Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We weren't able to attend the meeting at Lafayette last night - any updates/impressions? Thanks in advance!

There was a Post reporter in attendance, taking notes - hopefully she'll write a story about it. The PPT presented is supposed to be updated and posted here: http://www.lafayettehsa.org/category/renovation/

But the short of it: an overwhelming majority of >700 survey respondents are strongly opposed to using the existing Lafayette swing space for Murch, there are still a few other viable options for Murch to move to during renovations, this option was put 'back on the table' because the Chancellor insisted it needed to be reviewed as an option. DGS has a list of criteria they'll use in evaluating the viable sites for Murch to move to, but no weighting, and no consistent fact or data collection mechanism in place so the options can be evaluated in an objective manner (forgive my editorializing!). Council Member Todd appeared and reaffirmed what he wrote in the letter he sent, objecting to use of the Lafayette site for Murch, give the other more viable, less disruptive options. DGS was a little all over the place about the reasons: the cost savings and financial impact weren't presented, and are supposed to be part of the updated PPT posted to the school site...

I agree with this summary. Many of/most of the questions raised were not about the problems with this proposal (which I think were already detailed in many of the surveys and letters) but more about DCPS, the city and DGS either trying to pull a fast one or being incompetent. There was a push to "hold their feet to the fire" about this opaque process and a great suspicion that at the end of the day this is all about cost and not about the kids, the neighborhoods or the residents involved. I think Lafayette parents got a full taste of the ire Much parents must feel about DGS dragging their feet on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We weren't able to attend the meeting at Lafayette last night - any updates/impressions? Thanks in advance!

There was a Post reporter in attendance, taking notes - hopefully she'll write a story about it. The PPT presented is supposed to be updated and posted here: http://www.lafayettehsa.org/category/renovation/

But the short of it: an overwhelming majority of >700 survey respondents are strongly opposed to using the existing Lafayette swing space for Murch, there are still a few other viable options for Murch to move to during renovations, this option was put 'back on the table' because the Chancellor insisted it needed to be reviewed as an option. DGS has a list of criteria they'll use in evaluating the viable sites for Murch to move to, but no weighting, and no consistent fact or data collection mechanism in place so the options can be evaluated in an objective manner (forgive my editorializing!). Council Member Todd appeared and reaffirmed what he wrote in the letter he sent, objecting to use of the Lafayette site for Murch, give the other more viable, less disruptive options. DGS was a little all over the place about the reasons: the cost savings and financial impact weren't presented, and are supposed to be part of the updated PPT posted to the school site...

All accurate. What was confusing to me was why the Chancellor suddenly insisted Lafayette be included for consideration. The DGS guy said the swing space costs of the four options (including Lafayette) were comparable, suggesting that using the Lafayette trailers won't save money or be more efficient. That's a big missing piece of the equation for me--why did this get forced back on the table now? I left early, so maybe this question was asked an answered (although I suspect not, since it was clear that the DGS folks were not in a position to answer questions about DCPS motivations, and the guy there representing DCPS--Patrick?--was useless).

[Anonymous]

The traffic survey was the craziest thing - they plan to do a survey when school is OUT, over the holidays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We weren't able to attend the meeting at Lafayette last night - any updates/impressions? Thanks in advance!

There was a Post reporter in attendance, taking notes - hopefully she'll write a story about it. The PPT presented is supposed to be updated and posted here: http://www.lafayettehsa.org/category/renovation/

But the short of it: an overwhelming majority of >700 survey respondents are strongly opposed to using the existing Lafayette swing space for Murch, there are still a few other viable options for Murch to move to during renovations, this option was put 'back on the table' because the Chancellor insisted it needed to be reviewed as an option. DGS has a list of criteria they'll use in evaluating the viable sites for Murch to move to, but no weighting, and no consistent fact or data collection mechanism in place so the options can be evaluated in an objective manner (forgive my editorializing!). Council Member Todd appeared and reaffirmed what he wrote in the letter he sent, objecting to use of the Lafayette site for Murch, give the other more viable, less disruptive options. DGS was a little all over the place about the reasons: the cost savings and financial impact weren't presented, and are supposed to be part of the updated PPT posted to the school site...

