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]Distributed today on my kid's school listserv

Attached is a copy of the recent opinion dismissing the challenge to Middle School # 2.

In the suit, the Plaintiffs attacked a "Transfer Agreement" by which Montgomery County conveyed land the County valued at $4 million (the "Property") to Defendant Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("M-NCPPC").  M-NCPPC agreed to reimburse the County $120,737.39 in debt associated with the Property and promised to transfer the Property back if it was later needed for a school pursuant to the so-called "reclamation clause." 
 
Plaintiffs had several theories, all of which were rejected by the Court.  The highlights: 
·         Plaintiffs failed to allege that the execution of the Transfer Agreement harmed them in any way.  While Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of a school is likely to increase their taxes, the decision by the School Board to construct a school is not the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint or "caused" by M-NCPPC's execution of the Transfer Agreement.

·         Plaintiffs alleged that they will lose a local park as a result of M-NCPPC's performance of the Transfer Agreement.  However, had the Transfer Agreement not been executed, there would be no park for Plaintiffs to lose.

·         The statute that addresses M-NCPPC's authority to acquire land from the County makes clear that M-NCPPC can reach agreements with the County regarding County property.

·         Both parties to the Transfer Agreement had the reasonable expectation that the Property would be re-conveyed to the County if needed for a school.  M-NCPPC was allowed to use the property at way below market value and would be unjustly enriched were it permitted to retain the Property as a park.

·         Declaring the reclamation clause unenforceable would be contrary to public policy by discouraging the County from allowing their land to be used temporarily by M-NCPPC as a public park until the land is needed for other County purposes, thereby depriving the public of outdoor recreational use in the interim.

·         The Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the provision of the Transfer Agreement allowing the park was lawful but the promise to transfer the Property back if needed for a school was not.

·         If the transfer was improper the correct remedy is to give the property back to the original owner, the County, not let M-NCPPC keep it.

·         No federal money was used to purchase improvements (rejecting Plaintiffs' so called "smoking gun" document).

·         MNCPPC was reasonable in arguing that open space money spent 20 years ago for ball fields etc. has a limited life and does not mean that the Property can never be used for another purpose.  "To conclude otherwise is illogical and would and lead to absurd results. . . ."

Rafe Petersen (MCPS Liaison) [/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