BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me MCPS' policy is to turn schools into parks when it thinks it doesn't need them, and then look at parks when it needs to build a school. Maybe they need to do a better job of long range planning but at its core I don't see why that is such a bad approach (leaving aside the people who don't want to ever give up the park-that-was-a-school).

I'm sure I'll get flamed but, leaving traffic concerns aside, I think putting a school at NCC park would be a better use of that site.

It also seems odd to suggest that selecting Lynnbrook would mean "allowing a school to be built next to Lynnbrook park". My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.

My thought was that the field at Lynnbrook would remain 'a field' if MCPS built on their own adjoining 3 parcels. The 5.8-acre Lynnbrook local park was acquired by M-NCPPC in 1948, so it existed as it does today, next to a school property for several decades. A Middle School would use the field as a field- so little change in its use and apperance. It would be preserved asn an open space. I contrast this to 'constructing a school in a park' .

[Anonymous]

My thought was that the field at Lynnbrook would remain 'a field' if MCPS built on their own adjoining 3 parcels. The 5.8-acre Lynnbrook local park was acquired by M-NCPPC in 1948, so it existed as it does today, next to a school property for several decades. A Middle School would use the field as a field- so little change in its use and apperance. It would be preserved asn an open space. I contrast this to 'constructing a school in a park' .

It is the best case scenario for park and school co-location, and does not take a park away from anyone. I know that people like being able to walk to their school, and with many streets and sidewalks and very few major streets to cross, it makes for an excellent walk to school opportunity. So definitely cut down on those buses.

A good, and realistic option.

[Anonymous]

Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Westland and Norwood aren't terribly close in location, although I guess that would be further west than the first two tries. I recall there was some issue of a historic property at Norwood that got it knocked off the list last time around, but truthfully I always figured that this location as well as Lynbrook would provoke even fiercer and more deep-pocketed opposition than the Coffield or RCH options. Those are much pricier neighborhoods than Kensington and Rosemary Hills, and presumably a very high lawyer population who'd like nothing better than to organize a pro bono challenge to any community facility in their midst. But maybe I'm wrong? Maybe RCH is an anomaly, and other fancier hoods would be happy to have a school?

These locations were and are well-represented on the SSAC, and thus, they will be protected.  For example, the first time around, Norwood was described as having only one access road.  It has at least four (and Norwood Dr. has a median strip, one lane in each direction, and a parking lane on both sides). Also, the first SSAC reported that Norwood was located in two different locations in the cluster, and both locations were inaccurate.  In reality, it is located toward the center of the cluster. This time around, it is described with perimeter trees and a co-op, both items mentioned for the first time.  

The reality is that MCPS will never let that park be taken.  It is near the neighborhood of a key money Democrats.  Limousine liberalism is alive and well in one-party Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bottom Line: Lynbrook makes the most sense and avoids this mess.

Well...I think you are right. And no, I do not live in Kensington, but if you want a quick resolution, then Lynnbrook is the site to go for. It already belongs to MCPS. And as far as obliterating the co-located Lynnbrook Park...Not very likely. Parks has already called it "the best case scenario".

Now THAT I did not know. I always thought that Parks was gunning for RCH because to defend it they'd have to NARC-out a sister agency (DNR) for spending funds that attached restrictions on the park. Also, if they pulled to old wink-wink on the reclaim right and ignored the law, they could let go of the park seemingly without violating their precedent of never surrendering a park.

Jeez, this is like a mystery novel with all these twists and turns. Too bad it plays out at our expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

When KJH closed, the site was divided, and over 1/3 of it was transferred to HOC, along with the separate access road to the site.  The remainder was transferred to Parks after considerable study by Planning. That study concluded, among other things, that the site had "severe topology," and that the infrastructure in the neighborhood was not suitable for modification to sustain intense dual use development.  

In addition, at the time, 2 Council Resolutions and an Executive Order, all of which are referenced in the transfer agreement between Parks and the County, enumerated significant site use concerns surrounding compatible dual use, traffic limitations, preservation of the natural features, and where construction is to take place on the site.  

