The meeting summary is on the MCPS website, so you can check the reasoning out for yourself there. Can't link since I'm on my BB.

hmmmm...this sounds suspiciously like my community. Or maybe there are other communities where the reps are just not providing sufficient forums for the community to participate.

In our case, our rep, did not allow a community vote and pretty much had their mind made up before going into the first meeting, regardless of community input. I can't say this has been a very democratic and many of us do not feel well served by this process.

Because many folks feel unrepresented or misrepresented, I have a feeling the outcome of whatever selection is made by this advisory committee will be second guessed and criticized

I'm wondering how the process of representation is being carried out in individual communities?

I find it quite odd that, while my area has a rep on this site committee, there have been no school-wide meetings or surveys to solicit feedback about which options our community favors. Our rep., clearly must be voting on keeping or eliminating sites, but I can't understand on what basis the rep. is making these decisions as a representative of the community. This seems particularly odd as there were a lot of community meetings and surveys leading up to the decision about whether or not to have another middle school. So, it's not like community leaders don't know how to solicit opinion from the community.

The rep. does provide reports back after the fact about meetings and which options have been voted off, but nothing about the rep.'s own votes on each site.

How is this being handled in other communities?

...and why exactly was Norwood eliminated?

Look, I don't want any parks lost.

But the idea that this is a fair process that aims to pick the site that best meets the MCPS standards, is not correct. If it were, then the result would be Norwood.

Because there aren't any.

The Land & Water Conservation Fund issue is not about the Purple Line, or about "threats", or about "a few". It's about the law, and the official record. The record and the law appear clear. As John Adams said, ours is a government of laws, and not of men.

But, LWCF should not be the focus! The best reason not to destroy Rock Creek Hills Park is that as a park, it is a valuable community asset, while as a construction site, it fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the MCPS middle school site evaluation criteria. Building on the steep creekside slopes of the small site would be an expensive waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.

MCPS has good criteria for middle school sites! Why don't they pick a site that meets them?

I don't think MCPS is very worried about lawsuits from RCH's. I get the impression that they are just trying to succeed (RCH) by delaying long enough to foist the project on someone else.

MCPS has a lot of lawyers, and a lot more money (our money).

I think there is a reasonable likelihood of lawsuits from RCH, but I don't think you can site a school based on whether or not you are going to get sued-- I think you assume you will get sued and consider your chances of prevailing. At least publicly, RCH and MCPS both seem fairly confident they will prevail if there is a lawsuit.

Just out of curiousity for all those who have been following this more closely than I have: are the RCH lawsuit threats real or not? How long would they delay the process? And please, to you avid responders from RCH, try to refrain from responding in self-interested fashion or at least identify yourselves as such!

I ask because I wonder to what extent the lawsuit threats are just another tactic to scare MCPS into siting the school elsewhere. When push comes to shove, even the well-heeled parts of CC MD weren't able to sustain lawsuits to prevent the Purple Line - can a few (and from what I hear, it really is a few) residents of Kensington really use the courts to delay indefinitely or permanently prevent a school in their midst?

Anonymous wrote:Why has Parks rendered the reclaim clause useless? ...

Well, the argument is that because the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission used federal Land and Water Conservation Funds to develop Rock Creek Hills Park, that site is subject to the strict conversion process specified by the LWCF law, under which replacement land of equal value to the community must be provided in order to convert the land to non-park use. If this is correct (as has been noted, this question won't be settled on this discussion board, and appears headed for court), then it would seem that, yes, M-NCPPC "owes" MCPS a school site!

Why has Parks rendered the reclaim clause useless? I don't think that is the case.

But I do agree with PP that MCPS is riddled with incompetent "experts". In most cases, it was the community that brought important facts to their attention, not their useless experts.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that that anyone is claiming that the reclaim right does not exist. It does exist. It's just that it cannot be exercised, because federal Land & Water Conservation Funds were used to develop Rock Creek Hills Park.

If that is true (and I have no idea if it is or not) then it seems clear that it was Parks, not MCPS, that rendered the reclaim clause useless, and I would think Parks would be on the hook to offer up an equivalent site.

Anonymous wrote:

Whenever those funds are used to acquire or develop a park, that land can then never be transformed to non-park use without providing land of equivalent recreational value to the community.

That is not what the letter from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources said. The letter stated that funds used to develop a park are treated differently than funds used to buy land for a park. The development funds restrict development for 20 years, the "life of the developments" which have as of this month, expired for RCH. Funds that were used to purchase land last in perpetuity. I know, I know, "one letter in a stream of correspondence" being misrepresented.

Tell you what JP, why don't you publish ALL, the whole stream of correspondence on your blog? Every single link in the chain. Maybe because you haven't gotten the answer you want?

Will you two take your smack down elsewhere? We get it; one wants to use RCH and won't be convinced otherwise, and the other doesn't want RCH and won't be convinced otherwise. Will you just stop wasting our time?

There are real issues associated with the sites and the process that's unfolding. It's leading to an arbitrary result, which is going to lead to more screaming and yelling, which is going to stop the process or send some neighborhood (right now, it looks like RCH) back to court.

This whole fiasco is proof positive that MCPS can't plan a fart in a bean factory. This decision should be turned over to the experts in Park and Planning so we can stop the MCPS imbeciles from wasting our money.

Anonymous wrote:

Then, the county used money from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to develop Rock Creek Hills Park. Whenever those funds are used to acquire or develop a park, that land can then never be transformed to non-park use without providing land of equivalent recreational value to the community.

Kensington, please stop spreading inaccurate info. The County has reclaim rights, over and done. The only party that disputes this at present is the neighborhood organization. This is getting tiresome.

I think you're right.  MCPS has decided the matter and is moving forward. That decision, however, does not eliminate the issue in future litigation after MCPS selects the site (and yes, after a feasibility study and the haphazard application of unweighted criteria, it's clear that it is selecting the site).  DNR, as the agency charged with enforcing the POS law, clearly has discretion to implement the statute.  It cannot do so, however, in contravention of the statute's express terms.

The bottom line is that I, too, don't understand why people are arguing this issue in this forum.  It's like arguing which horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby.  When the site is selected, and litigation ensues, the matter will be decided in court.