Anonymous wrote:I have to correct some misconceptions that are out there regarding the old Kensington Junior High. The building's site was NOT where the senior housing is today, but in fact was built on the edges of where the soccer field is today and on the slope below the soccer field. There are old photographs showing the entrances on that slope, and the old building. Yes, it would seem that the new school will be built much in the same area that the old school was in.
So it is really dishonest to continue to claim that where the old school sat, now the senior facility sits. Just google photos of Kensington Junior High, or for that matter, look at the Save Rock Creek Hills Blog and see where the author of the blog actually makes that correction on the aerial photos way back in May 2011.
RCH and Lynnbrook, in my estimation are the only two locations that mcps has a right to.
A previous poster said that Grace Church was no longer owned by mcps, another said that it was leased. Which is it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.
Your guess is correct, in my opinion.
After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school.
Says who?
We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built.
What the hell? That is baseless. Who is telling you this?
Not the poster you're responding to, but re: creating split articulation B-CC/Whitman for Westland, I don't think that's baseless. Pyle is overcrowded and cannot be expanded. Westland sits in Whitman's catchment area. Redistricting some kids to Westland is a solution that's come up before.
Funny how when East Bethesda wanted to get out of the RHPS partner pairing, they complained about how much time their kids spent on the bus and how they had lost their neighborhood elementary, but now that that same spot could be a middle school, they don't want it.
Anonymous wrote:I like this sentiment - "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." That in a nutshell is good long term planning. If development is WORTH it to the county/state - then the infrastructure necessary to suppor this development is worth it to the county/state. So, write your council, write the boe, write the planning department - demand that MCPS exercise good planning and select a currently existing MCPS owned land and/or that they purchase land (if necessary adjacent to an existing park where co-location is feasible).
People are willing to live in small homes and small apartment/condos because of parks. If you pave over parks with buildings and parking lots, we undermine the whole concept of sustainable development. Paving over parks makes folks think that they have to live out in the exurbs to have a little space of peace and quiet to sit outside. Do we want that? We are so fortunate to have these parks, once lost they will not be recreated in our lifetimes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How did the meeting tonight go?
As the Great Criswell Predicted: North Chevy Chase & Rock Creek Hills are only two public sites remaining.
4th meeting will be devoted to all 3 private sites (Criswell predicts...None will do)
And Criswell IS NOT on the SSAC!
Anonymous wrote:How did the meeting tonight go?
I am from RCH. I appreciate your thoughts. For the record, I don’t support dumping the problem on NCC, RHLP, or the other parks, and I don’t appreciate the propaganda machine on this blog that paints our community with a broad brush, suggesting that we want MCPS to “grab” the parks in other communities. SOME people say that, just as SOME people in other neighborhoods say they want a school in RCH, but that doesn’t mean we all share that feeling.
I am from RCH. I appreciate your thoughts. For the record, I don’t support dumping the problem on NCC, RHLP, or the other parks, and I don’t appreciate the propaganda machine on this blog that paints our community with a broad brush, suggesting that we want MCPS to “grab” the parks in other communities. SOME people say that, just as SOME people in other neighborhoods say they want a school in RCH, but that doesn’t mean we all share that feeling.Anonymous wrote: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.