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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

CWG included students having to cut through glover park and some who live .1 mi from stoddert.

Enough nonsense. CWG had nothing to do with this map. Someone asked DCPS to put together some possible boundaries. They quickly produced the example map just for illustrative purposes. The example map was panned and they never produced another one, having learned that even a silly response to a request will be used as cannon fodder.

NO BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN REMOTELY PROPOSED. Stop claiming otherwise Lauren.

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

CWG included students having to cut through glover park and some who live .1 mi from stoddert.

Enough nonsense. CWG had nothing to do with this map. Someone asked DCPS to put together some possible boundaries. They quickly produced the example map just for illustrative purposes. The example map was panned and they never produced another one, having learned that even a silly response to a request will be used as cannon fodder.

NO BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN REMOTELY PROPOSED. Stop claiming otherwise Lauren.

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

DCPS knows the address of every one of their current students. They have mapping software, they can do things like "give me every student with distance x of this point." When talking about it, they were studious not to say where those students precisely lived. Student privacy restrictions keep them from talking about even things like how many students are on a block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But notion that Glover Park is led by progressive YIMBYs is belied by facts. Facts like October 2021 ANC3B 5-0 resolution that strongly opposed a DDOT proposal to install bicycle lanes that would have made it safer for Ward 3 residents to get to school, work, and wherever else (https://anc3b.org/wp-content/uploads/ANC3B-bike-lane-resolution-signed-11-18-21-1.pdf), an argument that they felt the need to bolster by making up things about ANC3D.

Yes, there are NIMBYs in Foxhall and the Palisades. And there are also ample people in those neighborhoods who are sick of their quality of life being adversely affected by half-truths spread by a small number of people who want nothing in their neighborhood to change ever. This thread is good evidence of that. What is your point, exactly?

Not to distract from the rest of the thread, but it's kinda interesting to think who is more 'YIMBY'. Obviously none of Ward 3 is, in an absolute sense. The best I could think of is population growth from 2010 to 2020:
ANC 3B (Glover Park) grew 12.2%
ANC 3D (Foxhall and Palisades) grew 6.9%
from https://planning.dc.gov/anc-smd-redistricting-data-maps

Reiterating this just being for fun, I'd match 3B's 37th Street (which I supported, and lost) with 3D's Dalecarlia Parkway debacle, and ongoing 'no sidewalk on or access to Chain Bridge except for residents'. Plus the obvious trump card, grocery stores added!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

DCPS knows the address of every one of their current students. They have mapping software, they can do things like "give me every student with distance x of this point." When talking about it, they were studious not to say where those students precisely lived. Student privacy restrictions keep them from talking about even things like how many students are on a block.

The important thing to remember here is that DCPS dishonestly measured the median (and mean) Stoddert/Glover Park student as only 1.2 miles from the new school. That means that many (less than 50%, say 45%?) of those Stoddert students fall within a (claimed) 1.1 mile radius for Foxhall. You see why DCPS stuck to that measurement! Their mapping software is showing them Glover Park students.

https://ibb.co/Dtjft2Y
from
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17d7ZYwYlkVre4sc4EiH3SWpU-FL5zvj_

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But notion that Glover Park is led by progressive YIMBYs is belied by facts. Facts like October 2021 ANC3B 5-0 resolution that strongly opposed a DDOT proposal to install bicycle lanes that would have made it safer for Ward 3 residents to get to school, work, and wherever else (https://anc3b.org/wp-content/uploads/ANC3B-bike-lane-resolution-signed-11-18-21-1.pdf), an argument that they felt the need to bolster by making up things about ANC3D.

Yes, there are NIMBYs in Foxhall and the Palisades. And there are also ample people in those neighborhoods who are sick of their quality of life being adversely affected by half-truths spread by a small number of people who want nothing in their neighborhood to change ever. This thread is good evidence of that. What is your point, exactly?

