Brent rebuild details to know before you accept that lottery spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

you're a jerk (but you know that already) but for others who are trying to understand the issue, it's worth addressing but there are two problems with this.

The biggest, and most expensive, is expanded hours for aftercare. Starting an hour earlier doesn't mean parents are off work an hour earlier, and all of the sudden they've got to pay for 30% more aftercare. Of course, DCPS nor Brent admin have addressed this yet.

Second, a 4 year old should not have to get up at 6am or whatever hour just because DCPS can't find the will to solve this problem more effectively. It's punative on some level, which is why people are upset.

Not OP here, honest question: Brent's aftercare is not hourly/is by the day and admin has already said there will be an aftercare bus. Why would it cost more?

Because it's longer. Adding an hour to aftercare adds an hour of costs.

By this logic adding an hour of bus ride each way would reduce after care costs. So maybe the long bus ride is win-win for everyone. Reduced after care costs. No renegotiation with WTU. New school for the community. What's not to love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

Why on earth would the buses leaving from Brent take North Capitol? Why not take 695 followed by the tunnel? I live inbound for Brent and that drive would be 35 or 40 minutes during morning rush hour and 20 minutes at midday. That tunnel moves quickly!!

In any case, plenty of former Brent kids would happily accept longer commutes for Latin. Of course I realize these kids are younger. But they eagerly fill buses for longer commutes to the Potomac School for camp and somehow cope.

I agree this is less than ideal. But it doesn’t sound unbearable.

In buses with no seatbelts and definitely no car seats, there is pretty good reason for taking North Cap vs the highway. But also (and I don’t know the answer here), does 695 ever leave DC proper on that route? If so, my understanding is that the normal DCPS buses won’t do it for insurance/liability reasons (this issue sometimes comes up wrt to the SPED buses and field trips).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some weird comments in this thread that are oddly defeatist and also never actually defend the Meyer decision at all. There's just an aggressive nihilism in saying things like "Bowser hates Brent, would never go for it" or "go to a community meeting and they'll explain why this won't work."

these suggestions basically amount to "just take what's fed to you, mommy DCPS knows what's best. don't question the machine."

if you like the Meyer idea, I guess go advocate for it. But nobody really advocates for it beyond "it is what it is, don't fight it." There seems to be indifference or opposition.

We hate it. It's a massive example of DCPS just failing to address the challenges it has in an intelligent or coherent way. It's worth fighting, and I'd encourage everyone to speak up before its too late, even if Muriel Bowser or DCPS central may get annoyed.

This comment is oddly binary. You can hate Meyer but also have listened to enough community presentations and talked to SIT and PTA members (who *have* looked for options) to realize that there *isn't* another option. It's not nihilsm, it's educated realism.

[Anonymous]

Not good at DCUM clearly - replying to another post:

My question is - what is the alternative? I agree Meyer is far, but I have not yet seen a viable alternative proposed. RFK isn’t one. Garfield isn’t one. People have spent a lot of time looking. I wouldn’t call accepting Meyer defeatist - it is realist. If someone comes up with a legitimate alternative that doesn’t cost a lot, I’d advocate all day for it. But until then, I’d rather focus on making Meyrr work and providing input into the new Brent.

[Anonymous]

^ Also, you say that commute would typically take 35-40 minutes… in your car. Buses are typically slower, so this isn’t very far of the 45 minute+ estimate folks gave. And that’s ignoring the 1 day every 2 weeks with a massive traffic issue and a bunch of 3 year olds wetting themselves & others vomiting (which is exactly what happened with CHML; seriously, 50% of the class left during the first month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

you're a jerk (but you know that already) but for others who are trying to understand the issue, it's worth addressing but there are two problems with this.

The biggest, and most expensive, is expanded hours for aftercare. Starting an hour earlier doesn't mean parents are off work an hour earlier, and all of the sudden they've got to pay for 30% more aftercare. Of course, DCPS nor Brent admin have addressed this yet.

Second, a 4 year old should not have to get up at 6am or whatever hour just because DCPS can't find the will to solve this problem more effectively. It's punative on some level, which is why people are upset.

Not OP here, honest question: Brent's aftercare is not hourly/is by the day and admin has already said there will be an aftercare bus. Why would it cost more?

Because it's longer. Adding an hour to aftercare adds an hour of costs.

Sorry: still don't get it. Aftercare charges by the day not by the hour, and if the bus is leaving an hour before aftercare ends now, isn't that less expensive/fewer hours anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick pop in here that people who think any neighborhood park or “RFK” are viable, alternate sites are barking up an imaginary tree. There is a 0% chance the National Park Service is going to suddenly turn over Garfield for a trailer village, even if the neighborhood wouldn’t go absolutely bonkers at that proposal. There is no “RFK site” to speak of and the school admin and leadership have been pretty clear in community presentations that the trade off is getting a modernization done at all vs. spending years negotiating a pretend alternate site that doesn’t currently exist. Meanwhile Brent is full of rats, bugs, leaks, and malfunctioning toilets, sinks, and HVAC. That’s the real trade off IMO.

