Education
Truxton Circle school and youth housing in doubt
A proposal from two local nonprofits to turn a vacant school building in the Truxton Circle neighborhood into a unique charter school could die unless the DC Council votes on Feb. 1 to approve the building's disposition.
The Cook School's facade. Image from In Shaw on Flickr.
One unique aspect to the project is that it will include 20 housing units for selected at-risk young people.
The plan has raised ire from neighbors who say the area has more than its share of social services. But supporters point to the same nonprofits' record of being a positive force in Columbia Heights to show that Truxton Circle stands to benefit from their presence.
The former John F. Cook School, located on P Street NW near North Capitol Street, has been sitting empty since 2008. A big vacant building is certainly not an asset to a neighborhood that is seeing the beginnings of revival.
The District government made the building available for applications to use it as a school once again. The winning bidders were the Youth Build Public Charter School (YBPCS) and its parent organization, the Latin American Youth Center (LAYC).
YBPCS envisions expanding the school it currently operates at 14th Street and Columbia Road NW in Columbia Heights into the first floor of the Cook building. The school serves people ages 16 to 24 who have dropped out of traditional high schools, but want to turn their lives around by learning a trade while earning a General Education Degree (GED). The school would continue to operate at traditional hours.
LAYC would operate housing on the second and third floors of the building, federally funded through Section 8, for a self-selecting group of 20 young homeless people looking to turn their lives around. Applicants for housing would have to pass drug tests and meet a very rigid schedule to get accepted. While living at the facility, social workers would help each resident one-on-one, and residents would be subject to continued testing for drugs and other risks.
In Columbia Heights, LAYC and YBPCS engage in community policing and maintain good relationships with area business owners. Many credit the nonprofits for contributing to the neighborhood's revitalization, in addition to turning young people's lives in a more healthy direction.
The Fenty Administration approved the transfer of the school to YBPCS and LAYC in 2008, giving the DC Council until February 1, 2011, to vote to put the final stamp on the transaction. YBPCS President Mark Jordan insists that his school has complied with every law and regulation and has made efforts to involve the surrounding community in its plans, including offering to include space for community meetings and arts programs. Jordan feels that there has been more than ample opportunity for public input.
Some neighborhood leaders, however, feel that the school's move is being forced upon them without due process. Heading the opposition is Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC) Sylvia Pinkney, in whose Single Member District the school sits.
Pinkney and fellow Commissioners Bradley Thomas and Ronnie Edwards offered LAYC & YBPCS three alternatives: no sale of the building, sale with no housing allowed, and sale with only five housing units allowed. None of these are acceptable to the nonprofits, which see these as meaning "don't build it." LAYC & YouthBuild are willing to provide community meeting and arts space, and to include more diverse demographics as tenants in the housing portion.
The nonprofits hosted a community forum in the Cook School parking lot in October, and a listening session at Big Bear Cafe in December. They intended these simply as opportunities for interested neighbors to learn the facts and share concerns in a collaborative manner. Some opponents, though, saw these as having plans forced upon them. One opponent went as far as to ask Big Bear owner Stu Davenport not to host the December session.
One ANC 5C Commissioner believes that the nonprofits suffer from poor public relations, saying that school leaders did not approach the Bates Area Civic Association (BACA) or the ANC until very far along in the planning process. BACA approved in March a resolution opposing the project, but LAYC & YouthBuild's later efforts convinced some members to support the school's disposition.
Architect's rendering of the expanded and renovated school.
Image from Wiencek & Associates via City Paper.
Many opponents of the project feel that more Section 8 housing would add to Truxton Circle's problems, citing the negative effects the neighborhood has witnessed from the high concentration of social service agencies nearby. Some supporters see these opponents as inflexible NIMBYs whose views are colored by their sour attitudes towards the Fenty Administration.
The opposition from three civic associations and the ANC may have contributed to the delay in the D.C. Council's final vote. Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. has not taken a firm position, despite that every other Councilmember appears to support the sale. When asked, Thomas has only made vague references to flaws in the process. Supporters say that the project fits right in to Mayor Gray and Council Chairman Kwame Brown's emphasis on building more affordable housing.
