BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You're right; people focus on what they want, and they ignore the big picture. Please understand that I was only discussing the sites in terms of the (vague) criteria the committee is using to steamroll our parks. I'm very sympathetic to the tree removal and grading concerns, as they exist in other parks, as well. To me, the best locations are further south, where the land appears to be flatter and present less topology problems. All of this discussion, however, assumes that we're focusing only on parks. Why? Are we just admitting defeat, that we can't live with green space unless we live next to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute? I don't know about you, but with the premium I pay in taxes to live in this open-air mental institution of a county, I really resent the incompetence that has put us in this position with few options. Instead of collaborating, they pit neighbors against each other. Now, however, is not the time for us to be divided. Our respective communities up here need to join in opposition to this scam and defend our parks. Let them find the money for a site. |
Anonymous
| The real problem with NCC is BRAC (on top of the already insane traffic in/out of Naval National Medical Center and NIH and the rest.) It might be a great spot for a school, or anything really, except that it is landlocked by some of the worst traffic in the area. Of course if the school is built at RCH or on some other area that is now used for recreational leagues etc, they could presumably move some of those soccer matches etc that seem to be of such concern to that neighborhood to NCC park. Traffic wouldn't be as big of a problem on the weekends. |
Anonymous
| Members of the site selection advisory committee will be soon be asked to objectively evaluate all candidate sites, using the each of the criteria specified by the Superintendent. |
Anonymous
You mean the vague, unweighted criteria with no metrics. BTW, how many votes, when you add local govern,ents and PTAs, will each site have representing it? |
Anonymous
Except that RCH can't be converted from park use because LWCF or POS funds were used to develop the land. BRAC, although a concern, is the least of the concerns at NCC. $89 million is slated for remediation, and the traffic post-remediation will be better than it was per-BRAC. Plus, a second road is planned from Montrose (I think). The other reasons mentioned by the other poster are more to the point. MCPS is doing cartwheels to avoid the obvious sites on the list (again, assuming the focus is on parks, which it shouldn't be). For example, Norwood Park is relatively closer to the center of cluster; relatively flat; and over 17 acres. It is not filled with trees, and it has access via 4-5 roads along three compass points, not including the perimeter road in the park. Look at Norwood Drive; it's probably 2x the width of the streets in any of our neighborhoods, and it has a median strip and separate parking lanes in each direction. The "historic building," an old Ag building, is in the lower corner of the site and won't impede construction. It's an easy choice, but not even a consideration. Why? Because they can steamroll us up here easier than they can get their friends down there to give up their park (and they call us NIMBYs). Check out the representation on the SSAC and see what you're up against. That's why we can't allow ourselves to be divided. |
Anonymous
Objectively? I went to the first meeting, and a man in the front asked if they could condemn an old age home. In the second meeting, the leader shut down comments. It seems to me, and, from press reports, others in the room, that the outcome is predetermined. |
Anonymous
There are about 45 committee members, one each from every school in the cluster and every neighborhood in the cluster. As far as I have seen, very few are crusading for a specific site.
I think that's an opinion at this point, not a fact.
When Westland is at the extreme southwest of the cluster, it's not as helpful to pick a site that's right in the center as I agree Norwood Park is very close to being. It's still a haul in traffic from, say, Rock Creek Forest. |
Anonymous
I'm not on the committee and they should find a way to accept public comments (at least in written form), but it seems to me that if there are 45 committee members and they are letting each of them speak, it is reasonable to avoid having members of the public debate what is being discussed by the committee. That is hardly a sign that the outcome is predetermined. |
Anonymous
I hope you're right. When one of the first questions is so specific, you start to wonder, as you do when a controversial subject arises. |
Anonymous
Yes, representation comes from those organizations. Write them down and plot them on a map. You get an idea where the pockets of representation are. As for the LWCF and POS issue, the law is the law, and DNR and MCPS have done nothing to refute it. Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act says that no land acquired or developed with LWCF assistance assistance can be converted to other than outdoor public recreation use without going through a rigorous federal conversion process. The POS law is the state law version of the LWCF Act, and under Maryland Natural Resources Article 5-906(e), the same restriction on conversion exists, only it involves a rigorous state conversion process. Both conversion processes require replacement in the community of the land taken with land of equal economic and recreational value. Everyone agrees that the land was developed with external funding. The disagreement is whether the funding was from the federal government or the state government. The only documentation that exists so far states that federal funds were were used. Since the issue arose last summer, no one has produced documentation of the funding of development on the site to contradict the existing documentation. Even if state funds were used, however, the conversions restriction exists (remember, the rule is land acquired or developed with these funds). The "opinion" here is that DNR established a "practice" to deal with the decay of facilities (toilets and swings) over time. This "practice" is not based on any statutory provision, and the DNR Secretary said as much in a letter released by MCPS. MCPS effectively is taking the position that facilities are land improvements, and thus, if POS Funds were used, based on this practice, enforcement of the conversion restriction can be capped at an arbitrary 20-year period. As for the location issue, I think you're raising a good point, one that was raised repeatedly in the meetings thus far. What does "center of the cluster" mean? At the first meeting, people asked for criteria to be weighted, and the leaders said that weighting is too hard to do. At the second meeting, people asked how they are to define "center," and a vague response came back that amounts to personal judgment. I'm not suggesting taking the park, but a site in the extreme north or east of the cluster is far from being in the center. Yet, an enormous amount of energy is being expended for those sites when sites obviously in conformance with the criteria are being dismissed. Are we arguing the cluster is too big? If Norwood is too far, what does that say about B-CC. I drop my child at B-CC and proceed down Wisconsin. It is a five minute trip. |
Anonymous
As far as I know, every single citizens' organization was asked to send a member. If there are areas who did not send a voting representative - and I haven't seen one from the neighborhood where I grew up yet so there may be a few - that is their own fault. The Town of Kensington has a voting member, which I can't figure out because none of the Town is in the cluster. |
Anonymous
I was not intending to say that anyone was excluded. I was just saying that, as a natural consequence, representation of interests aligns better for some than others. You raise an interesting point about the Town of Kensington. I wonder what that was about, unless there's some kind of message there about furture reorganization of the cluster. |
Anonymous
You might be speculating a little bit. But who can blame you after what has happened here? |
Anonymous
Bruce Crispell said that the Town of Kensington had a rep because they "sometimes use RCH Park". Kinda flimsy when you aren't giving all other parks the same considerations. But the bottom line is we should NOT be considering park land for school construction. I agree that Lynbrook is the best choice as it builds on already developed land (buildings, parking lot, etc) takes minimal land form parks, just the parcel where the unused closed activity building stands, maintains the playing fields, and most importantly, MCPS ALREADY OWNS the 3 parcels that make half of the Lynnbrook site. And centrally located with streets wide enough to support bus traffic, indeed buses go through there today, to and from the day care center. This would be the least bitter pill to swallow. And folks in that neighborhood shouldn't complain that they are replacing 3 falling down buildings with a new building that would well serve the cluster. BCC and the NEW Lynnbrook middle school could easily share the playing fields, and BCC could still use fields at RCH and NCC. |
Anonymous
Bitter pill, indeed! My mind is with you from the standpoint of logic, but I guess I have to coax my heart to follow. Perhaps its because it really infuriates me that these numbskulls in the county put us in this position. If we learn anything from this experience, maybe it is that we should leave planning up to Park and Planning. Let them lead it, and let the school system bring requirements to them. Yeah, you're right. If they can't find a private site, a park may have to take a hit, and if so, you may be proposing a way out for them. Of course, no one has asked the neighbors how they feel. |