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:

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.

Where are those people with lots of kids living now?

[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?

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.

No, that's not how it works. All I'm saying is: pass the housing bill now, then work on school capacity. You're saying: the housing bill must not be passed unless it has a plan for school capacity too. What do you need for a plan for school capacity? Data on how many new students will live in the housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is hardly a problem unique to MoCo. And not that I don’t have sympathy for older folks in this situation, but they have to be willing to compromise too. My parents were looking for a unicorn when they decided to downsize (e.g., fully upgraded, lots of storage, basement, garage, etc.).

That being said, I would love to see more over-55 communities built around here because I think that would facilitate more turnover in SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

Millennials are well on their way to becoming middle-aged adults (the oldest millennials are 43), but yes, it's all a part of the same problem. A shortage of housing that older adults would want to downsize into, causing a shortage of housing that middle-aged adults can upsize into, while young adults continue to live at home because it's more affordable than forming their own households. Plus families doubling up (or tripling up) in "single family" houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is hardly a problem unique to MoCo. And not that I don’t have sympathy for older folks in this situation, but they have to be willing to compromise too. My parents were looking for a unicorn when they decided to downsize (e.g., fully upgraded, lots of storage, basement, garage, etc.).

That being said, I would love to see more over-55 communities built around here because I think that would facilitate more turnover in SFHs.

The over-55 communities built around here primarily are SFHs.

Let's say your parents had wanted to downsize from a SFH into a multi-unit building, in their same neighborhood. Would they have been able to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

The 42 bus is not Metro, the Purple Line, or BRT, but I agree that duplexes by right would make a lot of sense.

It’s cheaper to live along a bus line than right by the metro though. Unfortunately anything in top of a metro station tends to be too expensive for those that need it the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is hardly a problem unique to MoCo. And not that I don’t have sympathy for older folks in this situation, but they have to be willing to compromise too. My parents were looking for a unicorn when they decided to downsize (e.g., fully upgraded, lots of storage, basement, garage, etc.).

That being said, I would love to see more over-55 communities built around here because I think that would facilitate more turnover in SFHs.

The over-55 communities built around here primarily are SFHs.

Let's say your parents had wanted to downsize from a SFH into a multi-unit building, in their same neighborhood. Would they have been able to do that?

Nope. They moved to a different town in the same metro area that had what they were looking for. Staying within their exact same neighborhood was down the list in terms of priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim. But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning. It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities? For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?

PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill, most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome. Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such? I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see. Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader. Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see." Sigh

Look at the linked post. It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise? No.

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail. (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.

Hey! An actual reaponse with some points! Thanks!

I agree that there should be ways to encourage development and that any of those might be used, or might have been used, to argue against it. That's the point -- coming to a better agreement about how to approach development by including those considerations, particularly school overcrowding/funding, in the debate, resulting in housing that doesn't fall into a spiral of under-service to those most in need of services.

Your bolded, above, basically paints this as an all-or-nothing of its own, when reality is far more nuanced, especially when looking to achieve a social optimum. For instance, we can look to adjust the current bill so that jurisdictions are required not to subject these projects to adequate public facility rules on their own, but then are required to make the consequent changes to area public facilities to keep them adequate, falling back on the state, which is mandating this approach, for a bucket of funding to cover those changes. (Putting the state's money where its mouth is.)

The reality is that all you're doing right now is opposing housing.

Is this bill providing housing for unhoused people? I’m all for that, without delays! Like start building tomorrow, we need to get them off the streets. If the aim is just to provide more housing options for people that already have somewhere to live, even if it’s not their ideal, forever-home, then ensuring that school capacity keeps pace with housing development makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

The 42 bus is not Metro, the Purple Line, or BRT, but I agree that duplexes by right would make a lot of sense.

It’s cheaper to live along a bus line than right by the metro though. Unfortunately anything in top of a metro station tends to be too expensive for those that need it the most.

RideOn 42: https://montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-Transit/routesandschedules/allroutes/route042.html

North Bethesda Station (White Flint)
Montrose Rd
Seven Locks Rd
Post Oak Rd
Victory Lane
Gainsborough Rd
Democracy Blvd
Montgomery Mall

I remember, several years back, when there was a proposal to eliminate the 42 bus, and someone wrote a letter to say no, without the 42 bus, their housekeeper wouldn't be able to get to their house.

