BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, the argument goes; if you are going to take away a neighborhood public amenity, then it is not a school related issue, it is a development issue that affects all people, not JUST people with children, and so ALL people should have a say in how their neighborhood gets developed. Now, if you are going to redevelop school owned property (which many would say RCH is) then there is no quibble, but when you are taking from the larger community for the needs of a few (sorry but that is true) then the larger community should have more say. As for my community (and I do have young school aged children but I am not self centered enough to think we are the few who matter most) we already have several schools, and I can tell you, they are a pain in the neck when it comes to traffic.

If the issue then is that middle schools serve the needs of the few and negatively affect the many, it follows logically that no middle school should ever be built except in neighborhoods where the majority of the households have middle schoolers. Our communities cannot live with that conclusion. It's a NIMBY problem.

[Anonymous]

Well, seriously, we do need a new middle school. So, let's build one that would provide parity with other middle schools in the county! Now, every Montgomery County middle school on a site that is smaller than 13 acres is adjacent to a park. This "co-location" allows schools and parks to share space & especially athletic fields. A middle school would "obliterate" Rock Creek Hills Park – there would not be a park left —



A middle school built on a 10.1 acre site, without an adjacent (or "co-located") park providing field space, would be uniquely inadequate, county-wide. Would anyone in the Bethesda – Chevy Chase cluster want that?

[Anonymous]

Well, seriously, we do need a new middle school. So, let's build one that would provide parity with other middle schools in the county! Now, every Montgomery County middle school on a site that is smaller than 13 acres is adjacent to a park. This "co-location" allows schools and parks to share space & especially athletic fields. A middle school would "obliterate" Rock Creek Hills Park – there would not be a park left — A middle school built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park would be uniquely inadequate, county-wide. Would anyone in the Bethesda – Chevy Chase cluster want that?

[sorry for incomplete earlier posting]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, seriously, we do need a new middle school. So, let's build one that would provide parity with other middle schools in the county! Now, every Montgomery County middle school on a site that is smaller than 13 acres is adjacent to a park. This "co-location" allows schools and parks to share space & especially athletic fields. A middle school would "obliterate" Rock Creek Hills Park – there would not be a park left — A middle school built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park would be uniquely inadequate, county-wide. Would anyone in the Bethesda – Chevy Chase cluster want that?

[sorry for incomplete earlier posting]

I have to disagree with you. We in the down county area really need to get over this weird idea that if we don'y have a big patch of land to build a large MS on then our children won't receive a good education. We simply do not have that amount of land available for cheap (what MCPS wants to pay $0). We should start thinking urban, smaller and more vertical or better designed less land hungry schools.

I know that is a big argument for not using RCH for new school site, but the design has shown it can work. I don't think kids will receive a lesser education because they don't have 20 acres. But then, maybe the Lynnbrook site should also be re-examined. There are easements that could be worked out that would make that site feasible.

If we don't do these common sense things now, we will end up with no park land.

btw - To find out the latest MCPS blunder go to - http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/03/answer-pulte-middle-school.html

And we trust them to get their facts straight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...I know that [size] is a big argument for not using RCH for new school site, but the [feasibility study] design has shown it can work....

"Work?" Well, sure, you could build a school there. After all, you could build a school anywhere.

What the feasibility study showed, however, is that Rock Creek Hills Park is not big enough, and has inadequate access: None of the final feasibility study options provide sufficient parking (per MCPS standards) or have three vehicular access points (per MCPS standards).

The site would not provide parity with other middle schools in the County.

[Anonymous]

What the 2011 "feasibility study" says about Rock Creek Hills Park: http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-does-2011-feasibility-study-say.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I know that [size] is a big argument for not using RCH for new school site, but the [feasibility study] design has shown it can work....

"Work?" Well, sure, you could build a school there. After all, you could build a school anywhere.

What the feasibility study showed, however, is that Rock Creek Hills Park is not big enough, and has inadequate access: None of the final feasibility study options provide sufficient parking (per MCPS standards) or have three vehicular access points (per MCPS standards).

