Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

People aren’t going to move. Stop with the drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

I would anticipate that many in CC would rent an apt in downtown Bethesda under option 3. This would have the secondary effect of tying up inventory

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

I would anticipate that many in CC would rent an apt in downtown Bethesda under option 3. This would have the secondary effect of tying up inventory

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

people definitely will move based on boundary changes. Every study on boundary changes shows this to be true.

But you're thinking about low-income people moving. That's not what causes the numbers to be wrong, because as you note they aren't likely to. What will happen is that the rich people that now have their kids zoned for some school with a 60 minute bus ride will either go private or move. Those kids will now not be lowering the FARMS rate at the school they would have been bused to. Ergo the proposed equalizing of FARMS rates (not that Option 3 even accomplishes that) won't actually happen.

I specifically said some people will move. But there is a shortage of SFHs. If a $1.2 million house lets say loses a lot of value and now sells for $800k, there absolutely will be UMC families that buy there. There are houses zoned for Kennedy right now that have sold for $1 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

people definitely will move based on boundary changes. Every study on boundary changes shows this to be true.

But you're thinking about low-income people moving. That's not what causes the numbers to be wrong, because as you note they aren't likely to. What will happen is that the rich people that now have their kids zoned for some school with a 60 minute bus ride will either go private or move. Those kids will now not be lowering the FARMS rate at the school they would have been bused to. Ergo the proposed equalizing of FARMS rates (not that Option 3 even accomplishes that) won't actually happen.

I specifically said some people will move. But there is a shortage of SFHs. If a $1.2 million house lets say loses a lot of value and now sells for $800k, there absolutely will be UMC families that buy there. There are houses zoned for Kennedy right now that have sold for $1 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

people definitely will move based on boundary changes. Every study on boundary changes shows this to be true.

But you're thinking about low-income people moving. That's not what causes the numbers to be wrong, because as you note they aren't likely to. What will happen is that the rich people that now have their kids zoned for some school with a 60 minute bus ride will either go private or move. Those kids will now not be lowering the FARMS rate at the school they would have been bused to. Ergo the proposed equalizing of FARMS rates (not that Option 3 even accomplishes that) won't actually happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

I don't think this will be very impactful. Yes, some people will move, but you won't have low-income people moving into single family homes, and not many UMC will move into apartments. Some will choose private school for sure.

Anonymous wrote:and also, none of the options factor in behavioral change as people move based on the boundaries. so you are likely to end up with different outcomes than predicted when there are big changes to busing/boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economic outlook is 100% on topic.

Why, people overpaid for their homes and expect the market to continue to rise, which may or may not happen. The w community wanted the new school. What did they think would happen.

Most people thought they would have half of WJ go to Woodward, and then they would add an elementary school from the DCC to each of them. No one thought they would be bused across the county to the worst performing school in the county (speaking about Farmland under Option 3). Most also assumed WJ and Woodward would be similar demographically, FARMS rate, etc.

You're talking as though Option 3 is a done deal. I actually think it illustrates the limitations of this boundary study because the FARMS rates in the DCC barely change in this option. It seems obvious to me the costs, including the time spent by kids on the bus and the difficulties for families to participate in school communities, are not remotely worth it, and this option seems like it was designed to show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economic outlook is 100% on topic.

Why, people overpaid for their homes and expect the market to continue to rise, which may or may not happen. The w community wanted the new school. What did they think would happen.

Most people thought they would have half of WJ go to Woodward, and then they would add an elementary school from the DCC to each of them. No one thought they would be bused across the county to the worst performing school in the county (speaking about Farmland under Option 3). Most also assumed WJ and Woodward would be similar demographically, FARMS rate, etc.

You're talking as though Option 3 is a done deal. I actually think it illustrates the limitations of this boundary study because the FARMS rates in the DCC barely change in this option. It seems obvious to me the costs, including the time spent by kids on the bus and the difficulties for families to participate in school communities, are not remotely worth it, and this option seems like it was designed to show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economic outlook is 100% on topic.

Why, people overpaid for their homes and expect the market to continue to rise, which may or may not happen. The w community wanted the new school. What did they think would happen.

Most people thought they would have half of WJ go to Woodward, and then they would add an elementary school from the DCC to each of them. No one thought they would be bused across the county to the worst performing school in the county (speaking about Farmland under Option 3). Most also assumed WJ and Woodward would be similar demographically, FARMS rate, etc.