BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no easy answer, and I am not from the neighborhood around Lynnbrook, so cannot speak for this community. But half the site (total 10.04 acres) is owned by MCPS. The old school buildings already sit on the property, so they would not be changing the nature of usage for those parcels. In fact, you could say those 3 parcels would be improved. The rest of the 3 parcels consist of MNCPPC parkland and one parcel houses the defunct activity building. This school and park have already co-located and co-existed since the 1940's. This would not be taking green open spaces from anyone. It would not be taking significant if any trees from the site. The site is very level so minimal grading would be needed. MCPS has to think urban school, thus multi level structure. That is the reality of down county building in the 21st century.

To think of targeting existing, open, tree laden parkland is to take away precious disappearing natural resources that are badly needed especially in the fast growing urbanized down county area.

If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory. And it will not stop at the middle school, or the RCH site (or NCC site for that matter) because before long they will need to build...another school, and they will once again look at "vacant free land" called parks, that belong to all of us and are a precious and disappearing commodity.

I have visited all the original sites. All the parks are precious and important to the surrounding communities. People need parks. In this case I would advocate for doing the least harm.

Totally agree! Why did they eliminate Lynnbrook anyway? But to be fair, the community would lose its major park - which is heavily used - sledding hill, tennis, playing fields, etc...BUT as you point out there would be other amenities with the middle school. And living in the Lynnbrook neighborhood, I would LOVE it if my kids could WALK to middle school and high school instead of sitting in a bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record: I do not live in Kensington, nor even NEAR Kensington. But I do support Parks.

All parks, are an important part of communities. They add immeasurably to our quality of life, and the air we breathe. Parks and Planning are not planning to roll over, so if the SSAC wants to be bullheaded and forge onward with a decision that may prove costly in terms of time and approval, they may be setting up for another failure. The first SSAC failed miserably because they failed to do any actual research on sites beyond the surface "facts" that they were presented with by MCPS. Let's not make the same mistake and decide in a vacuum.

The people who live in RCH have reacted strongly to having their park targeted. The people of RHP reacted equally as strongly, and I will bet if NCC or Norwood is selected (highly unlikely) those communities would all of the sudden transform into the crazy maniacs we all seem think Kensington folks are. Nah, I won't bet, I know they would. No community wants to lose a park. The mcps, mncppc and the people serving on the ssac will have to come up with a more creative solution that doesn't take public green open spaces (parks) away from communities. I agree with the previous poster that folks take a close look at Lynbrook. I also went by there yesterday and walked around the whole site, park and school portion. Another poster mentioned sledding hills...well, honestly, I didn't see any. The area is fairly level. Certainly far more level than many other locations. And I agree that this option might make the most sense in preserving park land and using mcps resources. That the majority of the old lynnbrook building is leased out to a private day care center, illustrates the folly of using a public school building paid for by our tax dollars for private good. It is time to put the former school site back into public use. I am not suggesting that the people who live near the Lynnbrook local park lose their park, but rather that a site that already houses two school building and a large parking lot be redeveloped for the greater good.

I know there were differing ideas about what central means, as if the point could be debated in the abstract. but really folks, look at the map, common sense dictates that central is smack dab in the middle of the cluster. Lynnbrook is centrally located, and would provide a walking school for many.

There is a sledding hill...walk down the big hill behind the school..proceed over the playing fields to far end near tennis courts. The slopes right there are the sledding hills. Perhaps they could be preserved? Right at the edge of the property. Does the County have eminent domain? They should buy up some of the surrounding houses and just make the Lynbrook site bigger, close down the street that deadends next to Lynnbrook...

[Anonymous]

If MCPS isn’t going to buy land, then they’re just going to have to look further south and start thinking vertically. Many of us attended urban schools with three or four levels, and it didn’t hurt our education.



exactly! The kids don't get enough physical education, recess, or free time anyway...climbing up and down four flights of stairs would be good for these kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think that the real reason they don't want to weight and rank criteria is that with weighting and ranking they can't control the outcome. Could they be that nefarious?

BUT...they are ranking, aren't they? They just won't tell us which sites they're ranking. I found ratings on the MCPS site... Look at the ppt of the Feb 8th meeting, page 3 "Sample evaluation grid." http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/REM/

[Anonymous]

PP, I think you're right, that this dude/dudette is hoping for the impossible. Looking at the 'Hot Topics' on this DC Urban Mom forum, the important discussion entitled "Describe your sex life with a movie title" currently has 249 responses and 18,327 views. This middle school tantrum has only 202 and 3404. No one cares. We're doomed to get what we ask for...or not get what we don't ask for.


Actually, we're moving up the hot topics list....prob more so as we get to the meeting Wednesday. What is supposed to happen at that meeting? Anyone know?

[Anonymous]

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

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

AMen..MCPS needs to look anew at Lynnbrook.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

Listen, as an East Bethesda resident who did not like my kid sitting on bus for more than 1/2 an hour to RHPS, I support the middle school. There was not enough discussion in the community about it. AND by the way, most of us will really miss RHPS. We loved the K-2 atmosphere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Exactly....let CCL Co come up with the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what schools will feed into the new middle school? I know there is concern that the new school should be as demographically balanced as possible, but a previous post referred to Joshua Starr's desire for walkable schools, and would seem to be at odds with a far eastern or western placement.

