So you remove most of the trees from the site, and you are left with a school sitting pretty much right next to that great source of pollution, the beltway.

That issue didn't affect the site selection for Montgomery Blair.

Still, NCC is almost 1.5 times the size of RCH, flatter, and larger than the size identified by Parks for co-lactation of a school.

The only parts of NCC that are flat are the fields. The surrounding areas are ravines, and hills. Yes, the tennis courts and basketball court, are flat but all the heavily forested land surrounding them is far from flat.

I very much doubt NCC Park will be possible. It is not just about the acreage stated, it is about what portion of that acreage can be built upon. Besides taking down a lot of trees, there would have to be large scale regrading.

So you remove most of the trees from the site, and you are left with a school sitting pretty much right next to that great source of pollution, the beltway. Without trees to mitigate the heavy carbon emission from all the traffic choked beltway, the air will quality will be very poor. Not the most healthy location for kids, nor for any of the teams that currently use those fields. And the school location would be completely dependent on car/bus transportation. If you go to the park and walk around, you cannot walk through all the tree choked ravines and steep drop offs that currently surround the fields.

The site makes no sense at all. But I guess some people look at the acreage and all they see is how "big" it is.

Anonymous wrote:Hi folks, Not entirely to change the subject, but I do have a question about Site 1 and Site 2. The current SSAC is supposed to come up with 2 sites, as they did last time. If Rock Creek Hills remains site #1 (please folks, I am not saying it should be!) what would a serious contender for Site #2 be?

I read the position of the mncppc, and it remains committed to protecting parks in general, so considering that a majority of the public sites are parks, I would have to hope that they have some serious private contenders.

I have read a lot of support here for Lynnbrook site, but I am wondering if given the parks stand, North Chevy Chase Park is a real possibility? Would the thought be to keep the two playing fields in NCC Park and build where the tennis courts and basketball courts are presently, along with the tot lot and woodland? It seems that site presents some very real topographical obstacles. Or are they planning to build in the flat area where the fields are now?

This really is an interesting question.  Private land is expensive.  Still, if you look at some of the guidance regarding the conversion of parks, it states that cost is not considered an exigent circumstance warranting the conversion of a covered park (one funded for acquisition or development from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund or from the state Program Open Space funds).  

The sticky issue here (and what these school planners don't yet realize) is that DNR or Parks encumbered 13.33 acres of school land by using LWCF or POS funds to develop RCH park.  In a sense, they took school land, and now, they owe MCPS an equivalent amount of land.

I guess DNR or Parks needs to inventory the remaining parks to see if any are not encumbered by the use of LWCF or POS funds for their acquisition or development.  I suspect those would be the first to go on a list of possibilities, but they may be hard to find.  Otherwise, they will have to look to private land.  

What land?  I don't know.  MCPS properly has maintained confidentiality around the possibilities (one of the few things it has done right here), but if they had any sense (and why should they; they're spending our money, not their personal funds (sorry for my cynicism)), they would demand that DNR or Parks write them a check for the cost of this land given that they locked-up school property (RCH park).

If NCC park (or any other park) was developed with either LWCF or POS funds, it may face the same obstacles that RCH and RHLP parks face.  Likewise, the removal of trees may present a problem.  In RCH, the feasibility study says that they have to wipe out over 5 acres of forestation and drop the entire site by four feet to allow the school to be sited on the slopes.  Still,  NCC is almost 1.5 times the size of RCH, flatter, and larger than the size identified by Parks for co-lactation of a school.  Norwood has great access, is large, is relatively central compared to RHLP, RCH park, and NCC, and would mitigate concerns that MCPS is trying to create a racial or economic divide in the cluster.  Lynbrook has advantages in that MCPS owns the site; it's central; and it has bus traffic to the daycare center there.  Still, who knows how the neighbors around any of these sites feel about a school being built.

Unfortunately, we're in a tough spot because we have the schools effectively planning communities.  Maybe the process should be led over in Planning, with the schools providing input.  

Hi folks, Not entirely to change the subject, but I do have a question about Site 1 and Site 2. The current SSAC is supposed to come up with 2 sites, as they did last time. If Rock Creek Hills remains site #1 (please folks, I am not saying it should be!) what would a serious contender for Site #2 be?

I read the position of the mncppc, and it remains committed to protecting parks in general, so considering that a majority of the public sites are parks, I would have to hope that they have some serious private contenders.

I have read a lot of support here for Lynnbrook site, but I am wondering if given the parks stand, North Chevy Chase Park is a real possibility? Would the thought be to keep the two playing fields in NCC Park and build where the tennis courts and basketball courts are presently, along with the tot lot and woodland? It seems that site presents some very real topographical obstacles. Or are they planning to build in the flat area where the fields are now?

Anonymous wrote:

No post has ever been removed from http://SaveRockCreekHillsPark.org

You in fact did remove the post where you correct your own assertion that the elder care housing sits on the footprint of the additional school, and even went on to ask for people's support, even though the information you had given was inaccurate. At the time you did note the correction, and your current posts even refer to this correction (see annotated May 15th photos) but the correction is gone.