If things had gone differently, the school could have begun construction by now, with classes to begin this September. However, the persistence of misinformation and mistrust between the project's backers and its critics may mean rapidly-changing Truxton Circle may lose this opportunity to have a venerable building being once again being put to a noble use.
If Council doesn't vote on Feb. 1, the nonprofits, which have everything in place except the title to the school, will be forced back to the drawing board. And the Cook School will remain unused for the foreseeable future.
 | Malcolm Kenton lives in the DC neighborhood of Bloomingdale. Hailing from Greensboro, NC and a graduate of Guilford College, he is Director of Outreach and Engagement for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, where he blogs about national transportation issues. The views on GGW are his own and not necessarily those of NARP.    |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
Two recent homicides on the Unit block of P St NW and at the North Capitol/Florida Avenue intersection) make clear that this low-density residential nbeighborhood is already overwhelmed with social problems and cannot abosorb more troubled young people. There were other worhty causes propsed for the Cook school, including an arts spcae that would do much more than the LAYC proposal to help revitalize the neighborhood. LAYC/Youth Build is a worthy cause, but other neighborhoods need to step up and house them, our area is already carrying far more than its fair share.
by JD on Jan 23, 2011 7:26 pm • link • report
by Rich on Jan 23, 2011 7:50 pm • link • report
Every kid in DC - from those at fancy prep schools to those in special programs for "at risk" youth - already is a part of our community, whether we want to acknowledge them or not. Turning our backs on them and hoping someone else will deal with the CHILDREN who for whatever reason have gotten a bad start in life is not just mean, it's an injustice.
by anony on Jan 23, 2011 10:07 pm • link • report
The community has been very receptive to the youthbuild portion of the proposal. In fact, in the December testimony to the city council many supported the youthbuild portion of the plan. It's the 2/3 of the school which will be put to an experimental housing program that causes the concern.
The J.F. Cook School offers one of the last chances to create an anchor site to help counter the negative character (perceived or otherwise) of the north capitol corridor. The neighborhood would like to see this school used to spur redevelopment along a corridor that has long been neglected. Youthbuild partnered with another program or group could enable this, however LAYC is unwilling to consider this.
The three blocks immediately around the school is home to 15+ services, occupying over 25 properties. In fact, the unit block of O st behind the school is almost entirely comprised of social services. Any one who thinks bringing at-risk young adults into this environment has not spent the night here.
LAYC has had over a year to make serious changes to their plan. Why does it remain unchanged? You mentioned several solutions that the community offered, what (other than an arts room) has LAYC offered? I asked LAYC at the October meeting whether they could consider running youthbuild but with any alternative to housing (scaled down, partnership with UDC) They said they were not open to any change.
The 'opposition' includes several hundred residents, three civic associations and an ANC who have signed petitions against the project, hardly 'small but vocal' group. There is a small group of supporters that the CityPaper and LAYC continue to site as the proponents of the project, however they do not represent the majority of the neighborhood.
by Mike on Jan 23, 2011 10:55 pm • link • report
The target neighborhood has more than its share of social service programs. What's needed is balance. An arts related program would be better. Retail is an obvious choice too. LAYC can go to Georgetown or Capitol Hill.
by Rynecki on Jan 23, 2011 11:39 pm • link • report
The city's created (and/or allowed) a playground for dereliction, where social problems combine synergistically. The atmosphere around North Capital one of lawlessness, where people shoot strangers with impunity, drink all day, have sex in allies, shoot dope, etc. How is this helping a homeless guy right himself? How is this a good environment for at risk youths?
There are alternatives, other neighborhoods that -want- the LAYC. I suspect you didn't address this point because it hurts your argument. You prefer instead a simplistic and naive idealism: NIMBYism is always bad, social services are always good. Part of growing up is realizing that life is more complex.
by anotherMike on Jan 24, 2011 1:02 am • link • report
And the housing program is "experimental" how, exactly? The Wash City Paper article links to the Good Shepherd program, which seems like a successful model. I assume there will be staff or counselors living at the facility as well - am I wrong about that? It's not like these kids will just be living there unsupervised, running wild in the night to randomly kill people after having sex in alleys.
