Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

I completely agree. I also want to know if this is a byproduct of the mixed use zoning that was approved a few months ago by the CC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at an mcps school with a neighboring residential treatment facility and it was trouble...(Blair Ewing building and avery treatment center next door). It was trouble...we had patients wandering into the building--although usually just scaring the staff who were there at 4 pm and later. And there was a lot more land between these buildings.

Trust that some of these patients will wander onto the school grounds.

Exactly.

It’s not a lockdown facility, so the 16+ patients with acute addiction, mental health, and impulse control issues will be out and about.

And unlike the facility pp referenced, this facility literally borders the school playground and its driveway/front yard is squeezed between two SFHs on a very small cul-de-sac.

I lived across the street from a residential treatment facility and saw a knife fight in the street, two women in a fist fight that resulted in police arriving with guns drawn and another fight that left someone beaten to a pulp in the street. No thank you. People have a right to make enough money to live in a neighborhood that is typically safe and suburban if that's what they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree with you in theory, but as an advocacy campaign this needs some work.

First of all, lose the talking points about property values. That's muddying the waters and making it look like student safety is an afterthought rather than the point of the campaign.

Second, focus on this case as an example of the needs for better laws county-wide. As the law stands, this company is absolutely within its legal rights to be where it is. So the point is to change the zoning/regulations, not just to "save" this one elementary school.

Third, why are you listing BoE as decision-makers? Is the theory of change that you could get them to pressure the County? That's a dicey proposition, as there is not really any love lost between BoE and County Council.

The best advocacy strategy is to lawyer up, but this for-profit FL-based company is big and savvy enough to have retained and conflicted out at the usual suspect firms.

Agreed re: talking points about the inappropriate nature of having any such facility border a school—particularly one of this size and scope. MCPS should have visibility on this, as should the Board of Education. Nobody is foolish enough to think they have the power to stop this, but a multipronged advocacy strategy should include visibility by all pertinent stakeholders—and ideally some concern and advocacy. At a minimum, mcps and the county should be negotiating with the company to erect a high quality privacy fence AND landscaping.

Agreed RE: changing the zoning laws moving forward. But the advocacy strategy for the moment should be retaining counsel to prevent this 16+ bed facility from moving forward. The County Executive and County Council exercise their authority in myriad ways when they are so moved, yet they seem to feel powerless here. Strange, no?

Re: home values - the entire neighborhood will be impacted by such a large and obvious acute treatment facility. Why? Because who will want to buy into a neighborhood that feeds into Greenwood? Who wants their kids on a playground bordering this? And that’s why everyone that feeds into this school should care.

Lastly, this will continue to happen across our county. Why wouldn’t this FL-based company continue to build and operate oversized facilities in neighborhoods unless someone pushes back?

This. This is what voters vote for in this county. Over and over. And there is not much push back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at an mcps school with a neighboring residential treatment facility and it was trouble...(Blair Ewing building and avery treatment center next door). It was trouble...we had patients wandering into the building--although usually just scaring the staff who were there at 4 pm and later. And there was a lot more land between these buildings.

Trust that some of these patients will wander onto the school grounds.

Exactly.

It’s not a lockdown facility, so the 16+ patients with acute addiction, mental health, and impulse control issues will be out and about.

And unlike the facility pp referenced, this facility literally borders the school playground and its driveway/front yard is squeezed between two SFHs on a very small cul-de-sac.

I lived across the street from a residential treatment facility and saw a knife fight in the street, two women in a fist fight that resulted in police arriving with guns drawn and another fight that left someone beaten to a pulp in the street. No thank you. People have a right to make enough money to live in a neighborhood that is typically safe and suburban if that's what they choose.

Our county leaders vehemently disagree. There is a huge push to urbanize most of Montgomery County (with higher density development, and loosening of SFH neighborhood zoning laws). This is what people of MoCo want, and this is what voters want. Montgomery County does not look the same as it did 20 years ago and will look very different 20 years from now. Take it or leave it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at an mcps school with a neighboring residential treatment facility and it was trouble...(Blair Ewing building and avery treatment center next door). It was trouble...we had patients wandering into the building--although usually just scaring the staff who were there at 4 pm and later. And there was a lot more land between these buildings.

