BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

I heard that the Jan. 25 meeting of the BCC Middle School Site Selection Committee on Jan. 25 was "interesting.”

For those in attendance, or on the committee, any feedback on the errors and omissions by MCPS planning staff? From what I have heard, it seems like MCPS staff have provided the committee with erroneous or misleading information – that they only correct or clarify once members of the public (or other county/state agencies) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that MCPS is in error. It is troubling that the committee has been provided so much erroneous information and so many issues are not resolved. I would have thought that MCPS should have spent loads of time preparing its briefing materials in the months since superintendent starr announced the reset of the process. It is somewhat embarrassing that even in the second round MCPS seems incapable of briefing the committee in an authoritative and unbiased way. I fear that no location will be selected - or even if a good location is chosen - the obvious errors in the process will hand any adversely affected community a great argument that the process was broken at the inception - indefinitely delaying any second middle school. This is really the only context where MCPS has to deal with other agencies and cannot ignore inconvenient facts – I guess they are not used to having to prove their case.

Should Starr press the reset button again and perhaps some grown ups to do the research and present real proposals to the public?

[Anonymous]

Have you been to the meetings? They are open to the public except for closed session discussing possible private sites. You should go and see for yourself - there is opportunity for public comments.

[Anonymous]

It is going to end up at the location they selected, if you think for a minute this dog and pony show is going to result in a different outcome I have some swamp lad to sell you

[Anonymous]

I went to the mtg last night. They cut off public comment after 2 people spoke from rock creek hills and did not let anyone else comment even though people had their hands up. Cutting off public comment is problematic. I am concerned that they are destined for failure.

[Anonymous]

PP - what were you going to say?

[Anonymous]

I think the MCPS superintendant initially came out in favor of the Rock Creek Hills site, right? I know they had to re-do the process because they didn't meet all the regs the first time around, but I've always kind of figured that it would come back to the initial decision. However, the RCH families are beyond nutty about this and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the school out. Of course, so did the Rosemary Hills neighborhood. I still don't get the aversion to having a school in their neighborhood that would educate their children. And I think RCH is giving the neighborhood a really bad name with its resistance; we're at a feeder elementary for the new middle school and there's a lot of eyerolling about it all. This idea that somehow southern Kensington should be a nature preserve with no school buses sullying its precious side streets is pretty ridiculous. They've got a million excuses to rationalize the opposition but it all comes down to NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the MCPS superintendant initially came out in favor of the Rock Creek Hills site, right? I know they had to re-do the process because they didn't meet all the regs the first time around, but I've always kind of figured that it would come back to the initial decision. However, the RCH families are beyond nutty about this and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the school out. Of course, so did the Rosemary Hills neighborhood. I still don't get the aversion to having a school in their neighborhood that would educate their children. And I think RCH is giving the neighborhood a really bad name with its resistance; we're at a feeder elementary for the new middle school and there's a lot of eyerolling about it all. This idea that somehow southern Kensington should be a nature preserve with no school buses sullying its precious side streets is pretty ridiculous. They've got a million excuses to rationalize the opposition but it all comes down to NIMBY.

That's kind of how I feel about the Coffield site too, though. It's obvious the school is going to end on some site that is currently used as a park (hey there's one in my neighborhood I think they should look at), so the idea that the Parks Dept. is going to veto some sites but not others seems a little odd to me-- it's all still Montgomery county public employees right?

[Anonymous]

(hey there's one in my neighborhood I think they should look at)

PP - where/which park?

-- committee member

[Anonymous]

The thing I keep thinking is that the lack of due diligence on the sites is shocking given that this is the second site selection committee. MCPS should have figured out all the legal issues regarding use of parks long before restarting the process. It almost seems like they are acting like children - refusing to acknowledge factual or legal issues that make certain parks unavailable.

I wish they would take a hard look at the land MCPS actually currently owns. For example, MCPS owns land at lynnbrook and could build a middle school there and work out use of the fields at the adjacent park with parks. They would probably have to get some zoning exemptions to build it high enough - and also consider an underground parking garage - but that is life in downcounty. And yes, they might have to widen streets. If MCPS insists on using design criteria that come from the exurbs, it will never be able to build a new middle school. If they are going to build at RCH, then again, do it right. put in a parking garage, the building might have to be 8 floors high. But don't sacrifice the playing fields. Accept the fact that we are now urban with urban constraints and be as efficient in a design as they would have to be in any urban setting.

Alternatively, where MCPS does not own land next to a park (or have recall rights in a park), think about purchasing the land next to a park. For example, purchase land next to NCC and work out a deal with Parks to have an environmentally themed school and use the NCC fields. (e.g., buy the bethesda recreation center (private pool) that is tucked behind NCC and build the building there preserving the park).

Finally, if greenspace has to be taken, I would like some consideration on using private greenspace. Columbia Country Club is centerally located. I know, people would scream. But if there must be sacrifices for the GREATER good - then one should consider PRIVATE greenspace along with PUBLIC greenspace. If MCPS seriously considered taking private greenspace through the use of emminient domain - suddenly the whole BCC community would be alight with supporters of greenspace. I have no doubt that given sufficient backlash, MCPS would rapidly find a solution that involved building on property it already owns or finding other built up property to redevelop. I think perhaps that it will take failing for a second time for MCPS to engage in some serious problem solving.

[Anonymous]

1115PP, what planet are you from? I'm not a country club person in the least, but it's basically absurd to suggest that the county expropriate the Columbia Country Club to build a new middle school. There is no legal basis for doing so, and it would cost a gazillion dollars to buy that land. There is a list of possible sites for the new middle school, many of which are buildings that used to be schools. What's wrong with the properties on that list? Why are these neighborhoods so hysterically opposed to having a middle school in their midst? We're not talking about a psychiatric institution or a maximum security prison; we're talking about a school that would benefit the community itself. I just don't understand the attitude at all.

[Anonymous]

We want Lynbrook and it is in out neighborhood build it already

[Anonymous]

Norwood Park would be good too. Currently a large portion of the park is being used an off leash dog park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Norwood Park would be good too. Currently a large portion of the park is being used an off leash dog park.

In this case, why bother with a new school if you're going to put it so close to Westland?

[Anonymous]

Westland and Norwood aren't terribly close in location, although I guess that would be further west than the first two tries. I recall there was some issue of a historic property at Norwood that got it knocked off the list last time around, but truthfully I always figured that this location as well as Lynbrook would provoke even fiercer and more deep-pocketed opposition than the Coffield or RCH options. Those are much pricier neighborhoods than Kensington and Rosemary Hills, and presumably a very high lawyer population who'd like nothing better than to organize a pro bono challenge to any community facility in their midst. But maybe I'm wrong? Maybe RCH is an anomaly, and other fancier hoods would be happy to have a school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

(hey there's one in my neighborhood I think they should look at)

PP - where/which park?

-- committee member

Lynbrook is the one I was thinking of. I understand it's on the small side, but I wonder if having the MS so close to the high school would have benefits that might offset that somehow.