Takoma Park McLaughlin School Site: 16 Homes, $3.5M Price Drop

Takoma Park bought and protected part of the former Washington-McLaughlin School land as Dorothy’s Woods. Now the city has passed on the remaining five-acre site as a recreation-center location, the asking price has plunged by $3.5 million, and a newly formed company proposes 16 privately owned homes. What changed, and what would the city gain or give up?

Takoma Park has already bought part of the old Washington-McLaughlin School property once. It took a federal tax auction, a public fundraising campaign, a conservation commitment and, eventually, another expensive payment to keep that land. The result was Dorothy’s Woods, a rare preserved stretch of open space in a city where land is scarce. More than a decade later, the remaining school property has raised a different question: after deciding it was too expensive and difficult to use for a recreation center, why didn’t the city reconsider when the asking price dropped by nearly 60 percent?

The stakes are substantial for homeowners. According to the city’s FY2027 proposed budget, attached and detached single-family homes represent about half the city’s housing units but account for approximately 77% of real property-tax collections. That is not 77% of the entire city budget, and it does not mean 77% of residents are homeowners. The mayor’s argument is that growth could spread the property-tax burden more widely. Whether it would actually lower the tax bills of existing homeowners is a question the city should answer with figures, not simply an expectation of growth.

The question arrives just after an election in which development and property taxes were central issues. Mayor Talisha Searcy argued that new housing could “broaden the tax base so homeowners are not carrying a disproportionate share,” but the McLaughlin proposal also invites another kind of accounting: what is five acres of land worth as a public asset, and what municipal revenue might a private development actually produce?

The Poplar Avenue plan is not for rental apartments. It would create seven detached houses, two units in a duplex, and seven townhouses, including two moderately priced dwelling units. Each of the 16 homes would sit on its own fee-simple lot. They could eventually be rented by individual owners, but that is not how the proposed project is organized. This would be new privately owned housing, with a private pool, sports facilities and common areas.

The most unusual part of the story may be that the 5.17-acre property at 6501 Poplar Avenue is still advertised as active by Compass at $2.495 million. Takoma Development, LLC has nevertheless filed a detailed concept plan for it. The school is named as the owner in the planning papers, and the development company as prospective purchaser. That leaves two questions open: who has the right to buy this land, and why has the city not been interested in buying it at the much lower asking price?

A look through the records connects the sale history, the city’s earlier examination of the site, the people proposing the development and the still-unanswered fiscal question. It is possible that city officials have reasons to rule out a public purchase, and possible that the development team has experience or partners not evident in the public materials. Those are questions for the people involved, not findings that can be supplied by inference.

The city has bought part of this land before

The earlier story begins in 2015. The Internal Revenue Service auctioned a 2.68-acre wooded parcel that had been part of Washington-McLaughlin Christian School’s holdings. Takoma Park bought it for $253,000 to preserve it as open space. City records say residents contributed about $69,400 toward the purchase. The city also paid approximately $35,500 in outstanding property taxes on the acquired parcel to record the deed. It was an unusual way to assemble a public park, but the city and neighbors pursued it because they wanted to keep the trees and green space. [City financial record]

The purchase was not the end of the financial complications. In 2017, the city placed a protective covenant on the property, preserving it as undeveloped wooded open space. Meanwhile, competing liens and a threatened foreclosure continued to shadow the city’s ownership. By September 2018, Takoma Park agreed to pay Fairview Investment Fund $250,000 to release its claim against Dorothy’s Woods and dismiss the foreclosure action. Roughly $100,000 of that payment came from members of the public. City records describe a threatened claim of approximately $382,600 and a separate federal housing lien that was also released. The city had to pay again to keep land it had already bought. [City timeline] [Covenant and resolutions]

The city now describes Dorothy’s Woods as protected public open space. The parcel is distinct from the roughly 5.17-acre school site now on the market, and the legal circumstances are not interchangeable. But it is part of the same land history. In 2015 the city assembled public and private funds to acquire a piece of the former school property; in 2018 it spent more to defend that acquisition. In February 2026, it assessed the remaining school site and did not recommend purchasing it as a recreation-center location. When that site subsequently became far cheaper, the records reviewed for this story do not show whether officials reopened the question. [City property overview] [February 4 staff report]

The city’s own chronology also makes the earlier financial story more complicated than a simple purchase price. It reports property-tax proceeds received in connection with the old school liabilities and other tax years. Those receipts should not be confused with the costs of acquiring and preserving Dorothy’s Woods, or with the separate current tax bill on the remaining school tract. [City financial accounting]

Ten days in February

On February 4, 2026, Takoma Park city staff presented a review of possible recreation-center sites to the City Council. The Washington-McLaughlin property had been considered, but staff did not recommend pursuing it, citing acquisition costs and site and building constraints. The property had been listed on January 22 for $5.995 million. Ten days after the council presentation, on February 14, public listing history shows the property temporarily off the market. It returned on March 6 at the same asking price. There is no established evidence that the city’s review caused the listing change, but the timing merits an explanation.

