RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about changing boundaries isn’t part of the decision at hand. What is being decided is if Rockville should continue to build in two performance districts. The city has no control over school building. I say yes. Build. The county has done the same thing in Bethesda already.

County already allocated funds for ES in Bethesda.

Bethesda Chevy chase HS is not over crowded.

-------------------

RM is already over crowded. Building is not an option and situation is totally different.

You are factually wrong. Building is an option. The city decides this.

I was simply talking about building more is not an sane option in RM cluster and situation is not comparable to Bethesda at all.

Now some council members don't care of kids education and want to build so surely it's an option for them.

BOE members don’t care about the success of Rockville or the Town Center. You understand that the board of Ed is elected to take care of education right? They have no say on how the city develops. The city council is elected to make the city successful. These are different groups with different goals.

City goal is not to simply build apartments. City goal is to provide best quality of life for citizens. City has moratorium rule for the exact same reason.

City has elected leaders. BOE is elected as well. City leaders need to work with BOE to solve this problem. Solution is not to simply increase limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about changing boundaries isn’t part of the decision at hand. What is being decided is if Rockville should continue to build in two performance districts. The city has no control over school building. I say yes. Build. The county has done the same thing in Bethesda already.

County already allocated funds for ES in Bethesda.

Bethesda Chevy chase HS is not over crowded.

-------------------

RM is already over crowded. Building is not an option and situation is totally different.

You are factually wrong. Building is an option. The city decides this.

I was simply talking about building more is not an sane option in RM cluster and situation is not comparable to Bethesda at all.

Now some council members don't care of kids education and want to build so surely it's an option for them.

BOE members don’t care about the success of Rockville or the Town Center. You understand that the board of Ed is elected to take care of education right? They have no say on how the city develops. The city council is elected to make the city successful. These are different groups with different goals.

City goal is not to simply build apartments. City goal is to provide best quality of life for citizens. City has moratorium rule for the exact same reason.

City has elected leaders. BOE is elected as well. City leaders need to work with BOE to solve this problem. Solution is not to simply increase limit.

BOE doesn’t care about the economy or the state of the city. And they never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how elected officials are only talking about increasing the housing and thresholds in the RM cluster and not in areas that feed into Wootton and Rockville HS. Surely increased development there would help all of Rockville?

The idea is to increase density near the red line which really only affects RM

No to mention, downtown Rockville is where more people want to live. It’s where the demand is. People want to live near transi. I understand some people don’t care about that and like living further away from things (and don’t car for walkability) but by and large, growth is along transit.

https://ggwash.org/view/69029/montgomery-county-says-no-new-homes-in-silver-spring-because-the-schools-ar

No, that is what YOU want and it is what some politicians are pushing for because they think they are in a position to make some money. It’s all about greed.

If people only wanted Metro access, there would not be all the development upcountry in Clarksburg.

SFH prices in my neighborhood have gone up over the past 5 years. Condos and townhouses have gone down. Why? There is an oversupply of condos/townhouses. And people still do want a SFH with easy parking.

People move to MoCo to have the ease that comes with living in the suburbs. You may prefer urbanization. Not all of us want to urbanize MoCo. You are more than welcome to love to DC. Or even Bethesda. Plenty of good urban options in this area.

Different people want different things. Does everybody want to live in a walkable, transit-accessible place? No. Do lots of people? Yes. How do we know this? Because housing in walkable, transit-accessible places is more expensive than comparable housing in non-walkable, car-dependent places.

Not to mention that Clarksburg is also supposed to be a walkable, transit-accessible place -- even if, in reality, it's not.

Meanwhile, if you want to live in a car-dependent neighborhood of detached single-family houses in Montgomery County, there are plenty of places for you to choose from. You might consider, though, that the people who were there before your car-dependent neighborhood of detached single-family houses was built, almost certainly thought of your neighborhood as undesirable overdevelopment pushed by greedy developers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how elected officials are only talking about increasing the housing and thresholds in the RM cluster and not in areas that feed into Wootton and Rockville HS. Surely increased development there would help all of Rockville?

The idea is to increase density near the red line which really only affects RM

No to mention, downtown Rockville is where more people want to live. It’s where the demand is. People want to live near transi. I understand some people don’t care about that and like living further away from things (and don’t car for walkability) but by and large, growth is along transit.

https://ggwash.org/view/69029/montgomery-county-says-no-new-homes-in-silver-spring-because-the-schools-ar

No, that is what YOU want and it is what some politicians are pushing for because they think they are in a position to make some money. It’s all about greed.

If people only wanted Metro access, there would not be all the development upcountry in Clarksburg.