Duplexes by right would still be good, though. I don't know how it would pencil out, but I don't really care, because I'm not planning to build one; I will leave that up to the builders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

The 42 bus is not Metro, the Purple Line, or BRT, but I agree that duplexes by right would make a lot of sense.

It’s cheaper to live along a bus line than right by the metro though. Unfortunately anything in top of a metro station tends to be too expensive for those that need it the most.

RideOn 42: https://montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-Transit/routesandschedules/allroutes/route042.html

North Bethesda Station (White Flint)
Montrose Rd
Seven Locks Rd
Post Oak Rd
Victory Lane
Gainsborough Rd
Democracy Blvd
Montgomery Mall

I remember, several years back, when there was a proposal to eliminate the 42 bus, and someone wrote a letter to say no, without the 42 bus, their housekeeper wouldn't be able to get to their house.

Duplexes by right would still be good, though. I don't know how it would pencil out, but I don't really care, because I'm not planning to build one; I will leave that up to the builders.

DP. Clarification, here, along the lines of bus discussion. Though the bill has sections allowing different higher-density affordable housing development across 1-mile passenger rail stop proximity, prior-state-owned land and nonprofit-owned land, the section that does away with adequate public facility considerations is not limited to those three situations. If, for instance, MoCo's Thrive allows higher-density affordable housing development near BRT stops, and if that development garners federal or state low-income housing support, then approval of those developments, as well, will not be subject to adequate public facility (e.g., school capacity) considerations, as they get the specified funding support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Where are those people with lots of kids living now?

Well, that wasn't quite 3...2...1 timing, but there it is, nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, that's not how it works. All I'm saying is: pass the housing bill now, then work on school capacity. You're saying: the housing bill must not be passed unless it has a plan for school capacity too. What do you need for a plan for school capacity? Data on how many new students will live in the housing.

Double standard, much?

I'm saying the bill should have a plan for school capacity, yes, as the current language changes one of the few structures currently in place to help ensure that schools don't get overcrowded. Given that municipalities like MoCo already fail in that regard, there's little hope of it not getting worse with even more housing capacity unless there is a reinstatement of the protection.

Governments/organizations plan for uncertain outcomes all the time. Estimates, risk management strategies, etc. Among those are expected student population yields from new housing, which are...wait for it...based on data analyses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, that's not how it works. All I'm saying is: pass the housing bill now, then work on school capacity. You're saying: the housing bill must not be passed unless it has a plan for school capacity too. What do you need for a plan for school capacity? Data on how many new students will live in the housing.

Double standard, much?

I'm saying the bill should have a plan for school capacity, yes, as the current language changes one of the few structures currently in place to help ensure that schools don't get overcrowded. Given that municipalities like MoCo already fail in that regard, there's little hope of it not getting worse with even more housing capacity unless there is a reinstatement of the protection.

Governments/organizations plan for uncertain outcomes all the time. Estimates, risk management strategies, etc. Among those are expected student population yields from new housing, which are...wait for it...based on data analyses!

Good stuff. So, do you know what they say about how many new-to-MCPS students would be expected from the allowable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, that's not how it works. All I'm saying is: pass the housing bill now, then work on school capacity. You're saying: the housing bill must not be passed unless it has a plan for school capacity too. What do you need for a plan for school capacity? Data on how many new students will live in the housing.

Double standard, much?

I'm saying the bill should have a plan for school capacity, yes, as the current language changes one of the few structures currently in place to help ensure that schools don't get overcrowded. Given that municipalities like MoCo already fail in that regard, there's little hope of it not getting worse with even more housing capacity unless there is a reinstatement of the protection.

Governments/organizations plan for uncertain outcomes all the time. Estimates, risk management strategies, etc. Among those are expected student population yields from new housing, which are...wait for it...based on data analyses!

Good stuff. So, do you know what they say about how many new-to-MCPS students would be expected from the allowable housing?

DP. That’s being analyzed for this bill right? Right? Seems irresponsible not to.