Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

You do realize that the rush hour traffic runs in the opposite direction, right? And there are ample options to improve the accessibility of the area - such as restoring the Palisades Trolley Trail and putting in a bus only lane on Reservoir. The city has four years to sort these out, which is more than enough time.

Foxhall ES is not designed to be a school for the entire city. But it will reduce crowding at other elementary schools that are more accessible and increase options for children across the city to access better schools.

What kid is going to ride their bike from Ward 7 or 8 with a full backpack and a musical instrument, each way all year?

It’s a domino effect. Shuffle all the kids leftward a bit.

In any event, which neighborhood elementary schools are accessible by people throughout the city? It’s a pretty silly standard.

Three in four kids in DC don't attend their neighborhood public school, and almost all of them attend school to the west of where they live. But they don't go far in general. So there's definitely a domino effect.

That seems very true for public schools but it might not apply to charters. I wonder whether data would confirm my sense that charter students of poorer families travel west and UMC charter students travel east, and they go to charter schools together, for a time.

There are no charter west of Rock Creek Park. So if you live there and want to go to a charter, you have to go east.

Sure, and there are more charters in NE than EOTP NW, so EOTP NW families also generally go east for charters.

Somewhere there is a map that shows the pattern. It’s from the redistricting process so it’s a few years old now. It’s interesting to look at though. Most people are really not traveling that far from their homes to school. I believe the average was under 2 miles.

This document shows a map for each charter school: https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/myCFSlPmum/

There was also an interactive map done by Code4DC a few years ago that showed both DCPS and charters. You could also see by neighborhood where the kids went.

What they show is that while few kids go to school in their immediate neighborhood it's not common for them to travel great distances eiither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

Foxhall ES will be right next to MacArthur HS and will only open a couple of years after it. There will have to be accessibility improvements - the revitalization of the Palisades Trolley Trail through to Georgetown and hopefully a dedicated bus and bike lane on Reservoir Rd. - to make MacArthur HS more accessible and these will in turn make Foxhall ES more accessible.

Even currently, it's not the "suburban no-mans land" that some make it out to be. Depending on where you live in the city, Hardy Rec can be faster and easier to get to than the other Rec Centers mentioned. MacArthur Blvd., Reservoir Rd., and Foxhall Rd. are all major arteries that connect to Canal Rd. and Key Bridge / I-66 (fastest way to get there from Ward 7 and 8) and the Whitehurst Freeway. All of these roads get busy at rush hour with commuter traffic, but this is heading in the opposite direction to people traveling from other places in the city to the school and so that won't be an issue.

The reason why Foxhall needs a school is obvious to anyone who looks at a map of elementary schools in the city - almost nowhere do DCPS families have to travel further to get to their local public or charter school. Furthermore, the neighborhood will see an influx of DCPS families with the opening of MacArthur HS and at least some of these will have younger children that will attend Foxhall ES. The neighborhood will become denser and more family-oriented and Key ES has no room to expand to accommodate further growth (4th and 5th graders there are being accommodated in trailers as it is).

Moreover, it's not like the opening of Foxhall ES is not going to eliminate the possibility of other schools being opened elsewhere across the city or even in Ward 3. Quite the opposite in fact. If the NIMBYs win out in Foxhall and prevent the school from being built, they will be writing a playbook for NIMBYs all over the city who want to stop similar projects. You may well think that parks like Volta, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle have as much or even more space than the Foxhall site does to accommodate a school. Do you think those who live around those parks see it that way? Stopping Foxhall ES at this point is a prescription for building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone in Ward 3 ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

Hyde-Addison is far more accesible than the new school will be. It is simply a really bad location to try to attract students from anywhere beyond Foxhall and Palisades.

Depends on where you're coming from. If you're coming off Key Bridge or the Whitehurst Freeway (which you would be if you're coming from most points in the NE or SE), taking a right turn onto M Street at morning rush hour (or even in the mid-afternoon) is akin to entering the ninth circle of hell. The left turn on to Canal Rd and then up Foxhall Rd. or MacArthur Blvd. to where Foxhall ES and MacArthur HS will be situated is plain sailing. So no, Foxhall ES is more accessible to many families - at least for those who are driving - than Hyde-Addison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously." More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit." This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps.

