BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

The people who want to use park land have kids that are not using the parks anymore:

The people who don't want to use the parks have kids who use them nowbut when those kids get to the overcrowded MS they will want them built whereever they can get them built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This building in MCPS inventory is not meeting its capability. That’s the standard that MCPS should be held to, before you look at walking radii, access roads, parks.

It may be that the site deserves extra attention because it is MCPS owned, but if you are suggesting the building could be better used as a school then I tend to disagree. The building does not have "capability" to serve as a school at this point, and if they put a new school there I think it will more cost-effective to raze it than to try and rehab it.

It should not be rehabed. It should be razed. And it should be used for the new school construction. It is an OUTRAGE that MCPS is trying to steal, grab, take (what ever you want to call it) parks from communities because they are mismanaging and not using their own inventory to its full potential.

And if razing is considered too expensive, than taking an open park land to build, then we have some mightily skewed priorities. MCPS has to consider the REAL cost of school construction. At least they ALREADY own the property, so that is a big savings, not to mention the good public relations that would result from such a choice.

and no, I am not from RCH, but I do feel badly for them and for any other community that is paying for MCPS incompetence.

I am from RCH. I appreciate your thoughts. For the record, I don’t support dumping the problem on NCC, RHLP, or the other parks, and I don’t appreciate the propaganda machine on this blog that paints our community with a broad brush, suggesting that we want MCPS to “grab” the parks in other communities. SOME people say that, just as SOME people in other neighborhoods say they want a school in RCH, but that doesn’t mean we all share that feeling.

[Anonymous]

I am from RCH. I appreciate your thoughts. For the record, I don’t support dumping the problem on NCC, RHLP, or the other parks, and I don’t appreciate the propaganda machine on this blog that paints our community with a broad brush, suggesting that we want MCPS to “grab” the parks in other communities. SOME people say that, just as SOME people in other neighborhoods say they want a school in RCH, but that doesn’t mean we all share that feeling.

Thanks for posting this. The impression I am getting from several posters is that there seems to be quite a bit of support for ALL parks.

This is imho, is the way it should be.

[Anonymous]

I like this sentiment - "If we want all this new development, especially down-county, esepcially in this cluster, then we're going to have to buy private land and build. Yes, it will be expensive, but if we really believe this development is worth it and will bring a positive value for the county, then we should be willing to invest in the infrastructure to support it." That in a nutshell is good long term planning. If development is WORTH it to the county/state - then the infrastructure necessary to suppor this development is worth it to the county/state. So, write your council, write the boe, write the planning department - demand that MCPS exercise good planning and select a currently existing MCPS owned land and/or that they purchase land (if necessary adjacent to an existing park where co-location is feasible).

People are willing to live in small homes and small apartment/condos because of parks. If you pave over parks with buildings and parking lots, we undermine the whole concept of sustainable development. Paving over parks makes folks think that they have to live out in the exurbs to have a little space of peace and quiet to sit outside. Do we want that? We are so fortunate to have these parks, once lost they will not be recreated in our lifetimes.

[Anonymous]

How did the meeting tonight go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did the meeting tonight go?

As the Great Criswell Predicted: North Chevy Chase & Rock Creek Hills are only two public sites remaining.

4th meeting will be devoted to all 3 private sites (Criswell predicts...None will do)

And Criswell IS NOT on the SSAC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the meeting tonight go?

As the Great Criswell Predicted: North Chevy Chase & Rock Creek Hills are only two public sites remaining.

4th meeting will be devoted to all 3 private sites (Criswell predicts...None will do)

And Criswell IS NOT on the SSAC!

Well Mr. C. I was at the meeting tonight and the cohesion disregarding any pros or cons of the votes either given to damn or protect a site were clear.

There were no compelling reasons to eliminate Lynnbrook, except the majority of Chevy Chase and Bethesda residents chose to do so...no real reason given. Yes, protected they are.

In fact, there were no compelling reasons to eliminate Norwood, except, we are rich, we have a lot of votes, and we will not be inconvenienced. There you go again.

So you are once again left with the two sites, that have the least influence: NCC & RCH.

In the case of NCC,it is a horrible site, for many reasons...the trees, the locations...etc.

But would it not have been nice to have a better solution? MCPS Mary Pat, and Janice will not let us. They are protecting MCPS property. And I guess that is what I meant when I said: MCPS is herding the SSAC to what they WANT them to choose.

[Anonymous]

My goodness you are right! It was shocking at the utter power that East Bethesda had to eliminate Lynnbrook because: What their EBCA leader said amounted to this much, they have a private Day Care Center that would be missed. " no, much too inconvenient to take away our PRIVATE DAYCARE transportation provided by MCPS buses thank you very much.

And so MC stays on the line for park land and more...Why was MoCo Public School protecting their oun property? Oh wait, I am so dumb!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like this sentiment - "If we want all this new development, especially down-county, esepcially in this cluster, then we're going to have to buy private land and build. Yes, it will be expensive, but if we really believe this development is worth it and will bring a positive value for the county, then we should be willing to invest in the infrastructure to support it." That in a nutshell is good long term planning. If development is WORTH it to the county/state - then the infrastructure necessary to suppor this development is worth it to the county/state. So, write your council, write the boe, write the planning department - demand that MCPS exercise good planning and select a currently existing MCPS owned land and/or that they purchase land (if necessary adjacent to an existing park where co-location is feasible).

