BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

There is no easy answer, and I am not from the neighborhood around Lynnbrook, so cannot speak for this community. But half the site (total 10.04 acres) is owned by MCPS. The old school buildings already sit on the property, so they would not be changing the nature of usage for those parcels. In fact, you could say those 3 parcels would be improved. The rest of the 3 parcels consist of MNCPPC parkland and one parcel houses the defunct activity building. This school and park have already co-located and co-existed since the 1940's. This would not be taking green open spaces from anyone. It would not be taking significant if any trees from the site. The site is very level so minimal grading would be needed. MCPS has to think urban school, thus multi level structure. That is the reality of down county building in the 21st century.

To think of targeting existing, open, tree laden parkland is to take away precious disappearing natural resources that are badly needed especially in the fast growing urbanized down county area.

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory. And it will not stop at the middle school, or the RCH site (or NCC site for that matter) because before long they will need to build...another school, and they will once again look at "vacant free land" called parks, that belong to all of us and are a precious and disappearing commodity.

I have visited all the original sites. All the parks are precious and important to the surrounding communities. People need parks. In this case I would advocate for doing the least harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no easy answer, and I am not from the neighborhood around Lynnbrook, so cannot speak for this community. But half the site (total 10.04 acres) is owned by MCPS. The old school buildings already sit on the property, so they would not be changing the nature of usage for those parcels. In fact, you could say those 3 parcels would be improved. The rest of the 3 parcels consist of MNCPPC parkland and one parcel houses the defunct activity building. This school and park have already co-located and co-existed since the 1940's. This would not be taking green open spaces from anyone. It would not be taking significant if any trees from the site. The site is very level so minimal grading would be needed. MCPS has to think urban school, thus multi level structure. That is the reality of down county building in the 21st century.

To think of targeting existing, open, tree laden parkland is to take away precious disappearing natural resources that are badly needed especially in the fast growing urbanized down county area.

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory. And it will not stop at the middle school, or the RCH site (or NCC site for that matter) because before long they will need to build...another school, and they will once again look at "vacant free land" called parks, that belong to all of us and are a precious and disappearing commodity.

I have visited all the original sites. All the parks are precious and important to the surrounding communities. People need parks. In this case I would advocate for doing the least harm.

You really are making a lot of sense, which, on this issue, may mean that you need to hire an official food taster.

Seriously, it is painful to think of sacrificing a park in a county that is becoming almost hyper-urbanized, but I think you're right.  If you give them a park, they'll take a forest, and at the rate they're going, they'll be paving over everything.  

Further, I think you're spot-on about not rewarding MCPS for its poor stewardship.  It creates the exigency by its abysmal performance, and then it argues that exigency to justify taking what it calls "vacant land" (parks).  It's like the kid who kills his parents pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.

If you're not on the site selection committee, it's a shame.  It could use your clear thinking. 

[Anonymous]

Further, I think you're spot-on about not rewarding MCPS for its poor stewardship. It creates the exigency by its abysmal performance, and then it argues that exigency to justify taking what it calls "vacant land" (parks). It's like the kid who kills his parents pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.

Wow. Does that sum it up perfectly or what!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The site is very level so minimal grading would be needed.

Either we have different understandings as to what constitutes "minimal" or we are talking about different Lynnbrook parks, because the Lynnbrook that I've visited has several different hills used for sledding.

I don't want to defend MCPS or represent that they do a good job of long range planning, but I do think it's unfair to suggest that that they represent an ongoing threat to parkland, without also acknowledging that they have created parks as well. I think a PP suggested that what MCPS should have done a while back is trade the RCH site to the Parks dept. for another park, but really what is the difference between doing that then and doing it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The site is very level so minimal grading would be needed.

Either we have different understandings as to what constitutes "minimal" or we are talking about different Lynnbrook parks, because the Lynnbrook that I've visited has several different hills used for sledding.

I don't want to defend MCPS or represent that they do a good job of long range planning, but I do think it's unfair to suggest that that they represent an ongoing threat to parkland, without also acknowledging that they have created parks as well. I think a PP suggested that what MCPS should have done a while back is trade the RCH site to the Parks dept. for another park, but really what is the difference between doing that then and doing it now?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding these posts, but I think the prior poster was arguing that if a park is to be used, it should be a park that represents the least harm to system, and that MCPS should have some "skin" in the game.  Hence, the reference to Lynbrook, half of which is owned by MCPS.  As for the comments about MCPS's appetite for parkland, it was MCPS that made reference to parks as vacant land.  Finally, regarding fairness to MCPS, you are a kinder person than I am, but, is it really accurate to say that MCPS created any parks?  Or, did it just offer the land up (with reclaim rights) while it wasn't being used, allowing Parks to create the parks. Perhaps it's a technical point, and maybe I've missed something in this middle school saga, but have we ever seen MCPS express an interest in private land beyond pointing to its cost as a justification for taking parks? I don't know.

