Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those talking about park and Rec and transportation issues - it’s a totally different set of the govt dealing with schools.

The Old Hardy deal -- like the Jelleff deal before it -- came straight out of the Mayor's office. At that level it's one government.

Ok. So the same way the dept of transportation isn’t going to pay a $1 mil to pave and maintain a random few blocks in ward 3 to make some bikers happy with another vanity trail, they are going to build a new school via school facilities in ward 2/3 for kids from other parts of the city to come to because they want a half decent education — ie families who vote for the mayor and aren’t going to be pulling their kids for private school by middle school anyway (including all the developers).

Get a clue.

— signed a lobbyist

Can you proofread and repost please?

I think the poster was trying to make an easily refutable point about the political economy of public spending in DC but I'm not entirely sure because s/he doesn't seem to know how to string together words to construct an interpretable sentence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those talking about park and Rec and transportation issues - it’s a totally different set of the govt dealing with schools.

The Old Hardy deal -- like the Jelleff deal before it -- came straight out of the Mayor's office. At that level it's one government.

Ok. So the same way the dept of transportation isn’t going to pay a $1 mil to pave and maintain a random few blocks in ward 3 to make some bikers happy with another vanity trail, they are going to build a new school via school facilities in ward 2/3 for kids from other parts of the city to come to because they want a half decent education — ie families who vote for the mayor and aren’t going to be pulling their kids for private school by middle school anyway (including all the developers).

Get a clue.

— signed a lobbyist

Can you proofread and repost please?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those talking about park and Rec and transportation issues - it’s a totally different set of the govt dealing with schools.

The Old Hardy deal -- like the Jelleff deal before it -- came straight out of the Mayor's office. At that level it's one government.

Ok. So the same way the dept of transportation isn’t going to pay a $1 mil to pave and maintain a random few blocks in ward 3 to make some bikers happy with another vanity trail, they are going to build a new school via school facilities in ward 2/3 for kids from other parts of the city to come to because they want a half decent education — ie families who vote for the mayor and aren’t going to be pulling their kids for private school by middle school anyway (including all the developers).

Get a clue.

— signed a lobbyist

Anonymous wrote:For those talking about park and Rec and transportation issues - it’s a totally different set of the govt dealing with schools.

The Old Hardy deal -- like the Jelleff deal before it -- came straight out of the Mayor's office. At that level it's one government.

For those talking about park and Rec and transportation issues - it’s a totally different set of the govt dealing with schools.

DCPS and the mayor do not care what ward 2 and 3 parents want. And less so about the surrounding neighbors. They expect and don’t care that so many families go to private schools - they would be just fine if the new HS and MS are filled with kids from other parts of the city. They don’t care that you don’t like traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:rather confused about all the fuss over saving the mud puddle trolley path.

As was everyone else in the neighborhood . . . As far as I can tell, it was all started by a half dozen people who live on the northwest side of Sherier Place and view the trail as part of their own backyard. They didn't want the renovations of course because then there would be more people traipsing through what they think is their backyard, many even - shock horror - a few of those heathens who hail from the untamed lands of southeast of Foundry Branch. They must have had a few lobbyists in their ranks because they then crafted the most ridiculous arguments about "paving paradise" that made it sound like the renovation was the second coming of the Three Sisters Bridge. Their neighbors, being the gullible folk that they are, bought this crap hook, line, and sinker and the "Save Don't Pave" movement was born. Much like the FCCA's efforts to get Old Hardy designated as a historical building to prevent it being converted back into a public school, the whole neighborhood will suffer for years as a direct result of their NIMBY crap.

I like you.

Anonymous wrote:rather confused about all the fuss over saving the mud puddle trolley path.

As was everyone else in the neighborhood . . . As far as I can tell, it was all started by a half dozen people who live on the northwest side of Sherier Place and view the trail as part of their own backyard. They didn't want the renovations of course because then there would be more people traipsing through what they think is their backyard, many even - shock horror - a few of those heathens who hail from the untamed lands of southeast of Foundry Branch. They must have had a few lobbyists in their ranks because they then crafted the most ridiculous arguments about "paving paradise" that made it sound like the renovation was the second coming of the Three Sisters Bridge. Their neighbors, being the gullible folk that they are, bought this crap hook, line, and sinker and the "Save Don't Pave" movement was born. Much like the FCCA's efforts to get Old Hardy designated as a historical building to prevent it being converted back into a public school, the whole neighborhood will suffer for years as a direct result of their NIMBY crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/15wCdAJa9aWc8joRwTlsAMsDxWfJ7odRD?usp=sharing

The profile of the out of boundary student is that they are children of color from Ward 1 and 4. But they are not at risk.

There is an option by which at-risk OOB students receive priority in the lottery.

