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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$25k/year is peanuts and it’s less than half of what a single Maret student pays each year and tuition and fees. In Maryland when the soccer leagues want to use public middle and high school fields on weekends for games, they pay millions in upgrade and use fees. Bad deal by DC. For 25k/year I could rent Jellef and make good use of that huge plot of land.

Maret is paying that too. Hardy certainly wouldn't have.

Where is the evidence that Maret is not paying millions? DPR has a huge maintenance budget and can certainly afford to pay this as well. This is just a Jack Evans deal gone bad because his kids went to Maret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$25k/year is peanuts and it’s less than half of what a single Maret student pays each year and tuition and fees. In Maryland when the soccer leagues want to use public middle and high school fields on weekends for games, they pay millions in upgrade and use fees. Bad deal by DC. For 25k/year I could rent Jellef and make good use of that huge plot of land.

Maret is paying that too. Hardy certainly wouldn't have.

Where is the evidence that Maret is paying millions? DPR has a huge maintenance budget and can certainly afford to pay this as well. This is just a Jack Evans deal gone bad because his kids went to Maret. I am surprised that a $40k/year private school doesn't have fields of its own. But I guess it's cheaper to sponge off the DC taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

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.

You do realize that there are several DPR rec centers in DC that share a building and facilities with a public school, right? Stoddert Elementary for one.

[Anonymous]

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.

What are you babbling about? A public school has every right to request access to use the facilities of a public rec center, unless of course a well-connected private school snaps up the rights to use that public field without any chance for public consultation.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how people can argue against equal access to a DC public field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how people can argue against equal access to a DC public field.

They’re trolls that’s how.

Some appear to even be libertarian trolls. The worst kind.

[Anonymous]

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.

You do realize that there are several DPR rec centers in DC that share a building and facilities with a public school, right? Stoddert Elementary for one.

Yes they actually share the building/gym so obviously Stoddert should have priority access. This is not the case for Hardy, not even close.

[Anonymous]

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.

You do realize that there are several DPR rec centers in DC that share a building and facilities with a public school, right? Stoddert Elementary for one.

Yes they actually share the building/gym so obviously Stoddert should have priority access. This is not the case for Hardy, not even close.

“Not even close”? What a peculiar assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

I mean ... that sounds totally reasonable to me. DPR and DCPS are two DC taxpayer-funded agencies, so it seems perfectly OK to say that DCPS should have dibs on DPR facilities. You're trying to make the patently unfair seem fair.

Sorry, this is just wrong. The entity charged with supporting students is DCPS. DPR has a different mission. They have different funding, and exists for different purposes. The education of students (and their extracurricular activities) is not the only purpose of a local government. In this instance, both Maret and DCPS are strangers to DPR.

I have no issue with, if faced with equivalent offers, DPR is required to prefer DCPS. But I'll wager that isn't the case here.

FWIW, this goes both ways. I once dealt with a situation where neighbors wanted unrestricted access to a charter school field, and didn't think that the school should be able to rent it out to soccer leagues in off hours. But the public doesn't have first call on school property. By the same token, schools don't have first call on exclusive use of public parks.

The fault here lies with DCPS, first for not providing adequate facilities for students, and then on expecting other city agencies to remedy the failure.

Under DC law, DPR has to give priority to DCPS over other users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

One of the issues with the Jelleff deal is that it's not market-rate. There was no competitive bidding process.

DC paid $15 million for the land, ten years ago. Maret is getting it for $25k a year. That's a steal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

DPR should prioritize the use of its facilities by DC taxpayers. Many Maret families do not pay DC taxes. Those students should not have the use of DPR resources before DC taxpayers.

How very Trump of you. Why should someones taxpayers status disqualify them from public resources?

Huh? Of course that matters. If I take my family to a public pool in Md, we pay a fee. Local public assets are for local residents primarily.

