GDS admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bender is a self-serving lunatic. GDS messed up snd should have let the ANC they were overenrolled and need to address any existing traffic low issues.
Both can be simultaneously true.

Just watch the video and see what you think. Even if you think GDS is a bunch of entitled liberal jerks, the ANC behavior was legit insane, and I don't mean that in a way that casts aspersions on people with legitimate mental health issues. I don't know what else to call the infantile and non productive antics by the ANC in that meeting. Even if you hate GDS, the way the ANC behaved makes them look like rational, cooperative community members in contrast to the lunacy of the Bender and the other ANC people. I feel sorry for the community members they are supposed to serve.

GDS caused all these problems. What school does not try to work with the neighborhood? Look at the GDS supporters on this thread. They insane. I can see why the ANC reacted they way they did.

#gaslighting
#AccuseOthersOfWhatYouAreDoing

[Anonymous]

So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

[Anonymous]

According to New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (V&T), "No Standing" means "Vehicles can be stopped while actually loading or unloading passengers only." (https://cals.cornell.edu/nysltap-local-roads/what-difference-between-no-parking-no-standing-and-no-stopping)

No sure how DC law defines it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

l
Think about it - what about taxis? People who have 8am doctor appointments? Of course you can drop someone off or pick them up. You can’t park and leave the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi -- I wanted to write in with some information. We are GDS parents, DC residents, and consider ourselves to care a lot about both GDS and Tenley town. Not that this should matter, but we're not wealthy, and we don't drive around in an expensive car. I wanted to put in some facts I found a short while ago about the Board Adjustment. I have had no involvement in this issue at GDS, I just got frustrated with the conversation and wanted to find source materials myself.

I found the zoning adjustment. You can, too. Google Georgetown Day School Zoning adjustment. You will find a DC regulatory publication that is 600 pages long. Then just search the school name and you'll find it very easily.

Here is what I find so frustrating about the ANC, here, based on what I found. I'm focusing on all of the accusations that GDS and its parents are intentionally violating the DC Adjustment. The reality is that they are not.

Read for yourself: the Adjustment lists out the specific streets directly adjacent the school where during prohibited times GDS families cannot drive or park on. The list is very specific. The Adjustment is the result of a negotiated agreement between the ANC and the School.

What you will see is that NOWHERE in the Adjustment is there any mandate regarding Wisconsin Avenue at all. And nowhere in the Adjustment is any street east of Wisconsin Avenue mentioned, either. In other words, anyone -- including a GDS family -- can park or stop anywhere on those streets (assuming they aren't violating any restriction that applies to everyone on those streets). This is a fact -- it cannot be debated.

Yet, a huge amount of time in the hearing was spent with the Chair of the ANC putting up maps issued by GDS regarding the restricted streets. I counted 28 times in 20 minutes where he said that the GDS map demonstrates that bad itent of GDS and its parents. He also focused on streets east of WI, as if anyone from GDS going down them was doing something unlawful. He threatened enforcement actions (a power he does not have). He threatened bar complaints. He attacked the school and its parents, calling people liars and cheats.

You cannot run a government entity like this, make these kinds of accusations, all while not even reading the agreement that your own ANC agreed to. Honestly, I think that that is incredibly misleading. It shows a complete lack of attention to the core agreements at issue. The accusations -- especially the ones about violating the agreement -- are totally and verifiably false. Just read the Adjustment. He may well be frustrated that the ANC did not do a good enough job in the negotiation. He may see problems he now wants to solve. But that is very different from running a hearing, saying over and over that the School violated the Adjustment and must be accountable regarding the trip count and GDS parents driving. It is his fault for not having an agreement that doesn't say what he now wants everyone to believe it says. It is patently and totally false. And you don't need to attack me about it -- just read the documents yourself.

Here is what I wanted to get to. Although the Adjustment was not violated in terms of parent driving and trip counts at all, that doesn't mean that there are no problems to solve. I would think it would be challenging for GDS to know, outside its car pool counts it controls, how many people are driving in the surrounding blocks or dropping students somewhere else. Noticeably, there is no definition of what a trip count actually is in the key documents. So, here again, the ANC is charging GDS with violating the counts, but they can't actually back it up and explain how that could be true. And that is because they didn't build in any definition to the legal documents that defines the term. I think it is reasonable for GDS to assume that a trip for the count is one going onto its actual campus. But I also understand that that could be debated.

What I am driving at here is that, rather than hurl attacks at the GDS community and have an hour long discussion about legal violations and how we have to punish unlawful behavior -- which is totally baseless -- why couldn't the ANC's approach been: dear GDS, although the document is not clear enough to say you are in violation of the trip counts, we still have problems we would like to solve with you. We've seen parents dropping on residential streets. We think these should be counted even if you don't. We understand that the Adjustment is not perfect, and we now have a year or two of learned experience. There are concerned neighbors. Yet we understand that you also have families that have various needs and have their own safety considerations for their kids. So let's come to the table and revisit the issues in light of experience. I truly believe that if the approach were reasonable, reasonable people could write additional agreements that attend to the needs of Tenleytown and the needs of GDS families. In other words, there has been no violation in terms of car traffic at all, so let's work forward together to deal with the concerns of various stakeholders involved. That is a proactive, collaborative approach. It is not an approach of just baselessly castigating people -- indeed, an entire community -- which is what the ANC did.

