Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.

Montgomery County has never, ever, in the whole history of MCPS, done it that way. Never. Does school capacity follow? Yes. Does school capacity follow IMMEDIATELY? No. That's not cynicism, that's just a fact. If people expect school capacity to follow IMMEDIATELY, they either have unrealistic expectations, or they are using school capacity as cover for opposition to housing.

You (or someone else) keeps repeating the line that MCPS has never done this as if that means it shouldn't. Laughable.

And it looks like you are following that misinterpretation noted above with another straw man argument -- painting those whose views oppose yours as saying something along the lines of schools always needing to be built first or at exactly the same time as new housing. That's not the case in all situations, but it is in some.

What needs to be done is to make sure that any housing policy change that would be expected to increase the number of students in an area is met with timely increases to school capacities. If such an area is already expected to be very near capacity (or at or even above capacity), then the county and MCPS should be acting to address that in a timely enough manner that the additional student population doesn't result in overcrowding.

The county has failed to do this on a regular basis, so it's reasonable for the citizenry to want to have much more certainty that they won't fail again. That likely would mean getting the council to put its money where its mouth is -- tying the policy change to adequate school capacity.

You can call that an unrealistic expectation, but it isn't in any sense other than that it is not likely favored by the council or the forces that tend to influence them. People certainly can oppose bad housing policy without opposing housing, itself, and this lack of consideration for schools would be a prime example.

It doesn't mean it shouldn't (or should). It means it won't. It won't happen. No matter how much you stomp your feet and say it should. Growth in school capacity will lag growth in housing.

And you know what else? School capacity isn't even that important to people when they're making choices about where to live. Look at Clarksburg. MCPS has added an enormous amount of school capacity to Clarksburg since 2000, but the growth in school capacity has lagged the growth in population. People moving to Clarksburg knew, or should have known, that if they had school-aged kids, those kids would likely be in overcrowded schools. But people kept moving to Clarksburg just the same. How do we know? Because the schools were overcrowded. If people didn't move to Clarksburg, the schools wouldn't be overcrowded.

You can have any opinion you want, and you can advocate it in any way you want, but the reality is that for most people, housing is more important than school capacity.

Great. At least we've moved beyond the ridiculousness of having someone replying in a way that would dismiss arguments for ensuring school capacity based simply on past failure to do so. We can advocate for that to happen, as you say, and make the school reality a better one than we've had for decades instead of rolling over to developer interests, developing housing options in concert with community needs instead of against them.

It's a nice thought, but it seems as likely a snow in July.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.

Montgomery County has never, ever, in the whole history of MCPS, done it that way. Never. Does school capacity follow? Yes. Does school capacity follow IMMEDIATELY? No. That's not cynicism, that's just a fact. If people expect school capacity to follow IMMEDIATELY, they either have unrealistic expectations, or they are using school capacity as cover for opposition to housing.

You (or someone else) keeps repeating the line that MCPS has never done this as if that means it shouldn't. Laughable.

And it looks like you are following that misinterpretation noted above with another straw man argument -- painting those whose views oppose yours as saying something along the lines of schools always needing to be built first or at exactly the same time as new housing. That's not the case in all situations, but it is in some.

What needs to be done is to make sure that any housing policy change that would be expected to increase the number of students in an area is met with timely increases to school capacities. If such an area is already expected to be very near capacity (or at or even above capacity), then the county and MCPS should be acting to address that in a timely enough manner that the additional student population doesn't result in overcrowding.

The county has failed to do this on a regular basis, so it's reasonable for the citizenry to want to have much more certainty that they won't fail again. That likely would mean getting the council to put its money where its mouth is -- tying the policy change to adequate school capacity.

You can call that an unrealistic expectation, but it isn't in any sense other than that it is not likely favored by the council or the forces that tend to influence them. People certainly can oppose bad housing policy without opposing housing, itself, and this lack of consideration for schools would be a prime example.

It doesn't mean it shouldn't (or should). It means it won't. It won't happen. No matter how much you stomp your feet and say it should. Growth in school capacity will lag growth in housing.

And you know what else? School capacity isn't even that important to people when they're making choices about where to live. Look at Clarksburg. MCPS has added an enormous amount of school capacity to Clarksburg since 2000, but the growth in school capacity has lagged the growth in population. People moving to Clarksburg knew, or should have known, that if they had school-aged kids, those kids would likely be in overcrowded schools. But people kept moving to Clarksburg just the same. How do we know? Because the schools were overcrowded. If people didn't move to Clarksburg, the schools wouldn't be overcrowded.

You can have any opinion you want, and you can advocate it in any way you want, but the reality is that for most people, housing is more important than school capacity.

Great. At least we've moved beyond the ridiculousness of having someone replying in a way that would dismiss arguments for ensuring school capacity based simply on past failure to do so. We can advocate for that to happen, as you say, and make the school reality a better one than we've had for decades instead of rolling over to developer interests, developing housing options in concert with community needs instead of against them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

For one, try Google and Todd Watkins and Charles Ewald and American Truck and Bus. Easy cash for years. Company and Todd Watkins got off without any consequences.

