Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's so hot.

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.

That is so ridiculous. You praise capitalism but you are so ignorant that are unable to see it combined with the social justice concept.

The "social justice concept"?! GDS was asked publicly if they would consider including more "affordable" housing in the PUD and their answer was that they planned to include the statutory minimum, no more. This project seems more the case of those who claim to be doing good in fact doing well.

The social concept does not come with the real estate portion, but with what they do best: educating children. This is exahusting. Too tired to elaborate (anyhow, it would not matter, you would mot even be open to try to understand the point of view... To focused on your own possition.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losing the Safeway, having to drive somewhere for middle-grocery shopping, having dead space on Wisconsin Avenue and having to deal with the car-pooling and suburban dopers, yes, pretty much a net loss.

Long time real estate person here. Expanding the presence of a strong school has never been a net negative for a neighborhood. Never. Just ask the property owners in Edgemoor, Bethesda. It might be a nuisance in the short term, but the rewards are tangible on the back end.

I can understand the presence of a good public school raising property values, but don't see how the general population benefits with a private school. Is there a private school near Edgemoor in Bethesda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's so hot.

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.

That is so ridiculous. You praise capitalism but you are so ignorant that are unable to see it combined with the social justice concept.

The "social justice concept"?! GDS was asked publicly if they would consider including more "affordable" housing in the PUD and their answer was that they planned to include the statutory minimum, no more. This project seems more the case of those who claim to be doing good in fact doing well.

Anonymous wrote:Ay, pobrecito

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's so hot.

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying it was kinda slutty for GDS to get in bed with a developer? Cause that's actually kinda true.

That is so ridiculous. You praise capitalism but you are so ignorant that are unable to see it combined with the social justice concept.

Anonymous wrote:Correction: most of Safeway site is C-2-A so same rules as Wisconsin for that portion. Matter of right = 60% lot occupancy, 50 foot height limit, 10% IZ requirement (half low- and half moderate-income).

Anonymous wrote:That's so hot.

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:

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.

Well, even if that were true (and it isn't really), GDS has bundled the two projects so the school project is tied up with the mixed-use project -- they're both part of the same PUD. If the projects were separate, the school project would still need a special exception from the BZA. That would represent a lower hurdle (and involve a different decisionmaker) than the PUD, but adding 600 kids plus teachers to a private school campus is not something you get to do matter of right, even if you've acquired more land.

The school a this point could abandon plans to relocate the LS/MS and fully develop the Safeway site to a by-right configuration that would be far worse for the neighborhood. They could fully develop the Marten's site for the purported revenue stream for FA and call it a day.

The result would be a worse development scheme, a bad solution for the neighbors and a mediocre solution for Wisconsin Avenue.

Thanks DC Office of Planning for hold true to your mission.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, even if that were true (and it isn't really), GDS has bundled the two projects so the school project is tied up with the mixed-use project -- they're both part of the same PUD. If the projects were separate, the school project would still need a special exception from the BZA. That would represent a lower hurdle (and involve a different decisionmaker) than the PUD, but adding 600 kids plus teachers to a private school campus is not something you get to do matter of right, even if you've acquired more land.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, even if that were true (and it isn't really), GDS has bundled the two projects so the school project is tied up with the mixed-use project -- they're both part of the same PUD. If the projects were separate, the school project would still need a special exception from the BZA. That would represent a lower hurdle (and involve a different decisionmaker) than the PUD, but adding 600 kids plus teachers to a private school campus is not something you get to do matter of right, even if you've acquired more land.