Trust that some of these patients will wander onto the school grounds.

Exactly.

It’s not a lockdown facility, so the 16+ patients with acute addiction, mental health, and impulse control issues will be out and about.

And unlike the facility pp referenced, this facility literally borders the school playground and its driveway/front yard is squeezed between two SFHs on a very small cul-de-sac.

I lived across the street from a residential treatment facility and saw a knife fight in the street, two women in a fist fight that resulted in police arriving with guns drawn and another fight that left someone beaten to a pulp in the street. No thank you. People have a right to make enough money to live in a neighborhood that is typically safe and suburban if that's what they choose.

No. Every child deserves an education in a safe environment, which means the advocacy on this needs to be about policy not one neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

The County Council member didn’t show up to the meeting at the school, but her staffer said there’s nothing the county can do because the current zoning law allows this.

I can’t believe that’s the case since the county council and County Executive have made things happen when they are so inclined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

The County Council member didn’t show up to the meeting at the school, but her staffer said there’s nothing the county can do because the current zoning law allows this.

I can’t believe that’s the case since the county council and County Executive have made things happen when they are so inclined.

What sorts of things have they "made happen?"

Genuine question, because the staffer is correct that current zoning allows this. Without policy change, there's no clear legal mechanism for the county to do anything, and they would be courting a discrimination lawsuit if they tried.

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine this happening in Bethesda? I can't!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

The County Council member didn’t show up to the meeting at the school, but her staffer said there’s nothing the county can do because the current zoning law allows this.

I can’t believe that’s the case since the county council and County Executive have made things happen when they are so inclined.

What sorts of things have they "made happen?"

Genuine question, because the staffer is correct that current zoning allows this. Without policy change, there's no clear legal mechanism for the county to do anything, and they would be courting a discrimination lawsuit if they tried.

1. Change the zoning law.

2. Challenge the Florida company’s licensing for this specific project.

3. Engage the company to negotiate an alternative option. Buy them out, if necessary. Offer them a sweet deal on another site.

Assuming none of this will happen and the project proceeds, then I’d like a personal commitment from the County Executive and County Council to ensure security at the school and action to change the zoning law so this doesn’t happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine this happening in Bethesda? I can't!

Of course not!

The West Side of the county will always be the sacred cow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

The County Council member didn’t show up to the meeting at the school, but her staffer said there’s nothing the county can do because the current zoning law allows this.

I can’t believe that’s the case since the county council and County Executive have made things happen when they are so inclined.

What sorts of things have they "made happen?"

Genuine question, because the staffer is correct that current zoning allows this. Without policy change, there's no clear legal mechanism for the county to do anything, and they would be courting a discrimination lawsuit if they tried.

1. Change the zoning law.

2. Challenge the Florida company’s licensing for this specific project.

3. Engage the company to negotiate an alternative option. Buy them out, if necessary. Offer them a sweet deal on another site.

Assuming none of this will happen and the project proceeds, then I’d like a personal commitment from the County Executive and County Council to ensure security at the school and action to change the zoning law so this doesn’t happen again.

Is it possible to see if the company, developer, or staff have made financial contributions to the County Executive or Council Members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

I completely agree. I also want to know if this is a byproduct of the mixed use zoning that was approved a few months ago by the CC.

...and did they fund campaigns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree with you in theory, but as an advocacy campaign this needs some work.

First of all, lose the talking points about property values. That's muddying the waters and making it look like student safety is an afterthought rather than the point of the campaign.

Second, focus on this case as an example of the needs for better laws county-wide. As the law stands, this company is absolutely within its legal rights to be where it is. So the point is to change the zoning/regulations, not just to "save" this one elementary school.

Third, why are you listing BoE as decision-makers? Is the theory of change that you could get them to pressure the County? That's a dicey proposition, as there is not really any love lost between BoE and County Council.

+1 This would be true advocacy. Additionally, providing other alternatives like the farm space you suggested and how the increase space could be beneficial to the patients both in providing fresh air, space for outdoor therapy to include gardening and walks.