Anonymous wrote:

This. Housing policy absolutely has a direct impact on schools. Where are they putting all the affordable apartment buildings in the area? THey're certainly not putting them near the Ws.

Every development with 20 or more units has to have at least 12.5% of those units be affordable. (Keeping in mind that developments in the City of Rockville, the City of Gaithersburg, and the City of Takoma Park are subject to the planning authorities of those municipalities, not to the county planning authority.) And this summer, the county council passed a new law that says that in particularly affluent parts of the county, 15% of the units have to be affordable. So, for example, there's a preliminary plan for 59 single-family-attached houses (plus retail/office space) at the Cabin John shopping center on Tuckerman in Potomac; 8 or 9 of those are going to have to be affordable. https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/development/moco-planning-board-approves-preliminary-plan-for-cabin-john-village-development/

But that only applies to new development. Other things that would help increase the supply of affordable housing in Bethesda and Potomac: making it easier for people to add accessory apartments/dwelling units, allowing duplexes (or fourplexes, for large lots) on lots currently zoned for single-family-detached houses near infrastructure, and supporting further shopping center redevelopment.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think reality supports your argument. This area -and almost all areas in any city- have economic segregation. I can't think of any city, urban suburb or small town that has a utopia of low income and high income residents on the same block. Wealthy, successful AA and Latinos don't buy or rent houses in high crime, bad school areas either. Bethesda, NOVA and DC houses go to the highest bidder. If you have the money, you're in.

In addition areas that were historically white and MC or even lower UMC in Montgomery County have now changed to be predominantly poor. Montgomery Village and Germantown are perfect examples. 20 years ago these outer suburbs used to be filled with white federal workers, young professionals etc. Now they are filled with low income renters. Once an area starts to lose value and crime goes up the value starts dropping off even more. Instead of owners, you have renters and absentee landlords and as the price drops this is where low income residents go.

The market will always drive economic segregation - regardless of race. There is no government policy that can change this. What you can try to change is finding ways to increase the wealth of AA and Latinos. Support for minority owned businesses, college scholarships etc are more effective.

You didn't finish the sentence. This area has economic segregation as a result of government policies. It didn't just happen.

Anonymous wrote:

The white + asian population of these schools typically makes up 75% to 85%.

True for all except WJ which is still in the 60s.

Whitman, Walter Johnson and Wheaton

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that these schools are “wealthy” and “white,” not some sort of bigoted insult as another poster said. It is a fact that mcps public school kids are majority minority and a third are low-income. One of the purposes of this discussion is to voice our opinion about whether it is right and appropriate in our county to have some students so racially and socioeconmically isolated from one another. This is a democracy so we are all able to weigh in.

These school's have been segregated far too long. Hopefully, the diversity bussing will address this.

Calling schools that are 50% and 46% non-white "segregated" is a bit much. I agree there are serious issues of equity in MCPS. But these schools are not "segregated," or at least, they are not racially segregated. You may have a better argument that they are economically segregated. But that's not what "segregated" has usually meant with respect to schools.

Well, Whitman couldn’t have any fewer black students if it were actually legally segregated. So that sounds segregated.

Maybe more upper-income blacks need to buy there rather than in Shepard Park, Silver Spring, Upper Marboro, and Fort Washington. But I guess you’d rather insinuate in 2018 that there’s some conspiracy to exclude blacks.

That area is segregated because of practices like red-lining and was historically hostile to minorities.

I don't think reality supports your argument. This area -and almost all areas in any city- have economic segregation. I can't think of any city, urban suburb or small town that has a utopia of low income and high income residents on the same block. Wealthy, successful AA and Latinos don't buy or rent houses in high crime, bad school areas either. Bethesda, NOVA and DC houses go to the highest bidder. If you have the money, you're in.