Was attempted confidentiality a good idea?

I can't speak about the Stoddert rep (because I don't know, and didn't hear from them), but your defense of the CWG rings hollow to me. View it from Glover Park's perspective: the CWG is told to keep the meetings private. There's no representative for Glover Park (Stoddert is not Glover Park, no ANC member despite other ANCs being there). DCPS proposes, or provides as an example, boundaries that the new school will split Glover Park, and be made up of ~40% Glover Park kids. Glover Park hears about this and demands representation. Cheh finally asks for/provides it after the decisions have been narrowed down to those that in the CWG's own materials, split Glover Park.

What you insist were only example boundaries were defended and justified by multiple DCPS representatives at every meeting Glover Park could attend. The necessity of these borders was emphasized every time, otherwise there wouldn't be enough kids to fill the school. To me (and clearly to the rest of GP), calling it an example sounded like a fig leaf to divert attention. Especially because the boundaries had been proposed and decisions made before GP had representation on the CWG. And this came after DCPS mysteriously pulled funding for the Stoddert expansion (which is now back, though smaller).

Check slide 17 from the last CWG meeting that are online.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1p2opcZs6ZzD9ohhrfAJ_Cm_PDuNRTMKn
Or directly
https://ibb.co/KKp621X

The very first challenge/concern is the boundary change to Stoddert. (Again with the hiking measurement rather than an honest route via roads.) The second advantage/benefit is the Glover Park kids who will have to leave Stoddert. The decisions are made based on those boundaries, whatever we may call them. In fairness, the boundary is also the first implementation consideration, but they already took that into account when they provided, defended, and forced the boundary earlier. That's why Slide 31 shows the meeting with the Stoddert community had the highest attendance (and slide 34 shows the same concerns, and the survey results). The CWG and DCPS had time to think about other boundaries, but the entire proposal is based on the ones already provided.

What's annoying to me is that I agree with the previous posters about the necessity building more schools. I'm sure overall we'd agree on the Ward 3 school situation 98% of the time. But we disagree on attempting to solve the issue by splitting Glover Park. Solomonic, eh?

There is room and opportunity to expand Stoddert. That should be the priority for Glover Park. Asking families to drive to a Foxhall ES is a ridiculous waste of resources.

Let's put this to bed once and for all. Please see page 185 here: https://app.box.com/s/m0sjaadtl7yveo6lfl46odsasgfarnkx. Note that it says tat Stoddert is receiving $20.5 million in FY23 and FY24 for "new construction . . . to address current and projected overcrowding in the school".

Foxhall ES is NOT taking money away from Stoddert ES' expansion. The opposite is true. The construction of Foxhall ES is not now scheduled to start until the addition to Stoddert is completed. You got what you wanted, Glover Park. We are not your enemy.

[Anonymous]

Also relevant: https://www.marycheh.com/release/a-note-to-the-stoddert-glover-park-community/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

Foxhall ES will be right next to MacArthur HS and will only open a couple of years after it. There will have to be accessibility improvements - the revitalization of the Palisades Trolley Trail through to Georgetown and hopefully a dedicated bus and bike lane on Reservoir Rd. - to make MacArthur HS more accessible and these will in turn make Foxhall ES more accessible.

Even currently, it's not the "suburban no-mans land" that some make it out to be. Depending on where you live in the city, Hardy Rec can be faster and easier to get to than the other Rec Centers mentioned. MacArthur Blvd., Reservoir Rd., and Foxhall Rd. are all major arteries that connect to Canal Rd. and Key Bridge / I-66 (fastest way to get there from Ward 7 and 8) and the Whitehurst Freeway. All of these roads get busy at rush hour with commuter traffic, but this is heading in the opposite direction to people traveling from other places in the city to the school and so that won't be an issue.

