Reply to Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/[/quote]

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve [u]people[/u], not tax returns or real AGI.[/quote]

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.[/quote]

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money [i]as a result of[/i] people leaving?[/quote]

DP.  Would be nice if you [i]addressed[/i] the issues raised instead of continually questioning them.  Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue.  The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land).  Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution.  In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight.  Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill.  Then pass it.[/quote]

DP. If someone keeps asserting that county revenue is decreasing because rich people are leaving, it's reasonable to ask them if they have any evidence to support their assertion. Why address an "issue" that is not actually an issue?[/quote]

Perhaps it would not be best to pay it lip service if they think there is no basis for the claim.  But better to sumply state that than to draw out an incessant back and forth with such questioning.  It distracts from more relevant conversation.

Speaking of which, what about the rest of the post -- inadeqately robust, narrowly focused legislation, more likely to burden less wealthy communities?  For the purpose of the discussion on this board, why not make certain it properly supports schools (or, at least, doesn't contribute to their deficit, especially with inequitable effect)?[/quote]
PP, good luck policing other people's posts.

What about the rest of the post? Yes, this housing bill is focused on housing. [b]If your concern is school funding, then you should advocate for a school funding bill[/b], most likely for next year because there's only one month left in this year's General Assembly session.[/quote]

Aaaannd...here we have exactly the brush-off rejoinder predicted in the prior post, without any nod to the noted ineffectuality of such an approach.

Bottom line is that this bill, as written, results in a worse and less equitable educational outcome.  Who would support that when it could be adjusted so as not to result in such?  I would posit only those overly beholden to narrowly focused housing interests.[/quote]

You're the one who says it's ineffectual. How is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? Why is it ineffectual to advocate for a school funding bill? How do you know this housing bill could be "adjusted" to also become a school funding bill? How are housing advocates "beholden" to "narrowly focused housing interests" and who even are "narrowly focused housing interests"?[/quote]

Back to the "earnest truth seeker" questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see.  Sigh.

County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point.  All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail.  Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results?  Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation.  Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance.

Amendment to the bill easily could be offered in committee or on the floor to change the "adequate public facility" exemption, for schools, specifically, if not for the whole of public facilities that help preserve equitable communities to the extent that we have them.

I'll leave the narrow housing interest definition to the considered mind of any reader.  Delving into that, which was presented hypothetically and drawn from incredulity related to who else might support such an unnecessarily damaging bill, would be yet another unneeded distraction from the above issues.[/quote]

:shock: [/quote]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1189398.page#26976987[/quote]

You: *says stuff*
Follow-up poster: *has questions about the stuff you said*
You: "Back to the [b]"earnest truth seeker"[/b] questioning to refrain from/distract from an actual approach to understanding, I see."  Sigh[/quote]

Look at the linked post.  It's an all-to-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric when faced with a difficult reality.

[b]Did the follow-up poster actially address any of the noted issues, inequity or otherwise?  No.[/b]

Instead, they just threw out a bunch of questions. Answered, but your own reply cut off the relevant remainder of the post & conversation trail.  (Now restored, I hope, for any interested.)[/quote]

Who says that they're issues? You. It's your opinion. It's [u]your[/u] opinion. It's your [u]opinion[/u].[/quote]

Sure.  Not certain why you'd expect omniscience.  But it's an opinion provided with [b]a reasonably constructed rationale and supported by the noted facts.[/b]  If you don't see these as issues, I suppose that reflects on the difference in our respective priorities.

Fix the bill so that it doesn't have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of being detrimental to schools. [i]Then[/i] enact it.[/quote]

[b]Where? When?[/b]

Accepting your premises for the sake of argument - "fix the bill" in the real world means "don't enact the bill." Result: no housing, and also no additional school funding. Lose-lose, unless your goal is to maintain the status quo.[/quote]

So, from the now-somewhat-buried chain:

[i]"County Council has underfunded vs. MCPS need for a number of decades at this point. All through that time, there have been advocacy efforts to keep capital improvements from falling behind, to no avail. Meanwhile, there routinely have been developer concessions -- impact tax abatement, suspension of the school overcrowding moratorium, etc.

The results? Permanently entrenched portables (and the consequent loss of outdoor spaces), continually deferred major maintenance and overcrowded facilities, especially in the close-in and less well off areas that would be most affected by this legislation. Those come with their own operational costs, too, some borne, in MCPS's paradigm, directly by the local schools without consequent differential funding from central, dragging down other aspects of academic performance."[/i]

That's one passage among a few supplying a rationale or fact.  You are welcome to dispute these with the same standard of opinion suggested above.  I won't claim some ex-cathedra authority.

[b]By fix the bill I mean [i]fix the bill[/i].  I don't mean kill it [i]unless we can't fix it[/i], [/b]and I think that can be done in a number of ways, only one of which is now in a somewhat separately-threaded reply, above.  Why miss the proper opportunity, here?[/quote]

I will take your word that this is what you mean, but what you want is not a choice, in reality. The choices are:

1. pass the bill now, don't advocate for school funding later
2. pass the bill now, do advocate for school funding later
3. don't pass the bill[/quote]

4. Amend the bill so that it addresses the points made and properly supports school needs/doesn't create a related deficit (among, perhaps, other public services).

I choose 4.[/quote]

4 is not a choice that exists in reality. A choice for "4" is actually a choice for 3: don't pass the bill.[/quote]

You’re a very closed minded person if that’s what you really think.  Or a developer that doesn’t want Any Delays.[/quote]

Third option is that PP does not understand the legislative process very well.  The Moore housing package was introduced fully expecting it to be significantly amended before being passed.[/quote]

Amended, yes. Significantly amended [i]with additional funding for schools[/i]????[/quote]

PP here, and no not specifically.  Recall that it is a state-wide bill.

My prediction is that the language that exempts certain developments from being blocked based on "adequate public facilities" will be amended to say something like "adequate public facilities, not to include local policies pertaining to school capacity."  [/quote]

I think that’s right. Another predication: [b]Very little will get built under the bill as currently framed[/b], so market rate developers will come back and ask for the affordability requirements to be lowered and for subsidies from the state or counties. [/quote]

In that case, the people carrying on against this bill have nothing to worry about.[/quote]

No. They’re still right. It’s better to get the bill right the first time and make sure school construction is taken care of. [/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