Any significant chance of Murch boundaries changing in the next couple of years?

[Anonymous]

There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

That address isn't being moved from Hearst to Murch; if they put an apartment building there, the residents will go to Hearst. A couple of blocks east of Conn are moving Hearst to Murch--Albemarle to Soapstone Valley Park, east to Broad Branch. That's entirely single-family homes (maybe 30-40?) and park land. ANd all of those homes are at least as close to Murch as to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

That address isn't being moved from Hearst to Murch; if they put an apartment building there, the residents will go to Hearst. A couple of blocks east of Conn are moving Hearst to Murch--Albemarle to Soapstone Valley Park, east to Broad Branch. That's entirely single-family homes (maybe 30-40?) and park land. ANd all of those homes are at least as close to Murch as to Hearst.

Ok, also? Honestly? Most of those SFHs in that section off Albemarle are 8-bedroom stone mansions with embassy flags flying out front on a pole. The number of kids living in those two dozen gated 1925 mansions whose parents think public school is a great plan is < 4 kids, total.

Not saying it's not a lot of acres -- because clearly, it is -- I'm asserting as a really longtime resident of this general area that no public school 3rd graders live on those acres.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

That address isn't being moved from Hearst to Murch; if they put an apartment building there, the residents will go to Hearst. A couple of blocks east of Conn are moving Hearst to Murch--Albemarle to Soapstone Valley Park, east to Broad Branch. That's entirely single-family homes (maybe 30-40?) and park land. ANd all of those homes are at least as close to Murch as to Hearst.

Ok, also? Honestly? Most of those SFHs in that section off Albemarle are 8-bedroom stone mansions with embassy flags flying out front on a pole. The number of kids living in those two dozen gated 1925 mansions whose parents think public school is a great plan is < 4 kids, total.

Not saying it's not a lot of acres -- because clearly, it is -- I'm asserting as a really longtime resident of this general area that no public school 3rd graders live on those acres.

The density PP doesn't get that point at all. The area going from Hearst to Murch is mega mansions on large lots and embassies. The area going from Murch to Hearst is apartment buildings and smaller SFH. The PP doesn't get it though.

[Anonymous]

The question remains, why zone in current Hearst families to go to Murch, while you are removing Murch families that live closer to Murch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

The area is called

AUDUBON Ter NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON, DC 20008
$2,000,000

BTW the area of the proposed flip flop from Murch to Hearst seems to be entirely single family homes, no apartment buildings. However this parcel looks like it could be developed into a multistory large building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

That address isn't being moved from Hearst to Murch; if they put an apartment building there, the residents will go to Hearst. A couple of blocks east of Conn are moving Hearst to Murch--Albemarle to Soapstone Valley Park, east to Broad Branch. That's entirely single-family homes (maybe 30-40?) and park land. ANd all of those homes are at least as close to Murch as to Hearst.

Ok, also? Honestly? Most of those SFHs in that section off Albemarle are 8-bedroom stone mansions with embassy flags flying out front on a pole. The number of kids living in those two dozen gated 1925 mansions whose parents think public school is a great plan is < 4 kids, total.

Not saying it's not a lot of acres -- because clearly, it is -- I'm asserting as a really longtime resident of this general area that no public school 3rd graders live on those acres.

Aren't you making the point of the earlier poster than someone with influence is trying to get out of the Hearst district? It is a ridiculous move to add new neighborhoods to go to an overcrowded school when you are removing families at the same time. There is no logical argument to explain this decision. The fact that this area is much more affluent makes the decision seem like it is someone yielding undue influence over the process.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are still families in the round two proposals that are being asked to move from Murch to Hearst, and in some cases attend the third farthest school from their home.

Also, the area that is being brought into Murch from Hearst in the second round propsal includes a large parcel of land ripe for development. I think a developer is motivating this discussion. Why add new blocks into Murch that are farther away than existing blocks?

What is the address of the large parcel mentioned ^^^ ? I can't picture a large open lot, unless you mean Intelsat?

That address isn't being moved from Hearst to Murch; if they put an apartment building there, the residents will go to Hearst. A couple of blocks east of Conn are moving Hearst to Murch--Albemarle to Soapstone Valley Park, east to Broad Branch. That's entirely single-family homes (maybe 30-40?) and park land. ANd all of those homes are at least as close to Murch as to Hearst.

Ok, also? Honestly? Most of those SFHs in that section off Albemarle are 8-bedroom stone mansions with embassy flags flying out front on a pole. The number of kids living in those two dozen gated 1925 mansions whose parents think public school is a great plan is < 4 kids, total.

Not saying it's not a lot of acres -- because clearly, it is -- I'm asserting as a really longtime resident of this general area that no public school 3rd graders live on those acres.

Aren't you making the point of the earlier poster than someone with influence is trying to get out of the Hearst district? It is a ridiculous move to add new neighborhoods to go to an overcrowded school when you are removing families at the same time. There is no logical argument to explain this decision. The fact that this area is much more affluent makes the decision seem like it is someone yielding undue influence over the process.

No. That's not the point I'm making.

Let me bE more clear, and crass:

The handful of people living in the area* DO NOT HAVE ANY SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN.

If by some chance there are 1-2 school-aged children that slip in, THEY WILL NOT ENROLL IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.


* from 2700 to 2900 blocks of albemarle st NW and that spit of 29th st.

[Anonymous]

Do you know why the DME is recommending that these homes move into Murch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

It will not. They got massive pushback in the first round. Cheh and Catania both visited and said the round 1 boundary for Murch vs. Hearst was absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

It will not. They got massive pushback in the first round. Cheh and Catania both visited and said the round 1 boundary for Murch vs. Hearst was absurd.

I think the PP is making the point that while there was tremendous pushback this time, the proposal has the boundary coming under review again shortly. With the school bursting at the seams and the renovation likely to only house the current expected students in the pipeline, if that, any further expansion of the IB population will force the Hearst-Murch boundary north again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

It will not. They got massive pushback in the first round. Cheh and Catania both visited and said the round 1 boundary for Murch vs. Hearst was absurd.

I think the PP is making the point that while there was tremendous pushback this time, the proposal has the boundary coming under review again shortly. With the school bursting at the seams and the renovation likely to only house the current expected students in the pipeline, if that, any further expansion of the IB population will force the Hearst-Murch boundary north again.

Correct, there will be another review. But the boundary won't move north of Albemarle again (that zones out the people closet to the school, turns walkers into drivers, and as such would be a personal embarrassment for DDOT people like Sam Zimbabwe and whoever follows who want to make their career on limiting car use in a clogged city). More likely is they will move the new Lafayette/Murch boundary south and send the new complex on Military to Lafayette. "Walkability" is in the new proposal for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Why don't they offer fewer spots for pre-k in overcrowded schools? It's not mandatory and most people living in the boundary are able to find alternatives. Especially if there are preferences in the pre-k lottery for lower income status as some of the proposals have suggested. Instead Janney for example added another pre-k class for next year. I know people are happy to have the option but considering the limitations on the school it seems the first priority should be to make sure there is plenty of space for the required grades.