Any significant chance of Murch boundaries changing in the next couple of years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the southern Murch boundary is that there are only 5 streets south of the school in boundary. Regardless of what school those kids would be rezoned to (probably Hearst) there aren't enough kids on those 5 blocks to resolve the overcrowding problem. Now if they moved the boundary to include the houses east of Connecticut, that would make a difference, but those kids are nowhere near walkable to Hearst. Hopefully the school will add capacity during the renovation.

By my count there are actually 8 streets south of Murch which are in boundary. The original DME rezone proposal included more of these blocks to be rezoned to Hearst than the second proposal in June which only goes up to Albemarle I believe. Maybe they will add capacity to Murch during the renovation or maybe they won't. IMHO regardless of that it is logical to move the Hearst boundary north a bit in order to more evenly distribute neighborhood kids across two very close-together schools one of which currently has a relatively large geographic boundary and the other of which currenlty has a relatively small geographic boundary. It just seems logical to me. But of course logic and DCPS don't always go together

Streets which are south of Murch and InBoundary for Murch

Davenport
Cumberland
Chesapeake
Brandywine
Appleton
Albemarle
Alton
Yuma (north side east of 38th is Murch)

Right - I am assuming the proposed changes do go through. The issue with the southern boundary is that walkability to Hearst does deteriorate (despite the fact that many on DCUM apparently walk their kids 15 blocks to school!) North of Yuma because you have to cross Reno and it is really hilly. A 3 block flat walk along 36th st. is really really different from a 12 block uphill walk crossing reno. I'm south of Murch, but in the safe zone for now, and happy that my kids will be well out of elementary school by the time the next review goes forward!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the southern Murch boundary is that there are only 5 streets south of the school in boundary. Regardless of what school those kids would be rezoned to (probably Hearst) there aren't enough kids on those 5 blocks to resolve the overcrowding problem. Now if they moved the boundary to include the houses east of Connecticut, that would make a difference, but those kids are nowhere near walkable to Hearst. Hopefully the school will add capacity during the renovation.

By my count there are actually 8 streets south of Murch which are in boundary. The original DME rezone proposal included more of these blocks to be rezoned to Hearst than the second proposal in June which only goes up to Albemarle I believe. Maybe they will add capacity to Murch during the renovation or maybe they won't. IMHO regardless of that it is logical to move the Hearst boundary north a bit in order to more evenly distribute neighborhood kids across two very close-together schools one of which currently has a relatively large geographic boundary and the other of which currenlty has a relatively small geographic boundary. It just seems logical to me. But of course logic and DCPS don't always go together

Streets which are south of Murch and InBoundary for Murch

Davenport
Cumberland
Chesapeake
Brandywine
Appleton
Albemarle
Alton
Yuma (north side east of 38th is Murch)

ha ha, Murch is on Davenport. Are you suggesting that the houses across the street from the school should be zoned elsewhere? Now that is crazy.

[Anonymous]

I would be more concerned about the northern boundary (near Western Ave.), which may change to Lafayette. Unlike living between Murch and Hearst, which is a very walkable area and close to public transportation, having to cross Connecticut to drop off at Lafayette will definitely affect a family's commute.

[Anonymous]

Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be more concerned about the northern boundary (near Western Ave.), which may change to Lafayette. Unlike living between Murch and Hearst, which is a very walkable area and close to public transportation, having to cross Connecticut to drop off at Lafayette will definitely affect a family's commute.

Murch has a weird dogleg that goes up to Western but the bulk stops at Military. The first proposal moved the southern boundary up to Cumberland (from Yuma). The second proposal moved the southern to Ablemarle and cut off the dog leg. A wide swath of the Murch lot is park service land meaning it is in useable for building unless the park service agrees. If they don't (and haven't so far) then the renovation will be smaller than what DCPS is projecting for enrollment. If that happens, I bet the southern boundary moves north again. It takes out heavily populated SFH and apartment buildings along CT.

[Anonymous]

If you want this to go through in two years or sooner, vote for Bowser. If you think changes like this shouldn't be rushed, vote to Catania.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want this to go through in two years or sooner, vote for Bowser. If you think changes like this shouldn't be rushed, vote to Catania.

So if I want DCPS to do the logical thing I should vote for Bowser?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

[Anonymous]

^^good point about that new construction. Murch will continue to be overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be more concerned about the northern boundary (near Western Ave.), which may change to Lafayette. Unlike living between Murch and Hearst, which is a very walkable area and close to public transportation, having to cross Connecticut to drop off at Lafayette will definitely affect a family's commute.

Murch has a weird dogleg that goes up to Western but the bulk stops at Military. The first proposal moved the southern boundary up to Cumberland (from Yuma). The second proposal moved the southern to Ablemarle and cut off the dog leg. A wide swath of the Murch lot is park service land meaning it is in useable for building unless the park service agrees. If they don't (and haven't so far) then the renovation will be smaller than what DCPS is projecting for enrollment. If that happens, I bet the southern boundary moves north again. It takes out heavily populated SFH and apartment buildings along CT.

The current northern boundary of Murch goes to the DC line at Western bounded to the west by 41st Street and to the east at Connecticut. The current proposed change would move the residences north of Military between 41st and CT to Lafayette. Taking the PPs point, it might have made sense to draw the new boundary at Kanawha or Jocelyn so residences in the new building at Military and Kanawha would be IB for Lafayette. Murch is more overcrowded and has less room to expand than Lafayette.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

Oh no. Not you again. Still haven't figured out "population density" of those blocks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

If Murch can't renovate for the capacity it needs they should turn the CC Community Center by the library into an early childhood center. That playground by the library is great for younger grades and that space could take the pressure off Murch and Lafayette, which will continue to see more students.

Also if Murch can't build on the park land, they could give the teachers street parking permits (they are doing this in Glover Park now) and build on the teachers' parking lot. Or build underground parking for the teachers. Parking is a teachers union contract stipulation.

[Anonymous]

The parking lot will be replaced by more trailers next month. That part will be built on for sure, but it won't be enough. All building (and parking) options are being explored. The amount of extra square footage needed by code for 700-800 elementary students is pretty staggering.

The CCCC is a good idea - it was a DCPS school before it became the community center. And DCPS has several schools that dual function as community centers (like Stoddert).

btw- the CBA language on parking is "if possible," with agreement to "explore other options." But teacher parking is important.