"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we won't ever know if this is a fair price, since there was never an open bid.

Your issue should be with The Washington Home Board who mismanaged the organization and sold the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... It is, and should be morally shameful, to take advantage of financial distress. If your neighbor lost his job, his wife was ill, and they had to sell their car in order to pay their bills, do you think it's the morally right thing to pay below market value because they desperately need the money? Do you invest in high-interest check-cashing store fronts?

What kind of BS are you trying to make up here? WH had revenue of almost $42 million last year. WH is a big business. It's not your neighbor who lost his job; it's not some public charity. The people running WH recognized that their business model of on-site hospice care was running against the current of the in-home care most of its customers want, so it decided to sell their bricks-and-mortar facility to re-focus the business. If you have a problem with that business decision, or if you think WH should have driven a harder bargain, then take it up with the CEO or the Board of Directors. http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530196647/530196647_201406_990.pdf?_ga=1.198981611.517546103.1446494923

You don't see the nuance between a "big business" and a hospice in which many of its patients were on Medicaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we won't ever know if this is a fair price, since there was never an open bid.

Your issue should be with The Washington Home Board who mismanaged the organization and sold the property.

Hey, you sound like a free-market libertarian. Voting for Cruz?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Are you kidding? Being Quaker doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a doormat. The WH made a deal. It can use all of its profits to assist its residents in relocating if it so chooses. Sidwell will need to move forward selling the Bethesda campus, making financial and other plans for the move, and returning it's go he to its mission of educating children. It is not a school's job, Quaker or not, to second guess whether a facility should continue providing residential care, nor does it have any obligation to delay it's plans so that others can navel gaze about whether another bidder would have provided a better offer. Where do people get these ideas? If you have a problem with how the WH spends $32 million, raise it with them. Sidwell has absolutely no business telling the WH hiw to run its business or what's best for its clients/residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Are you kidding? Being Quaker doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a doormat. The WH made a deal. It can use all of its profits to assist its residents in relocating if it so chooses. Sidwell will need to move forward selling the Bethesda campus, making financial and other plans for the move, and returning it's go he to its mission of educating children. It is not a school's job, Quaker or not, to second guess whether a facility should continue providing residential care, nor does it have any obligation to delay it's plans so that others can navel gaze about whether another bidder would have provided a better offer. Where do people get these ideas? If you have a problem with how the WH spends $32 million, raise it with them. Sidwell has absolutely no business telling the WH hiw to run its business or what's best for its clients/residents.

Translation: Sidwell has no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Are you kidding? Being Quaker doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a doormat. The WH made a deal. It can use all of its profits to assist its residents in relocating if it so chooses. Sidwell will need to move forward selling the Bethesda campus, making financial and other plans for the move, and returning it's go he to its mission of educating children. It is not a school's job, Quaker or not, to second guess whether a facility should continue providing residential care, nor does it have any obligation to delay it's plans so that others can navel gaze about whether another bidder would have provided a better offer. Where do people get these ideas? If you have a problem with how the WH spends $32 million, raise it with them. Sidwell has absolutely no business telling the WH hiw to run its business or what's best for its clients/residents.

Translation: Sidwell has no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly.

Exactly.

Taking it a bit further: If a tax-exempt educational institution such as Sidwell has "no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly," why should tax-paying companies do?

Obama hypocrisy, exposed. It's always easier to preach others what to do than to do it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Are you kidding? Being Quaker doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a doormat. The WH made a deal. It can use all of its profits to assist its residents in relocating if it so chooses. Sidwell will need to move forward selling the Bethesda campus, making financial and other plans for the move, and returning it's go he to its mission of educating children. It is not a school's job, Quaker or not, to second guess whether a facility should continue providing residential care, nor does it have any obligation to delay it's plans so that others can navel gaze about whether another bidder would have provided a better offer. Where do people get these ideas? If you have a problem with how the WH spends $32 million, raise it with them. Sidwell has absolutely no business telling the WH hiw to run its business or what's best for its clients/residents.

Translation: Sidwell has no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly.

The sound you hear is the sound of sarcasm whizzing over your head. Can't believe you thought it was a serious post.

Exactly.

Taking it a bit further: If a tax-exempt educational institution such as Sidwell has "no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly," why should tax-paying companies do?

Obama hypocrisy, exposed. It's always easier to preach others what to do than to do it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

Are you kidding? Being Quaker doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a doormat. The WH made a deal. It can use all of its profits to assist its residents in relocating if it so chooses. Sidwell will need to move forward selling the Bethesda campus, making financial and other plans for the move, and returning it's go he to its mission of educating children. It is not a school's job, Quaker or not, to second guess whether a facility should continue providing residential care, nor does it have any obligation to delay it's plans so that others can navel gaze about whether another bidder would have provided a better offer. Where do people get these ideas? If you have a problem with how the WH spends $32 million, raise it with them. Sidwell has absolutely no business telling the WH hiw to run its business or what's best for its clients/residents.

Translation: Sidwell has no obligation to have empathy let alone a moral conscience concerning the sick and elderly.[/quote

$32 million is a lot of empathy in my book. It's just not the schools business to tell WH how to run its business. Explain why a school is better placed, and has a the responsibility, to ensure another organization makes good in its legal or ethical commitments. This is just nuts.

[Anonymous]

Love it. The New York Times was trolled.

[Anonymous]

You could flip it around: TWH ends up rejecting or not entertaining and offer from Sidwell. Instead, it wants to sell to the highest bidder. Probably a mixed use development like Cathedral Commons. Instead of having two years to move the tenants out they give them six months at the most. Instead of preserving the leafy and rolling quality of the residential neighborhood they let it go to a developer who will build whatever they want. Good for the TWH! They got the highest price they could with no regard for the neighbors or the current residents. People would be saying, "Wow. Why wouldn't they let Sidwell give a reasonable offer that would have kept the integrity of the land and the neighborhood and allowed the residents 18 months to find new housing. Seems a shame that they just let it go to the highest bidder." But oh well. That's capitalism.

[Anonymous]

So the Sidwell faithful's best moral defense is, "That's capitalism"?

Nice. F THE POOR!

[Anonymous]

You read it incorrectly, F the poor. It was that if that were the scenario that would be capitalism. People are complaining that there wasn't fair market competition. That is what PP is referring to with the switched around post. Anyway, does hospice living automatically mean that the people who are in TWH are poor? I actually don't know the answer to that. They are certainly old and ill but are their families by definition poor as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Sidwell faithful's best moral defense is, "That's capitalism"?

Nice. F THE POOR!

Yep, that's what they're saying.

How fun it is, to F THE POOR while criticizing others for their willingness to F THE POOR.

Hopefully no one's looking!

[Anonymous]

QUAKER FAMILY VALUES

[Anonymous]

Maybe the WH had an interest in seeing another non-profit use the lnd?