Reply to BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version - "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]If the MCPS is allowed to take an existing park, where no concrete or buildings now exist, is to reward their poor stewardship of their own real estate inventory. [/quote]

Sorry PPs from RCH, the sanctity of the parks (or your park, as the case may be) does not trump the need for schools. To suggest that sites with parks shouldn't be considered in order to punish MCPS for its decision decades ago to close schools and/or sell properties that it did not need is just silly. Restricting the possible sites doesn't punish MCPS, it punishes our kids (or at least my kids, since I'd guess that the RCH opponents don't have young kids who would benefit from the middle school after its 2017 opening.) None of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS' planning decisions made in the 1980s - I don't know what factors went into those decisions, and neither do you. What I do know is that a new school is needed and there are a finite number of possible locations. One of them happens to sit in your neighborhood. Get over it, please. [/quote]

Thanks for suggesting the helpful phrase "[b]just silly[/b]"!

• What is [b]just silly[/b] is pretending that it's possible to put a new school where an old school was. This is not possible because two hundred people live there. Namely, the frail elderly residents of the Kensington Park retirement community, built by the Housing Opportunities Commission on much of the former school site:
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7QwScI73wFI/Thupj0PbnoI/AAAAAAAAVaQ/Ti2qQMTYzPc/s1600/SidebySide_final.gif[/img]

• What is [b]just silly[/b] is pretending that Rock Creek Hills Park is big enough to support a middle school, when none of the "final options" developed under the 2011 "feasibility study" include enough parking. And that was assuming that MCPS will be able to destroy the 5.1 acres of forest on Rock Creek Hills Park, which is not clear, as M-NCPPC review of a site Forest Conservation Plan is binding.

• What is [b]just silly[/b] is pretending that no federal funds were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park, when the only official records yet produced say not once, not twice, but [i]three times[/i] that money from the "Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund" was used:
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z5gYe3uog_Y/TnNAhr3mwvI/AAAAAAAAVsg/OKrtdBgAh08/s1600/0001pK.jpeg[/img]

Look, you want to build on the park. I get it. But the park is reduced, inadequate, and encumbered. It's reduced in size, because of the construction of the elder care facility. It's inadequate, as shown by the feasibility study. It's encumbered under the law, given official records. What's [b]just silly[/b] is thinking that attacking the character of Rock Creek Hills citizens distracts from your inability to address those specifics.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics