Updates on LAMB at Kingsbury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

I remember the Christmas tree sale being brought up at the FIRST meeting regarding Lamb's move into Kingsbury, over a year ago, and as one of several DISCUSSION points, not as the basis of stopping Lamb from moving in. Do you have some knowledge that this is the basis of a "new complaint" by neighbors that was brought up to extend the appeal process? I'm fairly certain that the neighbors who are complaining are long time residents of the area, not parents of children who attend the nearby school, and very unlikely to be on DCUM. I also think the main complaint is regarding traffic, which is why there was the request to have a staggered move in, rather than an all at once shift from 150 students to 600 students. If this previous poster or anyone else has information the about "new complaint" that has been mentioned, please provide it, otherwise this just really sounds like a bunch of people repeating sound bites that they have heard at one time or another, with no "facts" being shared.

[Anonymous]

I'm a new poster, neither a LAMB parent nor a Kingsbury neighbor. But I have a child in another charter school who attends after school tutoring at Kingsbury. I understand why the neighbors might be worried about the traffic in that area. Lots of people use side streets to enter the Kingsbury campus and probably would do so to drop off their kids; there has also been a general uptick in traffic in that area in the last couple of years (maybe due to Google maps re-routing people).

The neighbors should nonetheless be supportive of a public school gaining access to a previously private facility - it is the right thing to do for the students of DC. Children who need a good education will benefit from moving to a space that can serve them better. And while LAMB is not a lower income school, it is also not a higher income school (i.e. Ward 3 DCPS).

Of note is the fact that the Kingsbury building will need a major renovation. I hope LAMB has plans to spend sufficiently on that big renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

I remember the Christmas tree sale being brought up at the FIRST meeting regarding Lamb's move into Kingsbury, over a year ago, and as one of several DISCUSSION points, not as the basis of stopping Lamb from moving in. Do you have some knowledge that this is the basis of a "new complaint" by neighbors that was brought up to extend the appeal process? I'm fairly certain that the neighbors who are complaining are long time residents of the area, not parents of children who attend the nearby school, and very unlikely to be on DCUM. I also think the main complaint is regarding traffic, which is why there was the request to have a staggered move in, rather than an all at once shift from 150 students to 600 students. If this previous poster or anyone else has information the about "new complaint" that has been mentioned, please provide it, otherwise this just really sounds like a bunch of people repeating sound bites that they have heard at one time or another, with no "facts" being shared.

A staggered move-in isn’t going to alleviate traffic problems. It’s just going to postpone them.

[Anonymous]

Here you all go again. Trash post. Anything revolving around Kingsbury is a tasteless back and forth post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

Thanks for this PP. Am I doing it wrong or is the full log empty? (It seems to be when I click on it)

"
You may only file new documents in this case by E-Mail, US Mail, facsimile, or hand-delivery. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

I think most parents, including West parents are supportive of the move. If there's really nothing to worry about in terms of traffic and such, then why would it be a problem to come back and ask for a ceiling increase? Sure, a few people who will never be happy will object, but they'll be overruled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

Yes, thank you PP for this information.

So I'm reading from this that the delay is now being caused by a problem with LAMB receiving the funding from the mortgage brokers...is that correct? Has there actually been "a new complaint" from the neighbors as was stated in the 2nd post on this thread? Or is this all stemming from the proceedings that happened several months ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

Yes, thank you PP for this information.

So I'm reading from this that the delay is now being caused by a problem with LAMB receiving the funding from the mortgage brokers...is that correct? Has there actually been "a new complaint" from the neighbors as was stated in the 2nd post on this thread? Or is this all stemming from the proceedings that happened several months ago?

