Another distinguished facilities planner weighs in on why this PPP is fundamentally ill-conceived

Al Peter is a DC native who has lived in Tenleytown since 1941. He has had an impressive career in facilities planning, working primarily for the federal government (GSA, USPS, HHS, VA), but also for Philadelphia's public schools, and as a private consultant. Mr. Peter sent the following letter to Mayor Fenty in response to his July 10th announcement.

July 28, 2008

Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mayor Fenty:

When we spoke at the Tenleytown site on July 10, following your presentation concerning the award of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for the construction of the new library, Janney school expansion, and a housing complex, you asked me to summarize my comments reflecting the serious community objections to this move by the city. I regret the delay in responding, partially due to sudden, urgent travel, but also to the considerable time I took to research and ensure your understanding of the issues, and how you have been grossly misled in arriving at your decision. Two photographs are included to assist in that understanding. Also, at the conclusion I have included a statement of my personal credentials in addressing the issues associated with this project.

THE TENLEYTOWN SITE

It has an unique and distinguished educational character which, with its library, has served the broad range of educational programs of seven separate educational institutions ranging from pre-kindergarten to graduate college programs. In addition, it has provided a valuable support to the Iona Senior Services facility just across the street from the Janney school.

These institutions and other facilities of interest are clearly identified in aerial photo #1, including the library before it was destroyed.

THE LIBRARY

Prior to its destruction, many children came by METRO from outside the local community to use the library since it had evening hours most nights of the week. There was no justification whatever for closing and demolishing that valuable community asset almost five years ahead of any definitive program for replacement, and years before the start of any active communication with the community. That unwarranted action deprived the entire community of a major cultural, intellectual and social resource The community as a whole has been seriously impacted by its loss. Any attempt to justify that action as an economy move, and jamming a small fraction of the library activities into a vacant, leased store front four blocks away would be insulting. That rash move by the city has the appearance of an attempt to reduce or eliminate community input by advancing a preconceived agreement with private interests.

INCREASING LOSS OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

Funds available for the replacement library are rapidly eroding through escalating construction costs. In the past 7 years, since "9/11" such costs in the DC area have increased 47%. For the first 4 years of that period, annual increases ranged from 5% to 6%, but with the current economic crises, the rate for sub-contractor services and materials alone is approaching 1% per month. Remembering that such costs are compounded over the years, it now appears that close to $3 million LESS is available for construction. Such losses through years of inaction are inexcusable!

HOUSING DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS SITE

The current proposal to incorporate a housing complex into the expansion needs of the Janney School and replacement library is not only ludicrous but flies against the primary interest of preserving the educational requirements and character of that entire site. The relatively small number of proposed housing units does not provide any significant inroad to the city's long-term housing objectives, but does significantly impact the current, urgent long-term educational needs of this community. Such a housing facility, along with tenant parking requirements and additional roadway access, adversely impacts the expanded functional requirements of both the Janney School, the library, and the need for increased open space. It must also be emphasized that in addition to the existing traffic density at that busy intersection, the associated vehicular tenant come-and-go traffic introduces a new set of serious safety issues to a site densely populated by our youth.

More appropriate mixed use, high density housing projects are currently in the discussion stages for two large nearby sites: One, just a block north contains the recently closed one-story Billiards Parlor with a square footage footprint virtually identical to the library site. However, vehicular access for tenants from that Brandywine side street presents a vastly superior safety situation than access from the busy Albermarle street.

The second site, just another block north, houses the large auto dealership, and presents even superior site benefits. Again, both of these sites are a short walk from the METRO entrance. It should be noted that future housing units at those two sites would contain a variety of necessary supporting retail facilities at the ground level which would not be available at the library site.

The proposed towering residence on top of the library just across from the entrance to St. Ann's Academy, is an architectural blunder in violating the principle of appropriate scale with adjacent structures. In addition, it reflects a monstrous disregard of the interests of that institution by essentially walling it in, virtually obscuring its existence, and destroying its visual contact with adjacent related activities.