The reason why Foxhall needs a school is obvious to anyone who looks at a map of elementary schools in the city - almost nowhere do DCPS families have to travel further to get to their local public or charter school. Furthermore, the neighborhood will see an influx of DCPS families with the opening of MacArthur HS and at least some of these will have younger children that will attend Foxhall ES. The neighborhood will become denser and more family-oriented and Key ES has no room to expand to accommodate further growth (4th and 5th graders there are being accommodated in trailers as it is).

Moreover, it's not like the opening of Foxhall ES is not going to eliminate the possibility of other schools being opened elsewhere across the city or even in Ward 3. Quite the opposite in fact. If the NIMBYs win out in Foxhall and prevent the school from being built, they will be writing a playbook for NIMBYs all over the city who want to stop similar projects. You may well think that parks like Volta, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle have as much or even more space than the Foxhall site does to accommodate a school. Do you think those who live around those parks see it that way? Stopping Foxhall ES at this point is a prescription for building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone in Ward 3 ever again.

Reservoir Rd isn't big enough for travel lanes a bike lane and bus lanes. The area is too constrained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

By car.

now try by metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

Foxhall ES will be right next to MacArthur HS and will only open a couple of years after it. There will have to be accessibility improvements - the revitalization of the Palisades Trolley Trail through to Georgetown and hopefully a dedicated bus and bike lane on Reservoir Rd. - to make MacArthur HS more accessible and these will in turn make Foxhall ES more accessible.

Even currently, it's not the "suburban no-mans land" that some make it out to be. Depending on where you live in the city, Hardy Rec can be faster and easier to get to than the other Rec Centers mentioned. MacArthur Blvd., Reservoir Rd., and Foxhall Rd. are all major arteries that connect to Canal Rd. and Key Bridge / I-66 (fastest way to get there from Ward 7 and 8) and the Whitehurst Freeway. All of these roads get busy at rush hour with commuter traffic, but this is heading in the opposite direction to people traveling from other places in the city to the school and so that won't be an issue.

The reason why Foxhall needs a school is obvious to anyone who looks at a map of elementary schools in the city - almost nowhere do DCPS families have to travel further to get to their local public or charter school. Furthermore, the neighborhood will see an influx of DCPS families with the opening of MacArthur HS and at least some of these will have younger children that will attend Foxhall ES. The neighborhood will become denser and more family-oriented and Key ES has no room to expand to accommodate further growth (4th and 5th graders there are being accommodated in trailers as it is).

Moreover, it's not like the opening of Foxhall ES is not going to eliminate the possibility of other schools being opened elsewhere across the city or even in Ward 3. Quite the opposite in fact. If the NIMBYs win out in Foxhall and prevent the school from being built, they will be writing a playbook for NIMBYs all over the city who want to stop similar projects. You may well think that parks like Volta, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle have as much or even more space than the Foxhall site does to accommodate a school. Do you think those who live around those parks see it that way? Stopping Foxhall ES at this point is a prescription for building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone in Ward 3 ever again.

Reservoir Rd isn't big enough for travel lanes a bike lane and bus lanes. The area is too constrained.

Reservoir Rd. has street parking on both sides of the street from Wisconsin to Foxhall (where the D6 runs). Take that out and you have your bus and bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

By car.

now try by metro

And if I gave you that, you’d be asking me about times by jet pack or something. Bus services to Foxhall / Palisades was cut due to the pandemic. What it is now won’t have much bearing on what it will be in a couple of years once the schools are open. The point is that Foxhall is not the remote enclave that the local NIMBYs want to think of it as and those who want schools built elsewhere want to project it as.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

Foxhall ES will be right next to MacArthur HS and will only open a couple of years after it. There will have to be accessibility improvements - the revitalization of the Palisades Trolley Trail through to Georgetown and hopefully a dedicated bus and bike lane on Reservoir Rd. - to make MacArthur HS more accessible and these will in turn make Foxhall ES more accessible.