And what, exactly, are the alternatives for that space? Who is going to pay for this art center people keep talking about? Where is that money coming from? Anyone got a concrete proposal on that that I can see? And how will an art center improve development over housing?
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 9:30 am • link • report
Experimental with regards to LAYC. Their current housing is largly resident sized housing. While they cite good shephard as a model to follow, this will be the first time LAYC has attempted this. Also, if you look at the neighborhood, the scale is out of touch. There are no large apartment buildings in the surrounding blocks. The only other comparable density is an upcoming low-income senior housing behind the school.
Also, the housing is not about kids, unless you consider 18-24 year olds kids. The proposal is simply housing with a charter school attached to fulfill the rfp school requirement.
One of the rejected groups (no charter school) was an arts consortium that was interested in the building. Why couldn't YBPCS partner with them? They never considered alternatives.
The arts center or similar use would act to draw people into the neighborhood, similar to the early stimulus provided by the Atlas on H St. Its patrons would provide customers for potential restaurants. It would enhance the quality of life for those of us already living there by providing entertainment in our neighborhood.
We live here, our children went to Cook when it was a school, our neighbors taught there, our tax dollars will pay for its rebuilding. Why shouldn't we have a say in what will be in our backyard?
by Mike on Jan 24, 2011 9:54 am • link • report
I'd still like more info about this rejected arts consortium. According to the notes I've read, "when the D.C. Public Schools place a school building in surplus, educational institutions get first bid at purchasing or leasing the building." (http://batesareacivicassociation.org/2010/12/08/follow-the-money-a-perspective-on-the-layc-proposal/) The rejection of this arts consortium seems to be a simple matter of law - is that right? This building is simply not a publicly available building in the traditional sense and has to be offered to schools first. That's an important restriction to note in this discussion.
In fact, are there no other empty or available buildings/properties for this still unnamed arts consortium? Can't this group of presumably well financed artists and arts supporters still build something somewhere else in the hood? This isn't an either/or situation for the neighborhood, after all, only for this particular building (which again, by law, is offered to schools first).
And of course people should have a say in what goes on in their neighborhoods, but I think you're (A) ignoring how the law gives preferences to schools for this particular building and (B) creating a false dilemma when you ignore the fact that you can have this school - housing units and all - and still have an arts center. I just find it hard to believe that the future development of this area depends on 20 housing units on the top floor of this building. Seems like a big to do over not that big a deal.
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
There is a correlation. In the last few months a home by the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services opened across the street. Before opening we raised concerns with the department and they insisted this was going to be a safe contained home helping youths.
Since they have opened we have police cars & ambulances by weekly if not daily to deal with altercations within this home. We have started to see open air drug sells happening where none existed before. Concentrated homes like these DO NOT WORK.
We need more mixed income housing. Didn't we learn anything from the past. Concentrated section 8 housing does not work. Our ANC rep has been very helpful in starting a dialogue to improve our situation but I feel the system in place gives us little recourse.
by JohnDC on Jan 24, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
The flux proposal from 2008 is what I was mentioning:
http://bloomingdaleneighborhood.blogspot.com/2008/09/please-support-this-proposal-for-arts.html
by Mike on Jan 24, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report
by JD on Jan 24, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report
And I think people are splitting hairs with this 100% school use thing. Consider it a boarding school, whatever. Presumably YBPCS knows the needs of its students and is trying to build an educational facility that addresses those needs, to include housing. (Does it include a lunch room or cafeteria too? Is YBPC trying to sneak in a restaurant?!) The point is this is a school building to be used by a school, and that's what it will be - a boarding school is still a school.
And while I do think it's important for residents to have a say in what happens in their backyard, I also think residents need to consider who else that backyard belongs to and what needs those neighbors might have. That building belongs to the YBPCS kids as much as it does to you - it is a city resource - and sometimes what you want has to take a backseat to what someone else in your community needs.
