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

[Anonymous]

I'm puzzled about the Maret speakers' focus on how nice and good Maret is.

Maret could be the second coming, but what does that have to do on whether this contract was entered into appropriately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm puzzled about the Maret speakers' focus on how nice and good Maret is.

Maret could be the second coming, but what does that have to do on whether this contract was entered into appropriately?

Nothing and that's the point. It deflects the Council's attention from the real issue and crowds out voices on the other side of the issue. It's also free advertising for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never in the history of the world has a group of people who have done so much for humanity been so persecuted than the Maret community. And NW DC has a dire shortage of baseball fields.

Should really convert some of those baseball fields to multi-use. Too many in NW

Agree. But that doesn't negate the fact that Maret has a corrupt easement with DPR.

[Anonymous]

God bless the Palisades Citizens Association.

[Anonymous]

LOL how many real estate executives are going to speak on behalf of Maret?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never in the history of the world has a group of people who have done so much for humanity been so persecuted than the Maret community. And NW DC has a dire shortage of baseball fields.

Should really convert some of those baseball fields to multi-use. Too many in NW

You mean mixed-use? Let’s build more housing and retail on the baseball fields. Baseball isn’t a very inclusive sport, BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL how many real estate executives are going to speak on behalf of Maret?

I love how the Maret real estate guys are lecturing DC Council on the sanctity of contracts.

They all got their talking points, that's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Ruth Wattenberg is up. She's completely disassembling the Maret arguments point by point.

She gets to the crux of the issue: this contract was entered into without public input, which violates DC law. Further, she points out that DPR has not been a good steward of public spaces and is concerned that DPR with more and more assets being transferred to DPR.

[Anonymous]

I heard Elisa Silverman say that if maret had sought a 20 year deal, the issue would have had to be voted on by the council. So, instead the parties decided to do a 10 year deal with an option to renew. This totally makes the deal "shady" in that it violated the spirit of the law and good, transparent decision making. Lawyers or other people who heard her speak, let me know if I misunderstood the facts....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard Elisa Silverman say that if maret had sought a 20 year deal, the issue would have had to be voted on by the council. So, instead the parties decided to do a 10 year deal with an option to renew. This totally makes the deal "shady" in that it violated the spirit of the law and good, transparent decision making. Lawyers or other people who heard her speak, let me know if I misunderstood the facts....

Yes, this is the gist of Silverman's point. However, she was clear to point out that Maret has an "easement" to the space rather than the normal "procurement" contract. This is very important, especially as you look at the preference order in which DPR must consider applications for priority use: https://dpr.dc.gov/page/priority-use

I'm guessing this puts Maret in the category of a "partner with written agreement." However, this is an abuse of the partner regulations which are to be governed by law stipulating private public partnerships. It should have applied as a procurement offer to maintain and dole out use of the field.

Here's Maret's 2010 contract with Maret: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ycNlJMWbHeYHXEp05bI--O3JMLhAflAT/view

[Anonymous]

Does anybody know if Delano Hunter testified. I really think he screwed this whole thing up and he should be fired but maybe there are facts i don't understand/know about. What did he say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know if Delano Hunter testified. I really think he screwed this whole thing up and he should be fired but maybe there are facts i don't understand/know about. What did he say?

He has not (yet). White and Cheh intimated earlier today that they would hear from DPR but it's not exactly clear if that's today or some nebulous point in the future. AHunter is in attendance in the room - White said the Director of DPR is there.

[Anonymous]

In DC Council hearings government witnesses typically go last. And under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know if Delano Hunter testified. I really think he screwed this whole thing up and he should be fired but maybe there are facts i don't understand/know about. What did he say?

Hunter is an Acting Director. He's the errand boy for Bowser and the Interium (!!!) Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. He's now the fall guy, but he can't sneeze without getting permission from Bowser.

It blows my mind that the entire command chain for this issue are all Acting or Interim, reporting directly to Bowser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Elisa Silverman say that if maret had sought a 20 year deal, the issue would have had to be voted on by the council. So, instead the parties decided to do a 10 year deal with an option to renew. This totally makes the deal "shady" in that it violated the spirit of the law and good, transparent decision making. Lawyers or other people who heard her speak, let me know if I misunderstood the facts....

Yes, this is the gist of Silverman's point. However, she was clear to point out that Maret has an "easement" to the space rather than the normal "procurement" contract. This is very important, especially as you look at the preference order in which DPR must consider applications for priority use: https://dpr.dc.gov/page/priority-use

I'm guessing this puts Maret in the category of a "partner with written agreement." However, this is an abuse of the partner regulations which are to be governed by law stipulating private public partnerships. It should have applied as a procurement offer to maintain and dole out use of the field.

Here's Maret's 2010 contract with Maret: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ycNlJMWbHeYHXEp05bI--O3JMLhAflAT/view

The DPR priority schedule was in regulations that were enacted by the Council about 4-5 years ago.

"Partners" in the regulaions refer to programmatic partners, organizations that supplement DPR programming. To be considered a programmatic partner the programming has to be open to DC residents at no charge. If an organization provides a mixture of programming, some of which qualifies for partnership status, the priority only applies to facilities used for qualifying programs.

In short, Maret does not qualify as a DPR partner.