Presented at ANC 3E’s November 13, 2008 Public Meeting
CHEH-BROWN LETTER #4
On October 29th, Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown (chair of the Committee on Economic Development) wrote to Mayor Adrian Fenty asking him to terminate negotiations with LCOR and allow the reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch to move forward. Their letter requested a response from the Mayor by November 7th. It is our understanding that no such response has been forthcoming.
That said, the day after the Cheh-Brown letter was released, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert indicated to the media that his office plans to move forward with the project. And DMPED refused ANC 3E’s request to cancel or postpone a previously-scheduled meeting with LCOR until after November 7th. Full speed ahead seems to be the Administration's stance.
MEETINGS WITH LCOR/DMPED
Since our last report, ANC Commissioners and Special Committee Members have met twice with LCOR at DMPED’s request. These meetings were held on October 17th (attended by Matt Frumin and Sue Hemberger) and November 3rd (attended by Anne Sullivan, Danny Carozza, and Sue Hemberger). The site plans shown at those meetings included a number of changes from the plans viewed in September.
CHANGES:
1. The underground garage now extends 50 feet beyond the edge of the residential building. This means that the edge of excavation/construction will be no more than 30 feet from the eastern façade of Janney’s historic building. Longer-term, it probably also means that the remains of the soccer field will be land that is of very limited utility to the school. Presumably, it can’t be built on, nor can it be used as a playing field. About all that it could be used for is a playground and it’s not a great location for a playground, given proximity to both classroom and residential windows as well as the presence of a stairwell providing teachers with access to the garage.
2. At this point, DMPED is talking about 1:1 replacement of Janney’s parking spaces – “approximately 50 spaces, give or take a few” was the way they put it. Janney will not gain parking; its parking will simply be inconveniently relocated, as will the library’s (which will now have 9 spots in the underground structure rather than surface parking along the southern edge of the building's first floor).
3. The mixed use library/residential building has now been shifted at least 10 feet toward St. Ann’s. It will be built up to the property line, covering what used to be the driveway for the library. The building’s southern façade appears to be about 20-30 feet from St. Ann’s Academy.
4. Most of the library will now be covered with and surrounded by apartments. Except for a 20 foot edge along Wisconsin and a 10 foot sliver on the eastern edge of Albemarle, the library will be located underneath residences. As a result, the airy interiors of the previous design must now be riddled with columns to provide structural support for the interior walls of the apartments above. And the roof terrace option no longer seems possible. The design images aren’t detailed enough to indicate how incorporation of the library into a mixed-use building will affect the number and location of library windows. Ceiling heights are being preserved; two library floors will be equivalent to three residential floors.
Special Committee Members pointed out that the site plans appeared to be sales tools rather than realistic attempts to solve problems or even to show that the school's needs could be met once the residential/library building was constructed. We pointed out three crucial fictions that seemed to underlie these representations.
FICTIONS:
1. LCOR, relying on dated images, substantially overestimated the amount of land on Janney’s campus currently devoted to parking. Its site plan claimed that the parking lot was 17,450 SF when, in fact, it was including land that is used as hardtop play space and for a demountable. The plan also indicated that the footprint of LCOR’s building would consume 14,800 SF of Janney’s soccer field.
While the Special Committee has always pointed out that “no net loss of green space” is the wrong standard – the issue is athletic/playground facilities (not green space) and these facilities need to be increased (not simply preserved) to accommodate an increase in Janney’s student population – even this standard is clearly not being met.
Previously, LCOR had always acknowledged the fact that its building would consume a few thousand more square feet of Janney's land than it would replace by providing underground parking. The footprint of LCOR's residential building hasn’t changed, and the amount of parking LCOR will provide to Janney seems to be shrinking. Yet now LCOR is producing images which suggest that the project will produce a net gain in green space. The project certainly hasn't been modified to produce that result; LCOR (at DMPED's behest?) has simply changed its rhetoric.
Since our last meeting, yet another set of images have been posted on the web. LCOR responded to the revelation that it was overestimating the land currently devoted to parking at Janney by downwardly revising its already lowball estimate of how much of Janney’s land it will consume (without changing the footprint of its building). The same area previously represented as 14,800 SF is now labelled 14,500 SF. Then it reconfigured the outline of Janney's current parking lot to exclude some hardtop playspace but it still seems to include the land around and under the demountable. Given that the demountable is not going to be located in the underground garage, the inclusion seems to be motivated by the need to assert that Janney is getting more than it gives up.
This is symptomatic of what we’re dealing with at this point. The only material change in LCOR’s project since January is that LCOR will no longer be renovating the school or building its addition. In each new site plan, LCOR just moves massing in its building around (a few stories cut off on this corner and pushed over toward the center). LCOR hasn’t budged on the residential building’s footprint or on the number of units. We’re being treated to endless spinning and re-spinning of essentially the same universally-condemned project. And the response to any critique is not to solve the problem but to find a better way to obscure it.
2. The second fiction we pointed out was that LCOR’s “optional soccer field locations” were located on land with steep changes of grade and thus were costly and unrealistic options (and, of course, held out a promise LCOR itself wouldn’t be keeping. Allen Lew would be saddled with these unrealistic expectations.) One layout had a height differential of 9 feet between the two goals; another looked closer to 12 feet. Since LCOR’s own image had contour lines, this information was available to them. This was an intentional attempt to mislead – not a mistake based on ignorance.
The newest site plans show the soccer field relocated to a flatter area bordering Bon Secours where a swing set and play equipment are now located.
3. LCOR’s current site plans are premised on the assumption that the library’s driveway (which provided access to fewer than 10 parking spaces) will now serve as the sole vehicular access (for both entry and exit) to a 200+ car garage and loading dock area for a 174 unit apartment building. Given the facts that this curb cut is located on Wisconsin Avenue just south of the Wisconsin and Albemarle intersection and that it abuts St. Ann’s driveway, it seems unfathomable that DDOT would allow such an arrangement. More likely, the driveway would be relocated to the site LCOR previously proposed – the “green space” between Janney and the residential building. But such realism would interfere with the “no net loss of green space” claim and so it’s been excised.
LCOR’s claim that the pre-existence of this curb cut shields the project from DDOT’s oversight is specious. This project will require a PUD and the Zoning Commission will not allow the requisite upzoning without working out a different traffic plan.
FOIA RESULTS
We are in the midst of receiving and reviewing documents from DCPS that are belatedly being produced in response to a July 18th FOIA request. What we’ve learned thus far is that on September 8th, two days before the release of the MFP, Janney’s addition was moved to the end of the modernization queue and scheduled for 2014, a year after its classrooms were to be renovated.
Prior to September 8th, Anthony DeGuzman (DCPS/OOC) and Eric Lerum (DME) had recommended a 2010 date for Janney’s addition, with classroom renovations to follow in 2012 or 2013. These dates are consistent with the March 31st consultant’s draft of the MFP, and the proposed sequencing was a crucial element of the swing in place strategy. The addition would need to be available before the classrooms in the old building could be vacated for renovation.
On September 9th, once DeGuzman saw what happened to Janney, he pointed out that the school’s new place at the end of the queue violated the fundamental principles (e.g. rightsizing) articulated in this MFP: “Schools with lesser space needs have leapfrogged them. This contradicts the guiding principles.” He was told that the change was made “per DME.” We suspect that this means Reinoso personally, given that Lerum, Reinoso’s chief of staff, had been arguing for 2010 just a few days previously.
To put it bluntly, there is clear evidence that the decision to move Janney to the end of the queue was based on politics rather than principle and that the move was designed to accommodate the PPP. Michelle Rhee indicated on September 3rd that “Allen Lew is modifying the plan assuming a PPP for Janney.” There is no indication that prior plans made such an assumption.
The documents also show that DCPS (including Rhee’s office, Lew’s office, and Reinoso’s office) were unfamiliar with LCOR’s proposal when Mayor Fenty made his July 10th developer selection announcement. Yet DCPS reassured the Janney SIT that everything was under control and the school’s needs were being protected even as it scrambled internally to figure out who knew what, if anything, about the proposal.
We have not yet found any documents explaining when or why the decision was made to sever Janney’s modernization from the rest of the PPP. In late July, DMPED contemplated an arrangement in which LCOR would be a “fee developer” for the school.
And, once again, we see no evidence of any planning regarding facilities needs, land use, campus design, logistics, or swing space related to this project.
Once all of the documents have been delivered and analyzed, we will post the most significant ones and an explanatory timeline on the ANC website and on the listservs.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. AUDITOR – The Special Committee plans to renew its request to the DC Auditor to investigate DMPED’s decisionmaking regarding the disposition of public lands. Last Spring, in response to our submission, the Auditor acknowledged the importance of the issue, but said she lacked the resources to investigate because of her office’s heavy workload during the Council’s annual agency Oversight Hearings. We believe that new events and new evidence underline the increasingly urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of deal-making involving public land. No Commission action is required on this item; any citizen has the right to request an audit.
2. ANC RESOLUTION ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL – The Special Committee suggests that the Commissioners adopt a resolution urging the Council to reassert its status as a co-equal branch of government and a steward of public lands by supporting CM Cheh and Brown’s call to abandon public-private partnership negotiations and to enable DCPL to commence rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Branch and by moving legislation to reform Title X out of committee.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
ANC 3E's Resolution Regarding the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School Proposed Public-Private Development Project
WHEREAS, Council Members Kwame Brown and Mary Cheh have written a letter to the Mayor asking for the library rebuild to move forward immediately and the private development proposal for the site be dropped, yet have not received a response by their due date of November 7, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Council Members’ lack of impact on the project signals that the Council’s status as a co-equal branch of the government is threatened, and
WHEREAS, the failure of the Mayor to end this extremely unpopular project has resulted in real harm to the community by causing a prolonged delay of the library rebuild,
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Mayor to end negotiations for a public-private development project at this site and to authorize DCPL to move forward with its plans to rebuild the Tenley-Friendship, and
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Council to re-establish its role as an effective steward of public lands by instructing the Mayor to stop wasting time and money on this project that is opposed by both the community and the Council Members who initially supported it, and
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E further urges the Council to complete the work it has begun to reform Title X by moving a bill out of committee and passing legislation this term to ensure that surplussing decisions must be made by the Council before the Mayor and his agents are authorized to offer public land for sale or long-term lease.
Approved this day of November 13, 2008 by a vote of 3-1 with a proper quorum present of Commissioners.
Signed,
Amy McVey, Chairperson of the ANC 3E
WHEREAS, the Council Members’ lack of impact on the project signals that the Council’s status as a co-equal branch of the government is threatened, and
WHEREAS, the failure of the Mayor to end this extremely unpopular project has resulted in real harm to the community by causing a prolonged delay of the library rebuild,
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Mayor to end negotiations for a public-private development project at this site and to authorize DCPL to move forward with its plans to rebuild the Tenley-Friendship, and
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Council to re-establish its role as an effective steward of public lands by instructing the Mayor to stop wasting time and money on this project that is opposed by both the community and the Council Members who initially supported it, and
THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E further urges the Council to complete the work it has begun to reform Title X by moving a bill out of committee and passing legislation this term to ensure that surplussing decisions must be made by the Council before the Mayor and his agents are authorized to offer public land for sale or long-term lease.
Approved this day of November 13, 2008 by a vote of 3-1 with a proper quorum present of Commissioners.
Signed,
Amy McVey, Chairperson of the ANC 3E
What’s Up with the Tenleytown Public/Private Project?
originally published in the November 2nd edition of dcwatch's The Mail
In Thursday’s Examiner, Ward 3 Councilmember Cheh claims “It’s finished.” But in Friday’s Washington Business Journal, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert and LCOR both say the project is “moving forward.” Loose Lips declares that it’s now “officially a pissing match.” For those who haven’t been following the story, Mayor Fenty pulled the plug on DCPL’s long-delayed reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library last July. At that point, DCPL had already spent a year (and about $1 million dollars) for demolition, design, and approvals and was on track (and within budget) to break ground in three months and reopen the library by early 2010.
So why did Fenty, essentially, yank the shovel out of Ginnie Cooper’s hands as she was finally ready to rebuild our library? To enter into exclusive negotiations with LCOR that would enable private residential development on the parcel of public land that houses both the branch library and Janney Elementary School.
Ostensibly/originally, the rationale for this project was that it would speed Janney’s modernization. It was always clear that there was nothing in the deal for the library, whose airy design will be riddled with columns to support the apartments above and whose reopening will most likely be delayed until 2013 (it was closed in 2004). Janney was supposed to get new and better facilities sooner, yet none of the proposals that emerged from the competitive bidding process were able to effect that outcome. At this point, it looks as if all that the LCOR proposal will do for Janney is take away some of its campus and delay its modernization. As a result, the Janney SIT (which includes the school’s principal) has called for an end to PPP discussions. And Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (Chair of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development) have written a letter asking the mayor to let the library reconstruction move forward independently of any public-private deal.
So what’s it going to be? Will Mayor Fenty sacrifice our public facilities’ needs to line developers’ pockets? Councilmember Cheh’s odds of reelection hinge on his decision. After all, if she can’t protect a fully-funded branch library project and an award-winning but severely overcrowded elementary school from Neil Albert’s depredations, what good is she to Ward 3 residents? Cheh may have proven prescient last spring when, after receiving an award from the Humane Society, she said “if cats and dogs could vote, I’d be in great shape.” Pets don’t vote, but taxpayers, library patrons, and the parents of schoolchildren do. And it’s not just Cheh’s future that’s at stake. If the rest of the council fails to back up Cheh and Brown in this fight, all of the councilmembers are likely to see their power reduced to that of glorified ANC commissioners (albeit with six-figure salaries!).
Already the pattern is establishing itself. Fenty listens to the council when its members tell him what he wants to hear. So Cheh and Brown’s first letter on this project, which endorsed putting this piece of public land on the auction block, was embraced. Their second letter, pointing out that none of the submissions received in response to the RFP was acceptable, was ignored. Fenty chose one of those proposals anyway. When they reiterated that LCOR’s proposal was unacceptable, Albert ignored them once again. And when they asked the mayor to pull the plug on the deal, Albert went to the media to trumpet his refusal.
