Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until parents in the affected clusters make their voices heard, little will be done to address the overcrowding. Just more portable classrooms.

They've been asking for relief for decades. MCPS simply doesn't make addressing that a priority. It's worst for the close-in schools that don't have the property for the portables without sacrificing playgrounds, fields, etc. Highland View...smh.

The thing is that there's not a clear majority directly affected by severe overcrowding, and the needs of the minority get trampled.

And getting it. It's not like MCPS is building nothing. MCPS is building a lot.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/construction/projects/

There are a number of projects, sure. They are expensive, yes. That doesn't mean they are doing an adequate job.

They are behind. They have been behind for decades. They have not been nearly frequent enough to keep up with either the age of buildings (renovation) or the increase in student population (expansion/additional schools).

They are regularly downscoped (notable exception: Potomac ES, with both building upscoping during planning in reaponse to extensive interaction with the community and additional earthwork added better to ensure water management -- go figure). Once begun, they have been regularly delayed vs. the original timeline -- a semester, a year, more -- with change orders that reset the clock so that the report to the BOE show them as "on schedule." When "finished" for occupancy, the punch list denoted by the last 1-3% on the report can, itself, last a long time beyond.

How many years should large numbers of portables be an adequate stop-gap, especially those that take playground/field space on smaller properties? I'd say two to three, maybe five at the absolute most if there was a clear catchment population bulge that equally clearly would be going away. How many has it been at HVES? A dozen? More? Rolling Terrace? Elsewhere?

How long is it OK for a facility to close half its bathrooms (in a full building) due to plumbing failure? One or two months to get the emergency fixes together? Three months? How about something like a decade, as seems to have happened at Eastern MS?

These school communities have been continually told to wait as they are "next" for a renovation. HVES was supposed to get funding a few years back, not independently, but carved out of funding for next-door SSIMS/SCES that decimated already-insufficient plans for that old building. Then that money was repurposed -- yet another delay in being "next."

Those may be on the list, now, but far too late, and now there are others that are falling behind just the same. It's not that the projects that are out there shouldn't be happening. It's that the county should be keeping up with the county-wide need, and not doing it on a beyond-last-minute emergency basis or only for a fortunate few who might be on the list during a "sweet spot" time of budgetary leniency (again, looking at you, PES). "It's their turn" should happen when and where the need is, not just where it's greatest at the moment, expedient or on an it's-been-a-while/we're-getting-pressure-from-a-vocal-community mental calendar.

There are always things that will get in the way --
unexpected conditions (e.g., the pandemic), inflation, etc. Adequate funding with proper risk management should be able to handle this. I'm not sure if we've had the latter, but we certainly haven't had the former (and that makes the latter somewhat impossible).

School bonds used to afford more timely addressing of this need. When was the last time we saw that on a ballot?

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:

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.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Why would it make sense to build townhouses next to a Metro station? So that fewer people can live within walking distance of a Metro station, instead of more?

Are families with kids not deserving of living near metro stations too? Not sure why we should only build metro accessible apartments for singles, DINKs, and retirees.

Apartments have 2 and 3 bedroom options.

The thing is, 2-3BR apts next to a metro station tend to be expensive. I doubt that most families who can afford those units view apt living as a long term plan. If you don’t build housing that young families want, they will move elsewhere. I’m not against building more housing, it’s just that a lot of it seems rather thoughtless and developer-driven.

Townhouses next to a Metro station would be even more expensive. Detached houses next to a Metro station would be even even more more expensive.

Which of these options generates the most property tax revenue per sq ft of land?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But was it "allowed and encouraged"?

By allowed they mean they went to jail for it.

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.

But was it "allowed and encouraged"?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until parents in the affected clusters make their voices heard, little will be done to address the overcrowding. Just more portable classrooms.

They've been asking for relief for decades. MCPS simply doesn't make addressing that a priority. It's worst for the close-in schools that don't have the property for the portables without sacrificing playgrounds, fields, etc. Highland View...smh.

The thing is that there's not a clear majority directly affected by severe overcrowding, and the needs of the minority get trampled.

And getting it. It's not like MCPS is building nothing. MCPS is building a lot.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/construction/projects/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until parents in the affected clusters make their voices heard, little will be done to address the overcrowding. Just more portable classrooms.

They've been asking for relief for decades. MCPS simply doesn't make addressing that a priority. It's worst for the close-in schools that don't have the property for the portables without sacrificing playgrounds, fields, etc. Highland View...smh.

The thing is that there's not a clear majority directly affected by severe overcrowding, and the needs of the minority get trampled.

Anonymous wrote:Until parents in the affected clusters make their voices heard, little will be done to address the overcrowding. Just more portable classrooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Todd Watkins walked free and american truck and bus was never even charged with a crime.

Easy money for years and years.

Ripping off children is acceptable.

Seems like either he wasn't charged because there was a lack of evidence or he was cleared.

Neither are true. He admitted to setting up the embezzlement scheme. He plead guilty and was sent home. No worries. On to his next scam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Todd Watkins walked free and american truck and bus was never even charged with a crime.

Easy money for years and years.

Ripping off children is acceptable.

Seems like either he wasn't charged because there was a lack of evidence or he was cleared.

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:

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: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/

Todd Watkins walked free and american truck and bus was never even charged with a crime.

Easy money for years and years.

Ripping off children is acceptable.

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/