In light of the foregoing, the county arrived at the elder care facility-park scenario as the best balance. Now, however, as the community faces an addition to the balanced dual use of the site, none of these issues is being addressed.

Then, there's the development of the site.  Two regulation soccer fields were developed with specific federal and/or state funds, which carry legal restrictions on converting the land from park use.  At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.  I'm not so sure. The law in question says that land "acquired or developed" with the funds in question may not be converted from park use without going through some rigorous processes.  Given MCPS' track record, I suspect they're screwing up this issue, as well, and will be costing us more tax dollars as it fights the issue in court.

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

[Anonymous]

At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.

Because the restrictions you mention are 20 years old; the park has been used as a park for that long so the restrictions can be lifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.

Because the restrictions you mention are 20 years old; the park has been used as a park for that long so the restrictions can be lifted.

You are incorrect. The purported 20-year limit on enforcement of the conversion restriction does not appear in the federal statute. Nor does it appear in the state statute. It is a "practice" invented by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in connection the use of Program Open Space funds to develop a park. In fact, a recent letter from the Secretary of DNR revealed that no authority for this practice appears in the statute, and if you don't believe it, you can read the statute yourself. It's the Maryland Natural Resources Article Sec. 5-906(e)(7), and it says that "Land acquired or developed under a State grant from Program Open Space may not be converted..." outside of a rigorous process. It goes on to discuss how any land converted has to be replaced in the community with land of equal recreational value.

These facts are why I fear MCPS' conclusion that no obstacle exists in RCH is wrong and will further delay the construction of this school. They have known about this issue since last summer, and it appears they have done little to understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

When KJH closed, the site was divided, and over 1/3 of it was transferred to HOC, along with the separate access road to the site.  The remainder was transferred to Parks after considerable study by Planning. That study concluded, among other things, that the site had "severe topology," and that the infrastructure in the neighborhood was not suitable for modification to sustain intense dual use development.  

In addition, at the time, 2 Council Resolutions and an Executive Order, all of which are referenced in the transfer agreement between Parks and the County, enumerated significant site use concerns surrounding compatible dual use, traffic limitations, preservation of the natural features, and where construction is to take place on the site.  

In light of the foregoing, the county arrived at the elder care facility-park scenario as the best balance. Now, however, as the community faces an addition to the balanced dual use of the site, none of these issues is being addressed.

Then, there's the development of the site.  Two regulation soccer fields were developed with specific federal and/or state funds, which carry legal restrictions on converting the land from park use.  At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.  I'm not so sure. The law in question says that land "acquired or developed" with the funds in question may not be converted from park use without going through some rigorous processes.  Given MCPS' track record, I suspect they're screwing up this issue, as well, and will be costing us more tax dollars as it fights the issue in court.

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Honestly I would not. I've already said the park in my neighborhood should be considered (although I don't agree it's the only reasonable spot for a school, and I don't appreciate people from Kensington saying it is). It would never occur to me to sue MCPS over siting a badly needed school, much less on a site that MCPS owned and allowed to be used as a park. It's not MCPS who will be costing us tax dollars to fight the issue in court-- it's the people who are trying to make a federal case out of it.

I think in the last selection process MCPS left people with the impression that they could be bullied out of selecting a specific site and unfortunately now people are making that their game plan, but don't try to justify it as being reasonable or that anyone would do the same.

[Anonymous]

I am not from Kensington. But I think that the Lynnbrook site is best. Central location, already owned by MCPS.

If the school ends up at Kensington, I can live with that, but I don't think it is the best or smartest choice. And to the poster who said that last go round MCPS showed that it could be bullied?

I see it differently, as in, MCPS has been used to doing the bullying, and it is about time they were stopped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

When KJH closed, the site was divided, and over 1/3 of it was transferred to HOC, along with the separate access road to the site.  The remainder was transferred to Parks after considerable study by Planning. That study concluded, among other things, that the site had "severe topology," and that the infrastructure in the neighborhood was not suitable for modification to sustain intense dual use development.  

