DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

If you're so Gung Ho on suing the city, why not start with DCPS and its continuing failure to educate students with disabilities? If DCPS could do its job, Lab School wouldn't need to exist. DCPS is in serious violation of federal laws on special education. Catania was the only one who took it seriously. He supported the lease, too. This isn't something Grosso invented.

Bottom line, many people who live near the building don't want anything bigger there than a small building with little kids (no icky middle schoolers) school and minimal traffic. DCPS cannot gurantee an enrolment cap. Charter schools can, but that hinders their funding. That location would never be approved for a charter serving low-income, at-risk students anyway.

So what exactly are you hoping to achieve on the backs of kids with disabilities?

This is a case of 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You are completely okay with the DC Council breaking multiple laws as long as your kid benefits?

Lab parents in a nutshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website.

This is simply not true. There was one "public" meeting, to which only Lab parents and staff were invited. Mary Cheh held one Council hearing, and again, she made sure that only Lab School insiders knew about it.

Cheh wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend there was a public process, when there wasn't.

Mary Cheh believes in public process the way that Putin believes in public process. (Both have a soft spot for authoritarian central planning decisions.)

Da. Comrade-Councilmember Cheh will kick your ass with her commissar boots.

Well she certainly kicked public education's ass this time around.

What's said is she put so much energy and ingenuity into doing a favor for a special interest. Too bad she doesn't have that energy for serving her constituents.

[Anonymous]

Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bottom line, many people who live near the building don't want anything bigger there than a small building with little kids (no icky middle schoolers) school and minimal traffic. DCPS cannot gurantee an enrolment cap. Charter schools can, but that hinders their funding. That location would never be approved for a charter serving low-income, at-risk students anyway.

None of those things would keep it from being a public school, either DCPS or charter. Neighbors don't approve charter, the charter board does, and the neighbors have no role in the charter approval process.

And clearly hundreds of neighbors support a public school at that location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

If you're so Gung Ho on suing the city, why not start with DCPS and its continuing failure to educate students with disabilities? If DCPS could do its job, Lab School wouldn't need to exist. DCPS is in serious violation of federal laws on special education. Catania was the only one who took it seriously. He supported the lease, too. This isn't something Grosso invented.

Bottom line, many people who live near the building don't want anything bigger there than a small building with little kids (no icky middle schoolers) school and minimal traffic. DCPS cannot gurantee an enrolment cap. Charter schools can, but that hinders their funding. That location would never be approved for a charter serving low-income, at-risk students anyway.

So what exactly are you hoping to achieve on the backs of kids with disabilities?

This is a case of 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You are completely okay with the DC Council breaking multiple laws as long as your kid benefits?

Lab parents in a nutshell.

That's Comisaar Bowser at your service.

[Anonymous]

Where is the proof that Mayor Bowser had anything to do with this sweetheart deal? This seems like it's Chen driven.

[Anonymous]

You mean Comrade Cheh? I'm.really getting tired of the non stop give away spree our Council is on. Then again, I have voted straight Republican for council the last few rounds (not that it makes a difference). Did you? If you started to, maybe we could send a message .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

If you're so Gung Ho on suing the city, why not start with DCPS and its continuing failure to educate students with disabilities? If DCPS could do its job, Lab School wouldn't need to exist. DCPS is in serious violation of federal laws on special education. Catania was the only one who took it seriously. He supported the lease, too. This isn't something Grosso invented.

Bottom line, many people who live near the building don't want anything bigger there than a small building with little kids (no icky middle schoolers) school and minimal traffic. DCPS cannot gurantee an enrolment cap. Charter schools can, but that hinders their funding. That location would never be approved for a charter serving low-income, at-risk students anyway.

So what exactly are you hoping to achieve on the backs of kids with disabilities?

Oh, does Lab school take every DC child with needs? I think not. And it takes bunches from other states which I'm fine with until it somehow becomes DCs responsibility to subsidize. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think that DC should get a tuition discount, by law tuition for special ed schools paid by DCPS is established by OSSE.

My point was not to suggest a literal tuition discount. It was to point out that, like all private special education schools where DCPS kids are placed, they are already compensated through tuition, and it is not appropriate to single out Lab among all similar institutions for an additional, unearned benefit in the form of a real estate subsidy.

Someone paid for this. Which council person received a donation from Lab? Can we find out who sponsored the bill?

Bowser's campaign treasurer was Ben Soto. He also was the mastermind behind FreshPAC. His wife is on the board of Lab.

Let's hope these conflicts of interest are noted during the hearing.

In this new Trump era, there are no conflicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^how about paying a reasonable rent, that dcps can then use to educate SN students not lucky enough to get into lab?

+1 the kids at lab are primarily the lucky subsegment of the SN population ones whose parents can pay 45-60k for their education annually or pay for a good special needs lawyer to fight DCPS so that they pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Wrong.

What is it you know that others do not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Wrong.

What is it you know that others do not?

It's against forum rules to discuss individual kids. Let's knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^how about paying a reasonable rent, that dcps can then use to educate SN students not lucky enough to get into lab?

+1 the kids at lab are primarily the lucky subsegment of the SN population ones whose parents can pay 45-60k for their education annually or pay for a good special needs lawyer to fight DCPS so that they pay.

The DC ones, yes. But most of the kids are from out of state. The latest OSSE audit shows a total of 46 DC kids out of an enrollment of around 350.

[Anonymous]

The longer that Mary Cheh has been in office, the more she seems to be reverting to Professor Cheh. She decides, She asks the questions and doesn't like at all when voters question Her positions or actions. Cheh thinks she's the smartest one in the room, and She always knows what is best for you. The homeless shelter, Hearst Park, the property for the Lab School, once She decides something, Cheh views public processes as a distraction and bother.

I wish the Ward 3 voters would send Cheh back to her teaching gig for good.