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

[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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

[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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

It’s not that he disagrees with my positions. It’s that, assuming he is as knowledgeable as you are giving him credit for, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

[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.

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.

What incentives could be offered? Who would authorize those incentives? How would they be politically feasible? The River School property is vastly inferior in almost all respects to Old Hardy, for which LAB has as sweet a lease as they ever could have dreamt of. I can’t imagine what you would have to pay them to walk away from that and, even if I could, I can’t imagine how Bowser, White or whoever could put such incentives in a budget. The Old Hardy lease extension stinks to high heaven but it’s done and we have to live with it. Cheh tried her darndest to get the lease renewal cancelled and failed. And she would have done a deal with LAB to move them to River in a heartbeat had there been a sliver of hope of that happening. The notion that a Council newbie could somehow do it is fairy tale stuff, I’m sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

It’s not that he disagrees with my positions. It’s that, assuming he is as knowledgeable as you are giving him credit for, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

I guess I just don't see it that way. He is looking at the situation anew and proposing a reasonable position. You and I might not agree with that completely, but I appreciate the effort and the nuance.

More broadly, we need to get away from the "us or them" mentality for a local city council race. I think too many of us have a mindset adopted from national politics. This just isn't a race where candidates are going to be "fundamentally dishonest". The candidates are, to my knowledge, great folks who want what is best for their communities. I don't think any of them are deserving of invectives. They have different perspectives, experience, knowledge, and abilities, and all of us will have to make tough choices about who to support. Good luck to all of the candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What incentives could be offered? Who would authorize those incentives? How would they be politically feasible? The River School property is vastly inferior in almost all respects to Old Hardy, for which LAB has as sweet a lease as they ever could have dreamt of. I can’t imagine what you would have to pay them to walk away from that and, even if I could, I can’t imagine how Bowser, White or whoever could put such incentives in a budget. The Old Hardy lease extension stinks to high heaven but it’s done and we have to live with it. Cheh tried her darndest to get the lease renewal cancelled and failed. And she would have done a deal with LAB to move them to River in a heartbeat had there been a sliver of hope of that happening. The notion that a Council newbie could somehow do it is fairy tale stuff, I’m sorry.

You offer a generous buy-out of the city lease that would more than compensate for the move, plus renovations etc. The city needs the old Hardy site intact. It was stupid to extend the Lab lease. But the lobbyists got to the Mayor and the Council. It is really constraining the most sensible results. It seems that is what Frumin is suggesting, though I suppose someone should ask him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

It’s not that he disagrees with my positions. It’s that, assuming he is as knowledgeable as you are giving him credit for, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

I don't think he is being fundamentally dishonest. That is an invective that is totally unnecessary for this exchange. IMO, it is better to offer alternatives that are viable than to simply accept the horrible solution that the Mayor and Cheh have come up with. All of the other candidates seem to accept the Mayor's solution because they don't offer anything different. This candidate has stuck his neck out based on his experience with other Ward 3 schools where he had a direct connection, as well as the city wide public school advocacy groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

It’s not that he disagrees with my positions. It’s that, assuming he is as knowledgeable as you are giving him credit for, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

I guess I just don't see it that way. He is looking at the situation anew and proposing a reasonable position. You and I might not agree with that completely, but I appreciate the effort and the nuance.

More broadly, we need to get away from the "us or them" mentality for a local city council race. I think too many of us have a mindset adopted from national politics. This just isn't a race where candidates are going to be "fundamentally dishonest". The candidates are, to my knowledge, great folks who want what is best for their communities. I don't think any of them are deserving of invectives. They have different perspectives, experience, knowledge, and abilities, and all of us will have to make tough choices about who to support. Good luck to all of the candidates.

By all accounts, Matt is a good guy. I agree with more of his positions than I disagree with and like you, I appreciate the details. I’d embrace the compromise solutions he is proposing for Foxhall ES if there was any slim possibility of them implemented. But those who have engaged on this issue intensively for the past year know that as inelegant as the proposed new building may be, it is much better than the only feasible alternative - which is a steady worsening of the overcrowded public ESs in the Ward. And it does a serious disservice to the CWG and other interested parties that have genuinely sought to find a compromise to suggest that these could simply be achieved. His failure to call out fear-mothering by those who have engaged on the issue in bad faith and have behaved very badly is not becoming of a true leader. The lack of details from the other candidates is not ideal, I agree, but I’d rather candidates speak in generalities than peddle false hope by proposing solutions that are unworkable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What incentives could be offered? Who would authorize those incentives? How would they be politically feasible? The River School property is vastly inferior in almost all respects to Old Hardy, for which LAB has as sweet a lease as they ever could have dreamt of. I can’t imagine what you would have to pay them to walk away from that and, even if I could, I can’t imagine how Bowser, White or whoever could put such incentives in a budget. The Old Hardy lease extension stinks to high heaven but it’s done and we have to live with it. Cheh tried her darndest to get the lease renewal cancelled and failed. And she would have done a deal with LAB to move them to River in a heartbeat had there been a sliver of hope of that happening. The notion that a Council newbie could somehow do it is fairy tale stuff, I’m sorry.

