Anonymous wrote:Cameron complains about the lack of field space in NW DC. Go and have a look at a satellite image (via, say, Google Maps) of the area around Maret. WIS has a full size field just over 1,000 feet from Maret. Beauvoir / NCS has no less than three full-size fields just 1,500 feet away. Sidwell Friends has one a mile away. AU has multiple fields under 2 miles away.

Yet Maret opts that it’s best option to “stay competitive” with the other DC elite schools - all the whole keeping K-12 on a common campus - is to crowd DCPS and B&GC kids out of what should be their space.

Once again, Cameron complains about the lack of field space. In a city facing a climate, transportation and affordable housing crisis. I wonder whose homes Cameron thinks should be bulldozed to provide those fields? What trees should go? Does he think that this city needs more SUVs shuttling kids to and from games and practices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Um.. Please clarify: Are we talking about Maret or Hardy educating the rich and giving little to the treasury?
Maret parents who are DC residents give far more to the DC treasury because they are paying for DCPS and not using it.
Unlike those greedy Hardy parents who insist on using DCPS funds when they could easily pay for a private school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Do you really think that the wealthy families who attend private schools contribute little to the city treasury? One reason wealthy families live in DC is because of the private schools. These people pay high property taxes and support public schools even though their kids don't use those schools. Do all you upper NW DC DCPS families really not understand how private schools benefit this area?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

It's almost like you don't know of any injustices east of the park. Very telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Um.. Please clarify: Are we talking about Maret or Hardy educating the rich and giving little to the treasury?
Maret parents who are DC residents give far more to the DC treasury because they are paying for DCPS and not using it.
Unlike those greedy Hardy parents who insist on using DCPS funds when they could easily pay for a private school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

The outrage is real and easily explained by the fact that the quality of thousands of lower- and middle-class parents’ kids’ education is being undercut by the selfish behavior a school that predominantly educates the kids of very rich people and which contributes very little to the city treasury. That outrage is further magnified because it’s not an isolated case. A similar thing is happening with the Old Hardy school building and LAB and with Guy Mason and G.U.. People affected by these cases see that there is an underlying problem and find common cause to fix it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

The poor black kids were given the shaft in 2009. As is so often the case in DC, unfortunately, poor black people don't get listened to by their government.

I bet you Maret boosters wish you could go back to ignoring the interests of poor black kids at Hardy and the B&GC at Jelleff. It must be really hard for you to hear "no" for once in your life.

Anonymous wrote:
I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

The only witness from DPR was the director, Delano Hunter. He did not testify anything of the kind.

There were lots of Maret affiliates who repeated these talking points, but with no support.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If the deal was as you said, why was DC able to insist that Maret "put in a little more money?" That wasn't part of the deal. And if DC can ask Maret to put in a little more, why can't they ask for a lot more? Wouldn't it benefit the taxpayers to get as much as possible? Isn't that their duty?

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify.
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did.
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Anonymous wrote:
The only witness from DPR was the director, Delano Hunter. He did not testify anything of the kind.

Maybe you were distracted at 7:52:00.. so this is just an FYI

I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

I’d love to see the OIG on behalf of DCPS Washington DC-resident families sue all of the Maryland students and their parents for theft of services for fraudulently enrolling in DC schools. Imagine the $$$ damages.

Do we know how many Hardy students aren’t just out of boundary, but residents of outside DC?

More smokescreen.

Not at all. It was a talking point being screamed out that Maret had only 62 percent DC residents. But that total is more than the whole population of Hardy. It seems like Maret haters keep trying to throw as much mud to the walls to see what will stick and then change the topic when their hypocrisy is brought to light. If it’s important that certain areas in DC are used for DC residents only as Hardy boosters or Kishan boosters or Elizabeth Miller boosters or crack election staffs have insisted, then it’s a fair question about Hardy. Unless that talking point that was SOOOO IMPORTANT last week to the argument against Maret no longer matters?

You're being a troll.

Nah. Just pointing out a talking point being used to smear a school that now magically doesn’t matter! It’s a miracle! So to summarize, it doesn’t matter if kids are DC residents who use Jelleff. Glad to know that talking point of extraordinary importance has vanished.

It’s a question. Remember that up to 4O percent of Ellington kids may be fraudulently enrolled from Maryland. Add to that number the out of state kids who are there officially because their parents are supposed to be paying tuition, and we’re lucky if 50 percent of Ellington students even live in DC. Although the picture at Hardy is likely to be better, there are still a lot of Maryland kids getting a free education on the DC taxpayers’ dime.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses ....