Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, this is just wrong. The entity charged with supporting students is DCPS. DPR has a different mission. They have different funding, and exists for different purposes. The education of students (and their extracurricular activities) is not the only purpose of a local government. In this instance, both Maret and DCPS are strangers to DPR.

I have no issue with, if faced with equivalent offers, DPR is required to prefer DCPS. But I'll wager that isn't the case here.

FWIW, this goes both ways. I once dealt with a situation where neighbors wanted unrestricted access to a charter school field, and didn't think that the school should be able to rent it out to soccer leagues in off hours. But the public doesn't have first call on school property. By the same token, schools don't have first call on exclusive use of public parks.

The fault here lies with DCPS, first for not providing adequate facilities for students, and then on expecting other city agencies to remedy the failure.

DPR is a DC TAX FUNDED ENTITY. It's mission should be to support DC RESIDENT INSTITUIONS AND TAXPAYERS. Not exclusionary private schools. You have a weird idea about government agencies somehow being like individual private competitors in a marketplace.

DPR's mission is, "Our Mission. DPR's mission is to promote health and wellness; conserve the natural environment; and provide universal access to parks and recreation services."

This arrangement does support DC residents and taxpayers. There's $250,000 that's now available for the maintenance and upkeep of *other* DPR facilities. In fact, if those funds are used in Wards 7 or 8, you could say that this arrangement provides more benefit to the DC residents who need it most, as opposed to being used to benefit WOTP middle schools.

(A) You are embarrassing yourself with your over-reaching justifications.

(B) Perhaps instead of DPR granting use to anyone, the DC government should just reassign the Jelleff field from DPR to DCPS/Hardy. Would you feel better about that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, this is just wrong. The entity charged with supporting students is DCPS. DPR has a different mission. They have different funding, and exists for different purposes. The education of students (and their extracurricular activities) is not the only purpose of a local government. In this instance, both Maret and DCPS are strangers to DPR.

I have no issue with, if faced with equivalent offers, DPR is required to prefer DCPS. But I'll wager that isn't the case here.

FWIW, this goes both ways. I once dealt with a situation where neighbors wanted unrestricted access to a charter school field, and didn't think that the school should be able to rent it out to soccer leagues in off hours. But the public doesn't have first call on school property. By the same token, schools don't have first call on exclusive use of public parks.

The fault here lies with DCPS, first for not providing adequate facilities for students, and then on expecting other city agencies to remedy the failure.

DPR is a DC TAX FUNDED ENTITY. It's mission should be to support DC RESIDENT INSTITUIONS AND TAXPAYERS. Not exclusionary private schools. You have a weird idea about government agencies somehow being like individual private competitors in a marketplace.

DPR's mission is, "Our Mission. DPR's mission is to promote health and wellness; conserve the natural environment; and provide universal access to parks and recreation services."

This arrangement does support DC residents and taxpayers. There's $250,000 that's now available for the maintenance and upkeep of *other* DPR facilities. In fact, if those funds are used in Wards 7 or 8, you could say that this arrangement provides more benefit to the DC residents who need it most, as opposed to being used to benefit WOTP middle schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, public school fields are public but the students get first use. This is not a public school field but rather a public field, so it belongs to the public first, and then whoever rents or leases it. The reason Hardy wants it is because of location, not because it belongs to the school.

Absolutely Hardy wants it because of location! It’s only reasonable that a middle school has a field for practice and games.

You act like DCPS and DPR are not part of the same entity. Do you think Maret Middle School would lease out classroom space to third parties while Maret Lower School had class in trailers?

Finally, a long-term lease of all prime hours is not making the field to “whoever rents or leases it.”

You are trying hard to defend something that makes no sense. Are you a lawyer with children at Maret?

+1 Why isn't DPR managing the Jelleff field calendar, maximizing profit by renting it to various parties (tons of private schools, sports leagues, AND DCPS). Instead of doing the hard work they are opting to tie up a scarce resource for a decade for frankly pennies on the dollar considering location and possible rental income. It's shameful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, public school fields are public but the students get first use. This is not a public school field but rather a public field, so it belongs to the public first, and then whoever rents or leases it. The reason Hardy wants it is because of location, not because it belongs to the school.

Absolutely Hardy wants it because of location! It’s only reasonable that a middle school has a field for practice and games.

You act like DCPS and DPR are not part of the same entity. Do you think Maret Middle School would lease out classroom space to third parties while Maret Lower School had class in trailers?

Finally, a long-term lease of all prime hours is not making the field to “whoever rents or leases it.”

You are trying hard to defend something that makes no sense. Are you a lawyer with children at Maret?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, this is just wrong. The entity charged with supporting students is DCPS. DPR has a different mission. They have different funding, and exists for different purposes. The education of students (and their extracurricular activities) is not the only purpose of a local government. In this instance, both Maret and DCPS are strangers to DPR.

I have no issue with, if faced with equivalent offers, DPR is required to prefer DCPS. But I'll wager that isn't the case here.

FWIW, this goes both ways. I once dealt with a situation where neighbors wanted unrestricted access to a charter school field, and didn't think that the school should be able to rent it out to soccer leagues in off hours. But the public doesn't have first call on school property. By the same token, schools don't have first call on exclusive use of public parks.

The fault here lies with DCPS, first for not providing adequate facilities for students, and then on expecting other city agencies to remedy the failure.

DPR is a DC TAX FUNDED ENTITY. It's mission should be to support DC RESIDENT INSTITUIONS AND TAXPAYERS. Not exclusionary private schools. You have a weird idea about government agencies somehow being like individual private competitors in a marketplace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, public school fields are public but the students get first use. This is not a public school field but rather a public field, so it belongs to the public first, and then whoever rents or leases it. The reason Hardy wants it is because of location, not because it belongs to the school.

Absolutely Hardy wants it because of location! It’s only reasonable that a middle school has a field for practice and games.

You act like DCPS and DPR are not part of the same entity. Do you think Maret Middle School would lease out classroom space to third parties while Maret Lower School had class in trailers?

Finally, a long-term lease of all prime hours is not making the field to “whoever rents or leases it.”

You are trying hard to defend something that makes no sense. Are you a lawyer with children at Maret?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

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.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, this is just wrong. The entity charged with supporting students is DCPS. DPR has a different mission. They have different funding, and exists for different purposes. The education of students (and their extracurricular activities) is not the only purpose of a local government. In this instance, both Maret and DCPS are strangers to DPR.

I have no issue with, if faced with equivalent offers, DPR is required to prefer DCPS. But I'll wager that isn't the case here.

FWIW, this goes both ways. I once dealt with a situation where neighbors wanted unrestricted access to a charter school field, and didn't think that the school should be able to rent it out to soccer leagues in off hours. But the public doesn't have first call on school property. By the same token, schools don't have first call on exclusive use of public parks.

The fault here lies with DCPS, first for not providing adequate facilities for students, and then on expecting other city agencies to remedy the failure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, public school fields are public but the students get first use. This is not a public school field but rather a public field, so it belongs to the public first, and then whoever rents or leases it. The reason Hardy wants it is because of location, not because it belongs to the school.

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.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, public school fields are public but the students get first use. This is not a public school field but rather a public field, so it belongs to the public first, and then whoever rents or leases it. The reason Hardy wants it is because of location, not because it belongs to the school.

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: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.