Education   No exams, no uniform and no football team: Inside the best school in the world 28 Welcome to High Tech High  Victoria Lambert 8 NOVEMBER 2019 • 10:00AM Welcome to High Tech High, where classes are just as likely to be in making skateboards as maths and pupils are chosen by zip-code lottery, yet 95 per cent go on to university. So what can the UK’s exam-obsessed schools learn from its freewheeling ethos?  In a quiet corner of southern California, in a small sun-dappled school, a group of casually dressed teenagers are chattering about their upcoming lessons. The walls around them are hung with artwork, including a display of handmade skateboards painted in vibrant colours.  Subject boundaries are fluid. Maths and physics are taught as one. English and history share time. One recent environmental project combined Spanish with biology to create a children’s book. An art and physics scheme resulted in a school full of life-size wooden staircases which – like an Escher lithograph – led nowhere.  Welcome to High Tech High, one of the least-known, best-known educational establishments in the world. It has achieved fame in part thanks to a 2018 documentary called Most Likely To Succeed, which showed a day in the life of the school and has been screened around the world. At this school, exams have been jettisoned – on the whole – for projects that are displayed at the end of the autumn term to an audience of parents, alumni and locals with an interest. These undertakings have real purpose: a chemistry project involving testing local waterways was fed into wider academic work at the University of Southern California. The teens don’t carry satchels of books and the corridors are locker-free. But everywhere there’s an air of purpose and intent and good fortune. As the film shows, High Tech High is at the cutting edge of learning; so much so that every year 5,000 educators and influencers from around the world, including Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, come to San Diego to visit – and to pick up a little of its magic to take home. They are here not for some sort of Californian fantasy. This is a school that gets results for its pupils. A state-funded charter school (similar to a UK free school), it takes pupils on an academically blind, zip code-based lottery system but sends 95 per cent to university. Pupils explore maths problems as a team CREDIT: ILONA SZWARC Pupils are not elite: 15 per cent have special educational needs and get additional support, 50 per cent are low-income (qualifying for free or reduced-cost lunch), and 44 per cent of the school’s graduates are the first in their family to go on to higher education. Established in 2000, High Tech High was envisioned by educational leader Larry Rosenstock, tech billionaire Irwin Jacobs and a group of San Diego civic heads and teachers who rethought schooling for the 21st century. Not in a Silicon Valley ‘let’s make everything digital’ (but then carry on teaching as before) way. Instead, it looked at all the elements of a child’s education – from uniform to hierarchies to the exam system – and compared it to the modern world of work. And it posed the question: how can a system of education that was set up to produce workers for the factories and plants of the 19th and 20th century be relevant to young people who face a completely different workplace today? In previous generations, workers sat in rows in offices or stood in line by conveyor belts doing repetitive work at the same companies until they retired. They needed to learn discipline, patience, an understanding of hierarchy and how to take orders. As we progress into the 21st century, employment already looks quite different. With less job security and a fast-changing job market, workers need to learn flexibility, resilience and teamwork. In addition to academic skills, there will also be more focus on technology, politics and language. Sophia Morrison, 17, who joined the school (at North County, one of High Tech High’s six campuses) at 13 from a more traditional middle school, is one of those Gen Z-ers who will face a world her grandparents could not have imagined. Confident and poised, she takes us on a tour of an institution she is clearly bonded to. ‘My little brother has just joined in ninth grade [year 10 in the UK],’ Sophia says, ‘and my father wishes he could have come here.’ The original school teaches children aged 14-18 (UK years 10-13). The youngest and most senior years share the ground floor, with the elders acting as positive role models for the newbies. They have separate classes for compulsory subjects like maths but in optional classes – coding, leadership, sports – different ages often learn together.    One of the most important rooms is the Maker Space – a large area full of power tools and hunks of sawn-off wood. ‘You learn the foundation skills of carpentry in classes when you arrive at the school,’ says Sophia. ‘Everyone is taught to use a drill and a saw so they are confident and safe.’ Practical skills are believed to be crucial, and one project involved making a skateboard throne CREDIT: ILONA SZWARC These practical skills are crucial to the whole education concept of High Tech High. Rosenstock became interested in education when he was a law student in Boston and started teaching carpentry to children. He became convinced that vocational and academic training could be combined to improve education. After years working in education policy and management, Rosenstock began to research what made the best high school, but no one seemed to have any real idea. Then he met Jacobs, founder of San Diego wireless technology firm Qualcomm, who was struggling to hire engineers who also had communication skills, and who wanted to set up a school. Together they conceived High Tech High.  