Long story short, unless there’s a real backlash from the council, the moral of this story is that the council can and will be ignored with impunity. Thus far, the only prerogative I’ve seen this council stand up for is their baseball tickets. It’s time — way past time — for councilmembers to reclaim their role as stewards of public land.
In Thursday’s Examiner, Ward 3 Councilmember Cheh claims “It’s finished.” But in Friday’s Washington Business Journal, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert and LCOR both say the project is “moving forward.” Loose Lips declares that it’s now “officially a pissing match.” For those who haven’t been following the story, Mayor Fenty pulled the plug on DCPL’s long-delayed reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library last July. At that point, DCPL had already spent a year (and about $1 million dollars) for demolition, design, and approvals and was on track (and within budget) to break ground in three months and reopen the library by early 2010.
So why did Fenty, essentially, yank the shovel out of Ginnie Cooper’s hands as she was finally ready to rebuild our library? To enter into exclusive negotiations with LCOR that would enable private residential development on the parcel of public land that houses both the branch library and Janney Elementary School.
Ostensibly/originally, the rationale for this project was that it would speed Janney’s modernization. It was always clear that there was nothing in the deal for the library, whose airy design will be riddled with columns to support the apartments above and whose reopening will most likely be delayed until 2013 (it was closed in 2004). Janney was supposed to get new and better facilities sooner, yet none of the proposals that emerged from the competitive bidding process were able to effect that outcome. At this point, it looks as if all that the LCOR proposal will do for Janney is take away some of its campus and delay its modernization. As a result, the Janney SIT (which includes the school’s principal) has called for an end to PPP discussions. And Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (Chair of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development) have written a letter asking the mayor to let the library reconstruction move forward independently of any public-private deal.
So what’s it going to be? Will Mayor Fenty sacrifice our public facilities’ needs to line developers’ pockets? Councilmember Cheh’s odds of reelection hinge on his decision. After all, if she can’t protect a fully-funded branch library project and an award-winning but severely overcrowded elementary school from Neil Albert’s depredations, what good is she to Ward 3 residents? Cheh may have proven prescient last spring when, after receiving an award from the Humane Society, she said “if cats and dogs could vote, I’d be in great shape.” Pets don’t vote, but taxpayers, library patrons, and the parents of schoolchildren do. And it’s not just Cheh’s future that’s at stake. If the rest of the council fails to back up Cheh and Brown in this fight, all of the councilmembers are likely to see their power reduced to that of glorified ANC commissioners (albeit with six-figure salaries!).
Already the pattern is establishing itself. Fenty listens to the council when its members tell him what he wants to hear. So Cheh and Brown’s first letter on this project, which endorsed putting this piece of public land on the auction block, was embraced. Their second letter, pointing out that none of the submissions received in response to the RFP was acceptable, was ignored. Fenty chose one of those proposals anyway. When they reiterated that LCOR’s proposal was unacceptable, Albert ignored them once again. And when they asked the mayor to pull the plug on the deal, Albert went to the media to trumpet his refusal.
Long story short, unless there’s a real backlash from the council, the moral of this story is that the council can and will be ignored with impunity. Thus far, the only prerogative I’ve seen this council stand up for is their baseball tickets. It’s time — way past time — for councilmembers to reclaim their role as stewards of public land.
CMs Cheh and Brown ask Mayor to abandon PPP
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
MARY M. CHEH
Councilmember, Ward 3
Council Committee on Public Sercies and Consumer Affairs
Office: 202-7244-8062
Fax: 202-724-8413
mcheh@dccouncil.us
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty
Government of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
October 29, 2008
Dear Mayor Fenty:
Based upon all of the information presented to us and the views of the community, involved groups,, the developers, and District and ANC officials, we write to ask that you permit the Tenley Library to be build now and separate it from any possible mixed use, or public/private, development on the site.
At the same time, however, we ask that the Library's design be amended to include the structural supports necessary to permit development on top of the Library at a future date. That development could be residential, mixed-use, or even an increase in the size of the library. Our preliminary assessment is that such a modification would not be difficult and, although it will involve additional cost, that cost should be modest and manageable. In any event, the cost should be viewed as an investment in the future.
This approach will allow the library to move forward now, on its own timetable, with its design intact, and with monies already allocated.
As for the current LCOR proposal, we believe that it is fatally flawed; we cannot and will not support it. There are many reasons why we have reached this unsatisfactory place, but our lack of support relates to the LCOR proposal alone.
We still believe, as we have throughout, that the public interest lies in the comprehensive development of this site. There is an urgent need to have vibrant, mixed-use development along our main corridors and the Tenley site, which is located across the street from the subway, ought to be a key part of such development. We need energy and life along our corridors, and we need to make transit oriented development a priority.
Please let us know by next Friday, November 7, 2008, of your decision on allowing the library to go forward now, as modified with appropriate structural supports for future development. Thank you.
Best regards,
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3
Kwame Brown
Councilmember, At-Large
cc: Neil Albert, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
Ginnie Cooper, Chief Libraries for the District of Columbia Public Library
LCOR
ANC 3E Commissioners
Kirk Rankin, Janney Elementary School SIT Chair
Dr. Karen Crews, Janney Elemenary School Principal
John Hill, DC Board of Library Trustees President
A signed copy of their October 29th letter is available at http://www.marycheh.com/Press%20Releases/Tenley-Janney.pdf
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
MARY M. CHEH
Councilmember, Ward 3
Council Committee on Public Sercies and Consumer Affairs
Office: 202-7244-8062
Fax: 202-724-8413
mcheh@dccouncil.us
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty
Government of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
October 29, 2008
Dear Mayor Fenty:
Based upon all of the information presented to us and the views of the community, involved groups,, the developers, and District and ANC officials, we write to ask that you permit the Tenley Library to be build now and separate it from any possible mixed use, or public/private, development on the site.
At the same time, however, we ask that the Library's design be amended to include the structural supports necessary to permit development on top of the Library at a future date. That development could be residential, mixed-use, or even an increase in the size of the library. Our preliminary assessment is that such a modification would not be difficult and, although it will involve additional cost, that cost should be modest and manageable. In any event, the cost should be viewed as an investment in the future.
This approach will allow the library to move forward now, on its own timetable, with its design intact, and with monies already allocated.
As for the current LCOR proposal, we believe that it is fatally flawed; we cannot and will not support it. There are many reasons why we have reached this unsatisfactory place, but our lack of support relates to the LCOR proposal alone.
We still believe, as we have throughout, that the public interest lies in the comprehensive development of this site. There is an urgent need to have vibrant, mixed-use development along our main corridors and the Tenley site, which is located across the street from the subway, ought to be a key part of such development. We need energy and life along our corridors, and we need to make transit oriented development a priority.
Please let us know by next Friday, November 7, 2008, of your decision on allowing the library to go forward now, as modified with appropriate structural supports for future development. Thank you.
Best regards,
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3
Kwame Brown
Councilmember, At-Large
cc: Neil Albert, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
Ginnie Cooper, Chief Libraries for the District of Columbia Public Library
LCOR
ANC 3E Commissioners
Kirk Rankin, Janney Elementary School SIT Chair
Dr. Karen Crews, Janney Elemenary School Principal
John Hill, DC Board of Library Trustees President
A signed copy of their October 29th letter is available at http://www.marycheh.com/Press%20Releases/Tenley-Janney.pdf
Friday, October 3, 2008
Community Groups Urge Cheh/Mayor to Pull the Plug on the PPDP and Stop Delaying the Reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship Library
ANC 3E Chair Amy McVey sent the following letter to CM Cheh, Mayor Fenty, and DM Albert yesterday:
ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 3E
TENLEYTOWN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS
c/o Lisner Home 5425 Western Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015
October 2, 2008
We, the undersigned, heartily endorse the following statements:
Since the Janney SIT/LSRT has written to the Mayor rescinding all support for a development project, there is now a consensus among community stakeholders, for the Janney Elementary School and the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library that the public/private development project should be abandoned and that the reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library should proceed immediately. Furthermore, due to the severe overcrowding of the school and an anticipated population expansion to 550 students, Janney Elementary School's modernization/expansion should be moved as far forward as possible in the new Master Facilities Plan.
We strongly urge all decision makers in the District of Columbia government to cease negotiations with all developers intending to build private residences on the library and/or school land. The District of Columbia Public Library system should be directed to go ahead immediately with plans to rebuild the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library, and we urge Allen Lew of the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization to move Janney Elementary School in the modernization queue to allow for its expansion/modernization to begin as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy McVey, ANC3E01
Carolyn Sherman, ANC 3E03
Lucy Eldridge, ANC3E04
Anne Sullivan, ANC3E05
Friends of the Tenley-Friendship Library Executive Board
Board of Directors, Tenleytown Neighbors Association
Board of Directors, Friendship Neighborhood Association
Board of Directors, Tenleytown Historical Society
Board of Directors, CSTO
Marvin Tievsky, Friendship-Tenleytown Citizen’s Association
Dorothy Maloney, The Heights Foundation Inc.
Tenley Campus Neighbors
Friday, September 19, 2008
An Announcement from Janney Elementary School Improvement Team (SIT)
Last night, the Janney SIT announced its categorical opposition to a public-private redevelopment project involving the school's land in the following email sent to Janney parents:
An Update on the PPP and DCPS' Modernization and Expansion Plans for Janney
September 17, 2008
To the Janney Community -
The School Improvement Team (SIT) would like to update you on several important developments regarding the City's public-private partnership (PPP) plans and the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) modernization and expansion plans for Janney.
For the last year, and as recently as July of this year, the Janney SIT has offered conditional support for the concept of a PPP with the goal of securing a modernized and expanded Janney facility within a short time horizon. After careful consideration of the needs of the school and the sentiments of the Janney community, the SIT is withdrawing previously stated conditional support for this initiative. We are optimistic that the necessary modernization and urgently needed expansion of Janney can be completed through an effective Master Facilities Plan process without ceding land to a private developer. The SIT will advocate for timely modernization and expansion through this process.
The SIT appreciates the feedback we have received from the community so far and we welcome your questions and input going forward. A detailed Q&A regarding the current situation is located at the end of this letter, along with information on how to contact your SIT representatives. We are communicating with the City early next week, so if you have comments, please let us know as soon as possible.
The following factors have led us to this conclusion:
-- On September 10, 2008, DCPS issued an official draft of the Master Facilities Plan (MFP). According to the MFP, Janney is slated to begin modernization in 2013 and construction of an addition in 2014. Based on our current understanding, the modernization and addition are scheduled to occur at this time, regardless of whether the PPP moves forward. To view the official draft of the Master Facilities Plan, please go to http://opefm.dc.gov/pdf/DC_Master_Plan_2008.pdf.
-- None of the plans submitted by the City's selected lead private developer (LCOR), nor by any other developer, have thus far met the set of conditions stated by the SIT. We are skeptical that there will ever be an acceptable proposal given that the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has failed to engage in meaningful discussion with Janney. The City's PPP process has been opaque. We doubt both the City's intent and their ability to satisfy our basic conditions including green space preservation and an earlier time schedule for modernization and expansion. To read a history of the issue and previous letters issued by the SIT, please go to http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/Library%20development/librarydevelopment.htm.
In light of repeated unacceptable plans from LCOR and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the failure of the City to engage Janney in meaningful dialogue, and confidence that Janney's modernization and expansion plans can be completed in a timely manner by DCPS without a loss of Janney land, the SIT believes that the Janney community should no longer offer to cede part of its campus to advance a PPP.
We encourage you to review the Q&A that follows. If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to talk with you:
a. "Office Hours" -SIT members will be available in front of the school on Friday, September 19 at these times: 8:20 - 9:00am; 3:00 - 3:30pm
b. Comment Card - Stop by the SIT table at the times listed above, grab a comment card, fill it out, and drop it in the comments box that will be located at the SIT table. Comment cards will also be available in the Janney office.
c. Email and Phone - Shoot us an email or give us a call.
Please see the attached document for a Q&A regarding the current situation.
Best regards,
Janney SIT
An Update on the PPP and DCPS' Modernization and Expansion Plans for Janney
September 17, 2008
To the Janney Community -
The School Improvement Team (SIT) would like to update you on several important developments regarding the City's public-private partnership (PPP) plans and the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) modernization and expansion plans for Janney.
For the last year, and as recently as July of this year, the Janney SIT has offered conditional support for the concept of a PPP with the goal of securing a modernized and expanded Janney facility within a short time horizon. After careful consideration of the needs of the school and the sentiments of the Janney community, the SIT is withdrawing previously stated conditional support for this initiative. We are optimistic that the necessary modernization and urgently needed expansion of Janney can be completed through an effective Master Facilities Plan process without ceding land to a private developer. The SIT will advocate for timely modernization and expansion through this process.
The SIT appreciates the feedback we have received from the community so far and we welcome your questions and input going forward. A detailed Q&A regarding the current situation is located at the end of this letter, along with information on how to contact your SIT representatives. We are communicating with the City early next week, so if you have comments, please let us know as soon as possible.
The following factors have led us to this conclusion:
-- On September 10, 2008, DCPS issued an official draft of the Master Facilities Plan (MFP). According to the MFP, Janney is slated to begin modernization in 2013 and construction of an addition in 2014. Based on our current understanding, the modernization and addition are scheduled to occur at this time, regardless of whether the PPP moves forward. To view the official draft of the Master Facilities Plan, please go to http://opefm.dc.gov/pdf/DC_Master_Plan_2008.pdf.
-- None of the plans submitted by the City's selected lead private developer (LCOR), nor by any other developer, have thus far met the set of conditions stated by the SIT. We are skeptical that there will ever be an acceptable proposal given that the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has failed to engage in meaningful discussion with Janney. The City's PPP process has been opaque. We doubt both the City's intent and their ability to satisfy our basic conditions including green space preservation and an earlier time schedule for modernization and expansion. To read a history of the issue and previous letters issued by the SIT, please go to http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/Library%20development/librarydevelopment.htm.
