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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheh Joins the Opposition to Tenley Project

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/08/cheh_joins_the_opposition_to_t.html

Ian Thoms of the NW Current broke this story Wednesday and Michael Neibauer's coverage in The Examiner on Thursday added a few details -- including that Cheh's July 24th letter to Albert on this project was co-signed by Kwame Brown's office and that the letter asked Albert to assure the Council Members that the deal would ultimately meet their "essential conditions."


The group of critics of the development project at the site of the former Tenley-Friendship Library has a new member: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh.

She has serious reservations about the current proposal, which might reduce green space at the neighboring Janney Elementary School.

Cheh (D-Ward 3) had strongly supported construction of a building that would have incorporated a library, shops and apartments. But she said she believes that the proposal that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) selected in early July would cause problematic delays in the library's construction -- up to two years -- and would also take space away from the elementary school.

"I'm hopeful that there's still room to have elements in this to have an acceptable proposal," Cheh said. "But I made it very clear to [the deputy mayor and the developers] that I was disappointed."

Cheh sent a letter to the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development late last month outlining her concerns.

According to the plan announced in July, the LCOR development firm would build about 130 housing units over a new library. A parking garage would be underground. And city funds gained from the development would be channeled toward a renovation of the Janney Elementary School.

But Janney would lose part of a soccer field, something Cheh had opposed. She also said the amount of money the city would earn from the development "seemed low."

And many in the community had protested the plans, asserting that they had not been involved in the planning processes and that the library system -- which had already drawn up its own plans for a stand-alone building -- should be allowed to build without delay.

"When I'm losing the support of the different groups who were told we would get this advantage and that advantage, it makes it completely untenable" for her to back the development, Cheh said.

She emphasized that the plan was not yet set, and held out hope that her objections would be addressed.

"I am completely for transit-oriented development," she said. "I'm keeping my fingers crossed."

The deputy mayor's office and LCOR have not yet responded to calls for comment.

Michael Birnbaum

Janney -- Before and After

The aerial photo gives you a sense of current conditions at Janney. The site plan below it shows LCOR's RFP submission -- the only plan they've submitted, despite being asked twice to revise the project. LCOR refused both times (while other developers complied), but LCOR was chosen nonetheless.

Given that history, now is not the time to suspend judgment until we see LCOR's "new plan." We're not at the beginning of this process -- depending on whether you start the clock at the point when the design was originally submitted or wait until it was universally condemned, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development has had 5 -7 months to negotiate with LCOR on this project and they've gotten nowhere.

So let's look at what happens under LCOR's current proposal.

The first thing to notice is that LCOR's site plan for the school does not include the land that currently provides the school's soccer field and the eastern corner of the teacher's parking lot. All that land (draw a straight line down from the sidewalk along the school building's eastern edge, all the way to the property line) will now become a nine-story apartment building and the driveway to its 200+ space garage. Not only is that land lost to the school forever, but the eastern edge of Janney's historic building loses its natural light.

Natural light is further compromised by the design of the additions, which you can see on the site plan. The kitchen covers the windows on the first floor classroom on the SE corner of the building, while the cafeteria/library annex blocks out the south facing windows of classroms on the second floor (the ground floor is bathrooms). The cafeteria itself will presumably be windowless; the library will have windows only on the east side (in the shadow of the apartment building).

The new classroom wing creates a 30-40 foot courtyard between the southwest wing of the historic building and its own northern facade. That courtyard is envisioned as a hardscape playground. Enclosed on three sides by two- and three-story buildings, it's not going to get much sun either. Janney's third floor classroms on this wing will probably not be compromised, but natural light may be an issue for the other classrooms that face the courtyard, especially in the new building.

Noise also looks like an issue in that courtyard. Imagine trying to teach while the hardscape area is filled with kids at play. The classrooms on the south side of the new wing face similar problems -- especially the two whose windows are about seven feet from the basketball court.

The other hardscape area, east of the gym, will require its own playground supervisor -- it is completely cut off from sightlines otherwise and it abuts a driveway and loading dock. I wouldn't want to be teaching in one of the classrooms next to the driveway/loading dock either. BEEP-BEEP-BEEP every time a truck backs up.

This is the kind of design you get when the goal is to extract revenue from public land. The for-profit component of the project gets the prime real estate and the school has to make do with the leftovers. This is certainly not the campus that would be designed for Janney if DCPS could use all the land and focus exclusively on educational needs.

THE LCOR Deal: What’s in it for Janney?

