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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. He needs to own it.

[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.

"The leader" at the meeting tonight made a big deal about being caught totally by surprise by the Keep Old Hardy Public campaign. Which is total crap, he was invited to join before the campaign went public.

[Anonymous]

The FCCA leader was also very insistent the DCPS does not have - and would not have - any plan to use the space. It was entirely unclear what he bases that on. I certainly didn’t get the sense he has bothered to engage DCPS on the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FCCA leader was also very insistent the DCPS does not have - and would not have - any plan to use the space. It was entirely unclear what he bases that on. I certainly didn’t get the sense he has bothered to engage DCPS on the topic.

Well, hopefully the board members will pay more attention now.
https://foxhall.org/the-association/fcca-board-members/

[Anonymous]

Looks like we have to wait until November to elect a new Board. That is a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. He needs to own it.

Can you imagine how a woman would be treated if she did this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the first point: ANC 3D seems to have a new spirit of late. But I've sat through meetings where commissioners had impassioned debates over picket spacing on a fence, gravel depth in a driveway, and paint colors. These were for homeowners seeking renovation permits. And these weren't technical discussions, just the esthetic opinions of the members. God help the homeowner when a commissioner has an ax to grind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. He needs to own it.

Can you imagine how a woman would be treated if she did this?

She'd be called shrill and hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Can someone who attended the FCCA meeting last night tell me the tenor of the room? Were there two sides, or was the audience pretty clearly in favor of keeping the school for public use?

[Anonymous]

The meeting gave quite an insight into the pettiness of those who become involved in these sorts of associations. Their primary motivation for sending the letter seems to be to exact retribution on certain people in the ANC who didn’t notify them about some meeting far enough in advance? And for that, they want to screw over families in the neighborhood by denying them access to preschool and, in the process, adopt all the trappings of a local dictatorship? It would be absolutely hilarious were it not for the potential consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who attended the FCCA meeting last night tell me the tenor of the room? Were there two sides, or was the audience pretty clearly in favor of keeping the school for public use?

Hard to know for sure but it seemed to be the leader and a couple of board members versus everyone else who spoke. But there was probably only 25-30 people there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The meeting gave quite an insight into the pettiness of those who become involved in these sorts of associations. Their primary motivation for sending the letter seems to be to exact retribution on certain people in the ANC who didn’t notify them about some meeting far enough in advance? And for that, they want to screw over families in the neighborhood by denying them access to preschool and, in the process, adopt all the trappings of a local dictatorship? It would be absolutely hilarious were it not for the potential consequences.

Wow

[Anonymous]

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.

Is this the letter that you are talking about (page 6)?

http://foxhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/March-2019_FCCA_6.pdf

I don't think it really says what you think it says- they talk about wanting to be involved in the discussions and wanting to keep it either a private or public school

[Anonymous]

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.

Is this the letter that you are talking about (page 6)?

http://foxhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/March-2019_FCCA_6.pdf

I don't think it really says what you think it says- they talk about wanting to be involved in the discussions and wanting to keep it either a private or public school

They also attended the ANC 3D meeting and made it clear that they don't want any risk that other uses of the building could obtain, such as a charter school, a high school, a homeless shelter, or a government building. It is all so short-sighted.

Two FCCA boardmembers (not the leader) stated falsely that the school hasn't been public since the 1970s. (This mistake also appears in the letter.) Another man corrected them that his daughter went to the school in 1996 or so, and it was still a DCPS school.

What the letter says and what the letter conveys are two different things. This is politics 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this the letter that you are talking about (page 6)?

http://foxhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/March-2019_FCCA_6.pdf

I don't think it really says what you think it says- they talk about wanting to be involved in the discussions and wanting to keep it either a private or public school

Hi Conrad. So nice of you to join us here! But no. The letter was sent to the council in the lead up to its consideration of emergency legislation to extend LAB’s lease. It notes that the FCCA “is very concerned that the present “the current occupant—the LAB School—[being driven] out of the Hardy School property for no good purpose” and then dismissss the public option by noting that “D.C. Public Schools has shown no interest in using the Hardy School as a public school, and we believe this to be the case still.” No amount of revisionism can claim that the letter is in any way advocating anything other than the passage of the emergency legislation.