Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

I just want to chime in that SSMA is definitely bringing this up to the PSCB and asking that a policy be put into place to prevent this from happening again.

It sucks that it happened and the administration wants to make sure it doesn't happen to another school (bc honestly, the situation isn't going to get much better). From the meeting last night, the school wasn't interested in 'punishing' Bridges or going after the landlord, they just want to make sure no other school has to deal with something similar going forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

Definitely agree with this!!

Stop making the charter school scrounge from all these non-optimal buildings and let us have the leftovers. Lift all boats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.

That isn't consistent with what we've read here, OP. It would be more correct to infer that both schools need space, and the SS administration doesn't quite have its act together. The landlord may or may not be a bad actor here, but surely Bridges can't be faulted for meeting the needs of its students nor having better business sense.

It is consistent with what people who were at the meeting have reported.

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

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.

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

Really? Wow.

If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if nothing else, Shining Stars did make public announcements about the Taylor Street space. Even if they didn't have their act together, it would be a stretch to suggest that Bridges was unaware that Shining Stars was negotiating with the landlord for the space.

I completely agree that Shining Stars should have been more proactive and professional about their negotiations, but at the same time, their new location hasn't been a secret since they announced in mid-May.

I would caution against throwing Bridges under the bus. Apparently, SS had a signed agreement with Sela in April and was in the process of negotiating a final lease. SS then backed out when the Taylor St. location came available, which put Sela in a lurch because they had turned away other potential renters because they were in negotiations with SS. Everybody is going to do what's best for their families and students. Don't like it? Complain to the mayoral candidates/council to get DCPS to release it's moth-balled excess buildings.

Honestly, if nothing else, Shining Stars did make public announcements about the Taylor Street space. Even if they didn't have their act together, it would be a stretch to suggest that Bridges was unaware that Shining Stars was negotiating with the landlord for the space.

I completely agree that Shining Stars should have been more proactive and professional about their negotiations, but at the same time, their new location hasn't been a secret since they announced in mid-May.

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.

I think Bridges was supposed to get Sharpe, but was getting jerked around by DCPS and had to scramble for space at the last minute. This is a peril of the charter system. As the kids say, "don't hate the player, hate the game."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.

That isn't consistent with what we've read here, OP. It would be more correct to infer that both schools need space, and the SS administration doesn't quite have its act together. The landlord may or may not be a bad actor here, but surely Bridges can't be faulted for meeting the needs of its students nor having better business sense.

The threads from today have used OP's story. The ones from before used PP's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.

That isn't consistent with what we've read here, OP. It would be more correct to infer that both schools need space, and the SS administration doesn't quite have its act together. The landlord may or may not be a bad actor here, but surely Bridges can't be faulted for meeting the needs of its students nor having better business sense.

I spoke with someone who was at the meeting last night, and what she said was that there is some indication that Bridges was aware of what Shining Stars was offering financially and was able to come in under that number as a result of that information. She also said that Shining Stars had approached Bridges before to make sure they were not interested and Bridges had in fact indicated that they did not plan to do so.

I would generally agree that everyone should look out for its own needs, but if it turns out that indeed one school screwed over another school, I think there should be consequences for that, even if the school that got screwed is disorganized and made other mistakes.

I would LOVE to hear what, if anything, Bridges families know about the situation. I would have a hard time sending my child to a school whose administration behaved this way, even if the school was otherwise of high quality.

Anonymous wrote:As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.

That isn't consistent with what we've read here, OP. It would be more correct to infer that both schools need space, and the SS administration doesn't quite have its act together. The landlord may or may not be a bad actor here, but surely Bridges can't be faulted for meeting the needs of its students nor having better business sense.

As a prospective Bridges and Shining Stars family, I've been reading the SSMA threads about the fallout of the expected location on Taylor Street next to the current Bridges location. The accusation is that SSMA approached Bridges and asked Bridges if it was going to use the new space, and Bridges said that it had no plans to do so. SSMA negotiated into the space but did not receive a signed copy of the lease, and at the last minute, Bridges negotiated with the landlord and won the space, screwing over SSMA. I'm curious what Bridges families know about the process and what happened from Bridges' perspective. (Bridges is not coming out looking like a decent player based on what I have read.) I'd love to hear from Bridges families about what they have been told. Thanks.