Reply to DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
[b]According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:[/b]

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.
[/quote]

The only witness from DPR was the director, Delano Hunter. He did not testify anything of the kind.

There were lots of Maret affiliates who repeated these talking points, but with no support.

[quote=Anonymous]
2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help  renovate the clubhouse.

[/quote]

If the deal was as you said, why was DC able to insist that Maret "put in a little more money?" That wasn't part of the deal. And if DC can ask Maret to put in a little more, why can't they ask for a lot more? Wouldn't it benefit the taxpayers to get as much as possible? Isn't that their duty?[/quote]

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify. 
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did. 
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.[/quote]

[quote=Anonymous]
2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

[quote=Anonymous]
The only witness from DPR was the director, Delano Hunter. He did not testify anything of the kind.
[/quote][/quote]

[size=large]Maybe you were distracted at [b]7:52:00[/b].. so this is just an FYI[/size][/quote]

I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?[/quote]

No one is disputing that Maret did exactly what they agreed to do in the 2009 agreement. The question is whether that, by itself entitled them to a renewal. While Hunter was thoroughly evasive, the one thing he was clear about was that DPR had the option not to renew the agreement. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics