DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a new group in the Palisades (https://palisadesfamily.network/) that is looking to draw attention to instances where public spaces are captured for the benefit of private interests. The Palisades, as the home of many a moneyed interest, is of course ground zero for such behavior. In addition to Jelleff and the LAB School, a group of homeowners who live next to the old Palisades Trolley Trail (and have pretty much incorporated into their backyards) have been fiercely lobbying City Hall to not proceed with a resurfacing that would make it useful for everyone else in the neighborhood. People will get away with this stuff as long as the collective action problem goes unsolved.

Seriously, the so called 'repaving' is for a trail that hasn't been operational in decades - when a trolley ran through the city - and would be creating a new bike trail for vanity bike riders in an area without the density to use or need it -- using tax payer dollars to fund your private bike trail. That is in no way equatable to the use of existing public resources by a small few.

Seems an even smaller few are using for their own private enjoyment now. No more fair than reserving prime after school hours at Jelleff for the very privileged few at Maret.

I wish everyone in the city could see that trail. You have multi-million dollar property-owners who have - over the past few decades, thanks to many rudderless municipal agencies - taken over a truly beautiful stretch of public land and made it their very own private reserve. Then, when DDoT comes into some earmarked federal funds and proposes something as innocuous as a C&O-esque path that will give the local elementary school kids an alternative to dodging death-by-speeding-commuter, a never-ending stream of reasons is trotted by said property-owners to convince all and sundry that this is the second-coming of the Three Sisters Bridge. These people are not NIMBYs and they are not even BANANAs. They are cruel, they are selfish, and that anyone takes them the least bit seriously is more than a little scary.

Only a small set of also million dollar home owners want and would use this trail. It is a new expense - spending new money. It is two blocks away from the Capitol Crescent Trail - and it will take 5-10 years to build the whole vision out, if all the pieces actually came together. The number of children who would use these paths for school is in the low dozens at the most, when you look at the population and density issues. This is an example of Ward 3 sucking up public resources AWAY from other areas of the city which have serious needs. It is not at all parallel to the fact that kids are being denied use of existing fields at Jelleff or an existing Old Hardy School building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a new group in the Palisades (https://palisadesfamily.network/) that is looking to draw attention to instances where public spaces are captured for the benefit of private interests. The Palisades, as the home of many a moneyed interest, is of course ground zero for such behavior. In addition to Jelleff and the LAB School, a group of homeowners who live next to the old Palisades Trolley Trail (and have pretty much incorporated into their backyards) have been fiercely lobbying City Hall to not proceed with a resurfacing that would make it useful for everyone else in the neighborhood. People will get away with this stuff as long as the collective action problem goes unsolved.

Seriously, the so called 'repaving' is for a trail that hasn't been operational in decades - when a trolley ran through the city - and would be creating a new bike trail for vanity bike riders in an area without the density to use or need it -- using tax payer dollars to fund your private bike trail. That is in no way equatable to the use of existing public resources by a small few.

Seems an even smaller few are using for their own private enjoyment now. No more fair than reserving prime after school hours at Jelleff for the very privileged few at Maret.

I wish everyone in the city could see that trail. You have multi-million dollar property-owners who have - over the past few decades, thanks to many rudderless municipal agencies - taken over a truly beautiful stretch of public land and made it their very own private reserve. Then, when DDoT comes into some earmarked federal funds and proposes something as innocuous as a C&O-esque path that will give the local elementary school kids an alternative to dodging death-by-speeding-commuter, a never-ending stream of reasons is trotted by said property-owners to convince all and sundry that this is the second-coming of the Three Sisters Bridge. These people are not NIMBYs and they are not even BANANAs. They are cruel, they are selfish, and that anyone takes them the least bit seriously is more than a little scary.

Only a small set of also million dollar home owners want and would use this trail. It is a new expense - spending new money. It is two blocks away from the Capitol Crescent Trail - and it will take 5-10 years to build the whole vision out, if all the pieces actually came together. The number of children who would use these paths for school is in the low dozens at the most, when you look at the population and density issues. This is an example of Ward 3 sucking up public resources AWAY from other areas of the city which have serious needs. It is not at all parallel to the fact that kids are being denied use of existing fields at Jelleff or an existing Old Hardy School building.

At least seven schools are proximate to that trail, with a combined enrollment in the thousands. And yet you claim only a few dozen would use the trail? On what analysis do you base this extreme conclusion? Ward 3 is dense with young families and bicycle commuters and has absolutely no bike lanes (and no, the CCT - which can only be accessed from up near the MD border and that frightful crossing at Reservoir - doesn't count). It's not tenable for this to continue. So where should these bike lanes be built? On MacArthur? That's fine with me, but let's do something about the criminal waste of public land that is the current state of the Palisades Trolley Trail. Any ideas? How about affordable housing? Would that suit you?

[Anonymous]

The hearing is today, starting at 11am. You can live stream the hearing here:
http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=87

Over 100 students and parents will be testifying to ask the Council to overturn the agreement with Maret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a new group in the Palisades (https://palisadesfamily.network/) that is looking to draw attention to instances where public spaces are captured for the benefit of private interests. The Palisades, as the home of many a moneyed interest, is of course ground zero for such behavior. In addition to Jelleff and the LAB School, a group of homeowners who live next to the old Palisades Trolley Trail (and have pretty much incorporated into their backyards) have been fiercely lobbying City Hall to not proceed with a resurfacing that would make it useful for everyone else in the neighborhood. People will get away with this stuff as long as the collective action problem goes unsolved.

