Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Folks are saying that GDS just got itself a cafeteria -- by buying the cafeteria the GDS kids already use -- aka the Safeway!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There, we've flushed out the GDS shills. Let me save you the trouble of responding, here:

"I'm a NP, and I've never even seen somebody from GDS, much less let my DC go to school there, but I know what Safeway wants because, because, I know about corporate America."

1. You sound really angry.
2. You keep using the word "shills." It's distinctive (and distinctively obnoxious).
3. Do YOU think that GDS insisted on a clause in its deal with Safeway barring it from a particular form of retail? Why are you picking fights over something that is a common sense conclusion? Obviously the grocery store doesn't want to sell its land only to have it turned around and sold/leased to a competitor.
4. See #1, above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's an interesting, and risky, move for GDS. They will need to raise a lot of money, including a lot from people whose children will NEVER benefit from the new site given the time frame. I also think GDS will have to look more at wealth in admissions. This is what all private schools do during the years of big capital campaigns, and they always end up with a few classes of spoiled underachievers as a result.

Having said that, I think GDS does need this to compete in the big leagues of DC private schools. They need a cafeteria and more fields -- to start.

Why should GDS try to compete in the "Big Leagues" of private schools? They will never be a better Sidwell than Sidwell, a better Holton than Holton or a better St Albans than St Albans, GDS should focus on being the best GDS and, if anything, return to their progressive roots aimed at serving BOTH the African American community as well as the Jewish community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. You sound really angry.
2. You keep using the word "shills." It's distinctive (and distinctively obnoxious).
3. Do YOU think that GDS insisted on a clause in its deal with Safeway barring it from a particular form of retail? Why are you picking fights over something that is a common sense conclusion? Obviously the grocery store doesn't want to sell its land only to have it turned around and sold/leased to a competitor.
4. See #1, above.

If the store was unprofitable, as some have suggested, then why would Safeway care that another store come in its place?

[Anonymous]

``If the store was unprofitable, as some have suggested, then why would Safeway care that another store come in its place?''

You are a moron. Because big corporations will take any opportunity they can to limit competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You sound really angry.
2. You keep using the word "shills." It's distinctive (and distinctively obnoxious).
3. Do YOU think that GDS insisted on a clause in its deal with Safeway barring it from a particular form of retail? Why are you picking fights over something that is a common sense conclusion? Obviously the grocery store doesn't want to sell its land only to have it turned around and sold/leased to a competitor.
4. See #1, above.

If the store was unprofitable, as some have suggested, then why would Safeway care that another store come in its place?

Okay, just to humor you, here's one reason: if you were a corporate suit at Safeway, and had to explain for years all the limitations on your store in Location X that made it not terribly profitable, you would not want your boss asking you why the Giant or Harris Teeter at Location X was going gangbusters. Easy and safe for them to CYA by putting in a clause that the location can't be used for a grocery store.

Here's another reason -- Safeway has nearby stores and prefers not to dilute their market share with a competitors' store in this location.

[Anonymous]

Wow, there are a bunch of people who need to get a life, but having reviewed a bunch of the morinic posts here, allow me as a GDS parent to make a couple of points.

The school needs a unified campus and the new(ish) head of school has made sports a bigger priority. So, it was either expand the L/MS or the HS, or look for a new parcel of land altogether. The school did the smart thing.

Yes, it will cost money, but in the long run, there will be cost savings from a unified campus. Also, that is what alumnae/i and parents are for - to invest in an institution. My kid's diploma will be more valuable as a result of this.

And for all of you folks who are whining about losing your safeway - if you had shopped there in the first place, this mightn't have happened. That place is a ghost town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an interesting, and risky, move for GDS. They will need to raise a lot of money, including a lot from people whose children will NEVER benefit from the new site given the time frame. I also think GDS will have to look more at wealth in admissions. This is what all private schools do during the years of big capital campaigns, and they always end up with a few classes of spoiled underachievers as a result.

Having said that, I think GDS does need this to compete in the big leagues of DC private schools. They need a cafeteria and more fields -- to start.