You offer a generous buy-out of the city lease that would more than compensate for the move, plus renovations etc. The city needs the old Hardy site intact. It was stupid to extend the Lab lease. But the lobbyists got to the Mayor and the Council. It is really constraining the most sensible results. It seems that is what Frumin is suggesting, though I suppose someone should ask him.

I would love nothing more than to see LAB vacate Old Hardy, but I have yet to see any feasible way this happens this decade. That is, I don’t think you’re thinking this through. First, that buy-out would need to be huge - tens of millions of dollars. Second, it would attract a lot of public attention. Third, Bowser (after she wins the election) putting that in a budget would be very public admission that she messed up very badly in renewing the lease. Fifth, why would a freshman councilor be able to talk Bowser (and LAB) into funding (accepting) a massive buy-out when a long-term council-member like Cheh couldn’t find a way to get Bowser to not renew the lease (a much less politically costly course of action). A buy-out becomes a bit more feasible if Robert White wins the election, but we are still talking fairy tales even then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you would turn your nose up at a very thoughtful candidate because he doesn't 100 percent agree with your positions and would go with someone far less experienced/knowledgeable as a result, then that is your right. But it is not the way I vote. Sorry.

It’s not that he disagrees with my positions. It’s that, assuming he is as knowledgeable as you are giving him credit for, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

I guess I just don't see it that way. He is looking at the situation anew and proposing a reasonable position. You and I might not agree with that completely, but I appreciate the effort and the nuance.

More broadly, we need to get away from the "us or them" mentality for a local city council race. I think too many of us have a mindset adopted from national politics. This just isn't a race where candidates are going to be "fundamentally dishonest". The candidates are, to my knowledge, great folks who want what is best for their communities. I don't think any of them are deserving of invectives. They have different perspectives, experience, knowledge, and abilities, and all of us will have to make tough choices about who to support. Good luck to all of the candidates.

By all accounts, Matt is a good guy. I agree with more of his positions than I disagree with and like you, I appreciate the details. I’d embrace the compromise solutions he is proposing for Foxhall ES if there was any slim possibility of them implemented. But those who have engaged on this issue intensively for the past year know that as inelegant as the proposed new building may be, it is much better than the only feasible alternative - which is a steady worsening of the overcrowded public ESs in the Ward. And it does a serious disservice to the CWG and other interested parties that have genuinely sought to find a compromise to suggest that these could simply be achieved. His failure to call out fear-mothering by those who have engaged on the issue in bad faith and have behaved very badly is not becoming of a true leader. The lack of details from the other candidates is not ideal, I agree, but I’d rather candidates speak in generalities than peddle false hope by proposing solutions that are unworkable.

I don't think it is his job, as a candidate from another neighborhood, to call out the fear-mongering. His view is based on his experience and has nothing to do with the fear-mongering, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What incentives could be offered? Who would authorize those incentives? How would they be politically feasible? The River School property is vastly inferior in almost all respects to Old Hardy, for which LAB has as sweet a lease as they ever could have dreamt of. I can’t imagine what you would have to pay them to walk away from that and, even if I could, I can’t imagine how Bowser, White or whoever could put such incentives in a budget. The Old Hardy lease extension stinks to high heaven but it’s done and we have to live with it. Cheh tried her darndest to get the lease renewal cancelled and failed. And she would have done a deal with LAB to move them to River in a heartbeat had there been a sliver of hope of that happening. The notion that a Council newbie could somehow do it is fairy tale stuff, I’m sorry.

You offer a generous buy-out of the city lease that would more than compensate for the move, plus renovations etc. The city needs the old Hardy site intact. It was stupid to extend the Lab lease. But the lobbyists got to the Mayor and the Council. It is really constraining the most sensible results. It seems that is what Frumin is suggesting, though I suppose someone should ask him.

I would love nothing more than to see LAB vacate Old Hardy, but I have yet to see any feasible way this happens this decade. That is, I don’t think you’re thinking this through. First, that buy-out would need to be huge - tens of millions of dollars. Second, it would attract a lot of public attention. Third, Bowser (after she wins the election) putting that in a budget would be very public admission that she messed up very badly in renewing the lease. Fifth, why would a freshman councilor be able to talk Bowser (and LAB) into funding (accepting) a massive buy-out when a long-term council-member like Cheh couldn’t find a way to get Bowser to not renew the lease (a much less politically costly course of action). A buy-out becomes a bit more feasible if Robert White wins the election, but we are still talking fairy tales even then.

