Bill introduced to declare the Old Hardy School surplus and extend long-term lease to the Lab School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

[Anonymous]

That is so shocking!! Please tell me that the lease won't be renewed. Can't believe the council would consider something like this. Also can't believe the post hasn't done a story on this yet. Maybe some of the editors have kids at Lab? Why not expose this sweetheart deal and find out who is benefiting!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is so shocking!! Please tell me that the lease won't be renewed. Can't believe the council would consider something like this. Also can't believe the post hasn't done a story on this yet. Maybe some of the editors have kids at Lab? Why not expose this sweetheart deal and find out who is benefiting!!

The Post isn’t great with local issues. Most newspapers aren’t these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

Too bad Bowser won't allow a public hearing so parents can ask why there's such a sweetheart deal for a private school when public charters have far worse terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

Too bad Bowser won't allow a public hearing so parents can ask why there's such a sweetheart deal for a private school when public charters have far worse terms.

Charters get public funds, how is worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

Too bad Bowser won't allow a public hearing so parents can ask why there's such a sweetheart deal for a private school when public charters have far worse terms.

Charters get public funds, how is worse

Sixty cents on the dollar is less than 100 cents on the dollar?

If you're somehow implying that private schools have it harder than public schools, you're in the wrong forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

Too bad Bowser won't allow a public hearing so parents can ask why there's such a sweetheart deal for a private school when public charters have far worse terms.

Charters get public funds, how is worse

Sixty cents on the dollar is less than 100 cents on the dollar?

If you're somehow implying that private schools have it harder than public schools, you're in the wrong forum.

Charters get public funds because they accept any and all students through a lottery system.

There is no reason that Lab should get a special deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The school doesn't owe the city a damn thing if the city won't fund DC kids to go there.

You've got it backward. Lab is insisting that the city owes them a building. I think everyone here would be happy if the city treated Lab like any other private school and let them find their own facilities and used the public school facilities for public school kids.

+1 I don't know what the current proposed emergency lease is but the last time they tried to pull this "emergency" in 2016, Lab was getting the school and buildings practically for free (based on their argument that no one else wanted it, which isn't true.)

The whole idea of the "emergency" lease is nobody gets to see the terms until it's a done deal.

Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

Why buy a cow when the milk is free?

In 2016, if I remember correctly, Lab was getting a 40,000 square foot property for 25K$ a year for 25 years. It was ridiculous.

It was actually worse than that.

The rent was nominal. However, there was a clause in the lease that Lab would get a dollar-for-dollar credit against rent for any improvements made to the property. Lab's stated intention was to immediately make $2 million in improvements, which by itself would have meant they would pay no rent for at least the first 25 years of the lease.

Their current lease has similar language. At the time they had an unapplied balance of several hundred thousand dollars for improvements they've made which have exceeded the rent owed-- which means they haven't paid rent in the ten years they've been there. One of the points of negotiation was whether that balance could be carried forward into the new lease.

Note that charter schools -- public charter schools -- only get a credit of sixty cents on the dollar for capital improvements they make.

Too bad Bowser won't allow a public hearing so parents can ask why there's such a sweetheart deal for a private school when public charters have far worse terms.

Charters get public funds, how is worse

Sixty cents on the dollar is less than 100 cents on the dollar?

If you're somehow implying that private schools have it harder than public schools, you're in the wrong forum.

Charters get public funds because they accept any and all students through a lottery system.

There is no reason that Lab should get a special deal.

There's no reason they should get any deal. It's just through-the-looking-glass topsy-turvy to think that somehow the city is in the business of providing facilities for private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

The GDS lower school was bought a while ago by an academically selective private school rumored to be a apricey for-profit out of NYC. The other feasible school spot on MacArthur next to the Reservoir was bought by St Patrick's Episcopal Day School. It will house the middle school grades for a private, academically selective, religious school. Tuition at St. Pat's is about 3 times that of Catholic school Our Lady of Victory across the street from St. Pat's and Lab.

Lab, by contrast, is a nonprofit, non-religious, special education school that for 50 years educated students with learning disabilities who were not getting the free, public, and appropriate education of non-disabled students.

