Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And sorry but yes, they should be building a school NOW for the Crown development. There are homes that are moved in, sold and for sale, more being built and it isn't like single couples deciding to have kids in 5yrs are the only ones moving in. Kids are already living there. By next year school year, 70% of the homes projected to be built will be lived in or sold. It takes 5yrs minimum to plan and build a school. They haven't even started planning. So what is going to happen to those surrounding schools? Over capacity, portables, awful lunch times, no room for recess. Then another round of studying for redistricting etc... It is never ending and never done right.

Very few purchasers at Crown plan to send their kids to MCPS. It's a very expensive development zoned for GBurg. One of the builders (I won't name them) came out and told me about how I can send my kid to private from there - they aren't stupid. People buying homes in the 800k to 1.2M price range aren't sending them to the GBurg cluster.

No, but people buying residences in the $500,000-$600,000 price range might, and that's the majority of the units.

The only residences in that price range are the stacked condos and, perhaps, the very narrow Pulte townhomes (with no upgrades). Practically speaking, the foregoing units are not for people with kids - in fact, the Pulte rep told me their target demographic are 20 something first time buyers who want a starter home before they have kids. If someone has kids and can only afford this price range, they are not going to buy at Crown - they can just get more space for the same price (and a better school district) in Fallsgrove.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And sorry but yes, they should be building a school NOW for the Crown development. There are homes that are moved in, sold and for sale, more being built and it isn't like single couples deciding to have kids in 5yrs are the only ones moving in. Kids are already living there. By next year school year, 70% of the homes projected to be built will be lived in or sold. It takes 5yrs minimum to plan and build a school. They haven't even started planning. So what is going to happen to those surrounding schools? Over capacity, portables, awful lunch times, no room for recess. Then another round of studying for redistricting etc... It is never ending and never done right.

Very few purchasers at Crown plan to send their kids to MCPS. It's a very expensive development zoned for GBurg. One of the builders (I won't name them) came out and told me about how I can send my kid to private from there - they aren't stupid. People buying homes in the 800k to 1.2M price range aren't sending them to the GBurg cluster.

No, but people buying residences in the $500,000-$600,000 price range might, and that's the majority of the units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And sorry but yes, they should be building a school NOW for the Crown development. There are homes that are moved in, sold and for sale, more being built and it isn't like single couples deciding to have kids in 5yrs are the only ones moving in. Kids are already living there. By next year school year, 70% of the homes projected to be built will be lived in or sold. It takes 5yrs minimum to plan and build a school. They haven't even started planning. So what is going to happen to those surrounding schools? Over capacity, portables, awful lunch times, no room for recess. Then another round of studying for redistricting etc... It is never ending and never done right.

Very few purchasers at Crown plan to send their kids to MCPS. It's a very expensive development zoned for GBurg. One of the builders (I won't name them) came out and told me about how I can send my kid to private from there - they aren't stupid. People buying homes in the 800k to 1.2M price range aren't sending them to the GBurg cluster.

Anonymous wrote:And sorry but yes, they should be building a school NOW for the Crown development. There are homes that are moved in, sold and for sale, more being built and it isn't like single couples deciding to have kids in 5yrs are the only ones moving in. Kids are already living there. By next year school year, 70% of the homes projected to be built will be lived in or sold. It takes 5yrs minimum to plan and build a school. They haven't even started planning. So what is going to happen to those surrounding schools? Over capacity, portables, awful lunch times, no room for recess. Then another round of studying for redistricting etc... It is never ending and never done right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that $26 million is a drop in the bucket for any developer in the county.

It is if they get tax breaks and if they can't build unless they help with the school.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that $26 million is a drop in the bucket for any developer in the county.

Anonymous wrote:I've spoken with Crispell's team and have studied the numbers in the CIP. They do not plan for any developments that are not FULLY approved. For instance, Crown is in the plans but Science City is not. Washingtonian North (across from Rio/Crown) is not. They build new schools and know that they will be overcapacity in 5 years when the school opens. It's craziness and is why this "plan" to build onto Dufief and Jones Lane to fix RCES isn't going to work - there will be so many more seats needed by then...

The person who suggested they build extra capacity to new bldgs because it would be much cheaper - makes sense!

To the other person who suggested that developers build the schools for MCPS - makes sense! There is so much economic development being tied up in moratorium bc of a lack of school space that a developer spending $20MM to build a school should be a drop in the bucket.

I'll be testifying to these points tomorrow at 7pm at the MCPS CIP meeting as a RCES parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 kids at RCES and it's crazy. The school has capacity of 650, had about 800 5 years ago, and shot up over 1000 kids without any development. People just really like the neighborhood and how walkable it is... and it's not only rich people here - there are plenty of rental apartments in the neighborhood as well as fancier spots (I rent a small townhouse). And, the education is good/teachers are great. The kids leave well-prepared, except...

