New DCPS school on former Georgetown Day site will be a high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

The elementary school being built next to old Hardy makes ZERO sense. They city should have taken back the Lab School lease and let Lab buy River or old GDS. It is a stupid waste of money to build a new DCPS next to an old DCPS.

Since this silly season ahead of the primaries is making for some strange bedfellows, it’s probably helpful to review how the Old Hardy renewal came about.

The renewal of the Old Hardy lease was supported by three groups - LAB itself, Mayor Bowser, and the Foxhall Community Citizens Association (FCCA). The FCCA not just supported the renewal of the lease in a letter to the Mayor, but sought - and obtained - historic designation of the Old Hardy building. According to DME Kihn, the historic designation was a key factor in the Mayor’s decision to renew the lease.

The renewal was opposed by Mary Cheh and by a grassroots campaign of Palisades families, “Keep Old Hardy Public”. Meetings were held between various members of that campaign and LAB to try to forge a compromise such as LAB moving to the River School. FCCA has never endorsed such efforts or sought to facilitate any such compromises and, in a letter to the mayor, claimed that “Keep Old Hardy Public” was trying to throw LAB out of Old Hardy “for no good purpose” (apparently creation of public school seats for families in the neighborhood doesn’t constitute a good purpose for the FCCA).

The FCCA is now steadfastly opposing the building of a new elementary school next to Old Hardy, threatening lawsuits and whatnot. It’s a bit sad that some are candidates are groveling for FCCA votes by floating compromises that were once perhaps feasible but which the FCCA thoroughly undermined in their long-running efforts to keep a public school out of their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

I'd vote for a candidate who planned to put city money into affordable housing in Ward 3 (to get around the developer profit obstacle). But I also think it should be possible to open more access to excellent schools in D.C. without requiring people to move in-bounds for them. Frumin is right about the logistical problems with the citywide lottery plan for this MacArthur site, though; hard to think of a worse location for a citywide school from a public transit standpoint than the Palisades.

+1 - unless there is massive investment to get more Metro buses to Palisades, I don't see how this high school is going to be viable for kids from across the city.

The thing about buses is they don't require massive investment. Rerouting a bus costs essentially zero.

Well that's not true - it costs several hundred thousand a year to operate a bus route but granted in the grand scheme of things it isn't much money.

But the problem is increasing the frequency of buses doesn't change the fact that this location is incredibly difficult to get to - it is in a corner of the city with few roads in and out all of which are already terribly congested.

So sure WMATA can create a new route or the frequency of the D6 can be increased but neither of those things will change the fact that this location is a difficult and time consuming place to get to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

I'd vote for a candidate who planned to put city money into affordable housing in Ward 3 (to get around the developer profit obstacle). But I also think it should be possible to open more access to excellent schools in D.C. without requiring people to move in-bounds for them. Frumin is right about the logistical problems with the citywide lottery plan for this MacArthur site, though; hard to think of a worse location for a citywide school from a public transit standpoint than the Palisades.

+1 - unless there is massive investment to get more Metro buses to Palisades, I don't see how this high school is going to be viable for kids from across the city.

The thing about buses is they don't require massive investment. Rerouting a bus costs essentially zero.

Well that's not true - it costs several hundred thousand a year to operate a bus route but granted in the grand scheme of things it isn't much money.

But the problem is increasing the frequency of buses doesn't change the fact that this location is incredibly difficult to get to - it is in a corner of the city with few roads in and out all of which are already terribly congested.

So sure WMATA can create a new route or the frequency of the D6 can be increased but neither of those things will change the fact that this location is a difficult and time consuming place to get to.

As luck would have it, the right of way for the former Palisades Trolley Trail - disused but entirely intact bar two or three bridges - runs right beside the school. Fix it up so that it can be used by bikes, scooters etc. (for which DDOT has done a detailed concept that just needs to be green-lighted) - or go really crazy and pave it for bus rapid transit - and it becomes pretty fast to get to.

But the notion that the schools are in some isolated pocket isn’t borne out by reality. Canal Rd, MacArthur Blvd. and Foxhall Rd. are major arteries that serve massive amounts of commuting traffic from MD and VA. Students coming from points east are going against the commuting traffic and so won’t be as hindered by the congestion.

There are a few logjams that need to be sorted out - Reservoir Rd. in front of MGUH and the Whitehurst / Canal / M St. intersection - but these can be done provided DDOT starts prioritizing the mobility of city residents over the convenience of suburban commuters.

[Anonymous]

I'm very much in favor of fixing up the Trolley trail, but I didn't think the DDOT studies actually looked at replacing all the bridges they removed in the 60s/80s? Some of those crossings are unsafe for anyone (Canal rd to the West, Foxhall rd to the East).

The city could, though very unlikely, put bus lanes on Foxhall, Resevoir, or MacArthur (and M street!). There's definitely room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The city could, though very unlikely, put bus lanes on Foxhall, Resevoir, or MacArthur (and M street!). There's definitely room.

I'd love to see priority light timing for buses on those four roads. When a bus comes, the light turns green until the bus goes through. That would probably improve bus performance more than bus lanes and is very low-cost to implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm very much in favor of fixing up the Trolley trail, but I didn't think the DDOT studies actually looked at replacing all the bridges they removed in the 60s/80s? Some of those crossings are unsafe for anyone (Canal rd to the West, Foxhall rd to the East).

The city could, though very unlikely, put bus lanes on Foxhall, Resevoir, or MacArthur (and M street!). There's definitely room.

