Greater Greater Washington --- Please Explain Why They Have Obfuscated Their Donors in The 990 Schedule B Filing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

LOL, there were none because it was a self funded enterprise/hobby.

White male in lycra mainsplaining to all of us how we should be living

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

LOL, there were none because it was a self funded enterprise/hobby.

White male in lycra mainsplaining to all of us how we should be living

I’m trying to understand how this insult/assumption about the PP is responsive at all to the substance of the conversation?

Do you have any info to share about GGW’s alleged connection to PaeC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I try to analyze why GGW causes such visceral reactions in me. Maybe because they have such subtle, pernicious methods but such blunt tool effects? They just really push a button with me.

Do you think that the people running GGWASH are insincere, or do you just think they are wrong? Genuine question.

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

The people who ran for and were elected to the ANCs are not carpetbaggers. Unless you think anyone under 30 who might be a renter is a "carpetbagger"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I try to analyze why GGW causes such visceral reactions in me. Maybe because they have such subtle, pernicious methods but such blunt tool effects? They just really push a button with me.

Do you think that the people running GGWASH are insincere, or do you just think they are wrong? Genuine question.

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

The people who ran for and were elected to the ANCs are not carpetbaggers. Unless you think anyone under 30 who might be a renter is a "carpetbagger"

They came from Ward 2 with an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I try to analyze why GGW causes such visceral reactions in me. Maybe because they have such subtle, pernicious methods but such blunt tool effects? They just really push a button with me.

Do you think that the people running GGWASH are insincere, or do you just think they are wrong? Genuine question.

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

The people who ran for and were elected to the ANCs are not carpetbaggers. Unless you think anyone under 30 who might be a renter is a "carpetbagger"

They came from Ward 2 with an agenda.

Correction: They came from Ward 1 with an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I try to analyze why GGW causes such visceral reactions in me. Maybe because they have such subtle, pernicious methods but such blunt tool effects? They just really push a button with me.

Do you think that the people running GGWASH are insincere, or do you just think they are wrong? Genuine question.

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

The people who ran for and were elected to the ANCs are not carpetbaggers. Unless you think anyone under 30 who might be a renter is a "carpetbagger"

They came from Ward 2 with an agenda.

Correction: They came from Ward 1 with an agenda.

Isn't that a fairly typical inside of DC migration pattern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I try to analyze why GGW causes such visceral reactions in me. Maybe because they have such subtle, pernicious methods but such blunt tool effects? They just really push a button with me.

Do you think that the people running GGWASH are insincere, or do you just think they are wrong? Genuine question.

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

Can you elaborate on why you see them as "failure to launch"? What I see in them does not comport with my understanding of that phrase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You astroturfers need to translate your babble into English if you want whatever you are propagandizing to convince people.

Accusing the people who won elections of not actually being popular maks you look a little silly.

This argument falls flat. Many of the GGW ANC chairs ran unopposed and voters weren't paying attention. They are now extremely unpopular and started off on the wrong foot by flipping off the very constituents who elected them.

Literally flipping off their constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You astroturfers need to translate your babble into English if you want whatever you are propagandizing to convince people.

Accusing the people who won elections of not actually being popular maks you look a little silly.

This argument falls flat. Many of the GGW ANC chairs ran unopposed and voters weren't paying attention. They are now extremely unpopular and started off on the wrong foot by flipping off the very constituents who elected them.

Literally flipping off their constituents.

No, they did not literally flip of their constituents, and certainly not the "constituents who elected them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You astroturfers need to translate your babble into English if you want whatever you are propagandizing to convince people.

Accusing the people who won elections of not actually being popular maks you look a little silly.

This argument falls flat. Many of the GGW ANC chairs ran unopposed and voters weren't paying attention. They are now extremely unpopular and started off on the wrong foot by flipping off the very constituents who elected them.

Literally flipping off their constituents.

No, they did not literally flip of their constituents, and certainly not the "constituents who elected them."

The ANC members posted a photo of themselves grinning and extending their middle fingers and arrogantly wrote “We won. F the ops.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

LOL, there were none because it was a self funded enterprise/hobby.

White male in lycra mainsplaining to all of us how we should be living

The founder is certainly a white male, but he has never been wont to wearing brightly-colored cycling team jerseys in public, as far as I know. Also, even if he had been, so what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You astroturfers need to translate your babble into English if you want whatever you are propagandizing to convince people.

Accusing the people who won elections of not actually being popular maks you look a little silly.

This argument falls flat. Many of the GGW ANC chairs ran unopposed and voters weren't paying attention. They are now extremely unpopular and started off on the wrong foot by flipping off the very constituents who elected them.

Literally flipping off their constituents.

No, they did not literally flip of their constituents, and certainly not the "constituents who elected them."

The ANC members posted a photo of themselves grinning and extending their middle fingers and arrogantly wrote “We won. F the ops.”

I know, and they really should not have done that. It was a pic of them flipping off a "no bike lanes" sign in a window with the caption "The ANC 3C majority has something to say- we're doing bike lanes. F' the ops."

That is not the same thing as them "literally flipping off their constituents" and certainly not the ones who elected them.

[Anonymous]

This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

It was a PP who used the phrase "constituents that elected them."

And while I generally agree with you, it is not the job of electeds, nor is it possible to support/advance the position of all constituents. When there are broad policy issues at stake- such as transit and transportation, some constituents will not get what they want.

The pic expressed a view about a policy choice, not about a group of residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

So mature of them. And GGW and Smart Growth endorsed then all!