Anonymous wrote:Believe me, not all RCH residents oppose building a school in our neighborhood. It's just a small group of loud individuals. In fact, I am done paying dues to RCHCA after they used our money to pay lawyers to fight this!

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

When KJH closed, the site was divided, and over 1/3 of it was transferred to HOC, along with the separate access road to the site.  The remainder was transferred to Parks after considerable study by Planning. That study concluded, among other things, that the site had "severe topology," and that the infrastructure in the neighborhood was not suitable for modification to sustain intense dual use development.  

In addition, at the time, 2 Council Resolutions and an Executive Order, all of which are referenced in the transfer agreement between Parks and the County, enumerated significant site use concerns surrounding compatible dual use, traffic limitations, preservation of the natural features, and where construction is to take place on the site.  

In light of the foregoing, the county arrived at the elder care facility-park scenario as the best balance. Now, however, as the community faces an addition to the balanced dual use of the site, none of these issues is being addressed.

Then, there's the development of the site.  Two regulation soccer fields were developed with specific federal and/or state funds, which carry legal restrictions on converting the land from park use.  At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.  I'm not so sure. The law in question says that land "acquired or developed" with the funds in question may not be converted from park use without going through some rigorous processes.  Given MCPS' track record, I suspect they're screwing up this issue, as well, and will be costing us more tax dollars as it fights the issue in court.

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Honestly I would not. I've already said the park in my neighborhood should be considered (although I don't agree it's the only reasonable spot for a school, and I don't appreciate people from Kensington saying it is). It would never occur to me to sue MCPS over siting a badly needed school, much less on a site that MCPS owned and allowed to be used as a park. It's not MCPS who will be costing us tax dollars to fight the issue in court-- it's the people who are trying to make a federal case out of it.

I think in the last selection process MCPS left people with the impression that they could be bullied out of selecting a specific site and unfortunately now people are making that their game plan, but don't try to justify it as being reasonable or that anyone would do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

When KJH closed, the site was divided, and over 1/3 of it was transferred to HOC, along with the separate access road to the site.  The remainder was transferred to Parks after considerable study by Planning. That study concluded, among other things, that the site had "severe topology," and that the infrastructure in the neighborhood was not suitable for modification to sustain intense dual use development.  

In addition, at the time, 2 Council Resolutions and an Executive Order, all of which are referenced in the transfer agreement between Parks and the County, enumerated significant site use concerns surrounding compatible dual use, traffic limitations, preservation of the natural features, and where construction is to take place on the site.  

In light of the foregoing, the county arrived at the elder care facility-park scenario as the best balance. Now, however, as the community faces an addition to the balanced dual use of the site, none of these issues is being addressed.

Then, there's the development of the site.  Two regulation soccer fields were developed with specific federal and/or state funds, which carry legal restrictions on converting the land from park use.  At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.  I'm not so sure. The law in question says that land "acquired or developed" with the funds in question may not be converted from park use without going through some rigorous processes.  Given MCPS' track record, I suspect they're screwing up this issue, as well, and will be costing us more tax dollars as it fights the issue in court.

Anyway, you can dump on the Kensingtonians all you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you'd have to admit that, under the same circumstances, you would be fighting just as hard as they are fighting.

Anonymous wrote:

At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.

Because the restrictions you mention are 20 years old; the park has been used as a park for that long so the restrictions can be lifted.

At the last SSAC meeting, MCPS announced that it sees no obstacle to using the site.

Anonymous wrote:Keep it coming, Kensington crowd. Still gotta wonder why you guys are so hell bent on keeping the school out of your neighborhood. Can someone please explain?

And btw, still time to find a new argument to cover your NIMBYism. Arguing that the school should be at Lynnbrook because (you think) the Parks department favors it there is like saying we should have the Solid Waste department determining the curriculum: they have a relevant interest, but not a determinative one. Parks don't pick my schools, and neither does one very insular neighborhood. And btw, word has it that the Parks department doesn't oppose RCH as the new middle school site... just the neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Bottom Line: Lynbrook makes the most sense and avoids this mess.

Well...I think you are right. And no, I do not live in Kensington, but if you want a quick resolution, then Lynnbrook is the site to go for. It already belongs to MCPS. And as far as obliterating the co-located Lynnbrook Park...Not very likely. Parks has already called it "the best case scenario".

Now THAT I did not know. I always thought that Parks was gunning for RCH because to defend it they'd have to NARC-out a sister agency (DNR) for spending funds that attached restrictions on the park. Also, if they pulled to old wink-wink on the reclaim right and ignored the law, they could let go of the park seemingly without violating their precedent of never surrendering a park.

Jeez, this is like a mystery novel with all these twists and turns. Too bad it plays out at our expense.

Anonymous wrote:Westland and Norwood aren't terribly close in location, although I guess that would be further west than the first two tries. I recall there was some issue of a historic property at Norwood that got it knocked off the list last time around, but truthfully I always figured that this location as well as Lynbrook would provoke even fiercer and more deep-pocketed opposition than the Coffield or RCH options. Those are much pricier neighborhoods than Kensington and Rosemary Hills, and presumably a very high lawyer population who'd like nothing better than to organize a pro bono challenge to any community facility in their midst. But maybe I'm wrong? Maybe RCH is an anomaly, and other fancier hoods would be happy to have a school?

My thought was that the field at Lynnbrook would remain 'a field' if MCPS built on their own adjoining 3 parcels. The 5.8-acre Lynnbrook local park was acquired by M-NCPPC in 1948, so it existed as it does today, next to a school property for several decades. A Middle School would use the field as a field- so little change in its use and apperance. It would be preserved asn an open space. I contrast this to 'constructing a school in a park' .

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me MCPS' policy is to turn schools into parks when it thinks it doesn't need them, and then look at parks when it needs to build a school. Maybe they need to do a better job of long range planning but at its core I don't see why that is such a bad approach (leaving aside the people who don't want to ever give up the park-that-was-a-school).

I'm sure I'll get flamed but, leaving traffic concerns aside, I think putting a school at NCC park would be a better use of that site.

It also seems odd to suggest that selecting Lynnbrook would mean "allowing a school to be built next to Lynnbrook park". My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.