Anonymous wrote:Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

It's not that clear in the testimony, but didn't DPR say that they get $3mil a year from renting the field?

Asking for a friend who like facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.flume.com.br/pdf/Durlak_A_meta-analysisof_after_school.pdf

Everyone agrees the ASP's are good.
No mention of needing a regulation field though.

Apparently you are the type of person that has to out-source his thinking to random strangers.

That's a weird way to describe scientist, but ok.

Neither an Ellington or Hardy renovation does anything for the taxpayers who've spent millions to give Maret its own field.

$15m purchase price + $7.5m financing cost (over ten years) = no benefit for the City. At least the Nats bring in tax revenue and have anchored revitalization of a new part of the city. This deal has done nothing for the city except cost money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.flume.com.br/pdf/Durlak_A_meta-analysisof_after_school.pdf

Everyone agrees the ASP's are good.
No mention of needing a regulation field though.

Apparently you are the type of person that has to out-source his thinking to random strangers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.flume.com.br/pdf/Durlak_A_meta-analysisof_after_school.pdf

Everyone agrees the ASP's are good.
No mention of needing a regulation field though.

But who doubts outdoor play space would be good?

Again: Ellington solves nothing for the after-school kids. After-school programs can’t go off-site; Jelleff after-school can’t use Ellington.

Yes.

It also seems that no one - not DPR or even the local ANC - is clear on who or what has use agreements for Ellington or who long and how much it will take to get the field in a suitable state for use by MS students. If the Jelleff deal was the 19-20 year deal that DPR and Maret both assert it was and if the plan was for Hardy (and maybe the B&GC, although it's not clear how) to use Ellington, Evans and DPR could have started the process of sorting out the access issues, working through the community consultations, and actually developing Ellington years ago.

But that never happened. Then Trayon White calls a hearing and suddenly Evans, DPR, and Maret are signing from the same song sheet that Ellington is the magical solution that everyone is searching for. We just need to give them a few years, a few millions bucks, and eternal patience and they'll sort it all out.

Strangely, putting up this whole charade is easier for them than just admitting the reality that is very obvious to everyone else - that they have never given a damn about what public sector kids are doing after school (queue the complaints about roving bands of youth on the Metro system).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.flume.com.br/pdf/Durlak_A_meta-analysisof_after_school.pdf

Everyone agrees the ASP's are good.
No mention of needing a regulation field though.

But who doubts outdoor play space would be good?

Again: Ellington solves nothing for the after-school kids. After-school programs can’t go off-site; Jelleff after-school can’t use Ellington.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.flume.com.br/pdf/Durlak_A_meta-analysisof_after_school.pdf

Everyone agrees the ASP's are good.
No mention of needing a regulation field though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

I dunno. At least 2 of the athletes (one former, one current) who testified for Maret the other day spoke about having access to Jelleff as being monumentally important to their athletic experience...

(And don’t forget that Ellington provides no solution for the after-school program. After-school kids can’t be blocks away when their puck-up arrives.)

Exactly. and some of that was before Maret renovated the field. It's almost like a regulation field was incidental.
Or, maybe talk to the Athletes at Stoddert who would be stealing iPhones if they didn't have a regulation field to play in.
I didn't realize that you were one of the Maret employees who were behind this effort. I mean, how else would you know that a non-renewal was a minor inconvenience. Stay strong in that den of iniquity.

Aren't they about to demolish and replace the clubhouse anyway?
Ellington or the like can probably be ready by the time that finishes.
And once the clubhouse doesn't suck, there will probably be plenty of space for indoor sports and activities while Hardy or Maret use the fields.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

I dunno. At least 2 of the athletes (one former, one current) who testified for Maret the other day spoke about having access to Jelleff as being monumentally important to their athletic experience...

(And don’t forget that Ellington provides no solution for the after-school program. After-school kids can’t be blocks away when their puck-up arrives.)