The DDOT study on the Palisades Trolley Trail indeed proposed to build the new bridges. See here: https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/Appendix1_TrailConceptDesignPackage_FINAL_Reduced.pdf

Reservoir is wide enough to accommodate a dedicated bus / bike lane (similar to H St in front of the WH). You just need to take out the parking in front of the Gtown hospital. Given that the hospital is building a new parking garage, that shouldn’t be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

MacArthur Blvd is already a mess during rush hour. Adding 1000 kids and another 400-500 staff during the same periods will not be easy.

I'd vote for a candidate who planned to put city money into affordable housing in Ward 3 (to get around the developer profit obstacle). But I also think it should be possible to open more access to excellent schools in D.C. without requiring people to move in-bounds for them. Frumin is right about the logistical problems with the citywide lottery plan for this MacArthur site, though; hard to think of a worse location for a citywide school from a public transit standpoint than the Palisades.

+1 - unless there is massive investment to get more Metro buses to Palisades, I don't see how this high school is going to be viable for kids from across the city.

The thing about buses is they don't require massive investment. Rerouting a bus costs essentially zero.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

+1

I know already from past experience that there are some issues I do not see eye-to-eye with him, but he comes from a principled place and I respect that. I will almost certainly vote for him. He has had long standing in the community across a number of issues and I think he would represent the Ward with honor. Some of the other candidates seem ok, but they are all so inexperienced in comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

As others have said, it’s the fact that he is so knowledgeable that makes what he is saying so disappointing. He knows full well that the alternatives he is proposing have been tried and were found to be unworkable (as if no one talked to LAB and asked them to explore taking over River!). In proposing to cut the lion’s share of the OOB slots from MacArthur, he is pandering to base prejudice among those who oppose the school for entirely that reason. In refusing to call out falsehoods when they are presented to him, he is failing as a leader. If this is the kind of candidate that appeals to you, I really don’t know what more I can say to help you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

As others have said, it’s the fact that he is so knowledgeable that makes what he is saying so disappointing. He knows full well that the alternatives he is proposing have been tried and were found to be unworkable (as if no one talked to LAB and asked them to explore taking over River!). In proposing to cut the lion’s share of the OOB slots from MacArthur, he is pandering to base prejudice among those who oppose the school for entirely that reason. In refusing to call out falsehoods when they are presented to him, he is failing as a leader. If this is the kind of candidate that appeals to you, I really don’t know what more I can say to help you.

That's all true, but all the other candidates are basically just saying "overcrowding bad" without offering any solutions. That's a different sort of pandering, but it's pandering all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

As others have said, it’s the fact that he is so knowledgeable that makes what he is saying so disappointing. He knows full well that the alternatives he is proposing have been tried and were found to be unworkable (as if no one talked to LAB and asked them to explore taking over River!). In proposing to cut the lion’s share of the OOB slots from MacArthur, he is pandering to base prejudice among those who oppose the school for entirely that reason. In refusing to call out falsehoods when they are presented to him, he is failing as a leader. If this is the kind of candidate that appeals to you, I really don’t know what more I can say to help you.

What incentives were provided? I don't recall any. That is where leadership would come in. None of the other candidates are even trying. They are simply happy to let a bad scenario play out without trying to improve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

As others have said, it’s the fact that he is so knowledgeable that makes what he is saying so disappointing. He knows full well that the alternatives he is proposing have been tried and were found to be unworkable (as if no one talked to LAB and asked them to explore taking over River!). In proposing to cut the lion’s share of the OOB slots from MacArthur, he is pandering to base prejudice among those who oppose the school for entirely that reason. In refusing to call out falsehoods when they are presented to him, he is failing as a leader. If this is the kind of candidate that appeals to you, I really don’t know what more I can say to help you.

No one in any position of authority talked to Lab. Certainly the Mayor's office and Mendelson were all-in on the lease extension. There's no evidence that anyone from Mary Cheh's office ever talked to Lab.

Lab absolutely refused to engage with their neighbors on this issue. None of your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

As others have said, it’s the fact that he is so knowledgeable that makes what he is saying so disappointing. He knows full well that the alternatives he is proposing have been tried and were found to be unworkable (as if no one talked to LAB and asked them to explore taking over River!). In proposing to cut the lion’s share of the OOB slots from MacArthur, he is pandering to base prejudice among those who oppose the school for entirely that reason. In refusing to call out falsehoods when they are presented to him, he is failing as a leader. If this is the kind of candidate that appeals to you, I really don’t know what more I can say to help you.

No one in any position of authority talked to Lab. Certainly the Mayor's office and Mendelson were all-in on the lease extension. There's no evidence that anyone from Mary Cheh's office ever talked to Lab.

Lab absolutely refused to engage with their neighbors on this issue. None of your business.

The finance chair of Mendelson's re-election campaign, Ben Young, was Lab's lobbyist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the thoughtful piece by Frumin. I might not agree with everything, but clearly he is a smart and knowledgeable person. The piece is detailed and goes farther in outlining his position than many other candidates. That is a plus in my book.

+1

I know already from past experience that there are some issues I do not see eye-to-eye with him, but he comes from a principled place and I respect that. I will almost certainly vote for him. He has had long standing in the community across a number of issues and I think he would represent the Ward with honor. Some of the other candidates seem ok, but they are all so inexperienced in comparison.

If Frumin wants to endorse the talking points of an extremely disingenuous and divisive campaign led by a guy who said this to the Washington Post: “You have a bunch of stay-at-home moms in Spring Valley and their poor little kids worried about two shifts in the cafeteria”, then so be it. I’ll find my way to wherever the other side may be, thank you very much.