JUST A WORD ABOUT ST. ANN'S ACADEMY:

Contrary to popular perceptions, it does not function as a parochial parish school. With a student population almost half that of Janney, less than 10 percent of its 220students are actually from the Parish of St. Ann, and less than 50 percent are from Catholic families. Instead, the vast majority are transported every day from the lowest socioeconomic areas from across the city. The total cost for providing this educational program is not covered by the modest tuition and extended care costs. Instead, the parish absorbs a considerable amount of the actual cost of operating this 140 year old respected institution, which in recognition of its contribution to the needs of our youth, was recently chosen by the White House to represent the Faith Based Schools in the Washington area. This honor took place in April at a symposium during which one of St. Ann's eighth grade students was honored to introduce the President of the United States. The Parish's dedication to this Academy is rooted in its outreach to underprivileged children, in the belief that it ensures that "some seeds fall on fertile ground," in preparing them for responsible adulthood.

PROXIMITY TO METRO

Apparently, this factor was a major contributor to the misdirection of incorporating housing into dense educational site requirements. As mentioned above, more appropriately, high-density, mixed use housing, including affordable units with supporting ground level retail services would be ideally suited for the two sites a short walk away.

OPEN SPACE NEEDS

Photograph #2 is a close-up view of the site, clearly showing the very limited open space currently available for the critical sports, recreational and social programs of the Janney school. That space is seriously threatened by the Janney expansion as proposed.

The "promise" to make sure that any Public Private Partnership concept does not result in a net reduction of Janney's open space is another glaring element of short sighted planning: With Janney's planned enrollment increase from the current 485 to 550 students, the focus must be to INCREASE the open space for the students.

CONCLUSION

The current PPP concept, being revenue directed and profit oriented is not appropriate for this project. This misdirection and apparent maneuvering to suppress effective community input has undermined the traditional and valid process for appropriate planning, budgeting, and construction administration. To repeat, since an acceptable library design is complete, the construction must proceed without delay, with sufficient supplemental funding as required to restore this much needed asset to the whole community.

As to the expressed concerns about the probable need to close Janney during construction, I urge caution in accepting this as unavoidable. It may well be unavoidable if the library and Janney expansion were to proceed under a joint development project. On the other hand, a completed library could possibly provide some swing space which, in addition to on site temporary facilities and phased construction, may obviate the need for relocating students. This potential cries out for serious study to avoid the enormous difficulties and family disruptions faced by hundreds of households, as well as the disenfranchising of the affected students from their immediate neighborhood school.

REQUESTED ACTIONS

Mr. Mayor, the PPP concept you currently support is ill-conceived. It gravely impacts the comprehensive plan for satisfying all necessary educational needs and community support activities, by side stepping critical open space needs, and by incorporating unnecessary, and damaging housing units. This fact grossly outweighs the proximity to Metro, and the relatively meager revenue around which this concept was advanced. The unwarranted destruction of our active library and the unnecessary intrusion of a housing concept in this overall plan gives rise to the perception of supporting private interests to the detriment of community necessities. We respectfully request that the current concept be abandoned, and the construction of the library be advanced immediately. The completion of the complex design for the Janney expansion will require more time, and thusshould proceed independently. For those who would dismiss this suggested restart on the basis of further delay, I hasten to point out the likelihood of a much longer delay should the Tenleytown community follow through with a court injunction for a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, and pursue the abuse of procedures required for insuring proper involvement of the DC City Council and the community.

Mr. Mayor, your serious attention to correct the grave problems stated herein is urgently required.

Respectfully,

Albert A. Peter, Jr.

Click on the image to see a full-sized version.

Swing Space Issues

Where will the Janney kids learn (and play) while this project is under construction?

In contemplating a stand-alone school modernization project, DCPS has always assumed that Janney students could “swing in place” – i.e. remain on campus – while their new facilities are being constructed. Under that scenario, this was a realistic assumption. Because the new classroom facilities will be approximately as large as the main building currently is, once they are completed, the school could move into them as the old building is modernized. Demountables would, no doubt, have to be moved around at various stages of construction (with a resultant temporary loss of play space), but basically the current level of overcrowding could be maintained throughout the renovation process. Moreover, because the sole objective of the project would be to better meet the school’s facilities needs, construction would, presumably, be scheduled to minimize disruption to the students’ education rather than to further other goals.

Though DCPS has yet to acknowledge it, the “swing in place” approach becomes much less viable (or attractive) if Janney is to be modernized as part of a public-private venture incorporating the library and a large multifamily residential building. The scale and duration of construction changes dramatically. Significant excavation will be required. Less land will be available for relocating classrooms and outdoor playspaces. And a variety of stakeholders with competing interests will have a say in what gets done where, when, and how.