And instead of spending all this energy fighting this boarding school, maybe you should work on making the art center you want a reality. What's the status of that, by the way? Where's the funding? What are the alternative options for space in the neighborhood? What have you and others done to move that project forward?
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report
That is all.
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report
by mtp on Jan 24, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report
The argument, 'why not a group with a good track record?' has been the cry of each of the previous 15 groups surrounding the school. Many operate well run programs, however take a look at North Capitol and you will notice that social services, no matter how well run can provide economic stimulus to an area.
Please don't think this is the only issue the community cares about. It is one of many, and is the topic of this post. We have pushed Douglas to redevelop his properties, attempted to get some of the shiloh-type landowners to develop or sell. This spring a tree planting will occur in an attempt to beautify the area. There is pressure to get the city to redevelop its vacant parcels. NCMS is actively working on improving storefronts of existing businesses... the list goes on.
by Mike on Jan 24, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report
Most neighbors opose what is obviously a very bad thing for our neighborhood.
by Ralph on Jan 24, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report
And I don't understand why a school were kids are scattered to the wind at 3 pm is better than one where the teaching and counseling and structure and support goes on 24 hours a day (since it's only the housing you oppose). I didn't mean the school has a good track record of simply running useful social programs, I meant a good track record of getting kids to turn their lives around by providing focused job training. This isn't a parking lot for troubled kids, after all, trying to keep them out of trouble and nothing more. It's actively transitioning them into being good adults, and the kids aren't forced to be there by the state. As community-minded residents of the neighborhood they will add to the demand for retails and other businesses, which appears to also be a factor in the current lack of growth, no? Another difference in perspective, I guess.
Anyway - clearly you're not going to change your mind. I obviously don't expect my internet ramblings to accomplish that. But I do think those who oppose the school need to get real about what's truly standing in the way of neighborhood growth in general and the real alternatives for that building in particular. Punishing these kids - and yes, that IS what you're effectively doing - isn't going to make your neighborhood better or address the problems you keep mentioning, so why do it?
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
It's a growing problem in DC, and the neighbors' assumption that these kids are criminals doesn't hold up. For example, the Washington Blade had a great story this fall on a teenager who was on honor roll and living in an abandoned building:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/11/11/homeless-gay-teen-survives-streets-eyes-college/
by 4DCKids on Jan 24, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
It's obvious you're not familiar with the area. Street cars? There's a metro several blocks from the affected area -- what on Earth are you talking about? I invite you to spend some time on North Capital before commenting further.
South of New York avenue is experiencing revitalization: new restaurants and eateries are being added on a monthly basis. Just across the street, on the North side where there are a dozen or so active social service agencies, nothing like this is happening. It's a textbook example for the uninitiated: extreme social service and Section 8 density inhibits growth. The city needs to disperse the easily movable services in the future, and to devote two additional police units to the neighborhood until that occurs (if ever). I'd be happy if the city at least provided the stepped up policing, at a cost of $300,000 a year.
by anotherMike on Jan 24, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
Currently DC takes care of 100 homeless per 10,000 residents. In Maryland that's 20 per 10,000. In Virginia, that's 10 per 10,000. I think it's time for a moratorium on *any* new social services until we start addressing these problems at the regional level. Otherwise, the 'burbs just continue their role of free rider.
by oboe on Jan 24, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report
My point exactly. When we can point to any such concentration of services for the region's poor and stuggling in either MD or VA, then we can talk about how DC can do more.
by oboe on Jan 24, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
by mtp on Jan 24, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
And so what if the program *could* be located somewhere else? That actually doesn't change any of my arguments at all. The fact remains this is a school building that must, by law, be offered to a school first. Opponents who argue that it should be an arts center or a Target or whatever else instead are not being realistic about what this building can be used for and the actual projects ready (with funding and all) to move in.
