Murch meeting tonight on swing space

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.

I agree, but...never going to happen. Cheh has always been milquetoast, and Brandon Todd struck me as not much better. Once the Lafayette option is eliminated, this all goes away.

If the UDC option turns out not to be viable merely because the secret service wasn't consulted until too late, the Murch community should be furious.

But then what? What can the community do now to get DCPS to do right by it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the breakdown by cost:

Swing Completely on site: 2.5 M. Pros, we are all together, cheap, close to XDay, Cons: very, very close to construction - lots of moving around over the 2.5 year timeline; very limited play space; they haven't even really started to talk to NPS about using vacant lot across Reno. Drop off would be Ellicot with construction entrances on Davenport and Reno.

Swing partly on site; Pre-K and K at Capitol Memorial Church: 3.5 M. Pros...not sure there are any! Okay - good place space. Cons: school is split - especially hard for resource teachers and specialists; classrooms would have to be packed up on weekends! This one seemed the least likely.

Swing at Lafayette: 4.5 M - I think. Pros - already setup, large enough, DCPS controls; Cons - traffic and all those kids at recess and Lafayette families have to wait two more years which we at Murch know is a huge pain, also lots of Murch families walk and/or don't have cars and then hop on metro - will complicate commutes. We also had Lafayette parents (two) not asking questions but taking their turn to ask questions and turning around to lecture the group on why this wouldn't work which really struct the wrong tone. The meeting ran very long and the Murch parents simply wanted their chance to ask questions and give input to DGS. We all understood why Lafayette didn't want this but hearing traffic as an argument was kind of laughable if you ever see Davenport during drop-off with all the folks dropping at Murch and then going on to Deal. We get a lot of cross park traffic headed simply to Deal/Wilson as well.

Swing at UDC: 6M. Pros: large enough for Murch, away from construction - close to Metro; playspace for PreK/K and for bigger. Set off from rest of UDC. Cons: might be secret service issues with all the embassies around - travel to XDay.

There was definite crowd approval for the UDC option. Which of course they presented last. Mary Cheh got up and spoke at the end and said that she thought we should be asking for UDC or relooking at doing 2 level trailers on the Forest Hills baseball field to fit us all there.

Also a fair amount of frustration was expressed that they didn't have the answers to 75% of the questions and they were planning to do a traffic study over winter break and give us an answer on January 12th! There should be a link up on the Murch website at some point today to the presentation and with info on how to comment.

Murch parent here, and I just don't think our traffic (as bad as it is) is comparable to what the Lafayette neighborhood would face with two schools on Lafayette's grounds. Similarly, the Lafayette folks don't understand why swinging on site would be worse for us than it has been for them (at the Tuesday meeting they laughed at the idea that Murch should be worried about construction noise, giving no thought to how much bigger their grounds are).

Let's respect/accept that our swinging on site in their trailers would be a disaster for them (and us) in terms of traffic and safety. And hope that they understand why swinging on site is not feasible for us. I don't see how a pissing match over whose traffic is worse gets us anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What gave you the impression that DGS/Kenny reads these threads?

9:44 again
Kenny started his remarks by saying something about how the Lafayette proposal was first raised on Urban Moms and addressed the civility of the discourse

On the timeline - construction is slower if the kids are onsite.

The budget is the budget that was approved by the City Coucil back in April. The $89 (?) million for Murch includes the swing space cost. So 2.5 million for swinging on site at the lowest and 6 million for UDC at the high end. So maybe we lose 4 million in something if UDC is the swing space. This project is for 2 years, personally I think that it is worth spending the money for that length of time. For 3rd graders this is how they are going to spend the rest of their time at elementary school and I hope it is in the safest place and best place to receive an education possible.

Beyond calling someone with influence over DCPS - Kaya Henderson and Dr. Somebody? - I don't know what other recourse there is to get them to approve one plan over another since they haven't informed us which metric - safety vs. cost vs. etc - carries the most weight in the decision making process.

[Anonymous]

Why would UDC have any implications when Wilson used that space during their renovations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the breakdown by cost:

Swing Completely on site: 2.5 M. Pros, we are all together, cheap, close to XDay, Cons: very, very close to construction - lots of moving around over the 2.5 year timeline; very limited play space; they haven't even really started to talk to NPS about using vacant lot across Reno. Drop off would be Ellicot with construction entrances on Davenport and Reno.

Swing partly on site; Pre-K and K at Capitol Memorial Church: 3.5 M. Pros...not sure there are any! Okay - good place space. Cons: school is split - especially hard for resource teachers and specialists; classrooms would have to be packed up on weekends! This one seemed the least likely.

Swing at Lafayette: 4.5 M - I think. Pros - already setup, large enough, DCPS controls; Cons - traffic and all those kids at recess and Lafayette families have to wait two more years which we at Murch know is a huge pain, also lots of Murch families walk and/or don't have cars and then hop on metro - will complicate commutes. We also had Lafayette parents (two) not asking questions but taking their turn to ask questions and turning around to lecture the group on why this wouldn't work which really struct the wrong tone. The meeting ran very long and the Murch parents simply wanted their chance to ask questions and give input to DGS. We all understood why Lafayette didn't want this but hearing traffic as an argument was kind of laughable if you ever see Davenport during drop-off with all the folks dropping at Murch and then going on to Deal. We get a lot of cross park traffic headed simply to Deal/Wilson as well.