When asked about this issue back in March at a public meeting sponsored by ANC 3E, LCOR (the developer Fenty wishes to select for this project) indicated that they would prefer to have Janney students off campus during construction. That approach, which they used for the Oyster PPP, would be faster, cheaper, and safer. LCOR indicated that if the kids were to be kept on campus, it would extend the length of the construction phase by at least another year and that, while they would work hard to minimize disruption to the school, the learning environment would inevitably be less than optimal. The kids’ safety could certainly be ensured, but doing so would shrink the space available on campus for their use even further.

To get a sense of the logistics involved, click on the "ANC 3E's Website" link under the Documents heading to your right (you may have to scroll up to see it). Find the Janney School/LCOR document and print out pages 5-7 and 10. You might also want to print out Appendix A and B (1 page each) from the RFP; scroll down to find them under "2007." Now start imagining the construction sites at various stages of the process. (Likely order: (1) underground garage and foundation for mixed-use building, (2) library/apartment building, (3) new school building(s), (4) modernization of old building (some work could be done earlier during summer months when the rooms are not in use), (5) removal of demountables, reconstruction of playgrounds and fields.) What follows is my attempt to work through the logistics. During the RFP revision process, the ANC specifically asked for this planning to be done and included with the proposals, but DMPED ignored that request. So we're stuck figuring it out ourselves as best we can. Email me (smithhemb@aol.com) if you come up with something better than/different from the scenarios that follow.

The other thing that needs to be figured out is how long each phase will last. Judging from recent local experience on projects of comparable size, the first phase is probably about 4-6 months and the second phase is more like 2 years. I'm guessing that phases 3, 4, and 5 will take place over the course of two school years-- that's what DCPS's budgeting seems to assume for a stand-alone rebuild and that’s what Oyster took. Plus, it's hard to believe it could be accomplished in one, especially with the kids on site (which means that the renovations to the older building and new construction can't proceed simultaneously because, during the school year, one part must be available for use while work proceeds on the other part). The outstanding question is to what extent phases 2 and 3 can be overlapped. If they can't, we're probably looking at at least 4 years of construction on site. If they can, it could be closer to 3 years. (This is real time -- not academic years. 36 months could span 4 school years)

The edge of the excavation for the garage will be about 15 feet from the Wisconsin Avenue side of Janney’s main building and it will run along that edge of campus from the sidewalk at Albemarle Street to a point about 20 feet short of the Saint Ann’s alley. Remember that construction sites need access roads (and quite long ones to lower trucks into deep holes). At this stage, unless the alley from Yuma can be used (and it looks too narrow for construction vehicles), it would seem as if 42nd Street would be the only way to route vehicles into the site. (At a later stage, access might be from Albemarle, using the new driveway for the garage.) So imagine a curb cut on 42nd near the southern edge of the playground, traversing campus. Factor in safety perimeters as well. And construction sites typically also need areas for staging materials, for storing equipment, and for onsite office space for construction managers. None of this can go on the library land because it’s a big hole in the ground at this stage and the lot will be 100% occupied by the library/residential building once the hole is covered.

In this first stage, Janney’s former soccer field is also a big hole, so nothing can be relocated there either. Later on, most of it will be covered by an apartment building and 20’ of the 40’ between the school and that building will be devoted to a road running down the middle of this strip of land. The 10' margin on the school's side of that road will probably be useless -- it's too narrow for a demountable and too close to traffic for a playground. Perhaps some of the garage space can be used for construction materials storage at this stage (i.e. during the (2 year?) period in which the library/residential building is being constructed.)

Once the library/residential building is finished and work begins in earnest on the new school building, the entire construction operation will be housed on Janney’s now-reduced campus. The library and residences will be in active use and they consume all of the library’s land as well as what used to be the school's soccer field and part of the teacher's parking lot. The garage will also be in use – which means teacher parking can be relocated there, but construction materials probably can’t be stored in that location any more.

While the new school building is under construction, the existing demountables will still be in use, but at least one will have to be moved out of the path of the new building. At this stage there will be a demolition project (the old gym/cafeteria addition will be removed) and perhaps a reconstruction project (patching the hole its removal leaves in the center of the school's southern wall), followed by two construction sites -- one 40' from (and parallel to) the school's SW quadrant and another perpendicular to and abutting the school's southeast quadrant.