In light of repeated unacceptable plans from LCOR and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the failure of the City to engage Janney in meaningful dialogue, and confidence that Janney's modernization and expansion plans can be completed in a timely manner by DCPS without a loss of Janney land, the SIT believes that the Janney community should no longer offer to cede part of its campus to advance a PPP.
We encourage you to review the Q&A that follows. If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to talk with you:
a. "Office Hours" -SIT members will be available in front of the school on Friday, September 19 at these times: 8:20 - 9:00am; 3:00 - 3:30pm
b. Comment Card - Stop by the SIT table at the times listed above, grab a comment card, fill it out, and drop it in the comments box that will be located at the SIT table. Comment cards will also be available in the Janney office.
c. Email and Phone - Shoot us an email or give us a call.
Please see the attached document for a Q&A regarding the current situation.
Best regards,
Janney SIT
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Just when you thought the deal couldn't get worse...
It's been a big "news" week for this project and, as usual, most of the information came our way as the result of FOIA requests and conversations with the developer rather than from direct communication between DC officials and the community. The short version is (a) Janney has been kicked back to the end of the school modernization queue, (b) LCOR won't be building or renovating the school, and (c) we can thank Mary Cheh and Allison Feeney for both of these developments.
As the following timeline indicates, the continued pursuit of a public-private “partnership” for the Janney/Tenley-Friendship library site is delaying not only the construction of the library, but the school’s modernization project as well.
October 31 – The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) issues a “Solicitation of Offers” for a public-private development project that would involve rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Library and modernizing/expanding Janney Elementary, while adding a residential building to the site. Private developers are offered public funds to build both the library and the school.
February 28 – All three developers who submitted proposals are given the opportunity to present them to the public. LCOR’s presentation includes a detailed site plan for Janney’s expansion and modernization.
March 31 – Janney is placed at #8 in queue in a draft Master Facilities Plan (MFP) submitted to DCPS officials by their consultants, FHAI. Both the budget and the timeline for Janney in this plan are totally inconsistent with the budget and timeline for the school that was laid out in DMPED’s Solicitation of Offers, suggesting that, thus far, there has been no coordination between DCPS and DMPED regarding the Janney modernization project.
April 28 – DMPED officials Neil Albert and Eric Scott insist that Janney is number 100-something in the MFP queue; at this point, they are unaware of DCPS’s March 31st draft MFP.
July 10 – The Mayor announces that he has decided to pursue the public–private option and has chosen to negotiate exclusively with LCOR. LCOR’s press release that day says “LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.”
July 12 – CM Cheh urges Neil Albert to “co-ordinate with those responsible” to act on Allison Feeney’s suggestions that the way to engender community support for the PPP is to shut down the possibility that Janney could be near the front of the modernization queue without a PPP and to put Allen Lew’s shop in total control of Janney’s modernization project.
Sept 10 – DCPS makes its new MFP public and Janney has now been moved back to the end of the modernization queue. LCOR VP Tim Smith tells ANC special committee members Anne Sullivan and Sue Hemberger that his company will not be designing or building any of Janney’s facilities; that will be a DCPS project under Lew’s direction. The only thing DCPS is deciding with respect to the LCOR deal is how many parking spots it wants to buy in the underground garage.
The assertion that Janney was moved up in the queue only because of the PPP flies in the face of all of the evidence. If it were true, we’d expect Janney to move forward rather than backward after the Mayor’s July 10th announcement, but the opposite happened. Janney’s scheduled completion date went from 2012 (March/pre-PPP draft) to 2014 (September/post-PPP draft).
A paradigm shift in DCPS’s approach to school modernizations is what lead to Janney's move to the front of the queue in March. Right-sizing is the new priority and that meant relieving overcrowding (and increasing capacity at successful schools) as well as shutting down low-performing schools to eliminate excess capacity in the system. On this model, Janney belongs near the front whereas on the older model, where the priority was fixing the facilities in the worst condition first, Janney had been near the end.
And the fact that the current anticipated completion date (2014) is earlier than the anticipated completion date under the older pre-takeover Master Facilities Plan (2015) has absolutely nothing to do with the PPP. It’s an artifact of the new regime’s decision to modernize at a much faster pace, and move through the whole queue in the next 5 years. Under the new draft MFP, no school modernizations are scheduled for completion after 2014. And, incidentally, the start dates in both the pre-takeover MFP and the current version are the same -- 2013. The claim that Janney’s modernization schedule has been hastened as a result of this PPP is pure fabrication and, as Allison’s email suggests, it’s a fabrication whose circulation is urged by those whose primary motive at this point is to promote a PPP rather than to get better facilities for the school sooner.
In addition to Cheh's advice to Neil Albert, there's another reason why the prospect of a public-private partnership would argue for postponing Janney's modernization. Odds are, Allen Lew has reached the point where he now assumes that the PPP is a done deal and he is planning accordingly. It woudl be a real nightmare to stick with the consultants' proposed 2011/12 Janney modernization if LCOR were working on the adjacent site simultaneously. So in his position, the rational thing for Lew to do would be wait to start the Janney project until after LCOR is basically done and gone. The other option would be to modernize Janney before LCOR is even ready to break ground but, in the absence of any site planning/campus design efforts or even a binding decision about how much land Janney will lose to the deal, that's just not feasible.
Currently, no one is engaged in site-planning for Janney. LCOR will plan its apartment/library building (in conjunction with DCPL) and acquire Janney land to build that structure. Janney’s modernization/expansion will be planned only after its campus shrinks.
This is precisely the outcome that the ANC special committee has been arguing against for over a year now. It should not be the case, when public land is at issue, that private developers have their needs met first, while the school is forced to make do with the land left over. It’s a perversion of priorities and an evasion of the law. The right approach is first to figure out how to best meet our facilities needs, reserve the land that’s required to do so, and, then, if there’s land left over, consider whether, how much, and what kind of private development makes sense for the site.
Janney will end up with less -- not more -- as a result of this deal and it’s not even a “we’ll take less to get it sooner” scenario any more. Maybe DCPS gets some revenue (but not much – which is why DC government forbade the developers from information about the financial structure of their proposal during public presentations) from this deal, but it’s not revenue that is needed for school modernizations which already have an ample and dedicated funding source. And, of course, it’s always the case that DCPS could raise money by selling off schools or the land under them. But DCPS’s function is to provide schools not make real estate deals. We’re not getting something for nothing or something extra here. We’re liquidating irreplaceable assets in an area -- and on a campus -- slated for growth. It’s a short-sighted decision that will be detrimental to both the school and the neighborhood.
As the following timeline indicates, the continued pursuit of a public-private “partnership” for the Janney/Tenley-Friendship library site is delaying not only the construction of the library, but the school’s modernization project as well.
October 31 – The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) issues a “Solicitation of Offers” for a public-private development project that would involve rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Library and modernizing/expanding Janney Elementary, while adding a residential building to the site. Private developers are offered public funds to build both the library and the school.
February 28 – All three developers who submitted proposals are given the opportunity to present them to the public. LCOR’s presentation includes a detailed site plan for Janney’s expansion and modernization.
March 31 – Janney is placed at #8 in queue in a draft Master Facilities Plan (MFP) submitted to DCPS officials by their consultants, FHAI. Both the budget and the timeline for Janney in this plan are totally inconsistent with the budget and timeline for the school that was laid out in DMPED’s Solicitation of Offers, suggesting that, thus far, there has been no coordination between DCPS and DMPED regarding the Janney modernization project.
April 28 – DMPED officials Neil Albert and Eric Scott insist that Janney is number 100-something in the MFP queue; at this point, they are unaware of DCPS’s March 31st draft MFP.
July 10 – The Mayor announces that he has decided to pursue the public–private option and has chosen to negotiate exclusively with LCOR. LCOR’s press release that day says “LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.”
July 12 – CM Cheh urges Neil Albert to “co-ordinate with those responsible” to act on Allison Feeney’s suggestions that the way to engender community support for the PPP is to shut down the possibility that Janney could be near the front of the modernization queue without a PPP and to put Allen Lew’s shop in total control of Janney’s modernization project.
Sept 10 – DCPS makes its new MFP public and Janney has now been moved back to the end of the modernization queue. LCOR VP Tim Smith tells ANC special committee members Anne Sullivan and Sue Hemberger that his company will not be designing or building any of Janney’s facilities; that will be a DCPS project under Lew’s direction. The only thing DCPS is deciding with respect to the LCOR deal is how many parking spots it wants to buy in the underground garage.
The assertion that Janney was moved up in the queue only because of the PPP flies in the face of all of the evidence. If it were true, we’d expect Janney to move forward rather than backward after the Mayor’s July 10th announcement, but the opposite happened. Janney’s scheduled completion date went from 2012 (March/pre-PPP draft) to 2014 (September/post-PPP draft).
A paradigm shift in DCPS’s approach to school modernizations is what lead to Janney's move to the front of the queue in March. Right-sizing is the new priority and that meant relieving overcrowding (and increasing capacity at successful schools) as well as shutting down low-performing schools to eliminate excess capacity in the system. On this model, Janney belongs near the front whereas on the older model, where the priority was fixing the facilities in the worst condition first, Janney had been near the end.
And the fact that the current anticipated completion date (2014) is earlier than the anticipated completion date under the older pre-takeover Master Facilities Plan (2015) has absolutely nothing to do with the PPP. It’s an artifact of the new regime’s decision to modernize at a much faster pace, and move through the whole queue in the next 5 years. Under the new draft MFP, no school modernizations are scheduled for completion after 2014. And, incidentally, the start dates in both the pre-takeover MFP and the current version are the same -- 2013. The claim that Janney’s modernization schedule has been hastened as a result of this PPP is pure fabrication and, as Allison’s email suggests, it’s a fabrication whose circulation is urged by those whose primary motive at this point is to promote a PPP rather than to get better facilities for the school sooner.
In addition to Cheh's advice to Neil Albert, there's another reason why the prospect of a public-private partnership would argue for postponing Janney's modernization. Odds are, Allen Lew has reached the point where he now assumes that the PPP is a done deal and he is planning accordingly. It woudl be a real nightmare to stick with the consultants' proposed 2011/12 Janney modernization if LCOR were working on the adjacent site simultaneously. So in his position, the rational thing for Lew to do would be wait to start the Janney project until after LCOR is basically done and gone. The other option would be to modernize Janney before LCOR is even ready to break ground but, in the absence of any site planning/campus design efforts or even a binding decision about how much land Janney will lose to the deal, that's just not feasible.
Currently, no one is engaged in site-planning for Janney. LCOR will plan its apartment/library building (in conjunction with DCPL) and acquire Janney land to build that structure. Janney’s modernization/expansion will be planned only after its campus shrinks.
This is precisely the outcome that the ANC special committee has been arguing against for over a year now. It should not be the case, when public land is at issue, that private developers have their needs met first, while the school is forced to make do with the land left over. It’s a perversion of priorities and an evasion of the law. The right approach is first to figure out how to best meet our facilities needs, reserve the land that’s required to do so, and, then, if there’s land left over, consider whether, how much, and what kind of private development makes sense for the site.
Janney will end up with less -- not more -- as a result of this deal and it’s not even a “we’ll take less to get it sooner” scenario any more. Maybe DCPS gets some revenue (but not much – which is why DC government forbade the developers from information about the financial structure of their proposal during public presentations) from this deal, but it’s not revenue that is needed for school modernizations which already have an ample and dedicated funding source. And, of course, it’s always the case that DCPS could raise money by selling off schools or the land under them. But DCPS’s function is to provide schools not make real estate deals. We’re not getting something for nothing or something extra here. We’re liquidating irreplaceable assets in an area -- and on a campus -- slated for growth. It’s a short-sighted decision that will be detrimental to both the school and the neighborhood.
By any means necessary?
The following email, obtained through a FOIA request, shows Councilmember Mary Cheh passing on Janney SIT Member Allison Feeney's recommendations as to how to engender support for the PPP. Cheh endorses Feeney's suggestions and urges Neil Albert to implement them. Interestingly, a crucial compoenet of this strategy is to preclude the option that the community wants most -- speedier modernization of Janney without a private development on its campus.
From: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL) [MCheh@DCCOUNCIL.US]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Albert, Neil (EOM)
Subject: Fw: Support for the Tenley PPP
These are all very good suggestions which I hope you will co-ordinate with those responsible and pursue. And, in general, there is a need for as much communication as possible to counter the misinformation being spread out there. Thanks Mary.
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember for Ward 3
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 108
Washington, DC 20004
Tel (202) 724-8062
mcheh@dccouncil.us
www.marycheh.com
-Sent using BlackBerry
-----Original Message ----
From: allisonfeeney@starpower.net
To: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL)
Sent: Sat Jul 12 1 l:07:06 2008
Subject: Support for the Tenley PPP
Council Member -Council Office Mary Cheh
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-3003
Dear Council Member -Council Office Cheh,
Thank you for moving ahead with the Tenley Library private
public partnership. This decision for a mixed use project
demonstrates the forward thinking that we celebrate for our
neighborhood.
I believe that there are a couple of statements that the city
could issue that might help the community come together in
support of the project:
I was told by Eric Scott that Allen Lew's shop will be
completely responsible for Janney's modernization, that LCOR
will not be responsible for determining the design and program.
If this is true, and this fact was made public, I'm sure that
would ease the concem of many in the community.
To quell the concern that economic factors are driving this
process, it would be beneficial for the Mayor to announce that
the Deputy Mayor for Education will be as involved in the
process as the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
bevelopment. Reinoso is well trusted in Ward 3 and that would
help assure the community that the school's needs will be well
represented in the process.
ANC3E is selectively leaking out a 3/31/08 draft of the MFP that
shows Janney as #8 for modemization. They interpret this
document to mean that Janney was being moved up anyway or has
already been moved up and will necessarily stay moved up. You
certainly must realize that if the community could kill the PPP
and have Janney remain in the #8 spot, most in the community
would choose that option! I believe that this is another case
where the ODMPED or Mayor has to come out and state (if true)
that Janney will only move up if the PPP happens. Now that this
document has been circulated, it is no longer good enough to say
it the other way round.
