Anonymous wrote:

see Tysons for a model of what makes sense.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Wait, you're serious?

Well let's do some comparison shall we?

1. Tyson's is comprised of numerous large-scale office buildings that are actually occupied.

2. Virginia built a metro line with stations in Tysons. Large multi-story residential units are now being built around those stations. Note that the infrastructure went in before the housing projects.

3. Tyson's borders the Dulles Toll Road which logically connects a major regional airport to Washington DC. Unlike the ICC, this is a heavily used road.

4. Tyson's borders the Capital Beltway, which contains HOT lanes (Virginia side only).


Now, moving on to MoCo:

1. MoCo regularly waives transit studies aside that indicate construction significantly exceeds road capacity. Developers pay a small fee and charge ahead.

2. MoCo has completed approximately 2 "major" transit projects in 10 years - the ICC and the rebuilding of Montrose Road.

3. MoCo aspires to built a glorified street car project with a dozen stops, called the Purple Line. Like the ICC this runs an E-W connect while ignoring the N-S congestion.

4. Proposed BRT routes are a joke. The CCT looks like a spagetti bowl. It was originally supposed to be light rail that extended to Clarksburg. Now, its existence is in question. Yet dense ex-burb housing projects are surging forward.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm under no illusion that these developments aren't going forward, but we residents can't hold these developers hostage when MCPS sits on its hands. If MCPS isn't engaged, there isn't anyone at the table saying, "No, you can't add 100-200 more students to this community given the schools we have in the area unless we have (1) a new school, or (2) build additions to these X schools, so you (developer) need to factor $X into your budget to help defray the cost to the community your development will create. But no, MCPS sends Bruce Crispell to these meetings to tell residents that MCPS won't do anything until the developers are done, which means 100% of the costs are borne by the taxpayers. The developer gets its project and the profits, and isn't making the investment it should into the infrastructure that's supposed to support the development because MCPS doesn't challenge anything the developer says. After the developers are gone, we residents have to deal with the overcrowding at the schools and also have to pay to support additions -- which of course won't be built anywhere near us because school construction funds are tight state-wide and no one thinks Bethesda needs anything.

This is inaccurate.

1. What MCPS doesn't do is take future enrollment into account in its enrollment projections until the development is approved. And I think that's the right decision.

2. The developers pay impact taxes, and the money is supposed to go towards transportation and school infrastructure. If you think that the developers should pay more towards transportation and school infrastructure, then you should ask the County Council to raise the impact taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

This! It is ridiculous that they allow developers to keep building these mixed use developments all around the county without seeming to give any thought to how that will effect infrastructure.

I'm under no illusion that these developments aren't going forward, but we residents can't hold these developers hostage when MCPS sits on its hands. If MCPS isn't engaged, there isn't anyone at the table saying, "No, you can't add 100-200 more students to this community given the schools we have in the area unless we have (1) a new school, or (2) build additions to these X schools, so you (developer) need to factor $X into your budget to help defray the cost to the community your development will create. But no, MCPS sends Bruce Crispell to these meetings to tell residents that MCPS won't do anything until the developers are done, which means 100% of the costs are borne by the taxpayers. The developer gets its project and the profits, and isn't making the investment it should into the infrastructure that's supposed to support the development because MCPS doesn't challenge anything the developer says. After the developers are gone, we residents have to deal with the overcrowding at the schools and also have to pay to support additions -- which of course won't be built anywhere near us because school construction funds are tight state-wide and no one thinks Bethesda needs anything.

A development of this scale may typically include substantial community amenities as a condition of approval. Now is the time to organize and get the zoning board to require the developer to include funding for school expansion if and when it is approved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

This! It is ridiculous that they allow developers to keep building these mixed use developments all around the county without seeming to give any thought to how that will effect infrastructure.

I'm under no illusion that these developments aren't going forward, but we residents can't hold these developers hostage when MCPS sits on its hands. If MCPS isn't engaged, there isn't anyone at the table saying, "No, you can't add 100-200 more students to this community given the schools we have in the area unless we have (1) a new school, or (2) build additions to these X schools, so you (developer) need to factor $X into your budget to help defray the cost to the community your development will create. But no, MCPS sends Bruce Crispell to these meetings to tell residents that MCPS won't do anything until the developers are done, which means 100% of the costs are borne by the taxpayers. The developer gets its project and the profits, and isn't making the investment it should into the infrastructure that's supposed to support the development because MCPS doesn't challenge anything the developer says. After the developers are gone, we residents have to deal with the overcrowding at the schools and also have to pay to support additions -- which of course won't be built anywhere near us because school construction funds are tight state-wide and no one thinks Bethesda needs anything.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Very thoughtful replies, thanks.

I agree that shifting the families north of Goldsboro to Bannockburn would make geographic sense. By the same token, it seems that you could relieve the pressure on Pyle by sending children from the Wood Acres and Sumner neighborhoods to Westland, which is right next door to both. But then do they go to Whitman or to BCC for high school?

In the olden days, when I went there, that's what happened - kids in Sumner, Glen Echo Heights and Wood Acres went to Western Jr High (now Westland). Western then split between BCC and Whitman, basically along the current Whitman-BCC boundaries. I think it's easier to spread kids around the ESs, and maybe the middle schools once the new BCC school is built, but both HSs are overcrowded already so sending Sumner/WA kids to BCC doesn't solve anything.

