Anonymous wrote:I saw this story featured on Channel 7'news last night. They showed the noise level coming from the playground and it's pretty loud. I hope you all can come to a resolution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

AT parent here. I really appreciate your point. Exactly what I was thinking but hadn't been able to articulate.

Neither of you seem to understand the role of a condo board. They are not a public or governmental body. Their job is not to find compromises. They have a duty to represent the interests of their members. In fact, they run the risk of being sued by their members for breach of fiduciary duty if they put the interest of their members second.

If Appletree has a lease, deeded access or other contractual rights to the property, then the board would be remiss in violating that contract. However, in the absence of such a contract the board would be remiss to use the the common area in anything other than the way that maximizes benefit for the members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

AT parent here. I really appreciate your point. Exactly what I was thinking but hadn't been able to articulate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

I understand that, but the suggestion remains ludicrous. The condo board would better serve its members by not suggesting things that make no practical sense at all. If they truly want to find a compromise that works for everyone, suggesting a "quiet study area" for children that age group is not going to achieve that. The suggestion itself makes it seem like the condo board (and by extension the members it serves) is intentionally suggesting things that will only really serve the condo-residing adults, rather than being any kind of compromise. It sounds to me like the school has already limited the amount of times its students use the playground - perhaps not as much as the condo-residing adults would like, but as much as can reasonably be expected while still accommodating the needs of 8 classes of children to get the physical activity that is both recommended by experts and required by school authorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

The obligation of the condo board is to its members.

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time getting past the suggestion that a quiet study area be created for 3- and 4-year-old children. That speaks to the general failure to understand the business at hand, on the part of the condo board. I understand that it's frustrating to have a school next door and that the noise can be distracting, but I cannot take "a quiet study area" seriously as a proposed alternative.

I think the point about using the playground being constructed is worth considering, but frankly, it is a goal of most schools to have playgrounds on site. That's what parents want, and it makes it a lot easier for the teachers and school staff to not have to leave the site.

Anonymous wrote:
1) Look at the deeds
2) Appletree is a NON PROFIT dedicated to educating at risk and low income children. Do not characterize it as a "huge corporation". BS.

Anonymous wrote:The playground in question is on common land owned and to be used by the entire building. Apple Tree owns space in the building, as do 3 other commercial properties and 54 residential units. Original marketing materials show the space listed as a "serenity garden". By the time owners began moving in someone (the developer?) had installed the playground. Apple Tree does not own the playground space or equipment. To answer your "who came first question": the owners. The building is made up predominately of 20-40 year-olds. Since the building was built in 2007 there have been fewer than 10 children who have lived there. The playground is used exclusively by Apple Tree and no other owners can use this common space.

The reporter in the linked article either lied or was (more likely) lied to. Yes, the Board passed a resolution that they have the right to dismantle the playground and build something that all owners could use. That was it, a passed resolution. The Board has never set a "date" to dismantle the playground...especially not over Thanksgiving weekend. The Board continues to try and work amicably (albeit through lawyers now) with Apple Tree. Apple Tree on the other hand has decided to call media and try to smear the Board and residential owners.

And by the way, there is a huge DC owned park at the end of the street. It is currently undergoing renovations and will be brand new in March 2015. It is much larger and much better (with actual grass!) than the playground behind the building. DC law does not require a playground be on-site. Rather the law stats a play area must be "on-site, on the roof, or within walking distance". The park mentioned above is roughly 500 feet away (without any need to even cross a street).

Do some research on Apple Tree. They are a huge corporation (multimillion dollar) which uses their non-profit status to get large law firms working pro bono to intimidate any local community that dares to question having 20-40 screaming kids playing right outside resident windows ALL DAY.

Look up Apple Tree's ongoing issues with the Lincoln Park area. They have jammed up local homeowners for nearly 10 years in court. They are trying to do the same to the residents in Columbia Heights. This is not a "hipsters who hate kids" issue. It is a "corporation bullying local home owners" issue.