Exactly. and some of that was before Maret renovated the field. It's almost like a regulation field was incidental.
Or, maybe talk to the Athletes at Stoddert who would be stealing iPhones if they didn't have a regulation field to play in.
I didn't realize that you were one of the Maret employees who were behind this effort. I mean, how else would you know that a non-renewal was a minor inconvenience. Stay strong in that den of iniquity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

Neither that - nor any redevelopment of Hardy's space (even if that's feasible) - is going to happen anytime soon. Even your patron Jack Evans made this abundantly clear on Monday. Given how things move in this part of DC, it's probably 3-5 years away. Hardy and the BG&C kids could have access to that field now if only Maret wasn't too conceited to lease space from any one of the myriad other private schools around them.

It’s amazing how Muriel Bowser has somehow avoided the stink from all her shit policies and appointments.

Shit like this happens because she and corrupt actors lien Jack Evans know they can get away with it.

I consider Maret parents lower than Trump voters. They know they are fvcking over the poor and don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious. Literally nobody that isn't a Maret parent shares your point of view. I am not even at Hardy or in that feeder pattern. Every parent I've talked to across the city thinks it's disgusting.

Yeah, the Maret supporters' argument basically comes down to "we deserve this." That's it.

And, one more time- Maret is the only organization trying to monopolize the field during its most useful times. Everyone else, including Hardy supporters and the aftercare program at Jelleff just want DPR to follow DC law when deciding who to allocate time to, rather than unilaterally giving the field to a private organization in a sweetheart deal. Splitting the fields after school between Hardy and the aftercare kids seems like the perfect solution.

Watch the video. Watch Delano's testimony.
Come back with a better argument, we'll be here apparently.

I watched Hunter"s testimony. He studiously avoids the question of any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

But that has nothing to do with your statement.
He addresses:
* ..."Maret is the only organization trying to monopolize the field during its most useful times"...
* ... just want DPR to follow DC law when deciding who to allocate time to...

The answers are right there.

I am watching Hunter’s testimony and Q&A as I type. It’s pretty frustrating. He’s got the Maret talking points down, and he and DPR clearly did no rigorous analysis of this — no hard financial analysis or strategic thinking. They just “talked to a lot of people.”

Clearly this was a decision based on soft factors, like perhaps campaign donations or future high-paying jobs with developers.

First rule of conspiracy theories: Don't be falsifiable. Check.

A Hardy conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven
When he arrives at the Pearly Gates, God is there to receive him. "Welcome. You are permitted to ask me one question, which I will answer truthfully."

Without hesitating, the conspiracy theorist asks, "Why did Maret get Jelleff Field?"

God replies, "DPR looked at the contract and decided that Maret had been a good partner. There were no other considerations. I thought Delano told you."

The conspiracy theorist pauses, thinks to himself, then says "Shit! This goes higher up than I thought..."

Actually I agree that there’s another explanation, which is plain old laziness. It’s just easier to re-sign than change things up.

But since it appears, as others have noted, that this decision really comes from Bowser, then I think “soft factors” likely come into play.

The video shows this was a total corrupt shit show.

Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ample kids at Hardy - and the B&GC - for which involvement in after-school sports could mark a turning point in their lives away from various forms of delinquency. Maret's use of Jelleff makes it harder - not impossible, but certainly harder - for that to happen. While the use of Jelleff after-school may be important to Maret in many ways, a non-renewal would have been little more than a minor inconvenience that the school's capable administration could have easily worked out. It would have very little impact on Maret's students, almost all of which will enjoy very bright futures regardless of what field they play on. For many Hardy students, not having access to Jelleff could potentially change the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure that being forced to use a non-regulation field like Ellington will cause someone to turn to a life of crime....

I dunno. At least 2 of the athletes (one former, one current) who testified for Maret the other day spoke about having access to Jelleff as being monumentally important to their athletic experience...

(And don’t forget that Ellington provides no solution for the after-school program. After-school kids can’t be blocks away when their puck-up arrives.)