Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

The DPR Director actually only has an “acting” title. I would think that might allow some room for revisiting the decision.

I hope this comes up at his confirmation hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

The DPR Director actually only has an “acting” title. I would think that might allow some room for revisiting the decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Not quite free- "maintain the field and redo the turf which needs to be replaced as well as improve the fencing and other enhancements to the Jelleff Recreation Center"- but yeah, there is no way that costs more than $500k, so a drop in the bucket to Maret, and amortized over 9 years, an absolute steal.

If “free” is $1 million plus rental fees, this is is correct.

It’s about $111,111/yr which equals the tuition for about three students at the lowest tuition rate at Maret. So yes, a steal. Put that up against what the Jelleff Boys & Girls Club delivers on a fraction of the budget and without access to the field right outside their doors. Maret should be ashamed but they don’t have it in them. DPR should be investigated but they won’t be. I dare the mayor to talk about equity after this. She doesn’t seem to care either.

But you all are assuming that DPR would maintain the field. Why do you think they would? If the field falls into disrepair, then they might just close it entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Not quite free- "maintain the field and redo the turf which needs to be replaced as well as improve the fencing and other enhancements to the Jelleff Recreation Center"- but yeah, there is no way that costs more than $500k, so a drop in the bucket to Maret, and amortized over 9 years, an absolute steal.

If “free” is $1 million plus rental fees, this is is correct.

It’s about $111,111/yr which equals the tuition for about three students at the lowest tuition rate at Maret. So yes, a steal. Put that up against what the Jelleff Boys & Girls Club delivers on a fraction of the budget and without access to the field right outside their doors. Maret should be ashamed but they don’t have it in them. DPR should be investigated but they won’t be. I dare the mayor to talk about equity after this. She doesn’t seem to care either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Not quite free- "maintain the field and redo the turf which needs to be replaced as well as improve the fencing and other enhancements to the Jelleff Recreation Center"- but yeah, there is no way that costs more than $500k, so a drop in the bucket to Maret, and amortized over 9 years, an absolute steal.

If “free” is $1 million plus rental fees, this is is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Not quite free- "maintain the field and redo the turf which needs to be replaced as well as improve the fencing and other enhancements to the Jelleff Recreation Center"- but yeah, there is no way that costs more than $500k, so a drop in the bucket to Maret, and amortized over 9 years, an absolute steal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Not quite free- "maintain the field and redo the turf which needs to be replaced as well as improve the fencing and other enhancements to the Jelleff Recreation Center"- but yeah, there is no way that costs more than $500k, so a drop in the bucket to Maret, and amortized over 9 years, an absolute steal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Even if it's been ratified, all parties involved are susceptible to shaming. That's why Maret issued a statement, they didn't have to. If the political pressure is high enough it will be reopened.

Of course, and both parties would have to agree to amend it (obviously). I am cynical that enough political pressure can be applied to both parties to get them to feel that that is the best course of action for their institutions. I think Maret figures almost no one on their side really cares about this in any substantive way, so if they just let it blow over things will continue as they have for the last 10 years, and they don't have to go out looking for much more expensive space. The only way they will consider reopening it is from massive external pressure or some significant internal pressure. I doubt that will happen.

This. Maret does not care. They have what they want.

Really, they want this kind of publicity?

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that Maret cares. They will ride out the storm but in the end they will get their field. They will probably pull the same stunt 10 years from now again. I do hope that the DPR person who allowed this to happen loses his job. He doesn't deserve to keep it. Would also love some kind of investigation to rule out corruption. This is just such a bad deal for dc citizens that I keep thinking individuals must have personally benefited. Why else would the DPR approves such a lousy deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Even if it's been ratified, all parties involved are susceptible to shaming. That's why Maret issued a statement, they didn't have to. If the political pressure is high enough it will be reopened.

Of course, and both parties would have to agree to amend it (obviously). I am cynical that enough political pressure can be applied to both parties to get them to feel that that is the best course of action for their institutions. I think Maret figures almost no one on their side really cares about this in any substantive way, so if they just let it blow over things will continue as they have for the last 10 years, and they don't have to go out looking for much more expensive space. The only way they will consider reopening it is from massive external pressure or some significant internal pressure. I doubt that will happen.

This. Maret does not care. They have what they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Even if it's been ratified, all parties involved are susceptible to shaming. That's why Maret issued a statement, they didn't have to. If the political pressure is high enough it will be reopened.

Of course, and both parties would have to agree to amend it (obviously). I am cynical that enough political pressure can be applied to both parties to get them to feel that that is the best course of action for their institutions. I think Maret figures almost no one on their side really cares about this in any substantive way, so if they just let it blow over things will continue as they have for the last 10 years, and they don't have to go out looking for much more expensive space. The only way they will consider reopening it is from massive external pressure or some significant internal pressure. I doubt that will happen.