DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

grosso didn't even write me back when I wrote asking for info a week ago. Anyone receive a response from him or Chen?

[Anonymous]

Great question. Anyone hear from the council?

[Anonymous]

This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Ill-founded. You reaaly should read before you start slandering others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Paragraph 1: I didn't read this thread.
Paragraph 2: Lacking all knowledge, I'm inclined to support this deal.
Paragraph 3: I assume the opposition that I presume to be present in this thread is motivated solely by prejudice.

I'm sorry for the challenges your family faces. I support SN children obtaining the necessary support in a welcoming environment. But I cannot disagree with your post vociferously enough. You do see why you shouldn't be taken seriously, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Ill-founded. You reaaly should read before you start slandering others.

At the end of the day, after a regular public process, I'd be delighted if the Lab School bought the property. What I object to is the rushed, pre-wired, Third World-style process that DC seems to be reverting to, which is basically no public process whatsoever. And one-time, self-styled reformers like Mary Cheh seem to be among the worst -- and repeat -- offenders.

[Anonymous]

^this. It is theft, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Paragraph 1: I didn't read this thread.
Paragraph 2: Lacking all knowledge, I'm inclined to support this deal.
Paragraph 3: I assume the opposition that I presume to be present in this thread is motivated solely by prejudice.

I'm sorry for the challenges your family faces. I support SN children obtaining the necessary support in a welcoming environment. But I cannot disagree with your post vociferously enough. You do see why you shouldn't be taken seriously, right?

Wow--if you're going to mount a point-by-point attack at least quote me correctly--when you don't it's hard to take you seriously.

Clarifications:

Paragraph one: As I wrote, I didn't read every single posting in the thread. (FYI: I read most.)

Paragraph two: As I wrote, I am not fully steeped in the details of the deal -- that does not mean I lack all knowledge. But of course the poster criticizing me is all knowing and familiar with absolutely every side, argument and consideration (including those not discussed on DCUM)...

Paragraph three: I did make a sweeping generalization that the intense feelings throughout this thread reflect an insensitivity to the challenges faced by SN families. (And, yes, I wrote that I feared that some/NOT all of the intense reaction was potentially prompted by prejudice.)

You can disagree with me on these sentiments, but when you mistate my expressed views so absurdly and thoroughly it undermines your argument. It's impossible to take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Paragraph 1: I didn't read this thread.
Paragraph 2: Lacking all knowledge, I'm inclined to support this deal.
Paragraph 3: I assume the opposition that I presume to be present in this thread is motivated solely by prejudice.

I'm sorry for the challenges your family faces. I support SN children obtaining the necessary support in a welcoming environment. But I cannot disagree with your post vociferously enough. You do see why you shouldn't be taken seriously, right?

Wow--if you're going to mount a point-by-point attack at least quote me correctly--when you don't it's hard to take you seriously.

Clarifications:

Paragraph one: As I wrote, I didn't read every single posting in the thread. (FYI: I read most.)

Paragraph two: As I wrote, I am not fully steeped in the details of the deal -- that does not mean I lack all knowledge. But of course the poster criticizing me is all knowing and familiar with absolutely every side, argument and consideration (including those not discussed on DCUM)...

Paragraph three: I did make a sweeping generalization that the intense feelings throughout this thread reflect an insensitivity to the challenges faced by SN families. (And, yes, I wrote that I feared that some/NOT all of the intense reaction was potentially prompted by prejudice.)

You can disagree with me on these sentiments, but when you mistate my expressed views so absurdly and thoroughly it undermines your argument. It's impossible to take you seriously.

My child has special needs too but that doesn't keep me from thinking this deal to give a sweetheart lease of public school property to a private school didn't follow acceptable processes for bidding and selection. Maybe try learning the "details" of this deal before you accuse others of prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too exhausting to read every posting on, especially as I have no particular beef in this fight; nor am I steeped in the details.

That said my knee-jerk reaction is to wholeheartedly support this deal. As the mom of an autistic child in a DCPS school, I'm in favor of any effort to provide greater resources to SNs schools, private or otherwise.

Whether well-founded/fair or not, I can't help but think that the exhaustive thread about the injustice of this deal smacks of prejudice at worst/insensitivity to the plight of SN families at the least.

Lab school doesn't take autistic kids anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:grosso didn't even write me back when I wrote asking for info a week ago. Anyone receive a response from him or Chen?

Not a surprise. Grosso is likely high and Cheh is just, well, arrogant and can't be bothered with what the little people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:grosso didn't even write me back when I wrote asking for info a week ago. Anyone receive a response from him or Chen?

Not a surprise. Grosso is likely high and Cheh is just, well, arrogant and can't be bothered with what the little people think.

Here's what I think is funny: There were three council members who spoke in favor of this bill, Cheh, Grosso and Evans. Nobody's asking about Evans. Because people just assume that he's going to do the Jack Evans thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:grosso didn't even write me back when I wrote asking for info a week ago. Anyone receive a response from him or Chen?

I didn't get a response from Grosso, but I did see the response that he sent to someone else. It was the statement he read when he introduced the bill. I assume it was written by a Lab School lobbyist.

[Anonymous]

hmm. The Barry administration sold the Fillmore School to the Corcoran for 1.5 million in 1999. A few weeks later the Corcoran closed on a loan of about 8 million...secured by the Fillmore School property.
Maybe Lab needed that type of lease pricing for similar reasons? Hard to explain on the surface facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:grosso didn't even write me back when I wrote asking for info a week ago. Anyone receive a response from him or Chen?

Not a surprise. Grosso is likely high and Cheh is just, well, arrogant and can't be bothered with what the little people think.

Here's what I think is funny: There were three council members who spoke in favor of this bill, Cheh, Grosso and Evans. Nobody's asking about Evans. Because people just assume that he's going to do the Jack Evans thing.

Grosso authored the bill and Cheh's unequivocal support was surprising given that she represents Ward 3 and giving away a public school property with a 50 year practically no cost lease is shocking given that Ward 3 schools have so many space constraints today. That said, Jack Evans has been in office way too long and I hope someone runs against him.