I thank you for moving forward on this Partnership, and I certainly
hope to hear increased and improved communication from the DC
Government as the project evolves.
Sincerely,
Allison Bamard Feeney
4519 Chesapeake Street NW
Washington. DC 20016
From: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL) [MCheh@DCCOUNCIL.US]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Albert, Neil (EOM)
Subject: Fw: Support for the Tenley PPP
These are all very good suggestions which I hope you will co-ordinate with those responsible and pursue. And, in general, there is a need for as much communication as possible to counter the misinformation being spread out there. Thanks Mary.
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember for Ward 3
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 108
Washington, DC 20004
Tel (202) 724-8062
mcheh@dccouncil.us
www.marycheh.com
-Sent using BlackBerry
-----Original Message ----
From: allisonfeeney@starpower.net
To: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL)
Sent: Sat Jul 12 1 l:07:06 2008
Subject: Support for the Tenley PPP
Council Member -Council Office Mary Cheh
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-3003
Dear Council Member -Council Office Cheh,
Thank you for moving ahead with the Tenley Library private
public partnership. This decision for a mixed use project
demonstrates the forward thinking that we celebrate for our
neighborhood.
I believe that there are a couple of statements that the city
could issue that might help the community come together in
support of the project:
I was told by Eric Scott that Allen Lew's shop will be
completely responsible for Janney's modernization, that LCOR
will not be responsible for determining the design and program.
If this is true, and this fact was made public, I'm sure that
would ease the concem of many in the community.
To quell the concern that economic factors are driving this
process, it would be beneficial for the Mayor to announce that
the Deputy Mayor for Education will be as involved in the
process as the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
bevelopment. Reinoso is well trusted in Ward 3 and that would
help assure the community that the school's needs will be well
represented in the process.
ANC3E is selectively leaking out a 3/31/08 draft of the MFP that
shows Janney as #8 for modemization. They interpret this
document to mean that Janney was being moved up anyway or has
already been moved up and will necessarily stay moved up. You
certainly must realize that if the community could kill the PPP
and have Janney remain in the #8 spot, most in the community
would choose that option! I believe that this is another case
where the ODMPED or Mayor has to come out and state (if true)
that Janney will only move up if the PPP happens. Now that this
document has been circulated, it is no longer good enough to say
it the other way round.
I thank you for moving forward on this Partnership, and I certainly
hope to hear increased and improved communication from the DC
Government as the project evolves.
Sincerely,
Allison Bamard Feeney
4519 Chesapeake Street NW
Washington. DC 20016
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
FOIA Results
Back in mid-July, ANC Commissioner (and Special Committee Chair) Anne Sullivan submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to District of Columbia Public Schools, the Office of Public Education Facilities Management, and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, asking each agency to produce any communications regarding, or documents underlying, the decision to allow private development on Janney's campus and the decision to select LCOR as the developer, as well as any materials involving site planning for Janney and/or analysis of whether (and under what circumstances) a "swing in place" strategy (e.g. keeping the students on campus during construction) would remain viable if a joint public-private development project (PPDP) were to be pursued rather than a stand-alone modernization of the school.
Each agency answered that it had no responsive documents. If true, this means that Rhee, Lew, and Reinoso failed to engage in any analysis of whether a PPDP represents the best strategy for modernizing Janney. Nor did they ask anyone in their offices to engage in such an analysis. In other words, the decision to partner with LCOR was not based on any educational facilities planning effort or expertise. Moreover, it would mean that this decision was not discussed within or among these agencies; nor was there a dialogue between any of these agencies and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development or the Mayor himself regarding this decision.
So are they telling the truth? On the one hand, it's difficult to believe that there's not a single document anywhere in DCPS or OPEFM discussing these decisions. On the other hand, it makes no sense (and it's a violation of the law) to refuse to produce the administrative record that explains and justifies these decisions. It's tantamount to acknowledging that the decisionmaking process was arbitrary and capricious. That isn't so hard to believe. In fact, it's entirely consistent with our experience and perception of how this project has been handled over the course of the past 15 months.
DCPS's Response:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
825 North Capitol Street, NE, 9TH Floor
Washington, D.C., 20002-1994
(202) 442-5000 – fax: (202) 442-5097/8
August 28, 2008
Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E
4431 Springdale Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
RE: Response to July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act Request # 0708-87
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
On July 18, 2008, you forwarded a Freedom of Information Act request to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) requesting the following:
1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School.
2. The complete administrative record underlying the decision that LCOR’s proposal represented the best approach to the meeting Janney Elementary School’s facilities needs.
3. All documents relevant to the claim that Janney students will be able to remain on campus (or “swing in place”) if a public-private joint redevelopment project is pursued at this site.
4. All materials and documents reflective of the site-planning that DCPS has done for Janney’s modernization and expansion.
5. All documents reflecting discussions within DCPS or between DCPS and others (individuals, contractors, other governmental agencies or officials) regarding Janney’s position in the modernization queue or status in the Master Facilities Plan.
6. All documents including discussions of how / whether the issue of overcrowding should be addressed in the Master Facilities Plan and / or affect the prioritization of the modernization queue.
7. All documents referring or relating to the public / private partnership for or development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
8. All documents referring or relating to communications with anyone (including but not limited to other governmental entities and their representatives, developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, any DC Council Member or member of his/her staff) concerning the possible development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which the FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
9. All documents regarding modernization, expansion, or repairs of Janney Elementary School more generally from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
Please be advised that DCPS does not have in its possession documents responsive to your requests. As previously advised, you will have to make a separate FOIA request to the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education for these documents. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 442-5000. Otherwise, please note that if you are dissatisfied with the decisions contained in this letter, you may appeal the decisions in writing by sending a letter to: FOIA Appeal, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 221, Washington, D.C. 20004. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Nicole L. Streeter
Deputy General Counsel
District of Columbia Public Schools
*****
OPEFM's Response:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION
Allen Y. Lew 2400 East Capitol Street, SE
Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone (202)698-7762
August 28, 2008
Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3 E
4431 Springdale Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
Subject: Janney Elementary School
Reference: FOIA Request Response
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
ln response to your letter received by the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization ("OPEFM") on July X 8. 2008 pursuant to which you requested disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of information related to plans for Janney Elementary please find responses to your specific requests below.
1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School. OPEFM has no responsive records.
Each agency answered that it had no responsive documents. If true, this means that Rhee, Lew, and Reinoso failed to engage in any analysis of whether a PPDP represents the best strategy for modernizing Janney. Nor did they ask anyone in their offices to engage in such an analysis. In other words, the decision to partner with LCOR was not based on any educational facilities planning effort or expertise. Moreover, it would mean that this decision was not discussed within or among these agencies; nor was there a dialogue between any of these agencies and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development or the Mayor himself regarding this decision.
So are they telling the truth? On the one hand, it's difficult to believe that there's not a single document anywhere in DCPS or OPEFM discussing these decisions. On the other hand, it makes no sense (and it's a violation of the law) to refuse to produce the administrative record that explains and justifies these decisions. It's tantamount to acknowledging that the decisionmaking process was arbitrary and capricious. That isn't so hard to believe. In fact, it's entirely consistent with our experience and perception of how this project has been handled over the course of the past 15 months.
DCPS's Response:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
825 North Capitol Street, NE, 9TH Floor
Washington, D.C., 20002-1994
(202) 442-5000 – fax: (202) 442-5097/8
August 28, 2008
Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E
4431 Springdale Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
RE: Response to July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act Request # 0708-87
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
On July 18, 2008, you forwarded a Freedom of Information Act request to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) requesting the following:
1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School.
2. The complete administrative record underlying the decision that LCOR’s proposal represented the best approach to the meeting Janney Elementary School’s facilities needs.
3. All documents relevant to the claim that Janney students will be able to remain on campus (or “swing in place”) if a public-private joint redevelopment project is pursued at this site.
4. All materials and documents reflective of the site-planning that DCPS has done for Janney’s modernization and expansion.
5. All documents reflecting discussions within DCPS or between DCPS and others (individuals, contractors, other governmental agencies or officials) regarding Janney’s position in the modernization queue or status in the Master Facilities Plan.
6. All documents including discussions of how / whether the issue of overcrowding should be addressed in the Master Facilities Plan and / or affect the prioritization of the modernization queue.
7. All documents referring or relating to the public / private partnership for or development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
8. All documents referring or relating to communications with anyone (including but not limited to other governmental entities and their representatives, developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, any DC Council Member or member of his/her staff) concerning the possible development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which the FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
9. All documents regarding modernization, expansion, or repairs of Janney Elementary School more generally from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.
Please be advised that DCPS does not have in its possession documents responsive to your requests. As previously advised, you will have to make a separate FOIA request to the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education for these documents. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 442-5000. Otherwise, please note that if you are dissatisfied with the decisions contained in this letter, you may appeal the decisions in writing by sending a letter to: FOIA Appeal, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 221, Washington, D.C. 20004. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Nicole L. Streeter
Deputy General Counsel
District of Columbia Public Schools
*****
OPEFM's Response:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION
Allen Y. Lew 2400 East Capitol Street, SE
Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone (202)698-7762
August 28, 2008
Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3 E
4431 Springdale Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
Subject: Janney Elementary School
Reference: FOIA Request Response
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
ln response to your letter received by the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization ("OPEFM") on July X 8. 2008 pursuant to which you requested disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of information related to plans for Janney Elementary please find responses to your specific requests below.
1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School. OPEFM has no responsive records.
2. The complete administrative record underlying the decision that LCOR's proposal represented the best approach to meeting Janney Elementary School's facilities needs. OPEFM has no responsive records.
3. All documents relevant to the claim that Janney students will be able to remain on campus (or "swing in place") if a public-private joint redevelopment project is pursued at this site. OPEFM has no responsive records.
4. All materials and documents reflective of the site-planning that OPEFM has done for Janney's modernization and expansion. As part of its Master Facilities Pan process, OPEFM has produced numerous iterations of draft plans for modernization of DCPS facilities. These draft plans are exempt from disclosure pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).
5. All documents reflecting discussions within OPEFM or between OPEFM and others (individuals, contractors, other governmental agencies or officials) regarding Janney's position in the modernization queue or status in the Master Facilities Plan. As part of its Master Facilities Plan process, OPEFM has produced numerous iterations of draft modernization schedules for DCPS facilities. These draft plans are exempt from disclosure pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).
6. All documents including discussions of how/whether the issue of overcrowding should be addressed in the Master Facilities Plan and/or affect the prioritization of the modernization queue. OPEFM has no responsive records.
7. All documents referring or relating to the public/private parhrership for or development of the Site from June 1, 2007 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied. OPEFM has no responsive records.
8. All documents referring or relating to communications with anyone (including but not limited to other government entities and their representatives, developers. businesses, non-profit organizations, any DC Council Member or member of his/her staff) concerning the possible development of the Site from June l, 2007 until the date on which the FOIA request has been fully satisfied. OPEFM has no responsive records.
9. All documents regarding modernization, expansion, or repairs of Janney Elementary School more generally from June 1, 2007 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied. Janney received repair work under the 2007 Summer Blitz program. An overview of the scope of work excerpted from the Summer 2007 Blitz tracking report is attached. Should you require a more specifie scope of work please let me know and we will provide one.
Please be advised that certain responsive materials, including the evaluation panel score sheets, are exempt and have not been disclosed.
Please also be advised that you may petition the Mayor pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4). to review the decision to withhold these documents pursuant to the exemptions at DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).
If you have any additional question, please call me (202) 345-7016 or contact me by email at scott.burrell@dc.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Burrell
General Counsel
Monday, August 18, 2008
It's Council Time! (Well, almost.)
The following posts from The Mail lay out my take on what has happened/been revealed since the Mayor's July 10th announcement.
Long story short, we've moved from a stage in which the fate of this project was in the Mayor's hands to one in which it's now the Council's decision. The Cheh/Brown letters (released to the public only after being reported on in the media) suggest that the CMs are starting to step up to the plate, but aren't exactly power hitters yet. Then again, what we're seeing now is just pre-season warm-ups. The Council doesn't return from its summer recess until mid-September.
UPDATE: Had a very reassuring meeting with Kwame Brown this morning (Wednesday). He clearly intends to take the Council's oversight role seriously. Expect at least two public hearings on this project next Spring from his committee (Economic Development) and, of course, Government Operations will need to hold a hearing on the surplussing issue as well. If Carol Schwartz (its Chair) survives the primary, I think she, too, will want to see this project thoroughly vetted.
Tales from Tenley (August 10th)
One month after the mayor pulled the plug on DC Public Libraries’ imminent reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship library and handed that project and the adjacent Janney Elementary School modernization over to Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, the story has become even more fantastic. It turns out that the deal the Mayor was touting — a project involving 120-130 units of housing and “no loss of green space,” according to his July 10 press release — was a complete fiction. The development “partner” whom Fenty named had not agreed to these terms or anything like them. LCOR’s same-day press release referred to an 174-unit project, and Tim Smith, an LCOR Vice President, subsequently confirmed that the company had made no “best and final offer.” In fact, their only offer was the one that the community had seen last February. And that proposal consumed all of Janney’s playing field as well as a portion of the teachers’ parking lot.
But apparently it wasn’t just the community that Fenty and Albert were misleading when they suggested that subsequent negotiations had produced a new and much better plan. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh, standing by the mayor’s side but looking uncharacteristically ill-at-ease, had written to Albert back in April, indicating that she found LCOR’s plan to be unacceptable.
Like LCOR, she had been called the night before and asked to attend the press conference the next morning. There was no opportunity for her to see the new (nonexistent) plan before she arrived. Once she learned that the new plan was essentially the same as the old plan, Cheh and Kwame Brown (who, as Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development, serves an important gate-keeping function on projects like this — if, that is, such projects actually are taken to the council before they are faits accompli) sent another letter to Neil Albert on July 24. According to three different media accounts this past week, that letter laid out a number of “essential conditions” that would have to be met before these Councilmembers could offer their support for the LCOR deal.