Why should GDS try to compete in the "Big Leagues" of private schools? They will never be a better Sidwell than Sidwell, a better Holton than Holton or a better St Albans than St Albans, GDS should focus on being the best GDS and, if anything, return to their progressive roots aimed at serving BOTH the African American community as well as the Jewish community.

Oh yes, because buying land for expansion means GDS wants to be another school other than the one they are! Who said GDS wants to be any of those schools, they are just doing what is best for their students. It is amazing how threatened some people sound. They were the first school to desegregate, but I would hope that would now be the norm for all schools. Are we back in the 1950's here. Do you mean to tell me that other schools do not believe in equality for all. I am not sure that Sidwell, Holton and St Albans want to be painted in that light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an interesting, and risky, move for GDS. They will need to raise a lot of money, including a lot from people whose children will NEVER benefit from the new site given the time frame. I also think GDS will have to look more at wealth in admissions. This is what all private schools do during the years of big capital campaigns, and they always end up with a few classes of spoiled underachievers as a result.

Having said that, I think GDS does need this to compete in the big leagues of DC private schools. They need a cafeteria and more fields -- to start.

Why should GDS try to compete in the "Big Leagues" of private schools? They will never be a better Sidwell than Sidwell, a better Holton than Holton or a better St Albans than St Albans, GDS should focus on being the best GDS and, if anything, return to their progressive roots aimed at serving BOTH the African American community as well as the Jewish community.

Oh yes, because buying land for expansion means GDS wants to be another school other than the one they are! Who said GDS wants to be any of those schools, they are just doing what is best for their students. It is amazing how threatened some people sound. They were the first school to desegregate, but I would hope that would now be the norm for all schools. Are we back in the 1950's here. Do you mean to tell me that other schools do not believe in equality for all. I am not sure that Sidwell, Holton and St Albans want to be painted in that light.

They were not the first school to desegregate - the school was founded as an institution open to all in light of the historic discrimination against African-Americans and Jews in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Shills captures it. The same people with the same propaganda anyplace they can post anonymously.

Great rationalization for the inherent contradiction between "the site sucked so much that they were leaving anyway" and "of course they needed to insist on a no supermarkets clause."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shills captures it. The same people with the same propaganda anyplace they can post anonymously.

Great rationalization for the inherent contradiction between "the site sucked so much that they were leaving anyway" and "of course they needed to insist on a no supermarkets clause."

By all appearances, a number of different posters have explained why (a) Safeway would want to leave; and (b) would also want a restrictive clause on the subsequent use of the parcel. They've done so politely and convincingly. You just come back with "shill," "propaganda," and "inherent contradiction" (while describing a situation that is not contradictory -- how it is contradictory to say that Safeway does not want a competitor for its other NW DC stores?) Hard to tell if it's stubbornness or stupidity . . . perhaps a delicious cocktail of both. You must be such a bore when you talk about the neighborhood (or, more probably, just about anything).

[Anonymous]

I'm not a GDS parent, I'm weighing in here because I live in Cleveland Park and was frustrated for the last ten years as a small group of blocked the redevelopment of a crappy giant. That said, if I were a GDS parent, I would watch the tone you take on public forums like this because you come off a little snotty. Of course, we don't know if you really are GDS parent of just cleverly impersonating one in a way to make your side seem just as annoying as the NIMBY types.

[Anonymous]

Keep GDS Nerdy!

G=Geeks
D=Druggies
S=Scholars

Don't change a thing!

[Anonymous]

Oh Claire, Claire?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a GDS parent, I'm weighing in here because I live in Cleveland Park and was frustrated for the last ten years as a small group of blocked the redevelopment of a crappy giant. That said, if I were a GDS parent, I would watch the tone you take on public forums like this because you come off a little snotty. Of course, we don't know if you really are GDS parent of just cleverly impersonating one in a way to make your side seem just as annoying as the NIMBY types.

Read the prior posts about the real history of the Giant. Giant and its parent, Royal Ahol, walked away from an agreement negotiated with Mayor Williams, the Office of Planning and community groups in 2003-04 to build a new store.

(As for Giant, it will be big and new but alas it will always remain a "crappy" grocery chain.)