DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think that DC should get a tuition discount, by law tuition for special ed schools paid by DCPS is established by OSSE.

My point was not to suggest a literal tuition discount. It was to point out that, like all private special education schools where DCPS kids are placed, they are already compensated through tuition, and it is not appropriate to single out Lab among all similar institutions for an additional, unearned benefit in the form of a real estate subsidy.

Someone paid for this. Which council person received a donation from Lab? Can we find out who sponsored the bill?

Bowser's campaign treasurer was Ben Soto. He also was the mastermind behind FreshPAC. His wife is on the board of Lab.

Let's hope these conflicts of interest are noted during the hearing.

His son is at the Lab School and the city pays for him to go there free while they are building a $3 million house in Forest Hills. Yes, I am sure he is behind it. Quid pro quo.

This is sad.

And since they are a private school they set their own admissions and scholarships policy. So they can bypass the DCPS special ed process when they want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have an update on the emergency hearing today?

The measure was approved.

disgusting, but those council members will fit right in with the new corrupt Trump administration...when prime parcels of DC land are mysteriously given to real estate conglomerates for a song, we can't bleat about outsiders tipping the scales...

[Anonymous]

OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website. There are many threads about this on DCUM in the Special Needs

-OP does not speak for the entire community. If the majority, not a vocal minority, wanted to stop the lease, it would have happened years ago. The naysayers are dragging it out in some reason. For a while it was Stoddert Soccer.

-No commercial developer, or charter operator, in their right mind would try to use that space. Why? Parking. Lab has very strict agreements in place about traffic, parking, use of field. Neighbors know that Lab is the least intrusive option for that space.

-It's not as great a spot as it looks. DCPS does not want it. The building and lot is tiny and kids are packed in as it is. No gym or cafeteria. Limited use of the DPR park. It has to have fixed capacity.

-Did OP forget to mention the park and playground are part of DPR, not DCPS? A DCPS school would have to apply for use like everybody else.

-The real reason DCPS doesn't want it anytime soon is Hardy Middle School. The crowded feeder schools only make up 20% percent of the Hardy population. DCPS has no interest in dealing with hassle of the Foxhall space when so few kids end up at Hardy. I don't fully agree with their logic, but DCPS is the real barrier. The council can't force DCPS to use the space.

Save your outrage for Fillmore and Ellington and special education for all kids. There's no need to self-investigate Lab for underground tunnels.

[Anonymous]

What are the economics of residential development? Did the council consider the potential proper and income tax relative to the lab lease?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the economics of residential development? Did the council consider the potential proper and income tax relative to the lab lease?

The Duke Ellington was much more disturbing vs this. They still own the property and lab school service the whole city. Sounds like OP is just a troll with an ax to grind. Very typical for the area. Remember the problems Safeway had in the area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website. There are many threads about this on DCUM in the Special Needs

-OP does not speak for the entire community. If the majority, not a vocal minority, wanted to stop the lease, it would have happened years ago. The naysayers are dragging it out in some reason. For a while it was Stoddert Soccer.

-No commercial developer, or charter operator, in their right mind would try to use that space. Why? Parking. Lab has very strict agreements in place about traffic, parking, use of field. Neighbors know that Lab is the least intrusive option for that space.

-It's not as great a spot as it looks. DCPS does not want it. The building and lot is tiny and kids are packed in as it is. No gym or cafeteria. Limited use of the DPR park. It has to have fixed capacity.

-Did OP forget to mention the park and playground are part of DPR, not DCPS? A DCPS school would have to apply for use like everybody else.

-The real reason DCPS doesn't want it anytime soon is Hardy Middle School. The crowded feeder schools only make up 20% percent of the Hardy population. DCPS has no interest in dealing with hassle of the Foxhall space when so few kids end up at Hardy. I don't fully agree with their logic, but DCPS is the real barrier. The council can't force DCPS to use the space.

Save your outrage for Fillmore and Ellington and special education for all kids. There's no need to self-investigate Lab for underground tunnels.

I'm not OP. But I think you are misleading others when you say that no developer or school would be interested in a 50 year lease (25 years with option to renew for another 25) prime Ward 3 space for the bargain price of $80,000 a year for a 50,000 square foot parcel of land and a building. Oh yeah, and the $80,000 won't even be paid by Lab because of tax credits for renovating their own building. Sign me up for that sweetheart deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website.