In addition, at the time, 2 Council Resolutions and an Executive Order, all of which are referenced in the transfer agreement between Parks and the County, enumerated significant site use concerns surrounding compatible dual use, traffic limitations, preservation of the natural features, and where construction is to take place on the site.  

In light of the foregoing, the county arrived at the elder care facility-park scenario as the best balance. Now, however, as the community faces an addition to the balanced dual use of the site, none of these issues is being addressed.

Then, there's the development of the site.  Two regulation soccer fields were developed with specific federal and/or state funds, which carry legal restrictions on converting the land from park use.  At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.  I'm not so sure. The law in question says that land "acquired or developed" with the funds in question may not be converted from park use without going through some rigorous processes.  Given MCPS' track record, I suspect they're screwing up this issue, as well, and will be costing us more tax dollars as it fights the issue in court.

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Honestly I would not. I've already said the park in my neighborhood should be considered (although I don't agree it's the only reasonable spot for a school, and I don't appreciate people from Kensington saying it is). It would never occur to me to sue MCPS over siting a badly needed school, much less on a site that MCPS owned and allowed to be used as a park. It's not MCPS who will be costing us tax dollars to fight the issue in court-- it's the people who are trying to make a federal case out of it.

I think in the last selection process MCPS left people with the impression that they could be bullied out of selecting a specific site and unfortunately now people are making that their game plan, but don't try to justify it as being reasonable or that anyone would do the same.

You're focusing on one aspect of the discussion.  Yes, it is unfortunate to lose a park, but the issue here involves the loss of a park in a greater context.  

Think of it this way: the site is less than 2/3 the size it was when KJH was there.  It is missing its separate access road.  The over 1/3 of the site transferred to HOC for the elder care facility is the type of flat land referenced in the Council Resolutions and the Executive Order on which construction is supposed to take place.  It now does not exist.  The slopes planned for construction of the school are the locations on the site where those documents specifically say construction should not take place.  As for the rest of the site, no one in their right mind envisioned dropping the entire site four feet to situate a building in the park.

Further, those documents, and Planning memos, formed the basis for the balanced use of the site that exists taking into account the aforementioned issues; traffic and other infrastructure concerns; and the character of the neighborhood. The addition of the school throws the site and surroundings out of balance.  Think of it in reverse.  If KJH were still located on this site, would we be entertaining a discussion about removing the separate access road to the site; reducing the size of the site by over 1/3; and building an elder care assisted living facility right next to it?  Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Wrong. I live within walking distance to an MCPS school. Lots of the families who will go to the new middle school already do: the feeder elementaries are all located in residential neighborhoods. We love our schools - our kids go there, after all, and if there were an option in my neighborhood, I'd be thrilled - much better than having them sit in cross-Bethesda traffic for 45 minutes every AM and PM.

This is why l don't understand why many RCH residents, even parents of kids who would go to the new school, are so desperately opposed. PP - can you explain? You obviously think that it's self-evident. It's not, and the scorched-earth approach of Kensington is really repellant. I can't imagine that it's actually helping your case either. Certainly not with other parents (even some who live in Kensington) and probably not with the people who are ultimately going to make this decision.

[Anonymous]

Believe me, not all RCH residents oppose building a school in our neighborhood. It's just a small group of loud individuals. In fact, I am done paying dues to RCHCA after they used our money to pay lawyers to fight this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, not all RCH residents oppose building a school in our neighborhood. It's just a small group of loud individuals. In fact, I am done paying dues to RCHCA after they used our money to pay lawyers to fight this!

MCPS always refers to those who oppose them as a "small group".

[Anonymous]

Upcounty resident here, but I ran across this thread doing my usual search on MCPS expenditures . We have schools (and fields) but we've got leaking roofs and school bathrooms that need to be repaired. It's a mess. I don't know the sites being discussed here, but MCPS budget is important to the rest of us. I don't think they have real money to buy a site, so why are they even considering that? If they spend excessive money on site, we will go through the (leaking) roof up here.

Upcounty Wonk