I do think we should have a fair expectation that government officials will be careful, balanced -- and truthful about the very legal documents they themselves worked on and negotiated. You cannot blame the party across the table for your own mistakes in such negotiations or for your own lack of care or attention to detail. But you can exercise your official capacity to work on new problems that have arisen since the documents were completed. The way to do that is to bring people to the table in partnership.

Thank you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

because wisconsin avenue isn't a public street as listed in the order. smh. for some highly educated people you sure do seem to be missing that. or just avoiding the obvious to suit your own selfish needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

because wisconsin avenue isn't a public street as listed in the order. smh. for some highly educated people you sure do seem to be missing that. or just avoiding the obvious to suit your own selfish needs.

Exactly. Seems like the ANC bully wishes Wisconsin Avenue was in the agreement, but wishing and bullying can't change what was written and signed.

[Anonymous]

No one should EVER stop in a traffic lane in rush hour on a main thoroughfare, especially one that specifically disallows parking to aid traffic flow.

Those of you arguing that Wisconsin is fair game for your drop-offs and pick-ups because you don't find the words in the agreement are self-absorbed jerks. Why you shouldn't stop on Wisconsin is not hard to understand, unless you believe yourself exempt from civic responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

No for long. DC changes traffic patterns by changing or adding street restrictions all the time specially around private schools. If there is a problem and the neighbors complain they act. They will put stop signs and speed cameras in that will ticket if you if you stop on Wisconsin or whatever you are doing. The city is great at this(and they will make a lot of money). The fastest way to make this happen is attack and piss off the ANC. Good job on that!

If GDS was living by the spirt or intent of the agreement, people would not be gaming the existing agreement. So it is pretty clear GDA is a bad neighbor, not living up to the agreement and in fact actively undermining the agreement at every opportunity. They are a bad faith actor but the city has many tools to make your life miserable. This will not end well for GDS parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should EVER stop in a traffic lane in rush hour on a main thoroughfare, especially one that specifically disallows parking to aid traffic flow.

Those of you arguing that Wisconsin is fair game for your drop-offs and pick-ups because you don't find the words in the agreement are self-absorbed jerks. Why you shouldn't stop on Wisconsin is not hard to understand, unless you believe yourself exempt from civic responsibilities.

This is a bizarre rant that belies common sense and the law. I am grateful to live in a world where you cannot proscribe others behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

No for long. DC changes traffic patterns by changing or adding street restrictions all the time specially around private schools. If there is a problem and the neighbors complain they act. They will put stop signs and speed cameras in that will ticket if you if you stop on Wisconsin or whatever you are doing. The city is great at this(and they will make a lot of money). The fastest way to make this happen is attack and piss off the ANC. Good job on that!

If GDS was living by the spirt or intent of the agreement, people would not be gaming the existing agreement. So it is pretty clear GDA is a bad neighbor, not living up to the agreement and in fact actively undermining the agreement at every opportunity. They are a bad faith actor but the city has many tools to make your life miserable. This will not end well for GDS parents.

A prohibition against stopping would have a disproportionate impact on the residents of Tenley View and future residents of the new adjacent apartment building under construction, not to mention area businesses. And you want all of this all because it makes you angry that you cannot force other people to behave the way you want them to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi -- I wanted to write in with some information. We are GDS parents, DC residents, and consider ourselves to care a lot about both GDS and Tenley town. Not that this should matter, but we're not wealthy, and we don't drive around in an expensive car. I wanted to put in some facts I found a short while ago about the Board Adjustment. I have had no involvement in this issue at GDS, I just got frustrated with the conversation and wanted to find source materials myself.

I found the zoning adjustment. You can, too. Google Georgetown Day School Zoning adjustment. You will find a DC regulatory publication that is 600 pages long. Then just search the school name and you'll find it very easily.

Here is what I find so frustrating about the ANC, here, based on what I found. I'm focusing on all of the accusations that GDS and its parents are intentionally violating the DC Adjustment. The reality is that they are not.

Read for yourself: the Adjustment lists out the specific streets directly adjacent the school where during prohibited times GDS families cannot drive or park on. The list is very specific. The Adjustment is the result of a negotiated agreement between the ANC and the School.

What you will see is that NOWHERE in the Adjustment is there any mandate regarding Wisconsin Avenue at all. And nowhere in the Adjustment is any street east of Wisconsin Avenue mentioned, either. In other words, anyone -- including a GDS family -- can park or stop anywhere on those streets (assuming they aren't violating any restriction that applies to everyone on those streets). This is a fact -- it cannot be debated.

