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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

It's not that clear in the testimony, but didn't DPR say that they get $3mil a year from renting the field?

Asking for a friend who like facts.

LOL.. math is important . That's across all of DPR. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Can't wait for Evans to be voted out! Really, I think there is enough outrage to support a lawsuit or protest.

[Anonymous]

Lawyers: what's the best way to organize a lawsuit? The courts will need to force DPR to comply with the laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

It's not that clear in the testimony, but didn't DPR say that they get $3mil a year from renting the field?

Asking for a friend who like facts.

They got UP TO $2.5m of in kind donations spread out over ten years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers: what's the best way to organize a lawsuit? The courts will need to force DPR to comply with the laws.

You will need to get a plantiff with standing- who can show they have incurred harm because DPR didn't give them a shot at leasing the field during after school hours, as DC regs say they should.

B&GC is an unlikely plaintiff- won't want to sue the city and make itself an enemy of the administration. One or more of the parents of kids in the program could do it. Or maybe parents of kida in other nearby programs who might have bid on using the space. But its a lot to ask of an individual to put themselves out there like that.

[Anonymous]

121 pages of whining. Parents if you want your kid to have access to Jeliff Field, then send your kid to Maret. If you can't send your kid to Maret, then that's on you -- "poor" decision making by your and/or your spouse, unexceptional kids, etc. Look at yourselves and stop blaming others and stop with the conspiracy theories. Signed, non-Maret parent

[Anonymous]

Not to get political but is there a way Evans keeps his job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers: what's the best way to organize a lawsuit? The courts will need to force DPR to comply with the laws.

If Maret loses the field then they should sue DC to get their money back, with interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

You want Georgetown to look like the ballpark district, as the result of Jeleff redevelopment?! That sounds like a Greater Greater Development wet dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

I dunno. At least 2 of the athletes (one former, one current) who testified for Maret the other day spoke about having access to Jelleff as being monumentally important to their athletic experience...

(And don’t forget that Ellington provides no solution for the after-school program. After-school kids can’t be blocks away when their puck-up arrives.)

And don’t forget that it’s a long ride for a lot of those Ellington kids, back to their homes in PG County!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

I dunno. At least 2 of the athletes (one former, one current) who testified for Maret the other day spoke about having access to Jelleff as being monumentally important to their athletic experience...

(And don’t forget that Ellington provides no solution for the after-school program. After-school kids can’t be blocks away when their puck-up arrives.)

And don’t forget that it’s a long ride for a lot of those Ellington kids, back to their homes in PG County!

You're so clever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

You want Georgetown to look like the ballpark district, as the result of Jeleff redevelopment?! That sounds like a Greater Greater Development wet dream.

No. That's an odd interpretation of my sentence. I'm comparing two of Jack Evans' giveaways and saying that at least Nats Park has provided some benefit to the city at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers: what's the best way to organize a lawsuit? The courts will need to force DPR to comply with the laws.

If Maret loses the field then they should sue DC to get their money back, with interest.

They didn't give any money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers: what's the best way to organize a lawsuit? The courts will need to force DPR to comply with the laws.

If Maret loses the field then they should sue DC to get their money back, with interest.

What are you talking about? They got the benefit of their (corrupt) deal for the term of their contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:121 pages of whining. Parents if you want your kid to have access to Jeliff Field, then send your kid to Maret. If you can't send your kid to Maret, then that's on you -- "poor" decision making by your and/or your spouse, unexceptional kids, etc. Look at yourselves and stop blaming others and stop with the conspiracy theories. Signed, non-Maret parent

I was wondering when someone was going to go there. You may be a non-Maret parent, but what you've written is a fairly good summary of what was said in a less direct and more verbose form by a fair chunk of the public witnesses on Monday. It also underscores why many of us - regardless of our means and the abilities of our children - would never want to have anything to do with any institution that people like you have anything to do with.