If by kickbacks are allowed and encouraged, you mean they get prison time then sure.

https://moco360.media/2023/09/06/former-mcps-transportation-employee-sentenced-to-five-years-for-theft-scheme-and-misconduct/

You have to understand that even when justice is served, people here just like to complain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

For one, try Google and Todd Watkins and Charles Ewald and American Truck and Bus. Easy cash for years. Company and Todd Watkins got off without any consequences.

If by kickbacks are allowed and encouraged, you mean they get prison time then sure.

https://moco360.media/2023/09/06/former-mcps-transportation-employee-sentenced-to-five-years-for-theft-scheme-and-misconduct/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Evidence? Don't be silly. Everyone knows it.

If you believe it hard enough, it becomes true. Just like with the witchhunt of McKnight.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

For one, try Google and Todd Watkins and Charles Ewald and American Truck and Bus. Easy cash for years. Company and Todd Watkins got off without any consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Evidence? Don't be silly. Everyone knows it.

If you believe it hard enough, it becomes true. Just like with the witchhunt of McKnight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Evidence? Don't be silly. Everyone knows it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.

Montgomery County has never, ever, in the whole history of MCPS, done it that way. Never. Does school capacity follow? Yes. Does school capacity follow IMMEDIATELY? No. That's not cynicism, that's just a fact. If people expect school capacity to follow IMMEDIATELY, they either have unrealistic expectations, or they are using school capacity as cover for opposition to housing.

You (or someone else) keeps repeating the line that MCPS has never done this as if that means it shouldn't. Laughable.

And it looks like you are following that misinterpretation noted above with another straw man argument -- painting those whose views oppose yours as saying something along the lines of schools always needing to be built first or at exactly the same time as new housing. That's not the case in all situations, but it is in some.

What needs to be done is to make sure that any housing policy change that would be expected to increase the number of students in an area is met with timely increases to school capacities. If such an area is already expected to be very near capacity (or at or even above capacity), then the county and MCPS should be acting to address that in a timely enough manner that the additional student population doesn't result in overcrowding.

The county has failed to do this on a regular basis, so it's reasonable for the citizenry to want to have much more certainty that they won't fail again. That likely would mean getting the council to put its money where its mouth is -- tying the policy change to adequate school capacity.

You can call that an unrealistic expectation, but it isn't in any sense other than that it is not likely favored by the council or the forces that tend to influence them. People certainly can oppose bad housing policy without opposing housing, itself, and this lack of consideration for schools would be a prime example.

It doesn't mean it shouldn't (or should). It means it won't. It won't happen. No matter how much you stomp your feet and say it should. Growth in school capacity will lag growth in housing.

And you know what else? School capacity isn't even that important to people when they're making choices about where to live. Look at Clarksburg. MCPS has added an enormous amount of school capacity to Clarksburg since 2000, but the growth in school capacity has lagged the growth in population. People moving to Clarksburg knew, or should have known, that if they had school-aged kids, those kids would likely be in overcrowded schools. But people kept moving to Clarksburg just the same. How do we know? Because the schools were overcrowded. If people didn't move to Clarksburg, the schools wouldn't be overcrowded.

You can have any opinion you want, and you can advocate it in any way you want, but the reality is that for most people, housing is more important than school capacity.

Anonymous wrote:Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Kickbacks from vendors are allowed and encouraged in MCPS.

Are BOE members or county council investing in companies that make portables?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.

Montgomery County has never, ever, in the whole history of MCPS, done it that way. Never. Does school capacity follow? Yes. Does school capacity follow IMMEDIATELY? No. That's not cynicism, that's just a fact. If people expect school capacity to follow IMMEDIATELY, they either have unrealistic expectations, or they are using school capacity as cover for opposition to housing.

You (or someone else) keeps repeating the line that MCPS has never done this as if that means it shouldn't. Laughable.

And it looks like you are following that misinterpretation noted above with another straw man argument -- painting those whose views oppose yours as saying something along the lines of schools always needing to be built first or at exactly the same time as new housing. That's not the case in all situations, but it is in some.

What needs to be done is to make sure that any housing policy change that would be expected to increase the number of students in an area is met with timely increases to school capacities. If such an area is already expected to be very near capacity (or at or even above capacity), then the county and MCPS should be acting to address that in a timely enough manner that the additional student population doesn't result in overcrowding.

The county has failed to do this on a regular basis, so it's reasonable for the citizenry to want to have much more certainty that they won't fail again. That likely would mean getting the council to put its money where its mouth is -- tying the policy change to adequate school capacity.

You can call that an unrealistic expectation, but it isn't in any sense other than that it is not likely favored by the council or the forces that tend to influence them. People certainly can oppose bad housing policy without opposing housing, itself, and this lack of consideration for schools would be a prime example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.

Montgomery County has never, ever, in the whole history of MCPS, done it that way. Never. Does school capacity follow? Yes. Does school capacity follow IMMEDIATELY? No. That's not cynicism, that's just a fact. If people expect school capacity to follow IMMEDIATELY, they either have unrealistic expectations, or they are using school capacity as cover for opposition to housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

DP from above. You cynically interpret "followed" as "following eventually," not as "timely followed" (where overcrowding is avoided or minimal and quickly resolved such that education is not negatively impacted), as can clearly be deduced by following the posts of the thread.