Reply to If MoCo need housing, why keep agricultural reserve?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "If MoCo need housing, why keep agricultural reserve?"

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]Considering the county has a hard time finding new space for schools, I think the Ag reserve and other green spaces should be on the table for new school construction.  MoCo cant on one hand keep green lighting housing projects then claim there is no land to build new school to absorb the new students.  They need to find a way to make it happen and it might involve some hard choices.[/quote]

Hard disagree. Our agricultural lands should be protected forever. You build a school then you have a parking lot. You have roads leading up to it and housing be gets built up around it. This is not a good idea.[/quote]

Other option might be to stop allowing overdevelopment in close-in areas, preserving remaining parks, stopping the trading of county-owned properties there for that owned by developers farther out, requiring area infrastrucute coincident with area development (as opposed to as an afterthought), etc.[/quote]

What constitutes "overdevelopment"? Which parks aren't being preserved? Would you prefer for the development to be in far-out areas on former farmland?[/quote]

Oh, look!  It's the "earnest truth seeker" question-only poster from the MCPS forum coming to cast doubt on others' suggestions and setting up straw men without providing anything substantive for critique in return.  Funny meeting you here!

Of course I'm not advocating for mushroom developments on far-flung farmland.  I'd advocate for more responsible consideration of development in those higher-density areas, though.  You know, school capacity and such.[/quote]

We're all in favor of responsible consideration. We don't all mean the same things when we use the term "responsible consideration", though. Which is why it can be helpful to explain specifically what you mean. If that's truth-seeking, ok, seeking truth is good, though I'd settle for just some basic clarification.[/quote]

Let's see...from the posts already:

Schools (capacity, upkeep, etc.)
[b]Parks (preserve open space in built-out communities)[/b]
Public facilities (stop swapping government-owned sites away)

Not sure why you would suggest that those weren't clear enough for the purposes of a public discussion board.  Folks can contribute their own thoughts as to what responsible development might look like.[/quote]

I asked which parks had been removed, and then you fussed instead of answering. I don't think any parks have been removed.

I completely support swapping away the school bus depot that's right next to a Metro station. There should be housing there, not school bus storage.[/quote]

[b]Guess where they look to place schools in denser communities when they've given up previously government-owned sites to development and other special interests?  Parks.[/b]

Would be nice to have public service facilities next to a Metro station.  Nah!  Who am I kidding?  Nobody would want to access public services, educational or otherwise, via public transportation...[/quote]

[b]Which parks have actually become schools?[/b]

Yes, it is nice to have public service facilities near a transit station. The Silver Spring Recreation and Aquatic Center, for example. The Wheaton county HQ building, for example. The Silver Spring and Chevy Chase library branches, for example.[/quote]

Kelley Park in Gaithersburg is now Harriet R Tubman Elementary school. There is still some park left, but the majority was taken for the school.[/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