Early on, Rosenstock discovered that if children made things as they learnt, their comprehension and recollection of the topic was improved. One of his early slogans for the school was: ‘You can play video games at HTH, but only if you make them here.’ Rosenstock’s concepts have roots in ‘deeper learning’, an educational notion first described in 2010 by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a US charity committed to the advancement of education for all. Deeper learning is based on encouraging critical thinking and problem solving, learning to collaborate, and effective presentation skills. A study from the American Institutes for Research reported in 2016 that students who attend schools that practise this experience more positive academic outcomes than those who don’t. Most of all, it instils a love and respect for learning. A state-funded charter school (similar to a UK free school), it takes pupils on an academically blind, zip code-based lottery system but sends 95 per cent to university At High Tech High, this can present itself in different ways. Sophia explains, ‘In our maths class, the teacher explains a concept. Then we all must go away and use this concept to create our own problem and solution – and then come back and teach the rest of the class. It’s a really powerful way to learn. And sometimes it’s easier to understand from your peers than a teacher.’ Teamwork doesn’t end there. Sophia explains that as the students stay in the same small form (25 per class with three or four classes per year group) from the start of school, with whom they must work on everything, they bond fiercely. Individuals take it in turns to lead on projects and sometimes that means that if a leader fails, they all do. Challenging behaviour – these are teens, after all – becomes the responsibility of all. ‘We’re very good at conflict resolution,’ says Sophia with a smile. ‘Problems get picked up fast and some kids have had to leave. We can discuss our concerns at community meetings of the entire year group. We all talk and find a solution.’ We walk past the senior art class, where students are studying dreams and creating masks, as they explore their sense of identity. It’s a central theme at High Tech High, working out who you are and how you make the most of your place in the world.  An important theme at High Tech High is working out who you are and how you make the most of your place in the world   CREDIT: ILONA SZWARC Another facet of High Tech High life is the two month-long internships that all students undertake. Workplaces have included tech companies, sports coaching and art galleries. Sophia spent her first month at a birth and fertility clinic, and she intends to work there again this December. ‘It was such a powerful experience,’ she says. ‘It’s made me realise I want to work in midwifery.’  But can any school dismiss the idea of exams so completely? Sophia confirms that as the students get closer to graduation, they are set some exams as preparation. They also get the opportunity to go to the local community college (the equivalent of a further- education college in the UK) to take additional courses such as business studies. ‘We may not be as exam-prepped as other students,’ says Sophia, ‘but we have good people skills and we know how to get help and to ask for what we need. And we have real work experience.’  No school system is perfect and at High Tech High, staff admit that its size both works for and against it. With only 400 children in the senior school and about 330 in the middle school (equivalent to UK years 7-9), it’s easier to be flexible and respond to individual needs. But music and sport are not covered as well – with so few pupils, teams are less competitive and orchestras are almost impossible to fill. There is no traditional Homecoming at High Tech High – the annual football game that American teenagers love – because there is no football team. Despite this, High Tech High is slowly expanding across the San Diego region, with 16 schools, spanning kindergarten to high school, responsible for 6,000 students. At High Tech Middle’s North County campus, where a huge whale made of recycled rubbish hangs above the lobby, Kelly Jacob, director for the past two years, greets me with a wide smile. She arrived here when she was looking at schools for her own child – ‘I found this and I was all in,’ she says. ‘We have been very intentional at High Tech High about keeping our class sizes, team sizes and school sizes small,’ she points out. ‘This allows us to build that sense of community and collaboration.’ She is quick to dispatch the idea that the school doesn’t equip children with the academic skills they need. ‘Kids still need to learn to read and write,’ she says. We walk past a classroom where the children are listening to music by Queen while writing poetry that will be turned into rap songs. The 11-year-olds announce in turn what they intend to focus on. ‘Racism,’ says one. ‘Climate change,’ says another. And then they go back to giggling and dancing in their seats like every child around the world. Encouraging individuality is vital, says Jacob. ‘It is the first school I have worked in where students do not feel afraid to share their ideas, collaborate with others, and push back in meaningful ways.’ Schools such as Bohunt refuse to be boxed in by the national curriculum CREDIT: ILONA SZWARC While the influence of High Tech High has been felt around the world, it’s fair to say that some UK schools – both independent and state-funded – are just as innovative in their own ways. At Bedales in Hampshire – an independent school that was founded in 1893 by John Haden Badley, in reaction to the limitations of conventional Victorian schools – disruption is in its DNA. Indeed, head Magnus Bashaarat recently stated that if Labour Party policy to turn independent schools into state schools were enacted, he would rather see Bedales close as its entire purpose would be lost.  ‘Were I to be given the ultimatum,’ Bashaarat said, ‘that Bedales be made a state school, and that it should follow the national curriculum and policymakers’ preoccupations with the transfer of knowledge and disregard for humanities and the arts, I would have to decline. I would rather we shut our doors.’ He added: ‘School should be a preparation for life, not just for a job.’ When we meet, Bashaarat explains that deeper learning is very much part of the core at Bedales: ‘In the sixth form, many of our students choose to manufacture a product or make an artefact in their extended project,’ he explains.  Collaboration is also encouraged; three sixth-form students shared a project investigating Islamic architecture, which saw them travel to Istanbul to interview Turkish curators, resulting in not a series of essays but a short film. ‘Teachers can be convenors and facilitators,’ he explains. ‘We can support and steer areas for investigation.’ The school has also taken a scythe to traditional exams at 16. While students must study five GCSEs (the number required for college entrance), they also pick four Bedales Assessed Courses (BACs), home-grown qualifications that have been accepted by universities as GCSE-equivalent. These involve group work and presentations as well as timed assessments. Subjects include English literature – where the curriculum is wider than for the traditional GCSE – computer- game design, and outdoor work, which involves animal husbandry as well as ecology.  At a senior art class, students study dreams and create masks as part of a project to explore their sense of identity  CREDIT: ILONA SZWARC There is talk of creating a sixth-form course in sustainable living, which would see students living off-grid as part of their studies. The team are also looking into the idea of a 6:3 year, after A levels have been taken, to involve volunteering and internships.  Barely eight miles away is state school Bohunt, centre of the Bohunt Education Trust, which operates seven academies from Wokingham to Worthing. Despite being part of the state-education system, headteacher Neil Strowger and director of education Phil Avery believe they can be as innovative as they need to be. Although there has been a fair amount of criticism that the current national curriculum in the UK is too rigid, focusing on teaching a narrow range of subjects, schools such as Bohunt are refusing to be boxed in. Avery has visited High Tech High and says: ‘There are aspects to it that are really sound. They have incredibly high standards in their project work.’  But he says that what they are achieving is down to something called ‘retrieval practice’, which Avery explains is ‘about teaching something repeatedly in different ways; that’s why the learning is enhanced’. He says that this is something Bohunt schools do too – albeit in different ways.  Both Strowger and Avery are unsure whether the High Tech High method suits all children. ‘It’s not a magic pedagogical bullet,’ says Strowger. ‘It’s all very well to raise the roof but you need a supportive floor in the first place or children fall through the cracks. We won’t do that here.’ Not that either of them is particularly enamoured of those schools that are emerging with a diametrically opposed system –such as the Michaela Community School in north London, where discipline is absolute and results have been impressive.  ‘The jury is out,’ says Avery. ‘Will the children be performing as well in four years’ time when they have left school? Without intense pressure, will they unravel?’  Strowger says, ‘I want children to enjoy school. Growing up is hard and mental health is fragile at the best of times.’ Bohunt School has become famous for its immersive Mandarin teaching, with children who opt in at year 7 achieving GCSEs in the language after three years. But the school has also experimented with what it calls the Bohunt Baccalaureate in years 7-9, when pupils were encouraged to do extended projects in anything from kitemaking to fashion. Now, like Bedales, they are exploring how to build outdoor studies into the curriculum. They are also passionate about including work experience into the students’ termly routine. Strowger adds, ‘We don’t have a project-based curriculum, but we are working at ways to help build connections between subjects. Schools need to be confident about what they are doing, not to just think about getting kids through the exams.’  And he points out the advantage of size. ‘We are larger than average here but can offer a greater degree of personal learning. Whatever your interest, you will find an outlet for it.’ Avery asks the key question: ‘How do you innovate without ruining a child’s chances? They only go through school once.’ One area that none of the schools seem to concur over is uniform – or lack of it. Bohunt is for, Bedales and High Tech High against. At the latter, the decision to allow children to wear what they want was – appropriately – student led. When the school opened, Kelly Jacob explains, there was a professional dress code that required collared shirts. ‘They looked so smart. It was explained to the children that presenting like a professional was important and respectful. But then a 14-year-old wrote to the teachers and said, “My dad goes to work in overalls – does that mean he isn’t professional in his work?”’ Jacob beams with pride. ‘So, we got rid of the code. He was quite right.’ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/0/no-exams-no-uniform-no-football-team-inside-best-school-world/ ReplyForward

