Gds parents need to sit down.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every GDS parent I've spoken to is livid about the Sidwell deal -- taking it way too personally.

Really? I think it makes lots of sense for the Sidwell and is good for the neighborhood as well.

GDS parent

Anonymous wrote:F the Poor!

Troll said that already.

F the Poor!

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every GDS parent I've spoken to is livid about the Sidwell deal -- taking it way too personally.

Uh, why??

Honestly, every GDS parent I've spoken to is livid about the Sidwell deal -- taking it way too personally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Will our Preacher-in-Chief take her daughters out of Sidwell and into GDS, to demonstrate how to walk the talk?

God knows dumba$$ GWB never would have done that.

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Aha -- I had a feeling GDS was behind all this complaining. The Sidwell expansion makes the GDS plan look inadequate, so I can understand why partisans are lashing out. GDS may lots of big plans, but it will result in a distracted board (having to be real estate developers and run a school) and a campus that does not give them much additional space. Sorry, but that's the reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Will our Preacher-in-Chief take her daughters out of Sidwell and into GDS, to demonstrate how to walk the talk?

GDS would be so thrilled. They've been pining after the first family for like eight years.

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Are GDS boosters trying to rebut criticism of their development plans by stirring up criticism of the Sidwell plan? To borrow a phrase, "someone convinced you that attacking another school is going to help you." You should stop now. Doing this does not present GDS in a flattering light.

Because mixed-use development at the Washington Home would have to include some affordable units under DC Law, the development scenario just might be the one that maximizes social justice.

Anonymous wrote:The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Will our Preacher-in-Chief take her daughters out of Sidwell and into GDS, to demonstrate how to walk the talk?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is your evidence that this is not a fair price, especially given the fact that the neighborhood would hold up development for years if not decades.

I guess we won't ever know if this is a fair price, since there was never an open bid.

#ReopentheBidding

The contrast with the GDS consolidated campus plan not far away from Sidwell could not be clearer. GDS is investing to develop tax-paying mixed-use for DC, and is including affordable/workforce housing which is so sorely needed in upper NW. (And no needy sick grandmothers are being pushed to the curb.)

Anonymous wrote:... It is, and should be morally shameful, to take advantage of financial distress. If your neighbor lost his job, his wife was ill, and they had to sell their car in order to pay their bills, do you think it's the morally right thing to pay below market value because they desperately need the money? Do you invest in high-interest check-cashing store fronts?

What kind of BS are you trying to make up here? WH had revenue of almost $42 million last year. WH is a big business. It's not your neighbor who lost his job; it's not some public charity. The people running WH recognized that their business model of on-site hospice care was running against the current of the in-home care most of its customers want, so it decided to sell their bricks-and-mortar facility to re-focus the business. If you have a problem with that business decision, or if you think WH should have driven a harder bargain, then take it up with the CEO or the Board of Directors. http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530196647/530196647_201406_990.pdf?_ga=1.198981611.517546103.1446494923