Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an apartment complex that feeds into our ES and there are dozens of kids who live there. Our Focus ES does outreach there.

Highly unlikely that it’s 1.4 kids per ten units. Many families that live in the apartments are from other countries and have more than two kids.

Maybe in the past that has been true (1.4 kids per 10 units) but with changing demographics and experience some housing, that is not going to continue.

Blog post: provides actual data.
Responses on DCUM: Nuh uh, because [anecdotes].

And the 1.4 statistic is specifically about *high-rises*. These anecdotes are about mid-rises or garden apts.

There is nothing anecdotal about the incredible overcrowding in MCPS. This is selective data to try to promote development and to try to find a name for some kind of development that would qualify for lower impact fees. So they are hanging onto the idea that garden apartments will have less kids. But if you build a bunch of garden apartments and nothing else, then that is what families will eventually move into. The plain sense truth is that you can call a pig a unicorn, but the pig is still going to smell.

The post is not about school enrollment vs. school capacity. It's about who lives where. You say it's selective data - ok, so what got left out?

Also, where in Montgomery County is anybody building garden apartments, these days?

Meant to say high rises. It is wishful thinking that current data about children in high rises will be true in 10 years. It is like budgeting for a family of four with kids in ES and imagining that budget will still feed them when they are teenagers. The data may be true today, but the projected trend is clearly going to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an apartment complex that feeds into our ES and there are dozens of kids who live there. Our Focus ES does outreach there.

Highly unlikely that it’s 1.4 kids per ten units. Many families that live in the apartments are from other countries and have more than two kids.

Maybe in the past that has been true (1.4 kids per 10 units) but with changing demographics and experience some housing, that is not going to continue.

Blog post: provides actual data.
Responses on DCUM: Nuh uh, because [anecdotes].

And the 1.4 statistic is specifically about *high-rises*. These anecdotes are about mid-rises or garden apts.

There is nothing anecdotal about the incredible overcrowding in MCPS. This is selective data to try to promote development and to try to find a name for some kind of development that would qualify for lower impact fees. So they are hanging onto the idea that garden apartments will have less kids. But if you build a bunch of garden apartments and nothing else, then that is what families will eventually move into. The plain sense truth is that you can call a pig a unicorn, but the pig is still going to smell.

The post is not about school enrollment vs. school capacity. It's about who lives where. You say it's selective data - ok, so what got left out?

Also, where in Montgomery County is anybody building garden apartments, these days?

Sorry, that *high rises* will have less kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an apartment complex that feeds into our ES and there are dozens of kids who live there. Our Focus ES does outreach there.

Highly unlikely that it’s 1.4 kids per ten units. Many families that live in the apartments are from other countries and have more than two kids.

Maybe in the past that has been true (1.4 kids per 10 units) but with changing demographics and experience some housing, that is not going to continue.

Blog post: provides actual data.
Responses on DCUM: Nuh uh, because [anecdotes].

And the 1.4 statistic is specifically about *high-rises*. These anecdotes are about mid-rises or garden apts.

There is nothing anecdotal about the incredible overcrowding in MCPS. This is selective data to try to promote development and to try to find a name for some kind of development that would qualify for lower impact fees. So they are hanging onto the idea that garden apartments will have less kids. But if you build a bunch of garden apartments and nothing else, then that is what families will eventually move into. The plain sense truth is that you can call a pig a unicorn, but the pig is still going to smell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Any chance the Planning Deparmtment may be motivated by something other than the best interests of MCPS kids’?

Maybe the Planning Development blogger is getting some benefits by advocating for more development and for making it seem that MCPS is not suffering from overcrowding.

Have you read the blog posts? They are not advocating for development. They are providing data.

Providing data to advocate for more development.

The data themselves are neutral. You can use them to advocate against development, if you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an apartment complex that feeds into our ES and there are dozens of kids who live there. Our Focus ES does outreach there.

Highly unlikely that it’s 1.4 kids per ten units. Many families that live in the apartments are from other countries and have more than two kids.

Maybe in the past that has been true (1.4 kids per 10 units) but with changing demographics and experience some housing, that is not going to continue.

Blog post: provides actual data.
Responses on DCUM: Nuh uh, because [anecdotes].

And the 1.4 statistic is specifically about *high-rises*. These anecdotes are about mid-rises or garden apts.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has taken statistics knows the data can be skewed. The planning board's job is to make development happen. They're not planning for schools, and MCPS doesn't have the budget to make enough schools happen, and anyone who believes a boundary assessment that jiggles with some borders at the edges is going to solve our overcrowding is a fool.

