Two questions about tonight's "feasibility" kickoff.

We encourage everyone to come tonight to the choral room of Bethesda - Chevy Chase High School, for the 7 PM rollout of the "facility advisory committee", part of the MCPS "feasibility study" process for a 2nd B-CC middle school.

Our neighbors have been talking a lot, about Rock Creek Hills Park, & about a middle school. There are two questions we keep hearing from people, though, that are not about the park, or about a school, but about the "feasibility study" process itself:

1. Can this process be trusted?

The Board awarded the architectural contract to the same Virginia firm responsible for the Great Wall of Cabin John:

Here's what that community thought of their Wall (from an article by Susan Belford in the Potomac Almanac last year):

"We, the parents and the community have been duped," said Steve Weitz, representing the feeling of frustration in the standing-room-only community meeting of Cabin John parents and Fox Hills residents on Monday, May 17 at Bells Mill Elementary.

They met with James Song, director of the Division of Construction for Montgomery County Public Schools, and his team of architects, engineers, and project managers. The community’s concern is that the MCPS team had known for well over a year that the 11-foot retaining wall would be constructed along Gainsborough Road in front of the school — but had never communicated this architectural change to parents or to community members.

Residents only discovered this discrepancy when they observed a huge wall being built in front of the school....

Here's MCPS Construction Director Joyce Jessell explaining the Great Wall as just "something that happened after the community involvement portion":

Given the track record of this team, it's fair to ask: Can this process be trusted?

2. Is this process reasonable?

The formal foundation for the "feasibility study" is supposedly the official school specifications document posted on the official MCPS website. Under "site requirements", this official document specifies:

"20 useable acres (more than 20 acres may be needed due to terrain or for environmental protection requirements)".

Rock Creek Hills Park is clearly deficient, as its flat acreage is less than half of this official "requirement". We asked the MCPS why they wanted to proceed with a "feasibility study" for a deficient site. They replied that 20 acres was merely "preferred" but not "required".

So, are any of the official "requirements" actually requirements? For that matter, are any of the official "specifications" even specifications?

It's fair to ask: Is this process reasonable?

Can this process be trusted? Is this process reasonable?

If the process does not follow “requirements” then what does it follow to avoid overcapacity that will result from future development within the B-CC cluster?

If the process does not follow “requirements” then what safeguards does it have in place to provide equitable education with existing middle schools?

Strike three.

[Photo: Soccer in Rock Creek Hills Park, & the Kensington Park retirement community.]

Rock Creek Hills Park's nearest neighbors are the residents of the Kensington Park retirement community. It was built by the Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), financed mostly with tax-exempt bonds, on much of the site of the former Kensington Junior High School, to provide independent living, assisted living, and Alzheimer's care to two hundred senior citizens.

The County Board of Ed recently proclaimed that they intend to replace these seniors' park setting with a middle school complex. The site is inadequate to support a 900-student school, let alone afford for peaceful and appropriate co-existence with its senior or other neighbors.

So, we ask: Given the large public investment in the senior housing facility, not to mention general principles of transparency & community involvement, how did MCPS & the Board of Ed communicate their consideration of such a proposal to Kensington Park's land-owners (the HOC), managers, and residents?

This question is easily answered. Here is our understanding of the record of MCPS & Board of Ed notification to the HOC & the management & residents of Kensington Park:

1. Prior to the Board's April 28th vote to take the park: None.
2. Prior to the Board's May 23rd vote to hire an architect: None.
3. Prior to tomorrow's meeting of the MCPS "Facility Advisory Committee": None.

When will the Board & the MCPS stop treating these seniors as if they don't exist? When will the Board listen to voices from our communities?

[CORRECTION (6/9/11): This report on the record of notification contains an error, for which we apologize. We have recently learned that one letter was sent from MCPS to Kensington Park prior to yesterday's (6/8/11) "Facility Advisory Committee" meeting.]