Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL how many real estate executives are going to speak on behalf of Maret?

I love how the Maret real estate guys are lecturing DC Council on the sanctity of contracts.

They all got their talking points, that's for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know if Delano Hunter testified. I really think he screwed this whole thing up and he should be fired but maybe there are facts i don't understand/know about. What did he say?

Hunter is an Acting Director. He's the errand boy for Bowser and the Interium (!!!) Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. He's now the fall guy, but he can't sneeze without getting permission from Bowser.

It blows my mind that the entire command chain for this issue are all Acting or Interim, reporting directly to Bowser.

Anonymous wrote:This thing is messed up. All of the improvements Maret has made to the field will be used up by the time this deal expires. They're basically getting to rent it for cost because of their political connections. The Hardy soccer team should just "squat" on the land and see what happens. They have nothing to lose.

Anonymous wrote:Hunter is saying DPR made a good decision!

Anonymous wrote:Hunter is saying DPR made a good decision!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never in the history of the world has a group of people who have done so much for humanity been so persecuted than the Maret community. And NW DC has a dire shortage of baseball fields.

Should really convert some of those baseball fields to multi-use. Too many in NW

You mean mixed-use? Let’s build more housing and retail on the baseball fields. Baseball isn’t a very inclusive sport, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

Here is the key part of the agreement where it refers to the possibility of extension:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/360/824200.page (22:33 post):

"6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District."

Emphasis added.

And what then happens if the city does it respond to the request for extension as required. It’s quite possible that the remainder of the contract provides an answer or, more likely, applicable government contract law. Is it possible that Maret has grounds to argue that, if the city failed to notify them that the city did not wish to renew the contract, that the renewal goes into effect?

Possible, but unlikely. The idea of a one way option is normally clearly spelled out- if the requesting party meets a certain set of requirements (paid on time, not in default, etc) and requests the extension, the other party has to approve it. This is not that way at all. This is a two way option- both parties have to agree, and if they don't, the agreement expires on the previously agreed upon expiration date, in this case I believe June 30, 2020.

Actually, I don’t see that in the language. The city is given a fixed number of date to respond “whether” it wants the extension. It’s not like a clause with an explicit default resumption (for example, that there is no extension unless the city expressly agrees within a certain number of days). All to say it’s possible Maret may argue that the city failed to provide the required notice in response to Maret’s extension request, and that thus failure waived the city’s right to decline the extension request.

Possibly, but is there any evidence the District didn't respond within 30 days? Even if they didn't, you can't generally extend an agreement beyond its term unless you do so under explicit terms- in this case it would have said something like "if the District does not respond within 30 days, the extension shall be deemed approved, and the term of the agreement shall be extended for the length of the requested extension, but in no circumstances any longer than nine additional years from the original termination date". Of course nothing like that is in there.

Note- not a lawyer, but work with agreements like this a lot.

Anonymous wrote:I heard Elisa Silverman say that if maret had sought a 20 year deal, the issue would have had to be voted on by the council. So, instead the parties decided to do a 10 year deal with an option to renew. This totally makes the deal "shady" in that it violated the spirit of the law and good, transparent decision making. Lawyers or other people who heard her speak, let me know if I misunderstood the facts....