SFH prices in my neighborhood have gone up over the past 5 years. Condos and townhouses have gone down. Why? There is an oversupply of condos/townhouses. And people still do want a SFH with easy parking.

People move to MoCo to have the ease that comes with living in the suburbs. You may prefer urbanization. Not all of us want to urbanize MoCo. You are more than welcome to love to DC. Or even Bethesda. Plenty of good urban options in this area.

If nobody wants to live there, then there won't be any students from there at Richard Montgomery HS. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how elected officials are only talking about increasing the housing and thresholds in the RM cluster and not in areas that feed into Wootton and Rockville HS. Surely increased development there would help all of Rockville?

The idea is to increase density near the red line which really only affects RM

No to mention, downtown Rockville is where more people want to live. It’s where the demand is. People want to live near transi. I understand some people don’t care about that and like living further away from things (and don’t car for walkability) but by and large, growth is along transit.

https://ggwash.org/view/69029/montgomery-county-says-no-new-homes-in-silver-spring-because-the-schools-ar

No, that is what YOU want and it is what some politicians are pushing for because they think they are in a position to make some money. It’s all about greed.

If people only wanted Metro access, there would not be all the development upcountry in Clarksburg.

SFH prices in my neighborhood have gone up over the past 5 years. Condos and townhouses have gone down. Why? There is an oversupply of condos/townhouses. And people still do want a SFH with easy parking.

People move to MoCo to have the ease that comes with living in the suburbs. You may prefer urbanization. Not all of us want to urbanize MoCo. You are more than welcome to love to DC. Or even Bethesda. Plenty of good urban options in this area.

Different people want different things. Does everybody want to live in a walkable, transit-accessible place? No. Do lots of people? Yes. How do we know this? Because housing in walkable, transit-accessible places is more expensive than comparable housing in non-walkable, car-dependent places.

Not to mention that Clarksburg is also supposed to be a walkable, transit-accessible place -- even if, in reality, it's not.

Meanwhile, if you want to live in a car-dependent neighborhood of detached single-family houses in Montgomery County, there are plenty of places for you to choose from. You might consider, though, that the people who were there before your car-dependent neighborhood of detached single-family houses was built, almost certainly thought of your neighborhood as undesirable overdevelopment pushed by greedy developers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.

+1.
Plus they’re talking about building up at Metro stops, not somebody’s car-centric North Potomac hellhole.

[Anonymous]

Where people want to live is irrelevant discussion for this thread. People can chose to live wherever they want to live. Builders can build wherever they can make profit. None of that is relevant here.

Only question is - Should city make crowding situation worse in school when school is already over crowded? Rational for increasing 110% to 120% in 2015 was to align county interest with city. That reason doesn't exist to increase it more.

Moratorium is due to some reason and it's not done due to some one randomly thinking about it.

Increasing limit will simply decrease the quality of life for citizens in Rockville. It's not a rational option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where people want to live is irrelevant discussion for this thread. People can chose to live wherever they want to live. Builders can build wherever they can make profit. None of that is relevant here.

Only question is - Should city make crowding situation worse in school when school is already over crowded? Rational for increasing 110% to 120% in 2015 was to align county interest with city. That reason doesn't exist to increase it more.

Moratorium is due to some reason and it's not done due to some one randomly thinking about it.

Increasing limit will simply decrease the quality of life for citizens in Rockville. It's not a rational option.

Actually, this isn't true. Builders can't build anywhere but where zoning laws allow them to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where people want to live is irrelevant discussion for this thread. People can chose to live wherever they want to live. Builders can build wherever they can make profit. None of that is relevant here.

Only question is - Should city make crowding situation worse in school when school is already over crowded? Rational for increasing 110% to 120% in 2015 was to align county interest with city. That reason doesn't exist to increase it more.

Moratorium is due to some reason and it's not done due to some one randomly thinking about it.

Increasing limit will simply decrease the quality of life for citizens in Rockville. It's not a rational option.

Where people want to live is very relevant. If nobody wants to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing (around the Rockville and Twinbrook Metro stations), then there will be no effect on school enrollment. I.e., the schools won't really become more crowded. So it's fine to build.

On the other hand, if people do want to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing, then it's not really an issue of "overdevelopment". It's simply an issue that school capacity is not increasing as fast as (projected) enrollment This is precisely the issue that Mark Pierzchala wants to address, as I understand it. He thinks that this would be a way to get MCPS to increase school capacity more, and more quickly, in Rockville. Which is what everybody wants, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where people want to live is irrelevant discussion for this thread. People can chose to live wherever they want to live. Builders can build wherever they can make profit. None of that is relevant here.