There absolutely is an RFK site and it does not involve NPS. It needs trailers, which DCPS seems unwilling to pay for, and instead wants to move kids to Columbia Heights.

I am not familiar with the Brent situation specifically, but am familiar with the current zoning and regulations at RFK.l campus. Part of the reason congress just voted to give DC control of the land was bc right now it is federal land, and the only uses permitted are for recreation (aka The Fields, sports focused, etc). I know many people are wary of a football stadium coming back to DC so don't support DC getting control of the land out of fear of a stadium and surrounding development. But if the district doesn't get control of the land and/or the current federal regulations change, not much can happen on that land at all.
Maybe there is an exception with DCPS but I would be surprised if the federal government had gotten involved with this specific conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

you're a jerk (but you know that already) but for others who are trying to understand the issue, it's worth addressing but there are two problems with this.

The biggest, and most expensive, is expanded hours for aftercare. Starting an hour earlier doesn't mean parents are off work an hour earlier, and all of the sudden they've got to pay for 30% more aftercare. Of course, DCPS nor Brent admin have addressed this yet.

Second, a 4 year old should not have to get up at 6am or whatever hour just because DCPS can't find the will to solve this problem more effectively. It's punative on some level, which is why people are upset.

Not OP here, honest question: Brent's aftercare is not hourly/is by the day and admin has already said there will be an aftercare bus. Why would it cost more?

Because it's longer. Adding an hour to aftercare adds an hour of costs.

Sorry: still don't get it. Aftercare charges by the day not by the hour, and if the bus is leaving an hour before aftercare ends now, isn't that less expensive/fewer hours anyway?

PP means before care. No way they could force all kids in the IB to pay for before care if that’s when the only buses arrived. Also, good luck getting enough staff for aftercare unless you’re going with a private provider, which will charge $$$. Much easier to get staff for aftercare than before care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick pop in here that people who think any neighborhood park or “RFK” are viable, alternate sites are barking up an imaginary tree. There is a 0% chance the National Park Service is going to suddenly turn over Garfield for a trailer village, even if the neighborhood wouldn’t go absolutely bonkers at that proposal. There is no “RFK site” to speak of and the school admin and leadership have been pretty clear in community presentations that the trade off is getting a modernization done at all vs. spending years negotiating a pretend alternate site that doesn’t currently exist. Meanwhile Brent is full of rats, bugs, leaks, and malfunctioning toilets, sinks, and HVAC. That’s the real trade off IMO.

There absolutely is an RFK site and it does not involve NPS. It needs trailers, which DCPS seems unwilling to pay for, and instead wants to move kids to Columbia Heights.

I am not familiar with the Brent situation specifically, but am familiar with the current zoning and regulations at RFK.l campus. Part of the reason congress just voted to give DC control of the land was bc right now it is federal land, and the only uses permitted are for recreation (aka The Fields, sports focused, etc). I know many people are wary of a football stadium coming back to DC so don't support DC getting control of the land out of fear of a stadium and surrounding development. But if the district doesn't get control of the land and/or the current federal regulations change, not much can happen on that land at all.
Maybe there is an exception with DCPS but I would be surprised if the federal government had gotten involved with this specific conversation.

https://dcist.com/story/23/09/21/bill-dc-rfk-stadium-site-lease-advances-house-oversight-committee/

"The legislation also changes the terms of the lease to allow commercial and residential development on the site. The current lease restricts the use of the land to “stadium purposes,” which primarily includes recreational facilities, open spaces, and parking.

In essence, the bill would allow the District to build a new football stadium along with restaurants, retail, and housing, a mixed-use development approach many cities now take when planning new stadiums. The old stadium was built without such amenities, and is surrounded by a vast parking lot.

The House Natural Resources subcommittee held a hearing on the bill Tuesday. The Acting director of D.C.’s Department of General Services Delano Hunter testified that allowing D.C. more control over the land is necessary for transforming the site."

[Anonymous]

This “it’s inconvenient for me” vibe is starting to be so gross to me. Not to be a Pollyanna but what about paying it forward?? Working toward a modernization that will benefit future kids and families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

Why on earth would the buses leaving from Brent take North Capitol? Why not take 695 followed by the tunnel? I live inbound for Brent and that drive would be 35 or 40 minutes during morning rush hour and 20 minutes at midday. That tunnel moves quickly!!

In any case, plenty of former Brent kids would happily accept longer commutes for Latin. Of course I realize these kids are younger. But they eagerly fill buses for longer commutes to the Potomac School for camp and somehow cope.

I agree this is less than ideal. But it doesn’t sound unbearable.