The importance of the Democratic nomination competition: Medicare for All (as set forth by Warren and Sanders) could sink us.

With so many of us understandably fixated on the horror show which is Donald Trump and his presidency, it is easy to be complacent about the Democratic nomination competition. Recent polling in battleground states is chilling, for it indicates that we could beat Trump soundly in the popular vote and still lose in the Electoral College.
 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html

As never-Trump Republican Michael Gerson opines in a recent Washington Post column entitled, in the print edition, A health-care plan to get Trump reelected, Elizabeth Warren’s weakness in head-to-head polling against Trump in the battleground states — “even at this low point of presidential character and Congressional GOP courage” and notwithstanding her ability as “perhaps the most politically talented Democratic challenger” — is attributable to her Medicare for All plan and her commitment “to abolish all private health insurance, put a government bureaucracy in charge and spend an additional $2 trillion a year on her ambitions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/warrens-climb-in-the-polls-should-horrify-democrats/2019/11/04/429f4032-ff4d-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html 

But it is not just never-Trump Republicans sounding this warning. Progressive economics columnist Catherine Rampel, in that same edition of the Post,  explains clearly why Elizabeth Warren’s numbers do not add up.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-tried-to-do-bernie-sanderss-homework-for-him-she-failed/2019/11/04/bddfb0b0-ff48-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html That, on top of Rampel’s observation that recent polling shows that “eliminating private insurance is not actually a political winner” (see, e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/medicare-for-all-polling/index.html) should give all Democrats pause with respect to Warren’s candidacy.  I do not see the numbers increasing in support for the proposal; the more it is closely examined, the more nervous voters get -- and justifiably so.  

Rampel’s column has particular resonance for me. Early on, I saw Warren, with her energy, intelligence, commitment to progressive values, and clear-eyed understanding of how insufficiently regulated Capitalism is destructive of the public welfare, as a very plausible choice for the nomination. But her rigid commitment to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal is both a political and policy mistake — indeed, a potential disaster with the specter of another four years of Trump looming over us. 

