RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, there will be a boundary study before the new high school at Crown opens.

[Anonymous]

Everyone needs to remember who votes to change current situation and remember to talk to at least 20 neighbors about how their house prices will be impacted by few leaders choosing to side with developers.

110 --> 120 --> more we are headed for a disaster in City. We need to vote these current leaders out if they allow more development.

Development is not about keep building commercial buildings. That's insane way to develop. You build infrastructure and then add housings.

Moratorium of 110% existed in 2015 for a reason. Increasing it to 120% and now allowing more on top of that is insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, there will be a boundary study before the new high school at Crown opens.

That will be 10 years later. Boundary needs to be drawn right now or simply don't build more. We are already way past any balanced situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to remember who votes to change current situation and remember to talk to at least 20 neighbors about how their house prices will be impacted by few leaders choosing to side with developers.

110 --> 120 --> more we are headed for a disaster in City. We need to vote these current leaders out if they allow more development.

Development is not about keep building commercial buildings. That's insane way to develop. You build infrastructure and then add housings.

Moratorium of 110% existed in 2015 for a reason. Increasing it to 120% and now allowing more on top of that is insanity.

Evidently the reason was to maintain the (perceived) property values of (some) property owners - specifically, those who own the single-family house they live in.

Also, commercial buildings do not generate students for schools. The whole discussion is about residential development - development of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, there will be a boundary study before the new high school at Crown opens.

That will be 10 years later. Boundary needs to be drawn right now or simply don't build more. We are already way past any balanced situation.

There is nothing simple about not building more housing. There is already a housing shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to remember who votes to change current situation and remember to talk to at least 20 neighbors about how their house prices will be impacted by few leaders choosing to side with developers.

110 --> 120 --> more we are headed for a disaster in City. We need to vote these current leaders out if they allow more development.

Development is not about keep building commercial buildings. That's insane way to develop. You build infrastructure and then add housings.

Moratorium of 110% existed in 2015 for a reason. Increasing it to 120% and now allowing more on top of that is insanity.

Evidently the reason was to maintain the (perceived) property values of (some) property owners - specifically, those who own the single-family house they live in.

Also, commercial buildings do not generate students for schools. The whole discussion is about residential development - development of housing.

No housing should be built if we can't have infrastructure to support it. That's why we have APFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to remember who votes to change current situation and remember to talk to at least 20 neighbors about how their house prices will be impacted by few leaders choosing to side with developers.

110 --> 120 --> more we are headed for a disaster in City. We need to vote these current leaders out if they allow more development.

Development is not about keep building commercial buildings. That's insane way to develop. You build infrastructure and then add housings.

Moratorium of 110% existed in 2015 for a reason. Increasing it to 120% and now allowing more on top of that is insanity.

Evidently the reason was to maintain the (perceived) property values of (some) property owners - specifically, those who own the single-family house they live in.

Also, commercial buildings do not generate students for schools. The whole discussion is about residential development - development of housing.

No housing should be built if we can't have infrastructure to support it. That's why we have APFS.

Who says we *can't*? We are getting the infrastructure to support it. Crown HS is right there in the MCPS CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to remember who votes to change current situation and remember to talk to at least 20 neighbors about how their house prices will be impacted by few leaders choosing to side with developers.

110 --> 120 --> more we are headed for a disaster in City. We need to vote these current leaders out if they allow more development.

Development is not about keep building commercial buildings. That's insane way to develop. You build infrastructure and then add housings.

Moratorium of 110% existed in 2015 for a reason. Increasing it to 120% and now allowing more on top of that is insanity.

Evidently the reason was to maintain the (perceived) property values of (some) property owners - specifically, those who own the single-family house they live in.

Also, commercial buildings do not generate students for schools. The whole discussion is about residential development - development of housing.

No housing should be built if we can't have infrastructure to support it. That's why we have APFS.

Who says we *can't*? We are getting the infrastructure to support it. Crown HS is right there in the MCPS CIP.

Crown HS is not funded in current CIP. Don't mislead anyone.

[Anonymous]

Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

[Anonymous]

Easy solution right now isn't redrawing a boundary. Just allow COSA to move out of RM boundary to any other underenrolled school (or set a target that levels enrollment across the county.) It may not be a huge change, but 50 to 100 kids less still improves things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who says we *can't*? We are getting the infrastructure to support it. Crown HS is right there in the MCPS CIP.

Crown HS is not funded in current CIP. Don't mislead anyone.

Crown IS funded - planning money starting in fiscal year 2020 (which starts in July 2019).

Unless you mean that the County Council hasn't voted on the MCPS fiscal year 2020 capital budget yet? In that case, nothing is funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

Correct... and we know they often delay year by year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who says we *can't*? We are getting the infrastructure to support it. Crown HS is right there in the MCPS CIP.

Crown HS is not funded in current CIP. Don't mislead anyone.

Crown IS funded - planning money starting in fiscal year 2020 (which starts in July 2019).

Unless you mean that the County Council hasn't voted on the MCPS fiscal year 2020 capital budget yet? In that case, nothing is funded.

Do planning money was supposed to be in current approved CIP. It was taken out. Things in CIP is funded.

Anything is not in CIP are not funded and it's just a wish list. Crown is simply a wish list at this moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

I am not the PP, but I will try to explain.

It takes minimum 8 years from planning to actually building a HS for MCPS. MCPS was supposed to have crown planning money in our current CIP approved 2 months ago, but it was taken out. Earliest planning money can be allocated in the next CIP. That means earliest we can see Crown is 9 years from now.

That's why posters are saying that Crown won't be built for the next 10 years and they are absolutely right. Anyone talking about Crown solving RMHS overcrowding in near future is either misleading intentionally or ignorant.