Appletree CH Playground- Is anyone else as outraged as I am?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The playground in question is on common land owned and to be used by the entire building. Apple Tree owns space in the building, as do 3 other commercial properties and 54 residential units. Original marketing materials show the space listed as a "serenity garden". By the time owners began moving in someone (the developer?) had installed the playground. Apple Tree does not own the playground space or equipment. To answer your "who came first question": the owners. The building is made up predominately of 20-40 year-olds. Since the building was built in 2007 there have been fewer than 10 children who have lived there. The playground is used exclusively by Apple Tree and no other owners can use this common space.

The reporter in the linked article either lied or was (more likely) lied to. Yes, the Board passed a resolution that they have the right to dismantle the playground and build something that all owners could use. That was it, a passed resolution. The Board has never set a "date" to dismantle the playground...especially not over Thanksgiving weekend. The Board continues to try and work amicably (albeit through lawyers now) with Apple Tree. Apple Tree on the other hand has decided to call media and try to smear the Board and residential owners.

And by the way, there is a huge DC owned park at the end of the street. It is currently undergoing renovations and will be brand new in March 2015. It is much larger and much better (with actual grass!) than the playground behind the building. DC law does not require a playground be on-site. Rather the law stats a play area must be "on-site, on the roof, or within walking distance". The park mentioned above is roughly 500 feet away (without any need to even cross a street).

Do some research on Apple Tree. They are a huge corporation (multimillion dollar) which uses their non-profit status to get large law firms working pro bono to intimidate any local community that dares to question having 20-40 screaming kids playing right outside resident windows ALL DAY.

Look up Apple Tree's ongoing issues with the Lincoln Park area. They have jammed up local homeowners for nearly 10 years in court. They are trying to do the same to the residents in Columbia Heights. This is not a "hipsters who hate kids" issue. It is a "corporation bullying local home owners" issue.

1) Look at the deeds
2) Appletree is a NON PROFIT dedicated to educating at risk and low income children. Do not characterize it as a "huge corporation". BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1) Look at the deeds
2) Appletree is a NON PROFIT dedicated to educating at risk and low income children. Do not characterize it as a "huge corporation". BS.

1) All the deeds say is that Appletree owns some space in the building, they say nothing about a right to use common space in perpetuity. If I'm wrong, please show me where the deeds say otherwise.
2) The goodness or evilness of Appletree isn't an issue, this is private land. If it were public space that would be a consideration, but it's not.


That said, I'm indebted to a poster on GGW who pointed out that the condo is a Planned Unit Development. A PUD allows a developer to build something that wouldn't ordinarily be allowed under zoning, in exchange for including amenities that benefit the community. To see the order:

Go here:

http://app.dcoz.dc.gov/content/search/Search.aspx

And look up case 05-14.

This is where it gets murky. The developer wanted to build a building that was 74 feet tall in a zone where the height limit is 65 feet. In exchange, the developer offered the following community amenities:
* Half of the units in the building were sold "at prices affordable to families earning between 30 percent and 80 percent of the area median income."
* The developer provided 51 more parking spaces than required.
* The developer set aside $250,000 to subsidize the rent of locally-owned businesses in the building

and the one that is relevant to this discussion:
* "The Applicant signed a ten-year lease with Urban Development Associates to operate an 8,000-square-foot child care center in the building"


In the zoning order, the Zoning Commission finds that the development advances major policy objectives of the city, in part, by:
"Work[ing] to achieve an adequate supply child care facilities by allowing the establishment of new child care facilities in residential and mixed use areas" and
"Increasing daycare facilities to encourage the entry of Ward 1 residents into the workforce."

In the final order, the Zoning Commission approves the development, with a number of conditions. The one relevant condition is:
"The Project will include an 8,000 square-foot child care center."

That's it.

Unless Appletree has a lease or a deed that gives them the right to more, as long as they have 8,000 square feet, any other space they're using is private property and the condo board is free to decide how it is used in a way that best serves the members of the condo association.

[Anonymous]

God save us all from hipster-nimbys.

[Anonymous]

I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

[Anonymous]

I would love this to turn into one of those situations where the condo people complain so much that it turns the scrutiny back on them. Complaining because you hear "screaming kids all day long?" That means you work from home. Are those people operating businesses out of their "homes" doing so legally? Being mean spirited and unreasonable will render it's own unique brand of karma.

[Anonymous]

the concept of moving to a building with an on-site preschool and an obvious play and then complaining about the noise is so ridiculous to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

AT parent here. I really appreciate your point. Exactly what I was thinking but hadn't been able to articulate.

[Anonymous]

Are these neighbors taking their own naps during school hours and getting woken up?

[Anonymous]

Abadian sounds like such a jackass. Can't handle life in the city? Pack it up and leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

AT parent here. I really appreciate your point. Exactly what I was thinking but hadn't been able to articulate.

Neither of you seem to understand the role of a condo board. They are not a public or governmental body. Their job is not to find compromises. They have a duty to represent the interests of their members. In fact, they run the risk of being sued by their members for breach of fiduciary duty if they put the interest of their members second.

If Appletree has a lease, deeded access or other contractual rights to the property, then the board would be remiss in violating that contract. However, in the absence of such a contract the board would be remiss to use the the common area in anything other than the way that maximizes benefit for the members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

AT parent here. I really appreciate your point. Exactly what I was thinking but hadn't been able to articulate.

Neither of you seem to understand the role of a condo board. They are not a public or governmental body. Their job is not to find compromises. They have a duty to represent the interests of their members. In fact, they run the risk of being sued by their members for breach of fiduciary duty if they put the interest of their members second.

If Appletree has a lease, deeded access or other contractual rights to the property, then the board would be remiss in violating that contract. However, in the absence of such a contract the board would be remiss to use the the common area in anything other than the way that maximizes benefit for the members.

I understand the role of a condo board. The condo board, however, has been representing that it has been trying to reach a compromise with the school. I believe it's disingenuous to say you're trying to find a compromise when the alternatives you're suggesting are non-starters for the other party. There's no way that a "quiet study area" in that space is going to work for the school to still use it for outdoor time. Reducing the number of hours children spend on the playground allows the children to get some outside time and the complaining adults to get some quiet time. Nobody wins. The "quiet study area" plan transforms the area into something that is impractical for one party to use at all. You know what a group of 20 three- or four-year-olds is going to do in any outdoor space? They're going to run around and make noise, whether it's open green space or a playground. This is a transparent move by the condo board to force the children to play elsewhere, which is NOT in the spirit of compromise, as the condo board president and this Abadian person are representing their goals to be.

While we're talking about the obligations and responsibilities of the parties involved, the obligation of the school is to its students. They need outside time. AppleTree is already one of the more strictly academic preschools in the area. It's a lot more academically rigorous than some parents believe is appropriate for the age groups, and many parents prefer a more play-based learning environment. Personally, I think that the condo residents should be grateful that they live next door to AppleTree and not the play-based preschool my child attends, which would probably be a lot noisier as a result of a curriculum that encourages physical activity and play. If I was an AppleTree parent and I was told that children would need to go down the street to a play area that is not even completed, or cross 14th Street in order to use a play area that is unsafe, rather than use a play structure that already exists on site, I would be livid.

[Anonymous]

I saw this story featured on Channel 7'news last night. They showed the noise level coming from the playground and it's pretty loud. I hope you all can come to a resolution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this story featured on Channel 7'news last night. They showed the noise level coming from the playground and it's pretty loud. I hope you all can come to a resolution.

Hope about installing better windows?
How about recognizing that you chose to LIVE IN A CITY?
How about not being so entitled for a couple of hours in the middle of the day?