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

[Anonymous]

The more facts that come out, the less I believe that Maret was a white knight back in 2008. Even assuming that DC couldn't find the money back then to renovate Jelleff (which I don't believe-DC was only moderately impacted by the Great Recession), how does it make sense to give away a valuable piece of public property for 10 years at a pittance? The rational, reasonable, noncorrupt thing to do in that scenario would have been to put the renovation of Jelleff on hold until the economy recovered.

What really happened, most likely, is that Evans and Maret entered into a cozy little deal, like things have always been done in DC. Back then, Hardy had a school body that was overwhelmingly non-white, and came from out of boundary. Maret and Evans could easily ignore their interests, since their parents didn't have the time or money to organize an effective resistance.

However, the last 10 years have seen a change in Hardy. There are many more students attending who are from upper-middle class families that have the ability to organize and protect the Hardy student body's interests. Sure, the Maret backers are, on average, richer and better connected. But, as we've seen in their response, they're stunned that someone would push back against them and tell them "no." They've probably never had to care what the less wealthy thought about them before this situation.

[Anonymous]

DCPS and DPR are DC. We're on the hook for everything they spend. But their costs are nothing compared to the debt servicing cost. General obligation bonds are not free. We needed to take on debt to purchase the land. That has a massive cost, approximately $750k per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Has DPR released any documentation that states any costs associated with Jellef? Citations please, then we can discuss.
If Jellef is rented out for 16hrs a day, and Maret only uses 10% ten DC gets the other 90% at no costs.

First, DC funds the land costs, which is much more significant than Maret’s costs. (So strange that Maret, with all their developers, thinks land is free. And if land is costless, why don’t they buy some of their own?)

Second, DPR tents the field for less than market value, and the hours available for rent are vary hugely in market value. Weekday afternoons is when their is a spike in the gap between demand and supply.

So you're complaining that DPR's rates are too low to cover their debt servicing?
That the fields highest and best use from a developer/financial perspective an any way includes athletic facilities?

So maybe you should get DPR to raise the rates and join the market based economy... Yeah, that's a winning approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more facts that come out, the less I believe that Maret was a white knight back in 2008. Even assuming that DC couldn't find the money back then to renovate Jelleff (which I don't believe-DC was only moderately impacted by the Great Recession), how does it make sense to give away a valuable piece of public property for 10 years at a pittance? The rational, reasonable, noncorrupt thing to do in that scenario would have been to put the renovation of Jelleff on hold until the economy recovered.

What really happened, most likely, is that Evans and Maret entered into a cozy little deal, like things have always been done in DC. Back then, Hardy had a school body that was overwhelmingly non-white, and came from out of boundary. Maret and Evans could easily ignore their interests, since their parents didn't have the time or money to organize an effective resistance.

However, the last 10 years have seen a change in Hardy. There are many more students attending who are from upper-middle class families that have the ability to organize and protect the Hardy student body's interests. Sure, the Maret backers are, on average, richer and better connected. But, as we've seen in their response, they're stunned that someone would push back against them and tell them "no." They've probably never had to care what the less wealthy thought about them before this situation.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

Trimmed out the rest because it doesn't really matter. I work on deals that are negotiated between partners all the time- they start with a term sheet hammered out where all the fundamental terms are negotiated. Depending on the type they can get very specific, and certainly on something as important as a possible extension, the basics of how an extension will be requested, under what terms it will be granted, and how long a new potential term would be. Each party has to assess its value and risk from the proposed terms. These are then given to the attorneys to memorialize in the agreement. That agreement was VERY SPECIFIC about the terms under which an extension would be be granted: "At the sole discretion of the District". If they had actually negotiated what was said here ("upholding their end of the deal" and being "good partners"), then the agreement would have had very specific language, something like this:

"The District shall grant the requested Extension Period if Maret has followed the terms of this Agreement, including, but not exclusively, the maintenance of the Jelleff field, and is not in default under this Agreement. The monetary terms of the Extension will be at the sole discretion of the District."

See how that's NOT AT ALL what was written in the agreement? That's because a "handshake deal" or an "understanding" is not a deal. A deal is what is negotiated in the term sheet and memorialized in the Agreement. Everything else is essentially meaningless.

So please stop telling us what was "expected" when it was signed in 2009. What was expected is what's in the agreement. And that is clear- sole discretion of the District.

