Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

And Stoddert has now been given bags of money in the FY23 budget to address, right now, it’s overcrowding now and into the future. The city has given Glover Park families what they asked for and yet your community leaders are still out there spreading half-truths to stop the new school at Foxhall.

The Key community is not wailing on to all and sundry that Stoddert is getting it’s issues addressed immediately and they have to wait an extra couple of years to get their issues sorted, so why this beggar-thy-neighbor crap from Glover Park?

But notion that Glover Park is led by progressive YIMBYs is belied by facts. Facts like October 2021 ANC3B 5-0 resolution that strongly opposed a DDOT proposal to install bicycle lanes that would have made it safer for Ward 3 residents to get to school, work, and wherever else (https://anc3b.org/wp-content/uploads/ANC3B-bike-lane-resolution-signed-11-18-21-1.pdf), an argument that they felt the need to bolster by making up things about ANC3D.

Yes, there are NIMBYs in Foxhall and the Palisades. And there are also ample people in those neighborhoods who are sick of their quality of life being adversely affected by half-truths spread by a small number of people who want nothing in their neighborhood to change ever. This thread is good evidence of that. What is your point, exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Because: (1) Foxhall lacks a neighborhood school; (2) the school that currently serves Foxhall families is chronically overcrowded: (3) if the city wants to allow at-risk children from Wards 7 and 8 to attend a school in Ward 3, then Foxhall is the most (or least worst) convenient location (a long commute to be sure, but very similar to the one that kids from JB Anacostia-Bolling do to get to Hyde-Addison ES in Gtown).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Anonymous wrote:

Responding to the bolded: yes, I remember you saying that around 20 pages ago, and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Are the Stoddert representatives not from GP? Are they somehow tainted because they are also Stoddert parents?

One of the founding tenets of Alternative Fact Land is that not all voices are equal, rather some voices count more than others. Specifically, the voices of me and the people who think like me should count the most, while the voices of people who disagree with me shouldn't count at all.

Given we live in Washington DC, a place with no (federal) representation, this is all a bit funny. I'm happy to compromise on 'Glover Park did not have any elected representatives on the CWG' (until added after GP found out what the CWG was doing and had decided, Cheh decided to finally act). If only "No taxation without elected representation" would fit on a license plate.

Hopefully the same CWG member attacking individuals on the Glover Park listserv, and seemingly here, will stick to what's going on with the elementary school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only fillable by having Stoddert students drive instead of walk to school. (Walking through the park on hilly, muddy, and unimproved trails in the early morning is not a solution)

No. It could be. But it won't. Please go back 5 pages of wherever this was discussed.

It is I, the older Glover Park poster who had to take a trip and missed out on the continual rehashing!

The debate about whether Stoddert boundaries will be redrawn to screw Glover Park is, as yet, unresolved. My obviously biased recap: I, a Glover Park resident, see the CWG lacking GP representation, showing an example boundary that screws Glover Park, and listening to many meetings where DCPS defended those exact boundaries. Obviously the numbers for the Foxhall school don't work out unless they take from Stoddert (the estimate is roughly 40% of students coming from GP). The CWG member on here says the boundary was a mistake by DCPS, and assures us that Glover Park will remain whole.

The CWG member (or others, it's all anonymous of course) pointed out there could be a 'rotation' around the park. As near as I can tell, that would involve the northern tip of Stoddert's catchment going to Mann. But that would put those residents of Cathedral Heights at a much further distance from Mann than they currently are from Stoddert. Notably, Chancellor Ferebee's letter announcing the schools did not mention redrawing any of Hyde-Addison, and I take that as an indication no movement will happen there, despite the obvious ideas.

There has been mention of the Stoddert addition, with an accompanying claim it should solve problems. However, as DCPS has said, the eventual addition would simply be replacing the trailers with permanent structures, total capacity would stay nearly the same. There is no 'expansion' currently planned. As an indication of DCPS's beliefs, the original money for the addition was, I believe, taken for the building and acquisition of Foxhall and MacArthur. That's DCPS's expansion plan for Stodddert, and another indicator of what 's going to happen to Glover Park. (Not to mention my old hobbyhorse of the CWG sticking with the ludicrous 'hike through the park' distance from GP to Foxhall. If GP isn't going to Foxhall, why lie about this? Why should I trust an organization that starts with a dishonest statement?)