Seriously, the so called 'repaving' is for a trail that hasn't been operational in decades - when a trolley ran through the city - and would be creating a new bike trail for vanity bike riders in an area without the density to use or need it -- using tax payer dollars to fund your private bike trail. That is in no way equatable to the use of existing public resources by a small few.

Seems an even smaller few are using for their own private enjoyment now. No more fair than reserving prime after school hours at Jelleff for the very privileged few at Maret.

I wish everyone in the city could see that trail. You have multi-million dollar property-owners who have - over the past few decades, thanks to many rudderless municipal agencies - taken over a truly beautiful stretch of public land and made it their very own private reserve. Then, when DDoT comes into some earmarked federal funds and proposes something as innocuous as a C&O-esque path that will give the local elementary school kids an alternative to dodging death-by-speeding-commuter, a never-ending stream of reasons is trotted by said property-owners to convince all and sundry that this is the second-coming of the Three Sisters Bridge. These people are not NIMBYs and they are not even BANANAs. They are cruel, they are selfish, and that anyone takes them the least bit seriously is more than a little scary.

Only a small set of also million dollar home owners want and would use this trail. It is a new expense - spending new money. It is two blocks away from the Capitol Crescent Trail - and it will take 5-10 years to build the whole vision out, if all the pieces actually came together. The number of children who would use these paths for school is in the low dozens at the most, when you look at the population and density issues. This is an example of Ward 3 sucking up public resources AWAY from other areas of the city which have serious needs. It is not at all parallel to the fact that kids are being denied use of existing fields at Jelleff or an existing Old Hardy School building.

It’s total crap to say that only a few people want the trail. Go look at the tallies of the written feedback provided to DDoT or the poll done by the PCA. However you slice it a clear majority of those are in favor. This new angle that the renovation of the trail is Ward 3 taking money away from projects elsewhere is particularly galling coming, as it is, from those who benefit greatly from the status quo. It's just another one in a long string of garbage trotted out by the campaign. I mean, are also asking DDoT to defer maintenance on Ward 3 roads so that they can do more maintenance in poorer parts of the city or is this just a single-issue campaign for you? You can dress this up however you want but everyone just sees it for what it is, which is a bunch of entitled rich folk doing all that they can to keep themselves apart from the great unwashed.

[Anonymous]

Hearing going on right now (11:30 AM on 10/21/19):

http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=17&event_id=4169

[Anonymous]

Maret is before the Council right now, complaining about the "online campaign which has ruined our reputation."

lol

[Anonymous]

Who was the person who spoke before Mr. Cameron from Maret?

[Anonymous]

Maret outlining stipulations of new contract:
-Replacement of field surface and maintenance
-$250K toward the rec center
-Repair of the fencing
-$100K per year to DPR

More details:
-Field School and one other private school is asking for access to Jelleff

[Anonymous]

It seems that one thing everyone agrees is that the city desperately lack playing space. Maybe the city could take this Trolley Trail in the Palisades and turn it into playing fields? Seems like a "win-win", no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that one thing everyone agrees is that the city desperately lack playing space. Maybe the city could take this Trolley Trail in the Palisades and turn it into playing fields? Seems like a "win-win", no?

No way that space is wide enough to play host to regulation-sized field(s). The areas in which the trail would follow are irregular sized and usually fairly narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, the so called 'repaving' is for a trail that hasn't been operational in decades - when a trolley ran through the city - and would be creating a new bike trail for vanity bike riders in an area without the density to use or need it -- using tax payer dollars to fund your private bike trail. That is in no way equatable to the use of existing public resources by a small few.

Vanity bike riders? Private bike trail? Lay off the meth, dude, and stop spouting such nonsense about an area and an issue of which you apparently know next to nothing.

I love bike trails, but you have to admit there is something galling ("gaull-ing"?) about spandex-clad middle-aged lawyers intimidating walkers and runners because they think they're in the Tour de Friggin' France.

[Anonymous]

Jack Evans is up to bat:
-Why can't Hardy use Ellington field?
-Witnesses response: Ellington Field hasn't been maintained, the grass area is not regulation sized (part of the existing rubber track would need to be cannibalized), and DESA would be responsible for funding renovations to the field. Further, there's no parking lot, lights, or public facilities to allow frequent use by the public.

Maret:
-Suggest that public schools use an improved Ellington field. City should improve Ellington for these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What school besides Eaton has no off-street parking and only street parking that is metered or residentially zoned? I cannot think of any.

Maybe charters?

The zoning board requires private schools like Maret to provide parking for their staff.

And Eaton has no parking, well, just because. Jamey, Murch, Ellington all got parking but when it came to Eaton, DCPS said just suck it up. Typical.

Zoning mandated the parking at Murch.

But not at Eaton? This is a specious argument.

or not at Hearst?

Doesn't Hearst have an off-street parking lot

[Anonymous]

Cheh is hammering Maret and DPR:
-There was no indication that cost-benefit analysis occurred by DPR
-There is nothing in existing contract that requires DC government to extend contract
-Witness for Hardy states that DPR should have rexamined contract and renegotiated concessions. No one know why DPR didn't do that, which is typically in DC contracting process.

Margot Talbot is testifying in next few months...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cheh is hammering Maret and DPR:
-There was no indication that cost-benefit analysis occurred by DPR
-There is nothing in existing contract that requires DC government to extend contract
-Witness for Hardy states that DPR should have rexamined contract and renegotiated concessions. No one know why DPR didn't do that, which is typically in DC contracting process.

Margot Talbot is testifying in next few months...

*edit*:
...next few MINUTES.