Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

There are 2 reservation sites in KF for schools. The county just won't use them. I'm sure there are others as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

There are 2 reservation sites in KF for schools. The county just won't use them. I'm sure there are others as well.

That DP from just above. Where are the reserved sites inside the beltway and east of 355? With the Purple Line, almost all of that area will be subject to the various foci of the bill.

And what about the cost of the facilities, themselves, whether new, replacement or addition? Land set aside in KF doesn't equate to school capacity unless it gets funding to be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

Um...(thinks for half a second, scratching head)...yes? You don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of microeconomics. Even if there was some absorption from those moving into these new units out of multiple-family-in-one-home situations, it is unrealistic to think that there would be neither net additions directly associated with the new housing capacity nor an amount of backfill of those prior situations from new residents.

Thanks for conceding the clear fact that we don't even have enough school capital improvement as it is to meet capacity needs. Let's make sure that we address that and other essential public infrastructure as we look to increase affordable housing options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

Um...(thinks for half a second, scratching head)...yes? You don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of microeconomics. Even if there was some absorption from those moving into these new units out of multiple-family-in-one-home situations, it is unrealistic to think that there would be neither net additions directly associated with the new housing capacity nor an amount of backfill of those prior situations from new residents.

Thanks for conceding the clear fact that we don't even have enough school capital improvement as it is to meet capacity needs. Let's make sure that we address that and other essential public infrastructure as we look to increase affordable housing options.

Where will these "net additions" come from?

And no, actually, I think it's more important for kids to have adequate housing. Housing is even more important than schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

Um...(thinks for half a second, scratching head)...yes? You don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of microeconomics. Even if there was some absorption from those moving into these new units out of multiple-family-in-one-home situations, it is unrealistic to think that there would be neither net additions directly associated with the new housing capacity nor an amount of backfill of those prior situations from new residents.

Thanks for conceding the clear fact that we don't even have enough school capital improvement as it is to meet capacity needs. Let's make sure that we address that and other essential public infrastructure as we look to increase affordable housing options.

Where will these "net additions" come from?

Disingenuous question from anyone who might be arguing from a position of understanding.

For others, portions of the developments, pecentage depending on subsection, do not have to be affordable housing -- they would be "market rate." Even if the affordable units all went to those already in the community who are currently living in multiple-families-to-a-unit conditions (and it is highly unlikely to be so to that extent), nobody should expect the market-rate units to go only to those already in the county, with no net inflow as a result.

And it isn't as though the legislation, as written, only allows for the extra units. The section eliminating consideration of adequate public facilities applies to any project getting any federal low-income tax credits or state housing and community development funding for low-income housing. That's separate from the would-be-permitted higher density developments allowed in the three other sections (mile from any passenger rail station, any prior-state-owned land, any non-profit-owned land), but would apply to those as well as to any other such-funded project. The net effect is that the legislation would allow projects which would not even have been allowed at lower densities due to school overcrowding, including if it would have been only the part that was market rate.

Anonymous wrote:And no, actually, I think it's more important for kids to have adequate housing. Housing is even more important than schools.

Sure. But we're advocating, here, for changing the bill to ensure school capacity with the additional units. As much as you might like to paint it as anti-housing.

A certain prior resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a developer who is known to have provided housing in NY, but with substandard facilities. It would be a shame to emulate that kind of "progressive" 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:

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.

I got my SFH. I'm good. Y'all can suck it up.

Wonderfully eloquent false-flag sock puppet post, there.

Dang. I thought it was just parody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But we're advocating, here, for changing the bill to ensure school capacity with the additional units. As much as you might like to paint it as anti-housing.

A certain prior resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a developer who is known to have provided housing in NY, but with substandard facilities. It would be a shame to emulate that kind of "progressive" housing.

Units don't go to school. Kids do.

Please drop the allusions to Former President Rapist Guy, they're not relevant here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But we're advocating, here, for changing the bill to ensure school capacity with the additional units. As much as you might like to paint it as anti-housing.

A certain prior resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a developer who is known to have provided housing in NY, but with substandard facilities. It would be a shame to emulate that kind of "progressive" housing.

Units don't go to school. Kids do.

Please drop the allusions to Former President Rapist Guy, they're not relevant here.

Kids live in...(guess what?!)...housing units. But you go on with your disingenuity, there.

As for relevance, you are advocating for creation of underserved housing for less wealthy families when you could be advocating for properly served housing for the same. That's really poor progressivism. But I'd bet it's the kind that rightist developers like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

This isn’t as insightful as you think it is. Existing housing vastly outnumbers new units so of course more kids come from existing housing, which also generates much more tax revenue than new housing.

The silver lining of having the worst housing growth in the area is that the subsidies the county gives to developers haven’t bankrupted the county because so few units have been built.

[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:

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.

You’re a very closed minded person if that’s what you really think. Or a developer that doesn’t want Any Delays.

Third option is that PP does not understand the legislative process very well. The Moore housing package was introduced fully expecting it to be significantly amended before being passed.

Amended, yes. Significantly amended with additional funding for schools????

PP here, and no not specifically. Recall that it is a state-wide bill.

My prediction is that the language that exempts certain developments from being blocked based on "adequate public facilities" will be amended to say something like "adequate public facilities, not to include local policies pertaining to school capacity."

I think that’s right. Another predication: Very little will get built under the bill as currently framed, so market rate developers will come back and ask for the affordability requirements to be lowered and for subsidies from the state or counties.

In that case, the people carrying on against this bill have nothing to worry about.

No. They’re still right. It’s better to get the bill right the first time and make sure school construction is taken care of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

That's what usually happens with new development. More families and more kids...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

That's what usually happens with new development. More families and more kids...

Where are these families and kids living now?