by anony on Jan 24, 2011 7:59 pm • link • report
The school could choose to relocate to one of the neighborhoods which have volunteered to welcome both the LAYC and the charter school. At the same time, the Truxton neighborhood has the option to wait for a school (not a Target) without a Section 8 component. Win, for the charter/LAYC; win, for the other -welcoming- neighborhood; and win for Truxton/Bloomingdale. Under your inflexible so called "solution", two neighborhoods don't get what they want, and the school gets a serviceable (but not the most suitable, mind you) building. Use a little common sense. This isn't what works best for all -- including the youths who won't be forced to constantly walk a block with the heaviest heroin trade in the city.
mtp -- the investment in Columbia Heights is a result of the metro opening. In DC, metro trumps all. Can you get the city to open a new Truxton Circle metro to offset the blighting effects of several solid blocks of nothing but social services? If you can, I think we stand a chance of seeing the same kind of appreciation and development as you did. Otherwise, the honest truth is that the LAYC isn't seen as an asset to future home buyers who determine whether Truxton home prices go up, stay the same, or decline. It's a net negative if we're speaking frankly about price movement. It may be a shame, but that's a fact.
Not that this is actually about property values. It's not. The idea is that the LAYC should land where it will thrive, rather than the first neighborhood it haphazardly comes across.
by anotherMike on Jan 25, 2011 12:14 am • link • report
Your argument, though, that the school should just go somewhere else, is not one I can respect. You're seriously going to tell a bunch of kids, "sorry, but you're not welcome here"? Who do you think you are? Why *should* they go somewhere else? That building does not belong to you or that neighborhood alone. It is a city resource and the kids at YBPCS have as much right to it as anyone else. The schools bid for it and YBPCS won, fair and square. Those kids are members of this city and the community just as much as you are, and they have the right to live in any part of it, not just the areas you deem acceptable.
by anony on Jan 25, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
Thank you very much for your article about the redevelopment of Cook School. On behalf of the YouthBuild Public Charter School (YBPCS) and the Latin American Youth Center (LAYC), we appreciate the opportunity to increase dialogue about future of the project and particularly to correct any misinformation. Since the building was awarded, there have been a number of posts to the listservs and blogs that serve the neighborhoods surrounding the site and that dialogue has continued here. On behalf of our team, we wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns and issues.
We hear comments and concerns that our team is not willing to listen and drop the housing component, that our team "gamed" the system, and that the charter school is a cover for housing. We feel the best response to those comments is to provide more insight into the vision and context for the Cook School redevelopment here; so while our response is lengthy, we hope readers will take the time to read it.
The LAYC and YBPCS proposed project at JF Cook School is a vocational, educational and housing effort. When LAYC and YBPCS responded to the city's RFA over two years ago the proposed activities were all allowable for the site. It was our understanding from the process, that the RFA had been developed in concert with community input. The combined effort between LAYC and YBPCS was a response to the need for vocational and educational opportunities for our city's young people who for one reason or another have not been successful at traditional public schools and a response to the need for long term and affordable housing for older youth and young adults, many of whom through no fault of their own find themselves without safe and supportive housing.
The LAYC and YBPCS have been partners for many years. Prior to becoming a charter school, the LAYC operated YouthBuild as one of its programs. While successful as a LAYC program, the conversion of the program into an independent charter school enabled many more young people to take advantage of this successful re-engagement opportunity. YBPCS applications outnumber the available slots. The current site serves young people from every Ward in the city except Ward 3. Numerous students are from Ward 5.
As such, YBPCS has a need and opportunity to expand to better serve a highly underserved community of District youth. As with many public charter schools, former DCPS facilities provide a critical resource - an affordable facility - that can allow a charter school to expand. For YBPCS, this location was particularly attractive due to its proximity to public transportation, which is the main mode of transportation for most of its students. However, the school's program model is modest in size as it includes small classrooms and student to teacher of 12 to 1 and has a vocational component which places students on site in construction trade training 50 percent of the time.