Swing at UDC: 6M. Pros: large enough for Murch, away from construction - close to Metro; playspace for PreK/K and for bigger. Set off from rest of UDC. Cons: might be secret service issues with all the embassies around - travel to XDay.

There was definite crowd approval for the UDC option. Which of course they presented last. Mary Cheh got up and spoke at the end and said that she thought we should be asking for UDC or relooking at doing 2 level trailers on the Forest Hills baseball field to fit us all there.

Also a fair amount of frustration was expressed that they didn't have the answers to 75% of the questions and they were planning to do a traffic study over winter break and give us an answer on January 12th! There should be a link up on the Murch website at some point today to the presentation and with info on how to comment.

Murch parent here, and I just don't think our traffic (as bad as it is) is comparable to what the Lafayette neighborhood would face with two schools on Lafayette's grounds. Similarly, the Lafayette folks don't understand why swinging on site would be worse for us than it has been for them (at the Tuesday meeting they laughed at the idea that Murch should be worried about construction noise, giving no thought to how much bigger their grounds are).

Let's respect/accept that our swinging on site in their trailers would be a disaster for them (and us) in terms of traffic and safety. And hope that they understand why swinging on site is not feasible for us. I don't see how a pissing match over whose traffic is worse gets us anywhere.

Lafayette parent here. I agree. Actually, I can imagine how the onsite option would be awful. It's scary to watch our crane swing around over out trailers, and it's pretty far away. I get it. Also, if the noise was such that kids couldn't hear the teachers...then what's the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would UDC have any implications when Wilson used that space during their renovations?

I think Wilson was inside the UDC buildings. This proposal is to construct trailers on fields virtually adjacent to embassies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.

I agree, but...never going to happen. Cheh has always been milquetoast, and Brandon Todd struck me as not much better. Once the Lafayette option is eliminated, this all goes away.

If the UDC option turns out not to be viable merely because the secret service wasn't consulted until too late, the Murch community should be furious.

I think the Murch community at this point is already furious. Organizing a complex project like this involving the full remodeling/construction of a large school while finding space for 650 kids inside a big town is certainly difficult. But when you hear that an option like UDS was considered first only three weeks ago, that half the questions are answered with a "we don't know at this time" when construction is supposed to break ground in 6 months, that the traffic study is being done during winter break you start wondering who the heck is running this show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would UDC have any implications when Wilson used that space during their renovations?

I think Wilson was inside the UDC buildings. This proposal is to construct trailers on fields virtually adjacent to embassies.

Gotcha thanks. Is there an empty building you guys can use? That may raise other safety questions with grown adults within close proximity to kids, but isn't there a stand alone building not on the "main campus", but across the street from the old Pier One Imports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.

I agree, but...never going to happen. Cheh has always been milquetoast, and Brandon Todd struck me as not much better. Once the Lafayette option is eliminated, this all goes away.

If the UDC option turns out not to be viable merely because the secret service wasn't consulted until too late, the Murch community should be furious.

I think the Murch community at this point is already furious. Organizing a complex project like this involving the full remodeling/construction of a large school while finding space for 650 kids inside a big town is certainly difficult. But when you hear that an option like UDS was considered first only three weeks ago, that half the questions are answered with a "we don't know at this time" when construction is supposed to break ground in 6 months, that the traffic study is being done during winter break you start wondering who the heck is running this show.

I'm a Lafayette parent who found the total lack of answers at Tuesday's meeting to be beyond frustrating. I can only imagine how much more frustrating it would be for Murch. Totally unacceptable -- if Cheh is worth anything as an elected representative (which is a big if) she will pressure DCPS to demote/fire the person responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would UDC have any implications when Wilson used that space during their renovations?

I think Wilson was inside the UDC buildings. This proposal is to construct trailers on fields virtually adjacent to embassies.

Gotcha thanks. Is there an empty building you guys can use? That may raise other safety questions with grown adults within close proximity to kids, but isn't there a stand alone building not on the "main campus", but across the street from the old Pier One Imports?

I think the field is it because of the size of the school and play-space needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would UDC have any implications when Wilson used that space during their renovations?

I think Wilson was inside the UDC buildings. This proposal is to construct trailers on fields virtually adjacent to embassies.

Gotcha thanks. Is there an empty building you guys can use? That may raise other safety questions with grown adults within close proximity to kids, but isn't there a stand alone building not on the "main campus", but across the street from the old Pier One Imports?

No, there is a soon to be empty building that they wanted for the kids but it would involve moving too many other moving parts (including moving the largest jazz library on the East Coast - that was last night's other fun fact) UDC has 2 soccer fields an upper and lower so lower would be trailers and upper would be play space with a few other trailers.

[Anonymous]

One of the DGS people said they had hoped to possibly have access to one UDC building that currently houses some library space but UDC won't free up that space for awhile as they are still working on new space for that library. Won't be ready in time.

[Anonymous]

Where is Mary Cheh on this? I get that Brandon Todd is opposed given his constituents are at Lafayette.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is Mary Cheh on this? I get that Brandon Todd is opposed given his constituents are at Lafayette.

She was more non committal, wanting to "see all the options" first.

[Anonymous]

Is the Intelsat building a possibility? It seems forever like its looking for a lease, it's on the Red Line, and there is good outdoor space.