Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

DGS and DCPS squandered several valuable years when they could have been finding a good swing space solution for Murch. There has been some magical thinking on their part that swinging on site will be just fine because it will save money. But they are starting to realize that given the scope of the project, swinging on site is going to be really tricky for a variety of reasons. This should have been figured out months ago. Now they've put Murch in the unfortunate position of being a pariah in the community. Adding insult to injury, DGS gives a more detailed presentation to Lafayette about Murch's swing options than Murch or the Murch SIT has received, and the Murch community is scrambling to find out details second hand. Talk about outrageous. Lafayette parents should direct their spite at DGS and DCPS, not at Murch.

[Anonymous]

And Murch should have agreed to boundary changes to keep the overcrowding under control.

Many steps have led to this current situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DGS and DCPS squandered several valuable years when they could have been finding a good swing space solution for Murch. There has been some magical thinking on their part that swinging on site will be just fine because it will save money. But they are starting to realize that given the scope of the project, swinging on site is going to be really tricky for a variety of reasons. This should have been figured out months ago. Now they've put Murch in the unfortunate position of being a pariah in the community. Adding insult to injury, DGS gives a more detailed presentation to Lafayette about Murch's swing options than Murch or the Murch SIT has received, and the Murch community is scrambling to find out details second hand. Talk about outrageous. Lafayette parents should direct their spite at DGS and DCPS, not at Murch.

I am a Lafayette parent and have had many conversations with other Lafayette families and I haven't heard any anger directed to the Murch community, only dgs/dcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Murch should have agreed to boundary changes to keep the overcrowding under control.

Many steps have led to this current situation.

Please stop. The boundary changes proposed in both rounds kept Murch at its current size. There was no plan proposed that would have reduced Murch's head count. So just stop with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DGS and DCPS squandered several valuable years when they could have been finding a good swing space solution for Murch. There has been some magical thinking on their part that swinging on site will be just fine because it will save money. But they are starting to realize that given the scope of the project, swinging on site is going to be really tricky for a variety of reasons. This should have been figured out months ago. Now they've put Murch in the unfortunate position of being a pariah in the community. Adding insult to injury, DGS gives a more detailed presentation to Lafayette about Murch's swing options than Murch or the Murch SIT has received, and the Murch community is scrambling to find out details second hand. Talk about outrageous. Lafayette parents should direct their spite at DGS and DCPS, not at Murch.

Details, please. This is public information. What did they present to the SIT last night?

[Anonymous]

I think Lafayette is being unfairly skewered. Remember that DGS did not present the community with a thoughtful proposal outlining logistics and safety measures for us to respond to. They tossed us an open-ended question that leads people to imagine the worst-case scenarios. While there have been some unfortunate acerbic posts on the listserv, most of those come from folks who write like that all the time, and a prickly handful does not make a community.

The timing is akin to having your spouse away on a business trip and you gearing up the mental energy to get through it with your kids to the appointed hour. Half-way through when your spouse calls to ask, “How do you feel if I stay another two nights?” your first response is usually not an exuberant “yes!” You probably express disappointment and then ask about the logistics: How will get Larla to baseball when I have a late meeting?

DGS owes Lafayette an apology, and it sounds like they owe one to Murch as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Yes it's sort of shocking to see what people would put their names too. But then again, as a long time reader of that listserv, maybe I shouldn't be.

Yes, I'm dismayed at the time of the posts on the Chevy Chase Listserve especially, and the sense of self entitlement some feel (and put their name to). This is not ideal for any community and this news has been sprung on Murch (maybe even more so than Lafayette).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Yes it's sort of shocking to see what people would put their names too. But then again, as a long time reader of that listserv, maybe I shouldn't be.

Yes, I'm dismayed at the time of the posts on the Chevy Chase Listserve especially, and the sense of self entitlement some feel (and put their name to). This is not ideal for any community and this news has been sprung on Murch (maybe even more so than Lafayette).

And to correct a previous assertion here on this thread, the bulk of the CC listserv isolationist commentary is from Lafayette parents and just general youngish affected homeowners in "the envelope" -- not the usual six CC listserv gadflies who are retired without school- age kids.

But regardless of their age, 100% of the commenters have forgotten that their beloved "Chevy Chase community" extends past Nevada Ave. Chevy Chase continues all the way to 41st (yes) and includes hundreds of Murch families. Who are on the listserv too, and reading this shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Lafayette is being unfairly skewered. Remember that DGS did not present the community with a thoughtful proposal outlining logistics and safety measures for us to respond to. They tossed us an open-ended question that leads people to imagine the worst-case scenarios. While there have been some unfortunate acerbic posts on the listserv, most of those come from folks who write like that all the time, and a prickly handful does not make a community.

The timing is akin to having your spouse away on a business trip and you gearing up the mental energy to get through it with your kids to the appointed hour. Half-way through when your spouse calls to ask, “How do you feel if I stay another two nights?” your first response is usually not an exuberant “yes!” You probably express disappointment and then ask about the logistics: How will get Larla to baseball when I have a late meeting?

DGS owes Lafayette an apology, and it sounds like they owe one to Murch as well.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Yes it's sort of shocking to see what people would put their names too. But then again, as a long time reader of that listserv, maybe I shouldn't be.

