Bridges Families - What have you been told about the new Taylor Street location next door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming Bridges family here who knows nothing about the goings-on. Can we please stop throwing each other under the bus and move on? The school situation is tough enough, but throwing around accusations and calling each other unethical is completely unnecessary.

+1

We as charter school families should try and stick together.

Why? Are charter school families different from the rest of us?

In respect to the facilities issue, yes, charter families face different obstacles than do families whose children attend neighborhood schools or established private schools. Neighborhood schools and established private schools USUALLY have their physical space sorted out and settled in a way that not all charters do. Obviously there are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Last winter/spring, we had multiple charters whose location for the 2014-15 school year was not clear. Most of those schools have found homes, or decided to stay put for the year. Some are still looking.

As for the rest of the OP, I agree that it's a great idea to move forward and support each other. To me, part of that is owning the decisions we make and behaving in an ethical fashion from the beginning. I still think that what happened in this situation was unethical and I still think that someone should take responsibility for it, rather than refusing to comment or saying "let's not throw around accusations." Those are generally behaviors demonstrated by someone who has done something wrong. If what Bridges did wasn't wrong, or if there is some information that is not publicly available at this time that would absolve them of real estate sliminess, I think it would be good for them to bring that information forward, if only to reassure everyone that they weren't just being self-serving jerks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming Bridges family here who knows nothing about the goings-on. Can we please stop throwing each other under the bus and move on? The school situation is tough enough, but throwing around accusations and calling each other unethical is completely unnecessary.

+1

We as charter school families should try and stick together.

Why? Are charter school families different from the rest of us?

In respect to the facilities issue, yes, charter families face different obstacles than do families whose children attend neighborhood schools or established private schools. Neighborhood schools and established private schools USUALLY have their physical space sorted out and settled in a way that not all charters do. Obviously there are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Last winter/spring, we had multiple charters whose location for the 2014-15 school year was not clear. Most of those schools have found homes, or decided to stay put for the year. Some are still looking.

As for the rest of the OP, I agree that it's a great idea to move forward and support each other. To me, part of that is owning the decisions we make and behaving in an ethical fashion from the beginning. I still think that what happened in this situation was unethical and I still think that someone should take responsibility for it, rather than refusing to comment or saying "let's not throw around accusations." Those are generally behaviors demonstrated by someone who has done something wrong. If what Bridges did wasn't wrong, or if there is some information that is not publicly available at this time that would absolve them of real estate sliminess, I think it would be good for them to bring that information forward, if only to reassure everyone that they weren't just being self-serving jerks.

I generally agree with this, but there is some room for everyone to be "right" from their perspective. Remember, everyone looks at a situation like this through a different lens of experience and background, and makes assumptions that others may not be making, and acts accordingly. I know nothing of what happened here, but maybe the following occurred:

1. Landlord tells SSMA, "I need a deposit and signed check by 6/15 or I will start looking elsewhere"
2. SSMA takes a few extra days past the deadline and says, "Well, it's okay, they won't be able to find someone else to take our space so quick"
3. Landlord doesn't get checks by the deadline, gives Bridges a call, says, "They missed their date, do you want the space?"
4. Bridges says to themselves, "Oh, I guess SSMA isn't interested in that space after all. Let's take it!".

Again, I don't know anything about the specifics here, but have had many an interaction with the different parties that happened like that. No one did anything "wrong", but there are a lot of hurt feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I don't know anything about the specifics here, but have had many an interaction with the different parties that happened like that. No one did anything "wrong", but there are a lot of hurt feelings.

PP here, didn't mean to imply I have had interaction with these parties in particular, meant in general, when one has interactions with different parties on some form of transaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

Correct. The Landlord was wrong. Bridges was wrong.

