Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Not necessarily. The usual rules of economic rationality don't always seem to apply when you're spending OPM (other people's money).

Well, with all due respect, given your post I think is clear that you are not an economist/robust investor/business strategist- consultant/financial adviser.

Regarding the "fact" of buying the land with debt: Given current interest rates I think it would be very unwise not to do so. Only people unable to upbeat the current mortgage rates (historically low rates) will not acquire such an asset with, at least, some level of debt. If I can get a better return investing my savings in something else, why I would not do it?

Moreover, have you heard about "hedonic prices"?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hedonicpricing.asp

Having the whole campus in one same facility-location might increase the school equity, give the school comparative advantage over other competitors, facilitate economies of scale, synergies, and slope-up LM students learning curve, and/or position the school differently.

Finally, I believe is a little daring to challenge and question an investment without having much info about it, without being an expert on the field, and given that GDS administration and Board of Trustees seems pretty competent -at least on paper.

Why criticizing for the sake of criticizing? I don´t get it.

Would you mind translating "slope up LM students learning curve" into English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Not necessarily. The usual rules of economic rationality don't always seem to apply when you're spending OPM (other people's money).

Well, with all due respect, given your post I think is clear that you are not an economist/robust investor/business strategist- consultant/financial adviser.

Regarding the "fact" of buying the land with debt: Given current interest rates I think it would be very unwise not to do so. Only people unable to upbeat the current mortgage rates (historically low rates) will not acquire such an asset with, at least, some level of debt. If I can get a better return investing my savings in something else, why I would not do it?

Moreover, have you heard about "hedonic prices"?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hedonicpricing.asp

Having the whole campus in one same facility-location might increase the school equity, give the school comparative advantage over other competitors, facilitate economies of scale, synergies, and slope-up LM students learning curve, and/or position the school differently.

Finally, I believe is a little daring to challenge and question an investment without having much info about it, without being an expert on the field, and given that GDS administration and Board of Trustees seems pretty competent -at least on paper.

Why criticizing for the sake of criticizing? I don´t get it.

Would you mind translating "slope up LM students learning curve" into English?

I meant speed up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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[/b].

Why criticizing for the sake of criticizing? I don´t get it.

More a matter of providing facts for the sake of accuracy. Previous poster claimed there was no debt -- that the school paid cash after consulting with parents. Not true. Assumption seems to be that GDS will have a larger campus because of the land acquisition -- if there's consolidation and commercial development, that won't be true. Posters contend this purchase will be lucrative for GDS -- it might produce a revenue stream eventually, but it will require a massive infusion of donations to rebuild facilities -- sale of the lower school campus won't cover that. Won't even cover the cost of land acquisition unless the L/MS campus sells for twice its assessed value. These are relevant facts for assessing the potential implications of the purchase.

And it's funny to see the notion that (potential) GDS parents should just trust the "experts" and not be critical. Historically, that's not the GDS way!

[Anonymous]

If you are a member of the GDS community, come to to the April 7th Campus Planning Update. It would be very interesting for you to bring up your concerns and hear the school's response so we can make a balanced judgment whether you are a crackpot or not.

If you are not a member of the GDS community - parent, alumni, student, teacher, or administrator - go take a hike. You deserve as much role in GDS's planning as I should have in your family;s personal finances.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

I'm not a crackpot -- every fact I've referenced is easily verifiable online. DC government maintains a real property database that includes assessed values and parcel sizes. The debt was referenced both in Bisnow's coverage of the deal and in a GDS communication to alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a member of the GDS community, come to to the April 7th Campus Planning Update. It would be very interesting for you to bring up your concerns and hear the school's response so we can make a balanced judgment whether you are a crackpot or not.

If you are not a member of the GDS community - parent, alumni, student, teacher, or administrator - go take a hike. You deserve as much role in GDS's planning as I should have in your family;s personal finances.

I'm a member of the GDS community as you define it. But I worry that this kind of approach will alienate neighbors and potential allies. After all, everyone in the neighborhood is a member of the GDS community

[Anonymous]

Word of wisdom to the GDS community - take heed of the views of the community. You will not win in a grudge match between the school and residents.

[Anonymous]

"If you are not a member of the GDS community - parent, alumni, student, teacher, or administrator - go take a hike. You deserve as much role in GDS's planning as I should have in your family;s personal finances."

Followed by a "+1."

How to Win Friends And Influence Neighbors (Who Can Make Your Life A Living And Lengthy Hell).

Good to know what GDS parents actually think, as opposed to the sweet sounds the administration and its consultants make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a member of the GDS community, come to to the April 7th Campus Planning Update. It would be very interesting for you to bring up your concerns and hear the school's response so we can make a balanced judgment whether you are a crackpot or not.

If you are not a member of the GDS community - parent, alumni, student, teacher, or administrator - go take a hike. You deserve as much role in GDS's planning as I should have in your family;s personal finances.

I'm a member of the GDS community as you define it. But I worry that this kind of approach will alienate neighbors and potential allies. After all, everyone in the neighborhood is a member of the GDS community

Yes to this. Schools that have treated the surrounding neighborhood as legitimate stakeholders and even partners in their campus building projects -- St. Albans and Sidwell Freinds are good examples -- have had successful, relatively smooth processes and have maintained long term, good relationships with their communities.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Sidwell or sta would say things went smoothly. There are always two or three holdout neighbors who put you thorough the wringer. And that's when you play nice. Given this is an anonymous board I woundn't be sure anybody preaching or way or the highway is actually affiliated with gds. If they are; they will leave the hard way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Northwest Current reports that GDS plans two 90-ft buildings along Wisconsin Ave, a gym/middle school building where the Safeway parking lot is now and the elementary school building on the present supermarket footprint. It will be the largest current building project in Upper NW. The primary entrances will be from 42nd St., and there's no mention of closing part of the street.

[Anonymous]

Why did they buy martens Volvo if they plan to build a huge apartment building there (with stores below) if I lived near tgere tgat is the part of the plan I would seriously object to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did they buy martens Volvo if they plan to build a huge apartment building there (with stores below) if I lived near tgere tgat is the part of the plan I would seriously object to.

The school's position is going to be a tough one. Some in Tenleytown are wary of the school's expansion because of added drop off traffic, size, loss of a local grocery store, etc. Others have been more positive, preferring the school to dense mixed-use development that was originally proposed for the Safeway site. Now it seems that Tenleytown/AU are getting the worst of both worlds -- hundreds more students and staff commuting to the neighborhood daily, new buildings built (according to the NW current) right to the lot line next to SFHs, plus the impact of dense mixed-use development (even taller than once proposed for the Safeway site) .... and no grocery store.

[Anonymous]

They did say in the article they are trying to lure a Trader Joes but I was really surprised by the size of the apartment buildings they are proposing to build. Will GDS be the landlord for those buildings? How weird.