It also would seem to be at odds with the NCC location. That would almost seem to be the least likely option for walking from surrounding neighborhoods.

I only attended the first ssac meeting but the concept of a 6th grade academy was brought up, which would keep all the kids together through middle school (a good thing in my mind). But it seemed to be quickly shot down by mcps rep. Why?

This was brought up in reference to Westland. But couldn't a 6th grade academy be built in many of the other sites that have been eliminated as being too small? It would seem that a 6th grade academy would be less land hungry and solve the over crowding problem.

This deserves more consideration.

Great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To respond to those who are concerned that MCPS hasn't drawn boundaries for BCC MS #2, the point is they cannot draw boundaries until the site is selected. Here are the rules on bussing:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/transportation/rules/riding.aspx

Middle school students who live within a 1.5 mile boundary of a middle school will be districted to that middle school because they're expected to walk. If you don't live within 1.5 miles, you may be districted to a middle school that is actually further away. As it stands now, only those who have kids living within 1.5 miles of Westland know where they're going to middle school. That includes all students at Westbrook, but I don't think any other elementary's boundaries are all within 1.5 miles of Westland. So the rest of us will just have to wait to find out.

Children within 1.5 miles will be expected to walk, if it is safe. At last week's site selection advisory committee meeting, Montgomery County Public Schools staff said that if a school were to be built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, then students would not be expected to cross either Connecticut Ave or Beach Drive to get to it, because those roads are not safe for middle school students to cross.

SAFE? It's not safe for our kids to have less than the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity a day, but that's the reality for any kid who isn't on a sports team. Catch bus at 8:30, 35 minutes of recess if not punished by school administrators, and bus back - home at 4. Homework by 5. Where's the 60 minutes? Doesn't always happen between 4 and 5. (Granted, this is elementary school example, but same thing...)

We can MAKE it safe to walk.

[Anonymous]

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/REM/

Re-read the pro/con document from January 11 meeting. Re-read critically given all the input on this forum. Not well done. At all.

Lynnbrook is highly walkable for a densely populated area with tons of kids.
Relocating faculty? How many? 20?
Streets too narrow? Buses go up and down those streets NOW.
Site too small? Really? How do they manage to educate kids in urban areas? What about underground parking? How about having buses enter underground, thus savin valuable land.
Historic? It's a door frame that was made in World War II.

[Anonymous]

Listen, as an East Bethesda resident who did not like my kid sitting on bus for more than 1/2 an hour to RHPS, I support the middle school. There was not enough discussion in the community about it. AND by the way, most of us will really miss RHPS. We loved the K-2 atmosphere.

What was the community's consensus for using Lynbrook as an actual school site? I know there was a meeting of EBCA on Wednesday.

I think that the Lynnbrook property makes the most sense at this point. I realize it was eliminated by the SSAC (with MCPS leading the charge and protecting its own properties above all else), but that doesn't mean that the BOE and Starr couldn't put it back into the discussion if they wanted to. Perhaps with all the different sentiments that are being expressed in that direction, it would be a REALLY GOOD IDEA to email the BoE and Starr asking them to seriously consider Lynnbrook as an option.

I think that Parks is not about to cheaply give away parkland and especially park land that has no prior mcps claim. The rep from Parks said that the Lynnbrook local park would be preserved and co-located with the school property. There is just so much to recommend this site that I question the motives of the mcps in dismissing it so quickly. Janice Turpin, was particularly annoyed that people would even suggest it was a good site, she was very quick to say it was very heavily used (Janice! your nose is growing...). It seems to me the MCPS is just out to gobble up more land from other agencies rather that actually use their own properties wisely.

Wednesday, they propose to "decide" what is the best bet. It all feels a little too rushed to me for something so important and permanent. Additionally, I am getting the impression that the whole "process" is one big charade to make folks think they have had input, when the outcome is already more or less predetermined by the mcps "expert" staffers.

Sorry I sound so suspicious, but that's the impression I got.

[Anonymous]

NCC Park might have been a great site for a school had the federal government not opted to make that area into a massive medical facility and transfer thousands of employees and patients while doing almost nothing to address the traffic implications. We who live near NCC have seen an increase of more than 5000 cars per day in the past year thanks to BRAC - and that's on top of already insane traffic, which has been exacerbated by the ability of some communities to block their streets off from rush hour traffic. Not long ago, Jones Bridge Road was a small neighborhood street; over the past decade it has become a commuter highway. We will not sit back and have more infrastructure foisted upon us while our neighbors only a few blocks away threaten lawsuits to preserve "open space" (aka property values.)

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that planned BRAC mitigation for the area near NCC Park was to have included construction of a new roadway extending Platt Ridge Drive, but that the Montgomery Delegation has requested that this be deferred, because now that BRAC realignment has taken place, the traffic has been judged acceptable without the new road.

So, perhaps building a middle school, and this proposed (but delayed) road, would result in a net improvement.

[Anonymous]

We will not sit back and have more infrastructure foisted upon us while our neighbors only a few blocks away threaten lawsuits to preserve "open space" (aka property values.)

And you should not sit back and accept this! A novel idea: How about MCPS use property it already owns and already has infrastructure on and quit taking community parks from people.

I think MCPS is going to have to start singing a different song when it comes to their greedy "cheap" land grabs.

They are coming to the table with their hands out, and offering nothing of their own. In fact, it appears to me they are protecting their own interests while picking their sister agencies' pocket.