Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This can't help admissions

"I hope the ridiculous lies and slut-shaming I've been telling to obstruct a totally reasonable project aren't hurting my kid's school!"

[Anonymous]

Slut shaming? Mansplain that one again to me, k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This can't help admissions

"I hope the ridiculous lies and slut-shaming I've been telling to obstruct a totally reasonable project aren't hurting my kid's school!"[/quot

Are you saying that the anti-gds development crowd is part of a misogynist conspiracy?

[Anonymous]

No conspiracy, just casual.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.

[Anonymous]

That's so hot.

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]The Greedy Developers' School---says it all. That is the true face of GDS.[/quote]

It's pretty clear that GDS's role is to facilitate the transfer of density development rights from its campus to the Martens property and to bear all of the regulatory risk. Then if they get approvals, the school will step aside as crony developers on the Team of Aces emerge from behind the curtain to build and manage the development.

[Anonymous]

So?

If it provides a needed revenue stream for financial aid, then what is the problem? Other than being a selfish NIMBY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So?

If it provides a needed revenue stream for financial aid, then what is the problem? Other than being a selfish NIMBY?

Other schools manage to raise money and fund financial aid in a positive way. They don't do it by foisting negative externalities on their communities, like added traffic and parking impacts from large-scale mixed use development, not to mention by appropriating public space, changing settled expectations created by zoning and violating the Comprehensive Plan.

[Anonymous]

Blah blah blah.

[Anonymous]

I applaud that GDS is directing the revenue from the apartment development to financial aid. But if they are going to make that claim, the school will should make a public commitment or at least make some public disclosure about financial expectations for the projects impact on financial aid. Transparency would go a long way towards credibility.

[Anonymous]

It strains credulity to believe that this is a way to increase financial aid. The school will be spending $10s of millions of dollars to rebuild perfectly serviceable L/MS facilities on top of $10s of millions spent on land assembly. Resale of the L/MS campus won't cover those costs and, at best, there's a land lease on the mixed-use building. GDS won't own the building, and it paid twice the assessed value of the land, so it's not even clear whether the revenu will do much more than cover GDS's costs. Meanwhile giving will focus on campus construction efforts. If the goal were to raise $$ for FA, this is a wildly inefficient and far-fetched way of pursuing it.

And it gets even dicier if parents hold the school leadership to their claim that the revenue stream is a way to prevent tuition increases. There's no pot of gold waiting at the end of this rainbow -- except maybe for the developers. Martens and Safeway already got theirs (they were compensated as if the land had already been massively up-zoned). Which means the school is left holding the (empty) bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It strains credulity to believe that this is a way to increase financial aid. The school will be spending $10s of millions of dollars to rebuild perfectly serviceable L/MS facilities on top of $10s of millions spent on land assembly. Resale of the L/MS campus won't cover those costs and, at best, there's a land lease on the mixed-use building. GDS won't own the building, and it paid twice the assessed value of the land, so it's not even clear whether the revenu will do much more than cover GDS's costs. Meanwhile giving will focus on campus construction efforts. If the goal were to raise $$ for FA, this is a wildly inefficient and far-fetched way of pursuing it.

And it gets even dicier if parents hold the school leadership to their claim that the revenue stream is a way to prevent tuition increases. There's no pot of gold waiting at the end of this rainbow -- except maybe for the developers. Martens and Safeway already got theirs (they were compensated as if the land had already been massively up-zoned). Which means the school is left holding the (empty) bag.

I don't think Safeway needs to be upzoned. I think GDS could build - by right - more on the land than they are planning to build.

[Anonymous]

What is realistic time table for this project? Asking a potential applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It strains credulity to believe that this is a way to increase financial aid. The school will be spending $10s of millions of dollars to rebuild perfectly serviceable L/MS facilities on top of $10s of millions spent on land assembly. Resale of the L/MS campus won't cover those costs and, at best, there's a land lease on the mixed-use building. GDS won't own the building, and it paid twice the assessed value of the land, so it's not even clear whether the revenu will do much more than cover GDS's costs. Meanwhile giving will focus on campus construction efforts. If the goal were to raise $$ for FA, this is a wildly inefficient and far-fetched way of pursuing it.

And it gets even dicier if parents hold the school leadership to their claim that the revenue stream is a way to prevent tuition increases. There's no pot of gold waiting at the end of this rainbow -- except maybe for the developers. Martens and Safeway already got theirs (they were compensated as if the land had already been massively up-zoned). Which means the school is left holding the (empty) bag.

I don't think Safeway needs to be upzoned. I think GDS could build - by right - more on the land than they are planning to build.

Well, even if that were true (and it isn't really), GDS has bundled the two projects so the school project is tied up with the mixed-use project -- they're both part of the same PUD. If the projects were separate, the school project would still need a special exception from the BZA. That would represent a lower hurdle (and involve a different decisionmaker) than the PUD, but adding 600 kids plus teachers to a private school campus is not something you get to do matter of right, even if you've acquired more land.