RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

I can’t wait for the exciting town hall meeting. It’s going to be a fun time for all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

There are several problem with stopping turnover. That will be violation of rights. Not issuing permit to build condos is different than not allowing anyone to sell their house. It's just not legal or practical and not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for the exciting town hall meeting. It’s going to be a fun time for all!

City is trying to sneak this in holiday season. Unless parents with school aged children show up there in huge number, it may not be that interesting. City should do this entire discussion after holiday with at least 3-4 public discussions. Otherwise they are trying to sneak something so huge without anyone noticing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

There are several problem with stopping turnover. That will be violation of rights. Not issuing permit to build condos is different than not allowing anyone to sell their house. It's just not legal or practical and not going to happen.

Telling people that they can't sell their property until new school capacity is built is a violation of rights, but telling people that they can't build on their property until new school capacity is built isn't a violation of property rights? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

I agree, I’m tired of people saying, “I got mine”. People can move to West Virginia and not need to worry about building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

There are several problem with stopping turnover. That will be violation of rights. Not issuing permit to build condos is different than not allowing anyone to sell their house. It's just not legal or practical and not going to happen.

Telling people that they can't sell their property until new school capacity is built is a violation of rights, but telling people that they can't build on their property until new school capacity is built isn't a violation of property rights? Why?

+1

People are so hypocritical. At this rate, the city might as well take a bunch of land through imminent domain and kock down their buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

There are several problem with stopping turnover. That will be violation of rights. Not issuing permit to build condos is different than not allowing anyone to sell their house. It's just not legal or practical and not going to happen.

Telling people that they can't sell their property until new school capacity is built is a violation of rights, but telling people that they can't build on their property until new school capacity is built isn't a violation of property rights? Why?

Why not propose to city that they shouldn't allow any one to sell? Go ahead and do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

I agree, I’m tired of people saying, “I got mine”. People can move to West Virginia and not need to worry about building.

Half of the county tax goes on education. That shows the priority.

City should go back to 110% for moratorium. It make no sense to wait for moratorium till 120%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

I agree, I’m tired of people saying, “I got mine”. People can move to West Virginia and not need to worry about building.

Half of the county tax goes on education. That shows the priority.

City should go back to 110% for moratorium. It make no sense to wait for moratorium till 120%.

Why should the city kneecap itself when the rest of the county has 120%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why not propose to city that they shouldn't allow any one to sell? Go ahead and do it.

If I were going to propose anything to the City of Rockville, it would be that they should rezone to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and three-decker houses in every area currently zoned for single-family detached houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

I agree, I’m tired of people saying, “I got mine”. People can move to West Virginia and not need to worry about building.

I got ‘mine’? What does that even mean?

I got my kids to attend a HS that is overcrowded and will be more overcrowded?

Nobody is saying that there can be NO development. Parents are asking for RESPONSIBLE development.

If the City wants to allow all these additional housing units, then there needs to be arrangements for appropriate infrastructure. Especially schools.

Fine if they want to put in more housing. Not fine to do so when schools are already overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why not propose to city that they shouldn't allow any one to sell? Go ahead and do it.

If I were going to propose anything to the City of Rockville, it would be that they should rezone to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and three-decker houses in every area currently zoned for single-family detached houses.

That’s great. You should do that.

Be sure to also advocate for additional parks, recreational facilities, better roads, more schools and more libraries. Because those things are all important and need to be considered.

It’s great that the area is bringing in new people, but you can’t add thousands of additional housing units without adding the needed services. Otherwise, everyone’s quality of life goes down. And, as has beeen happening to MCPS for the past decade, the school system gets overwhelmed and declines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on MCPS previous projections of RM, Umbers should be 150-200 higher than what MCPS is projecting. Within 5 years without building any new condos, we should be around 130%.

OK, then there should be a selling moratorium until the high school at Crown is built, right? No turnover of existing housing until Crown HS opens!

I have not heard of Moratorium for turnover anywhere, but moratorium for building new housing is standard practice.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good or effective practice.

I agree, I’m tired of people saying, “I got mine”. People can move to West Virginia and not need to worry about building.

I got ‘mine’? What does that even mean?

I got my kids to attend a HS that is overcrowded and will be more overcrowded?

Nobody is saying that there can be NO development. Parents are asking for RESPONSIBLE development.

If the City wants to allow all these additional housing units, then there needs to be arrangements for appropriate infrastructure. Especially schools.

Fine if they want to put in more housing. Not fine to do so when schools are already overcrowded.

If it’s so bad, why do you stay here with the kids in overcrowded schools? You chose Rockville and you continue to choose to live in Rockville. We don’t need new schools before development. We need more housing for the growing population. Schools can come later. I don’t want people commuting from Frederick because there is no housing here.