"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

How about the sense of entitlement that you are suggesting that your family member deserves a lifetime spot at under market rates at the Washington Home. Look, the business model clearly wasn't viable, so they sold. The neighbors appear to be generally happy with what is to come. Two years should be plenty of time for those in a chronic care situation to find an alternative. Why should your family be living at below market and heavily subsidized rates at the Washington Home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

What would be a fair price? What is the incentive to sell under market value? You need to answer these questions or you just sound like sour grapes.

If anything the school paid a premium because they share a property line with the Washington Home site, saw a chance to consolidate their divisions on one campus and wanted to secure the Home site from other uses that could have adversely impacted the school. Moreover, they plan to reuse and renovate about 80 percent of the existing Home facility and therefore will save massive demolition costs that another purchaser would likely incur. Even if the theoretical development value of the property were higher than what Sidwell is paying, selling to a developer would have been a much riskier proposition for the Home. It's unlikely that a developer would have closed the purchase until all zoning approvals were obtained. And another Cathedral Commons or even a dense condo-only project proposed for the site would have resulted in a long battle with the residential neighborhood. All this would have meant a protracted process for the Home, which is incurring steep annual losses, with no certainly that a transaction would close at all (and with continued uncertainty for the Home residents and staff).

[Anonymous]

It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

Yes, we get it. You've said this many, many times. I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that others simply don't agree with you.

-not a Sidwell parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

I understand your position but your dispute is with the management and board of TWH. Perhaps they did not share with families the distressed financial condition of the Home, although the Washington Post reported that there were rumors among TWH families and staff at least a year ago that the Home was for sale. However, you may remember the case of the Northwest Nursing Home on Wisconsin Ave which was sold to a developer several years ago. The developer did not need zoning approval to turn it into young professional apartments, and forced out the nursing home residents very quickly. A different profit-minded purchaser could have put TWH and their families in a far worse position than the timeframes provided in the Sidwell contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

Ah, yes, the Post article ('A land deal for an elite private school will displace more than 100 sick, poor people'):

“You’ve got the most vulnerable, the poorest, the oldest people — and then you have the 1 percenters that want to come in,” said Ivan Mayfield, co-chair of the Washington Home’s family council. “And yes, the home obviously sold to them, but on the flip side, you’re coming in and taking away their home from them to build this exclusive campus that costs $40,000 a year for these kids to go to school.”

[Anonymous]

“Shame on Sidwell Friends for doing this to us, shame on them,” said Ivan Mayfield. “This is a school that the president's girls go to and shame on Sidwell.”

Fox News, 9/15/15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:-not a Sidwell parent

LOL. Yeah, right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-not a Sidwell parent

LOL. Yeah, right.

Go ahead believing whatever fits your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

Yes, we get it. You've said this many, many times. I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that others simply don't agree with you.

-not a Sidwell parent

Hello Sidwell teacher, or lawyer, or PR pro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

Yes, we get it. You've said this many, many times. I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that others simply don't agree with you.

-not a Sidwell parent

Hello Sidwell teacher, or lawyer, or PR pro.

Ivan, I think it's time to stand down. You're not helping your cause.

[Anonymous]

This. But there's also the puzzling stupidity about how development deals are done. Developers don't get to not close on a property deal because they didn't get zoning approval, at least not as a matter of course.

How to explain such stupidity about business from wealthy let-the-eat-cake shrews? Inherited or married money.

These people are really more disgusting than the Trumps of the world, who at least understand how money is made while not caring about the less fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This. But there's also the puzzling stupidity about how development deals are done. Developers don't get to not close on a property deal because they didn't get zoning approval, at least not as a matter of course.

How to explain such stupidity about business from wealthy let-the-eat-cake shrews? Inherited or married money.

These people are really more disgusting than the Trumps of the world, who at least understand how money is made while not caring about the less fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

True, but if you were in the business you would know that there is often an entitlement period, which makes a deal contingent. So in this case, you would have your team of Ace$ who would put a $40 Million contract on the property with a 9-24 month window to go through the zoning and review process to see if Cathedral Commons II is viable with the administrative bodies and the local community. If yes, then great. If no, then the Washington Home is two years down the line with an even more financially unviable situation.

Do you think the developer with the control of the situation would risk that capital without knowing what they were going to do with it?

So yes, you are actually wrong, that IS how development deals are done, if the developer is smart. There are plenty of dumb ones who stumble into a situation and are left holding the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This. But there's also the puzzling stupidity about how development deals are done. Developers don't get to not close on a property deal because they didn't get zoning approval, at least not as a matter of course.

How to explain such stupidity about business from wealthy let-the-eat-cake shrews? Inherited or married money.

These people are really more disgusting than the Trumps of the world, who at least understand how money is made while not caring about the less fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

Not true. If special approvals are required, closing can be conditional on them. Alternatively a property owner will team with a developer and pursue approvals. Once the project is approved the initial team flips the approved project (at a considerably higher price) to a developer/operator/owner group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. But there's also the puzzling stupidity about how development deals are done. Developers don't get to not close on a property deal because they didn't get zoning approval, at least not as a matter of course.

How to explain such stupidity about business from wealthy let-the-eat-cake shrews? Inherited or married money.

These people are really more disgusting than the Trumps of the world, who at least understand how money is made while not caring about the less fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing the number and depth of excuses made by the Sidwell parents to allow themselves to live with the guilt of kicking the sick and elderly to the curb.

F THE POOR!

True, but if you were in the business you would know that there is often an entitlement period, which makes a deal contingent. So in this case, you would have your team of Ace$ who would put a $40 Million contract on the property with a 9-24 month window to go through the zoning and review process to see if Cathedral Commons II is viable with the administrative bodies and the local community. If yes, then great. If no, then the Washington Home is two years down the line with an even more financially unviable situation.

Do you think the developer with the control of the situation would risk that capital without knowing what they were going to do with it?

So yes, you are actually wrong, that IS how development deals are done, if the developer is smart. There are plenty of dumb ones who stumble into a situation and are left holding the bag.

Wait. There are dumb developers? Isn't it all "smart growth"?