If 2015-16 was sort of GDS's version of "annus horribilis" the coming academic year promises to be much better. The school has dealt with last year's distractions. And hopefully DC sees the light and green-lights the campus consolidation and the exciting plans for Wisconsin Ave!

This has been exactly my experience as a neighbor.

Anonymous wrote:GDS needs to do actual self examination and stop treating all students and parents badly when issues are raised. Complaints are routinely dismissed or swept under the carpet. The place is run by a cabal where the admin and staff have blind faith in one another and the mission. No one exams issues prior to them becoming a crisis so issues fester and erupt. Those who complain are punished or considered difficult and undesirable. GDS could get back on track if it had tolerance and understanding for individuals not part of the GDS Cabal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like a public-private partnership with GDS playing the role of the public/dupe, but lacking the regulatory power to get the project approved. And no private partner seems to have agreed in advance, even contingently, to the deal. So every time JBG says "jump!"GDS says "how high?" No guaranteed reward; no clear limit on predevelopment costs the school is willing to bear. No wonder GDS is reconsidering.

Is JBG the developer standing behind the curtain on this project? I recall reading that some guys from JBG were on the GDS board at some point.

Not really behind a curtain. IIRC, their logo was on the project illustrations in the PUD application. Michael Glosserman gave the Board advice re the land acquisitions. I think his son Marc was on the alumn Board at that point.

JBG's structure and portfolio has changed significantly in the past two years. They weren't ever committed to the GDS project AFAICT. Don't know if they're even interested at this point -- if they are, presumably they'd have the inside track.

Anonymous wrote:Schools like Georgetown prep and visitation have sold land that was developed but gds wants to buy land for development

Prep and Visi didn't have GDS's uber-talented Roster of Aces to take it to the next level.

Anonymous wrote:It's like a public-private partnership with GDS playing the role of the public/dupe, but lacking the regulatory power to get the project approved. And no private partner seems to have agreed in advance, even contingently, to the deal. So every time JBG says "jump!"GDS says "how high?" No guaranteed reward; no clear limit on predevelopment costs the school is willing to bear. No wonder GDS is reconsidering.

Is JBG the developer standing behind the curtain on this project? I recall reading that some guys from JBG were on the GDS board at some point.

Anonymous wrote:It's like a public-private partnership with GDS playing the role of the public/dupe, but lacking the regulatory power to get the project approved. And no private partner seems to have agreed in advance, even contingently, to the deal. So every time JBG says "jump!"GDS says "how high?" No guaranteed reward; no clear limit on predevelopment costs the school is willing to bear. No wonder GDS is reconsidering.

Right. Let's say that GDS cuts its losses and gets rid of the Wisconsin property to someone else. The school has still incurred big time costs for architects, planning consultants, traffic engineers and real estate development lawyers, all related to the PUD design and approval process. Ouch.

It's like a public-private partnership with GDS playing the role of the public/dupe, but lacking the regulatory power to get the project approved. And no private partner seems to have agreed in advance, even contingently, to the deal. So every time JBG says "jump!"GDS says "how high?" No guaranteed reward; no clear limit on predevelopment costs the school is willing to bear. No wonder GDS is reconsidering.

Anonymous wrote:Of course schools invest. But no school runs a side business like GDS has tried to do. It may work out great for GDS, but it carries risk and is certainly and demonstrably not their core competency.

And pigs may yet get pilot licenses. So far it hasn't worked out too great for GDS: roadblocks at the DC Office of Planning, lots of community opposition, a recent decsion in the DC Court of Appeals that may adversely impact GDS's plan, risks to the campus expansion and a huuuge distraction to GDS leadership at a time when there are important school matters to address. Meanwhile, Sidwell which announced a campus consolidation plan almost a year and a half later than GDS announced its plan still got all of its approvals months ago with no one testifying in opposition to them.

Of course schools invest. But no school runs a side business like GDS has tried to do. It may work out great for GDS, but it carries risk and is certainly and demonstrably not their core competency.

Schools like Georgetown prep and visitation have sold land that was developed but gds wants to buy land for development

Anonymous wrote:There are a handful of schools in the area who have developed land to impact their bottom lines, and have done so successfully. My understanding is that not only is this not something that is considered abnormal, instead many schools are considering it across the country as tuition rates hike higher and higher. As a private school parent, it strikes me as funny that people think that a school making an investment (something schools have always done, check any school with an endowment) isn't something that can actually impact a school's direct community.

Please name the schools have gone into the land development business in the way that GDS is planning to do so? It is obvious that any school with an endowment will invest its monies, but that is entirely different than going into commercial real estate development.

Anonymous wrote:There are a handful of schools in the area who have developed land to impact their bottom lines, and have done so successfully. My understanding is that not only is this not something that is considered abnormal, instead many schools are considering it across the country as tuition rates hike higher and higher. As a private school parent, it strikes me as funny that people think that a school making an investment (something schools have always done, check any school with an endowment) isn't something that can actually impact a school's direct community.

Some schools have sold off land to a developer to generate cash for school purposes. What's unusual about GDS is that the school is running the whole PUD process. This means that the head of school and other school officials are out there at public meetings, zoning hearings and meetings with DC planning officials, not just on campus expansion plans and all that those entail, but on purely commercial real estate development matters: housing, retail, affordable units, public amenities, density, height, the comprehensive plan, the list goes on. While there likely are developers (some may be school insiders) in the background, the reason why the school is fronting the PUD is so that it can try to "transfer" density from the Safeway (expanded campus) site to the commercial site, in order to build the PUD higher and denser. This not only means that the school leadership has been saddled with this whole PUD burden, which is outside of their normal expertise and jobs, but they have arguably been distracted throughout this year from focusing on important school issues that others have written about on this board. By playing big developer, GDS has also taken a reputational hit and lost goodwill in the community, which may have created more boomerang opposition to the important campus consolidation project.

Universities and independent schools are constantly making investments, in stocks, bonds and real estate. Anything that can be done to generate income and keep the rising costs of education in check are a plus. If the GDS Board believes it can shortcut what would otherwise require a 50-60 million dollar endowment by developing the Martens lot, then it is visionary. Time will tell, but for folks to dismiss the idea without the inner knowledge of the deal is indeed shortsighted.

There are a handful of schools in the area who have developed land to impact their bottom lines, and have done so successfully. My understanding is that not only is this not something that is considered abnormal, instead many schools are considering it across the country as tuition rates hike higher and higher. As a private school parent, it strikes me as funny that people think that a school making an investment (something schools have always done, check any school with an endowment) isn't something that can actually impact a school's direct community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For GDS to move forward, it needs to focus

Resolve the real estate issue in the next six months
Restore institutional leadership on social issues by September. School can not start as it ended.
Focus on schools current needs rather than a reputational competition with other schools

=1. GDS needs to get rid of the real estate albatross ASAP. It's not their core competency, and they need to concentrate on addressing the school issues. Seeing the head of school and his leadership team pitching the PUD in public forums reminds me of the people who buy "The Art of the Deal" and attend a Trump University seminar and then try to act like big time real estate players.

Agree with this somewhat. I agree that GDS needs to focus on its core competency--providing an exemplary education to children with a strong social justice mission. I think the idea of going into commercial real estate, even if to fuel scholarships, is one step too far removed from its core mission. I don't think that GDS needs to abandon its property--or its leadership--but it does need to think about a way of using that real estate in a way that ties in *directly* to its core constituency--students, faculty, staff, parents, and alum. I think that makes the most sense to its stakeholders to abandon the idea of becoming commercial real estate developers, and to think about how to use this valuable land to make GDS a better facility.

Well said.