Save Rock Creek Hills Park? Well, we sure tried!

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Top three myths about the "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park: Myth #3 - "Smaller".

Presenting a special back-to-school feature: The top three myths about the "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park! Today, myth number 3: "Smaller."

MYTH: The "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park resulted in a smaller school, that will allow for preservation of more green space.

IN FACT: The "core capacity" of the school is unchanged, at 1200 students.

PROOF: Numerous official Montgomery County Public Schools documents state clearly that the core capacity of the proposed school is 1200 students. While the proposed initial construction would provide classroom space for fewer students, the plans already include a building addition to bring the school to its final capacity of 1200 students. Of course, the site of the small park is inadequate for a 1200-student school. And, if anyone tells you that a "smaller school" will leave more trees, just ask them to watch this half-minute video: http://youtu.be/K493b9vhqw8

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Top three myths about the "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park: Myth #2 - "Integrity".

Presenting a special back-to-school feature: The top three myths about the "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park! Today, myth number 2: "Integrity."

MYTH: The "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park was professionally conducted, with consistency and integrity.

IN FACT: As reported by Sarah Gantz in the Gazette newspaper, the "feasibility study" for Rock Creek Hills Park was run by Montgomery County Public Schools using rules that changed midway through. MCPS showed a lack of good faith in addressing neighborhood concerns.

PROOF:

• If anyone tells you that the "feasibility study" was conducted with consistency and integrity, just ask them to watch this one-minute video: http://youtu.be/Pouf84Vwm2w

• If anyone tells you that community concerns were addressed in good faith during the "feasibility study", just ask them to watch this minute-and-a-half video: http://youtu.be/nOzFAv0zDs0

Tomorrow, myth number 3: "Smaller".

Who Said That?

"When the [Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission] developed [Rock Creek Hills Park] in the early 1990s they accepted funds from the Program Open Space. This is a program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to distribute funds from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to preserve open space. The use of Program Open Space funds was inconsistent with the reclamation terms of the transfer agreement under which the M-NCPPC took title to the property. This was the case since use of these funds places restrictions on future public use of parks, in contradiction with the terms of the original transfer agreement..."
– Dr. Joshua Starr, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools.

From the MCPS Site Selection Advisory Committee Minority Reports:

The B-CC High School NAACP Parents' Council wrote that they "... cannot support the recommendation to build the new middle school in a potentially racially divisive and socially isolating location. ... We, therefore, ask the Superintendent and the Board of Education to decline to adopt Rock Creek Hills Local Park as the site for the new middle school."

The Lyttonsville Civic Association wrote that "...MCPS staff set inappropriate boundaries for discussion... ...MCPS staff cut off discussion to insist that a vote be taken before the committee had finished considering all their options. Staff ... made procedural rulings that affected the ability of some representatives to speak freely. Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."

Ms. Brooke Farquhar (Parks Department) wrote: "Costs were not thoroughly evaluated in the process and misinformation may have prejudiced the votes of committee members.... The process lacked a robust analysis. The potential sites should have been analyzed more thoroughly, based on detailed information that would allow consistent comparison across the sites."

Mr. Frederick V. Boyd (Planning Board) wrote: "[T]he rating process used for selecting sites did not provide a real opportunity to consider the community character and quality of life consequences of choosing a candidate site. ... [D]escriptions appear to have been written to enable easier consideration of some public sites..."