At this stage, the blacktop area is essentially eliminated (some of it will be reclaimed post-construction) and the kids will probably be limited to the playground space on the 42nd street side of campus (assuming that construction vehicles can be routed through Albemarle), which may have to house the relocated demountable as well (although it seems likely that construction related attrition will drive out enough students that maybe that demountable can be eliminated). Because the new wing extends at least 40' beyond the old building on the west side, some of that playground space will be cut into and, for safety reasons, more of it may be temporarily off-limits to students. Perhaps some additional play space at the southern edge of the campus (i.e. the future location of the playing field) can remain accessible during this phase.

Janney's SIT has said its support for the PPP is contingent upon the kids staying on campus during construction. The additional question that needs to be asked at this point is not "at what cost and for how long?" I'd be really hesitant to have my kid spending half of elementary school in a cramped construction zone. And for what? To end up with a campus where the athletic facilities have been cut in half to make way for an apartment building. The rush to do it quicker (rather than to do it better) seems really short-sighted when it means that the process is much more disruptive and the outcome is less appealing. At the rate, we're going, maybe next year's PreK and K classes will still be on campus to enjoy the new buildings, but at the cost of spending most of their elementary school years under really substandard conditions. The older kids get the pain without the gain. And the newcomers are spared the pain, but their kids will have lost 2/3 of an acre of athletic facilities. Who benefits from this approach?

The Janney SIT's letter to the Mayor in response to his July 10th announcement

July 21, 2008

Dear Mayor Fenty,

The Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) met on July 15, 2008 to discuss the recently announced selection of LCOR as a negotiating partner to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the city. The Janney SIT has previously agreed, after some debate, to consider development proposals that would require the Janney School to give up part of its campus to the proposed development.

The overriding reason Janney is willing to cede part of its campus is because Janney urgently needs modernization and expansion. A Blue Ribbon School with a history of excellent academic achievement, The Janney School is also the most overcrowded school in the DCPS system, and in great need of modernization (built in 1925). The building’s capacity is 364 and the expected population for the 2008-2009 year is over 500 students. There is one restroom for all those students on the first floor. There are five classrooms combined into three demountables (trailers) clogging Janney’s playground.

The average class size in the primary grades regularly exceeds 25 children and approaches 30 per class. Janney turns away 3 out of 4 applicants for Pre-Kindergarten, and has not accepted any out of bounds students in the primary grades in years, despite a long waiting list. There is one room for school-wide meetings that is also our lunch room and gym. Because of a lack of space, some counselors meet in converted closets, and meetings happen in the hallways. Despite all of that, wonderful things happen here.

In light of these space and condition issues, the SIT would like to reiterate its conditional support for a PPP under the following terms:

1. An addition to the school that meets the latest specifications from DCPS. This would mean adding approximately 39,000 square feet to the existing structure to accommodate an expected student body of 550, as currently foreseen in the DCPS Capital Improvement Plan;

2. Modernization of the existing Janney school building, bringing it up to current building codes and improving its electrical system, heating and cooling systems, bringing it into compliance with the ADA, and increasing the number of student restrooms;

3. An earlier time schedule for these repairs and modernizations, with construction plans in place by 2009 and construction scheduled to be completed in 2012;

4. Moving Janney’s current surface parking lot underground, thereby allowing the school to replace the play area that it would lose to an expanded library or residential building with an equal amount of green space (no net loss of green space);

5. Ensuring that the students remain on the Janney campus during the construction phase of the expansion and modernization (swing in space); and

6. Meaningful opportunities for Janney community involvement and input on plans and processes relating to and affecting the Janney School.

Our support for the project is conditioned on the above principles being formalized in writing as either a Directive from the Office of the Mayor to the responsible agencies or a Memorandum of Understanding between DCPS and the Office of Economic Development.

The Janney School Improvement Team is supportive of moving forward on the modernization of Janney with the above principles, whether the PPP goes forward or not. This letter is not intended as an indication that the Janney School community is unanimous in support of the PPP. The Janney community is diverse with varying opinions on most all subjects. However, there is near unanimity that Janney School, as the most crowded school in DCPS, is in need of an addition and quick modernization. We look forward to continuing these talks and to participating in what we envision as a positive result for the community.