None of these conditions have been met (and, frankly, some probably cannot be met), so Cheh and Brown apparently are, for now at least, opposed to the deal. This is an important turn of events, since it was another letter from Cheh and Brown, sent to the mayor in June of last year, whose support for a public-private venture helped put the school and library land on the auction block in the first place.
So now we know that Fenty and Albert subverted the council, misrepresented the project to the community and to the Ward Councilmember, and announced a deal their putative partner had never agreed to. On top of that, the deal that LCOR has offered is a really bad one for the community. It will provide us with fewer/worse public facilities, delivered later, and at greater public expense. I’m delighted to see Cheh “join the opposition,” as the Post put it. Of course, talk’s cheap, and it’s a little unnerving to hear Cheh, once again, talking about “crossing her fingers” and hoping for the best. It’s time for the Council to develop and enforce standards (both procedural and substantive) for ensuring that public land deals serve the public interest rather than just enhance the power of the executive by providing a vast source of patronage.
Tenleytown Follies (August 17th)
In this week’s episode, Mary Cheh makes her letters to Neil Albert public. And standards are lowered, but still not met.
When Councilmembers Cheh and Brown wrote to the deputy mayor in early April, after seeing all three submissions received in response to the Tenleytown Request for Proposals, they stated “we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form.” By late July, they are saying, “one possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans.” In other words (judging from the suggestions that follow), if only LCOR would adopt Roadside’s (hitherto unacceptable) plan, we could support this project.
Meanwhile the affordable housing requirement for the project has fallen from 30 percent to 8 percent (less than would be required under mandatory inclusionary zoning). And Cheh and Brown find themselves begging for assurances (from an agency that has just betrayed their trust) that we’ll break even or not lose too much by accepting this deal — “no loss of “green space for Janney,” “no undue delay in building the library,” “LEED Silver” (when the DC Public Library’s architects think they have achieved Gold.)
While it’s a step in the right direction to see Councilmembers beginning to set standards for public land deals, Cheh and Brown’s “essential ingredients” don’t include the most basic features that should be necessary to justify devoting part of this heavily used campus to private development. There’s no requirement that Janney’s facilities needs be met before land is devoted to non-educational uses, that the school be modernized faster than it would without a public-private partnership (a requirement present in their April letter), or that the deal produce a better library than we’d otherwise have.
Is anyone at the table actually looking out for the community’s interests? When we point out that our facilities needs are being sacrificed to build apartments that could be built on private land in the immediate vicinity, we’re told not to worry because the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and LCOR have “just begun negotiations.”
But there’s a difference between "having made no progress over the past seven months" and “just beginning.” LCOR submitted their proposal the first week in January and they haven’t budged since, despite being asked (at least twice) by DMPED to make a better offer. Why should they? They were selected despite the fact that a united community and the only two Councilmembers to weigh in all considered their proposal unacceptable. As long as these Councilmembers keep lowering their expectations, it’s just a waiting game.
And experience tells them it could be worth the wait. Last time LCOR negotiated with DC government, they emerged with (and quickly sold!) a property tax break lasting more than twenty years for the apartment tower they built. And Oyster’s students lost more than half of their already comparatively small campus.
This whole episode is a case study in why we need to reform (or at least enforce) our process for disposing of public property. The threshold question here should have been “is there land at this site that is no longer needed for public use?” But DMPED chose to skip that step (also known as the surplusing decision) and the council chose not to object. As a result, this project has been driven by ideology and wishful thinking rather than an analysis of public facilities needs and the economic and physical constraints of this particular site.
When every submission the RFP yielded was unacceptable because it didn’t provide the “hoped for” benefits, that should have functioned as a reality check for the Mayor and the Councilmembers who urged this project forward in the first place. It certainly did for the community — once people saw the actual proposals, a consensus quickly emerged that a public-private partnership was not the right approach to this site. The mayor created that consensus (by issuing the RFP) and then ignored it.
The question now is whether Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (and the Council generally) will stop this madness or just content themselves with wringing their hands, crossing their fingers, and passing the buck. Stay tuned.
Long story short, we've moved from a stage in which the fate of this project was in the Mayor's hands to one in which it's now the Council's decision. The Cheh/Brown letters (released to the public only after being reported on in the media) suggest that the CMs are starting to step up to the plate, but aren't exactly power hitters yet. Then again, what we're seeing now is just pre-season warm-ups. The Council doesn't return from its summer recess until mid-September.
UPDATE: Had a very reassuring meeting with Kwame Brown this morning (Wednesday). He clearly intends to take the Council's oversight role seriously. Expect at least two public hearings on this project next Spring from his committee (Economic Development) and, of course, Government Operations will need to hold a hearing on the surplussing issue as well. If Carol Schwartz (its Chair) survives the primary, I think she, too, will want to see this project thoroughly vetted.
Tales from Tenley (August 10th)
One month after the mayor pulled the plug on DC Public Libraries’ imminent reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship library and handed that project and the adjacent Janney Elementary School modernization over to Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, the story has become even more fantastic. It turns out that the deal the Mayor was touting — a project involving 120-130 units of housing and “no loss of green space,” according to his July 10 press release — was a complete fiction. The development “partner” whom Fenty named had not agreed to these terms or anything like them. LCOR’s same-day press release referred to an 174-unit project, and Tim Smith, an LCOR Vice President, subsequently confirmed that the company had made no “best and final offer.” In fact, their only offer was the one that the community had seen last February. And that proposal consumed all of Janney’s playing field as well as a portion of the teachers’ parking lot.
But apparently it wasn’t just the community that Fenty and Albert were misleading when they suggested that subsequent negotiations had produced a new and much better plan. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh, standing by the mayor’s side but looking uncharacteristically ill-at-ease, had written to Albert back in April, indicating that she found LCOR’s plan to be unacceptable.
Like LCOR, she had been called the night before and asked to attend the press conference the next morning. There was no opportunity for her to see the new (nonexistent) plan before she arrived. Once she learned that the new plan was essentially the same as the old plan, Cheh and Kwame Brown (who, as Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development, serves an important gate-keeping function on projects like this — if, that is, such projects actually are taken to the council before they are faits accompli) sent another letter to Neil Albert on July 24. According to three different media accounts this past week, that letter laid out a number of “essential conditions” that would have to be met before these Councilmembers could offer their support for the LCOR deal.
None of these conditions have been met (and, frankly, some probably cannot be met), so Cheh and Brown apparently are, for now at least, opposed to the deal. This is an important turn of events, since it was another letter from Cheh and Brown, sent to the mayor in June of last year, whose support for a public-private venture helped put the school and library land on the auction block in the first place.
So now we know that Fenty and Albert subverted the council, misrepresented the project to the community and to the Ward Councilmember, and announced a deal their putative partner had never agreed to. On top of that, the deal that LCOR has offered is a really bad one for the community. It will provide us with fewer/worse public facilities, delivered later, and at greater public expense. I’m delighted to see Cheh “join the opposition,” as the Post put it. Of course, talk’s cheap, and it’s a little unnerving to hear Cheh, once again, talking about “crossing her fingers” and hoping for the best. It’s time for the Council to develop and enforce standards (both procedural and substantive) for ensuring that public land deals serve the public interest rather than just enhance the power of the executive by providing a vast source of patronage.
Tenleytown Follies (August 17th)
In this week’s episode, Mary Cheh makes her letters to Neil Albert public. And standards are lowered, but still not met.
When Councilmembers Cheh and Brown wrote to the deputy mayor in early April, after seeing all three submissions received in response to the Tenleytown Request for Proposals, they stated “we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form.” By late July, they are saying, “one possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans.” In other words (judging from the suggestions that follow), if only LCOR would adopt Roadside’s (hitherto unacceptable) plan, we could support this project.
Meanwhile the affordable housing requirement for the project has fallen from 30 percent to 8 percent (less than would be required under mandatory inclusionary zoning). And Cheh and Brown find themselves begging for assurances (from an agency that has just betrayed their trust) that we’ll break even or not lose too much by accepting this deal — “no loss of “green space for Janney,” “no undue delay in building the library,” “LEED Silver” (when the DC Public Library’s architects think they have achieved Gold.)
While it’s a step in the right direction to see Councilmembers beginning to set standards for public land deals, Cheh and Brown’s “essential ingredients” don’t include the most basic features that should be necessary to justify devoting part of this heavily used campus to private development. There’s no requirement that Janney’s facilities needs be met before land is devoted to non-educational uses, that the school be modernized faster than it would without a public-private partnership (a requirement present in their April letter), or that the deal produce a better library than we’d otherwise have.
Is anyone at the table actually looking out for the community’s interests? When we point out that our facilities needs are being sacrificed to build apartments that could be built on private land in the immediate vicinity, we’re told not to worry because the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and LCOR have “just begun negotiations.”
But there’s a difference between "having made no progress over the past seven months" and “just beginning.” LCOR submitted their proposal the first week in January and they haven’t budged since, despite being asked (at least twice) by DMPED to make a better offer. Why should they? They were selected despite the fact that a united community and the only two Councilmembers to weigh in all considered their proposal unacceptable. As long as these Councilmembers keep lowering their expectations, it’s just a waiting game.
And experience tells them it could be worth the wait. Last time LCOR negotiated with DC government, they emerged with (and quickly sold!) a property tax break lasting more than twenty years for the apartment tower they built. And Oyster’s students lost more than half of their already comparatively small campus.
This whole episode is a case study in why we need to reform (or at least enforce) our process for disposing of public property. The threshold question here should have been “is there land at this site that is no longer needed for public use?” But DMPED chose to skip that step (also known as the surplusing decision) and the council chose not to object. As a result, this project has been driven by ideology and wishful thinking rather than an analysis of public facilities needs and the economic and physical constraints of this particular site.
When every submission the RFP yielded was unacceptable because it didn’t provide the “hoped for” benefits, that should have functioned as a reality check for the Mayor and the Councilmembers who urged this project forward in the first place. It certainly did for the community — once people saw the actual proposals, a consensus quickly emerged that a public-private partnership was not the right approach to this site. The mayor created that consensus (by issuing the RFP) and then ignored it.
The question now is whether Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (and the Council generally) will stop this madness or just content themselves with wringing their hands, crossing their fingers, and passing the buck. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Two letters from CMs Cheh and Brown to DM Neil Albert
The first letter was sent after three RFP submissions were made public. The second was sent after Mayor Fenty announced his decision to proceed with a public-private venture and to negotiate the deal exclusively with LCOR. Apparently it was also written after CMs Cheh and Brown discovered that LCOR had not, as Fenty implied, revised its original plan -- a plan they had already told the Mayor that they could not support.
April 9, 2008
Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:
When the idea of a public-private partnership for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site arose, it seemed to offer significant advantages for the community and the city. Since both the library and the school are set for new construction and modernization, such an approach offered the possibility of a comprehensive development of the site. It offered a major opportunity to have quality development along a major corridor and the chance to add mixed-use density right next to a Metro station. If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint and improving our quality of life, we need people living in the city in places where they can take public transportation and walk to shops and restaurants, rather than adding to the choking traffic and our day and night overrun of suburban commuters. That corner of Wisconsin Avenue is a prime location to realize the benefits of transit-oriented development.
A public-private partnership also carried the prospect of having underground parking for the library and the school, increasing the green space for Janney, adding affordable housing in a neighborhood with few affordable units, adding approximately 100 LEED-certified housing units to the property-tax rolls, producing added revenue for the modernization of Janney, and moving up the date for Janney's modernization.
All of these potential benefits prompted us to encourage the Mayor to solicit bids and ideas from developers. It seemed short-sighted, as some had sugested, to not even explore what was possible.
But now the specific proposals have come forth. And because of the restraints outlined in the revised RFP, the responses to the RFP have yielded plans that, to us, do not adequately meet the benefits hoped for. Therefore, we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form. While the proposals do provide for the hoped-for transit-oriented development, underground parking, and other significant benefits, they omit some essential items necessary for our support. These include:
-- No net loss (and even a gain) of green space for Janney
-- Added revenue earmarked for Janney
-- An accelerated timetable for Janney modernization
-- A timetable that will not significantly delay a new library
We strongly encourage you to consider, realistically and with firm assurances, whether the original hoped-for benefits can still be achieved. If they truly cannot, then we will not be able to support the public-private venture going forward.
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3
Kwame R. Brown
Councilmember, At-Large
cc: Adrian Fenty, Mayor
*******
July 24, 2008
Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:
Based upon a meeting held on July 21, 2008, with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Office of Planning, Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, D.C. Public Schools, Deputy Mayor for Education, D.C. Public Library and LCOR, we are deeply concerned that the Janney/Tenley public private partnership project will not meet the essential ingredients set out in the letter we sent to you on April 9, 2008. There may be a way out, but we reiterate that the following factors are the requirements for this to be a successful project:
No loss of green space for Janney Elementary School;
A monetary benefit to the District that will be sufficient to justify substantially moving up the Janney Elementary School modernization;
No undue delay in building the library;
A minimum of 8% affordable housing; and
LEED Silver certification.
One possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans. One plan allowed the Tenley Library to move forward, without a delay, because the development portion of the project cantilevered over the library, and the underground parking would be located under Janney Elementary School.
We really want to support a comprehensive development of the Janney/Tenley Library site. We believe in the substantial community benefit that will arise from transit-oriented development along the major corridors like Wisconsin Avenue. However, we need some assurance that the above outlined requirements will be met. We understand that your office and the selected developer have just begun negotiations on their proposal, and we are hopeful that the District and the developer will come to an agreement that includes the elements that will provide true community benefits to both the affected neighborhood and community at large.
