RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You WONDER? Okay look, I posted a video of the meeting already. Go watch the entire section on this. It not only answers all your questions but is also interesting.

Julie Carr is resigning at the start of the year because she was elected to the House of Delegates so she won't be participating in any votes on this. Do you even keep up with this stuff or do you just pay attention when people start wanting to build a couple of multifamily buildings in RM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You WONDER? Okay look, I posted a video of the meeting already. Go watch the entire section on this. It not only answers all your questions but is also interesting.

Julie Carr is resigning at the start of the year because she was elected to the House of Delegates so she won't be participating in any votes on this. Do you even keep up with this stuff or do you just pay attention when people start wanting to build a couple of multifamily buildings in RM?

Well, I moved to RM district in 2017 so I am going to start paying attention now. Thanks for posting the video. I am going to watch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

That's not how the development process works. The development process could be changed, I suppose. For example, the projections could only include the estimated number of additional students from projects that already have building permits and are under construction. So approved projects that aren't under construction yet wouldn't add to the projections. Would you prefer that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

Another person that didn't watch the video of the council meeting. RM will be overcapacity in 5 years. This is unrelated to the Twinbrook building that will take place. That building will take place over two decades but the entire project will be stopped because of RM even though the vast majority of that area is going to be assigned to WJ. The 120% capacity limit has absolutely nothing to do with the plan to build out at Twinbrook and that buildout is not what brings us to 120%. The only thing the 120% does is stop the building at Twinbrook even though nearly every kid will attend WJ and the buildings that will be assigned to RM won't be built until towards the end of the project. WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they vote for kicking puppies and sending babies out into cold weather then Yes, I will say that. I look at how council members are voting. If their votes are harming kids education then it simply means that they care very little about kids education.

Action speaks louder than words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You WONDER? Okay look, I posted a video of the meeting already. Go watch the entire section on this. It not only answers all your questions but is also interesting.

Julie Carr is resigning at the start of the year because she was elected to the House of Delegates so she won't be participating in any votes on this. Do you even keep up with this stuff or do you just pay attention when people start wanting to build a couple of multifamily buildings in RM?

Well, I moved to RM district in 2017 so I am going to start paying attention now. Thanks for posting the video. I am going to watch it.

Alright, glad to hear you'll watch the video. Look, I don't think we need to be at 150% but I think they need to let that development at Twinbrook be built. That area is in really bad shape right now (though a little better than it was 10 years ago). Maybe they could change the town center to 125% or something so that they can continue to plan and built over the next decade while we wait to find out what impact Crown HS has. It takes at least 7 years to go from initial planning to a finished building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

That's not how the development process works. The development process could be changed, I suppose. For example, the projections could only include the estimated number of additional students from projects that already have building permits and are under construction. So approved projects that aren't under construction yet wouldn't add to the projections. Would you prefer that?

If some specific building is not going to add students for 20 years then City should change the process to approve those projects.

That would make a lot more sense than simply increasing limit from 120%.

We can't argue that, ok this project won't see students in the next 20 years and then turn around and ask to increase 120% limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

That's not how the development process works. The development process could be changed, I suppose. For example, the projections could only include the estimated number of additional students from projects that already have building permits and are under construction. So approved projects that aren't under construction yet wouldn't add to the projections. Would you prefer that?

If some specific building is not going to add students for 20 years then City should change the process to approve those projects.

That would make a lot more sense than simply increasing limit from 120%.

We can't argue that, ok this project won't see students in the next 20 years and then turn around and ask to increase 120% limit.

Watch the video at 2:30:10 to see what the developer has to say.
http://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3940

Honestly though, you should watch the entire section on this. I know it's long but it's interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

Another person that didn't watch the video of the council meeting. RM will be overcapacity in 5 years. This is unrelated to the Twinbrook building that will take place. That building will take place over two decades but the entire project will be stopped because of RM even though the vast majority of that area is going to be assigned to WJ. The 120% capacity limit has absolutely nothing to do with the plan to build out at Twinbrook and that buildout is not what brings us to 120%. The only thing the 120% does is stop the building at Twinbrook even though nearly every kid will attend WJ and the buildings that will be assigned to RM won't be built until towards the end of the project. WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

Then why increase 120% limit which will make RM situation worse. By increasing the limit, we are simply saying that anyone can build and add students in RM cluster.

If TB project is not going to add students for decades then projections should show that and City should approve those projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

That's not how the development process works. The development process could be changed, I suppose. For example, the projections could only include the estimated number of additional students from projects that already have building permits and are under construction. So approved projects that aren't under construction yet wouldn't add to the projections. Would you prefer that?

