anyone else dislike Greater Greater Washington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GGW pretends to be a volunteer blog, but it's an "astroturf" organization (faux grass roots), that is funded by big development companies, law firms dependent on a zoning practice, etc. One of GGW's more absurd moments came when they threw a developer-funded happy hour down the street from Judiciary Square the night of the marathon hearing on the mayor's proposed sweeping changes to the Comp Plan, which are sought by big development interests. GGW tried to use free drinks to attract Millennials to go over and testify in favor.

Absolutely. So they play those games in DC? In MoCo, they attack anyone who is concerned about development's impact on traffic, school infrastructure, or green space a "NIMBY." I've lost a lot of respect for the people associated with this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main problem with GGW is that they have decided that NIMBY no longer means "Not in My Back Yard" but rather "anyone who dares disagree with the exalted thinkers of Greater Greater Washington." They wield it as an insult.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW pretends to be a volunteer blog, but it's an "astroturf" organization (faux grass roots), that is funded by big development companies, law firms dependent on a zoning practice, etc. One of GGW's more absurd moments came when they threw a developer-funded happy hour down the street from Judiciary Square the night of the marathon hearing on the mayor's proposed sweeping changes to the Comp Plan, which are sought by big development interests. GGW tried to use free drinks to attract Millennials to go over and testify in favor.

Absolutely. So they play those games in DC? In MoCo, they attack anyone who is concerned about development's impact on traffic, school infrastructure, or green space a "NIMBY." I've lost a lot of respect for the people associated with this site.

So GGW has some physical presence in Montgomery County?

Can you provide some examples of when they've done this?

Also can you provide some examples where they've been wrong?

Also what does GGW even mean? Do their members show up wearing GGW hats or wielding GGW branded clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is all about the affordable housing gravy train going for the handful of developers that have the lawyers and political connections to really gorge on those projects.

GGW's latest mantra is that the way to solve affordable housing and stop gentrification is to upzone the hell out of Upper Northwest. Never mind that Ward 3 contains the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. GGW wants to upzone large swaths and corridors to downtown height and density zones. What this would mean is that a number of non-class A apartment buildings, which currently are rent controlled, could fall to the wrecking ball and be replaced by bigger upscale, high cost projects. GGW claims that these projects will contain 10% "inclusive zoning/IZ" units, which is true, but those are at a much higher price point than most rent controlled dwellings. So the result will be a net loss of affordable housing, not an increase.

OMG, that would be so horrible. They managed to almost accomplish this in Bethesda, which will lose more affordable housing under the new downtown plan. They will tear down old garden style apartments and put up luxury buildings with small percentages allocated to MPDUs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My main problem with GGW is that they have decided that NIMBY no longer means "Not in My Back Yard" but rather "anyone who dares disagree with the exalted thinkers of Greater Greater Washington." They wield it as an insult.

Bingo.

So you disagree with the exalted thinkers of GGW (whatever that even means as it is a volunteer blog) but can you provide examples of when you've been right and they've been wrong?

I can tell you in my own neighborhood the people fighting development have been consistently wrong over 20+ years and the folks advocating for development have been consistently right.

There is almost a laundry list of talking points of bad things that were supposed to happen with every single development that never come true.

Oddly opponents trot out the same arguments every single time even though they've already been disproven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is all about the affordable housing gravy train going for the handful of developers that have the lawyers and political connections to really gorge on those projects.

GGW's latest mantra is that the way to solve affordable housing and stop gentrification is to upzone the hell out of Upper Northwest. Never mind that Ward 3 contains the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. GGW wants to upzone large swaths and corridors to downtown height and density zones. What this would mean is that a number of non-class A apartment buildings, which currently are rent controlled, could fall to the wrecking ball and be replaced by bigger upscale, high cost projects. GGW claims that these projects will contain 10% "inclusive zoning/IZ" units, which is true, but those are at a much higher price point than most rent controlled dwellings. So the result will be a net loss of affordable housing, not an increase.

OMG, that would be so horrible. They managed to almost accomplish this in Bethesda, which will lose more affordable housing under the new downtown plan. They will tear down old garden style apartments and put up luxury buildings with small percentages allocated to MPDUs.

Those old garden style apartments are hardly affordable and aren't subsidized units. And BTW the rent in older units comes under a great deal of pressure too when supply doesn't keep up with demand.

Also the rent control canard being peddled by a couple of anti-development types in NW DC has almost no relation to affordable housing units.

But it is an effective talking point for folks who have the bad combination of being scared of change and also barely paying attention to the details and being swayed by something that sounds convincing but in fact is completely irrelevant to the problem they claim to be concerned about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

Bingo. With all the diversity of a Republican intern photo.

