To self-site, or not to self-site?

Apologies to Mr Shakespeare, but apparently that is the question. Why do some charters choose to provide their own facilities, while others piggyback on the local district to furnish them?  Seems to me that finances would play a role here, because low income areas would be dependent upon help from the government. But what about the richest 1%?  Seems that they could self-site and build an awesome facility of opulence and prestige. So, when they don't do that, something else must be a driving motivation.  Could it be revenge, for the errant closing (and subsequent realization  and reopening) of the only LASD school in the hills?  Could it be spite, because of perceived injustices brought upon by the LASD board?  Could it be a political maneuver to help set legal precedent for all of the less privileged "I want school choice because it is my god-given right" proponents?  Maybe it's just a game for some rich folks with too much money and time on their hands?  Who knows, but hopefully we'll find out someday, before too many more kids get "used" in the process...