Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

I think everyone would agree with that, except that GDS needs the development to pay for the consolidation.

[Anonymous]

GDS is not wealthy enough to consolidate or build anything without the monstrous and extremely ugly over-development they have proposed. The rents and retail sales fund their school. Kind of like a for-profit enterprise.

[Anonymous]

Subjective - neither ugly nor overdeveloped. It's fucking Wisconsin Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. This has turned into such a heavy lift for GDS. Are some people opposing the condos as a way of opposing the school's consolidation? Would the neighborhood be ok with GDS building what it has proposed for the school if they cut loose the development? (I'm talking in theory, not why doing is or is not possible.)

GDS likely would get its campus plan approved quickly if they cut loose the development. Sidwell submitted its zoning application to expand its campus to the Washington Home site and move its lower school to the combined campus something like 18 months after the "Big GDS news" was announced. Sidwell got its approval back in March, while GDS is still spinning and regrouping. The NW Current reported that not one neighbor testified in opposition to Sidwell's application. GDS would be smart to cut its losses and get out of the development business.

[Anonymous]

When did Safeway say it was abandoning the project because of opposition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FIFY

"Except its gone because GDS offered far more for the property than it's value to any other bidder, and the PE company that acquired Safeway wouldn't turn down a windfall like that."

Anonymous wrote:Except its gone because the likes of you scared off Safeway when they were going to develop the property themelves.

Actually it was the proposal about a year before GDS bought the property that the NIMBYs fought., so no, you didn't fix it for me. This was the proposal to put 5 stories of housing on top of a Social-Safeway size store.

Alas.

[Anonymous]

A myth spun by GDS. Why couldn't they sell it and invest the money?

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone would agree with that, except that GDS needs the development to pay for the consolidation.

[Anonymous]

Because they overpaid for the two parcels and they would not be able to sell the Martens part plus the current LS/MS campus and come close to being even.

Plus the whole point of this was to capture an ongoing revenue stream from the development part that would help cover Financial Aid.

[Anonymous]

The first part of your answer seems correct but gives the lie to the second part of your answer. There are countless ongoing revenue streams available. Did they buy the lots at the same time, or did they buy one first and then double down when the second one became available?

Anonymous wrote:Because they overpaid for the two parcels and they would not be able to sell the Martens part plus the current LS/MS campus and come close to being even.

Plus the whole point of this was to capture an ongoing revenue stream from the development part that would help cover Financial Aid.

[Anonymous]

I don't know, you would have to ask GDS or go back to the original accounts. I thought they bought them both at the same time.

On the second part, what revenue streams would you suggest? I don't think GDS has much of an endowment. Most DC privates don't.

[Anonymous]

Seriously? What other investments are available? Do I need to go through stocks, bonds, REITs, etc? GDS spent many millions on the real estate. They could instead invest that money. Are we supposed to believe that Maartens is hyper-leveraged (which would be a stupid way to 'invest' institutional money) and that the only investment vehicle available to GDS that is similarly hyper-leveraged is the plot of land across from the school?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, you would have to ask GDS or go back to the original accounts. I thought they bought them both at the same time.

On the second part, what revenue streams would you suggest? I don't think GDS has much of an endowment. Most DC privates don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When did Safeway say it was abandoning the project because of opposition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FIFY

"Except its gone because GDS offered far more for the property than it's value to any other bidder, and the PE company that acquired Safeway wouldn't turn down a windfall like that."

Anonymous wrote:Except its gone because the likes of you scared off Safeway when they were going to develop the property themelves.

Actually it was the proposal about a year before GDS bought the property that the NIMBYs fought., so no, you didn't fix it for me. This was the proposal to put 5 stories of housing on top of a Social-Safeway size store.

Alas.

They didn't. Cerberus, a large and sophisticated private equity firm (and hardly a bunch of pushovers), bought Safeway and proceeded pretty quickly with decisions to close smaller, under-performing stores and to concentrate on core businesses. Clearly Cerberus decided that renovating the Safeway and redeveloping the site to include mixed-use didn't fit with the new strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they overpaid for the two parcels and they would not be able to sell the Martens part plus the current LS/MS campus and come close to being even.

Plus the whole point of this was to capture an ongoing revenue stream from the development part that would help cover Financial Aid.

If GDS overpaid for the parcels, it was because it (and its developer friends in the background) saw an opportunity to build the Wisconsin site taller and denser if GDS held both parcels. That way, they argued that GDS should be allowed to "transfer" unused density from the Safeway to the Martens parcel. Without common ownership, that argument would have been a non-starter. As it turned out, it hasn't been a very successful strategy.

[Anonymous]

This is an oversimplification. After Cerberus bought Safeway, they offered a number of local stores for sale, such as Palisades. When they didn't get their target price, they took them off the market. GDS was willing to pay more for the Ellicott site than it was worth, pound for pound, compared to other underperforming stores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did Safeway say it was abandoning the project because of opposition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FIFY

"Except its gone because GDS offered far more for the property than it's value to any other bidder, and the PE company that acquired Safeway wouldn't turn down a windfall like that."

Anonymous wrote:Except its gone because the likes of you scared off Safeway when they were going to develop the property themelves.

Actually it was the proposal about a year before GDS bought the property that the NIMBYs fought., so no, you didn't fix it for me. This was the proposal to put 5 stories of housing on top of a Social-Safeway size store.

Alas.

They didn't. Cerberus, a large and sophisticated private equity firm (and hardly a bunch of pushovers), bought Safeway and proceeded pretty quickly with decisions to close smaller, under-performing stores and to concentrate on core businesses. Clearly Cerberus decided that renovating the Safeway and redeveloping the site to include mixed-use didn't fit with the new strategy.

[Anonymous]

You are giving them more credit for forethought. I went to early meetings, and the Head of School said they bought Martens first, and then after Cerberus bought Safeway, they called GDS, which had been trying to buy the property before they bought Martens, and said they were willing to negotiate. GDS announced the purchase of the properties at the same time, but at first they admitted they bought Martens first and didn't expect to be able to buy Safeway.

When they announced the sale of the properties, they didn't say anything about building on Martens to pay for the school expansion. They just said something vague about maybe adding a commercial component on the land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they overpaid for the two parcels and they would not be able to sell the Martens part plus the current LS/MS campus and come close to being even.

Plus the whole point of this was to capture an ongoing revenue stream from the development part that would help cover Financial Aid.

If GDS overpaid for the parcels, it was because it (and its developer friends in the background) saw an opportunity to build the Wisconsin site taller and denser if GDS held both parcels. That way, they argued that GDS should be allowed to "transfer" unused density from the Safeway to the Martens parcel. Without common ownership, that argument would have been a non-starter. As it turned out, it hasn't been a very successful strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? What other investments are available? Do I need to go through stocks, bonds, REITs, etc? GDS spent many millions on the real estate. They could instead invest that money. Are we supposed to believe that Maartens is hyper-leveraged (which would be a stupid way to 'invest' institutional money) and that the only investment vehicle available to GDS that is similarly hyper-leveraged is the plot of land across from the school?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, you would have to ask GDS or go back to the original accounts. I thought they bought them both at the same time.

On the second part, what revenue streams would you suggest? I don't think GDS has much of an endowment. Most DC privates don't.

Are you really this stupid? Do you think GDS had whatever cash was necessary to make the purchase that they used operational or endowment monies? No, of course not. There were some donors who stepped up to make the purchases possible. It's not like those same donors would have given the same in cash to buy bonds, REITs or stocks. If GDS had that kind of capital lying around, they wouldn't be messing with this real estate transaction.