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]

I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that MCPS be punished (the posters will have to speak for themselves).  What seems to be said, if I read the other poster correctly, is that MCPS had a hand in creating some of the problem, and so, if a park should have to be used, then MCPS should share in the burden.  Is that unfair?  I guess the answer is a decision for the communities involved.

I disagree with the statement that none of us can make a fair assessment of MCPS’ planning decisions from the 1980s, or that we don’t know what factors went into those decisions.  We do know what factors went into those decisions because there is a written record.  Some of that record concerns the use of specific sites, and some of it speaks to MCPS’ demographic projections.  To be fair to MCPS, the economic downturn of late has prompted a migration of students into the schools from private schools, but that fact is a small component of the problem.

The real breakdown here is that MCPS, and the county, let assets go.  Communities were planned around those assets.  In some cases, there were fights when the assets were being transferred for other uses.  Now, after decades, sites have been altered, in some cases, permanently, and MCPS wants to walk back as if nothing has changed.  I can’t speak for the RCH people, but I suspect the pushback we’re seeing wouldn’t be half as bad if there weren’t that old age home on the site.

As for the sanctity of parks, some of that is emotion, but a lot of it is legal.  In the last meeting, there was a significant amount of discussion around what has to be referred to Park and Planning.  You can’t blame that on the poster.
[/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