Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel ridiculous asking this 34 pages into a thread, but was looking for a place to ask it. Can you help me understand, as someone who does not understand the geography of the area (I'm just bad at geography and live on the other side of the county) what decision has been made that people are so upset about it, and why people are upset about it?

A huge high school building and an artificial turf football field are going to be boarded up and abandoned in a residential neighborhood. A neighbor school will be shuttered and all of the students that could walk to that school will not need to be buses elsewhere. MCPS doesn’t have money for more buses and can’t afford to transport these students.

The bigger issue is that this is just the beginning of Taylor’s plan to shut down school buildings across the county. He wants to board up dozens of schools for developers to tear down the schools and build condos.

Untrue. Many many students will still be able to walk to the school. Potentially even a higher number of students. It is just a different subset of them.

This is why planning is so important. You are wrong. Crown was always going to have a walk zone. Wootton has a walk zone. The Wootton walk zone is being eliminated and all those students must now be bused. That means more buses, more bus drivers, more diesel fuel under Taylor’s folly.

I am not wrong. The same amount of students will be able to walk to school after this change as before.

How sad. What school failed you? An entire high school walk zone is being eliminated when Wootton HS closes. That means for the same number of students, MCPS will have to increase the number of buses in operation. Instead of two walk zones, there will only be one.

Let me break this down for you:
Today there are zero walkers to Crown.
When this goes into effect there will be many walkers to the Crown location.
Roughly the same number of walkers who currently walk to the Wootton location.

It is not an increase.

Praying you aren’t a MCPS admin troll. Let’s try this:

2 schools with walkers - 1 school with walkers = 1 school with walkers.

MCPS built a new high school. That school would have walkers. Taylor is now eliminating the walkers from another school that was planned to be open and functioning. There would have been two hs with walkers. That was the plan. The budget must now change because Taylor is eliminating an entire hs of walkers. Planners need to buy more buses, hire more drivers.

Are you trying to say that there is an overall increase in expense because a few more buses are needed? As compared to what? The overall expense of operating an entire high school? Seems like this is the much more fiscally prudent option to buy a few buses than open and run an additional high school facility.

Let’s see the financials. You don’t have them. Same number of students need teachers and administrators. What exactly is the cost comparison? Since you have no clue what transportation costs are, you can’t do any cost analysis. You must work for MCPS! No cost data, no financials, no planning, just spit balling.

So you think it is possible that the expense of a few buses is more than the expense of operating a high school facility?

Not the PP you are responding to but I’ll take a crack.

The growth data coming from MCPS, much like the walker data, also doesn’t make sense. This particular area is growing. So a few options here when we look into the future, like 5-10 years out (which MCPS admits they don’t plan for)

1. Crown becomes overcrowded. New additions will be built out. First, that’s going to be costly, not to mention the timeline of building said additions. Second, most parents (myself included) don’t like a super school. I don’t want my kids going to a school with 3,000 kids.
2. They realized they messed up and reopen Wootton. By then, renovations will cost even more due to neglect and abandonment, but even more important than the fact that this will literally cost more money in the long run, is the cost to students and families. The instability and uncertainty of it all will hurt kids the most.

Then, they tear down Wootton, like they should (after using it as a holding school to tear down or fix other schools) and reopen it. Woodward was reopened as were other schools when there was a need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel ridiculous asking this 34 pages into a thread, but was looking for a place to ask it. Can you help me understand, as someone who does not understand the geography of the area (I'm just bad at geography and live on the other side of the county) what decision has been made that people are so upset about it, and why people are upset about it?

A huge high school building and an artificial turf football field are going to be boarded up and abandoned in a residential neighborhood. A neighbor school will be shuttered and all of the students that could walk to that school will not need to be buses elsewhere. MCPS doesn’t have money for more buses and can’t afford to transport these students.

The bigger issue is that this is just the beginning of Taylor’s plan to shut down school buildings across the county. He wants to board up dozens of schools for developers to tear down the schools and build condos.