Never the less, thank you for posting the photos. Anyone can see that the original school is not where the elder care housing is today.

Dude, this is not my post, but are you high?  

Look at those pictures.  The elder care facility sits on the northern part of the site, all of the northern fields, the northern portion of the building, and on the access road.  The western building literally sits on the road; it's the one you see from the hockey rink.  Moreover, I've seen the HOC documents from that time, which include an equitable adjustment request for the removal of one of the footings of the old structure (likely the northernmost part of the building).

The key point is that the facility takes up over 1/3 the original KJH site and sits on the flat portion of the land, leaving the slopes for construction.  Those slopes were specifically identified in 2 Council Resolutns and a County Executive Order as the location on the site where building should not take place.

Besides, what's your point, that the other poster was honest and corrected the post?

Look, I get it.  You want to build on the site.  Fine.  Say that, and be done with it, but if you can't make a substantive argument to refute the all of the information here, don't resort to the coward's way out by concocting an attack on the messenger.

As the photo shows, you can't put a new school where the old school was, because there are people living there now. They are the two hundred elderly residents of the Kensington Park retirement community, built by our county's Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) with tax-exempt bonds, where much of the former Kensington Junior High School once stood. These frail elderly live in three wings, devoted to independent living, assisted living, and Alzheimer's & Dementia Care.

After the old KJH was razed, the county decided to devote the former school site to co-location of an elder housing facility with a small (two-field) soccer & neighborhood park. About one-third of the land was deeded, with no right of reclaim, to the HOC. This took from the remainder of the site – today's Rock Creek Hills Park – much of the buildable land, road access to the North, and a through North-South roadway that were part of the full former school site.

And: No content has ever been removed from http://SaveRockCreekHillsPark.org

No post has ever been removed from http://SaveRockCreekHillsPark.org

You in fact did remove the post where you correct your own assertion that the elder care housing sits on the footprint of the additional school, and even went on to ask for people's support, even though the information you had given was inaccurate. At the time you did note the correction, and your current posts even refer to this correction (see annotated May 15th photos) but the correction is gone.

Never the less, thank you for posting the photos. Anyone can see that the original school is not where the elder care housing is today.

Anonymous wrote:

The aerial photos show clearly that the Kensington Park retirement community stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High School.

Why did you remove the blog post where you actually corrected the above assertion? I suspect for much the same reason you didn't share the news that DNR has turned down your appeal regarding the restrictions of the POS funds. The facts in both cases does not support your claims.

You know, I attended the last site selection meeting, and someone said the same thing, and he appeared to be accusing the RCH representative of hiding this information.  Another guy, in the back, tried to clarify the point, but the guy running the meeting shut him down because he wasn't taking public comments (which is kind of strange because waiting til the end for comments really doesn't give the public any input).  

At the end, the guy in the back said that he was involved in the letter somehow, that the letter was one letter in a chain of correspondence, that more communication took place, and that the author of the letter has said that he would be responding on the matter. Also, no one said there was an "appeal" to DNR; so i don't know where that came from.  It sounds like this exchange was an information request.  So, even if DNR doesn't agree that LWCF funds were used on the site, or that the use of POS funds doesn't prevent the site from being reclaimed, that doesn't settle the issue.

Perhaps there is where the problem is.  MCPS was told by Commissioner Carrier of these concerns last summer.  Since then, it has done nothing to investigate its exposure on this issue.  Instead, it grabbed a letter that said what it liked, stuck it in front of the Superintendent, and said it was home free. The organization epitomizes laziness.

As other posts make clear, this issue is not going to be resolved in the site selection process.  MCPS has made its final decision.  If the BOE selects the site, and if the County Council approves the selection, the matter will wind up in court where DNR and the school will have to explain 1) why they think federal money was not used to develop the site when the only documentation that exists so far indicates that federal money was used, and 2) if state money was used, why they think a "practice" not based in statute that limits the enforcement of a conversion restriction nullifies a statute that says "Land acquired or developed" shall not be converted.

All this for the opportunity to build a school on a site that's less than 2/3 the size of the original middle school site, is missing a separate access road, cannot be constructed with adequate parking, will require the obliteration of over five acres specimen trees, will require the _entire_ site to be dropped four feet, and is opposed by the surrounding communities.  Our tax dollars at work.

Anonymous wrote:

The aerial photos show clearly that the Kensington Park retirement community stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High School.

Why did you remove the blog post where you actually corrected the above assertion? I suspect for much the same reason you didn't share the news that DNR has turned down your appeal regarding the restrictions of the POS funds. The facts in both cases does not support your claims.

Three points:

1. Aerial photos show that the Kensington Park retirement community stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High School:




2. No post has ever been removed from http://SaveRockCreekHillsPark.org

3. Regarding the November letter from Secretary Griffin: MCPS based a conclusion on one letter taken from a stream of communications between citizens and government officials. However, both the recipients and the author of the letter acknowledge that the letter was followed by other communications, that substantive issues still exist and are pending, and that the author of the letter committed to responding to the substantive issues. The core issue is that parks developed with LWCF and/or POS funds are protected by strict conversion restrictions, and arbitrary limits on enforcement of these restrictions have no basis in law.

