"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

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

Does "WH" mean the Washington Home.... or the White House?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Are GDS boosters trying to rebut criticism of their development plans by stirring up criticism of the Sidwell plan? To borrow a phrase, "someone convinced you that attacking another school is going to help you." You should stop now. Doing this does not present GDS in a flattering light.

Maybe not someone with GDS but with a developer (or more precisely, another developer, as GDS wears two hats now). The person may be trying to start a groundswell somehow to pressure the Washington Home to re-market the property (or for Sidwell to back out) so that the developer gets a shot at it.

[Anonymous]

Dream on. This is a business deal that is done. Sidwell could care less about the public perception of the deal. It is the right decision for them and any "bad publicity" re this as no impact on the institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dream on. This is a business deal that is done. Sidwell could care less about the public perception of the deal. It is the right decision for them and any "bad publicity" re this as no impact on the institution.

I do think that the Sidwell leadership and board care about how this is perceived. That said, they're paying very handsomely for a property that the Washington Home's board determined to sell, and agreed to a very long period for patients to make a transition. As a PP said, short of the site becoming a park, Sidwell is about the most neutral owner from the standpoint of the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love it. The New York Times was trolled.

By a "GDSithist" ?

[Anonymous]

This. All that stuff about being Quaker and having special responsibility? Bullshit. It's just business.

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.

[Anonymous]

GDS is closing the supermarket that was most popular with the many fixed-income residents of its area. Sidwell-lite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Are GDS boosters trying to rebut criticism of their development plans by stirring up criticism of the Sidwell plan? To borrow a phrase, "someone convinced you that attacking another school is going to help you." You should stop now. Doing this does not present GDS in a flattering light.

Maybe not someone with GDS but with a developer (or more precisely, another developer, as GDS wears two hats now). The person may be trying to start a groundswell somehow to pressure the Washington Home to re-market the property (or for Sidwell to back out) so that the developer gets a shot at it.

[Anonymous]

What's sadder: Sidwell having no regard for its less fortunate neighbors, or Sidwell parents making Landon-like excuses for the school's deplorable behavior?

[Anonymous]

1) How do you qualify the statement that Sidwell has no regard for its less fortunate neighbors?

2) How do you know it is Sidwell parents posting and not Landon parents posing as Sidwell parents?

[Anonymous]

First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's sadder: Sidwell having no regard for its less fortunate neighbors, or Sidwell parents making Landon-like excuses for the school's deplorable behavior?

Quit trolling the Sidwell people. It's obvious you're just trying to start a food fight. They're wisely staying (mostly) silent.

[Anonymous]

Remember this is the school that gives it's parents a gotcha surprise essay during a supposed lly innocuous parent visit. Not surprising at all.

The school ceased to have a moral compass long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

What would be a fair price? What is the incentive to sell under market value? You need to answer these questions or you just sound like sour grapes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all (as the current co-chair of TWH Family Council, my mother now lives there; my father passed away there), there are soooo many inaccuracies and half truths in many of these replies. First of all, don't confuse TWH with the residents. Those are separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct, very distinct agendas. Nor is the notion that Sidwell sends some great font of students to TWH to volunteer accurate, nor has it been in the almost decade my mother has lived there. The fact of the matter is, the property sold under market value because both Sidwell AND TWH entered into a confidentiality agreement that ensured that none of the potential alternatives for resident relocation could be explored. What might they be? Dual use facility with someone else running it. It's 6 acres after all. Incentivizing payment by setting funds aside to make sure that they could get placed in comparable facilities with private rooms in locations near their loved ones. More time. And that's to name but a few. Sidwell doesn't have to go into the business of nursing home care to have made it's choices more ethical. Both TWH and Sidwell just need to adjust their moral compass.

What would be a fair price? What is the incentive to sell under market value? You need to answer these questions or you just sound like sour grapes.

You mention more time. I would think that a transition period of almost 2 years (if TWH exercises 6 mo. leaseback option) is helpful for securing alternatives.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused. If they are not closing for almost 2 years from now, why would people need to be relocated at all? Not to be crass, but isn't a hospice for end-of-life care? When my family members went into hospice, they were only there a few weeks before they passed.