Given these factors, while the Cook school site is an excellent fit for YBPCS and the young people it serves, yet the school is not in a position to occupy the entire facility nor is it in a position to secure the funding required to renovate the entire facility. However, these limitations provided an opportunity to create a strong partnership model that would further leverage this District property to better serve youth and address the challenges facing YBPCS students. This opportunity created the LAYC-YBPCS partnership model envisioned for Cook; it created the opportunity for a first rate, community development project that serves our young people.
While YBPCS addresses the educational and vocational needs of its students, the need for long term affordable housing for our city's young people is also of tremendous concern. The number of homeless youth in the District is estimated at 1,400; one in four young adults exiting the foster care system (which occurs at age 21) are expected to be homeless; LAYC annually provides direct housing services or referrals to over 500 youth facing homelessness; each year YBPCS has students that are homeless --- the need is clearly evident, options for long term affordable housing for our city's young adults are few and inadequate. We respectfully disagree that the scale of this project is massive and therefore detrimental to the neighborhood or that it is inappropriate for LAYC's capacity - it is 20 units total with 2 of those units for staffing and property management. We do feel strongly however that those 18 units for residents are critical to chipping away at the affordable housing challenges facing young adults in the District. This was designed for 47 youth, but in conversations with community representatives it was noted that the number of new people could be changed even though the number of apartments could remain the same.
In this combined charter school and housing effort both LAYC and YBPCS realized that combining forces into a unique public private partnership could bring this project to life. In order to renovate the building LAYC and YBPCS have gone to multiple funding sources to make this $13,000,000 project feasible. Both partners need each other to make this work. Neither YBPCS nor the LAYC, have the resources to renovate this site on their own.
Together, we bring a public private partnership with funding from the charter school community, the city and traditional philanthropy.
It is not arrogance or flat out refusal on our part not to drop the housing. Without the housing the school cannot be built, without the school, the housing cannot be built. "Gaming the system" was not the spirit that brought us to this project. It was our simple desire to address the vocational, educational and housing needs for our city's young people that encouraged us to move forward with this effort.
However, beyond dropping the housing component, we believe there are some exciting opportunities for LAYC, YBPCS, neighborhood residents and community leaders to work together to address other project concerns, neighborhood concerns and/or integrate new ideas. We did meet with neighborhood ANC leaders and suggest an alternative that preserves the number of housing units but targets more units to young families so as to decrease the number of adult residents, which we perceived to be a concern. This alternative was not accepted in that meeting.
As has been discussed and similar to notes on today's blog about KIPP's proposal, LAYC is more than willing to integrate arts programming at the site that would be open to the broader community; the LAYC and YBPCS team are open and willing to establishing a community advisory board; the organizations are more than willing to leverage their lessons learned, experience in tackling public safety concerns, and want to work with neighborhood leaders to advocate for increasing community safety.
Finally, one additional point we would like to address is the concern that this project, specifically the housing, is experimental. The model that we hope to bring to Cook is based on Common Ground's Chelsea Foyer development in New York. The Foyer model was designed to combat the overwhelming incidence of homelessness among kids aging out of foster care. More than five years in and they have seen impressive results: 77 percent of young people secure stable housing upon leaving the program and 75 percent are employed. Many are the first persons in their families to break the cycle of depending on public assistance.
We think the Cook School model actually represents the best ways to develop new solutions to public challenges - learn from existing national, industry leading trends; utilize the expertise of strong, local organizations; and leverage public resources, such as DCPS facilities, to attract the required public and private sector funds needed to create first class neighborhood and community development projects.
As you may sense, we are extremely excited about the opportunity that the Cook redevelopment brings for our community's young adults and for the neighborhood and believe we have a highly thoughtful plan for success. We remain willing to answer any questions and concerns the community may have with openness and transparency.
Lori Kaplan, Executive Director, Latin American Youth Center
Arthur Dade, Executive Director, YouthBuild Public Charter School
by Lori Kaplan and Arthur Dade on Jan 25, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report
The fatal flaw of NIMBYism is absolute inflexibility, which is at the heart of your argument. You write with the close-minded fervor of someone who's maybe 24 or 25. Life is complex -- this is a complex situation.
