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

[Anonymous]

One of the Maret boosters keeps saying that this is something “available to anyone.” Really? Any DCPS or any entity can sign a 10 year exclusive lease? Can you send me a link to that program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have no problem with Maret renting the space but a 10 year lease is obsurd.

That is a little odd, but I think it's a function of the new field, rather than a straight seasonal rental. I don't think anyone would pay to put in a new turf field without some assurances that they'd get a long-term benefit, rather than just one year.

+1

A new field can cost from the hundreds of thousands to 6 figures. DPR is getting much more value than just the $250k that Maret is paying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have no problem with Maret renting the space but a 10 year lease is obsurd.

That is a little odd, but I think it's a function of the new field, rather than a straight seasonal rental. I don't think anyone would pay to put in a new turf field without some assurances that they'd get a long-term benefit, rather than just one year.

+1

A new field can cost from the hundreds of thousands to 6 figures. DPR is getting much more value than just the $250k that Maret is paying.

^ 7 figures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the Maret boosters keeps saying that this is something “available to anyone.” Really? Any DCPS or any entity can sign a 10 year exclusive lease? Can you send me a link to that program?

Anyone can rent out a DPR facility. I expect if you offer to pay for a turf field on one, you too can get a long-term deal.

[Anonymous]

No, they’re not. Maret is making out like a bandit here. 25k per year is less than one student’s tuition. Hardy students who could walk to this field after school will have to arrange transport or, if that is beyond the means of their families, skip the sport. That is an added cost in terms of money and opportunity for individual students that they should not have to bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

It's incredibly intellectually lazy to believe that the only way someone could disagree with your position is if they have a personal interest in the issue. I'm a charter school parent, and couldn't dream of affording Maret. And I think the Hardy parents who are so worked up about this are off base; and the people yelling about "it's all DC, one big pot of money" are unaware of how governments and bureaucracies work.

Why are they off base?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is not a tax poor city. We could pay for our own turf and fence at Jelleff. I would appreciate seeing my tax dollars spent that way. We don't need Maret to pay for this. It's absurd and infuriating.

This is true, yet completely misses the issue. Yes, DC is flush with taxes; but DPR's budget for maintenance of facilities is not. DCPS is separate from DPR. You have the head of DPR presented with a situation where a private entity will pay for a significant upgrade to a DPR facility - an athletic field. In return, DPR is asked to grant that entity exclusive rights to use the field after school. DPR is not primarily concerned with DC schools - its responsibility is to maintain the parks and other spaces for all DC residents, not just students. This arrangement allows $250,000 to be used to improve other facilities, to the benefit of all DC residents. And although students are out of school during the restricted field time, many other DC residents are still at work, and wouldn't be able to use the field anyway.

Finally, DPR leadership could reasonably conclude that it is the responsibility of DCPS, not DPR, to provide adequate facilities for DCPS students to use for school activities. Should DCPS have first call on all rec center space to conduct after-school programming? Of course not. This is exactly the same situation.

You can disagree with the decision, but this is not the moral outrage that many of you seem to believe it to be.

Well in the case of Murch, DCPS already directly paid UDC for the use of the field. Once Maret showed up with money UDC decided to get paid AGAIN. Because the lawyers did not write the agreement properly they were able to do that. Our kids were banned to a small patch in the front. So in my mind, it is very much the moral outrage. I think DCPS paid UDC something close to $4 mil for 2 years we were there.

That is wrong, and if true the DCPS lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. But it's not the situation here, and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

It is most certainly not irrelevant. I think privates in DC have enough money to build and use their own fields. It was very personal when it happened to my kid.

Murch was promised use of the soccer field and the gym at UDC for the two years we were there. New president came in and said since it was just a Memorandum of Agreement they didn't have to abide by it. I think we had full use of the extra soccer field for 2/3 of the first year...if that. And anyone who showed up with a dog to walk acorss the field to school was harrassed - they even took pics. By the second year - field was completely fenced off - wouldn't even let Murch kids walk across or around it to and from school. Stuck for 1.5 years playing on a tiny mulch pit which was super hot in the summer. PE in the temporary cafeteria.