All accurate. What was confusing to me was why the Chancellor suddenly insisted Lafayette be included for consideration. The DGS guy said the swing space costs of the four options (including Lafayette) were comparable, suggesting that using the Lafayette trailers won't save money or be more efficient. That's a big missing piece of the equation for me--why did this get forced back on the table now? I left early, so maybe this question was asked an answered (although I suspect not, since it was clear that the DGS folks were not in a position to answer questions about DCPS motivations, and the guy there representing DCPS--Patrick?--was useless).

My guess is either one of three things:

1) The cynical view- this was the plan all along and they knew they would face resistance so tried to slip it in at the last minute.
2) The less cynical view- they really realized that the other 3 options were non starters and had to scramble to come up with others
3) My hopeful view - this is to provide political cover. They don't want to do it, but need to show they explored the option so they can check the box and eliminate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The traffic survey was the craziest thing - they plan to do a survey when school is OUT, over the holidays.

It's an old traffic trick, and the DC government has finally caught on to it. Developers always do their traffic surveys over Christmas or in the summer when the public and private schools are out. (This is almost a joke with projects along the Wisconsin corridor where there is such a concentration of schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The traffic survey was the craziest thing - they plan to do a survey when school is OUT, over the holidays.

It's an old traffic trick, and the DC government has finally caught on to it. Developers always do their traffic surveys over Christmas or in the summer when the public and private schools are out. (This is almost a joke with projects along the Wisconsin corridor where there is such a concentration of schools.)

Seriously!!!?? And then they claim it's legit!?

Oy. Vey.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the whole timing of it was all about the trick traffic survey....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The traffic survey was the craziest thing - they plan to do a survey when school is OUT, over the holidays.

This is one of the long list of reasons people are justifiably suspicious.

They should jump on the chance today, while there are emergency no parking signs southbound on 33rd. Driving through the drop off is a breeze without cars parked along that block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?

It's not about an apple to apple comparison. The fact is neighbors of Deal and Wilson put up with the renovation two schools in a row that benefits a big chunk of families from a variety of feeder schools in various neighborhoods. No one like living with that kid of construction or some temporary overcrowding, but that's life when efforts are underway to make our schools and city better. That said for the record there is plenty of residential directly adjacent to Deal and Wilson.

No question DCPS and the City has totally blown this. Instead of being made at each other perhaps the focus should be on the City administration calling them out for bad decision making, inability to plan their way out of a paper bag and wasting valuable funds and energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?

It's not about an apple to apple comparison. The fact is neighbors of Deal and Wilson put up with the renovation two schools in a row that benefits a big chunk of families from a variety of feeder schools in various neighborhoods. No one like living with that kid of construction or some temporary overcrowding, but that's life when efforts are underway to make our schools and city better. That said for the record there is plenty of residential directly adjacent to Deal and Wilson.

No question DCPS and the City has totally blown this. Instead of being made at each other perhaps the focus should be on the City administration calling them out for bad decision making, inability to plan their way out of a paper bag and wasting valuable funds and energy.

The issue is one of safety, more than anything. I would suggest anyone who doubts this come to witness drop off any morning at Lafayette. Now, multiply the cars by at least 3. Come to recess and see what it looks like. Multiply by 2.

To your latter point, I believe this is where the focus is. Last night was really all about the city administration and what happened and why. People asked a lot about who the ultimate decision makers where and why zero transparency about it. I think once over the initial shock, Lafayette residents are directing their ire at the right people.

[Anonymous]

It was clear last night that DGS and DCPS are very disorganized. It's pretty shocking that they have thrown out this "option" and only now doing any of the legwork. Not only in soliciting community feedback but also in doing any assessment of the logistical practicalities and impracticalities of using at least this Lafayette option. Who knows what such work they have done about any of the other proposed sites.

