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]Well, that petition is already based on fake news and biased language so that makes the petition null. Nice try, though. [/quote]

All the more reason to convene that conversation. In the meantime, help us solve the mystery that is perplexing many of us here by substantiating the claim that the city was obligated to extend the agreement if Maret held up its side of the bargain (because the text of the 2009 agreement says nothing of the sort).[/quote]

The enduring mystery is if the renewal was routine and matter-of-right, how did they come up with the $950,000 figure?

The original deal called for Maret to spend $2.4 million up front, and then maintain the field for the remaining ten years of the deal. There are two plausible ways that renewing that deal could be construed: either repeat it, Maret pays another $2.4 million; or extend it, Maret continues to pay for the maintenance. What the new contract calls for is neither of those things, and is not anything that was specified in the original contract. Clearly, it was negotiated between Maret and the city.

So how did DPR settle upon $950,000? Clearly, what Maret is getting is worth far more than that, as evidenced by the fact that Maret was willing to pay almost three times as much ten years earlier. No attempt was made to have a competitive bidding process so we'll never know how far below market the deal was. Did DPR just negotiate badly? Were they trying to keep it under a million to avoid Council review? Were they in the tank for Maret?

I can't think of an answer that reflects well on DPR or the Bowser administration. And certainly the answers given by Delano Hunter at the hearing don't inspire confidence that the interest of the taxpayer is being looked out for. [/quote]

Two clarification.

1. We don't know how much Market actually spent.  The deal was for no more than $2.5m worth of repairs. It was not cash.
2. We also don't know how much, in either dollars or percentages, Market covered maintenance.

I find it very odd that we don't know those numbers.  If they were as much as being argued you'd think the numbers would be publicized.[/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