This does not mean that we ought to nominate Joe Biden. His weaknesses as a candidate are too significant to overlook. Fortunately, Pete Buttigieg offers brilliance, youthful energy, and sound policies designed to “win the era.” He would present a stark contrast to Trump in every way. I am aware of the potential weaknesses of Buttigieg’s candidacy. But I think they are far less risky that the weaknesses of the other contenders. 

Cherrywood HOA members: Please vote NO on the proposed Declarations changes.

A long-time member of the Cherrywood Homeowners Association, I have been a member of the Board of Directors of the HOA since October 2018, and currently serve as Secretary.  

In September 2018, a proposed Package of Declarations of Covenants was presented by the Board to the members of the HOA. If enacted, the Package would radically change the relationship of the HOA to its membership, and would impose significant, unprecedented restrictions on members' ability to use their homes. 

By March 2019, fewer than 35% had voted in favor -- well short of the 60% required for enactment.  Last spring, an unsigned article in the Newsletter of the HOA urged members to vote.  The article gave reasons for passage, but did not include the contrary view. I had offered to present an article setting forth arguments for rejection, but the editor of the Newsletter refused to put it in the Newsletter.  In the months that followed, hardly anyone else voted.  

Now, a year after the Package was presented, the Board has decided to make another effort to secure passage. I again offered to include a dissenting view in Newsletter, but that offer was rejected.  The Fall Newsletter again contains an article urging ratification of the Declarations Package.  Last month,  HOA Board President Lee Kidd suggested including in the Annual Meeting package a Case for Approving the changes, along with my Case for Rejecting the changes.  Lee and I exchanged drafts to make sure that we were both being fair in our arguments, and then presented the proposed documents to the Board.  I very much appreciated Lee's approach. The Board, by a 4-3 vote, however, refused to include the documents in the Annual Meeting package.

No important decision about a major change in a community should be made without a full airing of the pros and cons.  Consequently, I am providing both Lee's piece and my piece for Cherrywood HOA members' consideration.  For the reasons set forth my piece,  I urge my fellow members to vote Against the proposed Declarations changes.  

(I also provide at the end a short piece on The Case for Approving the Parcel E Storm Water Management Pond Transfer Proposal, written by me.  There is unanimity on the Board that this proposal should be approved.)

Any one wishing to discuss this further may contact me at fishbackhoa@gmail.com

 ****************************************************************

1.  THE CASE FOR APPROVING THE PROPOSED DECLARATIONS CHANGES, by Lee Kidd 

The Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Association are a very modest update to our existing covenants.  The proposed Amended Declaration addresses the following issues affecting the community: creates a prohibition on the installation of telecommunication towers within the Association, prohibits short-term rentals such as Airbnb and accessory apartments, incorporates other restrictions on leasing to protect the interests of all homeowners, and improves the operations of the Association by strengthening the enforcement mechanisms available to the Association by requiring homeowners to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of collection incurred in collection of judgments entered against them in court.  If these changes were made, the HOA would still have no architecture review or other restrictions that most HOAs have.  These changes were prepared by our legal counsel (who specialize in HOA law) based on previous discussions among Association members at our annual meetings.

The County’s recent actions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) drive home the need for this covenant change.  The details on the approved County regulations may be found at this link: https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=23341&Dept=1

If you check the site, it is clear that under the upcoming County rules (12-31-19) and our current covenants, accessory apartments and mini backyard houses could be built on every single-family house in our HOA, and there is nothing that we can do.  Additionally, the County will rule that the garage and driveway in our HOAs single-family homes will provide off street parking.  While this is great in theory, people will not block cars in the drive and street parking will be a major problem if ADUs are added to the neighborhood.  GOCA unanimously opposed these changes. The only way to prevent them from happening is Cherrywood is to pass our Declarations update.  Some people have expressed concern that the new declarations would preclude having relatives in need move in.  This is not the case.  The only restriction is setting up an ADU.

None of these proposed changes are blocked by law at this time.  It is possible that future changes to County (or state and Federal) law could invalidate the section on telecommunication towers.  If this happens, the higher law will take precedence and no action will be required on our part.

