RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My daughter attended overcrowded school and used trailers, she turned out fine. I want 150% limit. "

With such statements coming from our city leaders, it's safe to say that Rockville is changing rapidly. Any family valuing education should think hard before buying in Rockville.

Kings farm has boundary dividing in middle. One part goes to RM and other goes to Gaithersburg. I happen to buy in RM part even though I had to stretch it.. Everyone buying in RM part pays a premium. Not in too distant future this premium is going to disappear by RM part decreasing in value and matching Gaithersburg part. Entire RM cluster should lose 10-15% of property value with the direction we are headed.

He's willing to "compromise", but I'm not sure what that means.

The Rockville City Council member who had been met with a fierce backlash for a proposal to raise school capacity at Richard Montgomery High School said he’s willing to pursue a different option to avoid a freeze on residential building.

On Tuesday, Pierzchala stepped away from the idea of increasing the high school’s capacity to the exemption option, based on feedback from several community groups

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/rockville-councilman-willing-to-compromise-to-avoid-building-moratorium-maryland/

Pierzchala wants an exemption. It's not really a "compromise." Exemptions have been issued for certain developments, such as those geared to ages 55+. This "compromise" that Bethesda Beat has mentioned is basically saying, "We want to find a way to build more and put more kids at RM and WJ. We won't call it a waiver, so we'll rewrite the APFO and call it an exemption."

Of course it's a compromise. Pierzchala wants to raise the moratorium limit for everything to 150%, you want it to stay unchanged or decrease, the compromise is to exempt this specific proposal from the moratorium limit.

[Anonymous]

No, it's not a compromise. A compromise would be a Conditional Approval, where tests are done throughout the process. Not an exemption or waiver. The exemption has Pierzchala has outlined is his own version of crafting a waiver for BF Saul.

Incidentally, BC Saul is AGAINST raising the school capacity test to 150%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it's not a compromise. A compromise would be a Conditional Approval, where tests are done throughout the process. Not an exemption or waiver. The exemption has Pierzchala has outlined is his own version of crafting a waiver for BF Saul.

Incidentally, BC Saul is AGAINST raising the school capacity test to 150%.

They are both compromises.

[Anonymous]

When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

Schools are not at 120% of capacity. Richard Montgomery HS last year was at 109%.

The 120% is --

IF everything were built,
AND nothing was done to increase school capacity,
THEN enrollment would be projected to be at 120% of capacity.

(or 150%, or 110%, or whatever the ordinance sets as the moratorium.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

Schools are not at 120% of capacity. Richard Montgomery HS last year was at 109%.

The 120% is --

IF everything were built,
AND nothing was done to increase school capacity,
THEN enrollment would be projected to be at 120% of capacity.

(or 150%, or 110%, or whatever the ordinance sets as the moratorium.)

Without any new approval, RM will be easily at 130% at the end of 5 years. MCPS has consistently under projected 150-200 students.

[Anonymous]

CIP 2005 projections 5 years out.

CIP 2010 projections 5 years out

CIP 2015 projections 5 years out.

All were under projecting numbers by a wide margin. Even with moratorium , RM will be around 130%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CIP 2005 projections 5 years out.

CIP 2010 projections 5 years out

CIP 2015 projections 5 years out.

All were under projecting numbers by a wide margin. Even with moratorium , RM will be around 130%.

Then we have our great city leaders trying to make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CIP 2005 projections 5 years out.

CIP 2010 projections 5 years out

CIP 2015 projections 5 years out.

All were under projecting numbers by a wide margin. Even with moratorium , RM will be around 130%.

Then we have our great city leaders trying to make it worse.

They should discuss to change it back to 110%.

10% overcapacity was bad enough.

Raising it to 120% didn't help kids in school at all. These same leaders argues that it will help to solve RM over crowding , but it did nothing to solve it. Now same set of people are arguing to make it even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

agree.

Hardly matters now. Developers won. If you care about education then just move out of RM cluster. Priority of leaders are totally different in Rockville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When schools are at 120%, there should be no more new apartment approvals. Moratorium exist to protect schools and we should allow ordinance to to their jobs.

Allowing more building on top of already overcrowded situation is simply crazy.

Compromise talk is non-sense. Next I will ask for 250% and compromise on 135%. It will look a big compromise, lol.

Any city leader asking to lift moratorium when school is at 120% is simply not a right person to lead our city.

agree.

Hardly matters now. Developers won. If you care about education then just move out of RM cluster. Priority of leaders are totally different in Rockville.

Why not vote 3 leaders out who don't care about education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why not vote 3 leaders out who don't care about education?

You can't vote people out without voting other people in. The next Rockville general election is in November 2019. Are you planning to run as a candidate?

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/415/Voting-Elections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why not vote 3 leaders out who don't care about education?

You can't vote people out without voting other people in. The next Rockville general election is in November 2019. Are you planning to run as a candidate?

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/415/Voting-Elections

Are you saying that these 3 will be the only choices we are going to have in our next election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why not vote 3 leaders out who don't care about education?

You can't vote people out without voting other people in. The next Rockville general election is in November 2019. Are you planning to run as a candidate?

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/415/Voting-Elections

Are you saying that these 3 will be the only choices we are going to have in our next election?

Who's running against them?