In buses with no seatbelts and definitely no car seats, there is pretty good reason for taking North Cap vs the highway. But also (and I don’t know the answer here), does 695 ever leave DC proper on that route? If so, my understanding is that the normal DCPS buses won’t do it for insurance/liability reasons (this issue sometimes comes up wrt to the SPED buses and field trips).

No. 695 does not leave DC to get to the tunnel. All those places south of the interstate are still DC. You don't get out of DC until you cross the Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick pop in here that people who think any neighborhood park or “RFK” are viable, alternate sites are barking up an imaginary tree. There is a 0% chance the National Park Service is going to suddenly turn over Garfield for a trailer village, even if the neighborhood wouldn’t go absolutely bonkers at that proposal. There is no “RFK site” to speak of and the school admin and leadership have been pretty clear in community presentations that the trade off is getting a modernization done at all vs. spending years negotiating a pretend alternate site that doesn’t currently exist. Meanwhile Brent is full of rats, bugs, leaks, and malfunctioning toilets, sinks, and HVAC. That’s the real trade off IMO.

There absolutely is an RFK site and it does not involve NPS. It needs trailers, which DCPS seems unwilling to pay for, and instead wants to move kids to Columbia Heights.

I am not familiar with the Brent situation specifically, but am familiar with the current zoning and regulations at RFK.l campus. Part of the reason congress just voted to give DC control of the land was bc right now it is federal land, and the only uses permitted are for recreation (aka The Fields, sports focused, etc). I know many people are wary of a football stadium coming back to DC so don't support DC getting control of the land out of fear of a stadium and surrounding development. But if the district doesn't get control of the land and/or the current federal regulations change, not much can happen on that land at all.
Maybe there is an exception with DCPS but I would be surprised if the federal government had gotten involved with this specific conversation.

https://dcist.com/story/23/09/21/bill-dc-rfk-stadium-site-lease-advances-house-oversight-committee/

"The legislation also changes the terms of the lease to allow commercial and residential development on the site. The current lease restricts the use of the land to “stadium purposes,” which primarily includes recreational facilities, open spaces, and parking.

In essence, the bill would allow the District to build a new football stadium along with restaurants, retail, and housing, a mixed-use development approach many cities now take when planning new stadiums. The old stadium was built without such amenities, and is surrounded by a vast parking lot.

The House Natural Resources subcommittee held a hearing on the bill Tuesday. The Acting director of D.C.’s Department of General Services Delano Hunter testified that allowing D.C. more control over the land is necessary for transforming the site."

This is interesting and seems like RFK could be viable with a bit more effort here?

Development of that whole space will take over a decade. Certainly two years for a corner to be used for school trailers would work? And there's already a playground, education access to Kingman Park, could even build a garden on the grass spot along 22nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not good at DCUM clearly - replying to another post:

My question is - what is the alternative? I agree Meyer is far, but I have not yet seen a viable alternative proposed. RFK isn’t one. Garfield isn’t one. People have spent a lot of time looking. I wouldn’t call accepting Meyer defeatist - it is realist. If someone comes up with a legitimate alternative that doesn’t cost a lot, I’d advocate all day for it. But until then, I’d rather focus on making Meyrr work and providing input into the new Brent.

"Doesn't cost a lot"? Doesn't cost *whom* a lot?

So DCPS/DC wants swing space to be cheap, so they pawn the costs off on families, as well as on traffic, pollution, etc. How do you quantify the cost to a kid's life of sitting on a bus?!

The swing space is part of the construction costs. And if the costs are more expensive than they would like, then DC should figure that out. But settling on an unsuitable swing space is not a fair option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This “it’s inconvenient for me” vibe is starting to be so gross to me. Not to be a Pollyanna but what about paying it forward?? Working toward a modernization that will benefit future kids and families.

Nobody is opposed to modernization. It should happen, it needs to happen.

People are opposed to Meyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not good at DCUM clearly - replying to another post:

My question is - what is the alternative? I agree Meyer is far, but I have not yet seen a viable alternative proposed. RFK isn’t one. Garfield isn’t one. People have spent a lot of time looking. I wouldn’t call accepting Meyer defeatist - it is realist. If someone comes up with a legitimate alternative that doesn’t cost a lot, I’d advocate all day for it. But until then, I’d rather focus on making Meyrr work and providing input into the new Brent.

If they moved the start of renovation to fall of 2026, they could have the NE cottages (by TR Young).

I get there are budgeting concerns about this, but I think they could be worked around. It still a commute. And it's the closest thing there is to a Ward 6 swing space -- technically in Ward 5, but actually much more accessible by all of Ward 6 than the vast majority of Ward 5 (and rarely used by Ward 5 schools for this reason). It's where SWS did their swing space, and I think maybe Maury as well? JOW is up next but why not do Brent after that?

I'd rather wait an extra year for a new school than commute to Columbia Heights for 2 years. Especially if I had a kid in ECE. The older kids could make it work but who is going to want to put their 3 or 4 year old on a bus 2 hours a day? That's crazy.