It does seem really wacky! Why would people even consider this to be a good option? That area is a traffic nightmare, and you can't really walk to that park from the surrounding communities, can you? I haven't been there is at least 4 years, but my recollection was that it was very remote.

This certainly makes me question whether people on the SSAC have done any research into the sites they seem to be considering.

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.

Long time Chevy Chase resident here, and I wince at the thought of NCC Park for a middle school. The only way to get to this school is via Connecticut Avenue or Jones Bridge. Both traffic nightmares. The major streets leading up to Jones Bridge, Wisconsin and Beach/Jones Mill are also traffic nightmares at rush hour. Connecticut and Jones Bridge are the only funnels for traffic to a proposed NCC middle school because several pieces of surrounding property severely limit road access options to NCC Park -- the Beltway, CCRA pool, Hughes Medical Research, the Columbia Country Club, USUHS/Navy Base, the brick-walled housing development on the SE corner of Ct./Jones Bridge, and the railway/business development on Ct. Ave. Are people involved in this process actually knowledgeable about the neighborhoods at all? I can't imagine a worse site from a traffic perspective, and the thought of having to pick up or drop off my kid there makes me nauseous. I already avoid this area from 8-10am and 3-7pm.

Anonymous wrote:Parks Director Mary Bradford said this about Rock Creek Hills Park:

Bradford said the Parks Department has long been amenable to sharing the use of sites with MCPS, but that the proposed middle school [in Rock Creek Hills Park] would leave no room for that. "This is not a matter of finding a space where it works together with the park," she said. "It would obliterate the park, and that's different from sharing the site. We want to work to find a better way."

-From "Parks Department Hasn't Given Up on Rock Creek Hills" by Damian Garde on patch.com. Read the whole thing here: http://kensington.patch.com/articles/parks-department-hasnt-given-up-on-rock-creek-hills

There you go again, fighting tooth and nail and holding your breath till you turn blue.

Parks Director Mary Bradford said this about Rock Creek Hills Park:

Bradford said the Parks Department has long been amenable to sharing the use of sites with MCPS, but that the proposed middle school [in Rock Creek Hills Park] would leave no room for that. "This is not a matter of finding a space where it works together with the park," she said. "It would obliterate the park, and that's different from sharing the site. We want to work to find a better way."

-From "Parks Department Hasn't Given Up on Rock Creek Hills" by Damian Garde on patch.com. Read the whole thing here: http://kensington.patch.com/articles/parks-department-hasnt-given-up-on-rock-creek-hills

Anonymous wrote:

The park is at the core of the RCH community, and for a number of legal and other substantive reasons, it is not available for conversion from use as a park. Those reasons have been identified by a several posters in the previous pages and are available for your review.

False. Both MCPS and the Parks department have said RCH is available for use as a middle school. I am getting really tired of the RCH blogger who seems to have taken over this forum. Enough already, we get it, you're going to fight tooth and nail and hold your breath till you turn blue if they pick RCH for the new middle school.

As you put it, "False." In http://kensington.patch.com/articles/parks-department-hasnt-given-up-on-rock-creek-hills, Parks says they will continue to stand up for RCH because co-location options don't exist. The middle school "would obliterate the park."

As for "the RCH blogger," there appear to be a number of people here from different communities standing up for parks, and they seem to be making their case. Aside from complaining about them and ridiculing them, I don't see any real responses to them that don't reduce to telling them, in effect, to stop whining and get in line. They have a right to press their respective cases and see where the chips fall. For those who don't like that people in RHLP or RCH or Lynbrook or anywhere else are objecting, they can expedite the matter by offering up their open space if they have it.

Anonymous wrote:

The park is at the core of the RCH community, and for a number of legal and other substantive reasons, it is not available for conversion from use as a park. Those reasons have been identified by a several posters in the previous pages and are available for your review.

False. Both MCPS and the Parks department have said RCH is available for use as a middle school. I am getting really tired of the RCH blogger who seems to have taken over this forum. Enough already, we get it, you're going to fight tooth and nail and hold your breath till you turn blue if they pick RCH for the new middle school.

