Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

I don't think schools should be using public fields as their own. That includes Maret. But I also think that there are many systems in DC that are run very peculiarly, and this seems like just one more.

Public school fields are public fields.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

I mean ... that sounds totally reasonable to me. DPR and DCPS are two DC taxpayer-funded agencies, so it seems perfectly OK to say that DCPS should have dibs on DPR facilities. You're trying to make the patently unfair seem fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

I don't think schools should be using public fields as their own. That includes Maret. But I also think that there are many systems in DC that are run very peculiarly, and this seems like just one more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well in the case of Murch, DCPS already directly paid UDC for the use of the field. Once Maret showed up with money UDC decided to get paid AGAIN. Because the lawyers did not write the agreement properly they were able to do that. Our kids were banned to a small patch in the front. So in my mind, it is very much the moral outrage. I think DCPS paid UDC something close to $4 mil for 2 years we were there.

That is wrong, and if true the DCPS lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. But it's not the situation here, and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

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

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well in the case of Murch, DCPS already directly paid UDC for the use of the field. Once Maret showed up with money UDC decided to get paid AGAIN. Because the lawyers did not write the agreement properly they were able to do that. Our kids were banned to a small patch in the front. So in my mind, it is very much the moral outrage. I think DCPS paid UDC something close to $4 mil for 2 years we were there.

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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