The best argument for Maret is that they followed the terms of the agreement, requested the extension as described, and the District government granted it, as requested. It's not on them to determine if the Executive Branch properly followed DC disposition and contract law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has DPR released any documentation that states any costs associated with Jellef? Citations please, then we can discuss.
If Jellef is rented out for 16hrs a day, and Maret only uses 10% ten DC gets the other 90% at no costs.

First, DC funds the land costs, which is much more significant than Maret’s costs. (So strange that Maret, with all their developers, thinks land is free. And if land is costless, why don’t they buy some of their own?)

Second, DPR tents the field for less than market value, and the hours available for rent are vary hugely in market value. Weekday afternoons is when their is a spike in the gap between demand and supply.

So you're complaining that DPR's rates are too low to cover their debt servicing?
That the fields highest and best use from a developer/financial perspective an any way includes athletic facilities?

So maybe you should get DPR to raise the rates and join the market based economy... Yeah, that's a winning approach.

What? That’s not what I said. DPR should rent the field below value! That’s their purpose — to make space available to the public for public use.

But if DC is going to lease out exclusive use of their assets to private organizations, then in those cases they should absolutely seek the highest value.

DC did neither. They did make the field available through their normal, more equitable permitting process, nor did they get fair value for what they gave up.

DC gave a sweetheart deal to Maret, at the behest of Jack Evans and Maret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because that violates DC law. Any government agency that enters into a public private partnership must follow discreet set of steps, including a public RFP process and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

Please read the DC regs on PPPs: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/2/chapters/2A/

And no, the Maret deal is not "free" to DC. You are lying. For example, Hardy pays $800 every time a sports team needs to travel by chartered bus to another part of the city to practice or play games.

Those rules where not in place when this deal was created. An extension doesn't qualify
Hardy is not DC, it's DCPS. Jellef is not DC, it's DPR.
Ellington is DCPS. If Maret were taking over Ellington's field, which is the field originally slated for Hardy (Listen to the DPR testimony) then you'd have a more legitimate complaint.
As far as I know DPR pays nothing for the field at Jellef., If you know differently, citations would help.

As for the old school at the Hardy site being “originally slated” for Ellington...well, of course. The city did not own Jelleff at the time!

And what do you mean DPR pays nothing for Jelleff?! The city paid for the land. Who do you think pays the electricity for those lights Maret keeps going on about? Who fills the swimming pool? Who removes the trash?!

And this thing about trying to act like DPR and DCPS are different entities is tiresome. They are funded by the same tax dollars, under the same executive management. They share many sites and cooperate in many ways, both as required by regulation and beyond that.

[Anonymous]

"Those rules where not in place when this deal was created. An extension doesn't qualify
Hardy is not DC, it's DCPS. Jellef is not DC, it's DPR.
Ellington is DCPS. If Maret were taking over Ellington's field, which is the field originally slated for Hardy (Listen to the DPR testimony) then you'd have a more legitimate complaint.
As far as I know DPR pays nothing for the field at Jellef., If you know differently, citations would help."

Spoken just like a bureaucrat. Which is why so little gets done in the Dystrict of Dysfunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more facts that come out, the less I believe that Maret was a white knight back in 2008. Even assuming that DC couldn't find the money back then to renovate Jelleff (which I don't believe-DC was only moderately impacted by the Great Recession), how does it make sense to give away a valuable piece of public property for 10 years at a pittance? The rational, reasonable, noncorrupt thing to do in that scenario would have been to put the renovation of Jelleff on hold until the economy recovered.

What really happened, most likely, is that Evans and Maret entered into a cozy little deal, like things have always been done in DC. Back then, Hardy had a school body that was overwhelmingly non-white, and came from out of boundary. Maret and Evans could easily ignore their interests, since their parents didn't have the time or money to organize an effective resistance.

However, the last 10 years have seen a change in Hardy. There are many more students attending who are from upper-middle class families that have the ability to organize and protect the Hardy student body's interests. Sure, the Maret backers are, on average, richer and better connected. But, as we've seen in their response, they're stunned that someone would push back against them and tell them "no." They've probably never had to care what the less wealthy thought about them before this situation.

Good point.

Up until recently, few people in the neighborhoods around Hardy cared much about what went on there, so long as the student body didn't cause problems. Georgetowners cared even less about the aftercare program at Jelleff, because none of their kids went there, and they didn't know anybody involved. So, Evans and Maret didn't have to care about the interests of "those people".

But, there's been a change with Hardy, as more and more of the in-boundary kids from schools like Key and Stoddert go there. That's why you have organizations like the Palisades Citizens Association involved in this situation. This type of pushback is similar to what we've seen with the Old Hardy situation. People in Wards 2 and 3 are sending more and more of their kids to DCPS, and they're getting more involved in how the District runs the schools.