Anyway, this is all unresolved, and will likely remain so until DCPS proposes something. Chancellor Ferebee is meeting with ANC 3B (Glover Park) on April 14th, mainly to discuss MacArthur HS I believe. I imagine he's too politically smart to discuss boundaries, but I'm sure he will be barraged with questions given the previous disregard of GP by DCPS and the CWG's (and Cheh).

Congratulations, older Glover Park poster, for you have entered Alternative Fact Land! You join your neighbors in Foxhall Village as the sole current occupants of Alternative Fact Land. [Perhaps the redistricting group was onto something lumping Foxhall Village and Glover Park together...]

Contrary to your "see[ing] the CWG as lacking GP representation," the actual working group had at least five members from Stoddert/Glover Park.

Stoddert ES designees included two members. The Stoddert parent representatives included two members. And ANC 3B was represented through the chair being a designee.

Thank you, and I thought I was hot headed!!
As mentioned way back (and no, don't go read 20 pages), a representative from Stoddert is not the same thing as a representative from Glover Park! They, by design, represent the interests of Stoddert, not the neighborhood. I don't know why this is hard to understand, or why it leads to over the top attacks. I vote for (SMD,) ANC, and city council, they represent me/Glover Park. Stoddert represents Stoddert.

Yes, the ANC 3B commissioner was added by the 5th? (I legit forget) CWG meeting, after Glover Park got wind of the proposal to cut up Glover Park and finally got Cheh to do something. Notably, the other ANCs affected had representation the entire time, Glover Park did not, and the example redistricting which has led to so much debate hurts Glover Park while helping the other ANCs.

And I thought I was hot headed!

It's just a straight-up lie to say there was "no" GP representation. It may not have been the representation that you personally wanted, but it existed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only fillable by having Stoddert students drive instead of walk to school. (Walking through the park on hilly, muddy, and unimproved trails in the early morning is not a solution)

No. It could be. But it won't. Please go back 5 pages of wherever this was discussed.

It is I, the older Glover Park poster who had to take a trip and missed out on the continual rehashing!

The debate about whether Stoddert boundaries will be redrawn to screw Glover Park is, as yet, unresolved. My obviously biased recap: I, a Glover Park resident, see the CWG lacking GP representation, showing an example boundary that screws Glover Park, and listening to many meetings where DCPS defended those exact boundaries. Obviously the numbers for the Foxhall school don't work out unless they take from Stoddert (the estimate is roughly 40% of students coming from GP). The CWG member on here says the boundary was a mistake by DCPS, and assures us that Glover Park will remain whole.

The CWG member (or others, it's all anonymous of course) pointed out there could be a 'rotation' around the park. As near as I can tell, that would involve the northern tip of Stoddert's catchment going to Mann. But that would put those residents of Cathedral Heights at a much further distance from Mann than they currently are from Stoddert. Notably, Chancellor Ferebee's letter announcing the schools did not mention redrawing any of Hyde-Addison, and I take that as an indication no movement will happen there, despite the obvious ideas.

There has been mention of the Stoddert addition, with an accompanying claim it should solve problems. However, as DCPS has said, the eventual addition would simply be replacing the trailers with permanent structures, total capacity would stay nearly the same. There is no 'expansion' currently planned. As an indication of DCPS's beliefs, the original money for the addition was, I believe, taken for the building and acquisition of Foxhall and MacArthur. That's DCPS's expansion plan for Stodddert, and another indicator of what 's going to happen to Glover Park. (Not to mention my old hobbyhorse of the CWG sticking with the ludicrous 'hike through the park' distance from GP to Foxhall. If GP isn't going to Foxhall, why lie about this? Why should I trust an organization that starts with a dishonest statement?)

Anyway, this is all unresolved, and will likely remain so until DCPS proposes something. Chancellor Ferebee is meeting with ANC 3B (Glover Park) on April 14th, mainly to discuss MacArthur HS I believe. I imagine he's too politically smart to discuss boundaries, but I'm sure he will be barraged with questions given the previous disregard of GP by DCPS and the CWG's (and Cheh).