Not to distract from the rest of the thread, but it's kinda interesting to think who is more 'YIMBY'. Obviously none of Ward 3 is, in an absolute sense. The best I could think of is population growth from 2010 to 2020:
ANC 3B (Glover Park) grew 12.2%
ANC 3D (Foxhall and Palisades) grew 6.9%
from https://planning.dc.gov/anc-smd-redistricting-data-maps

Reiterating this just being for fun, I'd match 3B's 37th Street (which I supported, and lost) with 3D's Dalecarlia Parkway debacle, and ongoing 'no sidewalk on or access to Chain Bridge except for residents'. Plus the obvious trump card, grocery stores added!

Not to really derail the thread, but I'm as avid as bike commuter as they come and I had zero interest in supporting the proposed bike lane on Dalecarlia Pkwy. The topography is horrendous and it would have served few others than MD residents with easy access to the CCT. DDOT went after it because they thought it wouldn't invite much opposition as the road doesn't have any parking, but neglected to consider that it wasn't going to garner many supporters either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But notion that Glover Park is led by progressive YIMBYs is belied by facts. Facts like October 2021 ANC3B 5-0 resolution that strongly opposed a DDOT proposal to install bicycle lanes that would have made it safer for Ward 3 residents to get to school, work, and wherever else (https://anc3b.org/wp-content/uploads/ANC3B-bike-lane-resolution-signed-11-18-21-1.pdf), an argument that they felt the need to bolster by making up things about ANC3D.

Yes, there are NIMBYs in Foxhall and the Palisades. And there are also ample people in those neighborhoods who are sick of their quality of life being adversely affected by half-truths spread by a small number of people who want nothing in their neighborhood to change ever. This thread is good evidence of that. What is your point, exactly?

Not to distract from the rest of the thread, but it's kinda interesting to think who is more 'YIMBY'. Obviously none of Ward 3 is, in an absolute sense. The best I could think of is population growth from 2010 to 2020:
ANC 3B (Glover Park) grew 12.2%
ANC 3D (Foxhall and Palisades) grew 6.9%
from https://planning.dc.gov/anc-smd-redistricting-data-maps

Reiterating this just being for fun, I'd match 3B's 37th Street (which I supported, and lost) with 3D's Dalecarlia Parkway debacle, and ongoing 'no sidewalk on or access to Chain Bridge except for residents'. Plus the obvious trump card, grocery stores added!

Not to really derail the thread, but I'm as avid as bike commuter as they come and I had zero interest in supporting the proposed bike lane on Dalecarlia Pkwy. The topography is horrendous and it would have served few others than MD residents with easy access to the CCT. DDOT went after it because they thought it wouldn't invite much opposition as the road doesn't have any parking, but neglected to consider that it wasn't going to garner many supporters either.

The famed “avid cyclist!” Everyone who is about to oppose any bike infrastructure always prefaces their implosion with “I’m an avid cyclist.” It’s the new “I have a black friend, so…”

Dalecarlia alone made little sense. As part of a broader network extending Western Avenue, well sure an avid cyclist could understand that.

And by the way, biking up Dalecarlia ain’t hard. You don’t even need to be an “avid cyclist.” The only problem is cars whizzing by you at 65+ MPH only to jam on their brakes right before the speed camera and then revving up again for the last couple hundred meters.

[Anonymous]

A bike lane on Dalecaria would benefit only Maryland cyclists. I have no interest tin paying for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bike lane on Dalecaria would benefit only Maryland cyclists. I have no interest tin paying for them

Swing and a miss. You made your proclamations boldly, but that doesn’t give them validity.

A bike lane on Western/Dalecarlia would also benefit:

Anyone wanting to bike from Friendship Heights metro to Sibley/Johns Hopkins U.
Anyone in north Tenleytown/Frienship Heights/CCDC looking to get on the Capital Crescent Trail. (The connection to the CCT is at Norton Street, but surely any “avid cyclist” already knows that…)

[Anonymous]

Let’s get this thread back on topic. I’ll start.

Northwest D.C. ‘NIMBYs’ fight proposal over new schools
Washington Post, August 5, 2021

“You have a bunch of stay-at-home moms in Spring Valley and their poor little kids worried about two shifts in the cafeteria,” he said.

Those are the words of Robert Avery, president of the Foxhall Community Citizens Association.

Spoken to a reporter from the Washington Post.

