Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

"A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic." [Katz, EPA] This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Jos-Arz Charter School: A case for eminent domain seizure?

One of the things that has always frustrated me about municipal politics is a failure, often, to use the "suasion" powers and capabilities possessed by the government.

E.g., when the H Street CDC elminated the mayoral appointees from its board, I suggested that the City Government freeze all funds awarded. The response, "Oh that's an interesting idea that never occurred to us." Of course, they didn't bother doing it, but it certainly would have necessitated a response.

Yesterday's Post has a column (I think) by Kenneth Harney (I can't find the piece online), about a Congressional Bill with regard to the use of eminent domain authority by state and local governments--the bill proposes that CDBG monies awarded by the federal government be suspended for a period of two years when the locality exercises such authority.

Now, I have some serious qualms about eminent domain, but that's a stupid way to go about providing oversight. The issue isn't the authority of eminent domain per se but how it is used and whether or not the process is fair and transparent.

If the process isn't transparent, fair, and able to be challenged, and if it isn't based on a fair an independent econmic analysis that can also be challenged, then it is a problem. That's what needs to be addressed.

Anyway, today's Post has an article about the Jos-Arz Therapeutic Public Charter School, "A Costly Charter School Failure: $15 Million Special-Ed Plan Was Designed to Save Money." The article states:

Five years ago, the former seminary on Taylor Street became a public charter school for children with severe emotional disturbances. Officials from the school system and the city's youth services agencies enthusiastically endorsed the plan, seeing an opportunity to reduce the $40 million annual cost of sending such children to private facilities as far away as California and Utah.

The reddish-brick building sits vacant on a tree-lined lot in Northeast Washington, a three-story monument to a failed experiment to bring down the exorbitant costs of special education in the District. The D.C. Council also liked the idea -- and provided an unusual emergency allocation of $9.2 million so the charter school could increase its staff and convert the building to a 24-hour treatment facility.

But instead of saving D.C. taxpayers money, the Jos-Arz Therapeutic Public Charter School turned into a costly failure. Jos-Arz, embroiled in a political battle between the council and the school board, enrolled fewer than half the number of students projected and never received enough money to complete renovations. In June, the school moved out of its home on Taylor Street because it could not keep up with the rent, and the school board is considering revoking its charter. In all, Jos-Arz received about $15 million in city funds, of which $2.3 million was used for renovation expenses, former officials from the school say. Although there is sharp debate over who is to blame, everyone involved agrees that the city's investment essentially was wasted.

The article goes on to state that while the public authorities that have oversight for charter schools believe that the buildings should revert to the charter authorities, there are no provisions in the contracts to ensure this.

Obviously, that needs to be changed. But there is another strategy available in the short run--seize the building through eminent domain. The City spent $15 million and has nothing to show for it. The building is an asset from which the City Government can begin to recover a portion of its wasted investment.

Begin eminent domain proceedings. And let's start a serious discussion about public assets and protection of the municipal investments made by District agencies. While each agency sees its asset portfolio as belonging to the agency, these assets are really owned by the residents of the District of Columbia and we need to step up and begin a fundamental rethinking to reconnect citizen control as a foundation of the asset "management" policies by DC government agencies.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home