One of Cheh's closest friends was a Lab School lobbiest. She had no incentive or interest in buying out Lab. The result of a second school literally next door to the first school is an epic failure of planning and imagination. How much did they spend on GDS? How much will they spend buidlng a new ES next to an existing school building? The money is fungible at this point. A better solution is worth waiting for if it is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What incentives could be offered? Who would authorize those incentives? How would they be politically feasible? The River School property is vastly inferior in almost all respects to Old Hardy, for which LAB has as sweet a lease as they ever could have dreamt of. I can’t imagine what you would have to pay them to walk away from that and, even if I could, I can’t imagine how Bowser, White or whoever could put such incentives in a budget. The Old Hardy lease extension stinks to high heaven but it’s done and we have to live with it. Cheh tried her darndest to get the lease renewal cancelled and failed. And she would have done a deal with LAB to move them to River in a heartbeat had there been a sliver of hope of that happening. The notion that a Council newbie could somehow do it is fairy tale stuff, I’m sorry.

You offer a generous buy-out of the city lease that would more than compensate for the move, plus renovations etc. The city needs the old Hardy site intact. It was stupid to extend the Lab lease. But the lobbyists got to the Mayor and the Council. It is really constraining the most sensible results. It seems that is what Frumin is suggesting, though I suppose someone should ask him.

I would love nothing more than to see LAB vacate Old Hardy, but I have yet to see any feasible way this happens this decade. That is, I don’t think you’re thinking this through. First, that buy-out would need to be huge - tens of millions of dollars. Second, it would attract a lot of public attention. Third, Bowser (after she wins the election) putting that in a budget would be very public admission that she messed up very badly in renewing the lease. Fifth, why would a freshman councilor be able to talk Bowser (and LAB) into funding (accepting) a massive buy-out when a long-term council-member like Cheh couldn’t find a way to get Bowser to not renew the lease (a much less politically costly course of action). A buy-out becomes a bit more feasible if Robert White wins the election, but we are still talking fairy tales even then.

If a buyout would really require tens of millions, that further emphasizes the tragedy of the lease, as the Lab School pays effectively no rent.

At the time of the lease renewal, it was well publicized and understood that the lease terms were way below market rate, were a result of political connections and favoritism, and that nearby public schools were bursting at the seems.

And it happened anyway, which says something about the pathetic state of our public governance in DC.

[Anonymous]

Which is why it is a good thing Cheh is retiring. Her annoited successor should not be rewarded in this election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which is why it is a good thing Cheh is retiring. Her annoited successor should not be rewarded in this election.

Y’all have this backwards. There were a lot of divisive neighborhood issues that Cheh tried to straddle or otherwise sidestep, but Old Hardy was not one of them. Bowser first tried to use emergency legislation to dispose of the building and turn it over permanently to LAB; Cheh stopped that (https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-06-Dear-Colleagues-re-Old-Hardy.pdf). The Bowser administration then unilaterally decided to renew the LAB lease 3 years early, announcing this on Christmas Eve 2020. Cheh was very pissed off by this and asked the AG to review the legality of the renewal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/20/dc-council-should-stop-allowing-private-entities-take-over-public-parks-buildings/). She opposed the renewal; she was not involved in it.

Also opposed to the renewal was the Palisades Community Association, which was most recently led by Tricia Duncan. See here for the details: http://www.palisadesdc.org/documents/hardypublic.pdf

Other than Bowser, the lease renewal was backed by one other group and that was the Foxhall Community Citizens Association (FCCA). They wrote to the mayor opposing the “Keep Old Hardy Public” campaign and had the building historically designated in 2017 to complicate the process of repurposing it as a public school building (DM Kihn has claimed that the designation was a key factor in the decision to renew the lease).

[Anonymous]

The original lease was manufactured by one of Cheh's cronies.
Everything else is backing out of a deal that never should have happened in the first place.

This new deal, with GDS and a new DCPS school immediately next door to an existing DCPS property is simply horrible planning and horrible execution. If Tricia Duncan to own it, then bully for her. That is immediately a vote for someone else, in my book.

Great for Palisades, on one level, but bad for the city and the rest of the Ward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The original lease was manufactured by one of Cheh's cronies.
Everything else is backing out of a deal that never should have happened in the first place.

This new deal, with GDS and a new DCPS school immediately next door to an existing DCPS property is simply horrible planning and horrible execution. If Tricia Duncan to own it, then bully for her. That is immediately a vote for someone else, in my book.

Great for Palisades, on one level, but bad for the city and the rest of the Ward.

If you have another viable plan to relieve overcrowding in Ward 3 elementary schools (or just don’t care about that), then please tell. Everyone - bar perhaps Bob Avery and the FCCA - agrees that the Old Hardy renewal was a bad outcome, so there’s no need to keep repeating that. But many of us would rather than have a second-best outcome that solves the very real and worsening overcrowding problem rather than tilting at windmills for the foreseeable future.