Then came two more listings at much lower prices. On July 21, the property was advertised for $3.495 million; by August 30, it was offered for $2.495 million. The original and subsequent listings have different MLS numbers, so the history is not one uninterrupted listing with consecutive cuts. But the difference between January’s advertised price and August’s is $3.5 million, roughly 58%. The Compass listing was still marked active when checked for this draft.

Maryland’s property record shows a full assessed value of $2,436,200 as of January 1, 2025, including $1,894,300 in land and $541,900 in improvements. The phased assessment used for July 2026 taxation is $2,404,833. The $2.495 million asking price is $58,800 above the full assessed value, not the phased 2026 tax value. The two measures serve different purposes, and neither is an independent appraisal of what a buyer would pay. Maryland SDAT property search

The planning papers identify Takoma Development as prospective purchaser and the school as owner. They also show that the school authorized the company to seek concept-plan review. They do not establish that a sale has closed or disclose whether there is a purchase agreement or option. The publicly active listing suggests offers may be solicited, but only the owner and its agents can confirm the property’s actual availability. A city acquisition would also require an owner willing to sell, funding and appropriate approvals.

Sixteen homes, and a pool for the owners

The October proposal is not simply a plan to carve up vacant land. It calls for seven new detached houses, two homes in a duplex and seven townhouses converted from two existing school buildings. Two of the townhouses would be moderately priced dwelling units, the required affordable component of the 16-home proposal. The individual houses and townhouses would sit on fee-simple lots, while much of the remaining property would belong to a homeowners association.

The developers would keep another building for a residents’ community center, demolish a vacant school building and set aside about 47% of the site as common space. The amenities shown in the filing include a pool, a soccer field, courts, a dog park and walking paths. This is not a proposal for a public recreation center. The facilities would be part of a private residential community, with the stream buffer also counted among the common land.

The pool is a notable feature at a time when the future of Takoma Park’s existing public indoor swimming facility is being debated. The city’s July 2025 resolution on Piney Branch Elementary School asked Montgomery County Public Schools to preserve Piney Branch Pool, with secure access for community swimmers, in any school reconstruction. That pool serves schoolchildren and the wider community; the proposed McLaughlin pool would serve residents of a private homeowners association. MCPS’s capital-project planning materials contemplate replacing the school and community pool, but the construction schedule and arrangements for public swimming during the project remain questions.

The future of Piney Branch has generated extensive public comment. At an MCPS community meeting in May 2025, residents emphasized swimming lessons, affordability and the pool’s role as a neighborhood gathering place. The city has advocated keeping a public pool at Piney Branch, but the separate McLaughlin proposal would not replace that community access. The official pool operator’s published website still carries swimming-program information.

It is also not an approved subdivision. The application is at the concept stage, with decisions still to come on road access, environmental requirements, the townhouse mix and other details. The applicant even identifies a 15-home alternative if the county does not accept one part of the townhouse plan.

Who is behind Takoma Development?

The October concept filing identifies Aaron Simon as the prospective purchaser and owner’s representative for Takoma Development, LLC, with Ben Simon also named. Maryland business registration records show that the LLC was formed in October 2023 and lists its principal office in Baltimore’s Abell neighborhood. What the filing does not provide is a record of completed projects on this scale, or identify the builder who would carry this proposal through construction.

Aaron Simon is a real estate agent affiliated with Taylor Properties.

The project materials identify Ben Simon as the plan preparer and contact. The contact phone number listed on the application matches the one the James Beard Foundation’s 2015 Good Food Organization Guide published for Ben Simon, founder of the Food Recovery Network. That Ben Simon later co-founded Imperfect Produce, now Imperfect Foods, according to a Rutgers University biography and the 2016 edition of the guide.

What does the city collect now?

The school property already produces some city charges, though not all the money on its combined county tax bill goes to Takoma Park. The FY2027 bill shows a $13,039 city property-tax charge before credits. After the city share of the documented partial-exemption credit, the regular municipal property-tax amount is approximately $6,128. There is also a separate $5,100 charge labeled “Takoma Park Special,” making about $11,228 in city-labeled taxes and charges billed before interest. This is a bill, not evidence of payment, and the special charge should not be mistaken for regular real property tax.

The same bill includes county and state taxes, other charges and credits. None of those should be casually added to the city’s revenue total. The $5,100 special charge also needs to be understood before anyone treats it as ordinary annual property-tax revenue.

The school’s present partial exemption reflects the tax treatment of the existing property; it should not be carried forward as though it would automatically apply to 16 privately owned residences. Maryland generally requires qualifying charitable, religious or educational ownership and use for these exemptions. A sale and conversion to private housing would therefore change the exemption analysis, and new construction could change the assessed value substantially. Whether the project qualifies for a separate tax credit, abatement, MPDU-related adjustment or other incentive has not been established. The city and assessor should provide the actual rules and expected timing before a projected revenue figure is treated as dependable. Sources: Maryland SDAT exemption rules | FY2027 tax-rate ordinance

Sixteen homes, and whose tax bill goes down?

