Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

I'm the PP who asked for evidence. You would rather I just baldly state that it is false without any evidence myself?
Seems to me that productive discourse requires testing the accuracy of supporting claims in good faith.

You'd prefer the "nu-huh" v. "yes-huh" style of "discussion"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

Look at the linked post. It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise? No.

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail. (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

Look at the linked post. It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise? No.

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail. (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)

This doesn't make sense to me. If a poster has a question about or once to engage in a particular issue raised, they should not do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

Look at the linked post. It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise? No.

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail. (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)

Who says that they're issues? You. It's your opinion. It's your opinion. It's your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

I'm the PP who asked for evidence. You would rather I just baldly state that it is false without any evidence myself?
Seems to me that productive discourse requires testing the accuracy of supporting claims in good faith.

You'd prefer the "nu-huh" v. "yes-huh" style of "discussion"?

I would prefer neither. Either way simply distracts. The questioning without providing a direct and robust counter of one's own is merely a more insidious way of making that distraction happen. So between the two distasteful approaches, maybe the less insidious one?

You suggest stating it's false without any evidence yourself. How about stating it's false with evidence or a robust rationale? That would be far more productive discourse than the questioning-only approach, allowing equivalent critique of each viewpoint. And, yes, further evidence from the one viewpoint would be helpful, but providing a rationale is, at least, a.start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

Look at the linked post. It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise? No.

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail. (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)

This doesn't make sense to me. If a poster has a question about or once to engage in a particular issue raised, they should not do that?

See immediate past post.