay attention rather than manufacturing opportunities to make glib posts. It's besides the point, but filling in pools does make sense, as with Southgate, where those pools aren't being used. But we're talking well-used indoor pools here. My point above is that the desire, I hesitate to call it a need, already exists for more recreational opportunities of various types, and it will continue to grow as the population grows. By limiting ourselves to existing recreational space we can only satisfy one desire by taking away recreational opportunities from another constituency that also experiences a shortage. With recreational spaces pretty much at capacity, we need to consider acquiring additional space for additional recreational amenities. Or, perhaps we can replace the current community center with one that better serves its patrons rather than just complaining about its inadequacies and wanting a whole new one at the expense of outdoor athletic fields.
Reston 4 life May 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Valid point Jim. User fees should be a consideration. So, if the center is built by Reston, it would be logical that restonians should have an advantage on usage fees. Fairfax county residents, who would be allowed to use the facility, should pay full market value (as reflected by usage fees at county rec centers being charged on a frequently updated schedule. which is how FCPA addresses periodic increases) Anyone way outside the county, should pay a substantial fee to use the facility. Now, if FCPA, or a commercial enterprise, builds the center, I assure you there would be no consideration for restonians to receive any price advantage. None. It simply doesn't happen at any FCPA facility. Case in point Lake Fairfax Park Water Mine facility. If memory serves, that was built as a private venture partnership with FCPA. I might be wrong, but pretty sure I'm not. Last time I looked, there was no discount for Reston residents to enter. Take the lead on securing a Reston presence at BCP. It can only help us later down the road as Reston grows. We could always sell it back to FCPA if it becomes too much financial burden. I doubt they would tear it down once built (I KNOW SOMEONE IS GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT LAST STATEMENT :-)
Jim Hubbard May 11, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Most of us come out way ahead financially if FCPA builds and operates a recreational facility and charges the kind of fees they currently do. FCPA could build a facility with little or no increase in county taxes. And if county taxes had to increase to accommodate a new facility, the increase would be spread out over the whole county not just Reston. RCC would have to float another bond to finance a new center. STD 5 taxes would, therefore, increase to pay the debt service and the entire increase would be borne by Reston residents. Moreover, since RCC subsidizes resident use far more than the County does and subsidizes non-resident use in ways that the County does not, the increased operating costs caused by a new facility would also lead to higher STD 5 taxes. Of course, if you are a frequent user of the facility, you would probably consider the very low fees charged by RCC combined with a new facility a great deal. It wouldn't be such a great deal for the rest of us, however.
Reston 4 life May 11, 2013 at 05:24 PM
Assumptions without facts are as valuable as the ink it takes to post a comment here. The financial part of this CONCEPT is critical to how the CONCEPT should be considered. There are many, many ways to finance this CONCEPT. Just as there are many ways to argue against it.
John Farrell May 11, 2013 at 05:35 PM
Jim, your excellent analysis needs to add another factor: A substantial portion of STD#5 revenue is generated by the commercial property in the district. It will grow considerably as the TODs redevelop, both absolutely and in proportion to the residential contribution. It is this revenue stream that accounts for people employed within STD#5 getting the same discounts as residents. Everyone who does not live or work in STD#5 should pay a user fee that reflects the full cost of the activity or the market value of the activity, whichever is higher whether they live in or outside the County.
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 05:51 PM
Totally agree with Jim Hubbard. If the county pays and the user fees cover the costs, then you would not have this backlash. And there is no shortage of county funds from or for parks. A review of their Jan 2013 audit shows the FCPA Park Capital Improvement Fund up from $10M in 2002 to $25M in 2012 - with only half of those funds committed. In fact, they have so much sitting there, the County has requested that over $1M be returned to the County General Fund to cover shortages and to reimburse for costs that were previously borne by the County. The county is using the SD#5 money to justify its non-contribution to Reston, but reserving the right to open the facility to all and to enter into agreements with private providers to use the pool. This is not a good deal for SD#5 residents and businesses.
Jim Hubbard May 11, 2013 at 07:10 PM
Some ways to finance a new facility are better than others. Reston is roughly 1/20 of the county -- 60,000 people vs. 1.2 million. Let's assume that the two tax bases are in roughly the same proportions. If a new facility generated $100,000 in new costs, the County would collect $40,000 from users and County taxpayers would pay $60,000. Reston taxpayers would pay $3,000, or 1/20. If RCC incurred the same $100,000 costs, it would collect $14,000 from users. Reston taxpayers would have to pay the remaining $86,000. You don't have to be Warren Buffett to see which is the better deal for Reston taxpayers. I know of no other locality that treats non residents who happen to work within the locality as if they were residents. I see no reason why STD 5 should be so generous. It's not as if these companies are doing us all a favor by locating here. In large part they come here because of the infrastructure, roads, sewers, the Silver Line and such, that we have paid for.
