Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the developers and/or wannabes involved have other interests and agendas and anticipate a different outcome. Because it's hard to see how combining both schools on the Wisconsin Avenue site and adding private development makes sense when the newly-acquired land has less acreage than the existing L/MS campus. That's before we get to the issue of paying over twice the assessed value to acquire the land -- and an amount that exceeds the value of the MacArthur campus.

Given that GDS ends up with less land overall and the expense of rebuilding all of its L/MS facilities, this doesn't seem to be like a good deal for the school, even with a revenue-generating component. Basically, it looks like an opportunity for a savvy business type to gain access to valuable RE on the school's dime in exchange for kicking back some fraction of his profits to the school. Meanwhile the school itself has to carry substantial debt and hit up parents for tens of millions to replace facilities it already has.

Bad move and one that might never have happened had parents been advised of the plan before the deal was sealed.

[Anonymous]

I worry that this whole gds move thing is getting a little messy and seems to have the potential to get really messy.

[Anonymous]

What is your worry based on? Chatter or real information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the developers and/or wannabes involved have other interests and agendas and anticipate a different outcome. Because it's hard to see how combining both schools on the Wisconsin Avenue site and adding private development makes sense when the newly-acquired land has less acreage than the existing L/MS campus. That's before we get to the issue of paying over twice the assessed value to acquire the land -- and an amount that exceeds the value of the MacArthur campus.

Given that GDS ends up with less land overall and the expense of rebuilding all of its L/MS facilities, this doesn't seem to be like a good deal for the school, even with a revenue-generating component. Basically, it looks like an opportunity for a savvy business type to gain access to valuable RE on the school's dime in exchange for kicking back some fraction of his profits to the school. Meanwhile the school itself has to carry substantial debt and hit up parents for tens of millions to replace facilities it already has.

Bad move and one that might never have happened had parents been advised of the plan before the deal was sealed.

You don't seem to realize that GDS closed the purchase for the property by using cash on hand, not debt. It's not like they raised $41 million without parents and alumni involved. You also don't seem to understand that any large real estate project involves developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the developers and/or wannabes involved have other interests and agendas and anticipate a different outcome. Because it's hard to see how combining both schools on the Wisconsin Avenue site and adding private development makes sense when the newly-acquired land has less acreage than the existing L/MS campus. That's before we get to the issue of paying over twice the assessed value to acquire the land -- and an amount that exceeds the value of the MacArthur campus.

Given that GDS ends up with less land overall and the expense of rebuilding all of its L/MS facilities, this doesn't seem to be like a good deal for the school, even with a revenue-generating component. Basically, it looks like an opportunity for a savvy business type to gain access to valuable RE on the school's dime in exchange for kicking back some fraction of his profits to the school. Meanwhile the school itself has to carry substantial debt and hit up parents for tens of millions to replace facilities it already has.

Bad move and one that might never have happened had parents been advised of the plan before the deal was sealed.

The Macarthur campus also presents an attractive opportunity for re-development. I would see a couple of condo buildings on the Macarthur side and more of adjacent McMansions on the field side. If GDS were a development partner, they will reap substantial $$, otherwise the developer will get a nice upside.

[Anonymous]

If the Wisconsin AVe. frontage is given over to commercial mixed use development, it is hard to see how GDS will fit all of its "program" on the Safeway site. Presumably they want to get new specious lower and middle school buildings and one or more new playing fields, plus more parking for consolidated faculty, staff, etc. Maybe closing 42nd will give more paking or drop off space there, but that is not a done deal. I happen to think closing it at Wisconsin benefits both the school and the neighborhood, but there is strong disagreement on that point.

[Anonymous]

The land acquisition did involve debt. And the MacArthur campus's assessed value is less than $20 million, including the buildings. So when that parcel is sold the school will have less money, less land, and fewer facilities than it started out with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The land acquisition did involve debt. And the MacArthur campus's assessed value is less than $20 million, including the buildings. So when that parcel is sold the school will have less money, less land, and fewer facilities than it started out with.