What I worry is that there’s going to be bad faith double dealing. First the assumption-in of of enrollment brought by out of boundary students. Think about those numbers at Hardy, Deal, and Wilson, especially!!! Then the building to an assumption of smooth trajectory growth, which is above numbers supporting local school students. This is then explained as “access to poor and at risk students from across the District. Then, only non-at risk families attend because of the difficulty of getting up to far Ward 2 or Ward 3, whatever.

What I would prefer is a building to (1) local attendance, plus (2) a realistic estimate of at risk students from out of boundary, only. Then an at risk preference that is enforced such that non-at risk from Ward 1 or 4 cannot have those seats. At all.

I say this as a parent who wants the people of all backgrounds who are not at risk in Ward 1 and 4 in OUR schools. Their numbers will make the demographic mixes that will make another set of schools demographically desirable. I say this not as something I like to do or want to do but only as someone who recognizes that people will make any excuse to avoid schools without a sufficient number of upper class parents in their schools. It is weak as hell that we play that way.

But another dozen schools that UMC families will come to because of their unspoken demographic conceits will be a game changer.

Those of us who aren’t at risk don’t “need” these Ward 3 or 2 schools. Design rules so we cannot come. If that means Ward 1 or 4 kids go to private or new charter schools, fine.

But only build Foxhall-Hardy-Deal-Wilson to meet Ward 3/2 plus at risk and enforce exclusion of others who keep the rest of the system weak.

Anonymous wrote: What was the idea for the corner by the water plant, Potomac Ave and the entrance to the CCT?

The Capital Crescent Trail is owned by the National Park Service, but the DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) has agreed to take over the maintenance. DDOT would like to also maintain that little stretch by the water plant, make it so you don't have to get off of your bike when you turn off of Norton to get on the trail. At the January meeting of ANC 3D they voted on a resolution to endorse that. A couple of neighbors spoke out against it, using classic NIMBY terms -- we're not opposed to bike trails, we think they'd be great in other places, but near my house would lead to an influx of people from other places.

The resolution passed.

I will look to get more involved in the various neighborhood groups. Maybe create a YIMBY faction.

The NIMBY's are a minority, most people feel the way you do. The Palisades Community Association in particular has really changed in the past few years and now has a lot of members who are young families who are motivated more by hope than by fear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should put public housing there. It’s only fair to make up for the history of racism in fox hall.

You may yet have your wish: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hwmc2dlfcq3156b/Housing%20Sign.jpg?dl=0

. . . or maybe not: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzyd867g89crwrg/OAG_OHR%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf?dl=0

Hell yeah!!! Let’s yank their property values. F rich people
They got rich off the back of black and indigenous and brown people. Take everything from them so they know what it’s like to eat canned tuna for dinner

Rich person here who loves canned tuna. I put it on pasta with salt, olive oil and a little feta. I also love tuna fish sandwiches.

In all seriousness, I’m new to the neighborhood (and new to having money) and I’m grateful for threads like this where I can learn about the various issues up for discussion in the neighborhood. My spouse and I would love more development in the area, including denser housing and more retail, and have been rather confused about all the fuss over saving the mud puddle trolley path. What was the idea for the corner by the water plant, Potomac Ave and the entrance to the CCT?

I will look to get more involved in the various neighborhood groups. Maybe create a YIMBY faction.

Anonymous wrote:https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/15wCdAJa9aWc8joRwTlsAMsDxWfJ7odRD?usp=sharing

The profile of the out of boundary student is that they are children of color from Ward 1 and 4. But they are not at risk.

There is an option by which at-risk OOB students receive priority in the lottery.

Anonymous wrote:https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/15wCdAJa9aWc8joRwTlsAMsDxWfJ7odRD?usp=sharing

The profile of the out of boundary student is that they are children of color from Ward 1 and 4. But they are not at risk.

I suspect a lot of at-risk families would struggle with the transportation challenge of attending a school out of boundary.

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/15wCdAJa9aWc8joRwTlsAMsDxWfJ7odRD?usp=sharing

The profile of the out of boundary student is that they are children of color from Ward 1 and 4. But they are not at risk.

As seen on a laminated flyer stapled to a lamp pole on MacArthur Blvd in Foxhall:

“THE CITY IS PLANNING TO BUILD A SCHOOL ON THE CITY IS PLANNING TOP OF HARDY PARK

A new elementary school would destroy some of the $5M park improvements under construction now. It would become the third school in a two block area - in addition to GDS (slated to become a public middle or high school) and the Lab School (which has a brand new, 15 - year lease on the Old Hardy building).

Do you want the opportunity to tell the city how much you value Hardy Park? If so, please email dchardy21@gmail.com to a mailing list to stay informed.

Please include the main reason you love the park (tennis, field, soccer, dogs, playground, basketball, community garden, etc.). Thanks!”