DGS/DCPS acknowledges that they do not have any criteria for evaluating the supposed factors that go into making their ultimate decision. They state that safety (traffic safety, safe use of all gym/recess/playground spaces, or safety in emergency situations, evacuation, etc., emotional wellbeing of young children in having an appropriate learning environment) is of paramount concern, but their actions truly belie their empty words. They have done NOTHING to analyze traffic, they acknowledged that there would not really be enough time to do things like make streets one way or install speed bumps or institute other safety enhancing measures. Their plan was seriously to do a quick "traffic study" next week when 0 teachers, staff, students or parents would be anywhere near the school. They have not done any analysis of the ability of the playground equipment to handle this level of (over)use at Lafayette Park. The equipment has already broken twice since September and the space was closed for repairs anyways while they were fixed. Apparently, there are already safety concerns during recess as it is, and it's unclear, given that these spaces are already used all day every day to accommodate one set of school's kids (and that the playgound at Lafayette School would not be able to be completed until the trailers come down as they will occupy that same space), how on earth the additional kids would even be able to have any outdoor time anyways, let alone the safety of it. They have not done any analysis of whether this # of students in the indoor and outdoor spaces here is in line with zoning requirements. They have not done any analysis of whether any safety/emergency/evacuation procedures for the 1,400+ kids on site would comply with fire codes and other DC laws (likely because they also have not put any thought into any such plans to begin with). They had no #s at all for actual costs of any of their options under consideration, let alone cost savings associated with this plan.

It's a clusterf$%&. I don't blame the Lafayette parents for being upset. They have actually asked these very same people at DGS and DCPS if this option was on the table and have repeated been told "No." There is a now a trust issue and it's definitely not a small ask or inconvenience, as some on here are making it out to be. It's going to be a massive overcrowding situation for 1400+ students for over 2 years (DGS acknowledged that the Murch reno will probably go over 2 years). It's going to triple their own completion times for their spaces, and it's going to triple the car situation. It's true that the park spaces used for recess etc. are public spaces, but they all being used exclusively by school children to the detriment of and at the expense of other folks in the neighborhood being able to use them. That's not entirely fair. They confirmed last night that no other school or neighborhood has ever been put in this kind of situation before. IMO, it's pretty unreasonable on it's face, but adding in the extent of the poor planning, it's entirely ill-conceived.

I do feel for the Murch community and the amount of turmoil they have had to go through -- their delays and DCPS/DGS's lack of planning for their renovation are completely beyond the pale and unreasonable. But this option seems like it's going to prove the "best option" only on a theoretical level before it's actually underway. On a practical level, it's riddled with issues that at least to date have been addressed.

Oh yea, and they acknowledged that they are also not necessarily exactly on schedule as far as the Lafayette renovation itself is concerned, and they have no contingency in place as to what to do with 700-800 students in the not impossible event that come mid-August, the actual Lafayette building is not ready to accommodate all the classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?


This was asked last night. No other school has been asked to do this before.

[Anonymous]

Kenny Diggs actually said at the end of the meeting he hopes this isn't the option they choose. I think even he would admit this is a complete cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?

It's not about an apple to apple comparison. The fact is neighbors of Deal and Wilson put up with the renovation two schools in a row that benefits a big chunk of families from a variety of feeder schools in various neighborhoods. No one like living with that kid of construction or some temporary overcrowding, but that's life when efforts are underway to make our schools and city better. That said for the record there is plenty of residential directly adjacent to Deal and Wilson.

No question DCPS and the City has totally blown this. Instead of being made at each other perhaps the focus should be on the City administration calling them out for bad decision making, inability to plan their way out of a paper bag and wasting valuable funds and energy.

I can't speak for the entire Lafayette community, but I am not hearing that we are angry at Murch. It is more a matter of why are we getting the shaft for DGS/DCPS incompetency? And it is the Lafayette community that is getting the biggest screw with this proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?

It's not about an apple to apple comparison. The fact is neighbors of Deal and Wilson put up with the renovation two schools in a row that benefits a big chunk of families from a variety of feeder schools in various neighborhoods. No one like living with that kid of construction or some temporary overcrowding, but that's life when efforts are underway to make our schools and city better. That said for the record there is plenty of residential directly adjacent to Deal and Wilson.

No question DCPS and the City has totally blown this. Instead of being made at each other perhaps the focus should be on the City administration calling them out for bad decision making, inability to plan their way out of a paper bag and wasting valuable funds and energy.

I can't speak for the entire Lafayette community, but I am not hearing that we are angry at Murch. It is more a matter of why are we getting the shaft for DGS/DCPS incompetency? And it is the Lafayette community that is getting the biggest screw with this proposal.

Well, Murch doesn't fare well either. There was no discussion of how students would get to school every day or aftercare. If they bus, what is the additional cost of that? There is no easy bus route from the Murch neighborhood to Lafayette unless you go all the way up to friendship heights first. Driving your kid up there and back is going to add what, 45 minutes to people's commutes?

I have nothing but sympathy for Murch families, seriously.