Regards,
Councilmember Mary Cheh
Terri Thompson Mallett, Clerk
Committee on Economic Development
On Behalf of Councilmember Kwame R. Brown
April 9, 2008
Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:
When the idea of a public-private partnership for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site arose, it seemed to offer significant advantages for the community and the city. Since both the library and the school are set for new construction and modernization, such an approach offered the possibility of a comprehensive development of the site. It offered a major opportunity to have quality development along a major corridor and the chance to add mixed-use density right next to a Metro station. If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint and improving our quality of life, we need people living in the city in places where they can take public transportation and walk to shops and restaurants, rather than adding to the choking traffic and our day and night overrun of suburban commuters. That corner of Wisconsin Avenue is a prime location to realize the benefits of transit-oriented development.
A public-private partnership also carried the prospect of having underground parking for the library and the school, increasing the green space for Janney, adding affordable housing in a neighborhood with few affordable units, adding approximately 100 LEED-certified housing units to the property-tax rolls, producing added revenue for the modernization of Janney, and moving up the date for Janney's modernization.
All of these potential benefits prompted us to encourage the Mayor to solicit bids and ideas from developers. It seemed short-sighted, as some had sugested, to not even explore what was possible.
But now the specific proposals have come forth. And because of the restraints outlined in the revised RFP, the responses to the RFP have yielded plans that, to us, do not adequately meet the benefits hoped for. Therefore, we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form. While the proposals do provide for the hoped-for transit-oriented development, underground parking, and other significant benefits, they omit some essential items necessary for our support. These include:
-- No net loss (and even a gain) of green space for Janney
-- Added revenue earmarked for Janney
-- An accelerated timetable for Janney modernization
-- A timetable that will not significantly delay a new library
We strongly encourage you to consider, realistically and with firm assurances, whether the original hoped-for benefits can still be achieved. If they truly cannot, then we will not be able to support the public-private venture going forward.
Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3
Kwame R. Brown
Councilmember, At-Large
cc: Adrian Fenty, Mayor
*******
July 24, 2008
Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:
Based upon a meeting held on July 21, 2008, with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Office of Planning, Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, D.C. Public Schools, Deputy Mayor for Education, D.C. Public Library and LCOR, we are deeply concerned that the Janney/Tenley public private partnership project will not meet the essential ingredients set out in the letter we sent to you on April 9, 2008. There may be a way out, but we reiterate that the following factors are the requirements for this to be a successful project:
No loss of green space for Janney Elementary School;
A monetary benefit to the District that will be sufficient to justify substantially moving up the Janney Elementary School modernization;
No undue delay in building the library;
A minimum of 8% affordable housing; and
LEED Silver certification.
One possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans. One plan allowed the Tenley Library to move forward, without a delay, because the development portion of the project cantilevered over the library, and the underground parking would be located under Janney Elementary School.
We really want to support a comprehensive development of the Janney/Tenley Library site. We believe in the substantial community benefit that will arise from transit-oriented development along the major corridors like Wisconsin Avenue. However, we need some assurance that the above outlined requirements will be met. We understand that your office and the selected developer have just begun negotiations on their proposal, and we are hopeful that the District and the developer will come to an agreement that includes the elements that will provide true community benefits to both the affected neighborhood and community at large.
Regards,
Councilmember Mary Cheh
Terri Thompson Mallett, Clerk
Committee on Economic Development
On Behalf of Councilmember Kwame R. Brown
Monday, August 11, 2008
Resolutions Urging that the Public-Private Project be Abandoned and that DCPL Move Forward with the Reconstruction of the Library
Last Spring, after the three submissions DMPED received in response to the RFP were presented to the public, six different community associations (in addition to the ANC and the Janney SIT) urged the rejection of all three offers. Here are the texts of those statements/resolutions:
FRIENDSHIP-TENLEYTOWN CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016
Established 1892
APRIL 7, 2008
Dear Deputy Mayor,
Friendship-Tenleytown Citizens Association has conducted a survey of its members concerning the building of the new Tenley Friendship Library. As a result of this survey our members have voted by a vast majority for a free standing library on its own land without any buildings attached in any way.
Sincerely,
Marvin Tievsky
President
3810 Warren Street, N.W.
Wahington,D.C. 20016
********
Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment
Sent: Fri May 23 09:26:43 2008
Subject: Build the Tenley Library Now
On behalf of our members, the Executive Board of the Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment (CSTO) would like to commend DCPL for its announcement that construction of the new Tenley-Friendship branch library will soon begin.
For decades, the Tenley-Friendship branch served as the heart of our urban village, despite its ugly duckling architecture and flooded basement. In the last few years, however, its abandoned building joined the fire station and the Wilson pool as stark reminders of DC government’s failure to deliver basic public services to its residents.
So it is with great delight that we welcome the imminent reconstruction of our branch library under the leadership of DCPL’s new Chief, Ginnie Cooper. The exciting design that the Freelon Group has produced will not only welcome patrons back but will also serve as an icon for our neighborhood and a tangible symbol of DC government’s renewed investment in our long-neglected library system.
We look forward to becoming the envy of other Ward 3 neighborhoods and to helping spur demand for new branch construction throughout the city!
We do not support the library being held up while the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) continues to be debated. Any PPP on the library site risks extensive delays, which are unacceptable to our membership.We urge ANC 3E to adopt a resolution expressing the community’s gratitude to DCPL for working so hard and so intelligently to serve our public facilities needs and to give us a fine library to be complete and available to the community by 2010.
We do not support the library being held up while the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) continues to be debated. Any PPP on the library site risks extensive delays, which are unacceptable to our membership.We urge ANC 3E to adopt a resolution expressing the community’s gratitude to DCPL for working so hard and so intelligently to serve our public facilities needs and to give us a fine library to be complete and available to the community by 2010.
Paul Fekete
Jane Waldmann
Louis Wolf
Andra Tamburro
Carolyn Sherman
Board members, Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment (CSTO)
*****
Friendship Neighborhood Association
The board of directors of the Friendship Neighborhood Association categorically opposes the public-private partnership being pursued by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development for the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library/Janney Elementary School site.
This position reflects the majority opinion of upper Northwest residents. Notably, more than 75 percent of the individuals who submitted public comments on the proposals proffered by the three developers interested in the PPP rejected a mixed-use project on the library/school land.
FNA's board of directors is particularly troubled that ODMPED again has made the library rebuild part of the proposed PPP, citing community sentiment as the justification. This claim flagrantly misrepresents the neighborhood consensus. Just 18 percent of the people providing comments said that a new branch library should be included in any PPP.
We strongly support the D.C. Public Library's goal of rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Library as a freestanding facility by early 2010. In our view, the building DCPL currently envisions will be able to deliver the multiple services residents expect from a neighborhood library while also making an architecturally significant statement on this part of upper Wisconsin Avenue.
At the same time, the board declares that the library rebuild should not be part of any possible PPP. Including it inevitably will lead to a delayed completion and a compromised design.
Friendship Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
David P. Frankel
Gina Mirigliano
Marilyn Simon
June 3, 2008
Susan MacKnight, FNA Secretary/Treasurer
*****
Friends of the Tenley Library
Dear Mayor Fenty,
The Executive Board of the Friends of Tenley Library is on record opposing further delay in constructing a full-service branch library for our community. Reconsideration of any public-private partnership will cause an unacceptable delay that will further deny the community full library services.
The Friends of Tenley Library (FOTL), was organized in 1973. The current membership is over 300 library users. FOTL is a non-profit organization with IRS 501(c)(3) status. The purpose of the group, as stated in the bylaws, is to "focus public attention on the Tenley-Friendship Library's services, facilities, and needs...to support and cooperate with the library in developing library services and facilities." Our members include young singles, parents, teachers, seniors, neighborhood organizations and businesses. We are part of the Friends of Libraries USA and the DC Federation of Friends. We are neither a pro-development nor an anti-development group. We are library advocates.
Our community, with its prime location near Ward 3's only Middle and High School, Janney Elementary School, St. Ann's Academy and several nursery schools, has been without a full service library since 2004. This is unacceptable. Enough time and money has been squandered on this effort.
We have the opportunity to move forward expeditiously. The DC Public Library produced a quality design that meets the criteria set forth by the Executive Board of the Friends of Tenley Library. Will you be present at the community meeting on June 11 at the interim library to see the final drawings from the award-winning firm?
The Board believes that reconsideration of a public-private partnership will cause an unacceptable delay.
The Board urges you to move forward with the design proposed by the library.
Sincerely yours,
Kathryn C. Ray
President
Friends of the Tenley Library
Sent 6/09/08
*****
Tenleytown Historical Society
Dear Mayor Fenty,
The Board of Directors and the membership of the Tenleytown Historical Society, founded in 1988, urgently request that the City drop the idea of a public-private venture between the Tenley-Friendship Library, Janney Elementary School, and a private developer, and allow the design and construction of the new library to proceed without delay. The architectural team chosen by DCPL has submitted an outstanding design and is proceeding on schedule with a project that is fully funded.
Since 2004 our community has been without a library and the Tenleytown Historical Society has been without a meeting place that is available free of charge–this has severely curtailed our activities. We are unwilling to submit to the inevitable delays that will result from involving the library in this public-private venture.
More importantly, the proposed site for the residential building to be constructed by the private developer is directly in the center of an educational complex consisting of the library and three historically significant structures: Janney Elementary School, St. Ann’s Church and Academy, and the Convent of Bon Secours. Of these, the Convent is already on the DC Register of Historic Sites and a nomination for Janney School is pending. While the library will be a twenty-first century building that does not attempt to mimic the diverse and distinctive architecture of the older surrounding buildings, it will have a similar educational function and be compatible in massing and scale. This compatibility plus the Commission of Fine Arts’ enthusiastic approval of the library design are an indication that this unique civic building could one day be worthy of historic designation.
It is the belief of the Tenleytown Historical Society that any further delay of the rebuilding of our library is unacceptable, and that the insertion of a residential structure into this complex of buildings dedicated for a century to educational use would be a terrible mistake.
Board of Directors
Jean Pablo
Jason Hegy
Carolyn Long
Jane Waldmann
Sent 6/09/08
*****
Tenleytown Neighbors Association
Whereas the District of Columbia Public Library (DCPL) has produced a design for the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library that clearly demonstrates both an aspiration to excellence and an understanding of the value of civic architecture,
and
Whereas, we see our neighborhood library as a symbolic anchor for our community and the hub of a vibrant educational enclave,
and
Whereas, Tenleytown has been deprived of its branch library since 2004,
and
Whereas, the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, along with other community groups, had been meeting at the Library monthly at no cost and must now meet elsewhere at great expense and inconvenience,
and
Whereas, after repeated and thorough consideration of a variety of different public-private projects involving the library, we have seen that any such plan will involve substantial delays and will ultimately produce more constrained and less attractive public facilities, and capital funds have already been allocated to build the library that DCPL is proposing,
and
Whereas, DCPL is nearing completion of a final design that will allow a competitively selected contractor to break ground in the Fall of 2008,
Therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association commends DCPL for its exciting design and its determination to replace the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library by early 2010. We ask that the City listen to the strong consensus of community opinion that this library project,as conceived by DCPL, move forward expeditiously and that the public-private project be discontinued.
Approved by a vote of the membership and submitted 6/11/08
Dueling Press Releases: DMPED vs. LCOR
both dated July 10, 2008
Note the difference in the number of units as well as what's omitted from LCOR's release -- no promises about minimizing delays to the library or no net loss of green space for Janney. LCOR appears to have cut and pasted language from DMPED's release, but it hasn't repeated promises the Mayor made that LCOR knows can't be kept.
It's also worth mentioning that, in both releases, the city is no longer claiming that 30% of the units will be devoted to "affordable" housing. Now we're being told that there will be an unspecified quantity of much pricier "workforce" housing. And, apparently, the project has been downgraded from LEED Silver to LEED Certified. Even before the terms of the deal are negotiated, expectations are being lowered. At this point, there's essentially nothing left of the affordable housing benefit (but the subsidy!) and LCOR's mixed-use building will be much less "green" than DCPL's design (their architects aimed for Silver and believe they've achieved Gold).
Finally, and not surprisingly, nobody's willing to publicize the fact that what's happening here is that a nine-story apartment building is being constructed on the kids' soccer field. Let's just agree to call it "the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary," as if it were a separate vacant lot rather than a part of the campus that is in continual use even when school isn't in session.
From DMPED:
Fenty Announces Development Partner for Tenley/Janney Site
(Washington, DC) – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty on Thursday announced the District has selected LCOR as its development partner for the 3.6 acre Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School development site.
“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing – all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”
The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation last fall. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.
LCOR has proposed building between 120 and 130 units of housing – primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary. LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated structure that will provide a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that will produce an architecturally engaging, LEED certified project.
LCOR will collaborate with DCPL to ensure that any delay to the Library’s construction start will be minimized. LCOR will also work closely with the Janney Elementary School community to ensure that the Janney’s needs are met. This selection presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization. The project will not result in a net loss of green space for Janney.
Keeping with the Administrations commitment to affordable housing, the project will also provide the opportunity to add workforce housing to the Tenley Friendship neighborhood.
In the coming weeks, the District and LCOR will work closely with community stakeholders such as the Advisory Neighborhood Commission and the St. Ann’s community to produce a project that creates a benefit for all involved.
From LCOR:
District of Columbia Selects LCOR as Development Partner for Library Site
LCOR’s Public/Private Development Track Record a Key Factor in District Decision
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 10, 2008) — Mayor Adrian M. Fenty today announced that the District of Columbia has selected LCOR as its development partner for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site in Northwest Washington.
“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing — all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”
The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation in the fall of 2007. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.
LCOR has proposed building 174 units of market-rate and workforce housing, primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary School. A retail component across Wisconsin Avenue from the Tenleytown/ American University Metro station also is envisioned as part of the project. LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.
LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated facility that provides a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that is architecturally engaging and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified.
Specific terms of the agreement between the District and LCOR are still to be determined.
LCOR has a 30-year history in the Washington, D.C. region. Notably, the company designed and built another public school (James F. Oyster Elementary) in Northwest Washington as part of a public/private partnership. That project was completed in 2001.