Right now, Janney's campus has less land per student than two-thirds of all DCPS elementary schools. After this project is completed, it will fall from the bottom third to the bottom quarter, as the school adds 65 more students, while its outdoor athletics facilities (playing field, basketball courts) shrink to less than half their current size.

"Swing in place" was a reasonable strategy when a stand-alone school modernization project was contemplated, but this public-private project will double the time Janney kids spend trying to learn and play in the midst of a construction zone, surrounded by noise, dust, machinery, and equipment, and fenced off from much of their existing campus. If DCPS keeps the kids on site for the duration of the project, we're probably looking at four consecutive academic years in which the school has to function under cramped and disruptive conditions.

If every aspect of this public-private project goes exceptionally quickly and smoothly, incoming kindergartners will spend this year and most of next under existing conditions at Janney. Construction could start as early as the spring semester of their first grade year and is unlikely to end before they finish fourth grade. During at least part of fourth grade, they'd presumably be in the new wing, with the historic building closed for repairs.

Only in fifth grade would all of the school's facilities be available for their use once again. But at that point these now much bigger kids will find that they have much less space on campus to run and play than they did as 5-year-olds. And, among current Janney students, the kindergartners are the lucky ones - children in higher grades will share the pain but not the gain. Kids who first arrive once the dust has settled will find themselves on a campus that has only half as much land per student as neighboring Lafayette (and which abuts an apartment building rather than a rec center). Where would you rather send your child?

We don’t need to allow private development on Janney’s campus in order to get the school modernized and expanded. The March 31st consultant-authored draft of DCPS’s Master Facilities Plan envisioned and budgeted for a stand-alone reconstruction at Janney that would require only two years of construction and be completed by 2012 (rather than 2013 at the earliest). And, under that scenario, facilities planners would have at least 2/3 of an acre more land to work with as they expand and modernize the school than they will if there's a public-private development project.

The obvious and inescapable question: What's in this deal for Janney? Substandard facilities, delivered later, and through a process that is much more disruptive of the kids’ education. Tell the Council you’re not interested. And while you’re at it, cc the Mayor and the developer.

mcheh@dccouncil.us
vgray@dccouncil.us
schwartzc@dccouncil.us
kbrown@dccouncil.us
hthomas@dccouncil.us
pmendelson@dccouncil.us
dcatania@dccouncil.us
yalexander@dccouncil.us
mbowser@dccouncil.us
twells@dccouncil.us
mbarry@dccouncil.us
jgraham@dccouncil.us
jackevans@dccouncil.us

adrian.fenty@dc.gov, mayor@dc.gov, amf@dc.gov

TSmith@lcor.com

Public Engagement (Op-Ed in the Current)

from The Northwest Current, July 30, 2008 (p. 8)

Mayor Adrian Fenty has pushed an aggressive economic development agenda since taking office. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development now has a portfolio of more than $13 billion worth of projects, ranging from a $1.4 billion new waterfront neighborhood east of Capitol Hill to a solicitation for development partners for three Petworth sites on Georgia Avenue. It’s commendable that the projects, in the mayor’s words, are “back on track” and moving “as fast as possible.” But we worry that the desire for action is too often cutting out the opportunity for reasonable community input.

The proposed public-private partnership at the site of the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and Janney Elementary School is a key example. The actions of the city’s economic development officials make it seem that they are not interested in listening to neighbors — a radical disconnect from the Adrian Fenty approach during his tenure on the D.C. Council and during his mayoral campaign.

Community leaders had to file Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain public documents. The city-sponsored meetings held ostensibly to vet proposals did not provide an opportunity for unfettered questions. Instead, city officials selected queries from among those submitted on note cards by audience members.

And when the mayor was ready to announce his administration’s choice of LCOR Inc. to develop an apartment building atop a new library, he did so at a hastily arranged outdoor news conference — held just a few hours after an early-morning announcement was distributed to the media. Even Ward 3 Council member Mary Cheh — who had pressed for consideration of a public-private partnership at the site — was caught off-guard and ended up speaking without having had the opportunity to see the final proposal. The administration did not hold a community meeting to discuss the details in the days before the announcement, nor has it held one since.

This doesn’t seem sustainable. In contrast, the same office is pursuing the correct course in the West End — after initial missteps that led to such a public outcry that the D.C. Council rescinded legislation authorizing negotiations about a land sale. Since then, the deputy mayor’s office has allowed neighbors to take the lead in analyzing facilities needs. And now the office is holding its second public meeting on the community’s desires.

As the city continues its ambitious development pace, it should replicate its West End approach, not its many mistakes in Tenley.