When Murch tried to contest this, DCPS did nothing. Mary Cheh did nothing. The president of UDC said "What are you going to do about it ...sue us?" This is not relevant to this discussion but they are also taking over Van Ness - doing leases and not using the space. Other business want it and...sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they’re not. Maret is making out like a bandit here. 25k per year is less than one student’s tuition. Hardy students who could walk to this field after school will have to arrange transport or, if that is beyond the means of their families, skip the sport. That is an added cost in terms of money and opportunity for individual students that they should not have to bear.

What does that have to do with anything? DPR has a going rate for renting its facilities. If you want to argue that Maret is getting a deal, you need to compare the what they're paying to what DPR could get by leasing the space to a different entity. (Or, since you want Hardy to get it, what Hardy would pay.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they’re not. Maret is making out like a bandit here. 25k per year is less than one student’s tuition. Hardy students who could walk to this field after school will have to arrange transport or, if that is beyond the means of their families, skip the sport. That is an added cost in terms of money and opportunity for individual students that they should not have to bear.

What does that have to do with anything? DPR has a going rate for renting its facilities. If you want to argue that Maret is getting a deal, you need to compare the what they're paying to what DPR could get by leasing the space to a different entity. (Or, since you want Hardy to get it, what Hardy would pay.)

Once again, you're missing the entire point which is: DC schools should not have to compete on the market with tony private schools to be able to access PUBLICLY FUNDED PLAYING FIELDS right next door. Maret is being greedy.

[Anonymous]

By DPR's own policy concerning priority of use, DCPS and DCPCS should get priority over non-public users.

https://dpr.dc.gov/page/priority-use

"Throughout the year, permits are issued on a first come, first served basis. At times when DPR accepts applications during a "Permit Window," all applications during that time are considered concurrent and therefore are prioritized in the following order:

- DPR sponsored activities
- Partners with written agreement
- Athletic programs organized by DC Public Schools, District Public Charter School, or the DC State Athletic Association for competitive league pay (games only)
- Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
- Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents
- Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District;
- and then others

Organizations that "principally serve District residents" are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in the District. Roster or other proof of residency may be required."

I'm sure some defender of the lease will point out that this is pertaining to permits, rather than leases. But the conceptual intent of priority for public youth-related agencies is clear.

[Anonymous]

Nope, Maret wants it. They should pay for what it is worth to them and DPR should push til they get it. Maret knows they are getting a deal. Where else are they going to go? What would they pay elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope, Maret wants it. They should pay for what it is worth to them and DPR should push til they get it. Maret knows they are getting a deal. Where else are they going to go? What would they pay elsewhere?

So should all public land be sold to the highest bidder???

[Anonymous]

You are extrapolating pretty hard there. Don’t hurt yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

It's incredibly intellectually lazy to believe that the only way someone could disagree with your position is if they have a personal interest in the issue. I'm a charter school parent, and couldn't dream of affording Maret. And I think the Hardy parents who are so worked up about this are off base; and the people yelling about "it's all DC, one big pot of money" are unaware of how governments and bureaucracies work.

Why are they off base?

I simply disagree that DCPS has first call on DPR facilities. And I don't have any connection to DCPS, DPR, or Maret.

DPR is supposed to benefit the entire city, not just students.

What the Hardy parents are saying is that DPR should forego the benefits of this arrangement ($250,000), which can be used to benefit people (including kids) all over the city, because they want to use the field.

They also are not thinking of the long-term implications of this position. As a PP pointed out, charter schools are public schools as well, and many of them have *no* outdoor fields or facilities. Under this rationale, they have first call, across the city, on parks, playgrounds, pools, etc. I don't think that serves DC as a whole very well.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what percentage of Maret students are DC residents?