There is a new appeal. No new actual complaint it’s all the same complaint. And, yes it’s a problem to come back to ask for a ceiling increase because if it’s denied Lamb won’t be able to afford the mortgage. Since money is tied to number of kids and they can’t afford two buildings, also, the whole point is to have one building only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

Thanks for this PP. Am I doing it wrong or is the full log empty? (It seems to be when I click on it)

"
You may only file new documents in this case by E-Mail, US Mail, facsimile, or hand-delivery. "

I’m sorry I guess the link doesn’t work you may have to do a case search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow people are really nuts. I guess it’s possible some of the crazies on this lawsuit are on this thread. So let me get this straight: a few Lamb parents rubbed you the wrong way at a meeting, so now you have a personal vendetta against the whole school, and think it shouldn’t be allowed to buy a building which is already a school? Because some kind of “promises” won’t be kept? What exactly? Just basic montoeing of traffic flows and mitigation, really? Which will certainly be less bothersome than the traffic from the luxury condos you prefer, all because you decided a public SCHOOL is somehow just snobby and awful? I swear to god some people have some kind of autoalerts on certain schools on here and they pop up and trash talk any freaking chance they get.

You clearly have been to none of the meetings where residents voiced reasonable concerns and suggestions. LAMB has shown no interest in working with the community other than their token unenforceable "promises".
Thank you for showing your ignorance on the matter.

I am a NP and I am interested in hearing the reasonable concerns. I am being serious- I have never heard any of the concerns other than more traffic.

“Your Christmas tree sale will interfere with ours!” Yes, really.

Do you realize that the tree sale is one of the best fundraising activities for a title 1 school across the street? They don't have as many wealthy families as LAMB to chip in thousands of dollars. And they also don't have big financial backers like the Walton family to throw money around.

And it was brought up as a concern, not a deal breaker. It was part of a letter of support from the parents of the neighboring school.

PP, you are the type of LAMB parent that is the reason this isn't going smoother.

LAMB draws children from that same neighborhood and is likely to draw even more when it moves to Kingsbury, given that it will be inaccessible for Wards 6, 7 and 8 for most families. Denying another school their own fundraiser is the height of pettiness.

Folks. There will be no "denying another school their own fundraiser". Come on, this is crazy. This is not the reason - it's just one example of the many, many, many things that LAMB has already addressed.

I would like to point to the final list of "conditions" which are 35, proposed to address each and every concern. Where you may also read in detail about the lengthy process that LAMB has already gone through in order to appease mainly the neighbors (West already supported the move). Oh, and you can also watch all the proceedings, and read the transcripts: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/ViewCaseReport.aspx?case_id=19581.

I am the poster who was called uninformed earlier. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have in fact read through all of these pages of materials. The bottom line is that LAMB proposed a starting cap of 300 students until Kingsbury moves out, then increase up to 600 (not all at once). Prior to the increase LAMB must prove that it deserves the approval by adhering to these conditions, prior to being given the certificate of occupancy.

So, rather than simply disrespecting everyone and ignoring their requests, LAMB has by now bent over backward to accommodate every. single. request. And put a monitoring system in place. The one thing it's simply unable to do is return to the board and go through this process AGAIN in 2-3 years, to get the ceiling increased. It should be abundantly clear by now why the mortgage lenders would not be okay with this. Clearly, the aggrieved neighbors are going to do this all again, at every chance they get, and fight to the death.

Honestly, if anyone has another school property available for LAMB of similar size and amenities, in either ward 4 or 5, go ahead and suggest it. Otherwise, this property really needs to be used by a school, and a charter school is the best possible option. These neighbors need to be called out for their extreme pettiness, not LAMB.

Yes, thank you PP for this information.

So I'm reading from this that the delay is now being caused by a problem with LAMB receiving the funding from the mortgage brokers...is that correct? Has there actually been "a new complaint" from the neighbors as was stated in the 2nd post on this thread? Or is this all stemming from the proceedings that happened several months ago?

There is a new appeal. No new actual complaint it’s all the same complaint. And, yes it’s a problem to come back to ask for a ceiling increase because if it’s denied Lamb won’t be able to afford the mortgage. Since money is tied to number of kids and they can’t afford two buildings, also, the whole point is to have one building only.

New appeal in DC superior court. Prior case was in BZA.