Open communication about every stage of this process has been shared with Shining Stars families since Day ONE. So SSMA families have a timeline to match against any story told by the landlord or Bridges. They were sneaky, underhanded, and downright wrong. I can't speak to its legality.
Claims about pre-deals with Sela are false and an excuse to make the leadership look untrustworthy. Through these hurdles, SSMA families have formed a stronger bond and as we navigate this Rat Race of building acquisition in the District, SSMA has been honest, forthcoming, and persevered to find solutions for any speed bump presented along its path. This is a school, a family, an organization, that will succeed, and surpass all expectations.

-Leslie Vaughn

I feel for you and the entire SSMA community. Hopefully other schools have reached out offering help with facilities and other things (I know mine had planned to do so). Good luck!

+1 I feel very bad for SSMA but this kind of 'dealing' is quite common in a hot real estate markets. If the contract is not signed and delivered, it's not a DONE deal and the landlord has every right to take another offer. It isn't illegal.

[Anonymous]

So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the PP was coming up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone makes a mistake.

I would need to check with someone at the school who was at the negotiation, but no one so far has mentioned that there even was "a deadline" for returning the paperwork and the checks. What they have said was that both parties were still negotiating from early June until mid-June and that when SSMA believed they'd found resolution for all the concerns they had, they signed the paperwork and sent over deposit checks. Then 2 days later, the landlord informed SSMA that he was accepting another offer that came in at the last minute for more money.

It sounds like the process itself was much less formal than it should have been. It seems to me that when a person submits a contract to be signed by another person, even if they have not countersigned it, that that person should not be permitted to enter into the same contract with someone else. Conclude one business negotiation before beginning another. But I am not a real estate agent or attorney, so maybe I am wrong and this happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the PP was coming up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone makes a mistake.

I would need to check with someone at the school who was at the negotiation, but no one so far has mentioned that there even was "a deadline" for returning the paperwork and the checks. What they have said was that both parties were still negotiating from early June until mid-June and that when SSMA believed they'd found resolution for all the concerns they had, they signed the paperwork and sent over deposit checks. Then 2 days later, the landlord informed SSMA that he was accepting another offer that came in at the last minute for more money.

It sounds like the process itself was much less formal than it should have been. It seems to me that when a person submits a contract to be signed by another person, even if they have not countersigned it, that that person should not be permitted to enter into the same contract with someone else. Conclude one business negotiation before beginning another. But I am not a real estate agent or attorney, so maybe I am wrong and this happens all the time.

It is what the landlord said happened in the Post article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the PP was coming up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone makes a mistake.

I would need to check with someone at the school who was at the negotiation, but no one so far has mentioned that there even was "a deadline" for returning the paperwork and the checks. What they have said was that both parties were still negotiating from early June until mid-June and that when SSMA believed they'd found resolution for all the concerns they had, they signed the paperwork and sent over deposit checks. Then 2 days later, the landlord informed SSMA that he was accepting another offer that came in at the last minute for more money.

It sounds like the process itself was much less formal than it should have been. It seems to me that when a person submits a contract to be signed by another person, even if they have not countersigned it, that that person should not be permitted to enter into the same contract with someone else. Conclude one business negotiation before beginning another. But I am not a real estate agent or attorney, so maybe I am wrong and this happens all the time.

This happens all the time in real estate even in residential home purchases. The owner or landlord can choose which contract/offer he likes best. No harm. No foul.

[Anonymous]

If SSMA missed their deadline for the deposit and contract, it's understandable why the landlord would take another tenant over them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the PP was coming up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone makes a mistake.

I would need to check with someone at the school who was at the negotiation, but no one so far has mentioned that there even was "a deadline" for returning the paperwork and the checks. What they have said was that both parties were still negotiating from early June until mid-June and that when SSMA believed they'd found resolution for all the concerns they had, they signed the paperwork and sent over deposit checks. Then 2 days later, the landlord informed SSMA that he was accepting another offer that came in at the last minute for more money.

It sounds like the process itself was much less formal than it should have been. It seems to me that when a person submits a contract to be signed by another person, even if they have not countersigned it, that that person should not be permitted to enter into the same contract with someone else. Conclude one business negotiation before beginning another. But I am not a real estate agent or attorney, so maybe I am wrong and this happens all the time.

It is what the landlord said happened in the Post article.

I guess. It really just said that they waited for 2 weeks to get the paperwork back.

I completely understand the landlord's rationale for accepting the other offer. I understand Bridges's desire to get that space, given the convenience factor. I just can't really countenance swooping in when they knew another school was planning to move in. It just seems very... cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SSMA missed the deadline for delivering the final signed contract and the deposit for the space?!?

Sounds like the landlord and Bridges aren't the only ones responsible for the debacle...

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the PP was coming up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone makes a mistake.

I would need to check with someone at the school who was at the negotiation, but no one so far has mentioned that there even was "a deadline" for returning the paperwork and the checks. What they have said was that both parties were still negotiating from early June until mid-June and that when SSMA believed they'd found resolution for all the concerns they had, they signed the paperwork and sent over deposit checks. Then 2 days later, the landlord informed SSMA that he was accepting another offer that came in at the last minute for more money.

It sounds like the process itself was much less formal than it should have been. It seems to me that when a person submits a contract to be signed by another person, even if they have not countersigned it, that that person should not be permitted to enter into the same contract with someone else. Conclude one business negotiation before beginning another. But I am not a real estate agent or attorney, so maybe I am wrong and this happens all the time.

PP here who posed the hypothetical steps taken (post at 14:06).

Often there is an interim step, an exclusive negotiating period memorialized by an initial term sheet or MOU. That lays out the terms under which the landlord may negotiate (or not) with others, timeframes, etc. If there is one of those, and the landlord broke one of the terms by going to Bridges before the exclusive period ended, then SSMA has cause for a lawsuit. But if there was no exclusive negotiating period then SSMA doesn't have much of a legal case. And again, we don't know what Bridges was told by the landlord. Maybe they were told that SSMA passed on the lease offer because they missed a deadline. Again, don't know anything about this, just posing another hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

What I can't understand is why SSMA took so long to return their contract and deposit for the space. Their "dwaddling" is what cost them the space. Perhaps they felt b/c they were a school, they should get more leeway around deadlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I can't understand is why SSMA took so long to return their contract and deposit for the space. Their "dwaddling" is what cost them the space. Perhaps they felt b/c they were a school, they should get more leeway around deadlines.

The way they made it sound at the parent meeting, some terms of the contract were changing as they were negotiating, so it wasn't like "here's the contract we discussed so sign it." It was more "here's the contract, we raised this price and made Y changes so review it and decide if you still want to sign." I have no details or knowledge about the terms they were considering but I think there were some significant changes they had to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I can't understand is why SSMA took so long to return their contract and deposit for the space. Their "dwaddling" is what cost them the space. Perhaps they felt b/c they were a school, they should get more leeway around deadlines.

The way they made it sound at the parent meeting, some terms of the contract were changing as they were negotiating, so it wasn't like "here's the contract we discussed so sign it." It was more "here's the contract, we raised this price and made Y changes so review it and decide if you still want to sign." I have no details or knowledge about the terms they were considering but I think there were some significant changes they had to think about.

That is not consistent with what the landlord said, which was that they finished negotiations and then SSMA took several weeks to sign. Not saying that SSMA's side is wrong, just pointing out that there are two sides.

[Anonymous]

The long and short of it is that Bridges knew they were taking space right out from under another charter. Maybe they just wanted to jump on the opportunity to expand, maybe they didn't want competition; they're not talking, so who knows.

It's a tiny block with lots of traffic in the morning and evenings, so maybe it's for the best that another school won't be adding to the somewhat chaotic scene there, but no denying they pretty callously put other charter families in a bind. I wonder if they would have taken the space if SSMA hadn't been interested.