APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

The pike plan was around before John V

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

The pike plan was around before John V

Not that plan. I meant the deal with Barcroft Apartments committing it to being affordable housing and thereby "preserving" affordable housing along the Pike. The Pike neighborhoods plan needs revision for sure; but so does locking Barcroft Apts into never being able to upgrade or provide middle-upper middle class rentals or homeownership development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

The pike plan was around before John V

Not that plan. I meant the deal with Barcroft Apartments committing it to being affordable housing and thereby "preserving" affordable housing along the Pike. The Pike neighborhoods plan needs revision for sure; but so does locking Barcroft Apts into never being able to upgrade or provide middle-upper middle class rentals or homeownership development.

The development rights were sold before John V was elected. Besides, I don’t think that was even something that is voted on. That’s the work of the Delashmutt family ( the landed gentry of Loudon) and Cristeal and his peeps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Please. Give me a break. You couldn’t be more full of s#it. South Arlington needed another school. No excuse needed. How much hand holding does Drew need to form a PTA? I guess they really are a bunch of incompetent poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Please. Give me a break. You couldn’t be more full of s#it. South Arlington needed another school. No excuse needed. How much hand holding does Drew need to form a PTA? I guess they really are a bunch of incompetent poor people.

It isn't about handholding. It's about being thoughtful and helpful. If Montessori parents were the ones who basically ran everything for all those years, they left knowing they were leaving with all the PTA knowledge and experience. There simply was no critical reason for them to separate as quickly as they did. What's your point about needing another school? That was the opportunity that finally got Montessori out of Drew. But the SB should have done something about Montessori/Drew situation years before - they paid no attention to the Drew neighborhood program and camoflaged the real situation of the neighborhood program. They only finally took action because a new school was being built and the scenario that went along with it included moving Montessori out. That's the only "shit" here.

[Anonymous]

You can’t move kids, when you literally don’t have seats. North Arlington was the immediate overcrowding issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Please. Give me a break. You couldn’t be more full of s#it. South Arlington needed another school. No excuse needed. How much hand holding does Drew need to form a PTA? I guess they really are a bunch of incompetent poor people.

It isn't about handholding. It's about being thoughtful and helpful. If Montessori parents were the ones who basically ran everything for all those years, they left knowing they were leaving with all the PTA knowledge and experience. There simply was no critical reason for them to separate as quickly as they did. What's your point about needing another school? That was the opportunity that finally got Montessori out of Drew. But the SB should have done something about Montessori/Drew situation years before - they paid no attention to the Drew neighborhood program and camoflaged the real situation of the neighborhood program. They only finally took action because a new school was being built and the scenario that went along with it included moving Montessori out. That's the only "shit" here.

Sounds like a bad situation but montessori is only a little more than half the students (400 vs 300). Were they the entirety of the PTA in years past? If so, why?

[Anonymous]

I wish people would be civil on both sides. Nasty things are being said about Montessori and specific neighborhoods/ parents here and on AEM by some people. Preferring one school or program over another is okay and is not “code” or racist. Once boundaries are drawn, those families will probably not forget what was said about them. I just don’t see how this all works out in a way that is a net positive for Drew’s PTA or South Arlington. The last few years have certainly made me think twice about living in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would be civil on both sides. Nasty things are being said about Montessori and specific neighborhoods/ parents here and on AEM by some people. Preferring one school or program over another is okay and is not “code” or racist. Once boundaries are drawn, those families will probably not forget what was said about them. I just don’t see how this all works out in a way that is a net positive for Drew’s PTA or South Arlington. The last few years have certainly made me think twice about living in Arlington.

Largely agree, but let's be honest about the reasons for those preferences, which are for material reasons, and not matters of tastetaste. No one prefers Fleet over Drew "just because." They prefer it because it will have a farms rate one third that of Drew, with all the benefits that come with it. Yes, I can understand that Henry wants to maintain its diversity, because i believe in integration. But it's hard to be sympathetic about them wanting not too much, not too little, but just the right amount of economic diversity that UMC families are comfortable with, while the schools immediately adjacent have rates of 60, 80, and 90 percent.

Also, "The Henry community" has been losing economic diversity over the last decade as most of the AH in their zone was replaced by high end condos; Henry was at 60 percent farms in 2003, then 46% in 2010 and now it's 32% in 2017. So it's a problem now, but not 10 years ago? So pardon me if Henry's two mantras, "keep Henry diverse, keep Henry together" sound a little forced and a little late.

[Anonymous]

As said earlier high poverty schools do not serve anyone especially non ESL and MC, UMC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t move kids, when you literally don’t have seats. North Arlington was the immediate overcrowding issue.

I'm not sure what you're responding to or what the point of your comment is. But if it is suggesting Montessori wasn't moved out of Drew for years because north arlington was crowded, that's not the point being made about Montessori and the graded programs. Those two programs needed to be separate for instructional and administrative purposes. The co-location was detrimental particularly to the graded program and its students and families. Overcrowding isn't the issue. A main reason the south arlington working group put forth this solution to overcrowding (Henry to Fleet, Montessori to Henry, etc) is precisely because they recognized the critical need for these programs to be independent and this was the way to get it done.

[Anonymous]

The whole "we want to keep our diversity!" thing from the Henry parents is such garbage. If they really cared about diversity, integration, legacy effects of discrimination, etc., they would care about it for the whole community, not just for their corner of it. The Henry people don't really care about those issues, they care about making sure Fleet has enough diversity that they can keep shining their progressive badges and believe themselves to be morally superior to North Arlington. It's trashy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would be civil on both sides. Nasty things are being said about Montessori and specific neighborhoods/ parents here and on AEM by some people. Preferring one school or program over another is okay and is not “code” or racist. Once boundaries are drawn, those families will probably not forget what was said about them. I just don’t see how this all works out in a way that is a net positive for Drew’s PTA or South Arlington. The last few years have certainly made me think twice about living in Arlington.

And Drew probably will not forget how this process was a game of musical chairs with everyone trying to grab a seat somewhere else. Spare me the tears for the UMC Henry/Fleet folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t move kids, when you literally don’t have seats. North Arlington was the immediate overcrowding issue.

I'm not sure what you're responding to or what the point of your comment is. But if it is suggesting Montessori wasn't moved out of Drew for years because north arlington was crowded, that's not the point being made about Montessori and the graded programs. Those two programs needed to be separate for instructional and administrative purposes. The co-location was detrimental particularly to the graded program and its students and families. Overcrowding isn't the issue. A main reason the south arlington working group put forth this solution to overcrowding (Henry to Fleet, Montessori to Henry, etc) is precisely because they recognized the critical need for these programs to be independent and this was the way to get it done.

Yes, and there wasn’t a building to move people to until next year.