Banneker and Shaw to co-locate at Shaw?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Use Cardozo into the Banneker magnet school and send the Cardozo students to the current Banneker. Turn Meyer elementary into a junior high.

I think if there were a more legitimate planning process to what has happened here this suggestion would have gotten some more attention. But still giving one school outdoor space by taking it from another is not an easy path to take.

Which is why there is a sincerity problem with the Move Banneker's people's solution for putting Shaw at Garnett Patterson.

And who uses Myer now? Join it up with Banneker, outdoor space, and one block away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

I think because there is nowhere to expand. But Myer seems on the table? They should take that. Or has that been promised for swing space for someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

I think because there is nowhere to expand. But Myer seems on the table? They should take that. Or has that been promised for swing space for someone?

It is swing space now but could potentially be used later. The problem is there aren't a lot of options for centrally located swing spaces so they are reluctant to give it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

I think because there is nowhere to expand. But Myer seems on the table? They should take that. Or has that been promised for swing space for someone?

It is swing space now but could potentially be used later. The problem is there aren't a lot of options for centrally located swing spaces so they are reluctant to give it up.

Ahhh! No one wants to give anything up! Maybe the Mayor or David Grosso can suggest they give it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

I think because there is nowhere to expand. But Myer seems on the table? They should take that. Or has that been promised for swing space for someone?

It is swing space now but could potentially be used later. The problem is there aren't a lot of options for centrally located swing spaces so they are reluctant to give it up.

Isn't the plan that schools will be undergoing renovations essentially forever? By the time DGS gets through the list the oldest modernizations will be 30 years old and ready to do it all over again. So won't there always be a need for swing space? And doesn't it make the most sense to keep it in the center of the city where it's closest to the most people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1.

Why steal someone else's building instead of renovating and expanding the current school?

I think because there is nowhere to expand. But Myer seems on the table? They should take that. Or has that been promised for swing space for someone?

It is swing space now but could potentially be used later. The problem is there aren't a lot of options for centrally located swing spaces so they are reluctant to give it up.

Isn't the plan that schools will be undergoing renovations essentially forever? By the time DGS gets through the list the oldest modernizations will be 30 years old and ready to do it all over again. So won't there always be a need for swing space? And doesn't it make the most sense to keep it in the center of the city where it's closest to the most people?

It does. Maybe in the future a swinging school will have to divide across multiple sites, I dunno.

[Anonymous]

Myer is a good option for Banneker to expand.

If they loose the budget fight tomorrow they might start asking for that building and outdoor space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Myer is a good option for Banneker to expand.

If they loose the budget fight tomorrow they might start asking for that building and outdoor space.

So tomorrow is budget decision day?

I hope they work out a way to give both groups a solid school building.
I personally vote for: big reno of Banneker at current site with sharing DPR facilities, and Shaw middle gets Shaw site on RI. But let’s see.

[Anonymous]

Banneker definitely needs a reno, but it’ll be better without needing to share DPRs space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banneker definitely needs a reno, but it’ll be better without needing to share DPRs space.

Yes. There is a car parking lot at Myer. Potential


Let’s see if the budget gets changed today to fund relocation.

[Anonymous]

So to wrap this thread up, several votes today with the following result.

Co-locate at Shaw MS - failed.

Banneker renovation to proceed at the SHAW MS site - passed.

Shaw MS to locate and renovate at current Banneker site (Euclid St) - passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to wrap this thread up, several votes today with the following result.

Co-locate at Shaw MS - failed.

Banneker renovation to proceed at the SHAW MS site - passed.

Shaw MS to locate and renovate at current Banneker site (Euclid St) - passed.

Someone is going to sue the Council over this last point. It's clear that Grosso, White^2, and McDuffie got campaign contributions to prevent Shaw MS from claiming the Euclid Street campus. Mendelson used a 50-50 voice vote to make the decision. The anti-Shaw MS council members realized they made a mistake and tried to retroactively call a roll call vote. Mendelson told him they were too late per parliamentary rules and he gave it to the Yea's for Shaw MS to move to Euclid Street. The anti-Shaw MS council members started freaking out and yelling at Mendelson. Trayvon White said "Man, this is abuse of power!"

Total idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to wrap this thread up, several votes today with the following result.

Co-locate at Shaw MS - failed.

Banneker renovation to proceed at the SHAW MS site - passed.

Shaw MS to locate and renovate at current Banneker site (Euclid St) - passed.

A study to determine the feasibility of co-location (two separate buildings on the same site) passed. It didn’t fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to wrap this thread up, several votes today with the following result.

Co-locate at Shaw MS - failed.

Banneker renovation to proceed at the SHAW MS site - passed.

Shaw MS to locate and renovate at current Banneker site (Euclid St) - passed.

A study to determine the feasibility of co-location (two separate buildings on the same site) passed. It didn’t fail.

True. But we all know the study will say - Shaw MS and Banneker cannot co-exist, therefore only Banneker goes forward at RI Avenue.

Mendelson just gave Shaw MS the Euclid Street campus as an insurance policy to the community. Bowser is gonna blow her stack.