Congratulations, older Glover Park poster, for you have entered Alternative Fact Land! You join your neighbors in Foxhall Village as the sole current occupants of Alternative Fact Land. [Perhaps the redistricting group was onto something lumping Foxhall Village and Glover Park together...]

Contrary to your "see[ing] the CWG as lacking GP representation," the actual working group had at least five members from Stoddert/Glover Park.

Stoddert ES designees included two members. The Stoddert parent representatives included two members. And ANC 3B was represented through the chair being a designee.

Thank you, and I thought I was hot headed!!
As mentioned way back (and no, don't go read 20 pages), a representative from Stoddert is not the same thing as a representative from Glover Park! They, by design, represent the interests of Stoddert, not the neighborhood. I don't know why this is hard to understand, or why it leads to over the top attacks. I vote for (SMD,) ANC, and city council, they represent me/Glover Park. Stoddert represents Stoddert.

Yes, the ANC 3B commissioner was added by the 5th? (I legit forget) CWG meeting, after Glover Park got wind of the proposal to cut up Glover Park and finally got Cheh to do something. Notably, the other ANCs affected had representation the entire time, Glover Park did not, and the example redistricting which has led to so much debate hurts Glover Park while helping the other ANCs.

And I thought I was hot headed!

Responding to the bolded: yes, I remember you saying that around 20 pages ago, and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Are the Stoddert representatives not from GP? Are they somehow tainted because they are also Stoddert parents?

One of the founding tenets of Alternative Fact Land is that not all voices are equal, rather some voices count more than others. Specifically, the voices of me and the people who think like me should count the most, while the voices of people who disagree with me shouldn't count at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only fillable by having Stoddert students drive instead of walk to school. (Walking through the park on hilly, muddy, and unimproved trails in the early morning is not a solution)

No. It could be. But it won't. Please go back 5 pages of wherever this was discussed.

It is I, the older Glover Park poster who had to take a trip and missed out on the continual rehashing!

The debate about whether Stoddert boundaries will be redrawn to screw Glover Park is, as yet, unresolved. My obviously biased recap: I, a Glover Park resident, see the CWG lacking GP representation, showing an example boundary that screws Glover Park, and listening to many meetings where DCPS defended those exact boundaries. Obviously the numbers for the Foxhall school don't work out unless they take from Stoddert (the estimate is roughly 40% of students coming from GP). The CWG member on here says the boundary was a mistake by DCPS, and assures us that Glover Park will remain whole.

The CWG member (or others, it's all anonymous of course) pointed out there could be a 'rotation' around the park. As near as I can tell, that would involve the northern tip of Stoddert's catchment going to Mann. But that would put those residents of Cathedral Heights at a much further distance from Mann than they currently are from Stoddert. Notably, Chancellor Ferebee's letter announcing the schools did not mention redrawing any of Hyde-Addison, and I take that as an indication no movement will happen there, despite the obvious ideas.

There has been mention of the Stoddert addition, with an accompanying claim it should solve problems. However, as DCPS has said, the eventual addition would simply be replacing the trailers with permanent structures, total capacity would stay nearly the same. There is no 'expansion' currently planned. As an indication of DCPS's beliefs, the original money for the addition was, I believe, taken for the building and acquisition of Foxhall and MacArthur. That's DCPS's expansion plan for Stodddert, and another indicator of what 's going to happen to Glover Park. (Not to mention my old hobbyhorse of the CWG sticking with the ludicrous 'hike through the park' distance from GP to Foxhall. If GP isn't going to Foxhall, why lie about this? Why should I trust an organization that starts with a dishonest statement?)

Anyway, this is all unresolved, and will likely remain so until DCPS proposes something. Chancellor Ferebee is meeting with ANC 3B (Glover Park) on April 14th, mainly to discuss MacArthur HS I believe. I imagine he's too politically smart to discuss boundaries, but I'm sure he will be barraged with questions given the previous disregard of GP by DCPS and the CWG's (and Cheh).

