BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, honestly, if you had been through a whole site selection process and then someone said you had to do it again because some of the meetings weren't open to the public, would you expect to reach a different decision the second time?

Your question is interesting. The second site selection committee didn't reach the same conclusion as the first. First committee picked Rosemary Hills park as the best site, but this was over-ruled by the BOE after protests from the RHPS neighborhood. BoE picked Rock Creek Hills instead with NCC as a 2nd choice. Thus, the outrage from the RCH community, which felt a bit blindsided, like they didn't have a chance for input/opposition.

I would expect that there could be a different result if meetings had to be openly conducted. The point of the open meetings type laws is that when government discussion of public issues has to be conducted in public, there isn't the ability to make secret backroom deals, or decisions without hearing full input, which might otherwise occur.

[Anonymous]

Just build the school.

If you want your kid to go to Westland, move already.

[Anonymous]

The fact that the site selection was conducted, in part, in closed sessions fatally undermined trust in the process. The public was NEVER able to see and understand the private sites under consideration. (For the record, parks does not conduct site selections in that manner and objected to the use of confidentiality agreements - and it was incorrect to say it was to allow for subsequent negoiation because eminent domain does not require that if impasse is reached).

Long story short - MCPS choose to conduct the meetings in private, and MCPS choose to employ procedures and criteria that were not best practicies as articulated above. (parks/planning board explained in many public planning board open meetings the problems with MCPS process).

People like openess, transparency and fairness in government. MCPS created a process that gave rise to an impression that they used out of date standards, made certain aspects private without adequate justification, and voted as a block. As a result, the perception of bias can't be undone. Many reasonable people will always believe it was a done deal from the start.

MCPS might win on this round, but it lost a lot in Trust. I DO NOT LIVE IN RCH. But i will never trust MCPS to conduct any process where there will be winners and losers in an OPEN and Transparent manner without the taint of undo influence from well connected communities.

Live and learn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS might win on this round, but it lost a lot in Trust. I DO NOT LIVE IN RCH. But i will never trust MCPS to conduct any process where there will be winners and losers in an OPEN and Transparent manner without the taint of undo influence from well connected communities.

You are so right. It is interesting to note how MCPS refused to seriously consider the Lynnbrook site and that just the very fact that the Planning Board was advocating a serious analyses of the site prompted the "hornets nest" remark from BOE member is very telling.

I was there for every meeting, and most sites , and definitely Lynnbrook, were never really analysed.

[Anonymous]

Distributed today on my kid's school listserv

Attached is a copy of the recent opinion dismissing the challenge to Middle School # 2.

In the suit, the Plaintiffs attacked a "Transfer Agreement" by which Montgomery County conveyed land the County valued at $4 million (the "Property") to Defendant Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("M-NCPPC"). M-NCPPC agreed to reimburse the County $120,737.39 in debt associated with the Property and promised to transfer the Property back if it was later needed for a school pursuant to the so-called "reclamation clause."

Plaintiffs had several theories, all of which were rejected by the Court. The highlights:
· Plaintiffs failed to allege that the execution of the Transfer Agreement harmed them in any way. While Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of a school is likely to increase their taxes, the decision by the School Board to construct a school is not the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint or "caused" by M-NCPPC's execution of the Transfer Agreement.

· Plaintiffs alleged that they will lose a local park as a result of M-NCPPC's performance of the Transfer Agreement. However, had the Transfer Agreement not been executed, there would be no park for Plaintiffs to lose.

· The statute that addresses M-NCPPC's authority to acquire land from the County makes clear that M-NCPPC can reach agreements with the County regarding County property.

· Both parties to the Transfer Agreement had the reasonable expectation that the Property would be re-conveyed to the County if needed for a school. M-NCPPC was allowed to use the property at way below market value and would be unjustly enriched were it permitted to retain the Property as a park.

· Declaring the reclamation clause unenforceable would be contrary to public policy by discouraging the County from allowing their land to be used temporarily by M-NCPPC as a public park until the land is needed for other County purposes, thereby depriving the public of outdoor recreational use in the interim.

· The Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the provision of the Transfer Agreement allowing the park was lawful but the promise to transfer the Property back if needed for a school was not.

· If the transfer was improper the correct remedy is to give the property back to the original owner, the County, not let M-NCPPC keep it.

· No federal money was used to purchase improvements (rejecting Plaintiffs' so called "smoking gun" document).

· MNCPPC was reasonable in arguing that open space money spent 20 years ago for ball fields etc. has a limited life and does not mean that the Property can never be used for another purpose. "To conclude otherwise is illogical and would and lead to absurd results. . . ."

Rafe Petersen (MCPS Liaison)

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this information Rafe. Where you a member of the first or second selection committee? Were you the dude who had his kids "testify" at the Planning Board? I know you are a member of the Rosemary Hills Primary Hills PTA - But let's be clear, you do not live in Rosemary Hills, but rather, you live in East Bethesda, that hornet's nest of naysayer's and MYMBYS for a school in your neighborhood. I know you all say, you are waiting for the need for a new elementary school...but that's a lie, you couldn't even accept the new Day Care the county wanted to rent in the unused activities building.

I suppose Christopher Barkley was accurate when he called your community a Hornet's Nest. Not attractive, but accurate. And you have the audacity to call the folks in RCH NIMBYS for wanting to do what you have been and are doing in your community. Tut tut.

