Do the recommendations re: BCC boundary study come out today?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Just to clarify, as someone who was involved in the process and went to the site selection committee meetings, the first site was opposed by the Lyttonsville neighborhood, and it became clear that it would be legally difficult to convert the site from a park to a middle school, as a PP said.
As a result, MCPS went back to the drawing board and organized a second site selection process. At that point, a variety of possible alternatives were considered. From what I could tell, the site on Jones Bridge Road never seemed to generate much serious consideration. It wasn't a function of neighbors' objections (as a PP incorrectly suggested above)- it was mostly about the traffic considerations. The site is right next door to NIH, and the road in and out is already a mad traffic jam for hours due to all the traffic associated with NIH. (That is why streets nearby were made one-way, to cope with an insane influx of traffic in that area. FYI, when the BRAC process relocated Walter Reed to the NIH compound, it was supposed to incorporate dedicated access from the Beltway; that was nixed due to security considerations after 9/11, which resulted in dumping tens of thousands of additional cars per day onto neighborhood streets.) There were also some issues with the NCC site that involved nuclear material on the site, as I recall. As far as I could tell, the only people who were pushing for that site were the people who live in the neighborhood near the site that was eventually chosen in Kensington/Rock Creek Hills. There are some creative conspiracy theories going on here, but the idea that NCC and CCES communities are somehow responsible for the mess surround MS#2 is really unfair. |
Anonymous
| For those who are not familiar with or want to relitigate the site selection issue, there is a thread to hear that you should read: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/213233.page |
Anonymous
|
No. NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I'm the PP who just mused about the Jones Bridge site, and if I caused this, I'm so sorry. I'll make a pilgrimage, abstain from meat for a year, do anything to atone, but PLEASE don't open the school siting can of worms! It's over, over, over! I was just sayin', and now I'm sorry I did because there appear to be a lot of people with time on their hands and no shortage of opinions, and the story is turning into folklore. Please, read Wikileaks if you have to, but don't subject us to reliving and correcting the record on that awful experience. It was so divisive, and the wounds have closed. I withdraw the post, and if I could burn it, I would. |
Anonymous
|
The RCF posters here harping on false allegations that somehow NCC and CCES had anything to do with the crappy site of the new middle are desperately trying to change the conversation. I live in Chevy Chase and had nothing to do with the terrible site choice and neither did anyone of I know or any one of my neighbors. No one protested anything until now.
RFC wants divert the discussion because they know that Option 7 is horrible for all the kids. The overcrowding and inequity issues were brought on by the RCF campaign of convenience at the expense to all. It is their turn to participate in the shared bussing platform embraced by MCPS for diversity. RCF also had an inside tract on the BOE decision due to some high powered people behind the scenes. Would love to out some people. NCC and CCES never had a chance for fairness with this person intervening. |
Anonymous
That wouldn't be a state senator, would it? |
Anonymous
I am not sure what post you are referring to and I have not posted about this, but I would certainly think it should be an option to consider. If RH has spare capacity which is not available at Somerset or Bethesda ES, then why not carve out a section of new apartments in Bethesda and send those kids there. Forgotten in all of this is that Westbrook ES is significantly under capacity. I don't see why it should be a problem that if overcrowding at a school is being caused new residents in 2 or 3 apartment buildings and space is available that can accommodate those kids in a nearby school. Then this is the most logical and efficient outcome. It is precisely what is being done now to kids in apartments in Lyttonsville who get shipped off to CC and NCC. They have even separated the divide by buildings between the two schools and it was worst in the past when those buildings were actually separated into 3 different schools. There is no difference in my mind and this is not even controversial to me. It surprises me that you think it's "crazy" actually. |
Anonymous
Aren't those low income apartments being built? If so, you're suggesting taking the poor kids out of BE and bussing to RH? Its bad enough that we already have stuipdly-drawn boundaries bussing kids across the county in the name of social justice; its even worse to artificially keep BE richer and whiter than it is. |
Anonymous
The CCES PTA is relentless. You'll stop at nothing. |
Anonymous
I am not sure you understand much about the Bethesda area or BE. People are so predisposed to judge and cry fowl that it might be worthwhile to actually know what is happening. The apartments in question are renting from $2500-4500 for a 2BD. Here is an example: http://www.flats8300.com/ There are about six other buildings just like this that have been built just in the last two years, with most of them being completed just in the last 6 months. And I am not even counting new condos, however those are unlikely to have kids because they cost the same price as a SFM just a couple blocks away. The people moving in are not poor, nor are they particularly minority or anything else. They are mostly professional families with great educations and good jobs. I think you are also extremely mistaken about the SES status and diversity at BE. There are several complexes that offer affordable housing in boundary and those have been attending BE for a very long time and are not the issue. The issue is that there are about 500+ brand new and empty apartments units that are enticing young professional families just starting out without a lot of savings. If our situation was different, we would probably consider this option too. Because the boundaries were drawn poorly, we now have an over crowding problem, but thankfully it is one that can be easily solved. So first of all, we have established that there is precedent in the cluster in dividing up apartment buildings in certain areas and shipping those kids off to other areas. Next, we have established that the new arrivals are not poor nor minority, but that the issue is that the IB school just doesn't have the physical space to serve everyone. Lastly, we have established that there is a much more wealthy and much more white school nearby that is significantly under capacity that could serve these students and serve them well. No one is being harmed and everyone is getting a quality education. And if whole buildings will be zoned for it, that means all the kids in your "neighborhood" will be at the same school. It is win-win-win and is also cost effective for taxpayers, because why keep adding classrooms to one school if you have another school with space? How is this controversial at all? |
Anonymous
I'm the PP. I'm neither affiliated with CCES nor a CC resident, and I don't have a child involved. I don't understand "stop at nothing." Are you implying that the decision was immersed in something? |
Anonymous
Not PP, but they are clearly implying that CCES PTA members were trying to anonymously smear a local politician. There is also a tinge of conspiracy about it, as well as a denigration of the morality/ethics of CCES PTA members. Pretty nasty stuff, but also just another typical day on DCUM. |
Anonymous
I'm amazed at how people can take a swipe at a whole community with no evidence. This getting crazy. I'm not exonerating these people in any way for their misguided behavior, but, like many issues decided by MCPS, this matter could have been handled better. If you're a new superintendent, maybe you do a listening session with each of the communities, especially given the controversy with this school? Leaving this decision hanging is only increasing the divisions between the communities. Then again, maybe he just doesn't care. |
Anonymous
Ok, so you WEREN'T smearing a local politician? Because it seemed pretty clear that you were. If you weren't, then what were you doing? |
Anonymous
Right, but it's okay to claim there could be no fairness for NCC/CCES because "RCF had an inside tract [sic] on the BOE decision due to some high powered people". What a bunch of garbage. You guys just make stuff up with impunity. But, hey, rich people ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. |
Anonymous
Asking if it happened to be a state senator, ya loon! Look at what the P said, "RCF also had an inside tract on the BOE decision due to some high powered people behind the scenes. Would love to out some people." And what the hell is the smear? Did I accuse him of anything? Did I find emails on his personal server? What did I do, the ther than say, in response to that quote, "That wouldn't be a state senator, would it?" By your responses, you give the impression that something nefarious was done when there's no evidence that was the case. |