Congratulations, older Glover Park poster, for you have entered Alternative Fact Land! You join your neighbors in Foxhall Village as the sole current occupants of Alternative Fact Land. [Perhaps the redistricting group was onto something lumping Foxhall Village and Glover Park together...]

Contrary to your "see[ing] the CWG as lacking GP representation," the actual working group had at least five members from Stoddert/Glover Park.

Stoddert ES designees included two members. The Stoddert parent representatives included two members. And ANC 3B was represented through the chair being a designee.

Thank you, and I thought I was hot headed!!
As mentioned way back (and no, don't go read 20 pages), a representative from Stoddert is not the same thing as a representative from Glover Park! They, by design, represent the interests of Stoddert, not the neighborhood. I don't know why this is hard to understand, or why it leads to over the top attacks. I vote for (SMD,) ANC, and city council, they represent me/Glover Park. Stoddert represents Stoddert.

Yes, the ANC 3B commissioner was added by the 5th? (I legit forget) CWG meeting, after Glover Park got wind of the proposal to cut up Glover Park and finally got Cheh to do something. Notably, the other ANCs affected had representation the entire time, Glover Park did not, and the example redistricting which has led to so much debate hurts Glover Park while helping the other ANCs.

And I thought I was hot headed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only fillable by having Stoddert students drive instead of walk to school. (Walking through the park on hilly, muddy, and unimproved trails in the early morning is not a solution)

No. It could be. But it won't. Please go back 5 pages of wherever this was discussed.

It is I, the older Glover Park poster who had to take a trip and missed out on the continual rehashing!

The debate about whether Stoddert boundaries will be redrawn to screw Glover Park is, as yet, unresolved. My obviously biased recap: I, a Glover Park resident, see the CWG lacking GP representation, showing an example boundary that screws Glover Park, and listening to many meetings where DCPS defended those exact boundaries. Obviously the numbers for the Foxhall school don't work out unless they take from Stoddert (the estimate is roughly 40% of students coming from GP). The CWG member on here says the boundary was a mistake by DCPS, and assures us that Glover Park will remain whole.

The CWG member (or others, it's all anonymous of course) pointed out there could be a 'rotation' around the park. As near as I can tell, that would involve the northern tip of Stoddert's catchment going to Mann. But that would put those residents of Cathedral Heights at a much further distance from Mann than they currently are from Stoddert. Notably, Chancellor Ferebee's letter announcing the schools did not mention redrawing any of Hyde-Addison, and I take that as an indication no movement will happen there, despite the obvious ideas.

There has been mention of the Stoddert addition, with an accompanying claim it should solve problems. However, as DCPS has said, the eventual addition would simply be replacing the trailers with permanent structures, total capacity would stay nearly the same. There is no 'expansion' currently planned. As an indication of DCPS's beliefs, the original money for the addition was, I believe, taken for the building and acquisition of Foxhall and MacArthur. That's DCPS's expansion plan for Stodddert, and another indicator of what 's going to happen to Glover Park. (Not to mention my old hobbyhorse of the CWG sticking with the ludicrous 'hike through the park' distance from GP to Foxhall. If GP isn't going to Foxhall, why lie about this? Why should I trust an organization that starts with a dishonest statement?)

Anyway, this is all unresolved, and will likely remain so until DCPS proposes something. Chancellor Ferebee is meeting with ANC 3B (Glover Park) on April 14th, mainly to discuss MacArthur HS I believe. I imagine he's too politically smart to discuss boundaries, but I'm sure he will be barraged with questions given the previous disregard of GP by DCPS and the CWG's (and Cheh).

Congratulations, older Glover Park poster, for you have entered Alternative Fact Land! You join your neighbors in Foxhall Village as the sole current occupants of Alternative Fact Land. [Perhaps the redistricting group was onto something lumping Foxhall Village and Glover Park together...]

Contrary to your "see[ing] the CWG as lacking GP representation," the actual working group had at least five members from Stoddert/Glover Park.

