Taylor and McKnight each got new warehouses to replace the same old warehouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Identify the falsehood. That the McKnight warehouse is new and not crumbling is irrelevant to the points made. Your unwillingness to address this underscores your position on not just this but anything else you comment on.

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

Identify the falsehood. Whether the 2023 warehouse is huge or new and in good condition isn't terribly relevant to the facts asserted. Your unwillingness to address evidence in conflict with your narrative undermines both your talking points on this issue but the good faith that should be afforded anything else PCMC posts on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

Identify the falsehood. Whether the 2023 warehouse is huge or new and in good condition isn't terribly relevant to the facts asserted. Your unwillingness to address evidence in conflict with your narrative undermines both your talking points on this issue but the good faith that should be afforded anything else PCMC posts on.

MCPS already had a new warehouse.
Taylor said the warehouse doesn’t have AC. It does. Julie Yang said the warehouse was crumbling. It isn’t.

Why lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

Identify the falsehood. Whether the 2023 warehouse is huge or new and in good condition isn't terribly relevant to the facts asserted. Your unwillingness to address evidence in conflict with your narrative undermines both your talking points on this issue but the good faith that should be afforded anything else PCMC posts on.

MCPS already had a new warehouse.
Taylor said the warehouse doesn’t have AC. It does. Julie Yang said the warehouse was crumbling. It isn’t.

Why lie?

Different warehouses in different conditions. They have a new warehouse that is not sufficient for all needs, they have old warehouses that are crumbling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

Identify the falsehood. Whether the 2023 warehouse is huge or new and in good condition isn't terribly relevant to the facts asserted. Your unwillingness to address evidence in conflict with your narrative undermines both your talking points on this issue but the good faith that should be afforded anything else PCMC posts on.

MCPS already had a new warehouse.
Taylor said the warehouse doesn’t have AC. It does. Julie Yang said the warehouse was crumbling. It isn’t.

Why lie?

Different warehouses in different conditions. They have a new warehouse that is not sufficient for all needs, they have old warehouses that are crumbling.

Where did Taylor say any of that? Source?
New warehouse is huge.

[Anonymous]

Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

How did the BOE approve an architect for Taylor’s warehouse before Taylor was even hired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023 resolution notes that warehouse on the 3.2 acre lot is consolidating "certain" Division of Materials Management functions. The existing lots at 580 N Stonestreet encompass over 12 acres of lots per the latest property report. Between the use of "certain" and the size discrepancy, what leads you to believe the 2023 lease was intended to fully replace the existing DMM warehouse space? The new lease also appears to consolidate operations at three other locations never contemplated in the much smaller 2023 lease. Do those consolidations factor into your analysis?

Why lie?

Why immediately reject evidence inconsistent with your narrative as bad-faith willing untruths? Of the four facts noted, three come directly from documents sourced in the PCMC post.

That the 2023 warehouse was intended to move "certain" (and thereby presumptively not all) DMM operations is found in the March 7, 2023 lease resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CPHLQT561BED/$file/Lease%20N%20Stonestreet%20Ave%20%20Warehouse.pdf) in both the second sentence of the first paragraph and the first two whereas clauses. The lot size is also found in the same document, although I rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre.

That the 2025 lease is intended to enable consolidation of functions beyond the 580 N Stonestreet warehouses is found in the October 30, 2025 resolution (https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRM26E97F5/$file/Lease%20Agree%20Commercial%20Space%20750%20Progress%20Way.pdf) in both the third paragraph and first whereas clause. I did err in saying three additional locations, it is only two, I was unaware that the existing 580 N Stonestreet facilities were termed the Lincoln Center.

The last bit of information about the overall lot size of the existing 580 N Stonestreet warehouses comes from a source not noted in the OP, but is available to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and research skills. The FY2025 MCPS real property inventory report (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/facilities/rem/pdf/real-property-inventory-report-fy2025.pdf) provides a listing of all current owned/leased MCPS space and lists the multiple N Stonestreet properties and their acreage at page 13.

To preempt any further bad faith effort to avoid the facts and turn to accusations, no I am not and have never been employed by MCPS, Montgomery County, or the State of Maryland. I am an MCPS alumnus and parent who has testified before the board once in opposition to plans on a particular local school matter. I'm generally aware of the warehouse consolidation and had no awareness of the 2023 lease until this post and read it, and the source documentation, with interest. My tell that something was off with the analysis was that the 2023 lease was for a seemingly small property relative to MCPS operations.

Why lie?

It’s easy to drive by McKnight’s new warehouse or view it on Google Earth. It’s a huge building. It’s not crumbling. It has air conditioning.

Identify the falsehood. Whether the 2023 warehouse is huge or new and in good condition isn't terribly relevant to the facts asserted. Your unwillingness to address evidence in conflict with your narrative undermines both your talking points on this issue but the good faith that should be afforded anything else PCMC posts on.

MCPS already had a new warehouse.
Taylor said the warehouse doesn’t have AC. It does. Julie Yang said the warehouse was crumbling. It isn’t.

Why lie?

Different warehouses in different conditions. They have a new warehouse that is not sufficient for all needs, they have old warehouses that are crumbling.

Where did Taylor say any of that? Source?
New warehouse is huge.

The resolution that discussed consolidating the Lincoln Center which is not the new warehouse? The recorded tour of the old warehouse space? Reading comprehension in reviewing all of the documents sourced by PCMC?

I think it is a valid issue that in discussing the new 2025 lease there appears to be little or no discussion of the new 2023 space. But I think it is also clear that the 2023 space was never intended or represented as a cure-all for the then-existing facilities, which is the premise of the post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

How did the BOE approve an architect for Taylor’s warehouse before Taylor was even hired?

I honestly don't care until someone more reputable reports on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

How did the BOE approve an architect for Taylor’s warehouse before Taylor was even hired?

I honestly don't care until someone more reputable reports on this.[/


Who is more reputable than the Board of Education and the Superintendent? It’s their documents, resolutions and public statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

How did the BOE approve an architect for Taylor’s warehouse before Taylor was even hired?

I honestly don't care until someone more reputable reports on this.[/


Who is more reputable than the Board of Education and the Superintendent? It’s their documents, resolutions and public statements.

Seems like a lot to read and sift through to understand. That's what reporters are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents' Coalition just throws ish at the wall to see what sticks. My guess is, this won't stick.

How did the BOE approve an architect for Taylor’s warehouse before Taylor was even hired?

I honestly don't care until someone more reputable reports on this.[/


Who is more reputable than the Board of Education and the Superintendent? It’s their documents, resolutions and public statements.

Seems like a lot to read and sift through to understand. That's what reporters are for.

When public school administrators can’t be trusted, reporters are needed to investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When public school administrators can’t be trusted, reporters are needed to investigate.

Parents' Coalition blog is not journalism nor do they follow journalistic standards