Untrue. Many many students will still be able to walk to the school. Potentially even a higher number of students. It is just a different subset of them.

This is why planning is so important. You are wrong. Crown was always going to have a walk zone. Wootton has a walk zone. The Wootton walk zone is being eliminated and all those students must now be bused. That means more buses, more bus drivers, more diesel fuel under Taylor’s folly.

I am not wrong. The same amount of students will be able to walk to school after this change as before.

You are drinking mcps kool aid. Would you allow your kid walk up to 60 minutes one way across 6 lane intersections near a highway?

Even if the number of walkers say the same (it doesn’t), Wootton parkway is a much safer walk. Thats why neighborhood schools matter.

And also the Crown location IS a neighborhood school. But you might have that same incredibly myopic view of what it means to be a neighborhood. There is a much higher density of people who live in walking distance to Crown than to the current Wootton location.

My brother in Christ you have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously it’s not the same group of walkers, even MCPS isn’t crazy enough to suggest Parkway kids are walkers to Crown. But the number of walkers per MCPS calculation includes kids who would be walking from Hunting Hills, Nolan, and Stonebridge communities. Those kids are going to walk about 45-60 minutes across 6 lanes. That’s why MCPS walker data is a joke.

Of course Crown is a community with walkers, but let’s not pretend Crown HS on net has more walkers. MCPS walker data is actually a great example of how MCPS doesn’t make data driven decisions. Instead, they make a decision and create whatever data needed to justify their decision making.

Like PP above, just watch this play out during the next round.

I don't get your point at all. I said there will be roughly the same total number of students walking to school at the Crown location than there is at the Parkway location. This is true.

So, the argument that this decision results in a meaningful amount more buses is false.

Ok I’ll try to make this super simple.

1. There won’t be roughly the same by any metric. First, on net, there are more walkers to Wootton than to Crown if you are comparing walkers to walkers in a reasonable way.
2. As the other PP were explaining, two high schools naturally would produce more walkers than one high school. So even if we pretend #1 isn’t true and let’s even pretend Crown has more walkers than Wootton on net, when you close Wootton…all of Wootton’s walkers go away and now will have to be bussed.

If you don’t get #2 and are suggesting closing an entire school doesn’t result in less walkers, then I give up on explaining this.

Where do you get the bolded?

And to be clear again, my point was that there are no less walkers than current state. Agree that one less school facility results in less people walking. But that is a different point. And creating more walkers is not reason alone to open an unneeded facility.

Look at the actual walkers data MCPS provided for crown. Eliminate 45-60 walks that require crossing 6 lane highways. I already told you the exact neighborhoods. Look at hunting hills, nolan (by Trader Joe’s), and stone mill. The number of neighborhood kids who are actually walkable to Crown is way less to Wootton Parkway, which is a substantially safer walk that doesn’t involve kids crossing multi lanes during rush hour next to a highway.

If you think the walk from any of those surrounding neighborhoods named above is reasonable, then we clearly have different definitions of what reasonable is.

Many of our kids cross six lane roads. I don't know why any parent except for no choice would allow that. We have to drive our kids becuase of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on my high school debate team and will entertain this ridiculous deflection with the knowledge that you literally own a debate school so I know your calculated move here: No, I am not MAGA but also not suing the federal government because I don't like what they are doing. I'm voting against them and encouraging others to do the same just as you should do with elected officials you are unhappy with. As for TT, he's going to be here for a while.

Dude I have no idea who you are talking about. Cool story about being on your high school debate team.

Doesn’t matter if it’s TT and MCPS or the federal government, all governmental bodies should be held accountable. Of course you don’t sue governmental bodies simply because you don’t like what they are doing. You sue because they are breaking the law.

This isn’t mutually exclusive either. Why is the choice sue or vote.

It’s sue and vote.

