Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

If you're so Gung Ho on suing the city, why not start with DCPS and its continuing failure to educate students with disabilities? If DCPS could do its job, Lab School wouldn't need to exist. DCPS is in serious violation of federal laws on special education. Catania was the only one who took it seriously. He supported the lease, too. This isn't something Grosso invented.

Bottom line, many people who live near the building don't want anything bigger there than a small building with little kids (no icky middle schoolers) school and minimal traffic. DCPS cannot gurantee an enrolment cap. Charter schools can, but that hinders their funding. That location would never be approved for a charter serving low-income, at-risk students anyway.

So what exactly are you hoping to achieve on the backs of kids with disabilities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website.

This is simply not true. There was one "public" meeting, to which only Lab parents and staff were invited. Mary Cheh held one Council hearing, and again, she made sure that only Lab School insiders knew about it.

Cheh wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend there was a public process, when there wasn't.

Mary Cheh believes in public process the way that Putin believes in public process. (Both have a soft spot for authoritarian central planning decisions.)

Da. Comrade-Councilmember Cheh will kick your ass with her commissar boots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website.

This is simply not true. There was one "public" meeting, to which only Lab parents and staff were invited. Mary Cheh held one Council hearing, and again, she made sure that only Lab School insiders knew about it.

Cheh wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend there was a public process, when there wasn't.

Mary Cheh believes in public process the way that Putin believes in public process. (Both have a soft spot for authoritarian central planning decisions.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP mislead many of you by dangling the idea of a secret giveaway conspiracy.

-This has been dragging on for YEARS and IN PUBLIC. You can see the hearings on the council website.

This is simply not true. There was one "public" meeting, to which only Lab parents and staff were invited. Mary Cheh held one Council hearing, and again, she made sure that only Lab School insiders knew about it.

Cheh wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend there was a public process, when there wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still like Mary Cheh.

But she kind of screwed over her own constitutents with this vote. Every post screaming about overcrowded classes at Janney etc should link back to this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still like Mary Cheh.

But she kind of screwed over her own constitutents with this vote. Every post screaming about overcrowded classes at Janney etc should link back to this thread.

Anonymous wrote:I still like Mary Cheh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

But is there anything that can be done now? I agree this deal was non-transparent at best and highly corrupt at worst, but there's no way to overturn the ruling is there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.

I forgot
6) open meetings/comment laws

Anonymous wrote:Can people help me compile a list of laws which the DC council broke to get this done? Im not sure what is a rule vs a law:

1) the appraisal etc needed for dcps to declare the building surplus
2) the demographic evidence dcps needed to prove they dont need the site
3) charters get first look on surplus buildings
4) dcps must charge market rates
5) Conflict of interest laws

Anything else?

Here and on the palisades list serve, lab parents have characterized all opposition as an attack on their kids, which is unfair and blatantly misleading.

We have laws for a reason. If you think the law shouldnt apply to a situation, you work to change law, not simply ignore it.