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=Anonymous]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.

[/quote]

But if Parks put an irrevocable open space condition on a site that was subject to a reclaim for school. then didn't Parks also have a hand in creating the problem?  I guess I don't understand posters who insist on the one hand that a school can never be built at RCH because of what Parks did with certain funding, and on the other hand insist that Parks land can never be used for schools.[/quote]

I think the school people would say that that park is something like a “park light” because it was never supposed to have that condition on it.  But, I see what you’re pointing out, too.  These posts are a little hard to follow.  It seems like there are some people saying no parks, never, ever, ever.  Other people saying not this park because somebody did something to make it so you can’t use it, but go over there (pick a place).  Another group seems not to be talking about any specific park to avoid, but saying that the intrusion should cause the least harm possible, and they seem to fall into the Lynbrook camp.  There’s still another group that seems to be like the Lynbrook group, but their reasoning is different.  They think the school people shouldn’t take a whole park away from the park inventory and mow down all the trees without giving something up because the school people didn’t manage things right.

The last two groups seem to align with what that other poster said that Lynbrook represents a sacrifice by both Parks and MCPS.  Parks would give up land with the least impact on green space and trees, and MCPS would use a building and land that’s sitting in its inventory.  That kind of makes sense.  If each organization screwed up here, one by failing to manage their properties, and the other by tying up the land somehow, then maybe this solution is like sharing the responsibility for the problem.

The other poster (after this person’s post) makes a fair point, too.  There has to be some kind of line in the sand on parks.  The area is urbanizing too quickly, and parks keep being viewed as inventory for building, there won’t be any parks left.  Perhaps people will have to accept that if we’re going to enjoy the benefits of development, like tax receipts, then we’re going to have to spend money for land to secure the services we need, like parks and schools.

OK, you can start flaming me now with the sarcasm that seems to be pervasive on this site.
[/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