Reston 4 life May 11, 2013 at 09:03 PM
Assumptions are dangerous. They lead to false forecasts. What's worse is they can be based on old data and not be scene in a new light. There is no data to base assumptions on until we have facts. Current facts. Current facts. Get out of the bunker and see what can work to do something different. Something better. Something that doesn't use old lessons to determine how we can move forward. And forward is the best direction. Remember the past, deal with the current and dream of the future. Happy Mothers Day. She had high hopes for us!
J Gallagher May 11, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Reston4Life...what assumptions? Problem is we have only heard one concept, and this cost structure does not seem to be up for discussion with the board...it's been presented as "take it or leave it"...actually just "take it"...anytime someone has suggested alternatives, they have been shut down (e.g., alternative locations to avoid losing valuable park space, expanding the current facility, partnering with other facilities, raising funds through the proffers from development"- all we have heard is "no, no, no"). On top of that, we hear that the county is cash-strapped -- while the county may be, the FCPA is not - they have $25M in their Capital Fund....for the first time, I agree with you, there are many, many ways to finance this, but the biggest argument we are getting is from the Board and the County, the primary decision makers on this project. If they even said, "Wow! those are great ideas, we will conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine what's the best for Reston residents," then I would have faith. But this is not what I have heard. I have heard that this is the plan on the table. There is no other plan.
John Farrell May 11, 2013 at 10:06 PM
The two tax bases are very different. Reston has a much higher percentage of non-residental land value. The owners of the non-residential land, at the time of the creation of STD#5, only agreed to allow their land to be included in STD#5 if their employees were given the same user fees as the residents. Restonians come out way ahead on that deal. The tax generated by the non-residential land within STD#5 exceeds the number of employees who use the STD#5 facilities by several orders of magnitude. By locating here, these companies make true "live, work and play." Thus, half of Restonians work in Reston instead of commuting to Tysons, Arlington or DC. These companies also helped pay for that "infrastructure, roads, sewers and such" either directly through proffers or through the higher cost for their land which Gulf, Mobil or Terrabrook charged than for similar land outside Reston.
Reston 4 life May 12, 2013 at 07:10 PM
Assumption #1, lets assume they are the same. Let's assume that the two tax bases are in roughly the same proportions. If a new facility generated $100,000 in new costs, the County would collect $40,000 from users and County taxpayers would pay $60,000. Reston taxpayers would pay $3,000, or 1/20. If RCC incurred the same $100,000 costs, it would collect $14,000 from users. Reston taxpayers would have to pay the remaining $86,000. You don't have to be Warren Buffett to see which is the better deal for Reston taxpayers. They are not. Faulty logic begins after that. And it is a dozy. Because, it ASSUMES an operating paradigm that is not in place. In fact, it is part of the community discussion. That's the CONCEPT piece of all this. Nothing is set in stone, nothing is NOT up for discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am sure there were a lot of discussions done about the CONCEPT, before it was ever brought into the public discussion part of a PROCESS. As it should. We need public officials to do some ground work. They did. And they felt there was a CONCEPT, that warranted public discourse. They are doing just that. Little surprise that there are NIMBY, FINANCIAL FATALITY FREAKOUTS etc. Yea yea, Lets just agree that the CONCEPT should be vetted, for better or worse, and go from there. Or maybe you don't agree that we should do that. Regardless, emotional arguments that distract from a mature evaluation and planning process delay and detract from progressive action.
J Gallagher May 12, 2013 at 07:46 PM
Your NIMBY comments are not helpful to the discussion. They make many people angry because in saying that, you are summarily dismissing all of our concerns as nonsense when many, many people took time to participate in this process and express similar concerns. If you seriously wanted community input, then you should have a process in place to address and discuss community input. I have seen none. Nor have I heard one proposal or one idea from you or anyone in a leadership position that would address traffic or speed. All you are doing is checking the box on community input and when you don't like what you hear, you are calling us NIMBYs - both of which are insulting the very people you are asking to pay for this. None of this makes sense to me. STOP hurling the NIMBY insults and offer up some actual ideas that people can think through. People (people who you are asking to fund this proposal!) took the time to come and participate in this process. Isn't that what citizenship is about? Now we participate and you call us NIMBYs like our opinions mean nothing and our input is unworthy and unsubstantiated. We live here. We will be affected by this building. We have a right to speak. STOP with the NIMBY crap. It's not good for the discussion or the community.
gj May 12, 2013 at 09:55 PM
You ASSUME that we must have this facility. Many, many of the residents do not feel that way. Your NIMBY comments are a waste of time and a way for you and others to cloud the issues.