Yet, a huge amount of time in the hearing was spent with the Chair of the ANC putting up maps issued by GDS regarding the restricted streets. I counted 28 times in 20 minutes where he said that the GDS map demonstrates that bad itent of GDS and its parents. He also focused on streets east of WI, as if anyone from GDS going down them was doing something unlawful. He threatened enforcement actions (a power he does not have). He threatened bar complaints. He attacked the school and its parents, calling people liars and cheats.

You cannot run a government entity like this, make these kinds of accusations, all while not even reading the agreement that your own ANC agreed to. Honestly, I think that that is incredibly misleading. It shows a complete lack of attention to the core agreements at issue. The accusations -- especially the ones about violating the agreement -- are totally and verifiably false. Just read the Adjustment. He may well be frustrated that the ANC did not do a good enough job in the negotiation. He may see problems he now wants to solve. But that is very different from running a hearing, saying over and over that the School violated the Adjustment and must be accountable regarding the trip count and GDS parents driving. It is his fault for not having an agreement that doesn't say what he now wants everyone to believe it says. It is patently and totally false. And you don't need to attack me about it -- just read the documents yourself.

Here is what I wanted to get to. Although the Adjustment was not violated in terms of parent driving and trip counts at all, that doesn't mean that there are no problems to solve. I would think it would be challenging for GDS to know, outside its car pool counts it controls, how many people are driving in the surrounding blocks or dropping students somewhere else. Noticeably, there is no definition of what a trip count actually is in the key documents. So, here again, the ANC is charging GDS with violating the counts, but they can't actually back it up and explain how that could be true. And that is because they didn't build in any definition to the legal documents that defines the term. I think it is reasonable for GDS to assume that a trip for the count is one going onto its actual campus. But I also understand that that could be debated.

What I am driving at here is that, rather than hurl attacks at the GDS community and have an hour long discussion about legal violations and how we have to punish unlawful behavior -- which is totally baseless -- why couldn't the ANC's approach been: dear GDS, although the document is not clear enough to say you are in violation of the trip counts, we still have problems we would like to solve with you. We've seen parents dropping on residential streets. We think these should be counted even if you don't. We understand that the Adjustment is not perfect, and we now have a year or two of learned experience. There are concerned neighbors. Yet we understand that you also have families that have various needs and have their own safety considerations for their kids. So let's come to the table and revisit the issues in light of experience. I truly believe that if the approach were reasonable, reasonable people could write additional agreements that attend to the needs of Tenleytown and the needs of GDS families. In other words, there has been no violation in terms of car traffic at all, so let's work forward together to deal with the concerns of various stakeholders involved. That is a proactive, collaborative approach. It is not an approach of just baselessly castigating people -- indeed, an entire community -- which is what the ANC did.

I do think we should have a fair expectation that government officials will be careful, balanced -- and truthful about the very legal documents they themselves worked on and negotiated. You cannot blame the party across the table for your own mistakes in such negotiations or for your own lack of care or attention to detail. But you can exercise your official capacity to work on new problems that have arisen since the documents were completed. The way to do that is to bring people to the table in partnership.

Thank you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I know, having to actually reason is so hard for you ANC blowhards. It very much demonstrates your problems. You and your allies would rather throw bombs than actually resolve problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

No for long. DC changes traffic patterns by changing or adding street restrictions all the time specially around private schools. If there is a problem and the neighbors complain they act. They will put stop signs and speed cameras in that will ticket if you if you stop on Wisconsin or whatever you are doing. The city is great at this(and they will make a lot of money). The fastest way to make this happen is attack and piss off the ANC. Good job on that!

If GDS was living by the spirt or intent of the agreement, people would not be gaming the existing agreement. So it is pretty clear GDA is a bad neighbor, not living up to the agreement and in fact actively undermining the agreement at every opportunity. They are a bad faith actor but the city has many tools to make your life miserable. This will not end well for GDS parents.

So I assume you are out patrolling those same streets for delivery stops? Or for taxis and ubers? I have never seen anyone do that anywhere near tje school. No, you are selective, you would rather fo after kids trying to go safely to school than the 9 taxi stops I oberved in a two block area of WI in 25 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So stopping to let someone out of a car does not meet the definition of standing? I thought the point of those rush hour signs is to keep traffic moving. (Not in the anc or a school parent but honest question..)

Correct. That's stopping and is not prohibited in those blocks of Wisconsin Avenue. Parking is getting out and leaving your car on the side of the road and that is prohibited in some places on those blocks and prohibited elsewhere. Standing is the carvis occupied and the driver is waiting. Again, prohibited some places, but allowed other places.

But stopping isn't prohibited anywhere.

But of course, this whole discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Wisconsin Avenue is entirely outside the scope of GDS's agreement with the district.

because wisconsin avenue isn't a public street as listed in the order. smh. for some highly educated people you sure do seem to be missing that. or just avoiding the obvious to suit your own selfish needs.

Good morning, Jon. I am looking at rhe agreement and order. Please quote directly from it and let me know where "public street" appears?