so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

Anonymous wrote:DC is not a tax poor city. We could pay for our own turf and fence at Jelleff. I would appreciate seeing my tax dollars spent that way. We don't need Maret to pay for this. It's absurd and infuriating.

This is true, yet completely misses the issue. Yes, DC is flush with taxes; but DPR's budget for maintenance of facilities is not. DCPS is separate from DPR. You have the head of DPR presented with a situation where a private entity will pay for a significant upgrade to a DPR facility - an athletic field. In return, DPR is asked to grant that entity exclusive rights to use the field after school. DPR is not primarily concerned with DC schools - its responsibility is to maintain the parks and other spaces for all DC residents, not just students. This arrangement allows $250,000 to be used to improve other facilities, to the benefit of all DC residents. And although students are out of school during the restricted field time, many other DC residents are still at work, and wouldn't be able to use the field anyway.

Finally, DPR leadership could reasonably conclude that it is the responsibility of DCPS, not DPR, to provide adequate facilities for DCPS students to use for school activities. Should DCPS have first call on all rec center space to conduct after-school programming? Of course not. This is exactly the same situation.

You can disagree with the decision, but this is not the moral outrage that many of you seem to believe it to be.

Maret parents do not care therefore, Maret does not care. Protest should concentrate on DC Council, the Mayor and local news outlets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that Maret also rents out its field to outside groups (PPA soccer, for example). Granted, this time is 6-8, not directly after school.

And renting out public space is common, but the problem here is that a private institution is given exclusive rights to a field during the exact afterschool hours that a public school across the street could really use it. DPR made this deal 10 years ago to get the field up to snuff...now it is and the city can easily pay for its upkeep but somehow still bent to the desires of Maret and gave them another decade. It's insane and just plain wrong. Why isn't DPR managing Jelleff field's schedule and making rental income during times that the public schools don't need it? This entire thing is so backwards and smacks of laziness and corruption and kowtowing to the wealthy.

I think PP's point is that Maret feels the need to get exclusive use of Jelleff but then can rent out its own space when it's less desirable for their students.

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that Maret also rents out its field to outside groups (PPA soccer, for example). Granted, this time is 6-8, not directly after school.

And renting out public space is common, but the problem here is that a private institution is given exclusive rights to a field during the exact afterschool hours that a public school across the street could really use it. DPR made this deal 10 years ago to get the field up to snuff...now it is and the city can easily pay for its upkeep but somehow still bent to the desires of Maret and gave them another decade. It's insane and just plain wrong. Why isn't DPR managing Jelleff field's schedule and making rental income during times that the public schools don't need it? This entire thing is so backwards and smacks of laziness and corruption and kowtowing to the wealthy.

Given the other examples offered in this thread (Banneker, Wilson Pool, Murch, now Jelleff) this seems like an investigative story in the making. Listen up seekers of Pulitzers, here is a good opportunity. Dig in, uncover the corruption and backroom dealings, the kids who are hurt. The story has everything.

What’s interesting is that Maret also rents out its field to outside groups (PPA soccer, for example). Granted, this time is 6-8, not directly after school.

I also signed. I hope the Post picks this up. I also am upset to read other similar stories on here re Wilson pool etc. What is wrong with this city gov?

Wa Po if you're listening please pick this story up!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I don't even live in DC and that is pretty shocking. Why shouldn't DC schools have first dibs on use of DPR property??

You can't be serious!!! Because our tax dollars pay for it.

I think you must have misread the PP.

I did. Sorry. I should have been more careful.

I signed the petition. This is shameful.

You don't live in DC, yet you signed? Great.

"This suburban commuter thinks that this is wrong!"

Curious how you came to the conclusion that I don't live there? I very much live in DC. You're confusing posters, I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't Hardy offer $250k over ten years or $25k this year? Is their PTA broke?

Your entitlement is showing. Perhaps your child's school has $25K to throw around each year. $25K for Hardy's PTO is the bulk of its budget and the PTO serves the entire school not just student athletes. The latest school score card shows that Hardy is 41% economically disadvantaged. DCIAA, together with DCPS and DPR should work to ensure that schools have practice and playing space that doesn't require a bus across town...especially when there is a PUBLIC field right across the street.

Honestly, yes, I think parents of DCPS children started this foolishness of using their money to fund schools. So why should private schools not do the same, using money to lease fields?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmm I started a thread on this in the private schools forum so I could try to understand how Maret thinks this is reasonable but it looks like it got deleted. Was I too combative?

It was a duplicate thread. Those get deleted.

Thought the different audience was worthwhile to hear from. Oh well, hope this issue gains some PR traction!

Anonymous wrote:hmmm I started a thread on this in the private schools forum so I could try to understand how Maret thinks this is reasonable but it looks like it got deleted. Was I too combative?

It was a duplicate thread. Those get deleted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I don't even live in DC and that is pretty shocking. Why shouldn't DC schools have first dibs on use of DPR property??

You can't be serious!!! Because our tax dollars pay for it.

I think you must have misread the PP.

I did. Sorry. I should have been more careful.

I signed the petition. This is shameful.

You don't live in DC, yet you signed? Great.

"This suburban commuter thinks that this is wrong!"

hmmm I started a thread on this in the private schools forum so I could try to understand how Maret thinks this is reasonable but it looks like it got deleted. Was I too combative?

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't Hardy offer $250k over ten years or $25k this year? Is their PTA broke?

Your entitlement is showing. Perhaps your child's school has $25K to throw around each year. $25K for Hardy's PTO is the bulk of its budget and the PTO serves the entire school not just student athletes. The latest school score card shows that Hardy is 41% economically disadvantaged. DCIAA, together with DCPS and DPR should work to ensure that schools have practice and playing space that doesn't require a bus across town...especially when there is a PUBLIC field right across the street.