All of the proposed covenant changes benefit the HOA and the accessory apartments change is now vital to our community.  However, it is extremely difficult to pass any change to the HOA Covenants.  For example, the Pond transfer is like giving free money to every person in the HOA.  There are only positives.  After 11 months, only 45% of home owners have voted.  With more than half the needed signature in hand, starting over on the Covenant Changes would not be prudent and would leave us unprotected when the new law takes effect 12-31-19.  The Board (with the exception of one member) strongly urges approval of the Covenant Changes.

****************************************************************

2.  THE CASE FOR REJECTING THE PROPOSED DECLARATIONS CHANGES, by David Fishback

              The Case for Approving the Proposed Declarations Changes characterizes them as “a very modest update of our existing covenants.” This is simply not the case.  The existing Declarations include no restrictions whatsoever on what we may do with our property. The proposed changes would, for the first time, add a number of restrictions.

             The Case for Approving piece also states that the proposed changes were prepared “based on previous discussions among Association members at our annual meetings.”  But it fails to note that these meetings are typically attended by fewer than 10% of HOA homeowners. 

            Moreover, a vote FOR would be a vote for the entire Package of changes; we do not have the opportunity to vote for some, but not all. 

            The Package includes significant restrictions on homeowners’ freedom to lease any part of their homes, including requirements that homeowners identify to the HOA Board the identities of “tenants” in their homes. According to proposed Section 4(a), Article IV, “A ‘tenant’ shall include any person occupying the Lot other than the Owner or a member of the Owner’s household, even if the tenant has not paid any consideration.” The phrase “even if the tenant has not paid any consideration” means that if a friend or relative not in your “household” – a term which is not defined – is living with you, you will be obligated to provide their identities to the Board, even if they are not paying rent.   I have not heard any rationale for this invasion of privacy. What would this or any future Board do with this information?  

[NOTE:  In arguing that my analysis should not be included in the Annual Meeting materials, one Board member told me that he understood that this information is already required to be submitted to the County Government.  This is simply not the case, as I explained to the Board last spring.   https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2019/04/cherrywood-homeowners-please-vote-no-on.html (I add it here, since it was unnecessary to include it in my response to the "Case For" piece, since that piece does not did not make this argument.) Here is the text of my explanation:  

"[A]t the February 2019 Board meeting, some members said that they thought that the identification-of-tenants provision of proposed Section 4(a) was already required by the County, and one member provided me with a provision of the County Code (Section 29-51(h) that he thought confirmed that impression. I read the provision, and discovered that nothing in County law requires that the names of tenants be submitted to the County.  I confirmed that understanding with the appropriate official of the County Department of Housing and Community Affairs."

(Anyone wishing to see the memorandum, with attachments, that I presented to the Board may contact me at fishbackhoa@gmail.com.)] 

            It is also important to note that proposed Section 4(g) gives the Board the “right to promulgate and adopt additional Rules and Regulations affecting Leasing.” This is a lot of power to place in the hands of a Board.  For example, this new power would enable a future Board to bar homeowners from permitting non-family members to live in their homes.  

[NOTE:  My original version of this analysis stated that a future Board could, under 4(g) even bar extended family members from being tenants.  HOA Board President Lee Kidd felt that this statement was unfair because he could not imagine anyone on the Board ever seeking to do such a thing.  My response was that I was not saying the present Board would ever so act, but that we had no way of knowing what a future Board would do.  Nevertheless, in order to get agreement that would lead the full Board to agree to submission in the Annual Meeting materials, I agreed to change the language.  The Board's refusal frees me from any obligation to not make the point now.]  

