RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is not lobbying to build two buildings or asking for 15 extra seats in RM due to two buildings.

Mark Pierzchala is lobbying to have 1000+ extra kids in RM without having capacity in school. That's what is asking when lobbying for 150% capacity in RM.

Huge difference between these two situations. Please don't spread misinformation.

The capacity of RM is 2,236 students. 120% of capacity is 2,683 students. 150% of capacity is 3,354. 3,354 - 2,683 = 671 students.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that the limit for the City of Rockville to allow development plans should be raised from the projected enrollment 5 years out at Richard Montgomery HS being 2,683 to the projected enrollment being 3,354 - i.e., 671 more students than currently.

Note that this doesn't mean that the *actual* enrollment at Richard Montgomery would ever be 3,354. MCPS is building Crown HS (funding for the project starts in July 2019), and Richard Montgomery HS will be part of the rezoning.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that it's a perfectly all right to have 150% students in RM HS. That means he is lobbying for having 3354 kids in a facility designed for 2236 kids.



Increasing limit to 3,354 exactly means that Mark Pierzchala is perfectly fine to have 3354 students.


There is no confusion in that part and please don't confuse anyone. Everyone needs to vote out council members who don't care about education and only care about grocery stores and developers.

Crown doesn't have any start date right now. Constructions doesn't start in July 2019. Simply said, RM is not going to get any help in near future, but Mark Pierzchala is happy to make a crowded situation worse.

Why are you making things up? He literally said this wouldn’t happen.

I am not the PP, but this cracks me up. He doesn't think or need 150%, but he is lobbying for 150% limit. No one is getting fooled here.

How will these two districts, one of which 80% will go to WJ, possibly bring RM to 150%? Would you be fine if he was increasing the two performance districts to 130%?

Developer listed less than 20 HS students due to his development and if that's what all this discussion is about then Council member should lobby for 121%.

Why anyone should agree to add extra 10%( 220 extra students) in already over crowded school?

Right, because the Twinbrook development is going to add very few students to RM but the 120% capacity number is going to stop all building at Twinbrook because, because banks will be less likely to lend and because the infrastructure they need to build there will take a long time to turn to profit (ie the first buildings won't recoup infrastructure expenses). Any new students generated from RTC will all go to Beall/JW/RM though. So how about we raise it to 130% for those two areas instead of 150% and leave the rest of the city at 120%? Will that be good with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.

This would be a good idea if your goal is to stop all building around Metro stations in the City of Rockville. But why would that be your goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.

The county should change it's to 100% for all areas that feed into RM schools then. Right now the county has areas feeding into RM and they're building. If they stop all their building then the city can improve the town center.

[Anonymous]

RM PTA gave a presentation to BOE about science in cart. Science teachers from RM testified as well. may be some one can post a link for those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.

This would be a good idea if your goal is to stop all building around Metro stations in the City of Rockville. But why would that be your goal?

Goal is not allow over development. If schools don't have capacity to handle students then it simply means that we are over developing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.

The county should change it's to 100% for all areas that feed into RM schools then. Right now the county has areas feeding into RM and they're building. If they stop all their building then the city can improve the town center.

I am city resident. I don't want my city to make the situation worse.

Even county with very lax regulation has 120% limit and you want our city to take it higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.

The county should change it's to 100% for all areas that feed into RM schools then. Right now the county has areas feeding into RM and they're building. If they stop all their building then the city can improve the town center.

I am city resident. I don't want my city to make the situation worse.

Even county with very lax regulation has 120% limit and you want our city to take it higher?

MoCo has "lax regulations"? Is this a joke? MoCo is one of the most regulated counties in the country! This building moratorium based on school capacity isn't all that common. In fact, if you google it, the first thing that comes up is our county.

I agree with the other PP that wants more density at Metro stations. Why people can't see that's a good thing is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

110% was already over limit and council voted to make it 120% in 2015.

Can anyone list council members voting record in 2015?

I am just curious to know the names of all council members who don't care about kids.