So why are they pursuing this project then? I thought that the inefficiencies of operating two campuses are a burden for GDS, yet Sidwell Friends seems to like having two campuses, in Cleveland Park and Edgemoor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The land acquisition did involve debt. And the MacArthur campus's assessed value is less than $20 million, including the buildings. So when that parcel is sold the school will have less money, less land, and fewer facilities than it started out with.

Sounds like someone is one of the developers Safeway was working or had their eyes on the Martens site themselves.

[Anonymous]

Closing 42nd Street shouldn't happen. There is simply no public benefit to giving public right of way over to an independent school. Further, it would put major traffic burdens on the residents of the greater River Road and Wisconsin Avenue areas. Any proposal to do this would be fought by local residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Closing 42nd Street shouldn't happen. There is simply no public benefit to giving public right of way over to an independent school. Further, it would put major traffic burdens on the residents of the greater River Road and Wisconsin Avenue areas. Any proposal to do this would be fought by local residents.

What exactly is the "greater...Wisconsin Avenue area"?

I happen to favor closing the intersection of 42nd at Wisconsin, but if it enhances safety for the school kids and yields some green space, Unless the pubic ROW were closed and deeded over to GDS, which is most unlikely, the ROW could not be used for building. I also think this would benefit the neighborhood, right down through the entire west side of AU Park. Right now commuters use 42nd as a bypass around Wisconsin traffic but through the neighborhood, to reach Nebraska and vice versa. The amount of traffic on 42nd has been a perpetual problem, with various attempts to fix it with rumble strips, mini circles, etc. but to no avail. And it may get worse with the opening of the AU law school on the west side of Tenley Circle.

I'm all in favor of encouraging commuter traffic to go where it is supposed to be, which is on the major arterial roads, not cutting through a residential neighborhood which is what happens today with 42nd St. The proposal to modify the intersection with Wisconsin, and thereby divert the steady street of commuter traffic back to Wisconsin, is indeed a sensible one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The land acquisition did involve debt. And the MacArthur campus's assessed value is less than $20 million, including the buildings. So when that parcel is sold the school will have less money, less land, and fewer facilities than it started out with.

Wow, PP. If the facts are truly as you see them, only an idiot would make that kind of deal!

[Anonymous]

There just seems to be so much up in the air still about what the school plans to do. This is before the neighbors begin to weigh in which is a nightmare, just ask St. Albans, Sidwell, Field and St. Patrick's.

[Anonymous]

Gods should sell everything and buy the Fannieae buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There just seems to be so much up in the air still about what the school plans to do. This is before the neighbors begin to weigh in which is a nightmare, just ask St. Albans, Sidwell, Field and St. Patrick's.

This is a gross overgenerization and depends entirely on how the school approaches the community and tries to address its concerns. Sidwell Friends in recent years has had a very good relationship with its neighborhood and the lcoal ANCs. It maintained a dialogue with the community about its expansion plans, listened to concerns and was able to realize the multiple phases of its building program without many sacrifices (and this was on a property on the National Register of Historic Places, which is subject to much stricter review standards). St. Albans has had an open and constructive relationship with its neigbors and ANC, was able to expand its academic buildings signficantly and currently is totally revamping its outdoor athletic complex. I can't speak in any detail about Field and St. Patricks, but would note that Field has expanded next to a residential neighborhood and St. Patrick's has been able to get approval of an ambitious development plan containing both a subdivision and a future high school project.

Those schools that have encountered delays or restrictions (NCRC about 12 years ago and National Cathedral School when it build its gym) tended to treat community concerns dismissively and spent money on lawyers rather than spending time talking with neighbors. Later heads of both schools took more open, conciliatory and constructive approaches, and both schools undertook substantial renovations with community support.

I have every confidence, based on what it has done to date, that GDS will engage with the community in a transparent, constructive way to address concerns and mitigate impacts.