BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't see the inherent advantage of Lynnbrook over RCH - if anything, the Kensington neighborhood has less congestion and will be easier to access, plus the site is larger. So what's the hangup?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I've been wondering this too!

[Anonymous]

I don't live in the RCH neighborhood (and I'm not any of the posters you're responding to) but to me the difference between Lynbrook and RCH is that there is already a building at Lynnbrook. It needs to be renovated and reclaimed for more productive use. I personally would find that a better use of my taxpayer dollars than developing what is now a park. RCH is a better site than many, but it did lose value was a school site when part of the land was developed for an assisted living residence.

[Anonymous]

I don't live near RCH nor in Kensington, but I agree with previous poster that it is already a site with buildings and a big black top. It is a better use of tax payer dollars, which are scarce in this economy. The site is a pinch over 10 acres, well located, and in need of repairs as it is. It is not being used to its best advantage, and certainly not to the advantage of Montgomery County residents.

While I would not cry croc tears over RCH, I really don't think that it is a good location. But my impression is that this whole reopening of the second site selection is "theater" and that it was just done to dot the I's and cross the T's and it will go right back to Kensington, because they have a reclaim clause and they have already done a feasibility study...But I would rather see some real honesty and have the SSAC and MCPS really look at Lynnbrook. They own it, they will soon need to spend dollars on it, why not now?

And yes, it is big enough, especially since there has been a willingness on the part of Parks to work with MCPS on Lynnbrook site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't see the inherent advantage of Lynnbrook over RCH - if anything, the Kensington neighborhood has less congestion and will be easier to access, plus the site is larger. So what's the hangup?

I don't have a dog in this fight either. I don't live in Kensington, nor do I live near the Lynnbrook site, but after all this discussion I drove by there. I have to concur that it would be a good site for a middle school because as one poster said, it has few trees, a lot of parking lot and a couple (actually I think 3) decrepit buildings. I can't imagine tearing those down would be as much of a loss as building in what is now a park (I drove by RCH park also). I don't understand why the Lynnbrook site was eliminated in the last go round in spring. Why is MCPS protecting that site? Anybody??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't see the inherent advantage of Lynnbrook over RCH - if anything, the Kensington neighborhood has less congestion and will be easier to access, plus the site is larger. So what's the hangup?

I don't have a dog in this fight either. I don't live in Kensington, nor do I live near the Lynnbrook site, but after all this discussion I drove by there. I have to concur that it would be a good site for a middle school because as one poster said, it has few trees, a lot of parking lot and a couple (actually I think 3) decrepit buildings. I can't imagine tearing those down would be as much of a loss as building in what is now a park (I drove by RCH park also). I don't understand why the Lynnbrook site was eliminated in the last go round in spring. Why is MCPS protecting that site? Anybody??

The difference is significant. Construction in a park (RCH) takes away genunine natural resources. M-NCPPC wants to avoid losing those vanishing assets, but also is fighting to retain the playing fields (soccer in particular) downcounty. Replacemnt of an aging building (Lynnbrook) by MCPS using its own 3 parcels would be a good sign of things to come in county inter-agency cooperation. Asking Parks to offer their 3 adjoining parcels of Lynnbrook local park may more agreeable solution than RCH. I'm no tree hugger, but anyone should see that increasing devlopment at expense of parkland, woods is poor long-term planning. Agency's need to make the most of what they have. Housing a private daycare and a dozen employees in a former elementary school (Lynnbrook) is poor use of county building.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the last person who posted. It seems it would signal goof faith on the part of MCPS if they work together with MNCPPC instead of fighting them over parks and playing fields.I am really tired of mcps thinking they can steamroll over other public agencies because they are so inept at long range planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't see the inherent advantage of Lynnbrook over RCH - if anything, the Kensington neighborhood has less congestion and will be easier to access, plus the site is larger. So what's the hangup?

I don't have a dog in this fight either. I don't live in Kensington, nor do I live near the Lynnbrook site, but after all this discussion I drove by there. I have to concur that it would be a good site for a middle school because as one poster said, it has few trees, a lot of parking lot and a couple (actually I think 3) decrepit buildings. I can't imagine tearing those down would be as much of a loss as building in what is now a park (I drove by RCH park also). I don't understand why the Lynnbrook site was eliminated in the last go round in spring. Why is MCPS protecting that site? Anybody??

The difference is significant. Construction in a park (RCH) takes away genunine natural resources. M-NCPPC wants to avoid losing those vanishing assets, but also is fighting to retain the playing fields (soccer in particular) downcounty. Replacemnt of an aging building (Lynnbrook) by MCPS using its own 3 parcels would be a good sign of things to come in county inter-agency cooperation. Asking Parks to offer their 3 adjoining parcels of Lynnbrook local park may more agreeable solution than RCH. I'm no tree hugger, but anyone should see that increasing devlopment at expense of parkland, woods is poor long-term planning. Agency's need to make the most of what they have. Housing a private daycare and a dozen employees in a former elementary school (Lynnbrook) is poor use of county building.