Sincerely,

The Janney School Improvement Team

Kirk Rankin, SIT chair
Tawana Franklin, Staff rep.
Laure Hunter, Teacher
Shellie Wood, Teacher
Andrew Smiles, Parent
Karen Martin, Parent
Allison Feeney, Parent
Karen Langford, Teacher
Mary Osterman, Teacher
Malin Kerwin, Teacher
Karen Kalat, PTA rep.
Sczerina Perot, PTA rep.
Marijke Gero, Teacher
Jane Malhotra, Parent
Cheryl Ohlson, Parent
Brenda Petteway, Acting Principal

InTowner Op-Ed on Tenleytown Announcement

From the Publisher's Desk...

MAYORAL EFFORTS TO FREEZE OUT CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERS OUGHT ULTIMATELY TO BACKFIRE COME ELECTION TIME
Published: July 11th, 2008

On the same day we were getting ready to go to press and trying to decide what our topic for this space should be this month, we noticed that the Washington Post reporters who write the “District Notebook” feature which appears in the District Weekly section had picked up on an example of a truly bad way of conducting city business by the Office of the Mayor and its various satellites.

Specifically, what these reporters were exposing is what we here refer to as press release by stealth — that is, notices to the press about important matters that are to be publicly announced but not sent out until after business hours, or very late on a Friday or the day before a holiday. To that ruse we can also add the phenomenon of press releases informing of a public announcement event being sent out on the same day just hours before the event, thus ensuring a mad scramble at best but more likely not much in the way of attendance.

The writers cited some examples of bad news or controversial announcements which by having been slipped under the door after offices had closed for the weekend or holiday might go fairly unnoticed. The mayor’s spokesperson countered with some excuses about the need to get all sorts of different entities to sign off or the rush of business, etc. and also stated that, notwithstanding instances of short notice, reporters nevertheless always seem to be on top of things and either do show up or know to call and get what they need.

All of what the Mayor’s person says may or may not be true, but to us that is not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Those of us who work at keeping tabs on city government operations are not the ones as to which this press release by stealth is such an insidious development. It is how this tactic ensures that community leaders and individual citizen activists — and even just folk — who perform yeoman service in the call to keep close watch on the politicians and the bureaucracy (the press can’t do it all) are frozen out is what is so insidious. And that is what the Mayor and his minions are striving to achieve by this tactic.

An excellent case in point surfaced on the very morning that the “District Notebook” column appeared and on this very day we are writing our commentary. We refer to the nearly secret alert by email dispatched from the Office of the Mayor, with the subject line blank (!), at 7:52 a.m. for a 10:45 a.m. of a mayoral press conference in Tenleytown to announce the selection of the “public-private partnership” developer for the very controversial Janney School/Tenley Library site. That was only an advance notice of two hours and 53 minutes, assuming people were actually at their computer screens at that hour.

By putting out that announcement in such a stealthy manner it is clear to us that the intention was to ensure that concerned citizens would have been totally unaware that the public announcement event had been suddenly moved back one full day; everyone had been under the impression that it was to be midday the next day — Friday (bad enough, since right before the start of a summer weekend). Ironically, as it turned out, thanks to one savvy neighbor getting wind of the change and a very effective neighborhood alert system, over 50 residents did show up to the obvious displeasure of the Mayor; almost no press was there, probably because reporters would likely have zapped the incoming email that bore no subject matter line.

Not only have Ward 3 school and library activists been up in arms about how they see the city administration going about the process to build a new school and new library as part of a residential and commercial complex, but so have ordinary residents.

(Not unlike what’s going down in Tenleytown, a similar deal for the West End Branch Library so outraged Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom residents about how that process was unfolding that they ultimately prevailed and the deal imploded. Both the West End and Tenleytown library controversies were the subject of an extensive report in this newspaper last year. See, “West End Library Site Transfer to EastBanc Controversy Now Part of Larger Issue About District’s Embrace of Public-Private Deals,” InTowner, September 2007, page 1.)

Shortly after the mayoral “dog and pony show” in Tenleytown the chair of the area’s Advisory neighborhood Commission (ANC 3E), Amy McVey, joined by Commissioner Anne Sullivan, issued a blistering condemnation in a well-articulated document titled, “Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site.” The full text is to be posted on the Commission’s website, www.anc3e.org, and we urge our readers to see it there. The concluding paragraph, especially, so mirrors our own views that we have taken the liberty of sharing it with our readership, as follows:

“The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown — about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals — echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.”

Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site

[[This is the text of a press release I sent out Thursday afternoon to give journalists another perspective on Fenty's announcement (and DMPED's press release) that morning.]]

In an unpublicized press conference, whose date and time were changed in the early morning hours, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his decision to pursue a public-private redevelopment project involving the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School, located at the southwest corner of Wisconsin Avenue and Albemarle Street in Tenleytown. No representative from DCPS – neither from Michelle Rhee’s office nor from Allen Lew’s -- was standing by his side with representatives from LCOR, the private development company chosen for the project. DC Chief Librarian, Ginnie Cooper and John Hill, President of the Library Board of Trustees, were also absent, although DCPL Construction Manager Jeff Bonvechio was called to the microphone to affirm that the library would work with the Deputy Mayor’s office and its chosen developer. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh was present to lend her (somewhat equivocal) support, but, when questioned, she acknowledged that she had not seen LCOR’s best and final offer.

Local activists speculate the Fenty kept the press conference under wraps because he knew that his announcement would be greeted with outrage, both because it violates the “model process” DMPED promised, in the wake of the West End debacle, to use for the disposition of public land and because, once the community saw the proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the site, neighborhood opposition to a joint project quickly became overwhelming. Previously, the community had been divided over whether a public-private redevelopment option was worth exploring. But once residents saw the proposals, many people who had previously been either supportive of, or undecided about, a joint public-private redevelopment of this site became convinced that the costs to the school and library were too great and that the community would not realize any benefit from using public land for this purpose. The Janney School SIT/LSRT (a parent-teacher organization that deals with facilities issues) rejected all three proposals that emerged from the RFP, including the LCOR’s submission which, according to Mayor Fenty, was the basis for today’s selection. In short, opposition to the project became near-unanimous once the community saw what a public-private joint venture would look like in practice.

In February 2008, Fenty promised the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, a local civic association that the project would not go forward without the support of the community. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, who rejected the ANC’s request for community representation on the RFP selection panel, had repeatedly promised that the community would “get another bite of the apple” – a chance to see and comment upon the selection panel’s recommendation – before any decision was made. Both those promises were broken today, a point made repeatedly by a number of angry residents who attended the press conference. They pointed out that the community had overwhelming opposed this project, citing not only the ANC’s stance, but resolutions from six different local civic associations and emails from nearly 100 individuals, calling for the public-private development option to be rejected. Not a single local organization offered its support for any of the three submissions received in response to the RFP.

“It’s like a cruel joke,” said Sue Hemberger who has served on an ANC special committee that has been studying the project since last May. “The community has spent a year working with DCPL on a design, DCPL has spent over a million dollars on the project and is two steps away from ground-breaking, both the community and the Commission on Fine Arts have praised the library’s design, and now DMPED steps in and stops the project dead in its tracks.” Community members question why Neil Albert has been given the right to put public land that is in active use – this is DCPS’s most overcrowded elementary school and it was one of the busiest branch libraries – on the auction block without the consent of the Council or the agency involved. They point out that, under the LEAD Act, very different process has been legally mandated for decisionmaking regarding public-private development projects that involve the use of the library system’s land and/or associated development rights.

“From a public facilities standpoint, we’re getting less, we’re getting it later, and we’re paying more. It’s insane,“ said ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan. “Building an apartment building on this site guarantees that DCPS’s educational specifications for playground and sports facilities cannot be met on Janney’s campus. The kids will lose. ”

Neighbors point out that one block north of the site, at Wisconsin and Brandywine, there is a residential project that has gone unbuilt for years now because there’s no market for the units. There’s no shortage of underdeveloped privately owned land in this area that could be used for multifamily residential construction which leads them to question the need to devote public land – including the elementary school’s soccer field – to residential development.

But this particular project is especially attractive to developers because it will be heavily subsidized. The RFP for the project offered respondents the capital funds already allocated to rebuild the library and to expand the school and all three respondents asked for additional subsidies for the project in the form of a TIF or PILOT bonds. This means that the developer awarded this deal gets two public works construction contracts (with profit already built in) as well as the use of valuable public land and probably some tax breaks and reduced financing costs for construction loans. On top of that, the developers hope to charge the city both to build public parking underground (an expense that wouldn’t otherwise be necessary) and to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.

The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown – about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals – echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.