If some specific building is not going to add students for 20 years then City should change the process to approve those projects.

That would make a lot more sense than simply increasing limit from 120%.

We can't argue that, ok this project won't see students in the next 20 years and then turn around and ask to increase 120% limit.

Watch the video at 2:30:10 to see what the developer has to say.
http://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3940

Honestly though, you should watch the entire section on this. I know it's long but it's interesting.

Thanks I will watch it entirely and also share with my friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

Another person that didn't watch the video of the council meeting. RM will be overcapacity in 5 years. This is unrelated to the Twinbrook building that will take place. That building will take place over two decades but the entire project will be stopped because of RM even though the vast majority of that area is going to be assigned to WJ. The 120% capacity limit has absolutely nothing to do with the plan to build out at Twinbrook and that buildout is not what brings us to 120%. The only thing the 120% does is stop the building at Twinbrook even though nearly every kid will attend WJ and the buildings that will be assigned to RM won't be built until towards the end of the project. WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

Then why increase 120% limit which will make RM situation worse. By increasing the limit, we are simply saying that anyone can build and add students in RM cluster.

If TB project is not going to add students for decades then projections should show that and City should approve those projects.

Watch the meeting video and go to the section where the developer talks that I posted above. It's going to add only 23 elementary, 9 middle and 13 high school kids to RM over the next 15-20 years but this capacity limit is going to stop the revitalization of an area that is in desperate need of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

Another person that didn't watch the video of the council meeting. RM will be overcapacity in 5 years. This is unrelated to the Twinbrook building that will take place. That building will take place over two decades but the entire project will be stopped because of RM even though the vast majority of that area is going to be assigned to WJ. The 120% capacity limit has absolutely nothing to do with the plan to build out at Twinbrook and that buildout is not what brings us to 120%. The only thing the 120% does is stop the building at Twinbrook even though nearly every kid will attend WJ and the buildings that will be assigned to RM won't be built until towards the end of the project. WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

Then why increase 120% limit which will make RM situation worse. By increasing the limit, we are simply saying that anyone can build and add students in RM cluster.

If TB project is not going to add students for decades then projections should show that and City should approve those projects.

Watch the meeting video and go to the section where the developer talks that I posted above. It's going to add only 23 elementary, 9 middle and 13 high school kids to RM over the next 15-20 years but this capacity limit is going to stop the revitalization of an area that is in desperate need of it.

I am not the PP, but following the discussion. I did spoke to our PTA delegate about it.

Based on what you are writing, 13 HS is like 0.5%, so why not ask for 120.5% or 121%?

It seems clear to me that TB project is not adding lots of students. Why are we talking about 130, 150% limit here? Am I missing something here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it's after 20 years then projection should show that kids are coming after 20 years. It's as simple as that. In reality, projections are showing that RM will be 120% within 5 years.

According to you solution to all such problems are simply forget about any limit and keep issuing permit to build, right?

Another person that didn't watch the video of the council meeting. RM will be overcapacity in 5 years. This is unrelated to the Twinbrook building that will take place. That building will take place over two decades but the entire project will be stopped because of RM even though the vast majority of that area is going to be assigned to WJ. The 120% capacity limit has absolutely nothing to do with the plan to build out at Twinbrook and that buildout is not what brings us to 120%. The only thing the 120% does is stop the building at Twinbrook even though nearly every kid will attend WJ and the buildings that will be assigned to RM won't be built until towards the end of the project. WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

Then why increase 120% limit which will make RM situation worse. By increasing the limit, we are simply saying that anyone can build and add students in RM cluster.

If TB project is not going to add students for decades then projections should show that and City should approve those projects.

Watch the meeting video and go to the section where the developer talks that I posted above. It's going to add only 23 elementary, 9 middle and 13 high school kids to RM over the next 15-20 years but this capacity limit is going to stop the revitalization of an area that is in desperate need of it.

I am not the PP, but following the discussion. I did spoke to our PTA delegate about it.

Based on what you are writing, 13 HS is like 0.5%, so why not ask for 120.5% or 121%?

It seems clear to me that TB project is not adding lots of students. Why are we talking about 130, 150% limit here? Am I missing something here?

Because that's the proposition that council member Mark Pierzchala has put forward. Why he chose that number, I don't know. He mentions Gaithersburg has a 150% limit so I can only assume he just took what they did but I don't think anyone knows why he picked it other than him. While Twinbrook will add very few kids to the RM cluster, he also wants to build in RTC which will add more. It still doesn't seem like they'd need to go to 150 though. Probably 125% would be fine. I don't know why he picked 150%.

[Anonymous]

It easy to make room at RM just move the IB program somewhere else like Wooton.