Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This building in MCPS inventory is not meeting its capability. That’s the standard that MCPS should be held to, before you look at walking radii, access roads, parks.

It may be that the site deserves extra attention because it is MCPS owned, but if you are suggesting the building could be better used as a school then I tend to disagree. The building does not have "capability" to serve as a school at this point, and if they put a new school there I think it will more cost-effective to raze it than to try and rehab it.

It should not be rehabed. It should be razed. And it should be used for the new school construction. It is an OUTRAGE that MCPS is trying to steal, grab, take (what ever you want to call it) parks from communities because they are mismanaging and not using their own inventory to its full potential.

And if razing is considered too expensive, than taking an open park land to build, then we have some mightily skewed priorities. MCPS has to consider the REAL cost of school construction. At least they ALREADY own the property, so that is a big savings, not to mention the good public relations that would result from such a choice.

and no, I am not from RCH, but I do feel badly for them and for any other community that is paying for MCPS incompetence.

Anonymous wrote:This building in MCPS inventory is not meeting its capability. That’s the standard that MCPS should be held to, before you look at walking radii, access roads, parks.

It may be that the site deserves extra attention because it is MCPS owned, but if you are suggesting the building could be better used as a school then I tend to disagree. The building does not have "capability" to serve as a school at this point, and if they put a new school there I think it will more cost-effective to raze it than to try and rehab it.

It makes no sense to say a more centrally located school would have more walkers. The number of walkers is determined by the numbers of kids within a mile (or whatever), regardless of whether the site is next to Westland, next to Silver Spring, or somewhere in between.

Also, if all you want is a field to play sports on, then I don't really see building a school as incompatible with that. Aren't playing fields one of the reasons they need 10-20 acres of land?

Upcounty Wonk here again. From my perspective, you guys are looking at all the details but not asking the basics from MCPS. Are they making the most with what they’ve got? In your selection process, there are three School owned sites: Westland, Lynnbrook and Tilden. The first and last are an active schools, so I see complications with those options that I can’t speak to. Lynnbrook, on the other hand, is the kind of MC gaffe that always gets my goat. I had a professional conference in B-Town yesterday, so I dropped in to see what the story was. I wandered in to the Lynnbrook Center. Quiet as a crypt. It took me a while to find 3 staffers tucked away in an office. No one addressed me at first, in fact they looked at each other wondering who would ask me who I was. It was clear that they don’t get outside visitors often.

I would ask MCPS Committee members HOW MANY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES WORK IN THE LYNNBROOK CENTER. Looking online I found these 3 programs:

Glenmont Alternative Program -staff of 6
High Incidence Accessible Technology –staff of 4
Physical Disabilities Program – staff of ???

From my experience, the staff for disabilities staff works in schools. That’s a popular resource for parents with special needs children. But how large can the Admin Staff be? The MCPS part of the building is not a busy place. The rest of the Lynnbrook center is a daycare site as a PP said. School buses were dropping off kids in the late afternoon. And yes, the building is a shabby time warp. If this was an active school, I doubt that parents would accept that condition.

This building in MCPS inventory is not meeting its capability. That’s the standard that MCPS should be held to, before you look at walking radii, access roads, parks.

UCW

Anonymous wrote:The extreme eastern location of RHLP would also make it poor option for including a walking student body. Drawing a walking radius (1/2 mile?) around that site includes a large industrial area, as well as homes outside the cluster and even out of the state. A more centrally located site would offer more walkers, fewer buses.

I'm not sure about the fewer buses part, but overall, I think this point is correct.

Face it, we can't keep filling up parks. I keep seeing comments about Norwood, NCC, RCH, RHLP, and on and on. Are you people nuts? What are we supposed to do, get on 270 and drive to Germantown to play sports?

Forget the blame game, forget whose park should be sacrificed, forget all the mumbo jumbo about who owns what and traffic and walking distance and all the other "creative" arguments people who seem to have a lot of time on their hands have been throwing around. If we want all this new development, especially down-county, esepcially in this cluster, then we're going to have to buy private land and build. Yes, it will be expensive, but if we really believe this development is worth it and will bring a positive value for the county, then we should be willing to invest in the infrastructure to support it.

My 2 cents.

The extreme eastern location of RHLP would also make it poor option for including a walking student body. Drawing a walking radius (1/2 mile?) around that site includes a large industrial area, as well as homes outside the cluster and even out of the state. A more centrally located site would offer more walkers, fewer buses.

Anonymous wrote:

Before drawing any conclusions, we have to be very careful to understand exactly what they are telling us, or else we'll find ourselves in the same boat RCH and RHLP are in.

What boat would that be...At the top of the list? And who are the "we" we are talking about?

Could you please elaborate.

I'm from RCH, and based on our experience, the P is right. In fact, that link is to OUR neighborhood study. BTW, "top of the list?" I didn't know MCPS was cruising the blogs. Although, based on some of the posts, I shouldn't be surprised.

sounds like the cards are stacking up in favor of RCH and RHLP.

Before drawing any conclusions, we have to be very careful to understand exactly what they are telling us, or else we'll find ourselves in the same boat RCH and RHLP are in.

What boat would that be...At the top of the list? And who are the "we" we are talking about?

Could you please elaborate.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. I am still not too sure how the traffic situation will be improved.

County projections _say_ it will improve, but who knows? It will be important to understand what methodology they are using to draw these conclusions. For instance, are they studying the traffic flows at the intersection (Jones Bridge and Connecticut) itself? Or, are they measuring traffic flows at intersections deemed key for commuting, but away from that intersection. For some of the recent school studies, it seems that traffic away from the proposed sites was assessed, but not traffic at the proposed sites themselves. For example, http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/construction/projects/bms2.shtm .

Before drawing any conclusions, we have to be very careful to understand exactly what they are telling us, or else we'll find ourselves in the same boat RCH and RHLP are in.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. I am still not too sure how the traffic situation will be improved.

Anonymous wrote:I had heard that BRAC remediation was to include building a new road, to ease access in-and-out of the neighborhood near NCC park. Is that not correct?

Found a 2010 Gazette article ("Road changes proposed for Chevy Chase Valley: Changes would improve neighborhood access after relocation of Walter Reed"): http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/08252010/bethnew222804_32540.php

Does anyone have an update?

Anonymous wrote:I had heard that BRAC remediation was to include building a new road, to ease access in-and-out of the neighborhood near NCC park. Is that not correct?

Yes, and they will also have to build bridges and overpasses to get to it

But seriously, can anyone make a strong case for building the middle school in NCC Park? I am open to hearing it.

I had heard that BRAC remediation was to include building a new road, to ease access in-and-out of the neighborhood near NCC park. Is that not correct?

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

I do see NCC as a poor option for walking accessiblity. It is bordered by the Beltway, the Uniformed Health Services (USUHS) secure campus and a golf course across the heavy traffic of Jones Bridge. Drawing a helf-mile radius provides very little walking students. That's supposed to be a big draw for Josh Starr