Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to talk about schools with 30 million dollar atriums and second floor kilns, but I will make the suggestion one more time to the DC community:

GIVE TEACHERS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS that allow them to park near the schools they serve. Murch is a perfect example of how this would work well--and cheaper than building your underground parking garage and losing your preK playground.

That would require a zoning variance which takes a long time. The school isn't asking for parking, zoning requires it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DGS won't need a relocation plan because the project will probably be delayed given this shortfall.

I secretly think this too.

Because if they wait long enough the families who are involved will go away either by moving or because their kids matriculate to middle school. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:DGS won't need a relocation plan because the project will probably be delayed given this shortfall.

I secretly think this too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been cheaper and simpler to renovate Murch's 85-year-old existing building, which was designed to hold ~400 kids and then build another elementary school in Ward 3 for the other ~300 students. Instead, the city insists on squeezing 700 kids on the site, which requires a huge addition that covers up more than half the playground. No vision.

Completely agree. The remodels seem to ignore or defy projections. Wasn't Hearst just remodeled for only 300 students? The planning, or rather lack of, show the ongoing incompetence in Dcps.

Same thing happened at Stoddert. Renovated with the new space open for the 2010-11 SY for the same planned population (around 280, I think). Flash forward 6 short years at enrollment is around 420 with trailers added two years ago. It's absurd to build a beautiful new school and not anticipate that it will attract lots of new families. The lack of planning is pretty breathtaking.

DGS won't need a relocation plan because the project will probably be delayed given this shortfall.

Thanks to all of you who are emailing your council members about this - Brandon Todd is a big one for us as we do have some Ward 4 kids. From a completely exhausted Murch parent.

Thanks, PP and Jeff. Looks like we at Murch have to go to the mattresses again with DGS/DCPS over this renovation. We appreciate your support. Go Mustangs!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Bowser win the precincts in the Murch district in 2014? I doubt it, and so when it comes to decisions on how to allocate scarcer and scarcer school renovation funds, she's going to favor projects either in (or primarily serving) the areas where she racked up a lot of support.

She didn't win Ward 4? Some Ward 4 families are in bound for Murch.

In any case, the Mayor has been very supportive of this high-need project, and I do not think she is responsible for this giant mistake, but she can fix it, and she can hold someone accountable for it. It is hero hour.

It looks like there are very few Ward 4 homes that are inbounds for Murch. But those folks should contact Brandon Todd. He is Bowser's hand-picked replacement and may find it easier to get things from her then Cheh.

I'm the ward 4 OP and I did CC Brandon Todd when I sent my email. He's usually very responsive, so I'll let you know what, if anything, he says in return.

Anonymous wrote:It would have been cheaper and simpler to renovate Murch's 85-year-old existing building, which was designed to hold ~400 kids and then build another elementary school in Ward 3 for the other ~300 students. Instead, the city insists on squeezing 700 kids on the site, which requires a huge addition that covers up more than half the playground. No vision.

Completely agree. The remodels seem to ignore or defy projections. Wasn't Hearst just remodeled for only 300 students? The planning, or rather lack of, show the ongoing incompetence in Dcps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Bowser win the precincts in the Murch district in 2014? I doubt it, and so when it comes to decisions on how to allocate scarcer and scarcer school renovation funds, she's going to favor projects either in (or primarily serving) the areas where she racked up a lot of support.

She didn't win Ward 4? Some Ward 4 families are in bound for Murch.

In any case, the Mayor has been very supportive of this high-need project, and I do not think she is responsible for this giant mistake, but she can fix it, and she can hold someone accountable for it. It is hero hour.

It looks like there are very few Ward 4 homes that are inbounds for Murch. But those folks should contact Brandon Todd. He is Bowser's hand-picked replacement and may find it easier to get things from her then Cheh.

I'm not going to talk about schools with 30 million dollar atriums and second floor kilns, but I will make the suggestion one more time to the DC community:

GIVE TEACHERS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS that allow them to park near the schools they serve. Murch is a perfect example of how this would work well--and cheaper than building your underground parking garage and losing your preK playground.

Anonymous wrote:Did Bowser win the precincts in the Murch district in 2014? I doubt it, and so when it comes to decisions on how to allocate scarcer and scarcer school renovation funds, she's going to favor projects either in (or primarily serving) the areas where she racked up a lot of support.

She didn't win Ward 4? Some Ward 4 families are in bound for Murch.

In any case, the Mayor has been very supportive of this high-need project, and I do not think she is responsible for this giant mistake, but she can fix it, and she can hold someone accountable for it. It is hero hour.

Anonymous wrote:It would have been cheaper and simpler to renovate Murch's 85-year-old existing building, which was designed to hold ~400 kids and then build another elementary school in Ward 3 for the other ~300 students. Instead, the city insists on squeezing 700 kids on the site, which requires a huge addition that covers up more than half the playground. No vision.

Well there is a point to be made there. The Feasibility Study showed that there really was only one way to increase the size of the school on that lot and meet the Ed. Specs., and now DGS is saying they need more money to do that. So it seems that the mayor's choice is to find the money, or build a smaller school (which will not be popular across the city).

In other words it is not feasible to build an adequate school for 700+ on that site with this budget. So don't. Build for 600. Or, get a bigger budget if you want a bigger school. But don't build a giant school without the basic programming space for 700+ students, which will remain the center of the neighborhood for the next century.

Did Bowser win the precincts in the Murch district in 2014? I doubt it, and so when it comes to decisions on how to allocate scarcer and scarcer school renovation funds, she's going to favor projects either in (or primarily serving) the areas where she racked up a lot of support.

This is just ridiculous and I share the frustration.

- Ward 8 resident