Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t move kids, when you literally don’t have seats. North Arlington was the immediate overcrowding issue.

I'm not sure what you're responding to or what the point of your comment is. But if it is suggesting Montessori wasn't moved out of Drew for years because north arlington was crowded, that's not the point being made about Montessori and the graded programs. Those two programs needed to be separate for instructional and administrative purposes. The co-location was detrimental particularly to the graded program and its students and families. Overcrowding isn't the issue. A main reason the south arlington working group put forth this solution to overcrowding (Henry to Fleet, Montessori to Henry, etc) is precisely because they recognized the critical need for these programs to be independent and this was the way to get it done.

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would be civil on both sides. Nasty things are being said about Montessori and specific neighborhoods/ parents here and on AEM by some people. Preferring one school or program over another is okay and is not “code” or racist. Once boundaries are drawn, those families will probably not forget what was said about them. I just don’t see how this all works out in a way that is a net positive for Drew’s PTA or South Arlington. The last few years have certainly made me think twice about living in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:You can’t move kids, when you literally don’t have seats. North Arlington was the immediate overcrowding issue.

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would be civil on both sides. Nasty things are being said about Montessori and specific neighborhoods/ parents here and on AEM by some people. Preferring one school or program over another is okay and is not “code” or racist. Once boundaries are drawn, those families will probably not forget what was said about them. I just don’t see how this all works out in a way that is a net positive for Drew’s PTA or South Arlington. The last few years have certainly made me think twice about living in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Please. Give me a break. You couldn’t be more full of s#it. South Arlington needed another school. No excuse needed. How much hand holding does Drew need to form a PTA? I guess they really are a bunch of incompetent poor people.

It isn't about handholding. It's about being thoughtful and helpful. If Montessori parents were the ones who basically ran everything for all those years, they left knowing they were leaving with all the PTA knowledge and experience. There simply was no critical reason for them to separate as quickly as they did. What's your point about needing another school? That was the opportunity that finally got Montessori out of Drew. But the SB should have done something about Montessori/Drew situation years before - they paid no attention to the Drew neighborhood program and camoflaged the real situation of the neighborhood program. They only finally took action because a new school was being built and the scenario that went along with it included moving Montessori out. That's the only "shit" here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Please. Give me a break. You couldn’t be more full of s#it. South Arlington needed another school. No excuse needed. How much hand holding does Drew need to form a PTA? I guess they really are a bunch of incompetent poor people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

No one is rewriting history. Nobody has asserted that Drew neighborhood didn't think things were working and wanted a neighborhood school. Nobody has accused Montessori of abandoning Drew by leaving. The issue is Montessori setting up its own PTA prematurely and without helping the Drew families take over. Montessori and Drew neighborhood both wanted their independence; but the SB wouldn't do anything about it until Montessori pushed hard enough (not Drew) and finally had the opportunity to be successful because it gave APS what it was seeking - permission to build a new ES at TJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

The pike plan was around before John V

Not that plan. I meant the deal with Barcroft Apartments committing it to being affordable housing and thereby "preserving" affordable housing along the Pike. The Pike neighborhoods plan needs revision for sure; but so does locking Barcroft Apts into never being able to upgrade or provide middle-upper middle class rentals or homeownership development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

The pike plan was around before John V

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?