Anonymous wrote:

Yes, there is definitely a building "back room" consensus among certain neighborhoods that NCC will be the park to pick. It may not be openly being expressed yet in the committee meetings , but it will be. Some reps went into this process from day one with NCC as their pre-picked site. Because as I have heard said " it is plenty big enough for a park and a school"...But is it really? I guess they would have to build on the flat parts which are the playing fields, but aren't those specifically what are in such short supply in the county?

What is the rationale for picking North Chevy Chase, over Rock Creek Hills for example? It sure would not be because you could walk there!

Well, I don't know how back room it is supposed to be, but I do know that "our community rep", and yes the quotes are very intentional, is gunning for NCC Park. I am embarrassed to have someone speak for our community and get it so wrong. Why is it ok to target one park and protect another. I guess I just believe that all parks matter, and that all communities need their parks.

You know, everyone needs to calm down here. To say that reps are "gunning" for any location is irresponsible. People from the RHLP and RCHP neiborhoods could make the same arguments, but that just adds fuel to the fire that has been smoldering for a year now. Plus, it's not fair to trash someone's reputation behind the cover of a blog. We should let this thing play out and see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, there is definitely a building "back room" consensus among certain neighborhoods that NCC will be the park to pick. It may not be openly being expressed yet in the committee meetings , but it will be. Some reps went into this process from day one with NCC as their pre-picked site. Because as I have heard said " it is plenty big enough for a park and a school"...But is it really? I guess they would have to build on the flat parts which are the playing fields, but aren't those specifically what are in such short supply in the county?

What is the rationale for picking North Chevy Chase, over Rock Creek Hills for example? It sure would not be because you could walk there!

Well, I don't know how back room it is supposed to be, but I do know that "our community rep", and yes the quotes are very intentional, is gunning for NCC Park. I am embarrassed to have someone speak for our community and get it so wrong. Why is it ok to target one park and protect another. I guess I just believe that all parks matter, and that all communities need their parks.

We shouldn't be targeting each other. NCC may have a problem because, in the first meeting, someone from that community said that the NCC community supports the placement of the school in that site.

Yes, there is definitely a building "back room" consensus among certain neighborhoods that NCC will be the park to pick. It may not be openly being expressed yet in the committee meetings , but it will be. Some reps went into this process from day one with NCC as their pre-picked site. Because as I have heard said " it is plenty big enough for a park and a school"...But is it really? I guess they would have to build on the flat parts which are the playing fields, but aren't those specifically what are in such short supply in the county?

What is the rationale for picking North Chevy Chase, over Rock Creek Hills for example? It sure would not be because you could walk there!

Well, I don't know how back room it is supposed to be, but I do know that "our community rep", and yes the quotes are very intentional, is gunning for NCC Park. I am embarrassed to have someone speak for our community and get it so wrong. Why is it ok to target one park and protect another. I guess I just believe that all parks matter, and that all communities need their parks.

What is critical now is that our communities have got to stop fracturing. If we don’t stay unified in the protection of our green space, one of us is going to take a hit.

I agree with you. No parks will be truly safe unless we are united in the protection of all parks.

I'm not from RCH but one reason I wonder about the "think vertically" mantra is how you expand at a such a site. There presumably won't be room for trailers or additions, so it seems you either have to build a school that's bigger than you might need, or run the risk of not being able to expand?

At some point, you have to stop expanding. Maybe at some point, you have to stop building. I realize that we need to build a school not just to accommodate the growing number of students but also to avoid the building moratorioum which would be anathema to developers...but then if they build more and denser housing aren't we right back to having overcrowded schools...and needing another park to build another school?

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from RCH but one reason I wonder about the "think vertically" mantra is how you expand at a such a site. There presumably won't be room for trailers or additions, so it seems you either have to build a school that's bigger than you might need, or run the risk of not being able to expand?

That's true. They really are going to have to get their planning right, which (not to be mean) is not their strong suit.

