Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

As a taxpayer, I don't think they should spend dime on renovating Murch until they move the boundary to shift some kids to Hearst. It could drastically impact the design and cost, which would make finding swing space much easier. If Murch parents don't offer to put this on the table, then they need to just accept the wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer, I don't think they should spend dime on renovating Murch until they move the boundary to shift some kids to Hearst. It could drastically impact the design and cost, which would make finding swing space much easier. If Murch parents don't offer to put this on the table, then they need to just accept the wait.

Money is already approved. Reno is happening. This discussion is just about swing space. But thanks for sharing your well-informed opinion!

[Anonymous]

When is the renovation supposed to begin? This sounds like it may need to be delayed to figure out all of these details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is the renovation supposed to begin? This sounds like it may need to be delayed to figure out all of these details.

June, as soon as school gets out. This is why the Murch SIT has been after DGS/DCPS for 18 months to figure out swing space. I don't think delay is an option; far more likely is a terribly haphazard swing space transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is the renovation supposed to begin? This sounds like it may need to be delayed to figure out all of these details.

Definitely happening in June and as much as some may kick and scream Lafayette will be on the table.

As much as Lafayette doesn't like it this was just sprung on the Murch community too. We haven't even had a chance to think about it before Lafayette has their meeting tonight (we all know how that will go) and the Murch meeting on Thursday. Pretty shitty way to handle things but then again, this is how Murch has been handled for the last 5 years by the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer, I don't think they should spend dime on renovating Murch until they move the boundary to shift some kids to Hearst. It could drastically impact the design and cost, which would make finding swing space much easier. If Murch parents don't offer to put this on the table, then they need to just accept the wait.

Money is already approved. Reno is happening. This discussion is just about swing space. But thanks for sharing your well-informed opinion!

How many other times has the money been approved? You must not be from around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the CCDC listserve posters (a Murch parent) recently suggested this:

"I agree with the suggestion that Murch put trailers on the large, unused grassy space lying between Nebraska and Reno, right next to Murch. This solution is so obvious, staring all of us in the face. I understand that it's probably National Park Service land, Well, make a deal with NPS to make up for the temporary use of the land. It's just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime. I never even see people picnicking or throwing a frisbee there when the weather is fine. It's literally a no-man's land between Murch and Deal. Let's use it for Murch during the renovation! "

What is the possibility of getting NPS to engage at all? Anyone know?

This assumes that it's easy and not extremely costly to do sewer, water and utility hook ups at such a site[/quote

Guys. The is land held in federal trust that is to be protected for the benefit of the public. The entire public. Think.

The "nobody is using it in a manner that impresses me, so it should be MINE" argument is not compelling.

[Anonymous]

Wilson, Janney and Hearst were also under historic designation. The fact that Murch is considered historic doesn't prolong the construction timeframe.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps it does not prolong it directly but it does limit the acceptable design options which, combined with the NPS building limitation and the compact nature of the site, has the knock-on effect of extending the timeframe to the 18-30 month window DGS is now estimating.

[Anonymous]

Considering every construction project ever in history has gone over schedule, they should plan on 30 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wilson, Janney and Hearst were also under historic designation. The fact that Murch is considered historic doesn't prolong the construction timeframe.

And none had as small of a lot limiting the ability to place construction equipment upon/use effectively in a construction project.

[Anonymous]

What drives me crazy about the hysterical Lafayette posters on the ChCh listserv is their use of "their park" "their school" etc. Last time I checked, this is property owned by the city. Residents who live close by don't have any more of a special claim to it than another DC taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.

But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.

The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.

But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.

The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.

So basically DCPS/DGS is screwing over families in both schools. No need to make it us v. them.