People are willing to live in small homes and small apartment/condos because of parks. If you pave over parks with buildings and parking lots, we undermine the whole concept of sustainable development. Paving over parks makes folks think that they have to live out in the exurbs to have a little space of peace and quiet to sit outside. Do we want that? We are so fortunate to have these parks, once lost they will not be recreated in our lifetimes.

I couldn't agree more, but I have heard far too few people say it. Not to get all "deep throat", but people need to follow the money. Who benefits financially from construction of a new MS? Primarily it is the developers, because they avoid moratorium. Why should the community subsidize their profit by taking parks? Developers should bear the full cost of devlopment, including the construction of necessary infrastructure. To me the 2 sustainable options are to either go into moratorium, or to purchase private property. Let's hope that there is serious conversation about the later in the closed sessions.

[Anonymous]

Wow. That's too bad. As a Chevy Chase resident, I think Norwood would be a great site. It is centrally located, allowing for creative drawing of the boundaries between the new middle school and Westland so that the new school could be more racially and socioeconomically balanaced, and could even take overflow students from Pyle (which the Super has indicated is possible). It either has or has the potential to have multiple transportation points, and it is right on the Crescent Trail, so it would really encourage walking and biking.

Lynbrook would also be a GREAT site, in the sense that one could create a lot of synergy between the middle and high school. Advanced students could more easily take classes at BCC. In terms of field use, Lynbrook and BCC could use NCC fields, rather than constructing the new school at NCC.

Funny how when East Bethesda wanted to get out of the RHPS partner pairing, they complained about how much time their kids spent on the bus and how they had lost their neighborhood elementary, but now that that same spot could be a middle school, they don't want it.

[Anonymous]

Funny how when East Bethesda wanted to get out of the RHPS partner pairing, they complained about how much time their kids spent on the bus and how they had lost their neighborhood elementary, but now that that same spot could be a middle school, they don't want it.

Yeah, funny about that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.

Your guess is correct, in my opinion.

After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school.

Says who?

We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built.

What the hell? That is baseless. Who is telling you this?

Not the poster you're responding to, but re: creating split articulation B-CC/Whitman for Westland, I don't think that's baseless. Pyle is overcrowded and cannot be expanded. Westland sits in Whitman's catchment area. Redistricting some kids to Westland is a solution that's come up before.

I based my statements on ones made by the Superintendent of Montgomery County Schools, Dr. Joshua Starr, who said during a BOE hearing that Whitman cluster kids (Pyle) could go to Westland once the new middle school is built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to correct some misconceptions that are out there regarding the old Kensington Junior High. The building's site was NOT where the senior housing is today, but in fact was built on the edges of where the soccer field is today and on the slope below the soccer field. There are old photographs showing the entrances on that slope, and the old building. Yes, it would seem that the new school will be built much in the same area that the old school was in.

So it is really dishonest to continue to claim that where the old school sat, now the senior facility sits. Just google photos of Kensington Junior High, or for that matter, look at the Save Rock Creek Hills Blog and see where the author of the blog actually makes that correction on the aerial photos way back in May 2011.

RCH and Lynnbrook, in my estimation are the only two locations that mcps has a right to.

A previous poster said that Grace Church was no longer owned by mcps, another said that it was leased. Which is it?

If it is true that the new school will be built on "much in the same area that the old school was in," then why must they destroy all of the 100-year-old trees on the site? They were standing when KJH was there...

[Anonymous]

I couldn't agree more, but I have heard far too few people say it. Not to get all "deep throat", but people need to follow the money. Who benefits financially from construction of a new MS? Primarily it is the developers, because they avoid moratorium. Why should the community subsidize their profit by taking parks? Developers should bear the full cost of devlopment, including the construction of necessary infrastructure. To me the 2 sustainable options are to either go into moratorium, or to purchase private property. Let's hope that there is serious conversation about the later in the closed sessions.

I don't think development is in the community's best interest, whether it's in Kensington or Chevy Chase. The cost of development on infrastructure won't support the tax dollars derived from it. And, if there is such concern about traffic, is the community OK with development at Chevy Chase Lake? Will this not affect traffic in the area?

There were some "out of the box" ideas being discussed in the community prior to the "new and improved" SSAC meetings, such as making North Chevy Chase Elementary the middle school with a possibility of bargaining for land with CC Land Co. for adjacent land for fields, coupled with building a new elementary at Lynnbrook. But, that kind of thinking was quickly suppressed in the first SSAC meeting during a rushed vote to "eliminate" all MCPS properties under 10 acres after MCPS showed the group a slide that would have put off the MS for two more years (mostly because MCPS wouldn't put the kids in a holding school)..

Last night's meeting furthered my distrust in the whole process...

[Anonymous]

Seriously, PP? Do you honestly think it would make sense to make NCC elementary a middle school when it is already overcrowded ... precisely where are you planning to put another 800 kids in a school that at present doesn't even have a gym and has to use portables? In some alternative reality, where money is irrelevant, I'm sure all these marvelous ideas - like expropriating the country club as proposed earlier in this discussion or buying other properties from private developers no matter what the cost - would be fabulous. In the real world, with finite and even shrinking government resources and an ever greater unwillingness by taxpayers to fund ANY infrastructure, these propositions are just silly. "Out of the box" thinking is just the latest justification for RCH NIMBYism. The reality is that RCH is a good site for a new middle school, not perfect by any stretch but reasonably good compared to all the REAL WORLD alternatives. Everyone sees that except for a few dogmatic neighborhood residents. We'll all be sure to wave to you as we drive by to pick up our kids in a few years - we'll know how you are since you'll be the ones with pitchforks and lawsuits in hand.