I'm not from RCH but one reason I wonder about the "think vertically" mantra is how you expand at a such a site. There presumably won't be room for trailers or additions, so it seems you either have to build a school that's bigger than you might need, or run the risk of not being able to expand?

Anonymous wrote:

I do not get the impression that there is a consensus building for NCC Park, but I could be wrong. I feel that RCH probably is on the table, more for the animosity people have for the neighborhood than for a true belief that the site makes sense. Again, my view; others may have a different impression.

Yes, there is definitely a building "back room" consensus among certain neighborhoods that NCC will be the park to pick. It may not be openly being expressed yet in the committee meetings , but it will be. Some reps went into this process from day one with NCC as their pre-picked site. Because as I have heard said " it is plenty big enough for a park and a school"...But is it really? I guess they would have to build on the flat parts which are the playing fields, but aren't those specifically what are in such short supply in the county?

What is the rationale for picking North Chevy Chase, over Rock Creek Hills for example? It sure would not be because you could walk there!

Yes, NCC might answer many prayers, but wiping out acres of trees is a little extreme. Having said that, I hasten to add that, to defend NCC, the answer isn’t to jump up and down, and scream, “Take their park!”

RCH doesn’t make sense from the other perspective. It’s just too small, and, putting aside that restriction that people are talking about, unless MCPS gets waiver to take out all those trees, it will not meet MCPS’s minimum footprint for construction. It also is well-used, having two regulation soccer fields. As for RHLP, again, notwithstanding the restriction on the site, it’s the only green space that community has. It, too, has fields and is very well used.

If MCPS isn’t going to buy land, then they’re just going to have to look further south and start thinking vertically. Many of us attended urban schools with three or four levels, and it didn’t hurt our education.

What is critical now is that our communities have got to stop fracturing. If we don’t stay unified in the protection of our green space, one of us is going to take a hit.

I do not get the impression that there is a consensus building for NCC Park, but I could be wrong. I feel that RCH probably is on the table, more for the animosity people have for the neighborhood than for a true belief that the site makes sense. Again, my view; others may have a different impression.

Yes, there is definitely a building "back room" consensus among certain neighborhoods that NCC will be the park to pick. It may not be openly being expressed yet in the committee meetings , but it will be. Some reps went into this process from day one with NCC as their pre-picked site. Because as I have heard said " it is plenty big enough for a park and a school"...But is it really? I guess they would have to build on the flat parts which are the playing fields, but aren't those specifically what are in such short supply in the county?

What is the rationale for picking North Chevy Chase, over Rock Creek Hills for example? It sure would not be because you could walk there!

Anonymous wrote:

That MCPS is trying to herd/guide folks towards certain sites and away from others (just watch the meetings in action to see what I mean).


I'm a committee member who has attended all the meetings and I don't see what you mean. Care to elaborate?

May I ask what is your take on the current process? With two meetings left do you think the committee will be able to come up with 2 sites that will withstand all the scrutiny?

How do you think it is going? And lastly, do you think there really is consensus building for using NCC park?

I have attended the public meetings as an observer. My bias is that I think the meetings lack quantitative measures that will allow a reasonable decision to be rendered. I also don't like the abbreviated review of the sites. It's not clear to me that people actually have visited the sites.

That said, I do not see an obstacle to the committee selecting two sites (at least from my observations of the public part of the meetings; non-members can't attend the private meetings). I think there are some people there who come with biases (like I do), and you can only hope that they check those biases when they render a decision. I also think there are people there who sincerely want a good result.

I do not get the impression that there is a consensus building for NCC Park, but I could be wrong. I feel that RCH probably is on the table, more for the animosity people have for the neighborhood than for a true belief that the site makes sense. Again, my view; others may have a different impression.

That MCPS is trying to herd/guide folks towards certain sites and away from others (just watch the meetings in action to see what I mean).


I'm a committee member who has attended all the meetings and I don't see what you mean. Care to elaborate?

May I ask what is your take on the current process? With two meetings left do you think the committee will be able to come up with 2 sites that will withstand all the scrutiny?

How do you think it is going? And lastly, do you think there really is consensus building for using NCC park?

