Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

Then, they won't be sad about "disruption" in their morning commute, losing friends they've already made at Murch, having half the Boy Scout Troop #342 go to one school and half go to a different school etc.

It'll all be new to them, and the kids they'll conceive someday.

Actually you'll have kids who know each other in the same apartment building being sent to different schools.

Anonymous wrote:for what it's worth, van ness is under a mile away from Hearst...about a 15 minute walk. so, it might be just as fast for folks to walk to van ness as it would be to walk back home.

i know this isn't what you want, but i did think it might be helpful information for you if the changes go through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

Then, they won't be sad about "disruption" in their morning commute, losing friends they've already made at Murch, having half the Boy Scout Troop #342 go to one school and half go to a different school etc.

It'll all be new to them, and the kids they'll conceive someday.

Actually you'll have kids who know each other in the same apartment building being sent to different schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If crowding is so serious, and the current proposal won't solve the problem, has anyone considered shifting the southeastern (Forest Hills) part of the Murch district to Hearst as well? Just curious if this is an option or if there is some reason it doesn't make sense. Just glancing at the map it seems like it is another area that could be moved (rather than or in addition to the northern part of Murch being shifted to Lafayette, since Lafayette is already crowded too).

Truly, honestly, no little kids from "southeastern Forest Hills" attend Murch. Maybe a couple do, every few years.

Those single family homes along Albemarle / Audubon Terrace / 28th St are often owned by embassies and sit on enormous pieces of land -- meaning, there aren't many homes there at all since they're so far apart.

(if you meant by "southeastern FH" the apartments at Van Ness, that could be a different calculation WRT to number of children involved. OTOH, that's not really Forest Hills)

Looking at this map:
http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Affected%20Kids%20Map_Labels%20FINAL%204-25-14.pdf

there is a significant cluster of blue dots east of Conn Ave between Albemarle and Chesapeake. There must be some reason why no one has suggested moving this area?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If crowding is so serious, and the current proposal won't solve the problem, has anyone considered shifting the southeastern (Forest Hills) part of the Murch district to Hearst as well? Just curious if this is an option or if there is some reason it doesn't make sense. Just glancing at the map it seems like it is another area that could be moved (rather than or in addition to the northern part of Murch being shifted to Lafayette, since Lafayette is already crowded too).

Truly, honestly, no little kids from "southeastern Forest Hills" attend Murch. Maybe a couple do, every few years.

Those single family homes along Albemarle / Audubon Terrace / 28th St are often owned by embassies and sit on enormous pieces of land -- meaning, there aren't many homes there at all since they're so far apart.

(if you meant by "southeastern FH" the apartments at Van Ness, that could be a different calculation WRT to number of children involved. OTOH, that's not really Forest Hills)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

Then, they won't be sad about "disruption" in their morning commute, losing friends they've already made at Murch, having half the Boy Scout Troop #342 go to one school and half go to a different school etc.

It'll all be new to them, and the kids they'll conceive someday.

Actually you'll have kids who know each other in the same apartment building being sent to different schools.

School boundaries do change and communities continue to thrive. I really don't understand people continuing to give these rationalizations. Your above scenario will involve kids of different ages who will have new friends at their new school. They will be fine.

Should the boundaries be laid in a yellow brick road to never be moved? Or, after 40 years, should there be some minor adjustments? There really are bigger issues to be concerned about. I just wish all the DC parents could come together to focus on the big, important issues like the threat of a city-wide lottery. That is a real problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

Then, they won't be sad about "disruption" in their morning commute, losing friends they've already made at Murch, having half the Boy Scout Troop #342 go to one school and half go to a different school etc.

It'll all be new to them, and the kids they'll conceive someday.

Actually you'll have kids who know each other in the same apartment building being sent to different schools.

Anonymous wrote:

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

Then, they won't be sad about "disruption" in their morning commute, losing friends they've already made at Murch, having half the Boy Scout Troop #342 go to one school and half go to a different school etc.

It'll all be new to them, and the kids they'll conceive someday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

But right now I would walk to the school, walk back to my house and get in my car to drive to work. I won' t have time in the mornings to walk to Hearst and back again, I would have to drive... So it rally is the distinct from the house time 2 that determines walkability. So yes I most certainly would have to drive.

Anonymous wrote:WOTP parent here.

Make your case for walkability, make your case for how certain areas are part of a community. But do not pretend moving the elementary school assigned to your real estate from 2 blocks to 8 is as serious a problem as what is going on elsewhere in the city. It just isn't and no one is buying that this is all about walkability (especially the parent that states she will have to go from walking her child to school before she drives to work to driving her child to school and then driving to work). The children that move into the house you someday sell wil be just fine and your real estate value will recover.

I do not support the rezoning but I am sick of the crisis about a few block shift of families not even in the schools yet to a, wait for it, very good school.

You cannot accept that it makes sense and anybody looking at a map thinking that recrowding was going to force zone changes could easily have identified the general areas that were identified in the proposal as the most likely to be rezoned. I am sorry, but when I looked at my house I thought "hey there is no other school anywhere near us so pretty safe in the event of rezoning" and I bought over a decade ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If crowding is so serious, and the current proposal won't solve the problem, has anyone considered shifting the southeastern (Forest Hills) part of the Murch district to Hearst as well? Just curious if this is an option or if there is some reason it doesn't make sense. Just glancing at the map it seems like it is another area that could be moved (rather than or in addition to the northern part of Murch being shifted to Lafayette, since Lafayette is already crowded too).

Truly, honestly, no little kids from "southeastern Forest Hills" attend Murch. Maybe a couple do, every few years.

Those single family homes along Albemarle / Audubon Terrace / 28th St are often owned by embassies and sit on enormous pieces of land -- meaning, there aren't many homes there at all since they're so far apart.

(if you meant by "southeastern FH" the apartments at Van Ness, that could be a different calculation WRT to number of children involved. OTOH, that's not really Forest Hills)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....