On the record.

In August, and he’s still the president of the FCCA.

[Anonymous]

I apologize for even mentioning bike lanes in this thread, but the topic at hand is Foxhall and Stoddert.

FCCA was ages ago

[Anonymous]

I think the FCCA board and president are self appointed. I am a local and have never heard of any election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the FCCA board and president are self appointed. I am a local and have never heard of any election.

This is what makes the person braying about "No Glover Park representation on the Community Working Group" so ridiculous. So Foxhall was represented by the FCCA president. Who elected him? He clearly had no expertise to bring to the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

DCPS knows the address of every one of their current students. They have mapping software, they can do things like "give me every student with distance x of this point." When talking about it, they were studious not to say where those students precisely lived. Student privacy restrictions keep them from talking about even things like how many students are on a block.

The important thing to remember here is that DCPS dishonestly measured the median (and mean) Stoddert/Glover Park student as only 1.2 miles from the new school. That means that many (less than 50%, say 45%?) of those Stoddert students fall within a (claimed) 1.1 mile radius for Foxhall. You see why DCPS stuck to that measurement! Their mapping software is showing them Glover Park students.

https://ibb.co/Dtjft2Y
from
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17d7ZYwYlkVre4sc4EiH3SWpU-FL5zvj_

We all now know those number are BS, but the working group took them as gospel. Not sure any of the group's recommendations still hold for the elementary school. The money may be better used building a small school on that site for foxhall folks and diverting even more to dramatically increase stoddert (instead of just replacing the trailers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

DCPS knows the address of every one of their current students. They have mapping software, they can do things like "give me every student with distance x of this point." When talking about it, they were studious not to say where those students precisely lived. Student privacy restrictions keep them from talking about even things like how many students are on a block.

The important thing to remember here is that DCPS dishonestly measured the median (and mean) Stoddert/Glover Park student as only 1.2 miles from the new school. That means that many (less than 50%, say 45%?) of those Stoddert students fall within a (claimed) 1.1 mile radius for Foxhall. You see why DCPS stuck to that measurement! Their mapping software is showing them Glover Park students.

https://ibb.co/Dtjft2Y
from
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17d7ZYwYlkVre4sc4EiH3SWpU-FL5zvj_

We all now know those number are BS, but the working group took them as gospel. Not sure any of the group's recommendations still hold for the elementary school. The money may be better used building a small school on that site for foxhall folks and diverting even more to dramatically increase stoddert (instead of just replacing the trailers).

The Working Group didn't make any recommendations. I was on the Working Group. There was no voting, or polling, or even really vetting of ideas. There was an exchange of information. Any decisions that were made belong to DCPS, the DME, and the Mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

where did the # of students within 1.1 mi of the new Foxhall school come from? You need a base map for that.

DCPS knows the address of every one of their current students. They have mapping software, they can do things like "give me every student with distance x of this point." When talking about it, they were studious not to say where those students precisely lived. Student privacy restrictions keep them from talking about even things like how many students are on a block.

The important thing to remember here is that DCPS dishonestly measured the median (and mean) Stoddert/Glover Park student as only 1.2 miles from the new school. That means that many (less than 50%, say 45%?) of those Stoddert students fall within a (claimed) 1.1 mile radius for Foxhall. You see why DCPS stuck to that measurement! Their mapping software is showing them Glover Park students.

https://ibb.co/Dtjft2Y
from
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17d7ZYwYlkVre4sc4EiH3SWpU-FL5zvj_

We all now know those number are BS, but the working group took them as gospel. Not sure any of the group's recommendations still hold for the elementary school. The money may be better used building a small school on that site for foxhall folks and diverting even more to dramatically increase stoddert (instead of just replacing the trailers).

The Working Group didn't make any recommendations. I was on the Working Group. There was no voting, or polling, or even really vetting of ideas. There was an exchange of information. Any decisions that were made belong to DCPS, the DME, and the Mayor.

I don’t agree that the CWG didn’t make recommendations. I think it’s reasonable to say we did.

I agree that there was no voting, etc.

I further agree that all decisions were made by DCPS/DME/EOM.