The right of neighborhoods to achieve a degree of self determination (of which Truxton has very little) has to be balanced with the needs of the city at large. Every day we have 500 homeless men bused into our neighborhood; they hang out on the streets drinking all day long. Does this not prove the flexibility and acceptance we have in welcoming others to our backyards? I'd nominate Truxton for the most "Yes, in my back yard" -- that is, YIMBY -- neighborhood in DC; certainly it's the most YIMBY in NW right now.
The ANC has said they wouldn't protest use of a proposed site in Eckington. Eckington would benefit from the development more than Truxton. The kids would benefit more from being situated there. You appear unwilling or unable to address this point, which combines the best interests of the kids and the neighborhoods. It's common sense. It's unfortunate that Kaplan, Dade, et al, failed to properly research their options prior to jumping into the water, but that's their mistake. It's not in the best interest of city for neighborhoods to accept any and all poorly laid plans. Such makes for poor urban development in the long term.
by anotherMike on Jan 25, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report
Your post makes several assertions with nothing to back them up. A majority of residents agree with you? The kids would benefit more from being in Eckington? Please do share your research on these topics and how you've reached these conclusions...
Actually, don't. You're clearly copping an attitude with me now - my guess is you're still smarting from missing the street cars joke and looking a bit foolish, you tried so hard to make me look ignorant and it backfired! - and this has passed from an interesting discussion into you just being petty and wanting to insult me. I wont play that game, it doesn't go anywhere, so it's all you. Have fun.
by anony on Jan 25, 2011 8:58 pm • link • report
This isn't an internet game to me, or any of the other residents (-all of whom-, you'll notice, have posted messages in opposition). This is about having some say in how our home is developed.
by anotherMike on Jan 25, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report
the argument that the school should just go somewhere else *is* classic NIMBY.
The classic NIMBY example is the town that doesn't want a nuclear waste-dump in their town. We need something else to describe a town that doesn't want a *fourth* nuclear waste-dump built in their town. Perhaps "NYAIMBY"? (i.e. "Not Yet Again In My Back Yard.")
You see the same thing in Hill East at Reservation 13:
"Where should we put this new 300-bed homeless shelter?"
"Why, what better place than clustered with the other two temporary homeless shelters, the city STD clinic, the industrial-sized Methodone treatment center and DC Jail!"
"Um...That seems like a lot of toxic services to be putting in an isolated residential neighborhood."
"NIMBY!"
"NIMBY" connotes an unwillingness to contribute to the greater good--to hold up one's end of the social contract. That's clearly not the case here.
by oboe on Jan 26, 2011 9:29 am • link • report
It's a growing problem in DC, and the neighbors' assumption that these kids are criminals doesn't hold up. For example, the Washington Blade had a great story this fall on a teenager who was on honor roll and living in an abandoned building...
I don't think it's so much that neighbors think all poor kids are criminals; it's that they know that the majority of criminals in this town are poor kids. There's a (non-residential) school on 14th Street NE called "Options PCS". It's a charter school for kids who are at-risk--poor kids who've had trouble in traditional schools. The school's model is supposedly quite successful, and it's obviously a great resource for the kids and the community.
But there are a non-trivial number of kids who go to school there who leave when the bell rings the end of the day, and just roam the neighborhoods in packs, tearing shit up and assaulting people. The school staff (and MPD) know about the problem, and have taken measures to mitigate it, but there's only so much they can do.
Who are the biggest victims of the bad behavior by a minority of these kids? Obviously it's the other kids in the school who are seeing community support for this critical resource slowly evaporating.
This is an unintended consequence of the way we treat juvenile offenders with kid gloves in this city. In the same way that one kid can prevent an entire classroom from learning unless they can be removed from that classroom, a tiny minority of trouble-making kids can destroy community goodwill unless they can be isolated. Of course, the social services industry is always focused like a laser on the one or two disadvantaged youth that are screwing up, while letting the 95% of kids who are trying desperately to succeed dangle in the wind.