Stoddert ES designees included two members. The Stoddert parent representatives included two members. And ANC 3B was represented through the chair being a designee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only fillable by having Stoddert students drive instead of walk to school. (Walking through the park on hilly, muddy, and unimproved trails in the early morning is not a solution)

No. It could be. But it won't. Please go back 5 pages of wherever this was discussed.

It is I, the older Glover Park poster who had to take a trip and missed out on the continual rehashing!

The debate about whether Stoddert boundaries will be redrawn to screw Glover Park is, as yet, unresolved. My obviously biased recap: I, a Glover Park resident, see the CWG lacking GP representation, showing an example boundary that screws Glover Park, and listening to many meetings where DCPS defended those exact boundaries. Obviously the numbers for the Foxhall school don't work out unless they take from Stoddert (the estimate is roughly 40% of students coming from GP). The CWG member on here says the boundary was a mistake by DCPS, and assures us that Glover Park will remain whole.

The CWG member (or others, it's all anonymous of course) pointed out there could be a 'rotation' around the park. As near as I can tell, that would involve the northern tip of Stoddert's catchment going to Mann. But that would put those residents of Cathedral Heights at a much further distance from Mann than they currently are from Stoddert. Notably, Chancellor Ferebee's letter announcing the schools did not mention redrawing any of Hyde-Addison, and I take that as an indication no movement will happen there, despite the obvious ideas.

There has been mention of the Stoddert addition, with an accompanying claim it should solve problems. However, as DCPS has said, the eventual addition would simply be replacing the trailers with permanent structures, total capacity would stay nearly the same. There is no 'expansion' currently planned. As an indication of DCPS's beliefs, the original money for the addition was, I believe, taken for the building and acquisition of Foxhall and MacArthur. That's DCPS's expansion plan for Stodddert, and another indicator of what 's going to happen to Glover Park. (Not to mention my old hobbyhorse of the CWG sticking with the ludicrous 'hike through the park' distance from GP to Foxhall. If GP isn't going to Foxhall, why lie about this? Why should I trust an organization that starts with a dishonest statement?)

Anyway, this is all unresolved, and will likely remain so until DCPS proposes something. Chancellor Ferebee is meeting with ANC 3B (Glover Park) on April 14th, mainly to discuss MacArthur HS I believe. I imagine he's too politically smart to discuss boundaries, but I'm sure he will be barraged with questions given the previous disregard of GP by DCPS and the CWG's (and Cheh).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of us who can look at this objectively realize that adding these schools strengthens public education in DC and support them accordingly.

Sure, but the equity issue for this particular school at this particular location is appallingly bad. Just own it.

m

There are many modest apartment buildings along the lower McArthur. Children from there will attend the new school, thus making school access more equitable. Schools serve primarily their neighborhoods. Students from other wards are usually the exception rather than the rule so their concerns should not be primary drivers of the new schools planning.

Also, Key hosts 6 trailers for its 4th and 5th graders and Stoddert will build an addition, but the pace of its growth, who knows, it may become overcrowded again soon.

The new Foxhall ES resolves the overcrowding problem at Key. That needs a solution, not everything has to revolve around equity! It will probably also ensure that families will have another family friendly neighborhood besides Glover Park, and help reduce or prevent future overcrowding at Stoddert.

OK but there is no additional development/population coming to the Palisades/McArthur corridor and sure Key is overcrowded but it is a small school relative to Janney, Murch & Lafayette. The population density is coming to the Wisconsin Avenue corridor and it is Hearst and Janney that are going to get a flood of new students and no amount of tinkering around the edges is going to move seats around to create capacity at those two schools.

The Crowding Working Group recommended two elementary schools west of Rock Creek, one toward the north and one toward the south. Foxhal is the southern one, a northern one is still needed too.

DC really missed a golden opportunity by not even considering a school on the site of the CCDC community center and library (in other words, the northern portion of Ward 3). Creative thinking, and getting rid of that wasteful surface parking lot, could have made something happen that would have worked for everyone. Instead, there will be a new community center built on the site for the 36 seniors and 3-year-old ballet students who use it. Just a complete lack of forward thinking (which I guess is why we have overcrowded W3 schools right now).

Anonymous wrote:The "much bigger buildings" are just mcmansions. That doesn't add population density.