Jim Hubbard May 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM
I am not opposed to a new recreational facility. If it were up to me, I would not locate it at Baron Cameron Park because I believe that there are locations that are better and that will generate less controversy. If Baron Cameron were the only possible location, I would probably locate it there. I am opposed to STD 5 paying for a new facility. STD 5 was, and remains, a mistake. The County should provide recreational services in Reston just as it does in the rest of the County. Reston taxpayers, under the current arrangement, contribute to recreational services for the rest of the county and then have to pay for their own. It is hard to think of an arrangement less fair. Given what we know about FCPA's and RCC's policies and practices, it is fairly simple to discern the additional financial burden imposed on Reston if STD 5 pays for a new facility. I think this information is germane to the current discussion.
Reston 4 life May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM
jg, your voice that purports to represent many is disproved by the voices speaking all around the issue of location. The location and finances are key. The need has been supported. You are a Troll. If you truly believe in your erroneous views, show up and speak your mind. Should be short.
J Gallagher May 13, 2013 at 01:49 AM
The need has not been supported. We have seen no such numbers from RCC or the County on the projected number of users and whether those users are from Reston. Using swim lessons to justify the need for a 50M pool is mixing apples and oranges. There is a need to amend the current model that favors private use, which is the actual reason why public use is shorted. I agree with gj and so do many many people...need has not been demonstrated, and there are issues with the location that have not been addressed, and the primary issue that we are hearing from residents is the proposed cost structure. So need, location, and cost structure are still issues for many. Visit the Save Baron Cameron Park Facebook site and count...I counted 52 contributors against...and in an online poll of residents, 95% were against the location, and 98% were against the cost structure. In a survey that the Save Baron Cameron Park site posted, about 87% (of over 1200 respondents) were against the location. So based on multiple sources, gj seems to be on the mark and those issues - location, cost structure, and need - are the most frequent responses for those that are opposed.
gj May 13, 2013 at 01:54 AM
you, Reston 4 life, are not responding intelligenty in the ways that you respond to others' desires and beliefs. Do you think that putting people down, others will accept your beliefs. More Restonians are totally opposed to your beliefs. A need has not been established. Paying $35 M for a select few does not make sense to us long time residents.
Reston 4 life May 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM
STD#5 was not a mistake. It was intentionally done to make a different community from what had been developed before (see Arlington, Alexandria, etc). Everyone who lives here benefits from a concept that was not in place anywhere in the nation. The fact that it still exists gives credence to the core CONCEPT.
Reston 4 life May 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Ok, here is were we need to identify the "swimmers". There has been such a focus on the competitive side of things, you know, those "swimmers", that I need to point out the difference. A swimming pool does not cater to just one user group. Unless it is designed that way. Ask the RCC how many different user groups are serviced at the existing facility. Ask RA how many different uses they accommodate in a summer season. Ask FCPA how many types of use their pools get. We are not just talking swim teams. We are talking about a spectrum of users that each of you know. Your family, friends, neighbors, vets, disabled, disadvantaged, it is staggering when you know the scope of services a swimming pool rec center can offer a community. We should build this. It is the right thing to do and we have an obligation to do so for the present population and the future. If it creates an immediate financial burden on us, so be it. It's kind of like college tuition, you do it and benefit later. Everyone benefits from a smarter generation. But you have to commit to the future.
John Farrell May 13, 2013 at 12:55 PM
"a concept that was not in place anywhere in the nation." That phrase might describe Reston (though, it doesn't: see Columbia, MD, Los Colinas, TX and several others) but it surely doesn't describe Small Tax District Number Five. By its very name it's clear there are at least 4 other small tax districts just in Fairfax, alone. See McLean Community Center, another small tax district right here in Fairfax. Special purpose tax districts as a concept (that word again ;-)) have existed in American municipal government for 140 years, at least. There's nothing new about them. If YMCA had built its indoor pool just a few yards longer, it's quite possible that there would be no need for another indoor pool in Reston; but since the YMCA pool is not 50m, another indoor pool is justified but not at the expense of the existing facilities at Baron Cameron. Put it in a TOD.
Reston 4 life May 14, 2013 at 02:46 AM
A poll. Taken on an opposition site? Ok. It must be valid. I just took a POLL of BCP REC CENTER proponents in my living room. 100% of the respondents say build it. Must be valid, because a 100% response can not be argued. Give me a day or two and I can go find a few more POLLS that support my argument. I will, of course, dismiss the negative responses in ALMOST their entire contribution, but show the statistical data that reflects a small minority that oppose my impartial POLL. Cause, you know, nothing is slanted to one way of thinking on Polls.
gj May 14, 2013 at 02:25 PM
Frankly, Reston 4 Life, you make a point and then destroy it with nonsense.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »