Anonymous wrote:I agree with much of what the overutilization poster is saying, but agree that the discussion here has gone off the rails. I understand why RCF supports Option 7, I understand why it had appeal for the superintendent -- but I still think it was the wrong choice. And I think it's creating a backlash within the communities that have largely supported the unique arrangements for RHPS.

But our kids, our neighborhoods, deserve equitable treatment by the County. If the Superintendent doesn't want to bus RCF to achieve diversity, then he is going to face significantly greater opposition to busing our K-2 kids for that reason.

Maybe that's not accidental. I've heard people wondering about the prospect for reverting to neighborhood schools; NCC was just expanded and as of next year it will shrink by losing the 6th grade to the new middle school. Maybe the plan all along is to shift CCES & NCC back to K-5 as with every other Bethesda elementary school?

+1 I am shocked at some of the coments here. It's not just from the one side either.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with much of what the overutilization poster is saying, but agree that the discussion here has gone off the rails. I understand why RCF supports Option 7, I understand why it had appeal for the superintendent -- but I still think it was the wrong choice. And I think it's creating a backlash within the communities that have largely supported the unique arrangements for RHPS.

But our kids, our neighborhoods, deserve equitable treatment by the County. If the Superintendent doesn't want to bus RCF to achieve diversity, then he is going to face significantly greater opposition to busing our K-2 kids for that reason.

Maybe that's not accidental. I've heard people wondering about the prospect for reverting to neighborhood schools; NCC was just expanded and as of next year it will shrink by losing the 6th grade to the new middle school. Maybe the plan all along is to shift CCES & NCC back to K-5 as with every other Bethesda elementary school?

I'm just curious, what would be the FARMS/URM percentage at RHES if there was no bussing? I'm under the impression that the disparity would be far greater than what we are seeing with either of the two middle schools so would like to know if this is a valid comparison.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with much of what the overutilization poster is saying, but agree that the discussion here has gone off the rails. I understand why RCF supports Option 7, I understand why it had appeal for the superintendent -- but I still think it was the wrong choice. And I think it's creating a backlash within the communities that have largely supported the unique arrangements for RHPS.

But our kids, our neighborhoods, deserve equitable treatment by the County. If the Superintendent doesn't want to bus RCF to achieve diversity, then he is going to face significantly greater opposition to busing our K-2 kids for that reason.

Maybe that's not accidental. I've heard people wondering about the prospect for reverting to neighborhood schools; NCC was just expanded and as of next year it will shrink by losing the 6th grade to the new middle school. Maybe the plan all along is to shift CCES & NCC back to K-5 as with every other Bethesda elementary school?

We've heard murmurs along these lines ever since we moved into the cluster, and heard that it wasn't accidental that Rosemary Hills went from being a "Primary School" to an "Elementary School". We love RHES, but I don't think this is a bad outcome over the long haul. However, as a resident in this cluster (and in the new school's neighborhood), I am also frustrated that Option 7 is the Super's pick. It's hard to convey how tight the space/land is at the new school relative to Westland unless you come by and see it; the disparity in capacity projections is disheartening, especially given the density projections for the new Chevy Chase Lake and Lyttonsville developments.

I agree with much of what the overutilization poster is saying, but agree that the discussion here has gone off the rails. I understand why RCF supports Option 7, I understand why it had appeal for the superintendent -- but I still think it was the wrong choice. And I think it's creating a backlash within the communities that have largely supported the unique arrangements for RHPS.

But our kids, our neighborhoods, deserve equitable treatment by the County. If the Superintendent doesn't want to bus RCF to achieve diversity, then he is going to face significantly greater opposition to busing our K-2 kids for that reason.

Maybe that's not accidental. I've heard people wondering about the prospect for reverting to neighborhood schools; NCC was just expanded and as of next year it will shrink by losing the 6th grade to the new middle school. Maybe the plan all along is to shift CCES & NCC back to K-5 as with every other Bethesda elementary school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

I agree there is a sizable difference. In fact, there is a HUGE difference in busing 5 year olds several miles away from home and busing 12 year olds who can fend for themselves to the new middle. RHPS lost my 5 year old and couldn't find him for 30 minutes because they didn't know what bus he accidentally got on. Thankfully, he had the sense to stay on the bus and not get off at a random stop miles away from home in a strange neighborhood. The bus driver didn't even know he was there. And the school thought is was no big deal because nothing happened to him except that he was terrified to go school. Or what about the time 4 years ago, when a RHPS bus dropped 15 Kindergarteners and first graders off at the wrong stop and they were spotted walking down the Highway in a group looking for help. Yeah, you're right, busing little kids out of their neighborhood is no big deal as long as it is for social equity!

Very good point. Look, for this community, the debate isn't about coming to a reasonable conclusion. It's not about the overcrowding of schools being an environmental microagression. It's about shortening their commute, and they don't care what inconvenience or diminution in educational quality they cause for anyone else, let alone their kids. Look at all the postings today. They all center around this point: I don't want to commute the same way I commute now, and if that means that I stuff children from three other communities into an overcrowded facility while allowing the creation of an affluent, less diverse facility operating under capacity, that's fine. Disagree with them, and they'll insult you, but they'll never give you a cogent substantive response because they haven't any. There isn't any. I wouldn't waste my time here, but we live in MoCo, where we have no voice.

Look, overutilization poster, we can tell by your writing style and your constant quoting of your own single quote that you are the only person posting on this topic. We get it, overcrowding is your thing. But, there are lots of very reasobable positions and concerns at play here and no one position is of singular importance. Sure, transportation got a slight finger on the scale by the Superintendent, but Option 7 is a perfectly reasonable outcome. None of the 10 proposed options were crazy and all had a basis in balancing the different competing concerns. Your righteous indignation is unwarranted and your child will get a wonderful education at either school.

Thank you. Hard for them to hide with all the postings. Who cares. They lost. if they don't like going to school ith poor kids let them move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

I agree there is a sizable difference. In fact, there is a HUGE difference in busing 5 year olds several miles away from home and busing 12 year olds who can fend for themselves to the new middle. RHPS lost my 5 year old and couldn't find him for 30 minutes because they didn't know what bus he accidentally got on. Thankfully, he had the sense to stay on the bus and not get off at a random stop miles away from home in a strange neighborhood. The bus driver didn't even know he was there. And the school thought is was no big deal because nothing happened to him except that he was terrified to go school. Or what about the time 4 years ago, when a RHPS bus dropped 15 Kindergarteners and first graders off at the wrong stop and they were spotted walking down the Highway in a group looking for help. Yeah, you're right, busing little kids out of their neighborhood is no big deal as long as it is for social equity!

Very good point. Look, for this community, the debate isn't about coming to a reasonable conclusion. It's not about the overcrowding of schools being an environmental microagression. It's about shortening their commute, and they don't care what inconvenience or diminution in educational quality they cause for anyone else, let alone their kids. Look at all the postings today. They all center around this point: I don't want to commute the same way I commute now, and if that means that I stuff children from three other communities into an overcrowded facility while allowing the creation of an affluent, less diverse facility operating under capacity, that's fine. Disagree with them, and they'll insult you, but they'll never give you a cogent substantive response because they haven't any. There isn't any. I wouldn't waste my time here, but we live in MoCo, where we have no voice.

When I read the Superintendent's report, it seemed as concerned with avoiding split articulation as it was with avoiding long bus rides. I didn't read it as a one issue or one particular school focused document. Maybe this will lay the groundwork for ending split articulation at the three affected elementary schools as well. If so, that seems like a good goal. Community schools and ease for parents with multiple drop offs is, to many people, the most pressing concern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

I agree there is a sizable difference. In fact, there is a HUGE difference in busing 5 year olds several miles away from home and busing 12 year olds who can fend for themselves to the new middle. RHPS lost my 5 year old and couldn't find him for 30 minutes because they didn't know what bus he accidentally got on. Thankfully, he had the sense to stay on the bus and not get off at a random stop miles away from home in a strange neighborhood. The bus driver didn't even know he was there. And the school thought is was no big deal because nothing happened to him except that he was terrified to go school. Or what about the time 4 years ago, when a RHPS bus dropped 15 Kindergarteners and first graders off at the wrong stop and they were spotted walking down the Highway in a group looking for help. Yeah, you're right, busing little kids out of their neighborhood is no big deal as long as it is for social equity!

Very good point. Look, for this community, the debate isn't about coming to a reasonable conclusion. It's not about the overcrowding of schools being an environmental microagression. It's about shortening their commute, and they don't care what inconvenience or diminution in educational quality they cause for anyone else, let alone their kids. Look at all the postings today. They all center around this point: I don't want to commute the same way I commute now, and if that means that I stuff children from three other communities into an overcrowded facility while allowing the creation of an affluent, less diverse facility operating under capacity, that's fine. Disagree with them, and they'll insult you, but they'll never give you a cogent substantive response because they haven't any. There isn't any. I wouldn't waste my time here, but we live in MoCo, where we have no voice.

Look, overutilization poster, we can tell by your writing style and your constant quoting of your own single quote that you are the only person posting on this topic. We get it, overcrowding is your thing. But, there are lots of very reasobable positions and concerns at play here and no one position is of singular importance. Sure, transportation got a slight finger on the scale by the Superintendent, but Option 7 is a perfectly reasonable outcome. None of the 10 proposed options were crazy and all had a basis in balancing the different competing concerns. Your righteous indignation is unwarranted and your child will get a wonderful education at either school.

Wow! Hey Superintendent Jack. First recommendation out of the box is a real hit. You've managed to pit community against community. Looks like you'll fit in with MCPS just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

I agree there is a sizable difference. In fact, there is a HUGE difference in busing 5 year olds several miles away from home and busing 12 year olds who can fend for themselves to the new middle. RHPS lost my 5 year old and couldn't find him for 30 minutes because they didn't know what bus he accidentally got on. Thankfully, he had the sense to stay on the bus and not get off at a random stop miles away from home in a strange neighborhood. The bus driver didn't even know he was there. And the school thought is was no big deal because nothing happened to him except that he was terrified to go school. Or what about the time 4 years ago, when a RHPS bus dropped 15 Kindergarteners and first graders off at the wrong stop and they were spotted walking down the Highway in a group looking for help. Yeah, you're right, busing little kids out of their neighborhood is no big deal as long as it is for social equity!

Very good point. Look, for this community, the debate isn't about coming to a reasonable conclusion. It's not about the overcrowding of schools being an environmental microagression. It's about shortening their commute, and they don't care what inconvenience or diminution in educational quality they cause for anyone else, let alone their kids. Look at all the postings today. They all center around this point: I don't want to commute the same way I commute now, and if that means that I stuff children from three other communities into an overcrowded facility while allowing the creation of an affluent, less diverse facility operating under capacity, that's fine. Disagree with them, and they'll insult you, but they'll never give you a cogent substantive response because they haven't any. There isn't any. I wouldn't waste my time here, but we live in MoCo, where we have no voice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

You may want to dismiss the data on the site as "FUD from NIMBYs," but the data is from the Superintendet. Your problem is you can't confront the data honestly without arriving at an answer you don't like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

How is this a NIMBY issue. That ship sailed. See the OP discussion of capacity and development. I agree, however, that these comments about not going to RH are bogus. Still, so is the complaint from RCF going to Westland. No one argued that they're commute should be lengthened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I agree. It seems like the premise for most of the angst is that the new school will be significantly worse than Westland, but that seems to be based on FUD from the NIMBYs who didn't want the school in the first place.

Also, there's a sizeable difference between RCF saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Westland and Chevy Chase saying they'd prefer not to be bused to Rosemary Hills (although we were about as far as you can be from RHPS and the bus worked great for us).

I agree there is a sizable difference. In fact, there is a HUGE difference in busing 5 year olds several miles away from home and busing 12 year olds who can fend for themselves to the new middle. RHPS lost my 5 year old and couldn't find him for 30 minutes because they didn't know what bus he accidentally got on. Thankfully, he had the sense to stay on the bus and not get off at a random stop miles away from home in a strange neighborhood. The bus driver didn't even know he was there. And the school thought is was no big deal because nothing happened to him except that he was terrified to go school. Or what about the time 4 years ago, when a RHPS bus dropped 15 Kindergarteners and first graders off at the wrong stop and they were spotted walking down the Highway in a group looking for help. Yeah, you're right, busing little kids out of their neighborhood is no big deal as long as it is for social equity!

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

OK. Is this a drug-free forum? I think we need urine samples.

Have you seen the superintendent's recommendation? The capacity of the new school is 935. Wait...let me go find the PP's statistics from earlier today. Back in a sec.

At 13:00, an OP said the following:

"Within five years of opening, under option 1, the new school (with a capacity of 935 students) will be at 83% of capacity, and Westland (with a capacity of 1,079 students) will be at 96% of capacity. Under option 7, the new school will be at 99% of capacity, and Westland will be at 82% of capacity. The Lyttonsville and Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plans anticipate growth in enrollment at the new school, and the Downtown Bethesda Plan (if it happens) anticipates growth in enrollment at Westland.

"Notwithstanding the enrollment numbers at Westland, Option 1 allows for growth at both schools, and option 7 does not. Westland’s land footprint is twice the size of the new school’s. So, even though, under option 1, it starts with an enrollment at 96% of capacity, Westland has enough flat space to accommodate new students with additional facilities and still have a larger set of fields and other outside facilities than the new school. The new school is being built into the slopes of the old park in order to preserve the little remaining flat space for fields and parking, which is significantly less than Westland’s. Under option 7, at 99% of capacity, where will addition facilities be built at the new school to accommodate the influx of students, on the trackbaseballsoccer-overlay field? On the space between the retaining walls? It’s nice that Westland will be at 82% of capacity under option 7, but how will that solve the new school’s capacity issue?"

That seems to be the point.

I don't understand the balance of your post. Brand new doesn't equal or equitable or even comparable. I an perform computations with a brand new pencil and pad of paper, and I can perform computations with a computer. Which is better? Also, I don't get where you see these numbers righting themselves. As the OP said above, the population issues are going to get worse as all these development plans keep moving forward.

Anonymous wrote:I am confused about why one poster is obsessed with the idea that the brand new school building is the "lesser" facility. It's a brand new building full of brand new things. The argument over "utilization" is one that is hard to get all riled up about for most people. One group will get a new building and shorter commutes, but the building will be closer to capacity initially. The other group will get an older building and short commutes and be less close to capacity initially. Both groups will get less overcrowding since they currently share the same building, meaning everyone will be able to spread out by 50%.

No plan is perfect and people can be disappointed that their favorite plan isn't the front runner, but the argument that there is massive inequality between these two schools over "utilization" under Option 7 is not going to get traction with most people. Most people are fine with Option 1 and the utilization balance is similar but reversed in terms of which school is nearer capacity.

I have worked closely on issues surrounding development in our county. Who cares about a new facility? It will be an old facility overwelmed with kids in two to three years in need of portable classrooms and no grounds to build them on. Most of the major development (apartments already in the works) will run up and down the path of the Purple Line and Chevy Chase Lake. It won't be in a contained area like Westbard, it will stretch for miles at every station and the first four initial stations headed from Bethesda to Silver Spring are all in the new Middle Schools boundary. It's like four Westbard developments at every station in the new middle boundary. Chevy Chase Lake has already started. The county lazily refused to take this into consideration when drawing middle school lines. Give it 5 years, you just think people are screaming now. Wait until the new school shine has worn off and the "new" middle is just crowded and old with no room to expand. Even the RCF people will wonder what they were thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all so crazy. Both schools are going to be great and successful and majority wealthy (and white). The vast majority of the county would love to go to either one. It's stunning that people think they're somehow burdened by having something like 15% poor kids. Grow up and see how fortunate you all are.

I would pay good money to have my kids in a school with 15% poor kids.
People from less affluent areas (i.e.: not Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Potomac, etc) are so much easier to be with in so many ways...
You don't know what you're missing even.

Oy vey! Poor kids have nothing to do with it. It's the school that the poor kids are being sent to.

Reading Comprehension is your friend. Let's recap. It's not about Poor kids, it's about OVERCROWDING the new middle school as soon as the doors open which hurts both the well off and the Poor. No one wins! The new middle that doesn't have as many square feet as Westland, Westland has a bigger facility, more space, better grounds and Westland will be underutilized for decades to come at 82% capacity because some people value a shorter commute over the opportunity for a better educational experience for their kids and everyone elses. 15% Farms is not alarming, a school at 100% capacity from the moment its doors open with no room for growth IS!

I posted the comment to which you responded, and I apologize if my comment was unclear. I completely agree with you, and I was intending to convey, and obviously didn't because I was exasperated by the prior comment, that the core issue is the overcrowding of the facility. Sorry.