Brent rebuild details to know before you accept that lottery spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ 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.

Yeah that’s insane. Unsupervised 3-4 year old preschoolers on a daily 30-60 min bus ride, each way?? I’d be like OP and noping out. It’s one thing to be a 7/8 year old doing that…not ideal but doable. But it doesn’t seem safe for the really little ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This 100%. Its reasonable and addresses the issues. Which is why it's so confounding that DCPS chose Meyer.

[Anonymous]

The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Depends on the kind of effort you were talking about - the vote still has to go in front of the Senate and I am not sure if and when that is scheduled. I think DC's hands are tied until the Senate also passes the vote.
For those on here who don't see the connection between statehood and our daily lives ... so many ways our strange district status impacts things like school, land use, crime/prosecution etc. OK, off my soapbox!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is where we are. Modernization needs to happen, but they're in the school now and they could be in the school for another year. There are issues but they aren't safety issues the way that Meyer commute is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It might not be a year though, this is the 3rd time Brent has tried to modernize over the last decade and every time an issue has come up, the "one year" delay has pushed it another 2/3/4 years or another school has taken the swing space slot instead and now here we are--ironically the original swing spaces were all much closer.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

I would like some of what you are smoking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Does this obvious solution include cutting down all the old growth trees to make space for trailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Does this obvious solution include cutting down all the old growth trees to make space for trailers?

Not to mention you need water and electric connections for all those trailers. Easy peasy right? And you deprive the entire neighborhood of a park for two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same thing is happening at Burroughs in NE. At first, they were supposed to move to Meyer during construction. However, the parents complained about the commute and DCPS gave in and purchased trailers for the field beside the school. However, now the neighbors don’t want trailers on community green space. Another DCPS mess!!! I would also avoid Burroughs too. Renovation will take 2 years and then those trailers will serve as the new swing space for other Ward 5 schools. No thank you!!!

screw the neighbors. come on.

[Anonymous]

And where would we play pickle ball if Brent takes over Garfield park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even more confused now how this is more expensive. Brent already has a private provider; if buses are leaving when beforecare normally would start then there's no need for paying for beforecare; if they're leaving an hour before the current pickup time there's shorter aftercare hours not more. What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ 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.

60 3 year olds on a bus sounds horrific. and there’s zero way it would be staffed appropriately to keep them safe. it’s an astonishingly bad a idea. at a minimum, find a local swing space for the ECE.

[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?

Presumably the bus would leave when school gets out, not when aftercare gets out.