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: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?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

I am a DP on this thread who has asked a lot of questions and been accused of being "insidious" for doing so. But I'm confused about your line of inquiry.
The stated reason for the housing issue in the county is that population is increasing. There is a lot of data to show this. Net new people coming into the county. So there is that.
And even if you were to assume the highly unlikely possibility that all of the residents of these units are already somewhere in the county, it would not follow that all of them live in the same specific area that will need to provide the services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

Back at ya. You aren't showing any data supporting the point of view you push with "earnest-truth-seeker" questioning, that new development won't present an additional burden or that changes can't/shouldn't be made to this bill that currently undermines ensurance of adequate public facilities for the very population it is intended to help. At least some of us lay out our reasoning when advocating for changes to the bill so that encouraging affordable housing development wouldn't present, e.g., additional school overcrowding issues. (Cue the next argumentative question from you in 3...2...1...)

The data, if it has been collected, would be with government offices or public research organizations. Typically not easily accessed for analysis by the general public. It would be great to have such at our fingertips, but not having it doesn't, by itself, invalidate the associated thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

Back at ya. You aren't showing any data supporting the point of view you push with "earnest-truth-seeker" questioning, that new development won't present an additional burden or that changes can't/shouldn't be made to this bill that currently undermines ensurance of adequate public facilities for the very population it is intended to help. At least some of us lay out our reasoning when advocating for changes to the bill so that encouraging affordable housing development wouldn't present, e.g., additional school overcrowding issues. (Cue the next argumentative question from you in 3...2...1...)

The data, if it has been collected, would be with government offices or public research organizations. Typically not easily accessed for analysis by the general public. It would be great to have such at our fingertips, but not having it doesn't, by itself, invalidate the associated thoughts.

Nah. If you're saying it will be a burden, you really ought to have data for it. How many additional, new MCPS students will live in these units? How many of the students who will live in these units are already MCPS students? It's not possible to come up with effective policy or legislative solutions without data to answer those questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

I am a DP on this thread who has asked a lot of questions and been accused of being "insidious" for doing so. But I'm confused about your line of inquiry.
The stated reason for the housing issue in the county is that population is increasing. There is a lot of data to show this. Net new people coming into the county. So there is that.
And even if you were to assume the highly unlikely possibility that all of the residents of these units are already somewhere in the county, it would not follow that all of them live in the same specific area that will need to provide the services.

The stated reason for the housing issue in the county, to begin with, is that there is a housing shortage RIGHT NOW for the CURRENT population. Which, yes, if/when the population increases in the future, the housing shortage will get worse. But there is already a housing shortage right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

Agree with this. There is an order to things, not everything can be done at once. That’s not a good use of everyone’s time.

Once plans are solid enough for the housing, the schools (etc) will also be planned.

[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: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?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

I am a DP on this thread who has asked a lot of questions and been accused of being "insidious" for doing so. But I'm confused about your line of inquiry.
The stated reason for the housing issue in the county is that population is increasing. There is a lot of data to show this. Net new people coming into the county. So there is that.
And even if you were to assume the highly unlikely possibility that all of the residents of these units are already somewhere in the county, it would not follow that all of them live in the same specific area that will need to provide the services.

The stated reason for the housing issue in the county, to begin with, is that there is a housing shortage RIGHT NOW for the CURRENT population. Which, yes, if/when the population increases in the future, the housing shortage will get worse. But there is already a housing shortage right now.

I would argue that the shortage in housing is not for young people but older people. They have no where to downsize to that they can then afford to live on during retirement. This there is little turnover.

[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: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?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

I am a DP on this thread who has asked a lot of questions and been accused of being "insidious" for doing so. But I'm confused about your line of inquiry.
The stated reason for the housing issue in the county is that population is increasing. There is a lot of data to show this. Net new people coming into the county. So there is that.
And even if you were to assume the highly unlikely possibility that all of the residents of these units are already somewhere in the county, it would not follow that all of them live in the same specific area that will need to provide the services.

The stated reason for the housing issue in the county, to begin with, is that there is a housing shortage RIGHT NOW for the CURRENT population. Which, yes, if/when the population increases in the future, the housing shortage will get worse. But there is already a housing shortage right now.

I would argue that the shortage in housing is not for young people but older people. They have no where to downsize to that they can then afford to live on during retirement. This there is little turnover.

It's for young people AND for older people, both. Though for many older people, if they're downsizing, the problem isn't so much lack of affordable options as lack of options, period. If you want to downsize from your SFH, but you want to stay in your neighborhood, nope, sorry, you can't.

[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: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?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

Back at ya. You aren't showing any data supporting the point of view you push with "earnest-truth-seeker" questioning, that new development won't present an additional burden or that changes can't/shouldn't be made to this bill that currently undermines ensurance of adequate public facilities for the very population it is intended to help. At least some of us lay out our reasoning when advocating for changes to the bill so that encouraging affordable housing development wouldn't present, e.g., additional school overcrowding issues. (Cue the next argumentative question from you in 3...2...1...)

The data, if it has been collected, would be with government offices or public research organizations. Typically not easily accessed for analysis by the general public. It would be great to have such at our fingertips, but not having it doesn't, by itself, invalidate the associated thoughts.

Nah. If you're saying it will be a burden, you really ought to have data for it. How many additional, new MCPS students will live in these units? How many of the students who will live in these units are already MCPS students? It's not possible to come up with effective policy or legislative solutions without data to answer those questions.

By the same token, those saying it wouldn't be a burden and are pushing for this bill as it exists, without ensuring adequate schools, would need to come up with data to support that, but that hasn't been offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

Agree with this. There is an order to things, not everything can be done at once. That’s not a good use of everyone’s time.

Once plans are solid enough for the housing, the schools (etc) will also be planned.

Except the schools in the areas most likely to be affected by this bill are, by and large, already overcrowded from past development without proper school planning/follow-through. We shouldn't assume that paradigm will change without fixing the bill to ensure the services.

[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: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?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

I am a DP on this thread who has asked a lot of questions and been accused of being "insidious" for doing so. But I'm confused about your line of inquiry.
The stated reason for the housing issue in the county is that population is increasing. There is a lot of data to show this. Net new people coming into the county. So there is that.
And even if you were to assume the highly unlikely possibility that all of the residents of these units are already somewhere in the county, it would not follow that all of them live in the same specific area that will need to provide the services.

The stated reason for the housing issue in the county, to begin with, is that there is a housing shortage RIGHT NOW for the CURRENT population. Which, yes, if/when the population increases in the future, the housing shortage will get worse. But there is already a housing shortage right now.

I would argue that the shortage in housing is not for young people but older people. They have no where to downsize to that they can then afford to live on during retirement. This there is little turnover.

It may seem like that to you but the reality is this housing goes to people with lots of kids usually so results in more school usage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

Agree with this. There is an order to things, not everything can be done at once. That’s not a good use of everyone’s time.

Once plans are solid enough for the housing, the schools (etc) will also be planned.

Except the schools in the areas most likely to be affected by this bill are, by and large, already overcrowded from past development without proper school planning/follow-through. We shouldn't assume that paradigm will change without fixing the bill to ensure the services.

No, they're overcrowded from turnover of existing housing. Though it's true that existing housing IS past development, if you go back enough years. School construction lagged behind housing development then, too, but eventually caught up, just in time for MCPS to close a lot of schools in the 1980s because the Baby Boom was over.