Anonymous wrote:I’m someone youd think would be with the Save Shaw people. But I’m not. I think this whole thing has been shady and elitist, as someone else said above. It’s shameful.i would have been happy with Banneker at the RIA site, enabling more kids from diverse backgrounds to access this amazing magnet program. But I’m also very disappointed at how the mayor played this.

There were 2 kids on the wait list for Banneker. Just saying there is not the huge demand that the Mayor likes to say there is. Not sure when or how the school will enroll more kids even if they get more space. But they sure do need a modernization.

Also, the voices on both sides are elites. There are more high risk kids in the 5 feeder schools than in Banneker by the way, their voices are not being heard here at all.

Anonymous wrote:I have not once read any unkind words thrown at the folks fighting for Banneker and yet I have read repeatedly terrible things written about the Save Shaw people. Shame on you all. You do a disservice for yourselves and the community. Shame on you.

The goal of conservatives nationally is to divide their opponents on racial and immigration issues. Trolls in DC do that here too.
Maybe some DCUM regulars even believe the conservative trolls.

I’m someone youd think would be with the Save Shaw people. But I’m not. I think this whole thing has been shady and elitist, as someone else said above. It’s shameful.i would have been happy with Banneker at the RIA site, enabling more kids from diverse backgrounds to access this amazing magnet program. But I’m also very disappointed at how the mayor played this.

I have not once read any unkind words thrown at the folks fighting for Banneker and yet I have read repeatedly terrible things written about the Save Shaw people. Shame on you all. You do a disservice for yourselves and the community. Shame on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would prefer Garnett Patterson being renovated for Shaw MS than colocating Shaw and Banneker. Yes GP has no green space but it’s so close to Cardozo, maybe there can be joint use.

Who uses Myer? That could be new Shaw MS.

Co-location with Banneker and Shaw MS just doesn’t make sense. If the site is too small for Banneker, how is it going to fit Banneker and Shaw MS? Also, I don’t care if it’s Banneker kids or Cardozo kids, I don’t want my middle schooler with high school students. I agree that Garnett Patterson even without a green space is better. It’s centrally located and close to metro.

Centrally located is good for a city wide school. The RI site is actually the best centrally located site for the feeder schools. Also great for a Banneker "expansion". Although no one know about where all the new students are coming from, a bit mythical, build it and they will come. Kinda like the Save Saw people and their 600 seat sand alone demand.

Anonymous wrote:Banneker needs to come first. It is a high performing school that got shafted by the Save Shaw racists and NIMBYs, despite the fact that there are very few middle school aged kids in Shaw. Any ideas from "Save Shaw" should be thrown immediately in the trash.

Banneker did come first, they had a big fat modernization with planning meetings underway. Then the Mayor and Banneker supports and students wanted more than 'first" they wanted to take something from another community on top of it. They should count their lucky stars if they get themselves back to their big fat approved modernization.

Banneker needs to come first. It is a high performing school that got shafted by the Save Shaw racists and NIMBYs, despite the fact that there are very few middle school aged kids in Shaw. Any ideas from "Save Shaw" should be thrown immediately in the trash.

Yeah I think someone needs to get a straight faced answer from the Mayor re: what her plans are for the current Vanneker site.

The Save Shaw group are annoying high-maintenance elitists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would prefer Garnett Patterson being renovated for Shaw MS than colocating Shaw and Banneker. Yes GP has no green space but it’s so close to Cardozo, maybe there can be joint use.

Who uses Myer? That could be new Shaw MS.

Co-location with Banneker and Shaw MS just doesn’t make sense. If the site is too small for Banneker, how is it going to fit Banneker and Shaw MS? Also, I don’t care if it’s Banneker kids or Cardozo kids, I don’t want my middle schooler with high school students. I agree that Garnett Patterson even without a green space is better. It’s centrally located and close to metro.

Anonymous wrote:I would prefer Garnett Patterson being renovated for Shaw MS than colocating Shaw and Banneker. Yes GP has no green space but it’s so close to Cardozo, maybe there can be joint use.

Who uses Myer? That could be new Shaw MS.

Anonymous wrote:Use Cardozo into the Banneker magnet school and send the Cardozo students to the current Banneker. Turn Meyer elementary into a junior high.

Why on earth cannot Banneker use Myer as part of its campus? Is it swing space for someone? There is out door space there and it is one black fro current Banneker site, have 2 campuses. Problems solved.

Use Cardozo into the Banneker magnet school and send the Cardozo students to the current Banneker. Turn Meyer elementary into a junior high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

She can't "give" Banneker to a developer. First it has to designated as excess by DCPS. Then it has to be offered to charters. Then if they don't want it, there would be an RFP disposition process, and the Council has to approve the final disposition. The mayor has some political power over parts of those processes, but by no means absolute power.

That's not what's happening with Old Hardy. If the Council passes a bill they can do it however they want. The Mayor just needs seven votes on the Council.

Hardy was excessed years ago. And with a current user of the school there is no need for an RFP. No dog in the fight, its just a different fact pattern.

Counting to seven is indeed the key, as I think John A. Wilson (who the Wilson Building is named after) used to say. But it isn't exactly an easy thing to do if you don't have many natural allies on the Council, which this Mayor does not have anymore.

Under current DC law Old Hardy isn't surplus. There is a bill before the Council to bypass existing law and dispose of it without going through the RFP process.

Old Hardy is in an interesting spot that I don't think was contemplated when the current law was enacted. Under current law DCPS can't hold onto vacant property, and sale or lease has to go through the disposal process and ultimately Council approval. Old Hardy is owned by DCPS, it's not being used by DCPS, but it's not vacant. So the current lease (which was enacted before the current law) cannot be renewed without going through the disposal process. When the current lease expires the building will become vacant, at which time DCPS will either have to occupy it or dispose of it.

Anonymous wrote:The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

+1. I have no dog in this fight but I don’t understand why there is no proposal for the current Banneker building- or if there is, I haven’t seen it.