Bill introduced to declare the Old Hardy School surplus and extend long-term lease to the Lab School

[Anonymous]

They (FCCA) claimed that they sent out the letter without any input from those they claim to represent because they claim they were not allowed to provide input into the ANC’s decision to support KOHP. They then claimed that they are actually agnostic on LAB vs. KOHP, but that as “DCPS has no plan to utilize” Old Hardy, it will either become a homeless shelter or a charter public high school if LAB’s lease is not renewed. I’ll just leave that there without further comment . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The letter was a mistake. It was poorly-informed and motivated by the self-serving interests of a FCCA board member or two

. . . and/or garden variety racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They (FCCA) claimed that they sent out the letter without any input from those they claim to represent because they claim they were not allowed to provide input into the ANC’s decision to support KOHP. They then claimed that they are actually agnostic on LAB vs. KOHP, but that as “DCPS has no plan to utilize” Old Hardy, it will either become a homeless shelter or a charter public high school if LAB’s lease is not renewed. I’ll just leave that there without further comment . . .

So they'll be withdrawing the FCCA letter and sending in whatever they want as private citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Foxhall Community Citizens Association” - read, a few people who live in the neighborhood and get their jollies from claiming to represent others without their permission - have sent a letter to Bowser and the council asking that the lease be renewed. What is confusing me, though, is whether they did this because: (a) LAB gave their “association” a fat donation; (b) they think public school kids are dirty and smelly and they want to be as far away from them as possible; or (c) both? As a resident of that neighborhood, i am extremely pissed that they are claiming to represent me.

They have a general membership meeting tonight at 7PM at Hardy Rec center. Go and let them know.

Can’t. Then I won’t be allowed to do my renovation. Don’t you love corruption?

Come on. This is not a reasonable take.

The letter was a mistake. It was poorly-informed and motivated by the self-serving interests of a FCCA board member or two. But don't pretend that corruption is at play or that the FCCA has much to do with whether your proposed renovation gets approved by the District. That's just plain stupidity.

+1. The Pp just wants to complain anonymously and is too lazy to actually do anything to fix this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Foxhall Community Citizens Association” - read, a few people who live in the neighborhood and get their jollies from claiming to represent others without their permission - have sent a letter to Bowser and the council asking that the lease be renewed. What is confusing me, though, is whether they did this because: (a) LAB gave their “association” a fat donation; (b) they think public school kids are dirty and smelly and they want to be as far away from them as possible; or (c) both? As a resident of that neighborhood, i am extremely pissed that they are claiming to represent me.

They have a general membership meeting tonight at 7PM at Hardy Rec center. Go and let them know.

Can’t. Then I won’t be allowed to do my renovation. Don’t you love corruption?

If you are doing work that requires a zoning variance this is not an unreasonable fear, the process is utterly arbitrary. Although I would say the FCCA has little influence with the ANC these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the lab school keeps the property. They do good work. If lab can not have it. Sell it for condos because the site does not work for DCPS.

The site worked for DCPS for 60 years. It's a much better site than Key or Mann or Janney or Eaton.

No it is not. There is not the population density around the site to justify a school. Sell the property or rent it out to the lab school. How many school age children who attend public school live in walking distance of the site? What are you going to bus kids over there? You all are smoking crack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they'll be withdrawing the FCCA letter and sending in whatever they want as private citizens?

Wouldn’t that be nice? I’m murky on the legalities pertaining to the “community associations”, but in a more perfect political context a person who claims to represent those who are not even consulted on the issue wouldn’t be credible to those to whom the representation is made. At one point, the FCCA leader agreed to consider the possibility of drafting another letter which would clarify the neutral position he was asserting, but I wouldn’t advise that you hold your breath. That they can’t defend what they’ve done with a straight face is quite different from them having any incentive to rectify what they’ve done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the lab school keeps the property. They do good work. If lab can not have it. Sell it for condos because the site does not work for DCPS.

The site worked for DCPS for 60 years. It's a much better site than Key or Mann or Janney or Eaton.

No it is not. There is not the population density around the site to justify a school. Sell the property or rent it out to the lab school. How many school age children who attend public school live in walking distance of the site? What are you going to bus kids over there? You all are smoking crack.

Wishful thinking. Go look at the DME's Master Facilities Plan:
https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC%20MFP%202018.pdf

Go look at Appendix a16 where they have enrollment projections for the next ten years. The three closest elementaries -- Stoddert, Key and Mann -- are all predicted to gain over 100 students each. All are currently at or over capacity. Stoddert and Key each have six trailers. You could completely fill an elementary just with the overflow from those three schools.

Look at the Office of Planning youth projections here:
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-17.pdf

The school sits on the boundaries of cluster 13 -- which is predicted to gain 688 kids over ten years -- and cluster 14, which is predicted to gain 505. Plenty of kids there for an elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it is not. There is not the population density around the site to justify a school. Sell the property or rent it out to the lab school. How many school age children who attend public school live in walking distance of the site? What are you going to bus kids over there? You all are smoking crack.