The aerial photos show clearly that the Kensington Park retirement community stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High School.

Why did you remove the blog post where you actually corrected the above assertion? I suspect for much the same reason you didn't share the news that DNR has turned down your appeal regarding the restrictions of the POS funds. The facts in both cases does not support your claims.

Anonymous wrote:

A previous poster said that Grace Church was no longer owned by mcps, another said that it was leased. Which is it?

Grace Episcopal Church owns the property outright and has for a long time. Anyone can look this up in the state tax records.

District - 13 Account Number - 03645238

Owner Name: GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Use: EXEMPT COMMERCIAL

Premises Address Legal Description
9411 CONNECTICUT AVE LARCHMONT KNOLLS
KENSINGTON 20895-0000

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong. I live within walking distance to an MCPS school. Lots of the families who will go to the new middle school already do: the feeder elementaries are all located in residential neighborhoods. We love our schools - our kids go there, after all, and if there were an option in my neighborhood, I'd be thrilled - much better than having them sit in cross-Bethesda traffic for 45 minutes every AM and PM.

This is why l don't understand why many RCH residents, even parents of kids who would go to the new school, are so desperately opposed. PP - can you explain? You obviously think that it's self-evident. It's not, and the scorched-earth approach of Kensington is really repellant. I can't imagine that it's actually helping your case either. Certainly not with other parents (even some who live in Kensington) and probably not with the people who are ultimately going to make this decision.

Look, you can't ask me to answer for the goofiness of some of the people on this side of this issue any more than I can ask you to answer for the vicious comments of some of the people on the other side of this issue.  Yes, they act like their hair is on fire, but until you face the lying and the incompetence they have faced from the MCPS Politburo over matters directly affecting where you live, you might want to cut them a little slack (although, some are just shy of running around in leopard skin thongs and face paint, and sadly, middle-aged parenting was not designed for leopard skin thongs and face paint).

I can do no more then lay out the history of the site from a planning and local legislative perspective.  Either you agree with it, or you don't.  As for the legal issue, I think MCPS is wrong, but that issue isn't going to be fought out in the site selection committee.  They will go through the whole process on the county level, and then, wind up in court, where I think they will open the mother of all fecal storms.

Specifically, the Natural Resources people have been using a "practice" they came up with to deal with the decay of facilities (swings, toilets) for land improvements (soccer fields, trails).  There is no basis in the law for this "practice."  Putting aside the fact that their own Program Open Space Manual doesn't support their interpretation here, they're going to have to answer for why they're treating land development differently from land acquisition when the statute expressly states otherwise.  Then, someone is going to ask how many other parks were treated like this and whether the Natural Resources people are liable for them, as well.  What a mess.

You assume that people in the neighborhood hate the thought of a school.  I think they hate the thought of a school that won't work and otherwise will disrupt their neighborhood.  We're not talking about a 400 student elementary school.  We're talking about a middle school, which will carry three times the number of students and associated support.  It is noteworthy that no feasibility study option could be developed for RCH to provide the requisite parking for the school.  They couldn't make it fit.  When you consider that the one street feeding the site (MCPS says two or three streets feed the site, but look at a map; physically, it's one cusp of a street that changes names three times) has restricted parking on one side, you just can't see how this site works.

Now, if we look at the _entire_ KJH site, the analysis is different.  There is a flat portion of land where an enormous middle school could be built; where the park could be preserved; and where parking could exceed that of a normal middle school.  Unfortunately, it's where these brilliant social engineers built the elder care facility after transferring over 1/3 the land and the separate access road to the site.  Unless you're willing to toss grandma out the window, that site is unavailable. 

This whole experience is just sad.

Rock Creek Hills Park is significantly smaller than the former Kensington Junior High School site, because the Kensington Park retirement community was built on much of the footprint of the former school.

After KJH was torn down, our County decided to devote the former school site to colocation of elder housing with a small (two-field) soccer park. This took much of the buildable land, road access to the North, and a through North-South roadway.

Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the Board of Education's official evaluation criteria for potential middle school sites, and the 2011 feasibility study illuminated many site deficiencies.

The aerial photos show clearly that the Kensington Park retirement community stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High School.

I have to correct some misconceptions that are out there regarding the old Kensington Junior High. The building's site was NOT where the senior housing is today, but in fact was built on the edges of where the soccer field is today and on the slope below the soccer field. There are old photographs showing the entrances on that slope, and the old building. Yes, it would seem that the new school will be built much in the same area that the old school was in.

So it is really dishonest to continue to claim that where the old school sat, now the senior facility sits. Just google photos of Kensington Junior High, or for that matter, look at the Save Rock Creek Hills Blog and see where the author of the blog actually makes that correction on the aerial photos way back in May 2011.

RCH and Lynnbrook, in my estimation are the only two locations that mcps has a right to.

A previous poster said that Grace Church was no longer owned by mcps, another said that it was leased. Which is it?