Maret and Evans better hope this doesn't end up in litigation. They certainly don't want to have to open their records about this deal up to discovery, because I doubt that would end well for them.

[Anonymous]

What about the sweet heart deal that Hardy gives the promotors of the flea market?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

Trimmed out the rest because it doesn't really matter. I work on deals that are negotiated between partners all the time- they start with a term sheet hammered out where all the fundamental terms are negotiated. Depending on the type they can get very specific, and certainly on something as important as a possible extension, the basics of how an extension will be requested, under what terms it will be granted, and how long a new potential term would be. Each party has to assess its value and risk from the proposed terms. These are then given to the attorneys to memorialize in the agreement. That agreement was VERY SPECIFIC about the terms under which an extension would be be granted: "At the sole discretion of the District". If they had actually negotiated what was said here ("upholding their end of the deal" and being "good partners"), then the agreement would have had very specific language, something like this:

"The District shall grant the requested Extension Period if Maret has followed the terms of this Agreement, including, but not exclusively, the maintenance of the Jelleff field, and is not in default under this Agreement. The monetary terms of the Extension will be at the sole discretion of the District."

See how that's NOT AT ALL what was written in the agreement? That's because a "handshake deal" or an "understanding" is not a deal. A deal is what is negotiated in the term sheet and memorialized in the Agreement. Everything else is essentially meaningless.

So please stop telling us what was "expected" when it was signed in 2009. What was expected is what's in the agreement. And that is clear- sole discretion of the District.

The best argument for Maret is that they followed the terms of the agreement, requested the extension as described, and the District government granted it, as requested. It's not on them to determine if the Executive Branch properly followed DC disposition and contract law.

I didn't use the word "expected" that's from your talking points.
But you're right, Maret followed the agreement.
All the rest of this is noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the sweet heart deal that Hardy gives the promotors of the flea market?

Jack Evans, not Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Those rules where not in place when this deal was created. An extension doesn't qualify
Hardy is not DC, it's DCPS. Jellef is not DC, it's DPR.
Ellington is DCPS. If Maret were taking over Ellington's field, which is the field originally slated for Hardy (Listen to the DPR testimony) then you'd have a more legitimate complaint.
As far as I know DPR pays nothing for the field at Jellef., If you know differently, citations would help."

Spoken just like a bureaucrat. Which is why so little gets done in the Dystrict of Dysfunction.

"Let's ignore the deals that we made, under the auspices of standing up to power, because it'll score political points"
-Every aspiring politician and their sock pupets

[Anonymous]

Maret followed the agreement as did the District.

That agreement has now expired and Maret was expecting a wink-wink deal for an extension due to corrupt politicians like Jack Evans.

They will probably get their way and are now mad that we are pointing out the corruption and that Maret is screwing over DC students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has DPR released any documentation that states any costs associated with Jellef? Citations please, then we can discuss.
If Jellef is rented out for 16hrs a day, and Maret only uses 10% ten DC gets the other 90% at no costs.

First, DC funds the land costs, which is much more significant than Maret’s costs. (So strange that Maret, with all their developers, thinks land is free. And if land is costless, why don’t they buy some of their own?)

Second, DPR tents the field for less than market value, and the hours available for rent are vary hugely in market value. Weekday afternoons is when their is a spike in the gap between demand and supply.

So you're complaining that DPR's rates are too low to cover their debt servicing?
That the fields highest and best use from a developer/financial perspective an any way includes athletic facilities?

So maybe you should get DPR to raise the rates and join the market based economy... Yeah, that's a winning approach.

What? That’s not what I said. DPR should rent the field below value! That’s their purpose — to make space available to the public for public use.

But if DC is going to lease out exclusive use of their assets to private organizations, then in those cases they should absolutely seek the highest value.

DC did neither. They did make the field available through their normal, more equitable permitting process, nor did they get fair value for what they gave up.

DC gave a sweetheart deal to Maret, at the behest of Jack Evans and Maret.

DPR is renting the land to Maret, and only Maret for near market value. The British School is the clear winner here, as their sweetheart deal is to pay the minimal fee for the vast majority of the hours. Stoddert is also using a lot of hours at the bottom dollar rate.

The british school is even FOR PROFIT!
If DPR raised the rated they charged those two, they could easily cover their expenses and clear a profit.
So why are you attacking the one party trying to follow your principle?