            Proposed Section 5, Article IV would bar any “accessory apartments.”  Accessory apartments, attached to existing homes, are heavily regulated by the County, are already legal, and there is little evidence that they have created any problem in Cherrywood.  But enactment of Section 5 would mean, for example, that we could not convert our basements into living quarters with kitchens, bathrooms, and separate entrances for our parents, grandparents, or adult children. Do we really want to prohibit homeowners from adjusting to economic hardship by bringing in family members, or another trusted family, into their homes in this manner? During the Great Depression, my grandmother was able to keep her family together and stay in her home after my grandfather’s untimely death only because she was able to convert part of her house into a separate apartment, which she rented to her sister’s family and later to another family. We should not prevent families who may fall on rough times from saving their homes, or from helping their loved ones. 

            Proposed Section 1, Article VI would give the Board the power to foreclose on homeowners who fail “to comply with the Terms of the Association’s Governing Documents.”  This would be in addition to attorney fees which mount up quickly when the Board moves against homeowners (now, only for non-payment of annual assessments). The addition of the new restrictions in the Package mean that homeowners could easily be pressured to accede to any interpretation the Board might put on these restrictions.

            The Case for Approving article states that the County Council is currently considering new regulations on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and that “u]nder the planned County rules and our current covenants, [1] accessory apartments and [2] mini backyard houses could be built on every single-family house in our HOA, and there is nothing that we can do.”  The details on the proposed County regulations may be found at: https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=23341&Dept=1

            But attached accessory apartments in existing homes are already permissible, are heavily-regulated, and have not created any significant problems in Cherrywood. Prohibiting them could, as noted above, create great hardships for some families.  The proposed County regulations do not change the existing parking rules for ADUs more than a mile from a Metro Stop, the Purple Line, or a MARC Station (“three off-street spaces are still required”). 

            As for “backyard houses”, it is true that the Council proposal would allow detached ADUs on lots smaller than one acre. But there are significant zoning and building regulations that would have to be complied with.  The process and the construction would be quite expensive, and that factor alone suggests that few, if any, homeowners will find it useful to build such houses.  So the idea that suddenly the number of single-family houses in Cherrywood would explode is, in my view, mistaken. In any event, as noted above, the entire Package of Declaration changes is to be voted on “all or nothing.”  Prohibiting accessory apartments in existing homes, invading people’s privacy, and giving a future Board the essentially unfettered “right to promulgate and adopt additional Rules and Regulations affecting Leasing” are too high a price to pay for this other restriction.

            Fewer than 35% of Cherrywood households have voted for the Package.  It takes 60% to approve a change in the Declarations, and for good reason.  People moved here, in part, because the HOA does not impose restrictions on individual freedom, and is not, in effect, a form of sub-government in Montgomery County.  So our foundational documents provide that any move to change that dynamic must be overwhelmingly supported. The role of the Board is presently limited to housekeeping matters, which are important, and have been well-carried out. The proposed Package does not address an actual problem in our community, and would radically change the relationship between the Board and the community.

****************************************************************

3.  THE CASE FOR APPROVING THE PARCEL E STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POND TRANSFER PROPOSAL

            There is a second issue pending before the HOA membership, and this one has unanimous support of the HOA Board. That is the vote on the Parcel E Storm Water Management Pond Transfer. There is a large pond near the Cherrywood Playground and Soccer field that is owned by the HOA, but as to which we have both liability and expenses, even though the ownership in no way benefits the HOA.  Any body of water can be a place where injuries may occur, and, in this litigious society, such injuries may result in lawsuits against the owner.  Fortunately, Montgomery County has agreed to take ownership of and responsibility for this Parcel E.  But, under our Declaration of Covenants, we need a 2/3 positive vote to complete the deal.  

            As of this writing, only 44% of households (265) had voted in favor (with only six voting against).  Every member of the HOA Board believes that it would be in the best interest of the HOA if we are able to complete the transfer.  We urge those who have not yet voted on the Parcel E Pond Transfer to do so now with an affirmative vote so that we may remove the expense and possible liability arising out of HOA ownership of Parcel E. 

(Note: This vote is separate from the vote on the proposed amendments to the Declaration of Covenants.)