We're nearing 400 kids overcapacity - my daughter eats at 10:45 and there is barely any space for recess with 11 portables. Most other schools in the general area are overcapacity and the 3 schools undercapacity (Dufief, Darnestown, Travilah) have less than 250 seats available between the three. Fields Road now is over 100 overcapacity, Rosemont is getting Crown and is projected to be nearly 300 overcapacity soon... ugh. They can't build additions fast enough.

Also, other MoCo schools are fantastic, but it will take 5-7 years to develop space to send our kids and there is so much new development coming that will eat up those seats before our kids can get there. There is no answer - it's like a cat chasing it's tail. This is why we've been asking for MCPS to build another new school in the general neighborhood - we can quickly use up the seats at a brand new school, and it's the only way to ensure that our kids get those spots rather than kids from newly built developments. Dufief will get an addition in 5-7 years, and will soon be overcrowded after that - Science City is coming with 6000 new homes! In the next 5 years, EVERY seat in the Gaithersburg/Rockville area will be filled and ALL schools will be overcrowded.

Plus, we like having a walkable community. Isn't that what MoCo talks about with Smart Growth? If so many people are enjoying a walkable community, MoCo will then talk about busing them across major roads? Doesn't make sense...

It is sad. I LOVE Kentlands neighborhood and when we were looking to buy it was my first choice. RC is amazing school, but I really didnt want my DC in portables for most of ES, so we bought elsewhere. Still miss the walkable community I could have had...

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 kids at RCES and it's crazy. The school has capacity of 650, had about 800 5 years ago, and shot up over 1000 kids without any development. People just really like the neighborhood and how walkable it is... and it's not only rich people here - there are plenty of rental apartments in the neighborhood as well as fancier spots (I rent a small townhouse). And, the education is good/teachers are great. The kids leave well-prepared, except...

We're nearing 400 kids overcapacity - my daughter eats at 10:45 and there is barely any space for recess with 11 portables. Most other schools in the general area are overcapacity and the 3 schools undercapacity (Dufief, Darnestown, Travilah) have less than 250 seats available between the three. Fields Road now is over 100 overcapacity, Rosemont is getting Crown and is projected to be nearly 300 overcapacity soon... ugh. They can't build additions fast enough.

Also, other MoCo schools are fantastic, but it will take 5-7 years to develop space to send our kids and there is so much new development coming that will eat up those seats before our kids can get there. There is no answer - it's like a cat chasing it's tail. This is why we've been asking for MCPS to build another new school in the general neighborhood - we can quickly use up the seats at a brand new school, and it's the only way to ensure that our kids get those spots rather than kids from newly built developments. Dufief will get an addition in 5-7 years, and will soon be overcrowded after that - Science City is coming with 6000 new homes! In the next 5 years, EVERY seat in the Gaithersburg/Rockville area will be filled and ALL schools will be overcrowded.

Plus, we like having a walkable community. Isn't that what MoCo talks about with Smart Growth? If so many people are enjoying a walkable community, MoCo will then talk about busing them across major roads? Doesn't make sense...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can build a larger building and then close off the excess capacity, as PP suggested. In DC, excess DCPS capacity is sometimes used by co-locating charters. Couldn't badly-needed childcare centers utilize excess space until the school needs more room? I see old elementary schools being used by nursery schools and daycares all the time. MCPS could take some of those schools back and have developers foot the cost of renovating them. In Bethesda, there are no large tracts of land to site a brand-new ES, although there's an old elementary school near Whitman being used as a nursery school, and another elementary school on Sangamore that is being leased by the Waldorf School. My understanding is that the Waldorf's lease was just extended for another 10 years. That lease should be on the table. There is otherwise little excess land in Bethesda for new school sites, but there is no reason why MCPS could not require developers to foot the bill for new/renovated schools or additions once new residential units hit a certain threshold. But if MCPS doesn't make any of this part of the development plan, the opportunity for cost-sharing is lost. It's not as if developers don't profit from having good schools nearby, so I don't understand MoCo's reluctance to push developers to do more, and MCPS's relative lack of interest in the entire process. Would it kill MCPS to do some advance modeling of different scenarios at some point before hundreds of new children have moved into a development, and provide some useful input into the planning process instead of being entirely reactionary?

