Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin or Capitol City get such great deals? I know their buildings were in awful ondition...

You raise a good point: the terms that Lab is getting are far better than what public charter school are getting on former DCPS properties -- despite the fact that charters are actual public schools that serve DC residents, and Lab is a private school that primarily serves out-of-staters.

No, this is a lie. More than half the students in the Hardy building live in DC. Many are funded by DCPS b/c they were unable to teach them in the public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin or Capitol City get such great deals? I know their buildings were in awful ondition...

You raise a good point: the terms that Lab is getting are far better than what public charter school are getting on former DCPS properties -- despite the fact that charters are actual public schools that serve DC residents, and Lab is a private school that primarily serves out-of-staters.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who is posting on this thread is also taking time to email Councilmembers. The vote is TODAY.

Session starts at 10:00 AM. Email now!

I just sent an email directly to Grosso and my coucilmember, and then forwarded that email to every council member.

I tweeted GRosso last night.

Basically I said I just didn't see the nee for emergency legislation and asked for a fuller consideration of this in the new year. If it's a good deal, it can withstand scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin or Capitol City get such great deals? I know their buildings were in awful ondition...

You raise a good point: the terms that Lab is getting are far better than what public charter school are getting on former DCPS properties -- despite the fact that charters are actual public schools that serve DC residents, and Lab is a private school that primarily serves out-of-staters.

Did Washington Latin or Capitol City get such great deals? I know their buildings were in awful ondition...

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.

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.

Cool story bro on wanting to explore other options to meet the needs of the neighborhood. The neighborhood won't be happy until DCPS is on the hook with a space it can't rent or use.

Safeway pulled out b/c of neighborhood opposition:
https://ggwash.org/view/40885/housing-atop-georgetowns-safeway-would-have-strengthened-the-neighborhood

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/?utm_term=.bf15cb150b3b

Your "explorations" will turn your into a food desert when Safeway closes it's doors.

One of your sources is speculative comments by no one really involved in any of the decision making in the crackerjack Greater Greater Washington and the WaPo article is about Safeway putting in a covenant clause on the sale of the building creating a food desert. The new owners of Safeway had pulled out of a range of remodels to try to get cash quick (all at this time)- with the council the way it is in DC, if they could've and would've ended up getting whatever they wanted, if they wanted to go forward more likely.

This is nuts. Any response from council members?

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who is posting on this thread is also taking time to email Councilmembers. The vote is TODAY.

+1!

I hope everyone who is posting on this thread is also taking time to email Councilmembers. The vote is TODAY.

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.

+1 "nearly a decade" is not that long. DCPS needs to say no those lease extension and then factor the old Hardy space into plans for the future.

Its a complete lie to declare the space surplus when area schools are overcrowded. If Lab paid something close to market rate for the property, DCPS could use those funds to help.

Someone on the council is profiting bigly from this, my friends.

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers.

If it's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers, why does it have to be rushed through on an emergency basis? If it's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers, why is the same arrangement not being offered to other private schools? If it's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers, why has the same deal been turned down twice in the past five years? If it's not a bad deal for DC taxpayers, why aren't charter schools allowed to compete for the same space?

Email blast from Ruth Wattenberg:

Please email City Council members tonight!
I have just learned that the City Council plans to vote tomorrow on emergency legislation that would lead DC to give away its right to use the old Hardy school, a former DCPS elementary school located on Foxhall Rd. The school has been leased to a private school for a number of years. This legislation would make that lease effectively permanent--for up to fifty years.
I cannot see how this makes sense. Virtually every public school building in ward 3 is crowded well beyond capacity. Schools will be (already are in some cases) faced with cutting back those programs that require classroom space, losing fields and play spaces to trailers, etc. And, I'm hearing from members of various ANC's as well that it's critical to plan for the increased enrollments that will likely come with the increased housing development that is being considered in many neighborhoods. This school building is the ONLY unused public school in ward 3. We need this space. The city should not be giving away the lease to this school--or any publicly owned school--without a clear understanding of the impact and a clear plan for how current overcrowding as well as increased future enrollments will be handled.

Please write to members of the City Council TONIGHT asking them to vote NO to the "Hardy School Emergency Surplus Declaration Resolution of 2016."

yalexander@dccouncil.us,
callen@dccouncil.us,
abonds@dccouncil.us
jevans@dccouncil.us
dgrosso@dccouncil.us
Lmay@DCCOUNCIL.US
kmcduffie@dccouncil.us
pmendelson@dccouncil.us
bnadeau@dccouncil.us
esilverman@dccouncil.us
btodd@dccouncil.us
rwhite@dccouncil.us
Please cc Mayor Bowser, CM Cheh and me:
eom@dc.gov
mcheh@dccouncil.us
ruth4schools@yahoo.com


Thanks,
Ruth Wattenberg,
Ward 3 member,
DC State Board of Education

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS doesn't want the building back b/c they'd have to pay to renovate it as well as find a location for the DCPS kids with LDs who attend the school.

No, it's Lab School that would have to find a new location, as they are a private non-profit institution. It's disingenuous to suggest that they would just close their doors. And, they would have 7 years in which to do that because they have a lease until 2023.

Now, let's get back to why the DC Council should approve a 50 *year* lease on an emergency basis tomorrow.

Yeah, they could find a new location or close it's doors. This lease debate has been going on for almost as many years as Lab's been in the building. They want a longer lease so they can do necessary renovations. They can't commit financially to the renovations without it.

So they should pay a market rate, or else seek subsidies from the District government through a non-"emergency" process.