Schools and growth in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as far as I know, the Planning Board has NEVER decided that children only live, and will always only live, in single-family detached houses. People keep saying this on DCUM, but they haven't provided any evidence to support it. And actually there's plenty of evidence against it. The county has 50+ years of experience with children who live in townhouses and garden apartments.

The high rises have been a relatively new addition.

The obsession with high density housing has really taken off over the past decade. Huge push for urbanization in a County that is meant to be a suburb of DC.

"meant" by whom? Who means it to be a suburb of DC?

48% of Montgomery County is zoned for single-family detached housing, and another 35% is zoned for agricultural/open space. It's not going to turn into Manhattan any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yah, if I seem a bit... hostile, it is because I have lived here all my life and I am well aware of 1990’s Planning Board. Doesn’t mean this one gets to make the same mistakes and act surprised if the same problems emerge.

Clarksburg is a planning mistake they won't make again, if only because they can't (unless they break the Ag Reserve).

That will come next. Guaranteed.

Developers recognize the potential to make money. And the County leaders will eventually cave.

You can't guarantee that, unless you have a functioning crystal ball, in which case I wish you'd advise me on the stock market.

Certainly the real estate industry would like to break the Ag Reserve. But it's been around for 40 years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing they should be building in moco is more schools.

If there were only more profit in it, the developers and their minions on the county council would be for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meant to say high rises. It is wishful thinking that current data about children in high rises will be true in 10 years. It is like budgeting for a family of four with kids in ES and imagining that budget will still feed them when they are teenagers. The data may be true today, but the projected trend is clearly going to change.

Your statement is based on what? Has there been an increasing trend in the number of MCPS students per high-rise unit?

You make decisions based on the information you currently have.

Yes and it was acknowledged by MCPS. They are trying to play with new methodology to predict numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, as far as I know, the Planning Board has NEVER decided that children only live, and will always only live, in single-family detached houses. People keep saying this on DCUM, but they haven't provided any evidence to support it. And actually there's plenty of evidence against it. The county has 50+ years of experience with children who live in townhouses and garden apartments.

Then the overcrowding in schools isn’t just an ignorant, incompetent mistake, it is something far worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as far as I know, the Planning Board has NEVER decided that children only live, and will always only live, in single-family detached houses. People keep saying this on DCUM, but they haven't provided any evidence to support it. And actually there's plenty of evidence against it. The county has 50+ years of experience with children who live in townhouses and garden apartments.

Then the overcrowding in schools isn’t just an ignorant, incompetent mistake, it is something far worse.

I can assure you that it's not ignorant mistake.

City of Rockville had moratorium if schools are going to be at 120%. Last night, City leaders voted to build more by ignoring that. Clearly, something more sinister is going on and it's not just ignorant mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as far as I know, the Planning Board has NEVER decided that children only live, and will always only live, in single-family detached houses. People keep saying this on DCUM, but they haven't provided any evidence to support it. And actually there's plenty of evidence against it. The county has 50+ years of experience with children who live in townhouses and garden apartments.

Then the overcrowding in schools isn’t just an ignorant, incompetent mistake, it is something far worse.

Indeed, yes. It's a capital budget that's not big enough to keep up with the growth in enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meant to say high rises. It is wishful thinking that current data about children in high rises will be true in 10 years. It is like budgeting for a family of four with kids in ES and imagining that budget will still feed them when they are teenagers. The data may be true today, but the projected trend is clearly going to change.

Your statement is based on what? Has there been an increasing trend in the number of MCPS students per high-rise unit?

You make decisions based on the information you currently have.

Yes and it was acknowledged by MCPS. They are trying to play with new methodology to predict numbers.

Where and when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meant to say high rises. It is wishful thinking that current data about children in high rises will be true in 10 years. It is like budgeting for a family of four with kids in ES and imagining that budget will still feed them when they are teenagers. The data may be true today, but the projected trend is clearly going to change.

Your statement is based on what? Has there been an increasing trend in the number of MCPS students per high-rise unit?

You make decisions based on the information you currently have.

Yes and it was acknowledged by MCPS. They are trying to play with new methodology to predict numbers.

Where and when?

I recall it BOE saying that in work session. They admitted that projections for high density areas in certain locations were totally off due to taking average of entire county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meant to say high rises. It is wishful thinking that current data about children in high rises will be true in 10 years. It is like budgeting for a family of four with kids in ES and imagining that budget will still feed them when they are teenagers. The data may be true today, but the projected trend is clearly going to change.

Your statement is based on what? Has there been an increasing trend in the number of MCPS students per high-rise unit?

You make decisions based on the information you currently have.

Yes and it was acknowledged by MCPS. They are trying to play with new methodology to predict numbers.

Where and when?

I recall it BOE saying that in work session. They admitted that projections for high density areas in certain locations were totally off due to taking average of entire county.

That's "we didn't take local differences into account", not "the likelihood that a high-rise unit will have a student living in it has been increasing."