Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^how about paying a reasonable rent, that dcps can then use to educate SN students not lucky enough to get into lab?

+1 the kids at lab are primarily the lucky subsegment of the SN population ones whose parents can pay 45-60k for their education annually or pay for a good special needs lawyer to fight DCPS so that they pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Wrong.

What is it you know that others do not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Wrong.

Anonymous wrote:^how about paying a reasonable rent, that dcps can then use to educate SN students not lucky enough to get into lab?

Anonymous wrote:Is the "emergency" a desire to attract the Trumps?

It is common knowledge that Baron has severe ADHD, and Ivanka can only play (hopefully partially - ick) the role of First Lady for so long before it becomes really awkward that Melania is in NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think that DC should get a tuition discount, by law tuition for special ed schools paid by DCPS is established by OSSE.

My point was not to suggest a literal tuition discount. It was to point out that, like all private special education schools where DCPS kids are placed, they are already compensated through tuition, and it is not appropriate to single out Lab among all similar institutions for an additional, unearned benefit in the form of a real estate subsidy.

Someone paid for this. Which council person received a donation from Lab? Can we find out who sponsored the bill?

Bowser's campaign treasurer was Ben Soto. He also was the mastermind behind FreshPAC. His wife is on the board of Lab.

Let's hope these conflicts of interest are noted during the hearing.

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:

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?

This is a case of 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You are completely okay with the DC Council breaking multiple laws as long as your kid benefits?

Lab parents in a nutshell.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well she certainly kicked public education's ass this time around.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is a case of 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You are completely okay with the DC Council breaking multiple laws as long as your kid benefits?