Note the difference in the number of units as well as what's omitted from LCOR's release -- no promises about minimizing delays to the library or no net loss of green space for Janney. LCOR appears to have cut and pasted language from DMPED's release, but it hasn't repeated promises the Mayor made that LCOR knows can't be kept.
It's also worth mentioning that, in both releases, the city is no longer claiming that 30% of the units will be devoted to "affordable" housing. Now we're being told that there will be an unspecified quantity of much pricier "workforce" housing. And, apparently, the project has been downgraded from LEED Silver to LEED Certified. Even before the terms of the deal are negotiated, expectations are being lowered. At this point, there's essentially nothing left of the affordable housing benefit (but the subsidy!) and LCOR's mixed-use building will be much less "green" than DCPL's design (their architects aimed for Silver and believe they've achieved Gold).
Finally, and not surprisingly, nobody's willing to publicize the fact that what's happening here is that a nine-story apartment building is being constructed on the kids' soccer field. Let's just agree to call it "the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary," as if it were a separate vacant lot rather than a part of the campus that is in continual use even when school isn't in session.
From DMPED:
Fenty Announces Development Partner for Tenley/Janney Site
(Washington, DC) – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty on Thursday announced the District has selected LCOR as its development partner for the 3.6 acre Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School development site.
“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing – all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”
The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation last fall. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.
LCOR has proposed building between 120 and 130 units of housing – primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary. LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated structure that will provide a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that will produce an architecturally engaging, LEED certified project.
LCOR will collaborate with DCPL to ensure that any delay to the Library’s construction start will be minimized. LCOR will also work closely with the Janney Elementary School community to ensure that the Janney’s needs are met. This selection presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization. The project will not result in a net loss of green space for Janney.
Keeping with the Administrations commitment to affordable housing, the project will also provide the opportunity to add workforce housing to the Tenley Friendship neighborhood.
In the coming weeks, the District and LCOR will work closely with community stakeholders such as the Advisory Neighborhood Commission and the St. Ann’s community to produce a project that creates a benefit for all involved.
From LCOR:
District of Columbia Selects LCOR as Development Partner for Library Site
LCOR’s Public/Private Development Track Record a Key Factor in District Decision
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 10, 2008) — Mayor Adrian M. Fenty today announced that the District of Columbia has selected LCOR as its development partner for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site in Northwest Washington.
“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing — all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”
The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation in the fall of 2007. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.
LCOR has proposed building 174 units of market-rate and workforce housing, primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary School. A retail component across Wisconsin Avenue from the Tenleytown/ American University Metro station also is envisioned as part of the project. LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.
LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated facility that provides a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that is architecturally engaging and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified.
Specific terms of the agreement between the District and LCOR are still to be determined.
LCOR has a 30-year history in the Washington, D.C. region. Notably, the company designed and built another public school (James F. Oyster Elementary) in Northwest Washington as part of a public/private partnership. That project was completed in 2001.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Intowner article on DCPL (including the Tenley/LCOR deal)
DC Libraries Showing Improved Facilities and Service; Construction of Branch in Shaw Soon to Start, Mayor Accused of Disrupting Tenley Plan
Published: August 8th, 2008
By Anthony L. Harvey
A gathering storm comprised of Fiscal Year 2009 DC Public Library (DCPL) budgetary shortfalls — especially the loss of funds for 71 budget positions from FY ‘2008 — and the recent dramatic disruption of new branch library construction schedules — with the Tenley/Friendship branch, which was ready with detailed construction bid documents and District building permit applications, now being cancelled and replaced by the Mayor with plans for a mixed-use condominium project awarded to a private commercial developer, and continuing community controversy over programmatic priorities for computer labs and adult literary efforts in the District’s most distressed neighborhoods, all threaten to overshadow the substantial improvements achieved over the past 18 months in DC Public Library services and facilities.
The architectural design for Tenley, complete with plans, drawings and elevations was highly praised by the community, with only a “Smart Growth” organization expressing vocal admiration of the developer’s counter proposal — said to be for the benefit of an improved schedule for the rehabilitation of one of the library’s adjacent neighbors, Janney Elementary School. Public school advocates, together with those of next door St. Anne’s Catholic school, joined in opposition to the condominium tower proposed for this already crowded upper Wisconsin site and in support for DCPL’s Tenley library proposal.
The dire consequences of the budgetary crisis — announced at the DCPL’s July Board of Trustees’ meeting — included the closing of all DCPL library facilities on Fridays throughout the calendar year and on Sundays during the summer months, and the shuttering of the five kiosk-style community libraries every day of the week. Delays in constructing Tenley as a component of the Mayor’s condominium tower have yet to be established. Work with the Washington area transit authority (WMATA) and engineers over the Metro subway’s impact and that of a high water table on the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw branch library reconstruction schedule is estimated at a delay of only two months.
The continuing controversy over computer labs and literacy efforts are creating a running sore between the Library and advocacy groups, especially those focused on the Benning Road branch library community. Efforts are being made to significantly enhance DCPL outreach, with an emphasis on ANCs, library friends groups, and neighborhood civic associations.
Ironically, these storm clouds are gathering at the same time as Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper, with the strong support of the Library’s Board of Trustees and the DC Council and an increasingly engaged and professionally led library staff, have succeeded in resuscitating a decrepit urban library system that was literally on life support — more closed than open, with mechanical systems constantly failing and an almost hostile environment greeting the dwindling number of patrons in many of the lesser-used branches and the central library downtown who were gamely attempting to use reduced services and materials.
The results of these efforts at improvement are plain to see: libraries are now open every day of the week with far better hours; four interim library facilities for the four, long-closed branch libraries are now open and are stunning successes. Defying the predictions of nay-sayers, these four temporary library outposts - Tenley/Friendship, Watha T. Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning — are bright, cheerful, well-lighted and staffed, and full of new books, CDs, DVDs, and state-of-the-art computers. Equally successful is the American Library Association-supported and the Library Journal-funded “make-over” of the Southeast Library, with a DCPL comparable “make-over” of the Takoma DC branch library being next. Rehabilitation of the Mt. Pleasant branch library, while still in operation, continues with significant successes, and planning for both the reconstruction and expansion — and an interim facility — for the tragically burned Georgetown Library is on schedule.
Other improvements include new books reviewed in the Washington Post and the New York Times, for example, together with best-sellers and popular “how to” books are appearing on library shelves and display tables in a timely fashion, and more and more library patrons are greeted by proactively helpful staff. Improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library building (MLK) are nothing short of miraculous. Banks of new, well-maintained elevators serve both ends of the cleaned and re-lamped building, modern public restroom facilities have been installed on the second and third floors, and the handsomely renovated Children’s Room and Black Studies Division are serving as models for the rest of MLK. A new adaptive services facility at MLK is presently being constructed to replace the outmoded and previously named Blind and Physically Handicapped Division, and a new first floor Young Adult Library and College Information Center is in final plan revision stage.
DCPL’s capital construction planning, implementation, and reporting — which is shared in written form with the public — is a model of public administration professionalism that could be beneficially adopted by the entire District of Columbia government. Based on open procurements with ambitious but straight-forward bid specifications and factual schedule reporting, inspiring results are highlighted in July’s reporting on the handsome designs for the long-planned, four new branch libraries at Tenley/Friendship, Watha T Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning.
In yet another double irony that may come to haunt Mayor Fenty’s direct involvement in DC’s entire public library rehabilitation program, the enthusiastically received design and planning for Tenley/Friendship was abruptly replaced by the Mayor at the last minute with a contract award for a mixed-use public private partnership condominium project on top of the library and adjacent Janney Elementary School. With this decision, Fenty disregarded the overwhelming community opposition from ANC commissioners, civic associations, local historic societies, and Friends of the Library. “Smart Growth” advocates, however, applauded the Mayor’s decision. And the winning private developer, LCOR, Inc. of Pennsylvania, vowed to minimize delays in constructing a re-designed library facility beneath the planned apartment tower. Mayor Fenty asserted in a July 10th press release that “the selection [of LCOR, Inc.] presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization.”
A battalion of Tenley/Friendship community activists and ANC commissioners continued their protest of the Mayor’s decision with eloquent testimony before the Trustees’ July 23rd Library Board meeting, effectively rebutting the Mayor and his planning and economic development staff’s assertion to DCPL Board of Trustees Chair John Hill that the LCOR, Inc. proposal had overwhelming community support. Indeed, no one appeared at the library meeting in support of the LCOR Inc. public-private partnership proposal.
Protests and commentary regarding DCPL’s FY ‘2009 budget shortfalls — announced at that same July 23rd meeting — were quick in coming, with Richard Huffine, President of the District-wide Federation of Friends of the DCPL Public Libraries issuing a call to action that urged citizens to write their respective council members. “The Library System needs your help to appeal to the District Council to find the $2 million that will avoid this. calamity [of closed libraries and reduced hours],” Huffine implored in a July 25th email. Robin Diener, Director of the Ralph Nader-founded DC Library Renaissance Project, followed with a press release headlined “Library Contemplates Closing Fridays In Spite of Continued Record Budget Highs.”
In addition to the loss of 71 budgeted positions, DCPL’s operating budget shortfall from FY ‘2008 of $47,634,898 to that of FY ‘2009’s $46,594,621 does not reflect the increases expected from such factors as necessary mandatory personnel cost increases, rising energy costs, and aggressive preventative maintenance programs in aging buildings and facilities.
Mayor Finds Funds
At a hastily called press event on August 4th at the Capitol View branch library in far Southeast, Mayor Fenty announced that he had found funds in a city debt servicing surplus account which would be used to restore library hours, thus avoiding the necessity to close the libraries one day a week as had initially been announced.
Published: August 8th, 2008
By Anthony L. Harvey
A gathering storm comprised of Fiscal Year 2009 DC Public Library (DCPL) budgetary shortfalls — especially the loss of funds for 71 budget positions from FY ‘2008 — and the recent dramatic disruption of new branch library construction schedules — with the Tenley/Friendship branch, which was ready with detailed construction bid documents and District building permit applications, now being cancelled and replaced by the Mayor with plans for a mixed-use condominium project awarded to a private commercial developer, and continuing community controversy over programmatic priorities for computer labs and adult literary efforts in the District’s most distressed neighborhoods, all threaten to overshadow the substantial improvements achieved over the past 18 months in DC Public Library services and facilities.
The architectural design for Tenley, complete with plans, drawings and elevations was highly praised by the community, with only a “Smart Growth” organization expressing vocal admiration of the developer’s counter proposal — said to be for the benefit of an improved schedule for the rehabilitation of one of the library’s adjacent neighbors, Janney Elementary School. Public school advocates, together with those of next door St. Anne’s Catholic school, joined in opposition to the condominium tower proposed for this already crowded upper Wisconsin site and in support for DCPL’s Tenley library proposal.
The dire consequences of the budgetary crisis — announced at the DCPL’s July Board of Trustees’ meeting — included the closing of all DCPL library facilities on Fridays throughout the calendar year and on Sundays during the summer months, and the shuttering of the five kiosk-style community libraries every day of the week. Delays in constructing Tenley as a component of the Mayor’s condominium tower have yet to be established. Work with the Washington area transit authority (WMATA) and engineers over the Metro subway’s impact and that of a high water table on the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw branch library reconstruction schedule is estimated at a delay of only two months.
The continuing controversy over computer labs and literacy efforts are creating a running sore between the Library and advocacy groups, especially those focused on the Benning Road branch library community. Efforts are being made to significantly enhance DCPL outreach, with an emphasis on ANCs, library friends groups, and neighborhood civic associations.
Ironically, these storm clouds are gathering at the same time as Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper, with the strong support of the Library’s Board of Trustees and the DC Council and an increasingly engaged and professionally led library staff, have succeeded in resuscitating a decrepit urban library system that was literally on life support — more closed than open, with mechanical systems constantly failing and an almost hostile environment greeting the dwindling number of patrons in many of the lesser-used branches and the central library downtown who were gamely attempting to use reduced services and materials.
The results of these efforts at improvement are plain to see: libraries are now open every day of the week with far better hours; four interim library facilities for the four, long-closed branch libraries are now open and are stunning successes. Defying the predictions of nay-sayers, these four temporary library outposts - Tenley/Friendship, Watha T. Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning — are bright, cheerful, well-lighted and staffed, and full of new books, CDs, DVDs, and state-of-the-art computers. Equally successful is the American Library Association-supported and the Library Journal-funded “make-over” of the Southeast Library, with a DCPL comparable “make-over” of the Takoma DC branch library being next. Rehabilitation of the Mt. Pleasant branch library, while still in operation, continues with significant successes, and planning for both the reconstruction and expansion — and an interim facility — for the tragically burned Georgetown Library is on schedule.
Other improvements include new books reviewed in the Washington Post and the New York Times, for example, together with best-sellers and popular “how to” books are appearing on library shelves and display tables in a timely fashion, and more and more library patrons are greeted by proactively helpful staff. Improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library building (MLK) are nothing short of miraculous. Banks of new, well-maintained elevators serve both ends of the cleaned and re-lamped building, modern public restroom facilities have been installed on the second and third floors, and the handsomely renovated Children’s Room and Black Studies Division are serving as models for the rest of MLK. A new adaptive services facility at MLK is presently being constructed to replace the outmoded and previously named Blind and Physically Handicapped Division, and a new first floor Young Adult Library and College Information Center is in final plan revision stage.
DCPL’s capital construction planning, implementation, and reporting — which is shared in written form with the public — is a model of public administration professionalism that could be beneficially adopted by the entire District of Columbia government. Based on open procurements with ambitious but straight-forward bid specifications and factual schedule reporting, inspiring results are highlighted in July’s reporting on the handsome designs for the long-planned, four new branch libraries at Tenley/Friendship, Watha T Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning.