This is simply not true. There was one "public" meeting, to which only Lab parents and staff were invited. Mary Cheh held one Council hearing, and again, she made sure that only Lab School insiders knew about it.

Cheh wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend there was a public process, when there wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

-No commercial developer, or charter operator, in their right mind would try to use that space. Why? Parking. Lab has very strict agreements in place about traffic, parking, use of field. Neighbors know that Lab is the least intrusive option for that space.

A DCPS or charter would not be bound by the traffic agreements, those only apply to private parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

-It's not as great a spot as it looks. DCPS does not want it. The building and lot is tiny and kids are packed in as it is. No gym or cafeteria. Limited use of the DPR park. It has to have fixed capacity.

-Did OP forget to mention the park and playground are part of DPR, not DCPS? A DCPS school would have to apply for use like everybody else.

The building is exactly the same as the original buildings at Key, Stoddert and Mann. They were all built at the same time from the same plans. DCPS has managed to make them into thriving schools.

The lot is larger than the lot for Key.

Many DCPS and DPR sites co-locate. Hearst, Stoddert, Shepherd just to name a few. DCPS and charters get top priority for DPR facilities, second only to DPR, and since there is no DPR programming at that site they would be number one. Lab on the other hand doesn't meet the 80% DC resident requirement so they are at the lowest priority level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
-The real reason DCPS doesn't want it anytime soon is Hardy Middle School. The crowded feeder schools only make up 20% percent of the Hardy population. DCPS has no interest in dealing with hassle of the Foxhall space when so few kids end up at Hardy. I don't fully agree with their logic, but DCPS is the real barrier. The council can't force DCPS to use the space.

This is not true. When this idea was defeated in 2013, the stumbling block was that DCPS needed to certify that the space was not needed. Nobody at DCPS would sign that certification. That was ultimately why the proposal had to be withdrawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the economics of residential development? Did the council consider the potential proper and income tax relative to the lab lease?

The Duke Ellington was much more disturbing vs this. They still own the property and lab school service the whole city. Sounds like OP is just a troll with an ax to grind. Very typical for the area. Remember the problems Safeway had in the area?

Deflect much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the economics of residential development? Did the council consider the potential proper and income tax relative to the lab lease?

The Council didn't consider anything other than turning the property over to the Lab School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website. There are many threads about this on DCUM in the Special Needs

-OP does not speak for the entire community. If the majority, not a vocal minority, wanted to stop the lease, it would have happened years ago. The naysayers are dragging it out in some reason. For a while it was Stoddert Soccer.

-No commercial developer, or charter operator, in their right mind would try to use that space. Why? Parking. Lab has very strict agreements in place about traffic, parking, use of field. Neighbors know that Lab is the least intrusive option for that space.

-It's not as great a spot as it looks. DCPS does not want it. The building and lot is tiny and kids are packed in as it is. No gym or cafeteria. Limited use of the DPR park. It has to have fixed capacity.

-Did OP forget to mention the park and playground are part of DPR, not DCPS? A DCPS school would have to apply for use like everybody else.

-The real reason DCPS doesn't want it anytime soon is Hardy Middle School. The crowded feeder schools only make up 20% percent of the Hardy population. DCPS has no interest in dealing with hassle of the Foxhall space when so few kids end up at Hardy. I don't fully agree with their logic, but DCPS is the real barrier. The council can't force DCPS to use the space.

Save your outrage for Fillmore and Ellington and special education for all kids. There's no need to self-investigate Lab for underground tunnels.

I'm not OP. But I think you are misleading others when you say that no developer or school would be interested in a 50 year lease (25 years with option to renew for another 25) prime Ward 3 space for the bargain price of $80,000 a year for a 50,000 square foot parcel of land and a building. Oh yeah, and the $80,000 won't even be paid by Lab because of tax credits for renovating their own building. Sign me up for that sweetheart deal.

And if that were the case, wouldn't the property have sailed through the normal process of giving charters right of first refusal and then putting it out to bid?

But for some reason Lab and Mary Cheh were terrified of that happening.

[Anonymous]

shame on Mary Chen, jack Evans, and especially david grosso for pushing through this 'emergency' resolution to give a private school a 50 year no cost lease on A public building. I hope the media picks this up (especially if the conflicts of interest of Lab board members and PAC involvement turn out to be true.

[Anonymous]

Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.