MCPS and Starr will probably need to change boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With regard to "redistricting," no one thinks it's racist that the only way to increase minority achievement is to pepper minority students throughout white schools?

doesn't sound racist at all

Who, specifically, is saying that the only way to increase minority achievement is to pepper minority students throughout white schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As soon as you add in low-income housing, people will move. I remember years ago, when I bought my TH, neighbors said that they were looking at THs in the same hood - but these THs were across the street from Section 8 housing. They said no way and moved over to my section. The THs they originally looked at were better made, larger and encircled a lake (man-made). But the Section 8 was enough to drive them away. And we're talking moderately priced THs - not mansions!

Call it white flight; call it bright flight. It's still flight.

So busing won't work b/c it's costly, but neither will the move to spread low-income housing among regular housing. People will take their money and move farther out where zoning laws are stricter and set at 2+ acres.

not gonna solve a damn thing until we all dig deep and realize that most of this area is filled with people who will never admit to having racist beliefs

Except that it actually is working, right here in Montgomery County. Montgomery County has had a Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program since 1973. And people are not moving "further out" in Montgomery County -- the housing in highest demand (and therefore the housing that costs the most) is downcounty. What's more, the new "further out" Montgomery County neighborhoods, like Clarksburg, are basically the opposite of 2+ acres, and they have MPDUs.

But yes, the zoning laws are a problem. The good news is that the County is fixing some of those problems with the rewrite of the zoning code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody gives a rats ass about Arlington, Belmont or Lexington in Massachusetts. Its not even relevant. Don't be a Masshole.

They are relevant when people say, "Residential economic integration does not exist!", but the reality is that residential economic integration does exist.

I'm with the PP -- residential economic segregation doesn't just happen. It is a deliberate policy choice.

[Anonymous]

In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

[Anonymous]

Who, specifically, is saying that the only way to increase minority achievement is to pepper minority students throughout white schools?

Members on the County Council.

Achievement gap my ass. The County Council wants to avoid funding expansion of overcrowded schools and necessary repairs. They are just trying to create a distraction and scare people into thinking demanding that facilities not fall apart will mean buses running all over the county. Of course these are the magic fairy free buses. I am so sick of Montgomery County. Why is it led by idiots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who, specifically, is saying that the only way to increase minority achievement is to pepper minority students throughout white schools?

Members on the County Council.

Achievement gap my ass. The County Council wants to avoid funding expansion of overcrowded schools and necessary repairs. They are just trying to create a distraction and scare people into thinking demanding that facilities not fall apart will mean buses running all over the county. Of course these are the magic fairy free buses. I am so sick of Montgomery County. Why is it led by idiots?

Which members of the County Council said this, and what exactly did they say?

Also, the MCPS operating budget is already over half of the total county budget. How much more of the county budget should it be? Which services do you want to cut, or which taxes do you want to raise, to increase funding for schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

I am not missing the point. How would you accomplish it in MoCo? Randomly place each child based on the diversity needs of the school without regard for location and other family members. They can;t all be in 1 building like a small town. I would be there are "good" and "bad" parts of those towns too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

I am not missing the point. How would you accomplish it in MoCo? Randomly place each child based on the diversity needs of the school without regard for location and other family members. They can;t all be in 1 building like a small town. I would be there are "good" and "bad" parts of those towns too.

Require the establishment of substantial numbers of affordable housing units county-wide. Not a few units here and there - substantial numbers, so that school populations are economically diverse.

The status quo, with virtually no FARMS rates or middle-income housing in the W school areas, is a policy choice. It could be changed by means of different policy choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

I am not missing the point. How would you accomplish it in MoCo? Randomly place each child based on the diversity needs of the school without regard for location and other family members. They can;t all be in 1 building like a small town. I would be there are "good" and "bad" parts of those towns too.

Require the establishment of substantial numbers of affordable housing units county-wide. Not a few units here and there - substantial numbers, so that school populations are economically diverse.

The status quo, with virtually no FARMS rates or middle-income housing in the W school areas, is a policy choice. It could be changed by means of different policy choices.

One simple way to increase socioeconomic residential integration, with less cost to government, would be to allow people to have accessory apartments in their houses, without having to jump through a lot of hoops and meet multiple limiting requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

I am not missing the point. How would you accomplish it in MoCo? Randomly place each child based on the diversity needs of the school without regard for location and other family members. They can;t all be in 1 building like a small town. I would be there are "good" and "bad" parts of those towns too.

Require the establishment of substantial numbers of affordable housing units county-wide. Not a few units here and there - substantial numbers, so that school populations are economically diverse.

The status quo, with virtually no FARMS rates or middle-income housing in the W school areas, is a policy choice. It could be changed by means of different policy choices.

One simple way to increase socioeconomic residential integration, with less cost to government, would be to allow people to have accessory apartments in their houses, without having to jump through a lot of hoops and meet multiple limiting requirements.

I agree. This could be part of policy changes.

[Anonymous]

"The status quo, with virtually no FARMS rates or middle-income housing in the W school areas, is a policy choice. It could be changed by means of different policy choices.


One simple way to increase socioeconomic residential integration, with less cost to government, would be to allow people to have accessory apartments in their houses, without having to jump through a lot of hoops and meet multiple limiting requirements."

Agree that given that county policy has overly concentrated lower income living spots in certain areas, we now need to counterbalance that by requiring more in the areas with less affordable housing. But I highly doubt someone in Bethesda is going to have a poor family living in their "accessory apartment". Unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Agree that given that county policy has overly concentrated lower income living spots in certain areas, we now need to counterbalance that by requiring more in the areas with less affordable housing. But I highly doubt someone in Bethesda is going to have a poor family living in their "accessory apartment". Unlikely.

But someone in Bethesda might have a family live in their accessory apartment who would otherwise not be able to afford to live in Bethesda. Equally, a family might be able to live in Bethesda because they can rent out an accessory apartment.

[Anonymous]

Why will affordable housing in wealthy areas make dcc or NEC better? It'll just make the richer areas worse. What is the point? I'd rather focus efforts on serving middle class kids needs in these zones (in the form of a consortium or otherwise) through tracking more magnet better teacher etc. or just showing middle class families that they are also an important part of the dcc/NEC landscape. Sure you can jiggle to boundaries a bit but you'll just punish families who chose to stay and make a go in SS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In small places where everyone can go to one or two high schools..not comparable to large county based systems.

You are missing the point, which is: Socioeconomic residential integration is achievable.

Why would you believe that when MoCo's recent history shows the opposite. You basically have the higher-income families hanging on to a few areas, a bunch of older homeowners without kids aging in place in areas with poor schools, and a county government more interested in abstract social policy than shoring up the tax base? If the goal is to turn both Whitman and Kennedy into replicas of Rockville, people might as well move to DC and just take their chances with Wilson.