Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It strains credulity to believe that this is a way to increase financial aid. The school will be spending $10s of millions of dollars to rebuild perfectly serviceable L/MS facilities on top of $10s of millions spent on land assembly. Resale of the L/MS campus won't cover those costs and, at best, there's a land lease on the mixed-use building. GDS won't own the building, and it paid twice the assessed value of the land, so it's not even clear whether the revenu will do much more than cover GDS's costs. Meanwhile giving will focus on campus construction efforts. If the goal were to raise $$ for FA, this is a wildly inefficient and far-fetched way of pursuing it.
And it gets even dicier if parents hold the school leadership to their claim that the revenue stream is a way to prevent tuition increases. There's no pot of gold waiting at the end of this rainbow -- except maybe for the developers. Martens and Safeway already got theirs (they were compensated as if the land had already been massively up-zoned). Which means the school is left holding the (empty) bag.
I don't think Safeway needs to be upzoned. I think GDS could build - by right - more on the land than they are planning to build.
Anonymous wrote:It strains credulity to believe that this is a way to increase financial aid. The school will be spending $10s of millions of dollars to rebuild perfectly serviceable L/MS facilities on top of $10s of millions spent on land assembly. Resale of the L/MS campus won't cover those costs and, at best, there's a land lease on the mixed-use building. GDS won't own the building, and it paid twice the assessed value of the land, so it's not even clear whether the revenu will do much more than cover GDS's costs. Meanwhile giving will focus on campus construction efforts. If the goal were to raise $$ for FA, this is a wildly inefficient and far-fetched way of pursuing it.
And it gets even dicier if parents hold the school leadership to their claim that the revenue stream is a way to prevent tuition increases. There's no pot of gold waiting at the end of this rainbow -- except maybe for the developers. Martens and Safeway already got theirs (they were compensated as if the land had already been massively up-zoned). Which means the school is left holding the (empty) bag.
Anonymous wrote:So?
If it provides a needed revenue stream for financial aid, then what is the problem? Other than being a selfish NIMBY?
Anonymous wrote:Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This can't help admissions
"I hope the ridiculous lies and slut-shaming I've been telling to obstruct a totally reasonable project aren't hurting my kid's school!"[/quot
Are you saying that the anti-gds development crowd is part of a misogynist conspiracy?
Anonymous wrote:This can't help admissions