Whitman already has plans to expand just to cover current overcapacity issues - they are already using the WAUD as a classroom and I think the day care is already projected to leave.

I am still not convinced that the development will bring hordes of children, although certainly some, and probably more than the schools can handle. There won't be $500k townhouses as one person said because that isn't economical for the developer, they will be $1m+ townhouses like the EYA ones. Of course seniors moving from their homes into condos will free up SFHs for families with kids but these neighborhoods have been around since the 50s so those transitions have already been happening for years.

I am actually not opposed to redeveloping that area - it really is ugly and not terribly functional. Other than the Giant I really don't go to any of the other shops there. Westwood2 is even worse - a waste of commercial space.

I think you have to assume that many of the units will have children, for example a single parent with a child who wants to be in a very good cluster but can't afford/doesn't want a SFH. Look in DC, for example, where McLean Gardens in NW has a lot of kids today and 15-20 years ago hardly any. I realize that developers' target demographic seems to be young professional singles/couples without kids or empty nesters, but frankly Westbard is less likely to be as attractive to this demographic as downtown Bethesda (or downtown DC). That's why I think the area will be very attractive to small families who want access to very good schools. MoCo needs to plan accordingly (or downsize the scope of the Westbard plan).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

This! It is ridiculous that they allow developers to keep building these mixed use developments all around the county without seeming to give any thought to how that will effect infrastructure.

Which mixed-use developments are being built with no thought to infrastructure? I think that plenty of thought is being given to infrastructure -- at least transportation infrastructure. It's just that people may not like the thought that is being given. Or the mixed-use development.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

This! It is ridiculous that they allow developers to keep building these mixed use developments all around the county without seeming to give any thought to how that will effect infrastructure.

MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

see Tysons for a model of what makes sense.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!




Wait, you're serious?

OP again. I suppose the answer will be what it always is: More portables!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where else do you think that the county's population growth should go, and how else do you think that the county's population should get around?

They should cluster 50 story apartment/condo complexes with no parking within a 1 block perimeter of each metro station. Any area that is not within a few blocks of a metro station should be zero or low density - about 70% SFHs, 20% TH and 5% condos. If the county wants to build more houses, build the metro stations first - see Tysons for a model of what makes sense.

50-story buildings? When people basically go to war about 20-story buildings right next to the Bethesda Metro station?

And if the county can't afford bus rapid transit -- the whole point of which is that it's cheap compared to the alternatives -- how on earth is the county going to pay for more Metro?

The idea that BRT can even come close to handling the excess capacity created by all the dense development going up in White Oak, Crown Farm, Belward Farm, Clarksburg, Germantown, Wheaton, and all the miscellaneous apartment complexes that are springing up virtually unnoticed in the far reaches of the county is a complete joke. If the county can't figure out a way to get voters to sign off on higher density development near metro stations (not just Bethesda) or on funding for more metro construction, they should stick to low density zoning and construction approvals.

A lot of irreversible damage has already been done. Trying to re-create NYC in the DC burbs is a sick farce that is doomed to fail.

Have you been to Manhattan lately? White Oak, Clarksburg, Wheaton, etc. do not look like Manhattan to me.

I agree that BRT alone won't solve the county's transportation problems. But BRT will do a lot more to solve the county's transportation problems than no BRT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where else do you think that the county's population growth should go, and how else do you think that the county's population should get around?

They should cluster 50 story apartment/condo complexes with no parking within a 1 block perimeter of each metro station. Any area that is not within a few blocks of a metro station should be zero or low density - about 70% SFHs, 20% TH and 5% condos. If the county wants to build more houses, build the metro stations first - see Tysons for a model of what makes sense.

50-story buildings? When people basically go to war about 20-story buildings right next to the Bethesda Metro station?

And if the county can't afford bus rapid transit -- the whole point of which is that it's cheap compared to the alternatives -- how on earth is the county going to pay for more Metro?

The idea that BRT can even come close to handling the excess capacity created by all the dense development going up in White Oak, Crown Farm, Belward Farm, Clarksburg, Germantown, Wheaton, and all the miscellaneous apartment complexes that are springing up virtually unnoticed in the far reaches of the county is a complete joke. If the county can't figure out a way to get voters to sign off on higher density development near metro stations (not just Bethesda) or on funding for more metro construction, they should stick to low density zoning and construction approvals.

A lot of irreversible damage has already been done. Trying to re-create NYC in the DC burbs is a sick farce that is doomed to fail.

Anonymous wrote:

If MCPS were engaged, it could work with the planners and determine that IF THE PLANS COME TO FRUITION, yes, this piece of land should be set aside for a potential new school site, and if the developer is interested in currying favor with the substantial portion of the community that's upset about the lack of school infrastructure for such a development, the developer could do MCPS a solid and set up the land to be ready for a new building and maybe even come up with some building plan proposals. Or even kick in money for building the new school. Build a playground for the school. Whatever. The entire area is so overcrowded that if even only 10% of the 800 or so new units end up having children, a small 300-student school could be filled and pick up the existing overcapacity for Wood Acres and maybe have space for the inevitable growth as older residents move out and young families come in (a dynamic that anyone who lives in the area has seen on overdrive recently). But for MCPS to keep claiming that nothing at all will change (until it does), we're being set up for a real train wreck soon.

They do this elsewhere. If they're not doing it at Westbard, I don't know why.

MCPS will never build another 300 child school. They are not cost efficient. I think they just raised the size for elementaries to allow for 800 (?) kids.