[Anonymous]

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory.

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory.

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please.

Thanks for suggesting the helpful phrase "just silly"!

• What is just silly is pretending that it's possible to put a new school where an old school was. This is not possible because two hundred people live there. Namely, the frail elderly residents of the Kensington Park retirement community, built by the Housing Opportunities Commission on much of the former school site:


• What is just silly is pretending that Rock Creek Hills Park is big enough to support a middle school, when none of the "final options" developed under the 2011 "feasibility study" include enough parking. And that was assuming that MCPS will be able to destroy the 5.1 acres of forest on Rock Creek Hills Park, which is not clear, as M-NCPPC review of a site Forest Conservation Plan is binding.

• What is just silly is pretending that no federal funds were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park, when the only official records yet produced say not once, not twice, but three times that money from the "Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund" was used:


Look, you want to build on the park. I get it. But the park is reduced, inadequate, and encumbered. It's reduced in size, because of the construction of the elder care facility. It's inadequate, as shown by the feasibility study. It's encumbered under the law, given official records. What's just silly is thinking that attacking the character of Rock Creek Hills citizens distracts from your inability to address those specifics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory.

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please.

The value of 'Education' or schools is not questioned. But county residents also value 'Parks' as places that everyone uses- those with older kids, those with no kids - throughout life. As a parent, one's connection with a middle school passes in the blink of an eye. When a Park goes away, it may never return. School organizations often assume 'it's for the children' is an argument that trumps all others. Many of us resent that line of thinking when it replaces real long-term planning, fiscal responsibility and respect for all county residents.

MCPS should be using its own resources if it has the option. That kind of inter-agency cooperation shouldd be respected by everyone- those with and without kids. We all count. And we're all funding these important decisions. For the record, I am not an RCH poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory.

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please.

I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that MCPS be punished (the posters will have to speak for themselves). What seems to be said, if I read the other poster correctly, is that MCPS had a hand in creating some of the problem, and so, if a park should have to be used, then MCPS should share in the burden. Is that unfair? I guess the answer is a decision for the communities involved.

I disagree with the statement that none of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS’ planning decisions from the 1980s, or that we don’t know what factors went into those decisions. We do know what factors went into those decisions because there is a written record. Some of that record concerns the use of specific sites, and some of it speaks to MCPS’ demographic projections. To be fair to MCPS, the economic downturn of late has prompted a migration of students into the schools from private schools, but that fact is a small component of the problem.

The real breakdown here is that MCPS, and the county, let assets go. Communities were planned around those assets. In some cases, there were fights when the assets were being transferred for other uses. Now, after decades, sites have been altered, in some cases, permanently, and MCPS wants to walk back as if nothing has changed. I can’t speak for the RCH people, but I suspect the pushback we’re seeing wouldn’t be half as bad if there weren’t that old age home on the site.

As for the sanctity of parks, some of that is emotion, but a lot of it is legal. In the last meeting, there was a significant amount of discussion around what has to be referred to Park and Planning. You can’t blame that on the poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory.

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please.

The value of 'Education' or schools is not questioned. But county residents also value 'Parks' as places that everyone uses- those with older kids, those with no kids - throughout life. As a parent, one's connection with a middle school passes in the blink of an eye. When a Park goes away, it may never return. School organizations often assume 'it's for the children' is an argument that trumps all others. Many of us resent that line of thinking when it replaces real long-term planning, fiscal responsibility and respect for all county residents.

MCPS should be using its own resources if it has the option. That kind of inter-agency cooperation shouldd be respected by everyone- those with and without kids. We all count. And we're all funding these important decisions. For the record, I am not an RCH poster.

I think this is a fair and reasonable point, one that is getting lost in these exchanges. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

For the record: I do not live in Kensington, nor even NEAR Kensington. But I do support Parks.

All parks, are an important part of communities. They add immeasurably to our quality of life, and the air we breathe. Parks and Planning are not planning to roll over, so if the SSAC wants to be bullheaded and forge onward with a decision that may prove costly in terms of time and approval, they may be setting up for another failure. The first SSAC failed miserably because they failed to do any actual research on sites beyond the surface "facts" that they were presented with by MCPS. Let's not make the same mistake and decide in a vacuum.

