Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lab paying only 80,000/year to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot? There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market...and they get to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations? That's a sweetheart deal for a school that charges DCPS 45k per year per student they accept.

The rent is set so that Lab never pays anything. They've already said they're going to put $2 million into the property. They get to deduct dollar for dollar their capital improvements. So their net rent for the first twenty-five years is ... zero.

Economically, it's indistinguishable from a give-away. In fact, you could argue that a lease where you don't have to pay anything is better than being given the property, because you're shielded from some liability.

darn, tis really is giving the DC taxpayer the shaft....

And there is no requirement in the lease that they provide any specific benefit to DCPS, or continue providing special ed, or even that they remain a school or a non-profit. They could re-incorporate as a for-profit and still hang onto the building for nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lab paying only 80,000/year to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot? There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market...and they get to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations? That's a sweetheart deal for a school that charges DCPS 45k per year per student they accept.

The rent is set so that Lab never pays anything. They've already said they're going to put $2 million into the property. They get to deduct dollar for dollar their capital improvements. So their net rent for the first twenty-five years is ... zero.

Economically, it's indistinguishable from a give-away. In fact, you could argue that a lease where you don't have to pay anything is better than being given the property, because you're shielded from some liability.

darn, tis really is giving the DC taxpayer the shaft....

Anonymous wrote:And, in comparison to other privates, Lab School gives next to nothing in scholarship money to applicants who don't receive any public funding. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Signed, Parent who applied for financial aid and was denied and went elsewhere and was offered a nice package.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lab paying only 80,000/year to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot? There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market...and they get to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations? That's a sweetheart deal for a school that charges DCPS 45k per year per student they accept.

The rent is set so that Lab never pays anything. They've already said they're going to put $2 million into the property. They get to deduct dollar for dollar their capital improvements. So their net rent for the first twenty-five years is ... zero.

Economically, it's indistinguishable from a give-away. In fact, you could argue that a lease where you don't have to pay anything is better than being given the property, because you're shielded from some liability.

Anonymous wrote:this sneakiness is unsettling
But I do understand that getting a 15 yr loan for renovations on a building you will only access for 7 yrs could be problematic
I'd think a 15 year lease should be more acceptable

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lab paying only 80,000/year to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot? There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market...and they get to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations? That's a sweetheart deal for a school that charges DCPS 45k per year per student they accept.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lab paying only 80,000/year to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot? There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market...and they get to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations? That's a sweetheart deal for a school that charges DCPS 45k per year per student they accept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?

It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The neighborhood association is a powerful one. They've been fighting Lab since day one. It's the same group that halted renovations for the Safeway. They don't want renovations in their neighborhood. Period.

So if Lab doesn't get an extended lease, they won't do renovations and will find a different location. If Lab finds a different location, DCPS will just rent out the space again, but will need to find a tenant. So the building might remain vacant with DCPS loosing out on money for the lease.

Regardless, it wouldn't be able to touch the Hardy building for the next 7 years in any case. So people complaining of current DC being overcrowded, ask DCPS their plan. The Hardy building won't figure into it for nearly a decade.

Right now the DCPS renovations list stretches ten years into the future. If they start planning they'll be able to start renovating when it comes off of lease. The timing is actually pretty good.

They haven't the budget to renovate it. If Lab moves out, they'll lease it again like the did b/f Lab was there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?

It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The neighborhood association is a powerful one. They've been fighting Lab since day one. It's the same group that halted renovations for the Safeway. They don't want renovations in their neighborhood. Period.

So if Lab doesn't get an extended lease, they won't do renovations and will find a different location. If Lab finds a different location, DCPS will just rent out the space again, but will need to find a tenant. So the building might remain vacant with DCPS loosing out on money for the lease.

Regardless, it wouldn't be able to touch the Hardy building for the next 7 years in any case. So people complaining of current DC being overcrowded, ask DCPS their plan. The Hardy building won't figure into it for nearly a decade.

Right now the DCPS renovations list stretches ten years into the future. If they start planning they'll be able to start renovating when it comes off of lease. The timing is actually pretty good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?

It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The neighborhood association is a powerful one. They've been fighting Lab since day one. It's the same group that halted renovations for the Safeway. They don't want renovations in their neighborhood. Period.

So if Lab doesn't get an extended lease, they won't do renovations and will find a different location. If Lab finds a different location, DCPS will just rent out the space again, but will need to find a tenant. So the building might remain vacant with DCPS loosing out on money for the lease.

Regardless, it wouldn't be able to touch the Hardy building for the next 7 years in any case. So people complaining of current DC being overcrowded, ask DCPS their plan. The Hardy building won't figure into it for nearly a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?

It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The neighborhood association is a powerful one. They've been fighting Lab since day one. It's the same group that halted renovations for the Safeway. They don't want renovations in their neighborhood. Period.

So if Lab doesn't get an extended lease, they won't do renovations and will find a different location. If Lab finds a different location, DCPS will just rent out the space again, but will need to find a tenant. So the building might remain vacant with DCPS loosing out on money for the lease.

Regardless, it wouldn't be able to touch the Hardy building for the next 7 years in any case. So people complaining of current DC being overcrowded, ask DCPS their plan. The Hardy building won't figure into it for nearly a decade.

These are the same neighbors who did just go through renovations to the main Lab school and also to the German embassy. Safeway pulled out of the renovation due to it being sold to a new parent company vs. that the neighborhood 'stopped' it.

Obviously the parents of Lab parents are fighting to keep the building and status quo - but seriously spreading misinformation to push it... vs. the neighborhood families who want to at least explore and consider other options for the space and opportunities to help meet needs in our neighborhood and that our tax dollars are paying for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?

It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The neighborhood association is a powerful one. They've been fighting Lab since day one. It's the same group that halted renovations for the Safeway. They don't want renovations in their neighborhood. Period.

So if Lab doesn't get an extended lease, they won't do renovations and will find a different location. If Lab finds a different location, DCPS will just rent out the space again, but will need to find a tenant. So the building might remain vacant with DCPS loosing out on money for the lease.

Regardless, it wouldn't be able to touch the Hardy building for the next 7 years in any case. So people complaining of current DC being overcrowded, ask DCPS their plan. The Hardy building won't figure into it for nearly a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I read the legislation correctly, the city had multiple hearings and community meetings on the issue. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim they haven't thoroughly discussed it.

They had one "public' meeting in 2013 that was only announced to Lab parents and teachers.

They scheduled another one in 2015 but cancelled it when word got out to the public.

They sure are trying to stifle an open discussion on this. Maybe because its a bad deal for DC taxpayers?