Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There were a whole bunch of protesters outside the school with a big banner accusing the construction company of wage theft.
when?
Anonymous wrote:There were a whole bunch of protesters outside the school with a big banner accusing the construction company of wage theft.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That link is interesting but doesn't really address who is financing the $185M in renovation. To be clear, the article puts a valuation of $110M on the real estate but says that Whittle is putting $185M into renovating it (which seems preposterous).
No rational investor seeking financial return is going to put up $185M for a school renovation. It's absurd. Again, near as I can tell, they don't even own the building. So if they don't pay their rent, they lose the money. There is no way that the building landlords ponied up $185M in tenant improvement money.
The money absolutely had to come from someone motivated by something other than a financial return and that has the deepest of deep pockets. Hard to see this as someone other than a nation state or quasi-government investment arm.
The article is double dutch to me. It suggests that the building's owner was involved in getting the $225Million in financing for the project. Not sure why a property owner would be doing that, I guess they really need the tenant. $170 million of that being a construction loan. Much more than the value of the building.
Anyway, I agree that Chris Whittle has somehow charmed some very wealthy foreign investors with his elite education promises. Would be nice to know who exactly.
Anonymous wrote:That link is interesting but doesn't really address who is financing the $185M in renovation. To be clear, the article puts a valuation of $110M on the real estate but says that Whittle is putting $185M into renovating it (which seems preposterous).
No rational investor seeking financial return is going to put up $185M for a school renovation. It's absurd. Again, near as I can tell, they don't even own the building. So if they don't pay their rent, they lose the money. There is no way that the building landlords ponied up $185M in tenant improvement money.
The money absolutely had to come from someone motivated by something other than a financial return and that has the deepest of deep pockets. Hard to see this as someone other than a nation state or quasi-government investment arm.
Anonymous wrote:While I wouldn’t want my kid going to a school funded by the Chinese government, “Chinese go home” is just as racist as our president and totally unamerican.
Anonymous wrote:That link is interesting but doesn't really address who is financing the $185M in renovation. To be clear, the article puts a valuation of $110M on the real estate but says that Whittle is putting $185M into renovating it (which seems preposterous).
No rational investor seeking financial return is going to put up $185M for a school renovation. It's absurd. Again, near as I can tell, they don't even own the building. So if they don't pay their rent, they lose the money. There is no way that the building landlords ponied up $185M in tenant improvement money.
The money absolutely had to come from someone motivated by something other than a financial return and that has the deepest of deep pockets. Hard to see this as someone other than a nation state or quasi-government investment arm.