Yes, I'm dismayed at the time of the posts on the Chevy Chase Listserve especially, and the sense of self entitlement some feel (and put their name to). This is not ideal for any community and this news has been sprung on Murch (maybe even more so than Lafayette).

And to correct a previous assertion here on this thread, the bulk of the CC listserv isolationist commentary is from Lafayette parents and just general youngish affected homeowners in "the envelope" -- not the usual six CC listserv gadflies who are retired without school- age kids.

But regardless of their age, 100% of the commenters have forgotten that their beloved "Chevy Chase community" extends past Nevada Ave. Chevy Chase continues all the way to 41st (yes) and includes hundreds of Murch families. Who are on the listserv too, and reading this shit.

I also can't believe they are are making the argument that they have already "endured" years of construction already-- meaning the city has been investing in improving the park and playground areas for their neighborhood's use! But that's supposed to count as one too many hardships for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NPS won't let Murch use its land, even on a temporary basis. It is a non-starter.

Why is this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NPS won't let Murch use its land, even on a temporary basis. It is a non-starter.

Why is this?

My understanding based on attending a few of the DGS meetings at Murch is that the NPS is a real pain in the ass bureaucracy. NPS controls a lot of the land in DC and they don't share or play well with others and aren't going to start now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NPS won't let Murch use its land, even on a temporary basis. It is a non-starter.

Why is this?

My understanding based on attending a few of the DGS meetings at Murch is that the NPS is a real pain in the ass bureaucracy. NPS controls a lot of the land in DC and they don't share or play well with others and aren't going to start now.

That was definitely what came through in the initial community meeting last spring. DGS was saying NPS wouldn't let them build anything on the land that's part of the Murch grounds today. Then in the follow-up meeting, DGS reported that they had talked to NPS, and NPS was fine with building play structures--had to be for recreation, no buildings/excavation. So the current plan calls for the playground and soccer field to be on NPS land.

That's why I'm skeptical of the whole "green area across Reno Road is a no-go" line. I suspect DGS/DCPS just hasn't pursued it aggressively yet. But I hope someone closer to the inside will correct me if I'm wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Yes it's sort of shocking to see what people would put their names too. But then again, as a long time reader of that listserv, maybe I shouldn't be.

Yes, I'm dismayed at the time of the posts on the Chevy Chase Listserve especially, and the sense of self entitlement some feel (and put their name to). This is not ideal for any community and this news has been sprung on Murch (maybe even more so than Lafayette).

And to correct a previous assertion here on this thread, the bulk of the CC listserv isolationist commentary is from Lafayette parents and just general youngish affected homeowners in "the envelope" -- not the usual six CC listserv gadflies who are retired without school- age kids.

But regardless of their age, 100% of the commenters have forgotten that their beloved "Chevy Chase community" extends past Nevada Ave. Chevy Chase continues all the way to 41st (yes) and includes hundreds of Murch families. Who are on the listserv too, and reading this shit.

Yes, this is the start of my favorite posting so far:

Hello all, we recently bought a house in Chevy Chase DC specifically for our son to attend Lafayette starting with kindergarten in Fall 2016. Tied for greatest draw with the neighborhood's old-fashioned charm and Lafayette's 'arts integration' curriculum was the Lafayette Park setting of the school. We are horrified to hear that Lafayette Park may host Murch for two years during Murch renovation. The trailers made sense for Lafayette's renovation, but not for Murch, for all the reasons detailed so well by other posters. (Thank you to the articulate members of our community!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Yes it's sort of shocking to see what people would put their names too. But then again, as a long time reader of that listserv, maybe I shouldn't be.

Yes, I'm dismayed at the time of the posts on the Chevy Chase Listserve especially, and the sense of self entitlement some feel (and put their name to). This is not ideal for any community and this news has been sprung on Murch (maybe even more so than Lafayette).

And to correct a previous assertion here on this thread, the bulk of the CC listserv isolationist commentary is from Lafayette parents and just general youngish affected homeowners in "the envelope" -- not the usual six CC listserv gadflies who are retired without school- age kids.

But regardless of their age, 100% of the commenters have forgotten that their beloved "Chevy Chase community" extends past Nevada Ave. Chevy Chase continues all the way to 41st (yes) and includes hundreds of Murch families. Who are on the listserv too, and reading this shit.

Yes, this is the start of my favorite posting so far:

Hello all, we recently bought a house in Chevy Chase DC specifically for our son to attend Lafayette starting with kindergarten in Fall 2016. Tied for greatest draw with the neighborhood's old-fashioned charm and Lafayette's 'arts integration' curriculum was the Lafayette Park setting of the school. We are horrified to hear that Lafayette Park may host Murch for two years during Murch renovation. The trailers made sense for Lafayette's renovation, but not for Murch, for all the reasons detailed so well by other posters. (Thank you to the articulate members of our community!)

Yes!! This is the post that really drives me crazy - someone that hasn't lived in the area long, doesn't seem to live near the actual renovations (per other parts of their post) and whose child doesn't yet go to the school (but they don't want trailers there for their kid's future experience) - so in sum, has no direct impact. Signed "on behalf of little [NAME]" So obnoxious