Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...

So with one plan, families would have kids going 2 different directions, and with the other friendships would be broken up. Neither sounds like a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

As a Murch parent opposed to the Lafayette swing-space concept, I agree. I'm on the CC listserv, and the tone of the conversation--especially considering how many Murch families live in CC--is a real bummer. Now they want to storm the upcoming Murch renovation meeting. Those meetings are already miserable enough when it's just one school's worth of entitled parents. I can't imagine what this one will be like when the Angry Hordes of Lafayette show up.

[Anonymous]

Angry Hordes of Lafayette

A-Hole!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...

There are traffic jams each morning currently at Hearst for drop off. No way they could handle another 50+ drop offs. If only the southern Murch families did not oppose the boundary change to Hearst, they'd already be enjoying brand new, state of the art facilities...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

As a Murch parent opposed to the Lafayette swing-space concept, I agree. I'm on the CC listserv, and the tone of the conversation--especially considering how many Murch families live in CC--is a real bummer. Now they want to storm the upcoming Murch renovation meeting. Those meetings are already miserable enough when it's just one school's worth of entitled parents. I can't imagine what this one will be like when the Angry Hordes of Lafayette show up.

If murch kids were being asked to share a playground for two years and massively disrupt the surrounding neighborhood for THREE years when there were perfectly viable alternatives, you bet they would react exactly the same way.

[Anonymous]

A bit of history is interesting. Murch put up a trailer on its site in 1975 to host Lafayette students during one of Lafayette's renovations. And now Murch students have been using that temporary trailer for 40 years.

And Murch received a grant for renovation 20 years ago and voted to use it instead for a study to commence the renovation needs of all DCPS school buildings, which has resulted is some badly need changes in our schools. To date not one dime has been spent renovating Murch's school building even though 50% of its students are in temporary space.

I also understand that when Murch was approached about being pushed back in line so that funds could go to Janney's third phase instead, they agreed that it made fiscal sense for the city to keep going on that project and did not raise a fuss. Unfortunately, that resulted in Murch getting pushed back several more times after that, and Lafayette got moved ahead of Murch too (not sure how that happened).

Sounds like a nice and pretty selfless community to me. I'm glad they are finally getting their turn, and I hope the city steps up and makes sure the whole project, including swing space, is funded in a way that ensures these kids lives and education are not unduly disrupted. They've waited long enough and have been patient and kind.

I hope we don't see yet another message sent that the kind of citizenship the Murch community has shown these past 50 years is not rewarded in this city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

As a Murch parent opposed to the Lafayette swing-space concept, I agree. I'm on the CC listserv, and the tone of the conversation--especially considering how many Murch families live in CC--is a real bummer. Now they want to storm the upcoming Murch renovation meeting. Those meetings are already miserable enough when it's just one school's worth of entitled parents. I can't imagine what this one will be like when the Angry Hordes of Lafayette show up.

If murch kids were being asked to share a playground for two years and massively disrupt the surrounding neighborhood for THREE years when there were perfectly viable alternatives, you bet they would react exactly the same way.

If there were perfectly viable alternatives, we wouldn't be having this discussion. DGS has been exploring all options; Lafayette is only one of them, and no one's first choice., but it is one of very few that are physically possible and fiscally viable. Lets wait to see what else is on the table.

And I agree, the reaction of some of our neighbors is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

As a Murch parent opposed to the Lafayette swing-space concept, I agree. I'm on the CC listserv, and the tone of the conversation--especially considering how many Murch families live in CC--is a real bummer. Now they want to storm the upcoming Murch renovation meeting. Those meetings are already miserable enough when it's just one school's worth of entitled parents. I can't imagine what this one will be like when the Angry Hordes of Lafayette show up.

If murch kids were being asked to share a playground for two years and massively disrupt the surrounding neighborhood for THREE years when there were perfectly viable alternatives, you bet they would react exactly the same way.

As I said, I'm OPPOSED to swinging at Lafayette. I think it's a terrible idea, in large part because of the massive inconvenience it would cause the Lafayette neighborhood. I'm simply saying that tone and perspective make a big difference; I'm a natural and potentially valuable ally for them, from within the Murch community, and they're alienating me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

As a Murch parent opposed to the Lafayette swing-space concept, I agree. I'm on the CC listserv, and the tone of the conversation--especially considering how many Murch families live in CC--is a real bummer. Now they want to storm the upcoming Murch renovation meeting. Those meetings are already miserable enough when it's just one school's worth of entitled parents. I can't imagine what this one will be like when the Angry Hordes of Lafayette show up.

If murch kids were being asked to share a playground for two years and massively disrupt the surrounding neighborhood for THREE years when there were perfectly viable alternatives, you bet they would react exactly the same way.

If there were perfectly viable alternatives, we wouldn't be having this discussion. DGS has been exploring all options; Lafayette is only one of them, and no one's first choice., but it is one of very few that are physically possible and fiscally viable. Lets wait to see what else is on the table.

And I agree, the reaction of some of our neighbors is appalling.

They can be in trailers on the site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

Another Lafayatte parent that agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

The trailers actually are very nice and would easily accommodate the full Murch community. Drop-off and pick-up traffic for the trailers is on the east side of the school. Traffic is very light on the west side of the school.

Have Lafayette families drop off/pick up in front and Murch drop off/pick up in back. Not a big deal. Chevy Chase families just don't want people coming into "their" neighborhood. This isn't as big of a deal that people are making it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

Do you have children at Lafayette?

Yes, and I think our residential and school community is being incredibly selfish. It is truly dismaying.

Another Lafayatte parent that agrees with you.

+1000

[Anonymous]

They can be in trailers on the Murch site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

This. The audacity of assuming that the school population should storm a private church and tennis court/ball field/playground offered to the entire city -- and take them out of commission -- is rather entitled. But the Murch parents don't even hear themselves talk.

Just stay where you are, accept that you don't need that much play space, anyway, because as a DCPS there frankly isn't many minutes of recess, and be done with it.