Bridges Families - What have you been told about the new Taylor Street location next door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to chime in that SSMA is definitely bringing this up to the PSCB and asking that a policy be put into place to prevent this from happening again.

It sucks that it happened and the administration wants to make sure it doesn't happen to another school (bc honestly, the situation isn't going to get much better). From the meeting last night, the school wasn't interested in 'punishing' Bridges or going after the landlord, they just want to make sure no other school has to deal with something similar going forward.

Let's pretend that SSMA could not get their act together.
That the owner had a sense of uncertaintly.
That SSMA was trying to negotiate and the owner thought they were not getting market.
Let's pretend that SSMA screwed SELA by backing out.

I do not think that the PCSB should be involved with this at all. If SSMA wanted the space they should have made it a priority. They did not. Should the property owner get screwed??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if nothing else, Shining Stars did make public announcements about the Taylor Street space. Even if they didn't have their act together, it would be a stretch to suggest that Bridges was unaware that Shining Stars was negotiating with the landlord for the space.

I completely agree that Shining Stars should have been more proactive and professional about their negotiations, but at the same time, their new location hasn't been a secret since they announced in mid-May.

I would caution against throwing Bridges under the bus. Apparently, SS had a signed agreement with Sela in April and was in the process of negotiating a final lease. SS then backed out when the Taylor St. location came available, which put Sela in a lurch because they had turned away other potential renters because they were in negotiations with SS. Everybody is going to do what's best for their families and students. Don't like it? Complain to the mayoral candidates/council to get DCPS to release it's moth-balled excess buildings.

Wow. The plot thickens! If this is true, what comes around goes around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if nothing else, Shining Stars did make public announcements about the Taylor Street space. Even if they didn't have their act together, it would be a stretch to suggest that Bridges was unaware that Shining Stars was negotiating with the landlord for the space.

I completely agree that Shining Stars should have been more proactive and professional about their negotiations, but at the same time, their new location hasn't been a secret since they announced in mid-May.

I would caution against throwing Bridges under the bus. Apparently, SS had a signed agreement with Sela in April and was in the process of negotiating a final lease. SS then backed out when the Taylor St. location came available, which put Sela in a lurch because they had turned away other potential renters because they were in negotiations with SS. Everybody is going to do what's best for their families and students. Don't like it? Complain to the mayoral candidates/council to get DCPS to release it's moth-balled excess buildings.

Where did you hear this? From my understanding, SSMA had 5 locations under consideration, but did not enter into any formal agreements with any of them until Taylor St.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

I think you are confusing two issues. Can you please point to where I "hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school"

I would love to release a few (even 1/2) of the empty school buildings available to DCPCSB for use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to chime in that SSMA is definitely bringing this up to the PSCB and asking that a policy be put into place to prevent this from happening again.

It sucks that it happened and the administration wants to make sure it doesn't happen to another school (bc honestly, the situation isn't going to get much better). From the meeting last night, the school wasn't interested in 'punishing' Bridges or going after the landlord, they just want to make sure no other school has to deal with something similar going forward.

Thank you for mentioning this really important point. The director was asked at one point if she's gone to the press or sought political avenues to try and reconcile the situation, but her response was no, that her priority was to find a new space which is in the best interest of the school. The deal between bridges and the landlord is signed and I doubt the (Atlanta-based) landlord cares too much about the implications of pitting two DC charters against each other.

The accusations that SSMA did something similar to Sela are completely inaccurate. There may have been early discussions, but no formal negotiation began on the property as it was never a desired location among the families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

I think you are confusing two issues. Can you please point to where I "hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school"

I would love to release a few (even 1/2) of the empty school buildings available to DCPCSB for use.

Not the person you are responding to, but I highlighted it in bold for you. Harmony = a charter school. Langley = a DCPS

[Anonymous]

Honestly, there are actual actors here who made decisions that caused this to happen. Are we really to believe that DCPS held a gun to these people's heads by not releasing other properties? They were fighting over buildings already in the mix. Can't these actors be held responsible for their actions without blaming DCPS. It's really far-fetched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

I think you are confusing two issues. Can you please point to where I "hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school"

I would love to release a few (even 1/2) of the empty school buildings available to DCPCSB for use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, there are actual actors here who made decisions that caused this to happen. Are we really to believe that DCPS held a gun to these people's heads by not releasing other properties? They were fighting over buildings already in the mix. Can't these actors be held responsible for their actions without blaming DCPS. It's really far-fetched.

I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to chime in that SSMA is definitely bringing this up to the PSCB and asking that a policy be put into place to prevent this from happening again.

It sucks that it happened and the administration wants to make sure it doesn't happen to another school (bc honestly, the situation isn't going to get much better). From the meeting last night, the school wasn't interested in 'punishing' Bridges or going after the landlord, they just want to make sure no other school has to deal with something similar going forward.

Thank you for mentioning this really important point. The director was asked at one point if she's gone to the press or sought political avenues to try and reconcile the situation, but her response was no, that her priority was to find a new space which is in the best interest of the school. The deal between bridges and the landlord is signed and I doubt the (Atlanta-based) landlord cares too much about the implications of pitting two DC charters against each other.

The accusations that SSMA did something similar to Sela are completely inaccurate. There may have been early discussions, but no formal negotiation began on the property as it was never a desired location among the families.

SS had a signed LOI with Sela. When Ayize left and SS got a new ED, they fired their previous broker and hired the new one who found (and lost) the Taylor St. building. SS had made several site visits and was in formal lease negotiations, aka "dating" to quote SS.

[Anonymous]

I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite

Right - so I guess this removes responsibility from anyone behaving less than appropriately? I don't think so. Hey "the lack of facilities made me do it". People still have the ability and fortitude to behave responsibly in a less than optimal environment right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite

Right - so I guess this removes responsibility from anyone behaving less than appropriately? I don't think so. Hey "the lack of facilities made me do it". People still have the ability and fortitude to behave responsibly in a less than optimal environment right?

Sure, and outside of making more facilities available, how do you intend to make the landlord behave more responsibly?