All people/entities renting space from DPR, including Maret, pay a fee. And Maret is a business in DC, unlike you using a public pool in MD.

Maret is not a business; it’s a non- profit and does not pay taxes. Keep trying!

Paying taxes has nothing to do with it. The point is that it is in DC, and is the party signing the contract with DPR. That some kids don't live in DC doesn't matter in the slightest.

DPR regulations differentiate between organizations that primarily serve DC residents and others. The cutoff is 80% of members are DC residents. Maret doesn't qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

DPR should prioritize the use of its facilities by DC taxpayers. Many Maret families do not pay DC taxes. Those students should not have the use of DPR resources before DC taxpayers.

How very Trump of you. Why should someones taxpayers status disqualify them from public resources?

Huh? Of course that matters. If I take my family to a public pool in Md, we pay a fee. Local public assets are for local residents primarily.

All people/entities renting space from DPR, including Maret, pay a fee. And Maret is a business in DC, unlike you using a public pool in MD.

Maret is not a business; it’s a non- profit and does not pay taxes. Keep trying!

Paying taxes has nothing to do with it. The point is that it is in DC, and is the party signing the contract with DPR. That some kids don't live in DC doesn't matter in the slightest.

Of course it does. DPR charges all out of state residents fees to use the pools for example. YOu're doing some extraordinary mental gymnastics to justify this.

Maret is paying $25k a year. That's not enough, in your view, to cover some out-of-state students? Really?

It's a $15+ million facility. $25k is a pittance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

DPR should prioritize the use of its facilities by DC taxpayers. Many Maret families do not pay DC taxes. Those students should not have the use of DPR resources before DC taxpayers.

How very Trump of you. Why should someones taxpayers status disqualify them from public resources?

Huh? Of course that matters. If I take my family to a public pool in Md, we pay a fee. Local public assets are for local residents primarily.

All people/entities renting space from DPR, including Maret, pay a fee. And Maret is a business in DC, unlike you using a public pool in MD.

Maret is not a business; it’s a non- profit and does not pay taxes. Keep trying!

Paying taxes has nothing to do with it. The point is that it is in DC, and is the party signing the contract with DPR. That some kids don't live in DC doesn't matter in the slightest.

Of course it does. DPR charges all out of state residents fees to use the pools for example. YOu're doing some extraordinary mental gymnastics to justify this.

DPR charges every entity to rent DPR space. Charity, non-profit, school, soccer league, etc.

None of you have answered the question about Stoddert yet.

Look, I get that it's frustrating. But there are a couple of inescapable facts here:

- DPR and DCPS facilities are not interchangeable.
- DPR allows rentals such as this, to all sorts of organizations.
- DCPS has not provided sufficient facilities that will satisfy Hardy parents.
- DPR is not responsible for providing extra-curricular space for DCPS students.

And while these aren't "facts," not everything in DC is subsidiary to DCPS, and the people who head DPR are more concerned with their mission than DCPS's mission.

Stoddert is over 80% DC residents and meets the DPR qualification as a DC-based non-profit.

[Anonymous]

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.

And I fail to see why a school thinks it should have rights just because they have money.

I really don't understand the beef with Maret here. The school sought to extend an arrangement that had been in place for 10 years; it's using a program that is widely used by other organizations in the city, and DPR agreed to it. If you must, complain about DPR (though I think that's misplaced) or DCPS. But the complaints about Maret sound a lot like people who just don't like private schools in general, or this one in particular. And no, I'm not a Maret parent - my kids go to a DCPCS. (But, do charter schools get first crack at DPR facilities as well, under your world view?)

This deal is not widely available. Maret is the only school that has this kind of deal. They got it because they have political juice.

[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.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

Clearly, DPR is concerned with giving a sweetheart deal to a $$ private school full of non-DC resident students. Sounds like a really great use of scarce DC resources.

So your complaint is that the market rate for renting out DPR space is too low? What do you think it should be?

This deal is way below market.