The other poster (after this person’s post) makes a fair point, too. There has to be some kind of line in the sand on parks. The area is urbanizing too quickly, and parks keep being viewed as inventory for building, there won’t be any parks left. Perhaps people will have to accept that if we’re going to enjoy the benefits of development, like tax receipts, then we’re going to have to spend money for land to secure the services we need, like parks and schools.

OK, you can start flaming me now with the sarcasm that seems to be pervasive on this site.

I think you make a lot of sense. I hope folks will drop the sarcasm too. I hope you are on SSAC, then we could hope that a good compromise could be reached, as another poster mentioned with inter-agency cooperation. My impression is that is what mncppc would like. Thank you for keeping the voice of reason on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

But if Parks put an irrevocable open space condition on a site that was subject to a reclaim for school. then didn't Parks also have a hand in creating the problem? I guess I don't understand posters who insist on the one hand that a school can never be built at RCH because of what Parks did with certain funding, and on the other hand insist that Parks land can never be used for schools.

The above is refers to two different posters. I am not a rch resident while they appear to have a lot of paperwork regarding whether their park can or cannot be reclaimed, i do think that mcps does have a genuine right to reclaim, now if someone along the line did something to muddy that right then that is a separate issue.

I don't think anyone is saying that a reclaim right doesn't exist. I think they are saying that because certain funds were used to develop the park, that reclaim right cannot be exercised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that MCPS be punished (the posters will have to speak for themselves). What seems to be said, if I read the other poster correctly, is that MCPS had a hand in creating some of the problem, and so, if a park should have to be used, then MCPS should share in the burden. Is that unfair? I guess the answer is a decision for the communities involved.

But if Parks put an irrevocable open space condition on a site that was subject to a reclaim for school. then didn't Parks also have a hand in creating the problem? I guess I don't understand posters who insist on the one hand that a school can never be built at RCH because of what Parks did with certain funding, and on the other hand insist that Parks land can never be used for schools.

I think the school people would say that that park is something like a “park light” because it was never supposed to have that condition on it. But, I see what you’re pointing out, too. These posts are a little hard to follow. It seems like there are some people saying no parks, never, ever, ever. Other people saying not this park because somebody did something to make it so you can’t use it, but go over there (pick a place). Another group seems not to be talking about any specific park to avoid, but saying that the intrusion should cause the least harm possible, and they seem to fall into the Lynbrook camp. There’s still another group that seems to be like the Lynbrook group, but their reasoning is different. They think the school people shouldn’t take a whole park away from the park inventory and mow down all the trees without giving something up because the school people didn’t manage things right.

The last two groups seem to align with what that other poster said that Lynbrook represents a sacrifice by both Parks and MCPS. Parks would give up land with the least impact on green space and trees, and MCPS would use a building and land that’s sitting in its inventory. That kind of makes sense. If each organization screwed up here, one by failing to manage their properties, and the other by tying up the land somehow, then maybe this solution is like sharing the responsibility for the problem.

The other poster (after this person’s post) makes a fair point, too. There has to be some kind of line in the sand on parks. The area is urbanizing too quickly, and parks keep being viewed as inventory for building, there won’t be any parks left. Perhaps people will have to accept that if we’re going to enjoy the benefits of development, like tax receipts, then we’re going to have to spend money for land to secure the services we need, like parks and schools.

OK, you can start flaming me now with the sarcasm that seems to be pervasive on this site.

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS, the SSAC AND MNCPPC can all do better, think out of the box, and come up with a solution that is smart, economical, and spares the most loss of green space.

Really? Maybe I'm an unimaginative bureacrat-in-training, but what sort of "out of the box" solutions do you think are out there? I think there are going to be tradeoffs among "economical" and "spares green space"-- which people will value differently-- and I think you'll need to come up with something concrete, and not just a demand that a better option be presented.

That MCPS is trying to herd/guide folks towards certain sites and away from others (just watch the meetings in action to see what I mean).

I'm a committee member who has attended all the meetings and I don't see what you mean. Care to elaborate?