Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

Duck Duck Go first result from search for "do additional housing units yield additional students"

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/planning/Grip_49_3-4_PC_2020.pdf

I'm sure there are others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

Duck Duck Go first result from search for "do additional housing units yield additional students"

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/planning/Grip_49_3-4_PC_2020.pdf

I'm sure there are others.

This study says that residents moving into new housing units tend to have school-aged children and that residents who have lived in the same housing unit for a long time tend not to have school-aged children. Which makes sense! But it does not address the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

Duck Duck Go first result from search for "do additional housing units yield additional students"

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/planning/Grip_49_3-4_PC_2020.pdf

I'm sure there are others.

This study says that residents moving into new housing units tend to have school-aged children and that residents who have lived in the same housing unit for a long time tend not to have school-aged children. Which makes sense! But it does not address the question.

The study shows expected student yields from different types of new housing. Hint while you are looking (the charts are an easy find) -- the average/expectation is non-zero.

You housing bros are just too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

Duck Duck Go first result from search for "do additional housing units yield additional students"

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/planning/Grip_49_3-4_PC_2020.pdf

I'm sure there are others.

This study says that residents moving into new housing units tend to have school-aged children and that residents who have lived in the same housing unit for a long time tend not to have school-aged children. Which makes sense! But it does not address the question.

The study shows expected student yields from different types of new housing. Hint while you are looking (the charts are an easy find) -- the average/expectation is non-zero.

You housing bros are just too much.

The study doesn't say whether those students are NEW TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Not to mention that a study from New Jersey, which has 593 school districts, would have different results for that question than a study from Maryland, which has 24.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

Lot of assumptions right there. I hope to god you don’t work for the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

Ha! Any demographer worth their salt would disagree with you.

I'm happy to look at any data or studies you (or they) have.

Duck Duck Go first result from search for "do additional housing units yield additional students"

https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/planning/Grip_49_3-4_PC_2020.pdf

I'm sure there are others.

This study says that residents moving into new housing units tend to have school-aged children and that residents who have lived in the same housing unit for a long time tend not to have school-aged children. Which makes sense! But it does not address the question.

The study shows expected student yields from different types of new housing. Hint while you are looking (the charts are an easy find) -- the average/expectation is non-zero.

You housing bros are just too much.

The study doesn't say whether those students are NEW TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Not to mention that a study from New Jersey, which has 593 school districts, would have different results for that question than a study from Maryland, which has 24.

You don't understand what yield means, do you? The study suggests that 100 new homes would add between 43 and 99 new students, depending on housing type (condo/TH or detached SFH) and representative data set analyzed (community/county or state). Maybe you are relying on that magical "there won't be many new residents to the area in that new housing because it will be filled by families that are living two or more to a unit in the area today" thinking?

There certainly may be some difference between adding housing in a relatively wealthy New Jersey suburban community and a relatively wealthy suburban Maryland county. To suggest that one would yield new students and the other wouldn't is ludicrous, however.

You asked for a study to cast doubt on the relatively obvious observation that new housing units would result in additional students. I was able to find that lickety-split. From your responses, you'll just be taking this into the rabbit hole of constantly asking others to defend a position while you never defend yours. Typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

All of this. There are so many "magical thinking" assumptions in the mix here, often flying the face of both data and experience.

The idea that new housing doesn't add kids is one of those, but another big one is the myth that homes near public transit won't attract residents with cars. If anyone has driven around the area, street parking is absolutely packed with overflow from apartment complexes. In every case, we were told that the proximity to Metro/Metrobus would mean parking isn't needed, but it's just not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.