Whoa. I was in the first two meetings, and Parks never conceded this point. In fact, the Director of Parks was quoted in the press as saying they were defending the Park.

And what's this "hold your breath till you turn blue" crap? Are you criticizing these people because they're defending their interests? Isn't that what all these other communities are doing. Isn't that why the EBCA is holding a meeting next week, to determine a position they want to assert?

Anonymous wrote:

The park is at the core of the RCH community, and for a number of legal and other substantive reasons, it is not available for conversion from use as a park. Those reasons have been identified by a several posters in the previous pages and are available for your review.

False. Both MCPS and the Parks department have said RCH is available for use as a middle school. I am getting really tired of the RCH blogger who seems to have taken over this forum. Enough already, we get it, you're going to fight tooth and nail and hold your breath till you turn blue if they pick RCH for the new middle school.

Well, I can see where you might get confused following the twists and turns of this story, but no, the Parks department has said no such thing.

As for MCPS, staff claimed that the use of federal Land and Water Conservation Funds and/or state Program Open Space funds to develop Rock Creek Hills Park does not result in any encumbrances to conversion of the site to non-park use. They based this conclusion on one letter taken from a stream of communications between citizens and government officials. However, both the recipients and the author of the letter acknowledge that the letter was followed by other communications, that substantive issues still exist and are pending, and that the author of the letter committed to responding to the substantive issues. The core issue is that parks developed with LWCF and/or POS funds are protected by strict conversion restrictions, and arbitrary limits on enforcement of these restrictions have no basis in law.

Again, the only documentation that has been produced regarding the development of Rock Creek Hills Park are official records of the State of Maryland that say that money from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was used. The claim that this is *not* the case – that *no* federal LWCF funds were used – has no evidence to support it. As citizens, we are entitled to rely upon official public records.

The park is at the core of the RCH community, and for a number of legal and other substantive reasons, it is not available for conversion from use as a park. Those reasons have been identified by a several posters in the previous pages and are available for your review.

False. Both MCPS and the Parks department have said RCH is available for use as a middle school. I am getting really tired of the RCH blogger who seems to have taken over this forum. Enough already, we get it, you're going to fight tooth and nail and hold your breath till you turn blue if they pick RCH for the new middle school.

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll try this again.

Probably because the total site barely squeaks by the bare minimum acreage that MCPS says they need, as I've stated earlier on this thread.

That was me. To which I received the following super-helpful response:

But you are obviously so wrong about. We have to think about smaller more urban and compact sites. Can we please try to maintain sanity here?

So I responded to that by saying...

I'm sane, and reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee. I question your sanity if you think that the neighbors are going to want a building on the Lynnbrook site that's higher than the three-stories-plus-basement that MCPS middle schools have been built. And no, I don't live in East Bethesda, just trying to be realistic.

See what I did there? "reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee" refers to "But you are obviously so wrong about." The higher buildings portion is in there to refute the "We have to think about smaller more urban and compact sites" yada yada unrealistic yada. The "I'm sane" should be self-explanatory.

Now, riddle me this - why can't your neighborhood use Kensington Cabin Park which is half a mile up the road?

Had you done that the first time, people would understand where your "I'm sane" was coming from.  FYI, I did not post any of those posts to which you were responding.

As to your question, what are you getting at?  The community should be happy because the Town of Kensington has a park?

The park is at the core of the RCH community, and for a number of legal and other substantive reasons, it is not available for conversion from use as a park.  Those reasons have been identified by a several posters in the previous pages and are available for your review.

In case you care, the "blah blahs" and "yada yadas" and "see what I did there's" come across as snarky and not solicitous of the views of others in furtherance of a diolag. If you're just looking for another comment at which you can spew venom, pick one from the other pages. There are plenty there to amuse you for hours.

OK, I'll try this again.

Probably because the total site barely squeaks by the bare minimum acreage that MCPS says they need, as I've stated earlier on this thread.

