Anonymous wrote:$25k/year is peanuts and it’s less than half of what a single Maret student pays each year and tuition and fees. In Maryland when the soccer leagues want to use public middle and high school fields on weekends for games, they pay millions in upgrade and use fees. Bad deal by DC. For 25k/year I could rent Jellef and make good use of that huge plot of land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

It's incredibly intellectually lazy to believe that the only way someone could disagree with your position is if they have a personal interest in the issue. I'm a charter school parent, and couldn't dream of affording Maret. And I think the Hardy parents who are so worked up about this are off base; and the people yelling about "it's all DC, one big pot of money" are unaware of how governments and bureaucracies work.

Why are they off base?

I simply disagree that DCPS has first call on DPR facilities. And I don't have any connection to DCPS, DPR, or Maret.

DPR is supposed to benefit the entire city, not just students.

What the Hardy parents are saying is that DPR should forego the benefits of this arrangement ($250,000), which can be used to benefit people (including kids) all over the city, because they want to use the field.

They also are not thinking of the long-term implications of this position. As a PP pointed out, charter schools are public schools as well, and many of them have *no* outdoor fields or facilities. Under this rationale, they have first call, across the city, on parks, playgrounds, pools, etc. I don't think that serves DC as a whole very well.

If you are a DC public school parent and DC resident and taxpayer, you certainly do have a connection to this situation.

But a small private school getting exclusive after-school access serves the city well?

A $250,000 contribution to DPR's budget serves the city well. I view Hardy students' lack of access to the close fields as an acceptable trade-off. Opinions may vary.

$25k/yr? It’s peanuts. You know it. Maret surely knows it. But it’s the eleven, twelve and thirteen yrs olds who will feel it.

You're leaving out the cost of the new field, which DPR gets and Maret pays for. It's not peanuts anymore.

How much will a fence and a turf field cost?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you know that is all me?

There are two posts that are labeled "you." The second one is, "I don’t believe I said that. Can you point that out?" Clearly referring to a previous post. If that was your first interaction in this thread, I have no idea what point you were trying to make, other than interjecting yourself into a discussion without identifying yourself as a new poster.

I hate to resort to insults, but you really seem very stupid. There are plenty of people here capable of having an intelligent discussion. Perhaps you should let them carry the ball?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.

But does it benefit Hardy?

Why keep mentioning Hardy? It’s not a Hardy facility. I could see if it were something like Lafayette/Shepherd where it’s he actually adjacent (or at one time part of the school). Hardy should not get unrestricted access just because they’re a few blocks away.

Hardy isn’t asking for unrestricted access. Read the petition. It encompasses the local community. Maret is asking for exclusive access.

Isn't Hardy asking for the same access that Maret has? Practices there after school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

It's incredibly intellectually lazy to believe that the only way someone could disagree with your position is if they have a personal interest in the issue. I'm a charter school parent, and couldn't dream of affording Maret. And I think the Hardy parents who are so worked up about this are off base; and the people yelling about "it's all DC, one big pot of money" are unaware of how governments and bureaucracies work.

Why are they off base?

I simply disagree that DCPS has first call on DPR facilities. And I don't have any connection to DCPS, DPR, or Maret.

DPR is supposed to benefit the entire city, not just students.

What the Hardy parents are saying is that DPR should forego the benefits of this arrangement ($250,000), which can be used to benefit people (including kids) all over the city, because they want to use the field.

They also are not thinking of the long-term implications of this position. As a PP pointed out, charter schools are public schools as well, and many of them have *no* outdoor fields or facilities. Under this rationale, they have first call, across the city, on parks, playgrounds, pools, etc. I don't think that serves DC as a whole very well.

If you are a DC public school parent and DC resident and taxpayer, you certainly do have a connection to this situation.

But a small private school getting exclusive after-school access serves the city well?

A $250,000 contribution to DPR's budget serves the city well. I view Hardy students' lack of access to the close fields as an acceptable trade-off. Opinions may vary.

