Anonymous wrote:

Because that violates DC law. Any government agency that enters into a public private partnership must follow discreet set of steps, including a public RFP process and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

Please read the DC regs on PPPs: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/2/chapters/2A/

And no, the Maret deal is not "free" to DC. You are lying. For example, Hardy pays $800 every time a sports team needs to travel by chartered bus to another part of the city to practice or play games.

Has DPR released any documentation that states any costs associated with Jellef? Citations please, then we can discuss.
If Jellef is rented out for 16hrs a day, and Maret only uses 10% ten DC gets the other 90% at no costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

No, I'm looking at this from the perspective of DC. It costs us almost $1m per year to service the debt, keep the lights on and transport Hardy. Maret is paying less than 20% of the cost of owning that property and getting exclusive access. DC should either get primary use, break even on cost or sell it.

Improvemts are pointless if they won't last past the end of the contract and residents don't get to use them. You're asking DC taxoayers to spend $1m per year on this field. hat are we getting for our money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Your timeline conveniently leaves out a bunch of facts, like that there was not RFP for the deal to renovate the field back when Maret got the contract, and that there is zero documentation that renewal was contingent solely on Maret being a “good partner.”

But you know that, and you don’t care.

Why would there be an RFP if the point was to have it done for free? DC owns a lot of land, and if they can find someone else to maintain it, they will. that's why they have public-private partnerships.

The documentation said "At DC's discretion" the *Testimony* (which is what I'm describing) said good partner.

Maybe we should wait until the testimony is posted and then we can point to actual quotes.. Or is that too fact based?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Your timeline conveniently leaves out a bunch of facts, like that there was not RFP for the deal to renovate the field back when Maret got the contract, and that there is zero documentation that renewal was contingent solely on Maret being a “good partner.”

But you know that, and you don’t care.

Why would there be an RFP if the point was to have it done for free? DC owns a lot of land, and if they can find someone else to maintain it, they will. that's why they have public-private partnerships.
The documentation said "At DC's discretion" the *Testimony* (which is what I'm describing) said good partner.

Maybe we should wait until the testimony is posted and then we can point to actual quotes.. Or is that too fact based?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Your timeline conveniently leaves out a bunch of facts, like that there was not RFP for the deal to renovate the field back when Maret got the contract, and that there is zero documentation that renewal was contingent solely on Maret being a “good partner.”

But you know that, and you don’t care.

Why would there be an RFP if the point was to have it done for free? DC owns a lot of land, and if they can find someone else to maintain it, they will. that's why they have public-private partnerships.
The documentation said "At DC's discretion" the *Testimony* (which is what I'm describing) said good partner.

Maybe we should wait until the testimony is posted and then we can point to actual quotes.. Or is that too fact based?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Your timeline conveniently leaves out a bunch of facts, like that there was not RFP for the deal to renovate the field back when Maret got the contract, and that there is zero documentation that renewal was contingent solely on Maret being a “good partner.”

But you know that, and you don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

So what does DC get: They get top of the line facilities that they don't have to pay a dime to maintain by charging Maret over $1000/hour for the privilege of having 10 of the prime hours per week.

I'm guessing that you don't really care about the reasons since you are parroting the same talking points as so many of the other sock puppets on here though.

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn't Maret have done the deal if it was only for 10 years? Admittedly I have no idea what their situation was like before or how much it cost them. But, they spent less than $250k per year to rent it, which is way less than the interest payment DC is responsible for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

The testimony from the Maret folks on Monday suggested that they entered into the original 10-year easement with DPR based on an understanding that it would extended pro forma for another 10 years following that provided they fulfilled the terms of the original contract. A number of Maret affiliates claimed that Maret would never had done the deal if they thought it was just for 10 years. However, this doesn't seem to have been committed to paper anywhere and so they are effectively asking us to take their word for it.

Why Maret and DPR didn't just do a 20 year deal in 2009 is murky. Some Maret affiliates implied that it was precluded by city regulations, although there are certainly cases to disprove that - LAB has a 25 year lease on a DCPS building in Foxhall, for instance. It was also suggested - perhaps by Elissa Silverman - that anything longer than a 10 year deal would have had to be approved by the DC Council. Some have thus made the case that the original 10 year easement - coupled with an informal agreement that it would be extended - was thus deliberately structured to avoid scrutiny by the broader Council.

They can't have it both ways. If the 2009 discussions were binding, they would have required Council approval. So either they're not binding, or they're not valid.

Conveniently for Maret, nobody in a policy position at DPR remains from 2009. So everyone just has to take their word for it.

+1. Maret is being a terrible public citizen. The city is flush with tax revenues and doesn’t need Maret’s million dollars for a 10 year exclusivity. Someone should write a case study about how wealth and privilege at Maret has influenced poor public outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing to do with Maret, Hardy, their rival schools, or the neighborhoods. I'm just a DC resident trying to get my head around the issue.

In 2008 DC borrowed $15ish million at 5ish% interest to buy a property in Upper Georgetown and then gave the sports team.at Maret, a private school in Woodley Park, exclusive access to the property for a decade in exchange for up to $2.5m in renovations and improvements with a life span of 10-20 years. DC however was still responsible for general maintenance and the exclusivity arrangement meant that DC has to pay to transport the public school sports teams across the street to other DC owned facilities. Now they want to re-up the arrangement for another 10 years at only $900k.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this arrangement for DC. It's already cost us way more, in interest alone, than what Maret has contributed and now they want to re-up for 10 years and reduce their "payment" to $900k. Why is the DC Government spending $1+m per year on Maret's sports teams?

Did Maret use their connections to get us a sweetheart deal on the land? Am I missing something?

The testimony from the Maret folks on Monday suggested that they entered into the original 10-year easement with DPR based on an understanding that it would extended pro forma for another 10 years following that provided they fulfilled the terms of the original contract. A number of Maret affiliates claimed that Maret would never had done the deal if they thought it was just for 10 years. However, this doesn't seem to have been committed to paper anywhere and so they are effectively asking us to take their word for it.

Why Maret and DPR didn't just do a 20 year deal in 2009 is murky. Some Maret affiliates implied that it was precluded by city regulations, although there are certainly cases to disprove that - LAB has a 25 year lease on a DCPS building in Foxhall, for instance. It was also suggested - perhaps by Elissa Silverman - that anything longer than a 10 year deal would have had to be approved by the DC Council. Some have thus made the case that the original 10 year easement - coupled with an informal agreement that it would be extended - was thus deliberately structured to avoid scrutiny by the broader Council.

They can't have it both ways. If the 2009 discussions were binding, they would have required Council approval. So either they're not binding, or they're not valid.

Conveniently for Maret, nobody in a policy position at DPR remains from 2009. So everyone just has to take their word for it.