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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Bowser’s chief fundraiser had a kid or kids at Lab and his wife was on the Lab board, yes?

[Anonymous]

yes

the fix was in, cheh was part of it from the outset

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a DC taxpayer, I don't think spending $100 million with these solutions is the best use of resources. Sorry, just not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes

the fix was in, cheh was part of it from the outset

Absent any evidence to support this, such claims are slanderous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a DC taxpayer, I don't think spending $100 million with these solutions is the best use of resources. Sorry, just not buying it.

If you think these schools are a waste of money, just wait until you get a load of where the rest of your money is going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes

the fix was in, cheh was part of it from the outset

She “fixed” the deal and then asked the AG to have it thrown out because she thought it was illegal? Interesting theory you have there, bud.

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is all on the Mayor, as is the Jellef debacle. (Well that's partially on Jack Evans.)

I don't agree with FCCA generally, but that building is actually historical. It deserves protection more than a lot of other joke historical buildings/areas in the city. (See directly across Reservoir, in fact.)

I wouldn't trust anyone attempting to shift blame to the FCCA. DCPS has plenty of historic schools. If they wanted Old Hardy, despite the mayor's secret plans, they had plenty of time to say so. Instead they didn't, and went along with the whole thing. Needless to say, they're not the most competent, and it's just another example of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is all on the Mayor, as is the Jellef debacle. (Well that's partially on Jack Evans.)

I don't agree with FCCA generally, but that building is actually historical. It deserves protection more than a lot of other joke historical buildings/areas in the city. (See directly across Reservoir, in fact.)

I wouldn't trust anyone attempting to shift blame to the FCCA. DCPS has plenty of historic schools. If they wanted Old Hardy, despite the mayor's secret plans, they had plenty of time to say so. Instead they didn't, and went along with the whole thing. Needless to say, they're not the most competent, and it's just another example of that.

DM Kihn cited the designation - in discussions with the CWG - as a reason they decided to renew the lease. If nothing else, the FCCA provided the Mayor with some convenient excuses.

FCCA’s stance on the renewal is also important because it sheds some light on their true motivations for opposing Foxhall ES (hint: not fiscal equity).

[Anonymous]

Dcps stopped nearly all support for public school kids going to LAB. There’s are lot of back room deals that influenced the property issue (like that trade off) that people seem clueless about. And the international accolades the mayor and city get as trades offs for LAB. And other back room things going on. Foxhall families want to think they have some influence. But c’mon.

Also for the trolley trail - who does that benefit? The around 15 IB kids from Key who go to Hardy and may go to the new HS? The stoddert kids wouldn’t get there via at trail that is out of the way for their houses.

There are empty and half capacity HS’s in other places around the city but people everywhere in the city mostly want to send their kids to Wilson and no Ward 2 and 3 parents will send their kids out of Ward 2 and 3.

People are ridiculous with their foxhall and palisades centric made up, self important theories.

You are not the mayor’s base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dcps stopped nearly all support for public school kids going to LAB. There’s are lot of back room deals that influenced the property issue (like that trade off) that people seem clueless about. And the international accolades the mayor and city get as trades offs for LAB. And other back room things going on. Foxhall families want to think they have some influence. But c’mon.

Also for the trolley trail - who does that benefit? The around 15 IB kids from Key who go to Hardy and may go to the new HS? The stoddert kids wouldn’t get there via at trail that is out of the way for their houses.

There are empty and half capacity HS’s in other places around the city but people everywhere in the city mostly want to send their kids to Wilson and no Ward 2 and 3 parents will send their kids out of Ward 2 and 3.

People are ridiculous with their foxhall and palisades centric made up, self important theories.

You are not the mayor’s base.

You are defending “back room deals” and calling people “ridiculous” for being chagrinned that their mayor treats them badly? Strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

This seems like a whole heck of a lot of drama to prevent WOTP folk from being re-routed East. Why not figure out a bus system that takes some Wilson bounded kids to Cardozo High while also making Cardozo more appealing to citywide kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

This seems like a whole heck of a lot of drama to prevent WOTP folk from being re-routed East. Why not figure out a bus system that takes some Wilson bounded kids to Cardozo High while also making Cardozo more appealing to citywide kids.

Then the WOTP kids going east and EOTP kids going west to Wilson can wave at each other as they pass in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but "school next to a school" is a tell that you're a Foxhaller. They keep repeating that, like a mantra, and assume that other people will find it compelling. If you get out into the rest of the city you'll find it's incredibly common for schools to be clustered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a DC taxpayer, I don't think spending $100 million with these solutions is the best use of resources. Sorry, just not buying it.

You can't say that without saying what you think is the best use of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is all on the Mayor, as is the Jellef debacle. (Well that's partially on Jack Evans.)

I don't agree with FCCA generally, but that building is actually historical. It deserves protection more than a lot of other joke historical buildings/areas in the city. (See directly across Reservoir, in fact.)

I wouldn't trust anyone attempting to shift blame to the FCCA. DCPS has plenty of historic schools. If they wanted Old Hardy, despite the mayor's secret plans, they had plenty of time to say so. Instead they didn't, and went along with the whole thing. Needless to say, they're not the most competent, and it's just another example of that.

In the historic preservation application for Hardy they note that it was built at the same time and from the same plans as Stoddert, Mann, Key, Lafayette, Shepherd and others. So the historic preservation is a bit of a canard.

But it was the hook that Paul Kihn chose to hang his hat on.