MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Policy Committee
May 10, 2013
1:00 pm
Room 120
Discussion of “Guidelines for Leasing, Licensing, or Using MCPS Property
that is Being Held as a Future School Site.” (Policy DNA, Management of
Board of Education Property) – Judy Bresler/James Song/Bruce Crispell
(2:25) 20 minutes
BOE Committee meetings are held off camera. The Parents' Coalition videotaped this discussion and is making it available to the public.
Thaks for sunlighting yet another secret meeting by our county 'government.'
ReplyDeleteThe best part was at 21:30 when Mrs. Smondrowski realizes that the Board had ceded all power to execute leases less than 5 years and any land-use agreements to the Starr. Sort of a "But isn't that our job?" epiphany!
ReplyDeleteYes! And that led to the Committee deciding as policy that lease renewals should be brought to the Board, not just automatically signed by Starr. Song said that already happens now. Really?
DeleteFair market value?
ReplyDeleteFMS = 20 Acres of RE-2 land improved with a 130,000 sf building, utilities, parking lots, graded fields, tennis ad basketball courts and unencumbered by conservation or forest conservation easement.
Current SDAT Value - $7,250,000
"Swap Parcel = 17.1 Acre "out parcel", no utilities (W6/S6), not graded, encumbered with Forest Conservation Easement and Rural Open Space Easement and any development is prohibited.
Current SDAT Value - $0.00
MCPS is getting taken to the cleaners and only the Parks Department understands it. The best hustle is the one where the stooge thinks they are getting one over on you. The stooge never sees it coming.
The problem here is it is the tax payer that is the one getting fleeced. The real development numbers wont be known until it is too late. The project will come in over budget. Starr may or may not issue a mea culpa and away they go to the next hustle. All with your money and no remorse.
Now is the time to sync the modernization to the reopening of the Broome Holding Facility or begin to evaluate on-site plans that don't require busing.
The taxpayer actually benefits by the land swap - no waiting until the 2020s for Olney's new park, and no expensive cross county busing. The SDAT values of both properties are irrelevant - as Farquhar's current building will be demolished when the new one is finished.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments against the land swap assume the public is stupid - and we can't see the real motivation is that a landowner / developer doesn't want a school next door to their new development. That is - unless they gain financially. It was Ok to put Good Counsel directly across the street from their property because they got $3M.
The land swap saves about $1.5M in busing costs, keeps an entire community's kids local during the modernization, and gets Olney it's new park about 10 years sooner. It's supported by more than a dozen local civic groups, EVERY state legislator, our County Council member, and citizen advisory groups. It is seen by almost everyone in the greater Olney Community as a 'no brainer' - and only opposed by a handful of litigious and wealthy developer family members.
Thanks for the laugh. Since the land that you want does not belong to you, you have no right to speak for the owners or the beneficiaries. The value of the land flows with the homes that have yet to be built. You want to steal from those homeowners before they even move in.
DeleteThe public never benefits from that type of sleazy land deal.