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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.