Wilson Wims ES cost $23.6 million. You're saying that the developer should pay the full cost of that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/first-day-of-classes-brings-202nd-school-to-montgomery/2014/08/24/7d6eef96-2177-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

For what it's worth, I assume that MCPS actually is doing advance modeling of different scenarios. But that's just an assumption -- you could ask Bruce Crispell, to find out for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can build a larger building and then close off the excess capacity, as PP suggested. In DC, excess DCPS capacity is sometimes used by co-locating charters. Couldn't badly-needed childcare centers utilize excess space until the school needs more room? I see old elementary schools being used by nursery schools and daycares all the time. MCPS could take some of those schools back and have developers foot the cost of renovating them. In Bethesda, there are no large tracts of land to site a brand-new ES, although there's an old elementary school near Whitman being used as a nursery school, and another elementary school on Sangamore that is being leased by the Waldorf School. My understanding is that the Waldorf's lease was just extended for another 10 years. That lease should be on the table. There is otherwise little excess land in Bethesda for new school sites, but there is no reason why MCPS could not require developers to foot the bill for new/renovated schools or additions once new residential units hit a certain threshold. But if MCPS doesn't make any of this part of the development plan, the opportunity for cost-sharing is lost. It's not as if developers don't profit from having good schools nearby, so I don't understand MoCo's reluctance to push developers to do more, and MCPS's relative lack of interest in the entire process. Would it kill MCPS to do some advance modeling of different scenarios at some point before hundreds of new children have moved into a development, and provide some useful input into the planning process instead of being entirely reactionary?

Wilson Wims ES cost $23.6 million. You're saying that the developer should pay the full cost of that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/first-day-of-classes-brings-202nd-school-to-montgomery/2014/08/24/7d6eef96-2177-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

For what it's worth, I assume that MCPS actually is doing advance modeling of different scenarios. But that's just an assumption -- you could ask Bruce Crispell, to find out for sure.

I don't know how much developers should pay, but not zero. Also, I did ask and Bruce Crispell confirmed last night that MCPS is NOT doing advance modeling. They are really just going to wait and see what happens before they start any planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can build a larger building and then close off the excess capacity, as PP suggested. In DC, excess DCPS capacity is sometimes used by co-locating charters. Couldn't badly-needed childcare centers utilize excess space until the school needs more room? I see old elementary schools being used by nursery schools and daycares all the time. MCPS could take some of those schools back and have developers foot the cost of renovating them. In Bethesda, there are no large tracts of land to site a brand-new ES, although there's an old elementary school near Whitman being used as a nursery school, and another elementary school on Sangamore that is being leased by the Waldorf School. My understanding is that the Waldorf's lease was just extended for another 10 years. That lease should be on the table. There is otherwise little excess land in Bethesda for new school sites, but there is no reason why MCPS could not require developers to foot the bill for new/renovated schools or additions once new residential units hit a certain threshold. But if MCPS doesn't make any of this part of the development plan, the opportunity for cost-sharing is lost. It's not as if developers don't profit from having good schools nearby, so I don't understand MoCo's reluctance to push developers to do more, and MCPS's relative lack of interest in the entire process. Would it kill MCPS to do some advance modeling of different scenarios at some point before hundreds of new children have moved into a development, and provide some useful input into the planning process instead of being entirely reactionary?

Wilson Wims ES cost $23.6 million. You're saying that the developer should pay the full cost of that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/first-day-of-classes-brings-202nd-school-to-montgomery/2014/08/24/7d6eef96-2177-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

For what it's worth, I assume that MCPS actually is doing advance modeling of different scenarios. But that's just an assumption -- you could ask Bruce Crispell, to find out for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

You can build a larger building and then close off the excess capacity, as PP suggested. In DC, excess DCPS capacity is sometimes used by co-locating charters. Couldn't badly-needed childcare centers utilize excess space until the school needs more room? I see old elementary schools being used by nursery schools and daycares all the time. MCPS could take some of those schools back and have developers foot the cost of renovating them. In Bethesda, there are no large tracts of land to site a brand-new ES, although there's an old elementary school near Whitman being used as a nursery school, and another elementary school on Sangamore that is being leased by the Waldorf School. My understanding is that the Waldorf's lease was just extended for another 10 years. That lease should be on the table. There is otherwise little excess land in Bethesda for new school sites, but there is no reason why MCPS could not require developers to foot the bill for new/renovated schools or additions once new residential units hit a certain threshold. But if MCPS doesn't make any of this part of the development plan, the opportunity for cost-sharing is lost. It's not as if developers don't profit from having good schools nearby, so I don't understand MoCo's reluctance to push developers to do more, and MCPS's relative lack of interest in the entire process. Would it kill MCPS to do some advance modeling of different scenarios at some point before hundreds of new children have moved into a development, and provide some useful input into the planning process instead of being entirely reactionary?