Projections shows that RM will be at 120% and moratorium kicks in to avoid making situation worse. It's as simple as that.

MCPS defines ideal environment at 80-100%. Any one arguing for increasing the limit above 120% based on speculation is simply not making any sense here.

Crown boundary or start date is not defined. MCPS took 7-8 years from start to end for building an ES and here we are talking about a high school. Crown is not likely to come within 10 years.

Every single kids who is in ES right now will suffer more in HS if policy change is made to build more apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine that if the schools weren't overcrowded (or soon to be ivercrowded) and/or new additions to existing schools or new schools were actually being built to handle all the kids currently there, plus the new ones coming from new housing, no one would be opposed to more housing. But there isn't any construction happening for the kids, just nee housing, so people are opposed.

Well they were going to expand RM but cancelled it because of Crown. Given hat it takes 7+ years to go from planning to a completed building, any new building will be after completion of crown anyway so it’s fine.

MCPS doesn't have a date within 7 years for opening crown. TB is already over 100% in ES and crown has nothing to do with it.

Moratorium limits exist for a reason and to increase it based on no guaranteed solution is not the way to make policy decisions. Only idiots will do that.

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine that if the schools weren't overcrowded (or soon to be ivercrowded) and/or new additions to existing schools or new schools were actually being built to handle all the kids currently there, plus the new ones coming from new housing, no one would be opposed to more housing. But there isn't any construction happening for the kids, just nee housing, so people are opposed.

Well they were going to expand RM but cancelled it because of Crown. Given hat it takes 7+ years to go from planning to a completed building, any new building will be after completion of crown anyway so it’s fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea.

Forget about this boundary issue. City has no control over this and that may or may not happen.

City has full control over not allowing more apartments when school is already 120%. That's the current policy. There is no good reason to increase it.

Everyone should simply rally around and testify. If you are concern then testify. If council members vote for increasing the limit then simply vote against them in the next election.

Development at any cost shouldn't be allowed. Kids education is too high a price to pay for extra apartments.

Sure there is. People need a place to live.

There are PLENTY of places to live. Families may choose one of the hundreds of already empty apartments available at Twinbrook at RTC. Or, chose one of the many condos for sale in the cluster.

If there are that many empty apartments, why do you care if they build more empty apartments? Surely empty apartments don’t generate kids for the schools.

Because empty apartments have the potential to fill up. If all the units do fill, there will be a huge influx of students into JW and RW.

Anonymous wrote:Tired of all the NIMBY whiners. The city should promote more new housing (which is needed and supports high-paying jobs).

/s/ Rockville homeowner

What high paying jobs are you referring to? How does adding high density housing at rTC and Twinbrook lead to high paying jobs?

Do you think the $5million bring spent on Dawson’s will help? I doubt Dawson’s pays it’s employees much more than minimum wage.

Nobody would have a problem with development if the capacity of the schools was able to accommodate the current and additional students.

I would imagine that if the schools weren't overcrowded (or soon to be ivercrowded) and/or new additions to existing schools or new schools were actually being built to handle all the kids currently there, plus the new ones coming from new housing, no one would be opposed to more housing. But there isn't any construction happening for the kids, just nee housing, so people are opposed.

Tired of all the NIMBY whiners. The city should promote more new housing (which is needed and supports high-paying jobs).

/s/ Rockville homeowner

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea.

Forget about this boundary issue. City has no control over this and that may or may not happen.

City has full control over not allowing more apartments when school is already 120%. That's the current policy. There is no good reason to increase it.

Everyone should simply rally around and testify. If you are concern then testify. If council members vote for increasing the limit then simply vote against them in the next election.

Development at any cost shouldn't be allowed. Kids education is too high a price to pay for extra apartments.

Sure there is. People need a place to live.

There are PLENTY of places to live. Families may choose one of the hundreds of already empty apartments available at Twinbrook at RTC. Or, chose one of the many condos for sale in the cluster.

If there are that many empty apartments, why do you care if they build more empty apartments? Surely empty apartments don’t generate kids for the schools.