In addition areas that were historically white and MC or even lower UMC in Montgomery County have now changed to be predominantly poor. Montgomery Village and Germantown are perfect examples. 20 years ago these outer suburbs used to be filled with white federal workers, young professionals etc. Now they are filled with low income renters. Once an area starts to lose value and crime goes up the value starts dropping off even more. Instead of owners, you have renters and absentee landlords and as the price drops this is where low income residents go.

The market will always drive economic segregation - regardless of race. There is no government policy that can change this. What you can try to change is finding ways to increase the wealth of AA and Latinos. Support for minority owned businesses, college scholarships etc are more effective.

Anonymous wrote:The people who own/develop the land get to decide what they want to build, based on zoning and $$. If you could make more $$ with a 15 story luxary building than garden apartments or town homes, that's what they are going to build. Capitalism, take it or leave it.

That area is segregated because of practices like red-lining and was historically hostile to minorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that these schools are “wealthy” and “white,” not some sort of bigoted insult as another poster said. It is a fact that mcps public school kids are majority minority and a third are low-income. One of the purposes of this discussion is to voice our opinion about whether it is right and appropriate in our county to have some students so racially and socioeconmically isolated from one another. This is a democracy so we are all able to weigh in.

These school's have been segregated far too long. Hopefully, the diversity bussing will address this.

Calling schools that are 50% and 46% non-white "segregated" is a bit much. I agree there are serious issues of equity in MCPS. But these schools are not "segregated," or at least, they are not racially segregated. You may have a better argument that they are economically segregated. But that's not what "segregated" has usually meant with respect to schools.

Well, Whitman couldn’t have any fewer black students if it were actually legally segregated. So that sounds segregated.

The white + asian population of these schools typically makes up 75% to 85%.

The people who own/develop the land get to decide what they want to build, based on zoning and $$. If you could make more $$ with a 15 story luxary building than garden apartments or town homes, that's what they are going to build. Capitalism, take it or leave it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the old houses being torn down and brand new houses being built in their lots, with the new houses much bigger (twice or more square-foot area compared to old houses they are replacing) and the price tag for each new house is $1.5 mil to $2.5 mil, you know who is promoting economic segregation. It is the regulatory authorities who give permit to build much larger houses in the same land area (lot), the builders who want to make money by building and selling much larger houses, and the wealthy people who buy these houses to stay away from lower income people, and finally the owners of the old houses who sell their houses to builders without even putting the house on the market to let the highest bidder buy the house (in which case a moderately higher income family will be able to buy that old house). There must be a nexus/cabal actively pursuing self interest at the expense of the rest of us.

I find Montgomery County building practices to be anything but progressive. Where I came from, the ratio of a house area to the lot area can't exceed a certain number. Unless the building permit law is changed in Montgomery County, you will continue to see economic segregation practiced unabated.

This. Housing policy absolutely has a direct impact on schools. Where are they putting all the affordable apartment buildings in the area? THey're certainly not putting them near the Ws.

Are they putting up any affordable apartment buildings? I thought they were just putting up super expensive apartment buildings and then hoping/assuming that the older buildings will become more affordable as a result. They are certainly not putting up more garden-style 3 level apartment complexes, which I understand to be the most attractive for families with children.

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the old houses being torn down and brand new houses being built in their lots, with the new houses much bigger (twice or more square-foot area compared to old houses they are replacing) and the price tag for each new house is $1.5 mil to $2.5 mil, you know who is promoting economic segregation. It is the regulatory authorities who give permit to build much larger houses in the same land area (lot), the builders who want to make money by building and selling much larger houses, and the wealthy people who buy these houses to stay away from lower income people, and finally the owners of the old houses who sell their houses to builders without even putting the house on the market to let the highest bidder buy the house (in which case a moderately higher income family will be able to buy that old house). There must be a nexus/cabal actively pursuing self interest at the expense of the rest of us.

I find Montgomery County building practices to be anything but progressive. Where I came from, the ratio of a house area to the lot area can't exceed a certain number. Unless the building permit law is changed in Montgomery County, you will continue to see economic segregation practiced unabated.

