DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

Do they pay the school or the district? Guessing the school. Why do they need my taxpayer subsidy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dies anyone attend who private-pays or are all the students sent by public school systems?

Lots of private pays (I think the majority of kids are private pay). Including kids of the rich and famous, like the son of Ben Bradlee. That's why many people resent giving a sweetheart deal on a public school facility to a wealthy private school.
http://washingtonlife.com/2009/12/07/around-town-lab-school-tales/

Latest stat is 37% of students are DC residents, and less than 10% are DCPS-paid. So about three-quarters of the DC residents are private pay.

So 63% are from out of state. I have no idea what percentage of MD and VA kids private pay vs. public. I'm not sure why that matters anyway from a DC point of view.

[Anonymous]

Why cant Lab pay market rate for the space?

Its bad enough that kids in neighboring schools are in trailers, but this is pure theft.

[Anonymous]

Current status?

[Anonymous]

The families I know with children there are very well off and no doubt paying full freight. If Lab requires a subsidy it should come proportional from dc, MD, and Va - all chipping in, like metro. Ive no doubt its a good school doing good work but DC needs to do for DC kids. Thats the job of our politicians - to look out for our students and interests. I am sure many a charter have eyed that property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Current status?

The give-away bill was reintroduced by Bowser last week. Text is here:

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37562/B22-0153-Introduction.pdf

[Anonymous]

Give away?

It's a lease at market rate
DC retains ownership and can revoke for lease violations
Lab School will pay for safety repairs and renovation (1935 boiler, fire sprinklers)
Lab School will pay for 2 new DC kids a year to attend (DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go)
DCPS doesn't want the building, no budget to repair, let alone expand
The immediate neighbors wants it to stay a small school, positive relationships with Lab
All the students have disabilities, it's not a regular private school

The city is running out of time. The GDS lower school move, which will happen, could be an optimal site for Lab. If Lab were to break the Foxhall lease and buy the GDS site, then DC loses lease revenue and no-cost reno on the old Hardy building.

What's the alternative? Private developers? Another charter school with no proximity preference? Move Key students into an old building without any DCPS plans or money for repairs?

As a WOTP resident and taxpayer, I shudder at the thought of another empty, old school building in DC inventory, or worse, another Ellington. I have no problem with the city taking Lab money and letting them shoulder the costs of fixing that building now and maintaining it as a small school until whenever DCPS comes up with a plan to take it back.

Let's be honest. Nothing will satisfy the give-away-birthers. The claims of corruption and conspiracy are nearing Pizzagate levels. There is no evidence of "cronies" enriching themselves on the backs of students.

This has been a powerplay that's dragged on for years between the last 3 mayors and the council. Cheh and Evans have no problem kicking this can down the road to avoid the much bigger issues of overcrowding in ward 3 and mixed performance of ward 2 schools. DCPS, the DME, Grosso et al. have made it very clear that they have more immediate priorities than Key. My guess is Antwan Wilson hasn't put this high on his list of to-dos.

If there is a viable alternative to Lab lease somewhere in this nearly decade-long soap opera, I'd love to see it. If not, please, let's just move on to the big problems.

[Anonymous]

It isn't a lease at market rates. It's actually much worse terms than the city is giving charter schools, which are actually public schools.

The rent that was proposed was around $80,000 per year. There is a dollar for dollar credit for improvements (charter schools only get fifty cents). Lab is proposing doing $2 million in improvements on day one. They will pay zero rent for the first 25 years as a result. No landlord in his right mind would enter into such a lease.

DC is signing away control of the property for 50 years. In economic terms it is indistinguishable from an outright gift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The city is running out of time. The GDS lower school move, which will happen, could be an optimal site for Lab. If Lab were to break the Foxhall lease and buy the GDS site, then DC loses lease revenue and no-cost reno on the old Hardy building.

That is so laughable. The city has never and will never see any revenue from the Hardy building. If Lab were to go to GDS it would have to pay a true market rate. No way they're hopping off the gravy train.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give away?

It's a lease at market rate
DC retains ownership and can revoke for lease violations
Lab School will pay for safety repairs and renovation (1935 boiler, fire sprinklers)
Lab School will pay for 2 new DC kids a year to attend (DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go)
DCPS doesn't want the building, no budget to repair, let alone expand
The immediate neighbors wants it to stay a small school, positive relationships with Lab
All the students have disabilities, it's not a regular private school

The city is running out of time. The GDS lower school move, which will happen, could be an optimal site for Lab. If Lab were to break the Foxhall lease and buy the GDS site, then DC loses lease revenue and no-cost reno on the old Hardy building.

What's the alternative? Private developers? Another charter school with no proximity preference? Move Key students into an old building without any DCPS plans or money for repairs?

As a WOTP resident and taxpayer, I shudder at the thought of another empty, old school building in DC inventory, or worse, another Ellington. I have no problem with the city taking Lab money and letting them shoulder the costs of fixing that building now and maintaining it as a small school until whenever DCPS comes up with a plan to take it back.

Let's be honest. Nothing will satisfy the give-away-birthers. The claims of corruption and conspiracy are nearing Pizzagate levels. There is no evidence of "cronies" enriching themselves on the backs of students.

This has been a powerplay that's dragged on for years between the last 3 mayors and the council. Cheh and Evans have no problem kicking this can down the road to avoid the much bigger issues of overcrowding in ward 3 and mixed performance of ward 2 schools. DCPS, the DME, Grosso et al. have made it very clear that they have more immediate priorities than Key. My guess is Antwan Wilson hasn't put this high on his list of to-dos.

If there is a viable alternative to Lab lease somewhere in this nearly decade-long soap opera, I'd love to see it. If not, please, let's just move on to the big problems.

I'd much rather see them lease it to a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If there is a viable alternative to Lab lease somewhere in this nearly decade-long soap opera, I'd love to see it. If not, please, let's just move on to the big problems.

Mary Cheh suggested an early childhood center so more local schools could offer pre-k. If all it needs is $2 million in renovations the council could find that under the sofa cushions.

Muriel Bowser suggested we might need another WOTP high school. The Hardy site is bigger than the Ellington site.

Or, DC could, you know, follow the law on disposal of surplus property: offer it to a charter first, then consider other public purposes, then put it out to bid.

The reality is none of these options have been explored. Nothing other than giving it to the Lab School has been considered by anyone in the city government. Not only is the proposed deal a give-away, its a sole-source contract: the beneficiary is being specified by the Council. That's a bad business practice, and it's not generally legal. Except the Council is making its own rules in this case.

What's crazy is ceding control of the property for 50 years. A lot changes in 50 years. Fifty years ago, DCPS had four times as many students as it has today. Who knows what it will look like 50 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Nwdc ES are severly overcrowded and its getting worse. It is insane to give away space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Or, DC could, you know, follow the law on disposal of surplus property: offer it to a charter first, then consider other public purposes, then put it out to bid.

To add to that, if this really were a market-rate deal no council action would be needed. The reason they can't follow the existing process is that it's a sole-source give-away.

[Anonymous]

Lab should buy the gds property and leave the public school for the dcps kids who need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go

This is one of the things that's puzzling. Since the beginning of the Gray administration DCPS has had a stated goal of cutting private placements, and they have largely been successful, overall cutting them by more than half. If that's your strategy, why subsidize the private schools? And why a 50 year commitment? It just makes zero sense.

Fun fact: the typical DCPS school has a higher percentage of DCPS special needs kids (15-20%) than the Lab School (less than 10%).