Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[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.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

[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)?

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.

Maybe you could start by examining your premises.

[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.)

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

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

[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)?

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.

Funny that questioning an assertion underlying an argument is insidious distraction, but hijacking to critique somebody's form of engagement is not.

I have questioned, and I have cited evidence.
When somebody confidently makes an assertion that I can't immediately find evidence to support, I will continue to question it rather than either ignore it or engage with it as though it is true.

You do you.

[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.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

Hey! An actual reaponse with some points! Thanks!

I agree that there should be ways to encourage development and that any of those might be used, or might have been used, to argue against it. That's the point -- coming to a better agreement about how to approach development by including those considerations, particularly school overcrowding/funding, in the debate, resulting in housing that doesn't fall into a spiral of under-service to those most in need of services.

Your bolded, above, basically paints this as an all-or-nothing of its own, when reality is far more nuanced, especially when looking to achieve a social optimum. For instance, we can look to adjust the current bill so that jurisdictions are required not to subject these projects to adequate public facility rules on their own, but then are required to make the consequent changes to area public facilities to keep them adequate, falling back on the state, which is mandating this approach, for a bucket of funding to cover those changes. (Putting the state's money where its mouth is.)

[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:

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.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

Hey! An actual reaponse with some points! Thanks!

I agree that there should be ways to encourage development and that any of those might be used, or might have been used, to argue against it. That's the point -- coming to a better agreement about how to approach development by including those considerations, particularly school overcrowding/funding, in the debate, resulting in housing that doesn't fall into a spiral of under-service to those most in need of services.

Your bolded, above, basically paints this as an all-or-nothing of its own, when reality is far more nuanced, especially when looking to achieve a social optimum. For instance, we can look to adjust the current bill so that jurisdictions are required not to subject these projects to adequate public facility rules on their own, but then are required to make the consequent changes to area public facilities to keep them adequate, falling back on the state, which is mandating this approach, for a bucket of funding to cover those changes. (Putting the state's money where its mouth is.)

The reality is that all you're doing right now is opposing housing.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill

[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:

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.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

Hey! An actual reaponse with some points! Thanks!

I agree that there should be ways to encourage development and that any of those might be used, or might have been used, to argue against it. That's the point -- coming to a better agreement about how to approach development by including those considerations, particularly school overcrowding/funding, in the debate, resulting in housing that doesn't fall into a spiral of under-service to those most in need of services.

Your bolded, above, basically paints this as an all-or-nothing of its own, when reality is far more nuanced, especially when looking to achieve a social optimum. For instance, we can look to adjust the current bill so that jurisdictions are required not to subject these projects to adequate public facility rules on their own, but then are required to make the consequent changes to area public facilities to keep them adequate, falling back on the state, which is mandating this approach, for a bucket of funding to cover those changes. (Putting the state's money where its mouth is.)

The reality is that all you're doing right now is opposing housing.

OK. Your opinion (now stated repeatedly without much more). I differ in my thought as to what I am doing, supporting good school outcomes with development of housing, knowing, based on past and recent experience, that the former likely won't occur on its own.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill

4. Amend the bill so that it addresses the points made and properly supports school needs/doesn't create a related deficit (among, perhaps, other public services).

I choose 4.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill

4. Amend the bill so that it addresses the points made and properly supports school needs/doesn't create a related deficit (among, perhaps, other public services).

I choose 4.

4 is not a choice that exists in reality. A choice for "4" is actually a choice for 3: don't pass the bill.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill

4. Amend the bill so that it addresses the points made and properly supports school needs/doesn't create a related deficit (among, perhaps, other public services).

I choose 4.

4 is not a choice that exists in reality. A choice for "4" is actually a choice for 3: don't pass the bill.

Of course it exists in reality. Political influencers might wish it otherwise, forcing the choice among bad options in the expectation that there will be enough of a lean towards housing to pass the bill without making it better.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, of course -- legislation at all levels has often been ill-conceived sausage in this regard, especially in a one-party dominant jurisdiction. That doesn't mean that 1-3 are the only options, just that they are the only ones being pushed. It's all sausage, but the process of compromise often makes that dish more palatable.

[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:

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.

Sure. Not certain why you'd expect omniscience. But it's an opinion provided with a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts. If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. Then enact it.

Where? When?

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

"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."

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact. You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above. I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

By fix the bill I mean fix the bill. I don't mean kill it unless we can't fix it, and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above. Why miss the proper opportunity, here?

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill

4. Amend the bill so that it addresses the points made and properly supports school needs/doesn't create a related deficit (among, perhaps, other public services).

I choose 4.

4 is not a choice that exists in reality. A choice for "4" is actually a choice for 3: don't pass the bill.

DP in favor of this bill in principle. But I will say that #4 is not only a valid choice, but also the one with the highest probability of occurring. The bill will go through several rounds of debate and amendment that will address some of the school funding concerns (probably exempting schools from the rest of the public facilities) and then be passed. The end result will be better than noting. I'd bet quite a bit of money on it.

[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.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

JFC, we are advocating for it. And are you really arguing for building unchecked housing when there’s insufficient sewage capacity? No wonder our waterways are a mess.