Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

What does that even mean? Who speaks for the community?

In this case, I would think that Janney stakeholders are pretty important, especially if part of the school grounds is to be taken for a public private partnership development.

It's not really up to the parents of the students at the school; the city owns the school land and the city owns the library land.

So Bowser and Cheh have the authority to turn over public assets for private development.

Anonymous wrote:Schools in NW cannot afford to lose any space, particularly to developments that put more kids in those schools.

Yes they could. My elementary school classes in Montgomery County were more crowded nearly 40 years ago than my kids' classes at Janney are today. We could all survive just fine with one or two more kids in each classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

What does that even mean? Who speaks for the community?

In this case, I would think that Janney stakeholders are pretty important, especially if part of the school grounds is to be taken for a public private partnership development.

It's not really up to the parents of the students at the school; the city owns the school land and the city owns the library land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

If school boundaries could be easily redrawn, the crazed push to build more ”affordable housing” in Ward 3 would not exist.

The folks pushing for increased density are in large part the same urban pioneers who bought houses in transitional neighborhoods as newlyweds and who had an oh sht moment now have now have school aged children. But they are priced out of upper NW.

I have school-aged children who go to Janney, we own a SFH in the neighborhood, and I think there should be more density in Ward 3, and specifically, more housing built as affordable housing (and properly defined affordable housing, not based on some ridiculous multiple of median income).

Aren’t they adding schools in NW?

Schools in NW cannot afford to lose any space, particularly to developments that put more kids in those schools.

Does the PTA get to dictate zoning? This should not be such a surprise if the library was built to sustain this development.

Talking to the Janney PTA would have been a good first step. She could also hold a hearing or seek comments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

What does that even mean? Who speaks for the community?

Greater Greater Washington does not speak for the AU Park-Tnenleytown community. Ward 3 Vision does not speak for the community, with their toxic associations with the Trump campaign and Russian oligarchs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

What does that even mean? Who speaks for the community?

In this case, I would think that Janney stakeholders are pretty important, especially if part of the school grounds is to be taken for a public private partnership development.

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

What does that even mean? Who speaks for the community?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Janney could give up the chicken coops for affordable housing?

You mean repurpose them? How awful.

No, give up the space from the playground. Did you read the thread?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Janney could give up the chicken coops for affordable housing?

You mean repurpose them? How awful.

Anonymous wrote:In other words, did she ask the community?

Cheh’s M.O. is not to ask the community, but rather to tell the community. Mary always thinks she knows best for us.

In other words, did she ask the community?