Again, what law is being broken? Also, funny email yesterday asking us for more money for this "step-by-step process" to get this decision overruled in the same sentence that you wrote that the lawyers said "the State rarely overrules local board" decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

Not just Silver Spring schools. When Option H passed, the resolution also had a lengthy list of elementary school reassignment changes. IMHO, that really speaks to how wrong this whole process is. For a stated high/middle school boundary, to then arbitrarily and unilaterally change elementary assignments... just Wow. And I suspect many of those ES communities don't even know their school was affected. But BOE justifies it as, well we're doing an ES boundary study next, so there will be plenty of time for community engagement. Except that they only cherry pick what they want to hear and then label anyone opposed as racist.

Watch out.

This isn't true. Only middle and high school boundaries were changed in this study. Assigning an elementary school to feed to a different middle or high school doesn't change the elementary school's own boundaries.

I think most people aren't splitting hairs here. They think they know what schools their children will be attending, but then whoops, the school has changed on them! Whether it is technically a school reassignment or as a boundary change, both are still an unexpected change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

Not just Silver Spring schools. When Option H passed, the resolution also had a lengthy list of elementary school reassignment changes. IMHO, that really speaks to how wrong this whole process is. For a stated high/middle school boundary, to then arbitrarily and unilaterally change elementary assignments... just Wow. And I suspect many of those ES communities don't even know their school was affected. But BOE justifies it as, well we're doing an ES boundary study next, so there will be plenty of time for community engagement. Except that they only cherry pick what they want to hear and then label anyone opposed as racist.

Watch out.

This isn't true. Only middle and high school boundaries were changed in this study. Assigning an elementary school to feed to a different middle or high school doesn't change the elementary school's own boundaries.

I think most people aren't splitting hairs here. They think they know what schools their children will be attending, but then whoops, the school has changed on them! Whether it is technically a school reassignment or as a boundary change, both are still an unexpected change.

Why are you saying it's unexpected that elementary schools would be reassigned to different middle and/or high schools? That has always been the expectation, in this and previous MS/HS boundary studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

[Anonymous]

There was plenty of testimony that the current Wootton building is unsafe and drastic measures urgently needed. That testimony may have been exaggerated, but cannot be walked back. MCPS in response completely delivered, while it may not have been the precise solution the testimony sought to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

You all said it was unsafe. It’s documented all over the place. Stop changing your story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

They aren’t closing it. They are moving everyone over to a new building. Your advocacy backfired as it’s the one time Mcps listened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

You are getting a new modern building. Problem solved. Mold is not easy to get rid of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

[Anonymous]

Wootton probably got bumped a few times as other schools are/were in far worse condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

Not just Silver Spring schools. When Option H passed, the resolution also had a lengthy list of elementary school reassignment changes. IMHO, that really speaks to how wrong this whole process is. For a stated high/middle school boundary, to then arbitrarily and unilaterally change elementary assignments... just Wow. And I suspect many of those ES communities don't even know their school was affected. But BOE justifies it as, well we're doing an ES boundary study next, so there will be plenty of time for community engagement. Except that they only cherry pick what they want to hear and then label anyone opposed as racist.

Watch out.

Just look at how hard Taylor worked to hide the location of two bus depots. Neighbors to those two locations still haven’t been notified and the County Council has already approved the funding.

+1. This is why I’ve been following. Not in Wootton cluster but very much support the efforts to fight MCPS. I’m in a neighboring cluster and have donated to the legal fund, as have many of my neighbors. You can probably guess which one as I am near certain we will be impacted in the next round due to our HS now being overcapacity. (I’m convinced Wayside is being moved out of Churchill).

The echo chamber of DCUM trolls don’t realize how many supporters outside of Wootton are contributing and watching. Then you count the hundreds of Wootton families contributing. This will be a long drawn out fight.

The above PPs are correct. If you pay attention, you know some crazy things are about to go down during the es/ms study. I personally think it’s going to be even worse.

The trolls who are currently defending MCPS and their bad decisions are doing so because it doesn’t affect them… yet. Let’s see what you think during the next round when it affects you.

So is your goal here to keep Wootton on the Parkway because you think your kids will end up there and you want it to be closer? Given everything we heard before Taylor’s recommendation was that Wayside was supporting E-H, I AM surprised to hear this!