After all, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease...
by oboe on Jan 26, 2011 9:54 am • link • report
Too bad there isn't something like a housing facility with 24-hour structure and supervision attached to the school to help address this problem. ;)
by anony on Jan 26, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
The question we all should be asking is, "Is the right environment for this program to succeed?" Because if the program doesn't work, NO ONE benefits.
Having a positive, safe environment is just as important to the success of this program as the housing or the curriculum. If you disagree, think about how these young people got here in the first place. Or, just read the book "Switch" for some good examples. People are influenced by their environment -- that is a fact.
Those, like me, who live in this neighborhood see how prevalent crime (drugs, prostitution, etc.) is. It is everywhere. In fact, at a recent PSA meeting, the Metropolitan Police shared that they have seen an inexplicable spike in violent crime committed by youth in the district during the past eight months. They are at a loss to explain it or handle it, and their resources have been cut.
The question I have is: "Why would ANY organization (especially one with a mission to rehabilitate youth) want to put at-risk youth in an environment where they would be surrounded by the very things they are trying to leave?"
If the goal is to help these young people succeed, we should be working together to find the best environment for them to thrive. They need to see examples of success -- not constant reminders of failure. We need to stop putting all poor people in one area and all wealthy people and businesses in another. We need economic and social diversity.
The community is not against social programs. But, there is such a thing as too many. Existing programs are failing for the same reasons that will plague this new youth center.
This proposal needs to be re-thought. We need a new approach -- not just more of the same.
by Resident on Jan 26, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
What is your game here? Are you associated with LAYC? Or are you some random guy who likes to call real people in struggling neighborhood terrible things? You are not talking to some heartless group of YUPPIES. You are talking to people who lived through the days when Hanover Street was the largest open air drug market in the United States, and fought to end it. You are talking to people who lived through the worst of the violence associated with Sursum Corda. There are a lot of good and decent people here and our neighborhood is bearing more than it's share of the burdens of this city with the social services that call Truxton Circle home.
Must we be insulted by people who know nothing about us and our neighborhood for stating that additional Section 8 housing is something we do not want? We are a neighborhood still recovering from the days of Rayful Edmonds and Cornell Jones and having more public housing dumped on us is not a step forward. The LAYC school is welcome, just not the public house piece, and insulting your future neighbors is not the way to win hearts and minds LAYC.
by matt on Jan 26, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report
by anony on Jan 27, 2011 11:05 am • link • report
by StevenM on Jan 27, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report
I believe the residential component is what got LAYC selected over other plans. This is DC, after all. Our elected leaders answer to developers and contractors.
Does anyone else think it's absurd for young people who are supposedly going to learn the building trades to have housing built FOR them - especially when the surrounding area is filled with existing residential buildings that are slowly disintegrating from neglect?
If we want to teach kids the building trades, let's teach them the building trades, not just how to operate the array of new, idiot-proof tools used to assemble building modules that have been pre-fabricated by other kids in overseas factories.
Aside from eliminating a huge part of the construction expense, the kids would know how to repair older homes (since most houses in the US haven't been built within the past few years, and since we cannot drive the economy simply by building more and more new houses). Who knows, maybe that way they could learn enough to buy their own houses someday, which they would then know how to maintain themselves! (Oh wait, that would interfere with the flow of money upstream.)
by QofSlip on Apr 7, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report
I realize this thread is a bit stale but...
I'm a grad student using the Cook School project as a case study in community relations for a class project. I'm interviewing people on different sides of the issue. I'm particularly interested in speaking to community members and those opposed to the project - as officials in opposition have declined to speak to me.
If anyone would be willing to speak with me by phone or in person for 10 min or so I would appreciate it.
All conversations will be confidential and nothing will be published.
jsg64@georgetown.edu
About me: I'm a resident of Ward 4c and have lived in DC for 8 years and grew up in VA. I'm currently studying Government at Gtown.
Thanks!
Jason
by Jason on Apr 21, 2011 11:14 am • link • report
Add a Comment