The description of Lab as one of "a series of private schools" on the keep Old Hardy website is both inaccurate and inflammatory. The Foxhall site has had only 3 uses: a DC public middle school that closed for under-enrollment, a publicly funded DC charter school that closed for financial and enrollment problems, and a nonprofit special education school designed to serve DC public school students.

Lab is not Sidwell or Whittle. It's not trying to buy the crappy old building. It's not a fly-by-night money maker. Lab actually accepts DC students that the other private schools around it do not.

As a Wilson-feeder parent, here's my question: what is the DCPS plan to serve the increasing number of kids with learning disabilities that will come with the increased population of kids in general?

Or put another way, how can DCPS better serve its most underserved public school students including the hundreds of students with disabilities currently in the Wilson feeder pattern?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

The GDS lower school was bought a while ago by an academically selective private school rumored to be a apricey for-profit out of NYC. The other feasible school spot on MacArthur next to the Reservoir was bought by St Patrick's Episcopal Day School. It will house the middle school grades for a private, academically selective, religious school. Tuition at St. Pat's is about 3 times that of Catholic school Our Lady of Victory across the street from St. Pat's and Lab.

Lab, by contrast, is a nonprofit, non-religious, special education school that for 50 years educated students with learning disabilities who were not getting the free, public, and appropriate education of non-disabled students.

The description of Lab as one of "a series of private schools" on the keep Old Hardy website is both inaccurate and inflammatory. The Foxhall site has had only 3 uses: a DC public middle school that closed for under-enrollment, a publicly funded DC charter school that closed for financial and enrollment problems, and a nonprofit special education school designed to serve DC public school students.

Lab is not Sidwell or Whittle. It's not trying to buy the crappy old building. It's not a fly-by-night money maker. Lab actually accepts DC students that the other private schools around it do not.

As a Wilson-feeder parent, here's my question: what is the DCPS plan to serve the increasing number of kids with learning disabilities that will come with the increased population of kids in general?

Or put another way, how can DCPS better serve its most underserved public school students including the hundreds of students with disabilities currently in the Wilson feeder pattern?

Anyone?

Er, do you know how few DCPS students go to Lab?

Meanwhile, most privates are non-profit. The for-profits are the exceptions.

And if Lab is so deserving, then why can’t that decision be made as part of an open and fair process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lab is private, needs a private deal I guess. So why don't they take over the about to be empty GDS private ES space? It's even closer to their main buildings. They could do it much more "privately."

The GDS lower school was bought a while ago by an academically selective private school rumored to be a apricey for-profit out of NYC. The other feasible school spot on MacArthur next to the Reservoir was bought by St Patrick's Episcopal Day School. It will house the middle school grades for a private, academically selective, religious school. Tuition at St. Pat's is about 3 times that of Catholic school Our Lady of Victory across the street from St. Pat's and Lab.

Lab, by contrast, is a nonprofit, non-religious, special education school that for 50 years educated students with learning disabilities who were not getting the free, public, and appropriate education of non-disabled students.

The description of Lab as one of "a series of private schools" on the keep Old Hardy website is both inaccurate and inflammatory. The Foxhall site has had only 3 uses: a DC public middle school that closed for under-enrollment, a publicly funded DC charter school that closed for financial and enrollment problems, and a nonprofit special education school designed to serve DC public school students.

Lab is not Sidwell or Whittle. It's not trying to buy the crappy old building. It's not a fly-by-night money maker. Lab actually accepts DC students that the other private schools around it do not.

As a Wilson-feeder parent, here's my question: what is the DCPS plan to serve the increasing number of kids with learning disabilities that will come with the increased population of kids in general?

Or put another way, how can DCPS better serve its most underserved public school students including the hundreds of students with disabilities currently in the Wilson feeder pattern?

Anyone?

Er, do you know how few DCPS students go to Lab?

Meanwhile, most privates are non-profit. The for-profits are the exceptions.

And if Lab is so deserving, then why can’t that decision be made as part of an open and fair process?

+1. It’s a 50k/year private school that serves special needs kids that mostly reside outside of DC. It’s bad policy for Bowser to give them the property at a highly discounted rate without going through a public hearing process

[Anonymous]

I'll say it again - follow the money. DC students do not benefit. So who does?