Even currently, it's not the "suburban no-mans land" that some make it out to be. Depending on where you live in the city, Hardy Rec can be faster and easier to get to than the other Rec Centers mentioned. MacArthur Blvd., Reservoir Rd., and Foxhall Rd. are all major arteries that connect to Canal Rd. and Key Bridge / I-66 (fastest way to get there from Ward 7 and 8) and the Whitehurst Freeway. All of these roads get busy at rush hour with commuter traffic, but this is heading in the opposite direction to people traveling from other places in the city to the school and so that won't be an issue.

The reason why Foxhall needs a school is obvious to anyone who looks at a map of elementary schools in the city - almost nowhere do DCPS families have to travel further to get to their local public or charter school. Furthermore, the neighborhood will see an influx of DCPS families with the opening of MacArthur HS and at least some of these will have younger children that will attend Foxhall ES. The neighborhood will become denser and more family-oriented and Key ES has no room to expand to accommodate further growth (4th and 5th graders there are being accommodated in trailers as it is).

Moreover, it's not like the opening of Foxhall ES is not going to eliminate the possibility of other schools being opened elsewhere across the city or even in Ward 3. Quite the opposite in fact. If the NIMBYs win out in Foxhall and prevent the school from being built, they will be writing a playbook for NIMBYs all over the city who want to stop similar projects. You may well think that parks like Volta, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle have as much or even more space than the Foxhall site does to accommodate a school. Do you think those who live around those parks see it that way? Stopping Foxhall ES at this point is a prescription for building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone in Ward 3 ever again.

Reservoir Rd isn't big enough for travel lanes a bike lane and bus lanes. The area is too constrained.

Reservoir Rd. has street parking on both sides of the street from Wisconsin to Foxhall (where the D6 runs). Take that out and you have your bus and bike lanes.

LOL, this is ward 3 you are talking about here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

By car.

now try by metro

And if I gave you that, you’d be asking me about times by jet pack or something. Bus services to Foxhall / Palisades was cut due to the pandemic. What it is now won’t have much bearing on what it will be in a couple of years once the schools are open. The point is that Foxhall is not the remote enclave that the local NIMBYs want to think of it as and those who want schools built elsewhere want to project it as.

So you are basically saying that all of the students will need to be driven to the new schools, except for the precious few who live enough to be able to walk to it. How do you square that with the 500 set-aside OOB seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

By car.

now try by metro

And if I gave you that, you’d be asking me about times by jet pack or something. Bus services to Foxhall / Palisades was cut due to the pandemic. What it is now won’t have much bearing on what it will be in a couple of years once the schools are open. The point is that Foxhall is not the remote enclave that the local NIMBYs want to think of it as and those who want schools built elsewhere want to project it as.

So you are basically saying that all of the students will need to be driven to the new schools, except for the precious few who live enough to be able to walk to it. How do you square that with the 500 set-aside OOB seats?

No. Not at all. That is a fairly extreme misreading. What the poster is saying is that Foxhall's transit connectivity now is bad because services will be cut due to COVID. But that there is scope for bus services to be added that will make it much easier / quicker to get to the area via transit. Adding a bus between the Rosslyn metro and Foxhall should be feasible for instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

Foxhall ES will be right next to MacArthur HS and will only open a couple of years after it. There will have to be accessibility improvements - the revitalization of the Palisades Trolley Trail through to Georgetown and hopefully a dedicated bus and bike lane on Reservoir Rd. - to make MacArthur HS more accessible and these will in turn make Foxhall ES more accessible.

Even currently, it's not the "suburban no-mans land" that some make it out to be. Depending on where you live in the city, Hardy Rec can be faster and easier to get to than the other Rec Centers mentioned. MacArthur Blvd., Reservoir Rd., and Foxhall Rd. are all major arteries that connect to Canal Rd. and Key Bridge / I-66 (fastest way to get there from Ward 7 and 8) and the Whitehurst Freeway. All of these roads get busy at rush hour with commuter traffic, but this is heading in the opposite direction to people traveling from other places in the city to the school and so that won't be an issue.