We don't have enough green space, we don't have land for schools, and our suburbs are turning into urban cement cities. Pocket Parks don't count. There's not enough ball fields for all lacrosse, soccer, baseball, for the kids. There's not enough indoor basketball courts in the winter. Etc, etc. And all the bike lanes in the world are not going to get enough people out of cars.

What does this mean? It means our quality of life here in MC continues to go down, while developers line their pockets.

Which part of the data are you arguing with? Yes, in general, it's true that people can fiddle with numbers. But how does that apply specifically here? Are you saying that the Planning Department cooked the books on who lives where, and if so, on what basis? Are you saying that the information on Montgomery County's impact fees compared to the impact fees in neighboring jurisdictions is incorrect?

Anyone who has taken statistics knows the data can be skewed. The planning board's job is to make development happen. They're not planning for schools, and MCPS doesn't have the budget to make enough schools happen, and anyone who believes a boundary assessment that jiggles with some borders at the edges is going to solve our overcrowding is a fool.

We don't have enough green space, we don't have land for schools, and our suburbs are turning into urban cement cities. Pocket Parks don't count. There's not enough ball fields for all lacrosse, soccer, baseball, for the kids. There's not enough indoor basketball courts in the winter. Etc, etc. And all the bike lanes in the world are not going to get enough people out of cars.

What does this mean? It means our quality of life here in MC continues to go down, while developers line their pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is NO way that is true. Have you seen the hordes of kids getting on the bus near the Twinbrook Metro station where all the new apartments have been built? Or in Germantown? Not necessarily high rises in Germantown, but there are lots of kids living in apartments and condos in Montgomery County. Plus, some residency fraud thrown in there makes it tough to actually estimate how many kids really will come from a new development.

Which do you think is the more reliable source of information?

A. A dataset that matches the address of 99.1% of MCPS students to the type of housing at that address.
B. Driving by a couple of big apartment buildings when it's time for kids to get on or off the bus.

I'm going with A.

Yeah, I'm going with A too.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Any chance the Planning Deparmtment may be motivated by something other than the best interests of MCPS kids’?

Maybe the Planning Development blogger is getting some benefits by advocating for more development and for making it seem that MCPS is not suffering from overcrowding.

Have you read the blog posts? They are not advocating for development. They are providing data.

Providing data to advocate for more development.

How do they come up with the 1.4 per 10 units?

I wonder if that stat is true in NYC. Where everyone lives in an apartment?

Obviously at some point, when SFHs and townhouses become unaffordable, the more people will live in apartments with kids. The ratio will need to go up.

Anonymous wrote:A quick look at school directory tells a different story than 1.4 students out of 10 units. I am talking about Beall ES here.

Exactly. We’ve been down this road before with other sector plans. The actual school generation rates are understated to allow for more development to bring in more affordable housing and higher tax revenue. Costs to infrastructure? Oh, we’ll ignore that. This is why Nancy Floreen did not win.

Anonymous wrote:

Any chance the Planning Deparmtment may be motivated by something other than the best interests of MCPS kids’?

Maybe the Planning Development blogger is getting some benefits by advocating for more development and for making it seem that MCPS is not suffering from overcrowding.

Have you read the blog posts? They are not advocating for development. They are providing data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this some sort of developer-sponsored blog trying to lobby for lower impact assessments?

And are you taking into account not the current population but the projected population in apartment buildings over the next 10 years?

Because schools are getting really, really crowded, and suggesting that MoCo has been overestimating the impact of development on school populations is frankly hilarious!

No, it's the Planning Department's blog. The posts are written by the head of the Planning Department, who is also the chairman of the Planning Board. And he doesn't take a position on whether impact fees should be higher or lower. If you read the linked blog posts, then you would know this.

Correction: doesn’t OFFICIALLY take a position.
If you have attended planning board meetings, asked questions, applied to testify, read developers statements, tracked school growth...well, you’d know how “cooked” these books are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this some sort of developer-sponsored blog trying to lobby for lower impact assessments?

And are you taking into account not the current population but the projected population in apartment buildings over the next 10 years?

Because schools are getting really, really crowded, and suggesting that MoCo has been overestimating the impact of development on school populations is frankly hilarious!

No, it's the Planning Department's blog. The posts are written by the head of the Planning Department, who is also the chairman of the Planning Board. And he doesn't take a position on whether impact fees should be higher or lower. If you read the linked blog posts, then you would know this.

Any chance the Planning Deparmtment may be motivated by something other than the best interests of MCPS kids’?

Maybe the Planning Development blogger is getting some benefits by advocating for more development and for making it seem that MCPS is not suffering from overcrowding.