That was me. To which I received the following super-helpful response:

But you are obviously so wrong about. We have to think about smaller more urban and compact sites. Can we please try to maintain sanity here?

So I responded to that by saying...

I'm sane, and reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee. I question your sanity if you think that the neighbors are going to want a building on the Lynnbrook site that's higher than the three-stories-plus-basement that MCPS middle schools have been built. And no, I don't live in East Bethesda, just trying to be realistic.

See what I did there? "reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee" refers to "But you are obviously so wrong about." The higher buildings portion is in there to refute the "We have to think about smaller more urban and compact sites" yada yada unrealistic yada. The "I'm sane" should be self-explanatory.

Now, riddle me this - why can't your neighborhood use Kensington Cabin Park which is half a mile up the road?

Anonymous wrote:

I think this point just reinforces the PP's comment that no one wants to lose their park. Although, I find it interesting that MCPS was willing to take an undersized park site with a 50' - 70' drop in topology, obliterate all its trees on acres of land, and build such a building, and yet now it seems to have found a new sensitivity in connection with a site that it owns outright.

You're putting words in MCPS's mouth, RCH resident. The "new sensitivity" you describe above was in NO way MCPS's. It's mine, and it refers to an earlier comment about getting creative and building up on urban sites, blah blah blah. If you are freaking out about a school in your neighborhood (which I will never understand,) just imagine how much more you'll freak out if the school is six stories high instead of three. And I'm simply pointing out, AGAIN, that the Lynnbrook site is at the BARE minimum area recommended for a middle school, in fact it is smaller than the Rock Creek Hills site.

You started your post with, "I'm sane, and reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee." Further, if you're commenting on a prior post, it helps to include the quote.  Your post appears like a free standing comment. 

I'm not arguing to take any park at this point.  Your statement about Lynbrook being smaller than RCH is misleading. With respect gross acreage, RCH is larger, but when you analyze both sites from the standpoint of acreage available to build, as the feasibility study states, at least 5.1 acres of forest exist on the site.  Without Park and Planning's approval to remove those acres, which will include the removal of champion and specimen trees, RCH is 2 acres smaller than Lynbrook.

I think this point just reinforces the PP's comment that no one wants to lose their park. Although, I find it interesting that MCPS was willing to take an undersized park site with a 50' - 70' drop in topology, obliterate all its trees on acres of land, and build such a building, and yet now it seems to have found a new sensitivity in connection with a site that it owns outright.

You're putting words in MCPS's mouth, RCH resident. The "new sensitivity" you describe above was in NO way MCPS's. It's mine, and it refers to an earlier comment about getting creative and building up on urban sites, blah blah blah. If you are freaking out about a school in your neighborhood (which I will never understand,) just imagine how much more you'll freak out if the school is six stories high instead of three. And I'm simply pointing out, AGAIN, that the Lynnbrook site is at the BARE minimum area recommended for a middle school, in fact it is smaller than the Rock Creek Hills site.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sane, and reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee. I question your sanity if you think that the neighbors are going to want a building on the Lynnbrook site that's higher than the three-stories-plus-basement that MCPS middle schools have been built. And no, I don't live in East Bethesda, just trying to be realistic.

I think this point just reinforces the PP's comment that no one wants to lose their park. Although, I find it interesting that MCPS was willing to take an undersized park site with a 50' - 70' drop in topology, obliterate all its trees on acres of land, and build such a building, and yet now it seems to have found a new sensitivity in connection with a site that it owns outright.

I'm sane, and reporting what MCPS's chief architect told the committee. I question your sanity if you think that the neighbors are going to want a building on the Lynnbrook site that's higher than the three-stories-plus-basement that MCPS middle schools have been built. And no, I don't live in East Bethesda, just trying to be realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

We will fight for our parks. All Parks.

So what's your solution? Where would you put the middle school?

I can't answer for the poster, but based on the comments here, no one wants to give up their parks. So, I guess the answer is that our vaunted leaders will have to shift spending priorities and buy land.