In yet another double irony that may come to haunt Mayor Fenty’s direct involvement in DC’s entire public library rehabilitation program, the enthusiastically received design and planning for Tenley/Friendship was abruptly replaced by the Mayor at the last minute with a contract award for a mixed-use public private partnership condominium project on top of the library and adjacent Janney Elementary School. With this decision, Fenty disregarded the overwhelming community opposition from ANC commissioners, civic associations, local historic societies, and Friends of the Library. “Smart Growth” advocates, however, applauded the Mayor’s decision. And the winning private developer, LCOR, Inc. of Pennsylvania, vowed to minimize delays in constructing a re-designed library facility beneath the planned apartment tower. Mayor Fenty asserted in a July 10th press release that “the selection [of LCOR, Inc.] presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization.”
A battalion of Tenley/Friendship community activists and ANC commissioners continued their protest of the Mayor’s decision with eloquent testimony before the Trustees’ July 23rd Library Board meeting, effectively rebutting the Mayor and his planning and economic development staff’s assertion to DCPL Board of Trustees Chair John Hill that the LCOR, Inc. proposal had overwhelming community support. Indeed, no one appeared at the library meeting in support of the LCOR Inc. public-private partnership proposal.
Protests and commentary regarding DCPL’s FY ‘2009 budget shortfalls — announced at that same July 23rd meeting — were quick in coming, with Richard Huffine, President of the District-wide Federation of Friends of the DCPL Public Libraries issuing a call to action that urged citizens to write their respective council members. “The Library System needs your help to appeal to the District Council to find the $2 million that will avoid this. calamity [of closed libraries and reduced hours],” Huffine implored in a July 25th email. Robin Diener, Director of the Ralph Nader-founded DC Library Renaissance Project, followed with a press release headlined “Library Contemplates Closing Fridays In Spite of Continued Record Budget Highs.”
In addition to the loss of 71 budgeted positions, DCPL’s operating budget shortfall from FY ‘2008 of $47,634,898 to that of FY ‘2009’s $46,594,621 does not reflect the increases expected from such factors as necessary mandatory personnel cost increases, rising energy costs, and aggressive preventative maintenance programs in aging buildings and facilities.
Mayor Finds Funds
At a hastily called press event on August 4th at the Capitol View branch library in far Southeast, Mayor Fenty announced that he had found funds in a city debt servicing surplus account which would be used to restore library hours, thus avoiding the necessity to close the libraries one day a week as had initially been announced.
Five Reasons Why DCPL rather than LCOR Should Build Our Library
1. The LCOR deal will delay the library's re-opening by at least two years.
In early July of 2008, when Mayor Fenty told the DCPL to stop work on its standalone reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library, the DCPL was on track to re-open the facility in March 2010. The design was near-final and had been approved by both the National Capital Planning Commission ("NCPC") and the Commission of Fine Arts ("CFA"). All that remained to be done was to bid out construction services and to have the Council approve the final contract once its summer recess ended. DCPL was ready to break ground this fall.
By contrast, LCOR has indicated that it will take at least 18-24 months (the latter figure described by their rep as "still optimistic but more realistic") from Council approval of the project before they will be ready to break ground. The absolute earliest that the Council could approve the project would be mid-September. Add 18 months and LCOR would be breaking ground in March 2010 -- just as DCPL, left to its own devices, would be opening the new facility. That's the minimum possible initial delay.
And, of course, a nine story mixed-use building involving major excavation and a much larger footprint takes substantially longer to build than a two story library would. Local projects of a comparable scale have taken about 2.5 years from ground-breaking to occupancy, which would place the branch's re-opening somewhere in the Fall of 2012. Even if you assume LCOR can build it in 2 years instead of 2.5, we're still talking about at least a 2 year delay compared to DCPL's schedule.
2. DCPL's design for the library is much better than LCOR's.
Here's an interior image of DCPL's proposed design:
It shows a wide open space with lots of natural light.
You won't get that in LCOR's mixed-use building.
LCOR is proposing a 20,000 SF library on a single floor -- that means that the western end of the library will be underground (i.e. beneath what is now Janney's soccer field).
And if the library sits underneath eight floors of apartments, then it will have to include lots of columns to support the walls used to divide various living spaces above.
The Freelon Group's design for the branch took advantage of the fact that the library was free-standing in a number of ways. It has extraordinarily high ceilings, a second story, a rooftop garden, and clerestory windows for additional light. Most of these features will be eliminated in LCOR's design -- it looks like all we'll be left with is a sort of atrium at the front of the library.
Finally, while DCPL's design team originally aimed for LEED Silver, now that the plans are finished, the architects think they have probably attained Gold status with this project. (LEED is a nationally-recognized system for ranking the "green-ness" of various types of buildings.) By contrast, "certified" is all the Mayor is promising us for the mixed-building library/residential building. That's LEED's minimum standard and it can easily be attained based primarily on attributes inherent in the site.
3. The scale of DCPL's building is better suited to the site.
Both Doug Wonderlic and the Commission of Fine Arts have pointed out how the Freelon design enables the library to function as a civic icon on a prominent corner and as an anchor for an educational/institutional complex. It defines the block as a place set apart and devoted to learning rather than commerce. Moreover, its scale highlights rather than dwarfs the architecturally diverse yet distinctive buildings surrounding it. This block is full of interesting historic buildings -- Janney, St. Ann's, Bon Secours. Its visual focal point should not be a generic apartment tower. There are also a half dozen single family homes here which will be adversely affected by adding a couple hundred new neighbors to their block.
4. A stand-alone project enables us to retain control of this parcel of public land.
We're able to rebuild our old library now precisely because we were able to tear the old one down. And we were able to tear the old one down because it didn't have millions of dollars of private property sitting on top of it. The Friendship Heights bus terminal, located under the office tower at Wisconsin and Western, is a good cautionary tale about what happens to obsolete public facilities in mixed-use buildings. The new (less polluting) buses won't fit under the canopy, yet the canopy can't be raised. Ultimately (when the old buses finally get retired), we're going to have to find more land in an already very built-up and expensive market to host this essential public facility.
We need to retain complete control of the public land we already own in Tenleytown. And this particular parcel is especially crucial because it abuts the school. If, in the future, the land isn't needed for a library, it will still available to the meet the school's needs.
5. DCPL is much more competent than DMPED.
When he announced the deal with LCOR on July 10th, Mayor Fenty effectively removed control of the project from DCPL and handed it over to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED).
Ginnie Cooper, head of DCPL, has built 50-60 new libraries over the course of her career and has more experience building mixed-use libraries than anyone in the country. Yet she thinks a stand-alone design makes better sense at this site.
By contrast, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert had a horrible track record on construction projects during his tenure at the Department of Parks and Recreation ("DPR"). According to the Inspector General's recent report, substandard facilities delivered years late and grossly over-budget have been the norm at DPR. DMPED is off to a similar start on this project.
When you compare what the two agencies have accomplished over the course of the past year, the contrast is striking.
DMPED took three months to slap together an almost worthless Request for Proposals which yielded three submissions that were universally rejected by the community. It then took another seven months to decide to accept the least acceptable proposal -- and to do so without obtaining any changes in the design -- despite asking twice for its re-design. It has now chosen a developer (without Council approval) with whom it will negotiate exclusively before agreeing on even the most basic terms of the deal. So, basically, what DMPED has in store for us is a no-bid contract that bundles a land sale with two lucrative construction contracts. Not a promising approach.
Meanwhile, DCPL embarked upon a nationwide search for first-class architects (choosing two from the fifty who applied), completed a design, hired a construction manager at risk, priced the materials and altered its selections to ensure that the project would come in at budget, and received design approval from the two agencies (NCPC and CFA) who have input over the project. They're doing everything right.
This should not be a difficult decision. Frankly the only argument for a mixed-use library building is the claim that smart growth requires mixed-use at Metrorail stations. And even that is a misrepresentation of smart growth planning theory. SG theorists advocate mixed-use ZONING -- they don't require mixed-use BUILDINGS -- near transit hubs. We already have such zoning (and the mix of uses it's designed to encourage) at this station. There are a couple hundred apartments, a handful of single-family homes, dozens of stores, office space, and a variety of institutional uses clustered around this station.
There's nothing "smart" about sacrificing the quality of our library and our school. Metro-accessible neighborhoods need and benefit from first-rate public facilities. And excellent schools and libraries located near Metrorail stations, in turn, benefit residents throughout the city because of their accessibility. They are not used exclusively by people who live in the immediate vicinity.
In early July of 2008, when Mayor Fenty told the DCPL to stop work on its standalone reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library, the DCPL was on track to re-open the facility in March 2010. The design was near-final and had been approved by both the National Capital Planning Commission ("NCPC") and the Commission of Fine Arts ("CFA"). All that remained to be done was to bid out construction services and to have the Council approve the final contract once its summer recess ended. DCPL was ready to break ground this fall.
By contrast, LCOR has indicated that it will take at least 18-24 months (the latter figure described by their rep as "still optimistic but more realistic") from Council approval of the project before they will be ready to break ground. The absolute earliest that the Council could approve the project would be mid-September. Add 18 months and LCOR would be breaking ground in March 2010 -- just as DCPL, left to its own devices, would be opening the new facility. That's the minimum possible initial delay.
And, of course, a nine story mixed-use building involving major excavation and a much larger footprint takes substantially longer to build than a two story library would. Local projects of a comparable scale have taken about 2.5 years from ground-breaking to occupancy, which would place the branch's re-opening somewhere in the Fall of 2012. Even if you assume LCOR can build it in 2 years instead of 2.5, we're still talking about at least a 2 year delay compared to DCPL's schedule.
2. DCPL's design for the library is much better than LCOR's.
Here's an interior image of DCPL's proposed design:
It shows a wide open space with lots of natural light.
You won't get that in LCOR's mixed-use building.
LCOR is proposing a 20,000 SF library on a single floor -- that means that the western end of the library will be underground (i.e. beneath what is now Janney's soccer field).
And if the library sits underneath eight floors of apartments, then it will have to include lots of columns to support the walls used to divide various living spaces above.
The Freelon Group's design for the branch took advantage of the fact that the library was free-standing in a number of ways. It has extraordinarily high ceilings, a second story, a rooftop garden, and clerestory windows for additional light. Most of these features will be eliminated in LCOR's design -- it looks like all we'll be left with is a sort of atrium at the front of the library.
Finally, while DCPL's design team originally aimed for LEED Silver, now that the plans are finished, the architects think they have probably attained Gold status with this project. (LEED is a nationally-recognized system for ranking the "green-ness" of various types of buildings.) By contrast, "certified" is all the Mayor is promising us for the mixed-building library/residential building. That's LEED's minimum standard and it can easily be attained based primarily on attributes inherent in the site.
3. The scale of DCPL's building is better suited to the site.
Both Doug Wonderlic and the Commission of Fine Arts have pointed out how the Freelon design enables the library to function as a civic icon on a prominent corner and as an anchor for an educational/institutional complex. It defines the block as a place set apart and devoted to learning rather than commerce. Moreover, its scale highlights rather than dwarfs the architecturally diverse yet distinctive buildings surrounding it. This block is full of interesting historic buildings -- Janney, St. Ann's, Bon Secours. Its visual focal point should not be a generic apartment tower. There are also a half dozen single family homes here which will be adversely affected by adding a couple hundred new neighbors to their block.
4. A stand-alone project enables us to retain control of this parcel of public land.
We're able to rebuild our old library now precisely because we were able to tear the old one down. And we were able to tear the old one down because it didn't have millions of dollars of private property sitting on top of it. The Friendship Heights bus terminal, located under the office tower at Wisconsin and Western, is a good cautionary tale about what happens to obsolete public facilities in mixed-use buildings. The new (less polluting) buses won't fit under the canopy, yet the canopy can't be raised. Ultimately (when the old buses finally get retired), we're going to have to find more land in an already very built-up and expensive market to host this essential public facility.
We need to retain complete control of the public land we already own in Tenleytown. And this particular parcel is especially crucial because it abuts the school. If, in the future, the land isn't needed for a library, it will still available to the meet the school's needs.
5. DCPL is much more competent than DMPED.
When he announced the deal with LCOR on July 10th, Mayor Fenty effectively removed control of the project from DCPL and handed it over to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED).
Ginnie Cooper, head of DCPL, has built 50-60 new libraries over the course of her career and has more experience building mixed-use libraries than anyone in the country. Yet she thinks a stand-alone design makes better sense at this site.
By contrast, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert had a horrible track record on construction projects during his tenure at the Department of Parks and Recreation ("DPR"). According to the Inspector General's recent report, substandard facilities delivered years late and grossly over-budget have been the norm at DPR. DMPED is off to a similar start on this project.
When you compare what the two agencies have accomplished over the course of the past year, the contrast is striking.
DMPED took three months to slap together an almost worthless Request for Proposals which yielded three submissions that were universally rejected by the community. It then took another seven months to decide to accept the least acceptable proposal -- and to do so without obtaining any changes in the design -- despite asking twice for its re-design. It has now chosen a developer (without Council approval) with whom it will negotiate exclusively before agreeing on even the most basic terms of the deal. So, basically, what DMPED has in store for us is a no-bid contract that bundles a land sale with two lucrative construction contracts. Not a promising approach.
Meanwhile, DCPL embarked upon a nationwide search for first-class architects (choosing two from the fifty who applied), completed a design, hired a construction manager at risk, priced the materials and altered its selections to ensure that the project would come in at budget, and received design approval from the two agencies (NCPC and CFA) who have input over the project. They're doing everything right.
This should not be a difficult decision. Frankly the only argument for a mixed-use library building is the claim that smart growth requires mixed-use at Metrorail stations. And even that is a misrepresentation of smart growth planning theory. SG theorists advocate mixed-use ZONING -- they don't require mixed-use BUILDINGS -- near transit hubs. We already have such zoning (and the mix of uses it's designed to encourage) at this station. There are a couple hundred apartments, a handful of single-family homes, dozens of stores, office space, and a variety of institutional uses clustered around this station.
There's nothing "smart" about sacrificing the quality of our library and our school. Metro-accessible neighborhoods need and benefit from first-rate public facilities. And excellent schools and libraries located near Metrorail stations, in turn, benefit residents throughout the city because of their accessibility. They are not used exclusively by people who live in the immediate vicinity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)