Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the Lafayette meeting yesterday, I got the feeling the decision has already been made. The minimal expense of hiring busses compared to building a trailer school from scratch has to be enticing for the powers that be downtown. Sorry folks...

Keep in mind that the Lafayette rebuild is surely going to run over its one year estimate so the Murch reno. will probably end up getting pushed back as well.

I came away with a different feeling. For some reason, DCPS feels the need to cover its ass by putting the Lafayette trailers in the mix--either for perceptions of efficiency in reuse or because the other swing space options are problematic. But Kenny Diggs said that using Lafayette costs as much as the other swing space options. So there don't seem to be actual cost savings. And the cost of delays (which I agree, are likely) would make both projects more expensive and create even more blowback.

So I tend to think Murch @ Lafayette won't happen but that the Murch swing situation will be pretty awful.

I actually agree with both of you. It's either one, or the other and it's going to be about $$$ (though since they haven't actually done the work they will probably get it wrong and it will wind up costing much more).

Which wouldn't bug me so much until I think of Duke Ellington...

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what the issue with Murch swinging on site is? Is it just cost of moving/rebuilding trailers or is it space? Seems like that would be best for everyone involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the issue with Murch swinging on site is? Is it just cost of moving/rebuilding trailers or is it space? Seems like that would be best for everyone involved.

I think the Murch parents think so too. I believe DGS isn't sure that they can actually pull it off, engineering and safety-wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the Lafayette meeting yesterday, I got the feeling the decision has already been made. The minimal expense of hiring busses compared to building a trailer school from scratch has to be enticing for the powers that be downtown. Sorry folks...

Keep in mind that the Lafayette rebuild is surely going to run over its one year estimate so the Murch reno. will probably end up getting pushed back as well.

I came away with a different feeling. For some reason, DCPS feels the need to cover its ass by putting the Lafayette trailers in the mix--either for perceptions of efficiency in reuse or because the other swing space options are problematic. But Kenny Diggs said that using Lafayette costs as much as the other swing space options. So there don't seem to be actual cost savings. And the cost of delays (which I agree, are likely) would make both projects more expensive and create even more blowback.

So I tend to think Murch @ Lafayette won't happen but that the Murch swing situation will be pretty awful.

I actually agree with both of you. It's either one, or the other and it's going to be about $$$ (though since they haven't actually done the work they will probably get it wrong and it will wind up costing much more).

Which wouldn't bug me so much until I think of Duke Ellington...

And Duke students are using 2 different buildings - with buses in between - to accommodate them offsite.

Putting aside the price tag, had DES been done on time those buildings would be available for Murch to swing in (altho the bus ride would be lengthy).

Hindsight of course is 20:20.

[Anonymous]

Swinging on site has many problems and as a result, not all Murch parents support this option. One issue: it is not clear whether a builder has been identified who will take the job with some many children on such a "compact" and active construction site. Additionally, there is the question of play space.

These issues may be new to those who are new to this discussion but they are not to the Murch community or to DGS and DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the issue with Murch swinging on site is? Is it just cost of moving/rebuilding trailers or is it space? Seems like that would be best for everyone involved.

I think the Murch parents think so too. I believe DGS isn't sure that they can actually pull it off, engineering and safety-wise.

I don't think that's the universal Murch parent position (although I am a Murch parent, and it's my personal position). The concern is that the Murch space is so small that no one is sure they can accommodate 600+ students on-site while they build a whole new building next to the old building (which will also have to be modernized).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Swinging on site has many problems and as a result, not all Murch parents support this option. One issue: it is not clear whether a builder has been identified who will take the job with some many children on such a "compact" and active construction site. Additionally, there is the question of play space.

These issues may be new to those who are new to this discussion but they are not to the Murch community or to DGS and DCPS.

I am a Lafayette parent so this is a new discussion to me - just trying to understand. The safety thing is, of course, paramount for Murch children, but that is really the problem I have with the Lafayette option too - how on earth do they propose to keep 1400 children safe in such a small space? What if an evacuation is needed? Where on earth would they all go? Similarly, the play space at Lafayette is already full to the brim so how would there be enough play space for the additional 700 kids? I know these are all points that have been raised upthread. I am really just trying to understand what makes Lafayette a more attractive option than swinging in space. I don't see how it resolves either the safety or the play space issues - in fact it seems to make it worse for more children. I do really feel for the Murch community on this. I am concerned as a Lafayette parent. I would be livid if I were on the other side of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the issue with Murch swinging on site is? Is it just cost of moving/rebuilding trailers or is it space? Seems like that would be best for everyone involved.

I think the Murch parents think so too. I believe DGS isn't sure that they can actually pull it off, engineering and safety-wise.

I don't think that's the universal Murch parent position (although I am a Murch parent, and it's my personal position). The concern is that the Murch space is so small that no one is sure they can accommodate 600+ students on-site while they build a whole new building next to the old building (which will also have to be modernized).

I meant that given a safe option, Much parents would prefer to stay on site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the issue with Murch swinging on site is? Is it just cost of moving/rebuilding trailers or is it space? Seems like that would be best for everyone involved.

I think the Murch parents think so too. I believe DGS isn't sure that they can actually pull it off, engineering and safety-wise.

I don't think that's the universal Murch parent position (although I am a Murch parent, and it's my personal position). The concern is that the Murch space is so small that no one is sure they can accommodate 600+ students on-site while they build a whole new building next to the old building (which will also have to be modernized).

PP Lafayette parent here. That makes sense. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Ok, given an unlimited budget- what would make sense for Murch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Swinging on site has many problems and as a result, not all Murch parents support this option. One issue: it is not clear whether a builder has been identified who will take the job with some many children on such a "compact" and active construction site. Additionally, there is the question of play space.

These issues may be new to those who are new to this discussion but they are not to the Murch community or to DGS and DCPS.

Well as a Murch parent who is opposed to swinging on site I am much more in favor of it when compared to the Lafayette option, which is why I think (hope?) this might be a red herring.

[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?

I know at least one other neighborhood that has been asked to go through worse. I am not the PP who brought up living near Wilson and Deal, but I live very nearby Wilson during its renovation, enduring all kinds of issues with construction workers, trucks, etc. We went through Deal's two renovations -- directly across the street -- with noise, traffic and all the other issues. Our children go to Murch and have been in really poor conditions for 7 years now while we watched other schools like Janney and Lafayette move ahead on construction. One of my children will be in swing space for two years (or more if they can't find a good site). We will be living a block from Murch for their two years of construction. It hasn't been ideal at any point. Trust me, I understand the impact of construction. The Lafayette neighbors would survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many OOB students are at Murch currently? If the school is more than 200 over capacity, it would be surprising (and illogical) if there were any at this point.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has only 11% OOB this year and that number has been going down over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many OOB students are at Murch currently? If the school is more than 200 over capacity, it would be surprising (and illogical) if there were any at this point.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has only 11% OOB this year and that number has been going down over the years.

This is one thing i wonder about. I know pre k has a few (not a lot, by any means) out of bounds kids. Wondering why they were accepted in light of the overcrowding - not just at Murch, but also deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

They could have older siblings already enrolled at the school, or be child find placements.

If you suspect residency fraud, report it. Otherwise please MYOB.