This is a good trolling effort, but just missed the mark.

Key’s upper grades are in trailers. It has no preK-3 and pre-K4 is vastly oversubscribed - even by IB - kids because there is nowhere to add any more classes. Planned capital improvements are not going to change this.

Of course, I can understand why these facts may be hard to come by in Montenegro, but with a little more research, your intent won’t be quite as transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they'll be withdrawing the FCCA letter and sending in whatever they want as private citizens?

Wouldn’t that be nice? I’m murky on the legalities pertaining to the “community associations”, but in a more perfect political context a person who claims to represent those who are not even consulted on the issue wouldn’t be credible to those to whom the representation is made. At one point, the FCCA leader agreed to consider the possibility of drafting another letter which would clarify the neutral position he was asserting, but I wouldn’t advise that you hold your breath. That they can’t defend what they’ve done with a straight face is quite different from them having any incentive to rectify what they’ve done.

They might not care about dcum, but they may want to get in front of this version of events being delivered to all their neighbors homes in the NW Current.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They might not care about dcum, but they may want to get in front of this version of events being delivered to all their neighbors homes in the NW Current.

Good thought. Who do we email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not. There is not the population density around the site to justify a school. Sell the property or rent it out to the lab school. How many school age children who attend public school live in walking distance of the site? What are you going to bus kids over there? You all are smoking crack.

This is a good trolling effort, but just missed the mark.

Key’s upper grades are in trailers. It has no preK-3 and pre-K4 is vastly oversubscribed - even by IB - kids because there is nowhere to add any more classes. Planned capital improvements are not going to change this.

Of course, I can understand why these facts may be hard to come by in Montenegro, but with a little more research, your intent won’t be quite as transparent.

There is no right to PK4. It isn’t a compulsory grade. Ditch it and you’d have more room.

What needs to happen is new boundaries. All adding ES capacity to the Wilson feeder pattern exacerbated the overcrowding issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Foxhall Community Citizens Association” - read, a few people who live in the neighborhood and get their jollies from claiming to represent others without their permission - have sent a letter to Bowser and the council asking that the lease be renewed. What is confusing me, though, is whether they did this because: (a) LAB gave their “association” a fat donation; (b) they think public school kids are dirty and smelly and they want to be as far away from them as possible; or (c) both? As a resident of that neighborhood, i am extremely pissed that they are claiming to represent me.

They have a general membership meeting tonight at 7PM at Hardy Rec center. Go and let them know.

Can’t. Then I won’t be allowed to do my renovation. Don’t you love corruption?

If you are doing work that requires a zoning variance this is not an unreasonable fear, the process is utterly arbitrary. Although I would say the FCCA has little influence with the ANC these days.

I'll agree to disagree with your first sentence. I understand why you feel that way, but I don't share that fear. Your second sentence is spot-on.

The ANC (3D) supports returning the school for a public elementary. The community has enough of a memory to recall Foxhall Village fighting the redistricting plan to move the neighborhood from Key to Hyde. They greater Key community was willing to help tow the line. When the same redistricting is proposed in three years time, I expect the memory of their current opposition to reclaiming the Old Hardy building for use by DCPS to sting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they'll be withdrawing the FCCA letter and sending in whatever they want as private citizens?

Wouldn’t that be nice? I’m murky on the legalities pertaining to the “community associations”, but in a more perfect political context a person who claims to represent those who are not even consulted on the issue wouldn’t be credible to those to whom the representation is made. At one point, the FCCA leader agreed to consider the possibility of drafting another letter which would clarify the neutral position he was asserting, but I wouldn’t advise that you hold your breath. That they can’t defend what they’ve done with a straight face is quite different from them having any incentive to rectify what they’ve done.

I expect the FCCA to sign on to the Keep Old Hardy Public campaign. Frankly, I expected to see this already.

Again, the leader is not the person who wrote the letter. He signed it -- that I'll concede -- but the letter including its misstatement about how recently the building last hosted a DCPS school came from another board member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they'll be withdrawing the FCCA letter and sending in whatever they want as private citizens?

Wouldn’t that be nice? I’m murky on the legalities pertaining to the “community associations”, but in a more perfect political context a person who claims to represent those who are not even consulted on the issue wouldn’t be credible to those to whom the representation is made. At one point, the FCCA leader agreed to consider the possibility of drafting another letter which would clarify the neutral position he was asserting, but I wouldn’t advise that you hold your breath. That they can’t defend what they’ve done with a straight face is quite different from them having any incentive to rectify what they’ve done.

I expect the FCCA to sign on to the Keep Old Hardy Public campaign. Frankly, I expected to see this already.

Again, the leader is not the person who wrote the letter. He signed it -- that I'll concede -- but the letter including its misstatement about how recently the building last hosted a DCPS school came from another board member.

Then maybe "the leader" of the FCCA should be more careful about what he signs his name to. Saying "I didn't read it carefully" is a crap excuse.