"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. What is Sidwell supposed to do -- take over the operation of the home? Washington Hone does not want to continue running the home/hospice at that location. Case closed.

Sidwell Friends has no more business running a nursing home and hospice than the board of Washington Home, God forbid, has in running a school.

+1. That's the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. What is Sidwell supposed to do -- take over the operation of the home? Washington Hone does not want to continue running the home/hospice at that location. Case closed.

Agreed. The paper's response is empty and silly.

The whole column is a joke. My aunt Jenny could be a better "ethicist"

[Anonymous]

I've driven by the property and it's not small. Why couldn't Sidwell buy the vacant part to build its lower school and then Washington Home could take the cash to run the facility? A win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've driven by the property and it's not small. Why couldn't Sidwell buy the vacant part to build its lower school and then Washington Home could take the cash to run the facility? A win-win.

Because Washington Home does not want to run a facility on that property anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Because the sale to an intensive use developer would no doubt have been held up by neighborhood issues. All that needs to be factored into the price paid for the property. Washington Home was interested in getting out of the business quickly. Having said that, I think the price paid seems fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Because the sale to an intensive use developer would no doubt have been held up by neighborhood issues. All that needs to be factored into the price paid for the property. Washington Home was interested in getting out of the business quickly. Having said that, I think the price paid seems fair.

That's for bidders to consider and the Washington Home can evaluate competitive bids based on price, other conditions and risk of closing. But there was no competitive process with WH; it was a hush-hush private sale. Maybe the DC attorney general should force WH to re-open the process, let the market have at it and then the WH board can make a transparent decision based on the most favorable terms possible, and the patients can get more time.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the more important question, given that the sale of WH was imminent, is whether Sidwell paid a fair price for it? I think if Sidwell took advantage of the financial distress of the WH, that that would clearly be out of line with its purported Quaker values. Sidwell could have also made, as a term of its sale, that the residents be assured that their next home be of comparable or higher quality (as determined by a qualified, impartial third party).

[Anonymous]

Because getting the best price for an asset is not a Quaker value? Should Sidwell be paying $10 per pencil?

I cannot even fathom why this is a topic of conversation. The Washington Home wanted to sell its bricks and mortar business. They don't want to run it, as evidenced by the way it has been mismanaged for the last several years.

[Anonymous]

It can be argued that the most ethical outcome, if Washington Home is determined to sell, would be to sell the property for development. Presumably the property is tax-exempt today and it would remain so if Sidwell purchases it. But if sold for intensive development, the property will return to the tax rolls and provide a strong tax revenue stream to DC into the future. That tax revenue can be used to fund social services, including health care, for the poor and the elderly. Moreover, it would further smart growth.

[Anonymous]

Sidwell shows it has no heart. Must be really embarrassing these days to be a Sidwell family.

[Anonymous]

#WashHomeSocialJustice
#ReopentheBidding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because getting the best price for an asset is not a Quaker value? Should Sidwell be paying $10 per pencil?

I cannot even fathom why this is a topic of conversation. The Washington Home wanted to sell its bricks and mortar business. They don't want to run it, as evidenced by the way it has been mismanaged for the last several years.

Don't be dense.

It is, and should be morally shameful, to take advantage of financial distress. If your neighbor lost his job, his wife was ill, and they had to sell their car in order to pay their bills, do you think it's the morally right thing to pay below market value because they desperately need the money? Do you invest in high-interest check-cashing store fronts?

[Anonymous]

Where is your evidence that this is not a fair price, especially given the fact that the neighborhood would hold up development for years if not decades.

[Anonymous]

And what makes you think Sidwell and other private schools are so "wealthy?" They may have large budgets, but they are non-profits too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is your evidence that this is not a fair price, especially given the fact that the neighborhood would hold up development for years if not decades.

I guess we won't ever know if this is a fair price, since there was never an open bid.