This doesn't really make much sense to me. You make it sound as if the middle school will just move into the existing building at Lynnbrook, instead of what would really happen is the building would have to be demolished, and probably the entire site (including the local park) regraded. That building isn't really useful for anything at this point (the fact that a daycare can operate out of a few ground floor rooms is just sort of a bonus). It's pretty obvious that some parkland, and possibly woods, will be lost to the new school-- that may be at RCH, it may be a Lynnbrook, it may by at NCC or the site by the Coffield center-- so it's odd to pretend that one site is vastly more important than another as parkland, unless it's your neighborhood, I guess.

[Anonymous]

The argument about 3 old buildings that are near the end of their useful life just somewhat sold the deal for me. If MCPS will need to renovate or tear those building down in the near term, then it seems building a new school on land that was already built on is a greener way to go in that it saves open space. I also like the prior point about MCPS showing some good faith. Asking the public to give up a park when MCPS has land that it owns that would be sufficient to build a building on and would be a higher and better use of the resources does not seem like MCPS is acting in good faith.

If MCPS does not want to use Lynnbrook, I guess I am wondering why. Is there a secret story that we do not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I've been wondering this too!

I live in the neighborhood with Lynbrook and am 100% fine with it. That way I can sleep in and my kids can walk to MS and HS ahh please build it there...I need sleep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument about 3 old buildings that are near the end of their useful life just somewhat sold the deal for me. If MCPS will need to renovate or tear those building down in the near term, then it seems building a new school on land that was already built on is a greener way to go in that it saves open space. I also like the prior point about MCPS showing some good faith. Asking the public to give up a park when MCPS has land that it owns that would be sufficient to build a building on and would be a higher and better use of the resources does not seem like MCPS is acting in good faith.

If MCPS does not want to use Lynnbrook, I guess I am wondering why. Is there a secret story that we do not know.

I don't know about any secret back story, but Lynnbrook site is the greener more responsible way to go. The building would have to be torn down or renovated (though I think it is beyond renovating at this point). As I stated here before, it is large an already paved over property, mostly level, so not much regrading to be done. I believe it was a rep. from Parks who stated at the first SSAC meeting that Lynnbrook would be a best case scenario, because the park could be co located with the new school, the closed activities building could be torn down, and that parcel used for the school, and then the fields could continue to serve the school as they do today, and as they did since the 1940's when both the school and the park coexisted harmoniously. And realistically, very few trees would need to go.

This is the smart way to go for MCPS, and would keep soccer fields and open green space intact for down county folks who are seeing less and less of this all important commodity with the impending "smart growth" coming our way. I am not from the surrounding community, but I think the person above spoke correctly that a walkable Middle School for this community would be seen as an asset. They lose nothing and gain everything!

[Anonymous]

Both Lynnbrook and RCH are equidistant from where I sit, but I don't find the PP's argument very persuasive. (And it sounds an awful lot like posters who are desperate to see Any Site Other Than My Pretend-Rural Kensington Neighborhood.) Sorry RCH, if you guys get hysterical about school buses and a school in your neighborhood, my guess is that East Bethesda/CC will too - especially since they've already got a few where as there's nothing but residences in RCH. And the per capita income and proportion of lawyers is much higher near Lynnbrook. The original site selection committee ruled out Lynnbrook because the fields are already used by BCC and the streets are narrow and so the traffic issues would be tougher to deal with.

Note to Kensington: time to find a new rationale for opposing the middle school in your neighborhood. The complaints about the process are now moot, the environmental thing is transparently self-serving, I'm guessing that someone has tried and failed to come up with a historical preservation requirement that would keep the school out. So what's next?

[Anonymous]

so it's odd to pretend that one site is vastly more important than another as parkland, unless it's your neighborhood, I guess.

The big difference between, Rock Creek Hills Park, North Chevy Chase Park, and the former Lynbrook Elementary School and local park, is exactly that. It is already school property, buildings are falling apart, not a lot of loss of green space, and minimal loss for the local park.

Lynnbrook is already mostly concrete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

so it's odd to pretend that one site is vastly more important than another as parkland, unless it's your neighborhood, I guess.

The big difference between, Rock Creek Hills Park, North Chevy Chase Park, and the former Lynbrook Elementary School and local park, is exactly that. It is already school property, buildings are falling apart, not a lot of loss of green space, and minimal loss for the local park.

Lynnbrook is already mostly concrete.

and full of asbestos, the cost to remove it is a driving force why they won't select Lynbrook. It is going to go where they said awhile back, this is jsut a show......

[Anonymous]

And the per capita income and proportion of lawyers is much higher near Lynnbrook. The original site selection committee ruled out Lynnbrook because the fields are already used by BCC and the streets are narrow and so the traffic issues would be tougher to deal with.

Wow. Are you saying that whether a neighborhood gets school construction or not depends on the deep pockets and the ratio of lawyers? So...since Lynnbrook community is richer than the RCH community, they will successfully keep the school out? Really? Could the MCPS school system be kept from using property they already own by a bunch of deep pockets?

I am shocked.

But you are right about RCH needing to drop several pretenses. One, it is not about the process, it never really has been. It has been about the outcome. Two, it is not about an inadequate school opening form day one...it has always really been about losing their park. They should just be honest and say so. And they should also not be looking to pin their misery on another park. However, the Lynnbrook site is a viable option, already owned in part by mcps, and the streets are NOT too narrow for buses, as regular big yellow school buses already service the private day care at the site taking kids to and from 4 elementary schools. So...the bus argument is incorrect.