The election argument comes back into focus here. In her Takoma for All questionnaire, Mayor Talisha Searcy said redevelopment could “broaden the tax base so homeowners are not carrying a disproportionate share.” Adding taxable homes can produce revenue. But it does not by itself require a reduction in the rate paid on existing houses, and there is no automatic guarantee that residents would receive a lower bill.

The city’s FY2027 proposed budget says attached and detached single-family houses account for about half of the housing units, while paying around 77% of collected real property taxes. That is 77% of property-tax collections, not of the city’s entire revenue. Whether new development lowers a particular owner’s bill depends on future assessments, spending, services, and tax-rate decisions.

What might the 16 homes contribute? Nobody has provided verified future assessments for homes that do not exist. As an illustration only, suppose the seven detached houses are assessed at $900,000 each, the two duplex residences at $500,000 each, five market townhouses at $800,000 each and the two MPDU townhouses at $350,000 each. Those are assumptions, not advertised prices or values from the developer, and they yield $12 million in hypothetical taxable assessment.

Illustrative assumption	Amount
7 detached houses × $900,000	$6,300,000
2 duplex units × $500,000	$1,000,000
5 market townhouses × $800,000	$4,000,000
2 MPDU townhouses × $350,000	$700,000
Total hypothetical assessed value	$12,000,000
City property tax at $0.5422 per $100	$65,064/year
Hypothetical municipal income-tax distribution	$18,972/year
Illustrative total gross revenue	About $84,036/year

Using Takoma Park’s FY2027 municipal property-tax rate of $0.5422 per $100, that $12 million would produce $65,064 annually in regular city property taxes if fully taxable. A separate and much less certain exercise assumes 14 households with $250,000 of Maryland taxable income each and two with $80,000 each. Applying Montgomery County’s income-tax brackets for 2027 and later (2.70%, 3.00% and 3.30%, under Council Resolution 20-1121) and the 17% share of county income tax that state law (Tax-General 2-607) sends to municipalities, that adds about $18,972. Combined, the scenario reaches roughly $84,000 in hypothetical annual gross city revenue.

That $84,000 is not a projection from the developer, an official city forecast, or a measure of what the city would gain after costs. It does not subtract the school-property revenue that redevelopment would replace, municipal services, possible tax treatment of MPDUs, construction delays, or other costs. Equally, if the city acquired the site and took it off the taxable rolls, $84,000 would not automatically be its annual opportunity cost; the actual forgone revenue would depend on the alternative that would otherwise have occurred. The change from an exempt or partly exempt school property to new residential lots is one reason the current bill cannot be projected forward unchanged. Any $84,000 scenario assumes full residential taxation at the FY2027 rate; it does not establish tax treatment or assessment values at the date of occupancy.

That leaves the broader question Mayor Searcy’s development argument invites. How exactly would 16 new residences, or hundreds more across the city, lower the tax bills of the people already living here? Would the council reduce its rate? Restrict spending? Provide a credit? If the budget assumes roughly 3% annual spending growth, would new revenue be available for tax relief or merely keep pace with higher expenditures? The city can answer that question with a policy and a calculation, not just a promise of a larger tax base.

Questions that still need answers

The price reduction raises a question the February staff review does not answer: why did the city not pursue the remaining school property when the asking price fell to $2.495 million? The original review considered a recreation-center project at nearly $6 million. Buying the land at the later price would have posed a different financial question, even if the city had no immediate money to build a pool, science center or other facility. Public ownership could have kept the site available for a future civic use or as open space. It also would have required an acquisition budget, ongoing maintenance and a decision about how the land would be managed. Those costs, and the potential benefits, have not been compared publicly in the records reviewed here.

For some residents, land in public hands, even if used only as publicly accessible green space, could be an asset worth preserving for future generations. Others may see greater benefit in adding homes to the tax rolls and allowing private investment to improve the site. The trade-off cannot be resolved by comparing a $2.495 million asking price with an illustrative $84,000 in annual gross municipal revenue: that figure is hypothetical, includes an estimated income-tax share and is not a net fiscal return. The city can explain whether it evaluated those competing options at the reduced price, what the opportunity costs would be, and why it chose not to pursue a purchase. That comparison also needs the city’s own fiscal estimates. The property’s current bill reflects a partly exempt institutional use, not the likely tax base of a completed subdivision. Before deciding whether to acquire the land, the city could compare the actual carrying costs of public ownership with its projections for new property-tax assessments, any municipal share of income taxes, credits or abatements, and the cost of providing municipal services to the proposed homes. The records reviewed do not establish whether such a comparison was ever prepared.

A public purchase might still be possible, but the property owner’s willingness to sell, any private contractual commitments, financing and the suitability of the site for public purposes have not been established. Nor has the applicant yet supplied a public record of completed comparable projects, and the new homes’ net fiscal impact is not known. The city, school, broker and development team can fill in those gaps. Until they do, the filings show a proposal, not a completed sale, and they do not show that it would lower existing homeowners’ taxes.

Moderately MOCO has not put these questions to the City of Takoma Park, the school, the listing agent or Takoma Development. This story will be updated with any response.