Only question is - Should city make crowding situation worse in school when school is already over crowded? Rational for increasing 110% to 120% in 2015 was to align county interest with city. That reason doesn't exist to increase it more.

Moratorium is due to some reason and it's not done due to some one randomly thinking about it.

Increasing limit will simply decrease the quality of life for citizens in Rockville. It's not a rational option.

Where people want to live is very relevant. If nobody wants to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing (around the Rockville and Twinbrook Metro stations), then there will be no effect on school enrollment. I.e., the schools won't really become more crowded. So it's fine to build.

On the other hand, if people do want to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing, then it's not really an issue of "overdevelopment". It's simply an issue that school capacity is not increasing as fast as (projected) enrollment This is precisely the issue that Mark Pierzchala wants to address, as I understand it. He thinks that this would be a way to get MCPS to increase school capacity more, and more quickly, in Rockville. Which is what everybody wants, right?

Same argument was made in 2015 to relax city limit in 2015. Same argument can be made forever. It's not a sane idea to push more kids in overcrowded schools. MCPS will do everything in their own time frame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where people want to live is irrelevant discussion for this thread. People can chose to live wherever they want to live. Builders can build wherever they can make profit. None of that is relevant here.

Only question is - Should city make crowding situation worse in school when school is already over crowded? Rational for increasing 110% to 120% in 2015 was to align county interest with city. That reason doesn't exist to increase it more.

Moratorium is due to some reason and it's not done due to some one randomly thinking about it.

Increasing limit will simply decrease the quality of life for citizens in Rockville. It's not a rational option.

Where people want to live is very relevant. If nobody wants to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing (around the Rockville and Twinbrook Metro stations), then there will be no effect on school enrollment. I.e., the schools won't really become more crowded. So it's fine to build.

On the other hand, if people do want to live where the City of Rockville would like to encourage more housing, then it's not really an issue of "overdevelopment". It's simply an issue that school capacity is not increasing as fast as (projected) enrollment This is precisely the issue that Mark Pierzchala wants to address, as I understand it. He thinks that this would be a way to get MCPS to increase school capacity more, and more quickly, in Rockville. Which is what everybody wants, right?

What? No way! That makes zero sense.

Nobody with kids in MCPS wants to see their school capacity to increase. Especially in overcrowded clusters. Builders want to do this, so they can build freely and excessively. Parents do not.

[Anonymous]

People want to live in Rockville. That's a fact. Schools are overcrowded. That's also a fact.
It's a bad idea to stop people from coming to Rockville. The evident solution is to build a new school and have the builders pay for it.
Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What? No way! That makes zero sense.

Nobody with kids in MCPS wants to see their school capacity to increase. Especially in overcrowded clusters. Builders want to do this, so they can build freely and excessively. Parents do not.

"Overcrowded" = enrollment is greater than capacity. There are two ways to fix this problem:

1. Decrease enrollment
2. Increase capacity (by building onto schools or by building new schools)

Are you saying that nobody with kids in MCPS wants MCPS to build more schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People want to live in Rockville. That's a fact. Schools are overcrowded. That's also a fact.
It's a bad idea to stop people from coming to Rockville. The evident solution is to build a new school and have the builders pay for it.
Problem solved.

What that really means is: have the new residents pay for the new school. The builders pass the costs on to the new residents - or, if that's not economically feasible, the new units don't get built.

Why should the new residents pay for the new school, when their housing is contributing to only a small fraction of the students at the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want to live in Rockville. That's a fact. Schools are overcrowded. That's also a fact.
It's a bad idea to stop people from coming to Rockville. The evident solution is to build a new school and have the builders pay for it.
Problem solved.

What that really means is: have the new residents pay for the new school. The builders pass the costs on to the new residents - or, if that's not economically feasible, the new units don't get built.

Why should the new residents pay for the new school, when their housing is contributing to only a small fraction of the students at the school?

Theoretically this makes all housing costs go up, which means all buyers pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want to live in Rockville. That's a fact. Schools are overcrowded. That's also a fact.
It's a bad idea to stop people from coming to Rockville. The evident solution is to build a new school and have the builders pay for it.
Problem solved.

What that really means is: have the new residents pay for the new school. The builders pass the costs on to the new residents - or, if that's not economically feasible, the new units don't get built.

Why should the new residents pay for the new school, when their housing is contributing to only a small fraction of the students at the school?

Theoretically this makes all housing costs go up, which means all buyers pay

Why would it make all housing costs go up? Also, if so, not all buyers would pay equally. And really, the last thing we need is policies that *increase* housing costs.