The reason why Foxhall needs a school is obvious to anyone who looks at a map of elementary schools in the city - almost nowhere do DCPS families have to travel further to get to their local public or charter school. Furthermore, the neighborhood will see an influx of DCPS families with the opening of MacArthur HS and at least some of these will have younger children that will attend Foxhall ES. The neighborhood will become denser and more family-oriented and Key ES has no room to expand to accommodate further growth (4th and 5th graders there are being accommodated in trailers as it is).

Moreover, it's not like the opening of Foxhall ES is not going to eliminate the possibility of other schools being opened elsewhere across the city or even in Ward 3. Quite the opposite in fact. If the NIMBYs win out in Foxhall and prevent the school from being built, they will be writing a playbook for NIMBYs all over the city who want to stop similar projects. You may well think that parks like Volta, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle have as much or even more space than the Foxhall site does to accommodate a school. Do you think those who live around those parks see it that way? Stopping Foxhall ES at this point is a prescription for building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone in Ward 3 ever again.

Reservoir Rd isn't big enough for travel lanes a bike lane and bus lanes. The area is too constrained.

Reservoir Rd. has street parking on both sides of the street from Wisconsin to Foxhall (where the D6 runs). Take that out and you have your bus and bike lanes.

LOL, this is ward 3 you are talking about here.

Taking out those parking spots shouldn't be that big of a deal. Almost all of those parking spots on Reservoir are used by GU / MGUH staff and visitors who can't park on the side streets. MGUH is building a new parking garage that all of those currently parking on Reservoir Rd. can move to. If we were talking about taking away parking from residents, it'd be one thing, but we're not in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

Let's have some fun with Google Maps, shall we? Try the following steps:

1. Pick a random address in Ward 7 or 8 (I tried Randle Highlands because it seemed more or less central to neighborhoods east of the river)

2. Set "Arrive By" to 8:30am on a Monday (or any day of the school week)

3. Calculate travel times by car to get to the Hardy Rec Center and the the different potential Ward 3 sites the poster you responded to mentioned - these are: Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, and Turtle Park

4. Do a ranking of the various rec centers by travel times to prove conclusively just how long it takes to get to this "least accessible site" versus the other most better situated sites . . .

Oh, but wait! What's that? Holy hell! Of those sites, the Hardy Rec Center - future site of Foxhall ES - is actually the quickest to get to of all of those listed from Randall Heights (bar Volta, with which it is tied for travel times at 18-35 mins).

Don't ever ever let the actual facts get in the way of your opinions, am I right? By all means, keep making stuff up. The NIMBYs can't get enough of it.

By car.

now try by metro

And if I gave you that, you’d be asking me about times by jet pack or something. Bus services to Foxhall / Palisades was cut due to the pandemic. What it is now won’t have much bearing on what it will be in a couple of years once the schools are open. The point is that Foxhall is not the remote enclave that the local NIMBYs want to think of it as and those who want schools built elsewhere want to project it as.

So you are basically saying that all of the students will need to be driven to the new schools, except for the precious few who live enough to be able to walk to it. How do you square that with the 500 set-aside OOB seats?

No. Not at all. That is a fairly extreme misreading. What the poster is saying is that Foxhall's transit connectivity now is bad because services will be cut due to COVID. But that there is scope for bus services to be added that will make it much easier / quicker to get to the area via transit. Adding a bus between the Rosslyn metro and Foxhall should be feasible for instance.

LOL - lots of the OOB student will be coming from VA! And the drive across the Key Bridge and thru Georgetown is so speedy!

You can keep plastering the lipstick on this pig but it is still a pig.

The transit options to Foxhall are terrible.

Sure you can increase the frequency of the D6 but it is still a 26 minute ride from Dupont Circle during the AM & PM rush hour and almost none of the OOB students will be coming from Dupont but there is no other logical place to tie in with other public transportation in DC. So it is 7 minutes on the Metro from Dupont to Tenleytown or we do a tie in with another form of transit and have kids with 60 minute commutes at best from other parts of DC.

There is also no direct way to walk/bike/take transit from Glover Park and driving is going to force parents onto Reservoir which is already a nightmare during the week. I don't think it is an exaggeration that for most families in Glover Park this school will be harder to get to.