[Anonymous]

Even if the school is built in RCH park, and it may very well be regardless of their pending appeal. The problem remains that whenever a new school is needed, MCPS will look at parks. They as much as said so in one BOE meeting I attended. This tendency on the part of MCPS to regard parks as future construction sites is really the crux of the problem, and sooner or later it will come to a park near your community. With the rapid urbanization of the down county area, parks become even more valuable to maintain quality of life. The really sad part in all of this is that parks dominated the list of possible sites, while many existing school properties were nixed early on as not "big enough". It would be nice if MCPS architects started thinking more vertically and creatively. We are running out of land to build on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this information Rafe. Where you a member of the first or second selection committee? Were you the dude who had his kids "testify" at the Planning Board? I know you are a member of the Rosemary Hills Primary Hills PTA - But let's be clear, you do not live in Rosemary Hills, but rather, you live in East Bethesda, that hornet's nest of naysayer's and MYMBYS for a school in your neighborhood. I know you all say, you are waiting for the need for a new elementary school...but that's a lie, you couldn't even accept the new Day Care the county wanted to rent in the unused activities building.

I suppose Christopher Barkley was accurate when he called your community a Hornet's Nest. Not attractive, but accurate. And you have the audacity to call the folks in RCH NIMBYS for wanting to do what you have been and are doing in your community. Tut tut.

Rafe can speak for himself, but I live in East Bethesda and I've never been a NIMBY about getting a new school there. Not sure what you mean about the new daycare-- I think they opened up, and I know a lot of people in the neighborhood like having the other daycare there as well. I sure wouldn't have tried to drag the whole thing through the courts just in the hopes of slowing it down even though I couldn't find anyone to agree with my legal theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this information Rafe. Where you a member of the first or second selection committee? Were you the dude who had his kids "testify" at the Planning Board? I know you are a member of the Rosemary Hills Primary Hills PTA - But let's be clear, you do not live in Rosemary Hills, but rather, you live in East Bethesda, that hornet's nest of naysayer's and MYMBYS for a school in your neighborhood. I know you all say, you are waiting for the need for a new elementary school...but that's a lie, you couldn't even accept the new Day Care the county wanted to rent in the unused activities building.

I suppose Christopher Barkley was accurate when he called your community a Hornet's Nest. Not attractive, but accurate. And you have the audacity to call the folks in RCH NIMBYS for wanting to do what you have been and are doing in your community. Tut tut.

Interesting post given that Rafe actually does not live in East Bethesda

[Anonymous]

If Bethesda goes to Westland, I guess the East Bethesda parents will continue to complain about their long bus rides. I hope all of Bethesda goes to Westland. Their bus ride is shorter than my kids who go to RHPS. I get they consider themselves part of Bethesda and don't want to be part of a CC feeder school since they want to be like their peers at Bethesda ES for the whole elementary experience but the argument that it is so far away was ridiculous. I heard so much bad mouthing concerning Rosemary Hills before we started and I really have loved the school this year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Bethesda goes to Westland, I guess the East Bethesda parents will continue to complain about their long bus rides. I hope all of Bethesda goes to Westland. Their bus ride is shorter than my kids who go to RHPS. I get they consider themselves part of Bethesda and don't want to be part of a CC feeder school since they want to be like their peers at Bethesda ES for the whole elementary experience but the argument that it is so far away was ridiculous. I heard so much bad mouthing concerning Rosemary Hills before we started and I really have loved the school this year!

IME the only people in E Bethesda who badmouth RHPS are the ones sending their kids to private school. Now if you ask people using public school, would you rather go to k-2 school a 20 min bus ride away, and then join a k-5 school in 3rd grade, or go to a walkable k-5 school beginning in k, then a lot of them (not all) will say they'd rather be at the k-5 school.

We really liked RHPS.

[Anonymous]

Don't the people who live on the Jones Bridge entrance side of East Bethesda (I think that's half the neighorhood) get bus service to Bethesda Elementary School? They are not going to be walkers? That's the ridiculous part of the argument in my opinion. It's not walkable. They live much closer to NCC.

[Anonymous]

I think it's inappropriate that an email to a school list serv was posted here, including the name of the parent who may not even know about it. I don't know Rafe and I have no idea where he'd lives, but I know as an RHPS parent I appreciated all his work on this and other school issues, he was always fair and informative.

Btw I love RHPS but I can't blame the EBethesda parents - theirs were the only kids who had to merge into a Kto5 school (as opposed to going to cCES or NCC, which are purely 3 to 6). And then Bethesda Elementary split again with some kids going to BCC and some to Whitman I think.

Honestly now that I have a child who has moved beyond RHPS I do wonder if we'd all be better off with neighborhood schools, rather than the shuffle. My child had a rough year this year in 3rd grade partially because all their friends went to the other post RHPS elementary. But I agree that RHPS has a special vibe and doesn't deserve the bashing it gets by some prospective parents who act like its in another country.

[Anonymous]

Our family had a wonderful experience for both our daughters at RHPS. It does have a special vibe. Frankly, we miss it! The staff and faculty were always very helpful and responsive to our concerns with our youngest child. I can't imagine how anyone could bad mouth RHPS if they had been a part of it. And yes, we too appreciated all of Rafe's hard work and dedication. I don't know where he lives but it would seem to be immaterial to the discussion. Although, I do realize that the middle school issues over the past couple of years raised valid points with the lack of appropriate representation of the communities impacted by the ultimate decision. Perhaps that is where the PP was coming from.

[Anonymous]

Although, I do realize that the middle school issues over the past couple of years raised valid points with the lack of appropriate representation of the communities impacted by the ultimate decision.

If this was a problem, it was solved by the second site selection process, which included representatives from every school and community association as well as all the involved county agencies.