$25k/yr? It’s peanuts. You know it. Maret surely knows it. But it’s the eleven, twelve and thirteen yrs olds who will feel it.

You're leaving out the cost of the new field, which DPR gets and Maret pays for. It's not peanuts anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.

But does it benefit Hardy?

Why keep mentioning Hardy? It’s not a Hardy facility. I could see if it were something like Lafayette/Shepherd where it’s he actually adjacent (or at one time part of the school). Hardy should not get unrestricted access just because they’re a few blocks away.

Hardy isn’t asking for unrestricted access. Read the petition. It encompasses the local community. Maret is asking for exclusive access.

Anonymous wrote:How do you know that is all me?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.

But does it benefit Hardy?

Why keep mentioning Hardy? It’s not a Hardy facility. I could see if it were something like Lafayette/Shepherd where it’s he actually adjacent (or at one time part of the school). Hardy should not get unrestricted access just because they’re a few blocks away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe I said that. Can you point that out?

I assume you are referring to:

But, why do you think an "other organization" couldn't, by dint of a special arrangement, also be a "partner with a written agreement?"

Because you said ". . . before you place this in that category rather than “other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District.” This much more clearly falls into the latter category."

"Rather than" suggests the thing can be one, but not the other. "It is X, rather than Y," will commonly be understood to mean the thing is not Y. TO put it is specific terms, according Webster's, rather than is used "to indicate negation as a contrary choice."

Also, "This much more clearly falls into the latter category" indicated that it does *not* fall into the former category.

So, you did say that. Twice.

You originally offered an either/or choice and choose. Then you offered a choice of both but denied me the choice by assuming my answer.

Post 1: By DPR's own policy concerning priority of use, DCPS and DCPCS should get priority over non-public users.

https://dpr.dc.gov/page/priority-use

"Throughout the year, permits are issued on a first come, first served basis. At times when DPR accepts applications during a "Permit Window," all applications during that time are considered concurrent and therefore are prioritized in the following order:

- DPR sponsored activities
- Partners with written agreement
- Athletic programs organized by DC Public Schools, District Public Charter School, or the DC State Athletic Association for competitive league pay (games only)
- Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
- Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents
- Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District;
- and then others

Organizations that "principally serve District residents" are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in the District. Roster or other proof of residency may be required."

I'm sure some defender of the lease will point out that this is pertaining to permits, rather than leases. But the conceptual intent of priority for public youth-related agencies is clear.


Post 2 (me): Based only on what I have read in this thread, this arrangement sounds like a partner with a written agreement, which is prioritized above DCPS. Though I agree, that does seem to violate the spirit of the prioritization.


Post 3 (you): You are reaching again. You will need to find the definition of “partners with written agreements” before you place this in that category rather than “other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District.” This much more clearly falls into the latter category.


Post 4 (me): Of course it falls into the later category. But based on the fact that Maret is providing funding for a new turf field, I expect there's more to the arrangement than the standard "fill out a form and reserve space" used by DPR. But, you're right, I don't know. I also am not going to research it, because I have no personal stake in this.

But, why do you think an "other organization" couldn't, by dint of a special arrangement, also be a "partner with a written agreement?"

Post 5 (you): I don’t believe I said that. Can you point that out?


Post 6 (me): I assume you are referring to:

But, why do you think an "other organization" couldn't, by dint of a special arrangement, also be a "partner with a written agreement?"

Because you said ". . . before you place this in that category rather than “other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District.” This much more clearly falls into the latter category."

"Rather than" suggests the thing can be one, but not the other. "It is X, rather than Y," will commonly be understood to mean the thing is not Y. TO put it is specific terms, according Webster's, rather than is used "to indicate negation as a contrary choice."

Also, "This much more clearly falls into the latter category" indicated that it does *not* fall into the former category.

So, you did say that. Twice.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.

But does it benefit Hardy?

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, but Maret also built the pool at Jelleff, which Maret doesn't use at all. That pool benefits the entire community.