[Anonymous]

Google "building moratorium school capacity" and see how many counties are discussing such a thing...lax regulations indeed! hah! I've never heard anyone say MoCo had lax regulations before. I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:110% was already over limit and council voted to make it 120% in 2015.

Can anyone list council members voting record in 2015?

I am just curious to know the names of all council members who don't care about kids.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/news/rockville-loosens-standards-for-development-based-on-school-overcrowding/

He said Montgomery County “saw our tighter standards as sort of an irritant,” and the over 110 percent of capacity moratorium rule failed to convince Montgomery County leaders to add more school space in Rockville any faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the other PP that wants more density at Metro stations. Why people can't see that's a good thing is beyond me.

It's beyond your understanding that parents don't want to make over crowding situation worse?

No one is opposing higher density at metro station. Citizens are opposing higher density in RM cluster when school is already over crowded. City should work with MCPS to find a solution to that first and then make RM cluster more dense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the other PP that wants more density at Metro stations. Why people can't see that's a good thing is beyond me.

It's beyond your understanding that parents don't want to make over crowding situation worse?

No one is opposing higher density at metro station. Citizens are opposing higher density in RM cluster when school is already over crowded. City should work with MCPS to find a solution to that first and then make RM cluster more dense.

Any new building planned this year will take 7-10 years to build, that's well after Crown HS is complete but you want to stop the entire process, including permitting, of a project that won't be complete for a decade because of school capacity in 5 years from now. Also, most of Twinbrook's building will generate kids for WJ and not RM and of the ones that go to RM, they're all at the very end of the build-out - 20 YEAR FROM NOW but you want to kill that project to revitalized a rundown area because RM will be overcapcacity in 5 years. In 20 years, Crown will have been long built and rezoning will have been completed. They don't just buy a plot of land in the town center and build the next day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:110% was already over limit and council voted to make it 120% in 2015.

Can anyone list council members voting record in 2015?

I am just curious to know the names of all council members who don't care about kids.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/news/rockville-loosens-standards-for-development-based-on-school-overcrowding/

He said Montgomery County “saw our tighter standards as sort of an irritant,” and the over 110 percent of capacity moratorium rule failed to convince Montgomery County leaders to add more school space in Rockville any faster.

Mayor Bridget Donnell Newton and council member Beryl Feinberg voted against changing the APFS for schools.

Council members Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr voted with Moore for the change after a roughly hour-long debate that touched on the history of portable classrooms, where school facility payments from developers go and the relationship between the county and the city.

It's clear that Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr didn't care about kids education in 2015. We can expect the same from them now. Argument about City having same limit as county to align everything was made to increase the limit to 120%.

I wonder what kind of argument Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr are making now. We don't need to hear about the 5th council member because he is a lost case. He doesn't care about kids education at all. He even said that putting 3000 students in school designed for 2000 has no impact on quality of education. You can't argye anything with such people.

Everyone needs to pay close attention to how council members are voting and remember it when it comes to election time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the other PP that wants more density at Metro stations. Why people can't see that's a good thing is beyond me.

It's beyond your understanding that parents don't want to make over crowding situation worse?

No one is opposing higher density at metro station. Citizens are opposing higher density in RM cluster when school is already over crowded. City should work with MCPS to find a solution to that first and then make RM cluster more dense.

Actually, you are. Maybe not in principle, but in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mayor Bridget Donnell Newton and council member Beryl Feinberg voted against changing the APFS for schools.

Council members Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr voted with Moore for the change after a roughly hour-long debate that touched on the history of portable classrooms, where school facility payments from developers go and the relationship between the county and the city.

It's clear that Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr didn't care about kids education in 2015. We can expect the same from them now. Argument about City having same limit as county to align everything was made to increase the limit to 120%.

I wonder what kind of argument Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr are making now. We don't need to hear about the 5th council member because he is a lost case. He doesn't care about kids education at all. He even said that putting 3000 students in school designed for 2000 has no impact on quality of education. You can't argye anything with such people.

Everyone needs to pay close attention to how council members are voting and remember it when it comes to election time.

Oh, good grief. Next you'll say that they also favor kicking puppies and sending babies out into cold weather without socks or hats.