Here's the great folly in this new line of argument from the FCCA.

The FCCA says: schools aren't needed because population isn't forecasted to grow quickly in our area. They assert, falsely, that no new buildings are going to go in, seemingly unaware of the Mayor's housing initiative and the housing stock along Macarthur Boulevard.

But this too is a distraction.

Instead, ask yourself what growth has there been in housing in the area in the last fifteen years. (I'll pause. Try to think of new construction in Palisades, Wesley Heights, Foxhall, Spring Valley, Berkeley, Kent.)

There has been almost none. For decades. A few mansions were added to undeveloped plots over the years, but that's it. And, yet, despite this lack of new construction, Mann and Key have gained closed to 300 students. It's almost like there is more than one source of new students.

The FCCA wants to distract you -- because they think you are too stupid to see through it -- that with no new buildings (again, a false assertion) there are no new students. But the past 15 years literally refutes their argument.

Your emperor hath no clothes. His naked, wrinkled rear-end sure ain't pretty to look at, but you need to stop looking away and pretending otherwise.

The "much bigger buildings" are just mcmansions. That doesn't add population density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of us who can look at this objectively realize that adding these schools strengthens public education in DC and support them accordingly.

Sure, but the equity issue for this particular school at this particular location is appallingly bad. Just own it.

m

There are many modest apartment buildings along the lower McArthur. Children from there will attend the new school, thus making school access more equitable. Schools serve primarily their neighborhoods. Students from other wards are usually the exception rather than the rule so their concerns should not be primary drivers of the new schools planning.

Also, Key hosts 6 trailers for its 4th and 5th graders and Stoddert will build an addition, but the pace of its growth, who knows, it may become overcrowded again soon.

The new Foxhall ES resolves the overcrowding problem at Key. That needs a solution, not everything has to revolve around equity! It will probably also ensure that families will have another family friendly neighborhood besides Glover Park, and help reduce or prevent future overcrowding at Stoddert.

OK but there is no additional development/population coming to the Palisades/McArthur corridor and sure Key is overcrowded but it is a small school relative to Janney, Murch & Lafayette. The population density is coming to the Wisconsin Avenue corridor and it is Hearst and Janney that are going to get a flood of new students and no amount of tinkering around the edges is going to move seats around to create capacity at those two schools.

Good job making sweeping statements about future development patterns that have little factual basis. You also apparently are oblivious to the fact that families with children can replace those without in the existing housing stock.

The fact that more schools are needed in other places as well does not mean that it Foxhall ES is not needed. And, per the DME, the city is looking for new properties that it can acquire to build schools to serve the JML communities.

Again another area where I have some expertise - where is new development coming to Foxhall? The entire area is zoned for single family and none of it was changed in the recent Comp Plan update and there are no un-developed parcels but even if there were the underlying zoning is all for low and moderate density.

Yes there is always housing turnover but that turnover has already happened in a lot of neighborhoods and doesn't happen indefinitely.

Since you are ignorantly flailing around on here the Wisconsin Avenue corridor was just upzoned to high density AND has a bunch of lots that are primed for re-development and in fact two projects which are going to deliver almost 1000 new units in the next year.

But hey lets spend money on school capacity in a part of DC where no new housing is being built.

Do you consider MacArthur Boulevard part of the area? Because last night the ANC discussed a 17-unit development on MacArthur at Q. That whole area is zoned for mid-rise apartment buildings and could be much higher density. And good schools draw families, even with the existing housing stock there could be many more students.

17 units? Seriously?

There are two projects across the street from each other on WI Ave delivering 1000 units and there are numerous other lots on Wisconsin that are going to get new housing.

The whole of MacArthur is zoned for moderate density which is not mid-rise buildings - usually you get what you already have which is 3-4 stories.

But what lots are undeveloped?

There's not a lot of undeveloped land but there's a lot of underdeveloped. The 17-unit development is going where there now is a duplex, two single family homes. All around the neighborhood the small 1920's houses are being torn down and replaced with much bigger buildings. The whole section of MacArthur from Foxhall to Reservoir could be apartment buildings.