RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only solution is to shift TB ES outside of RM Cluster. TB community can build as much as they want if they are not making RM cluster problem worse.

I much rather kick out all of Falls Grove. Those obnoxious helicopter, nasally, always in workout gear, moms are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In our development (King Farm), the developers were required to set aside land for two schools. That land is now part of the parks within the community. MCPS is the decision-maker on when that land gets used. Probably never?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In our development (King Farm), the developers were required to set aside land for two schools. That land is now part of the parks within the community. MCPS is the decision-maker on when that land gets used. Probably never?????

Imagine the outcry if KF loses the parks...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In our development (King Farm), the developers were required to set aside land for two schools. That land is now part of the parks within the community. MCPS is the decision-maker on when that land gets used. Probably never?????

Setting aside land but still making the school budget pay for the building is not the same thing. MCPS will never have funds for schools so they won’t get built and have empty land. Many developments have that. It is a scam to appease the people buying the homes.

[Anonymous]

The Rockville Mayor and Council will discuss amending the school capacity limit for new development tomorrow. Agenda and more information is available here: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01222019-5463

[Anonymous]

Please take a few minutes tonight or tomorrow to email the council against Mark Pierzchala and his mad plan to worsen our schools. It's too important not to get involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In our development (King Farm), the developers were required to set aside land for two schools. That land is now part of the parks within the community. MCPS is the decision-maker on when that land gets used. Probably never?????

Imagine the outcry if KF loses the parks...

The ground set aside for school in a park is less then a quarter of the park area. Loose quarter of one park, gain one good school. Win win.
King Farm has Two HUMONGOUS parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

This! precisely!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In Montgomery County, too.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

I don't know about the City of Rockville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only solution is to shift TB ES outside of RM Cluster. TB community can build as much as they want if they are not making RM cluster problem worse.

I much rather kick out all of Falls Grove. Those obnoxious helicopter, nasally, always in workout gear, moms are the worst.

Wow. You aren’t wrong, but wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t the builders forking over money and/or land for more schools?

Because they don't have to! They're certainly not going to do that if the people/County Council don't require it. It eats into their profit.

Builders want to make the most money they can, as quickly as they can. End. Of. Story. They're not concerned about what happens after they've built and sold their units. That's not their concern.

NP here. Many builders and developers pay for schools if it means they can’t build otherwise. It depends on the county or districts agreements. Maybe not in Montgomery County, but it is done elsewhere - all over the country.

In our development (King Farm), the developers were required to set aside land for two schools. That land is now part of the parks within the community. MCPS is the decision-maker on when that land gets used. Probably never?????

Setting aside land but still making the school budget pay for the building is not the same thing. MCPS will never have funds for schools so they won’t get built and have empty land. Many developments have that. It is a scam to appease the people buying the homes.

The county always talks about future schools with new development. and by future they mean 10 years or never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The county always talks about future schools with new development. and by future they mean 10 years or never.

Building in Clarksburg started in 2000. Here are the new schools:

2004: Rocky Hill MS (new building in new location)
2006: Little Bennett ES
2006: Clarksburg HS
2009: William Gibbs ES
2014: Wilson Wims ES
2016: Hallie Wells MS
2019: Clarksburg Village ES #2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only solution is to shift TB ES outside of RM Cluster. TB community can build as much as they want if they are not making RM cluster problem worse.

I much rather kick out all of Falls Grove. Those obnoxious helicopter, nasally, always in workout gear, moms are the worst.

I don't live in Fallsgrove, but I always hear complain from RP parents about them. Anyway, boundaries needs to be drawn in RM cluster. There is no way we can keep building without changing boundaries.