The site would not provide parity with other middle schools in the County.

Please, what does parity really mean? And tell me what site you think would work better...North Chevy Chase Park? I ask in earnest because, basically, in order to get a larger site that would meet the 20 acre site requirement which is absurd in the down county area in this day and age, you are basically looking for a park. This will not happen. Parks are not for sale, parks cannot be acquired through eminent domain. So it seems to me that MCPS has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century reality.

No, you can't build a school with a massive parking lot. There are smarter urban designs that provide kids with opportunity for a first rate education.

If Rock Creek Hills is going to be spared construction, it will not be because folks are convinced that their kids will not get a good education, nor that the parking lot will not be big enough but rather that Rock Creek Hills makes a convincing case in court and prevails through their law suit.

[Anonymous]

In which case North Chevy Chase Park should start getting ready for a feasibility study.

[Anonymous]

Ahh...That would be no? NCC Park is not for sale technically and cannot be a fall back position.

Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... NCC Park is not for sale technically and cannot be a fall back position.

So, you're saying that the entire site selection advisory committee process was a sham? That MCPS had dozens of citizens go through a kind of charade, with the pre-ordained conclusion that they would end up with the only site that isn't "not for sale technically"? That's sad.

[Anonymous]

The availabilit of NCC Park is subject to the discretion of the Parks department - and if you want a sense of how eager they are to give up parkland, just think back to what happened with the original site in the Rosemary Hills neighborhood. Because of the reclaim clause, the Parks department cannot refuse to turn back RCH park - this was stated very clearly at the last meeting, and seems to have been a big influence in favor of RCH for at least some members of the site selection advisory committee. There are lots of other factors that weighed against NCC Park, the tens of millions it would cost to build access roads and the fact that the MoCo transporation people have described the idea of putting a school right in the midst of an expanding federal medical hub as a disaster. That's why the vote came down so heavily in favor of RCH. And btw, no one but a few crazy RCH residents really thinks a lawsuit (or their nonstop threats of ligitation) would actually succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... NCC Park is not for sale technically and cannot be a fall back position.

So, you're saying that the entire site selection advisory committee process was a sham? That MCPS had dozens of citizens go through a kind of charade, with the pre-ordained conclusion that they would end up with the only site that isn't "not for sale technically"? That's sad.

Yes, a sham, brought to you by MCPS. The intention was to rubber stamp RCH and clear the way for construction of a new school. I doubt RCH lawsuit will be much of a factor. However, the fact remains that the SSAC did not succeed in picking a second fall back site should anything go awry with RCH. NCC is not a fall back site for the reasons stated above. Hopefully, this will be remedied by the subsequent reviews Planning Board, Superintendent and BoE, otherwise the whole enterprise may be headed for failure.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of other factors that weighed against NCC Park, the tens of millions it would cost to build access roads and the fact that the MoCo transporation people have described the idea of putting a school right in the midst of an expanding federal medical hub as a disaster.

And yet many people said, it is so big and underused, let's put the school there. In light of all the caveats it would seem that some on the SSAC didn't really think this through?

[Anonymous]

Official records state that federal Land and Water Conservation Funds, administered through Maryland's Program Open Space, were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park. Both state and federal law put strict restrictions on conversion to non-park use of land acquired or developed with such funds, requiring provision of replacement land of equal recreational value to the community; arbitrary limits on enforcement of these restrictions have no basis in law. I agree with those who have written here that this matter will not be settled on this discussion board! My point is that those who chose to address this matter here by insulting members of the Rock Creek Hills community are simply highlighting their lack of any substantive response to the real issues at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... the MoCo transporation people have described the idea of putting a school right in the midst of an expanding federal medical hub as a disaster. ...

Who? You may believe that to be the case, but who from the County's Department of Transportation said that?

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please, if we're going to attribute statements to authorities, let's have some facts, please. Who from the County Dept. of Transportation said that?