BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Why did the large bloc of SSAC members who live south of East-West Highway vote to eliminate every site located south of East-West Highway? Hmmm.... Haven't we seen this movie before? |
Anonymous
|
Criteria has not been applied equally across the board. One site's trees are more valuable than another's. One sites "historic" significance is more important than another. One site has xx amount of buildable acreage and so it is eliminated, another with the exact same amount is not eliminated.
And some site, when you get right down to it, are not even open for discussion. They are just eliminated because they were just straw sites to begin with and never really were meant to be considered. the boe and mcps should not be surprised when consensus builds against them on this site selection process. And let's be honest, the meetings are being run with an endgame in mind and this SSAC has had little real input into the process. The fix is in. |
Anonymous
| PP, I sympathize with your angst, but the problem with the scenario is that however imperfect the process has been, and however imperfect RCH may be as a site, there is no "consensus building against MCPS" or that site amongst most of the area... with the obvious exception of some of the residents of RCH. I would have been happy to see Lynwood or Norwood picked, and I am totally prepared to believe that those sites were eliminated unfairly. That said, I'm also going to be pretty satisfied if the site is RCH. No one is going to rise up in protest against MCPS over RCH except a small proportion of people in Kensington. And if the school winds up there, I suspect most of hte neighbors will end up reasonably happy to have it there eventually anyway. |
Anonymous
|
Concerns go beyond what some folks in Kensington think. On November 2nd, when the Superintendent of Schools advised the Board of Education to restart the site selection process, he said: "In their opposition to the use of Rock Creek Hills Local Park for the new middle school the community has raised concerns over the process used to select the site and the suitability of the site for a middle school. The controversy over this site has spread beyond the immediate community. At this point I am concerned that we may not have the support of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)—that is critical to having the property transferred back to the Board of Education—and of the County Council—who we need to fund construction of the school." [Emphasis added.] |
Anonymous
| Personally, I would have been really unhappy if the committee recommended Norwood and I don't live close to that park at all. It has a lot of apartment buildings backing to it and it's one of the few decent parks left in the southern part of the county. I'd hate to see some big ugly middle school constructed there. I hate to see the MS go up in any park. I will be interested to see the outcome of tonight's meeting, I hope there is some privately held space they can consider. |
Anonymous
| PP, you're kidding yourself if you think MoCo is up in arms that RCH park may be used for a middle school. You quote the superintendant explaining why he restarted the process as a function of neighborhood concerns. That does not equate to real objections from anyone other than the RCH community association. |
Anonymous
|
Well, I do think there is building consensus (certainly on this board) that MCPS has been less than forthcoming and competent. And yes, Lynnbrook is THE 800 pound gorilla in the room.
But I also think RCH will be chosen, and I agree with many other posters, that not many people outside of the small group in Kensington are against the choice. It may not be the greatest location for the middle school, but there is also a great deal of animosity towards that community because of how they have handled themselves in public and media. It is a shame and to their detriment that their messages have been so mixed. I am not even sure they support parks for anyone other than themselves. Some expressed support and a desire to move it to NCC or even Norwood, what does that say? My park is sacrosanct but not yours...kids need parks, but not your kids. I think parkland should not be considered as unused or vacant or expendable. The importance of parks cannot be overstated. And ultimately, we will all lose if parks start being considered as the only choices for school construction. How can you explain that both SSAC's came up with two final choices that are parks again? Let's not even consider the private sites which I am sure will amount to no more than little ducks farting in the wind. I think Mr. Crispell (Chevy Chase resident?) and his voting block made it very clear which direction to hoist their sails. |
Anonymous
PP, I'm guessing that RCH would be flattered by your theory that their concerns alone moved Superintendent Starr to reopen site selection. But as for me, I'll take the Superintendent at his word. And again, what he said to the Board of Education was this: "... I am concerned that we may not have the support of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) — that is critical to having the property transferred back to the Board of Education — and of the County Council — who we need to fund construction of the school." |
Anonymous
Exactly so. And therefore, when you have the current SSAC once again narrowing all their choices (at least public ones) to two sites, both parks, and M-NCPPC has already gone on record saying they do not support the use of parks that do not have reclaim rights, one just has to wonder if this SSAC is destined to go down the same path to failure as the previous one. MNCPPC has been crystal clear about this but no one seems to be paying attention, or are these folks on the SSAC so arrogant that they don't feel they need to take this under advisement? |
Anonymous
| I don't think Lynnbrook or Norwood should necessarily have been eliminated, but that doesn't mean that I think either would be the best site. I do think if MCPS gave RCH to Parks subject to a reclaim right then it is reasonable to either look at RCH or for Parks to offer other land in exchange for cancelling the reclaim right at RCH. |
Anonymous
Yes, and remember that the site MCPS gave to the county was 50% larger than RCHP, because it included the land that now holds the elder housing. |
Anonymous
I think the "incompetence" and "less-than-forthcoming" nature of this process may have a little to do with RCH residents' approach to this project. And, given that the members of the SSAC from Chevy Chase and Bethesda voted to keep RCH on the site list while at the same time voting to eliminate Norwood and NCC Park, it seems like they may feel that their parks are off-limits as well... I agree that no parks should be considered, especially given the large new development plans by our local governments in CC, Kensington, Bethesda, Wheaton and White Flint. |
Anonymous
| It will be RCH Park that will take the big prize. |
Anonymous
I agree with you completely...So what are we, the residents and tax payers going to do about it? We should at least barrage the BoE and other powers that be in protesting this. White Flint is getting a school incorporated into it's new town center, why can't the new CC development work it into their new design. After all, this is being done not for the kids as everyone is so fond of saying, but for the developers, so that the building moratorium can be lifted. fyi - I have written my letter to Starr, BoE and the County Council. So should everyone who cares. |
Anonymous
| PP, I hope your letter got to the BoE before tonight's meeting. Will anyone be there tonight? |