This. Housing policy absolutely has a direct impact on schools. Where are they putting all the affordable apartment buildings in the area? THey're certainly not putting them near the Ws.

If you look at the old houses being torn down and brand new houses being built in their lots, with the new houses much bigger (twice or more square-foot area compared to old houses they are replacing) and the price tag for each new house is $1.5 mil to $2.5 mil, you know who is promoting economic segregation. It is the regulatory authorities who give permit to build much larger houses in the same land area (lot), the builders who want to make money by building and selling much larger houses, and the wealthy people who buy these houses to stay away from lower income people, and finally the owners of the old houses who sell their houses to builders without even putting the house on the market to let the highest bidder buy the house (in which case a moderately higher income family will be able to buy that old house). There must be a nexus/cabal actively pursuing self interest at the expense of the rest of us.

I find Montgomery County building practices to be anything but progressive. Where I came from, the ratio of a house area to the lot area can't exceed a certain number. Unless the building permit law is changed in Montgomery County, you will continue to see economic segregation practiced unabated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that these schools are “wealthy” and “white,” not some sort of bigoted insult as another poster said. It is a fact that mcps public school kids are majority minority and a third are low-income. One of the purposes of this discussion is to voice our opinion about whether it is right and appropriate in our county to have some students so racially and socioeconmically isolated from one another. This is a democracy so we are all able to weigh in.

These school's have been segregated far too long. Hopefully, the diversity bussing will address this.

Calling schools that are 50% and 46% non-white "segregated" is a bit much. I agree there are serious issues of equity in MCPS. But these schools are not "segregated," or at least, they are not racially segregated. You may have a better argument that they are economically segregated. But that's not what "segregated" has usually meant with respect to schools.

Well, Whitman couldn’t have any fewer black students if it were actually legally segregated. So that sounds segregated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that these schools are “wealthy” and “white,” not some sort of bigoted insult as another poster said. It is a fact that mcps public school kids are majority minority and a third are low-income. One of the purposes of this discussion is to voice our opinion about whether it is right and appropriate in our county to have some students so racially and socioeconmically isolated from one another. This is a democracy so we are all able to weigh in.

These school's have been segregated far too long. Hopefully, the diversity bussing will address this.

Calling schools that are 50% and 46% non-white "segregated" is a bit much. I agree there are serious issues of equity in MCPS. But these schools are not "segregated," or at least, they are not racially segregated. You may have a better argument that they are economically segregated. But that's not what "segregated" has usually meant with respect to schools.

What do you call a high school that's 70% white in a school district that's 30% white? How about a high school that's <5% white in a school district that's 30% white?

But yes, they certainly are economically segregated.

None of them are 70% white, and only Whitman even comes close. I would call the W schools "disproportionately white" rather than segregated. I would also agree that school demographics are affected by housing segregation. I think segregation means races being separate and not mixing, which I don't think you can say is true of a school that's 54% white and 46% non-white. I suppose you could say also call them plurality-white schools or something like that. I also don't know how you properly address the role of the Asian/Asian American community in these discussions. I suppose there is an argument to be made that the white+Asian percentage of these schools should be considered in discussions of "segregation." I imagine that would change Churchill's number a fair bit and possibly others too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that these schools are “wealthy” and “white,” not some sort of bigoted insult as another poster said. It is a fact that mcps public school kids are majority minority and a third are low-income. One of the purposes of this discussion is to voice our opinion about whether it is right and appropriate in our county to have some students so racially and socioeconmically isolated from one another. This is a democracy so we are all able to weigh in.

These school's have been segregated far too long. Hopefully, the diversity bussing will address this.

Calling schools that are 50% and 46% non-white "segregated" is a bit much. I agree there are serious issues of equity in MCPS. But these schools are not "segregated," or at least, they are not racially segregated. You may have a better argument that they are economically segregated. But that's not what "segregated" has usually meant with respect to schools.

What do you call a high school that's 70% white in a school district that's 30% white? How about a high school that's <5% white in a school district that's 30% white?

But yes, they certainly are economically segregated.