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]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.  [b]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.

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]

Speaking of tactics, you know what's an all-too-commonly used tactic of political rhetoric to oppose building more housing? Saying "We can't have more housing, because there isn't X." Because there isn't school capacity. Because there isn't transportation. Because there isn't sewage capacity. Because there aren't social services. Because there isn't parking. Because there's too much parking. Because there isn't enough affordable housing. Because there's too much affordable housing. Because there aren't parks. Because [any other reason you can possibly think of]. If you only support housing policy changes that also simultaneously completely solve all other potential problems forevermore, then you don't support housing policy changes, you oppose housing policy changes.

You want more school funding? Then advocate for it. [b]Right now, all you're doing is opposing housing.[/b][/quote]

Hey!  An actual reaponse with some points!  Thanks!

I agree that there should be ways to encourage development and that any of those might be used, or might have been used, to argue against it.  That's the point -- coming to a better agreement about how to approach development by including those considerations, particularly school overcrowding/funding, in the debate, resulting in housing that doesn't fall into a spiral of under-service to those most in need of services.

Your bolded, above, basically paints this as an all-or-nothing of its own, when reality is far more nuanced, especially when looking to achieve a social optimum.  For instance, we can look to adjust the current bill so that jurisdictions are required not to subject these projects to adequate public facility rules on their own, but then are required to make the consequent changes to area public facilities to [i]keep[/i] them adequate, falling back on the state, which is mandating this approach, for a bucket of funding to cover those changes.  (Putting the state's money where its mouth is.)[/quote]

The reality is that all you're doing right now is opposing housing. [/quote]

Is this bill providing housing for unhoused people? I’m all for that, without delays!  Like start building tomorrow, we need to get them off the streets.  If the aim is just to provide more housing options for people that already have somewhere to live, even if it’s not their ideal, forever-home, then ensuring that school capacity keeps pace with housing development makes sense to me. [/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