BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

What happened tonight?

[Anonymous]

As predicted Rock Creek Hills prevailed as site number 1. Someone got the word out to the NCC Park neighbors and they came out in great numbers to support their park. I also got the impression all private sites were eliminated (no surprise there).

Rock Creek Hills won top spot by a landslide. Next steps, lawsuit.

But, remember, this is only an advisory committee, the real players are yet to weigh in, and as Mr. Crispell said, they could still pick from any of the 38 sites...

Lynnbrook is still a serious possibility in some circles.

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that one private site is still alive.

[Anonymous]

No, they were all eliminated, except for two parks again. What is wrong with this picture?

[Anonymous]

White Flint is getting a school incorporated into it's [sic] new town center, why can't the new CC development work it into their new design.

As stated in either the first or second meeting, it is a lot easier to tell developers to build, or set aside space for, an elementary school along with new residential development. There is a formula which accounts for the amount of new residential development and how it affects the new, immediate elementary school population. Middle schools have a much larger catchment area so it is more difficult to force a particular developer of say, 300 new housing units, to build a new middle school for a 5+ mile radius just because there will be more than a several dozen middle-school age children living in the new development.

Parks are on the table because there are very few swaths of land in the B-CC cluster which are big enough to build a middle school that are not parks. Period.

[Anonymous]

They need to start thinking differently about school designs and land needs.Period.

MCPS is a greedy irresponsible government agency that has squandered its resources and now looks to pick another's pocket. Their group of experts supply erroneous information and YES, they do herd the SSAC lemmings off the cliff. And I am not from RCH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is a greedy irresponsible government agency that has squandered its resources and now looks to pick another's pocket.

I just don't get the argument that letting Parks use a site subject to reclaim, and then reclaiming the site when needed, is either squandering resources or picking another agency's pocket.

[Anonymous]

I just don't get the argument that letting Parks use a site subject to reclaim, and then reclaiming the site when needed, is either squandering resources or picking another agency's pocket.

I agree - this thread is full of vents about MCPS greed and incompetence, but I don't understand why. Was MCPS supposed to just leave schools that were not needed vacant for decades until the population rebounded? It seems to me that MCPS stewarded at least some of its resources in a pretty reasonable manner - it made school properties available for other uses when they are not needed, but retained the option to use those same sites when they were needed. Win-win.

Anyway, the Parks representative at last night's meeting was very clear that they cannot refuse to return the site to MCPS. It sounds like it is a done deal, RCH lawsuits or not.

[Anonymous]

I think so too. It does sound pretty final, regardless of law suit, for which there seems to be no real grounds. I also agree with the previous post that RCH, at least in this instance may be responsible re-use of their own property, or at least property they have a right to.

But I won't let MCPS completely off the hook. They do bear some responsibility for mismanaging their properties. It is true that many are leased out to private enterprises. They really do need those properties back, and they also need to think about re-using them for public school when the need arises.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has been reclaiming properties in the recent past - notably North Bethesda Middle School and Newport Mill Middle School. It does, however, need to stop selling them (e.g. Grace Episcopal) and signing much shorter leases with its tenants (e.g. former Montgomery Hills Junior High.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I just don't get the argument that letting Parks use a site subject to reclaim, and then reclaiming the site when needed, is either squandering resources or picking another agency's pocket.

I agree - this thread is full of vents about MCPS greed and incompetence, but I don't understand why. Was MCPS supposed to just leave schools that were not needed vacant for decades until the population rebounded? It seems to me that MCPS stewarded at least some of its resources in a pretty reasonable manner - it made school properties available for other uses when they are not needed, but retained the option to use those same sites when they were needed. Win-win.

Anyway, the Parks representative at last night's meeting was very clear that they cannot refuse to return the site to MCPS. It sounds like it is a done deal, RCH lawsuits or not.

Except that the site is not the same, unfortunately. They hacked off the most buildable part and built a retirement home, which is also using the access road that the former junior high used. The county sold those buildings in 2005 for $12.5 million to a private company, but still holds the lease on the land. I wonder where those millions went? Seems to me they should be used by the schools..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.... It does sound pretty final, regardless of law suit, for which there seems to be no real grounds. ...

The SSAC is merely an "advisory" body, not a decision-making one. So, no decision has been made, let alone a "final" decision.

Official records state that federal Land & Water Conservation Funds, administered through Maryland's Program Open Space, were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park. Federal and State law place strict restrictions on conversion to non-park use of land acquired or developed with such funds, and arbitrary limits on enforcement of these restrictions have no basis in law. Yes, I agree with those who have written that this issue will not be settled on this discussion board! My point is simply that there are indeed "grounds" for citizens who support good parks, strong schools, and wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I support good parks and good schools. This is not final, as was said Wednesday night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I support good parks and good schools. This is not final, as was said Wednesday night.

wanna bet?

[Anonymous]

anything could happen. It may be final, but then again, I don't think Bruce Crispell and his minions expected so much opposition.