The people who live in RCH have reacted strongly to having their park targeted. The people of RHP reacted equally as strongly, and I will bet if NCC or Norwood is selected (highly unlikely) those communities would all of the sudden transform into the crazy maniacs we all seem think Kensington folks are. Nah, I won't bet, I know they would. No community wants to lose a park. The mcps, mncppc and the people serving on the ssac will have to come up with a more creative solution that doesn't take public green open spaces (parks) away from communities. I agree with the previous poster that folks take a close look at Lynbrook. I also went by there yesterday and walked around the whole site, park and school portion. Another poster mentioned sledding hills...well, honestly, I didn't see any. The area is fairly level. Certainly far more level than many other locations. And I agree that this option might make the most sense in preserving park land and using mcps resources. That the majority of the old lynnbrook building is leased out to a private day care center, illustrates the folly of using a public school building paid for by our tax dollars for private good. It is time to put the former school site back into public use. I am not suggesting that the people who live near the Lynnbrook local park lose their park, but rather that a site that already houses two school building and a large parking lot be redeveloped for the greater good.

I know there were differing ideas about what central means, as if the point could be debated in the abstract. but really folks, look at the map, common sense dictates that central is smack dab in the middle of the cluster. Lynnbrook is centrally located, and would provide a walking school for many.

[Anonymous]

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools.

Conversely the sanctity of schools does not trump the need for parks. I am not a rch resident, but i do resent the shortsightedness of the park land grab by mcps. They are not the only public agency that has to consider the needs of the community.

[Anonymous]

Here is a thought; how about we stop bickering among ourselves. It is amazing to see how successfully MCPS has pitted communities against one and other, with everyone eager to pick someone else's park. I hear the current SSAC is getting ready to do just that, with North Chevy Chase as just the latest to emerge in the general consensus as the winner for the new school booby prize. And folks correct me if I am wrong, but reps from the formerly picked RHP and current front runner rchp are rallying round the NCC cry. Isn't it rich?

How about we all pull together and protect ALL parks and demand that MCPS consider the real costs of real estate acquisition instead of considering parks as vacant lands to be had cheaply. Until that mind set changes, our parks will be increasingly under attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that MCPS be punished (the posters will have to speak for themselves). What seems to be said, if I read the other poster correctly, is that MCPS had a hand in creating some of the problem, and so, if a park should have to be used, then MCPS should share in the burden. Is that unfair? I guess the answer is a decision for the communities involved.

But if Parks put an irrevocable open space condition on a site that was subject to a reclaim for school. then didn't Parks also have a hand in creating the problem? I guess I don't understand posters who insist on the one hand that a school can never be built at RCH because of what Parks did with certain funding, and on the other hand insist that Parks land can never be used for schools.

[Anonymous]

But if Parks put an irrevocable open space condition on a site that was subject to a reclaim for school. then didn't Parks also have a hand in creating the problem? I guess I don't understand posters who insist on the one hand that a school can never be built at RCH because of what Parks did with certain funding, and on the other hand insist that Parks land can never be used for schools.

The above is refers to two different posters. I am not a rch resident while they appear to have a lot of paperwork regarding whether their park can or cannot be reclaimed, i do think that mcps does have a genuine right to reclaim, now if someone along the line did something to muddy that right then that is a separate issue.

However, I do think that continuing to target parks (let's just leave rch out of this for a moment) as the only available places to build new school construction, especially in the down county area bodes badly for ALL of our parks, ALL OF THEM. We really need to change that mindset for the sake of our children and their children, because eventually, there won't be any parks left. Is this alarmist? No, just look at all the green space that is quickly being gobbled by the coming Purple Line and the attendant re-development. At least we can try to protect parks from disappearing one by one as they determine another need to build this and that.

I think MCPS, the SSAC AND MNCPPC can all do better, think out of the box, and come up with a solution that is smart, economical, and spares the most loss of green space. My concern is the current SSAC (much like the last one) is buying into the premise that parks are vacant free land and because a park is listed as 20, 17, or 13 acres, it is considered to have "all that space". Yet many have not even taken the time to go to each location get out of their vehicles and walk around, see what is there, what could be built on, what is unbuildable acreage etc. The fact that MCPS puts together a citizens advisory and then gives them the impression that they are coming up with a good solution without adequate data makes me think they are putting on a show. That MCPS is trying to herd/guide folks towards certain sites and away from others (just watch the meetings in action to see what I mean).