In fact, the arguments that GGW advances are tired old Republican elixirs -- trickle down economics and curtailing "unfair" judicial review (by "unelected judges," no less!) of captive agency regulatory decisions concerning cozy industries. Only this time, the DC development interests and the GGW Amen Corner have tried to wrap the GOP snake oil cures in progressive-sounding terms like "affordable housing," "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." And they back proposed Comp Plan framework element changes that would effectively gut judicial review of Zoning Commission actions, while ceding much authority over the Comp Plan from an popularly elected DC Council of 13 members to an unelected ZC of 7 appointees (3 of whom are not even appointed by the mayor).

1) There are 5 members of the zoning commission, a Chair and two members are appointed by the mayor and the other 2 are federal (AOC and NPS)
2) The issue with the judicial review is the exceedingly low threshold an appeal can take in the form of extortion. The appellant ought to be required to do more than pay $50 and use a boilerplate legal form. In many cases, the paperwork has documentation that pertains to unrelated cases. It is sloppy and sad. And it undermines, in many cases, the work done to negotiate bona fide community benefits that were the result of years of engagement on the part of the community and developer.
3) If new development goes the Matter of Right route, then the city as a whole loses the opportunity for more housing, more affordable housing and the increased tax base that goes with it. That doesn't benefit anyone except the selfish few who are holding up these projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is all about the affordable housing gravy train going for the handful of developers that have the lawyers and political connections to really gorge on those projects.

GGW's latest mantra is that the way to solve affordable housing and stop gentrification is to upzone the hell out of Upper Northwest. Never mind that Ward 3 contains the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. GGW wants to upzone large swaths and corridors to downtown height and density zones. What this would mean is that a number of non-class A apartment buildings, which currently are rent controlled, could fall to the wrecking ball and be replaced by bigger upscale, high cost projects. GGW claims that these projects will contain 10% "inclusive zoning/IZ" units, which is true, but those are at a much higher price point than most rent controlled dwellings. So the result will be a net loss of affordable housing, not an increase.

It isn't about upzoning the hell out of upper Northwest. It is about the region benefiting from the investment in Metro to expand development on top of metro stations so more people can live in a car free environment. No one, and I mean no one, is talking about replacing the core of single family home neighborhoods that dominate Upper NW. What people ARE talking about is allowing more density in Friendship Heights and Tenleytown, along Wisconsin Avenue, where it belongs. And god forbid a Connecticut Avenue Streetcar ever come back, then it may make sense to look at the commercial nodes in Forest Hills and Chevy Chase that are currently zones low-density commercial. It is silly to have neighborhood fights over 5 stories versus 7 stories when you are talking about new development on the block where a metro entrance already exists. Especially when most of the extra units as a result of the additional square footage would be part of the permanent affordable housing stock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is all about the affordable housing gravy train going for the handful of developers that have the lawyers and political connections to really gorge on those projects.

GGW's latest mantra is that the way to solve affordable housing and stop gentrification is to upzone the hell out of Upper Northwest. Never mind that Ward 3 contains the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. GGW wants to upzone large swaths and corridors to downtown height and density zones. What this would mean is that a number of non-class A apartment buildings, which currently are rent controlled, could fall to the wrecking ball and be replaced by bigger upscale, high cost projects. GGW claims that these projects will contain 10% "inclusive zoning/IZ" units, which is true, but those are at a much higher price point than most rent controlled dwellings. So the result will be a net loss of affordable housing, not an increase.

It isn't about upzoning the hell out of upper Northwest. It is about the region benefiting from the investment in Metro to expand development on top of metro stations so more people can live in a car free environment. No one, and I mean no one, is talking about replacing the core of single family home neighborhoods that dominate Upper NW. What people ARE talking about is allowing more density in Friendship Heights and Tenleytown, along Wisconsin Avenue, where it belongs. And god forbid a Connecticut Avenue Streetcar ever come back, then it may make sense to look at the commercial nodes in Forest Hills and Chevy Chase that are currently zones low-density commercial. It is silly to have neighborhood fights over 5 stories versus 7 stories when you are talking about new development on the block where a metro entrance already exists. Especially when most of the extra units as a result of the additional square footage would be part of the permanent affordable housing stock.

With all due respect, you are full of B.S. -- or put another way, did you earn a night degree from the Sarah Huckabee Saunders Schools of Truth in Flackery?

Just yesterday, in a piece by GGW's paid housing staffer, GGW listed the "top 5 issues to organize around.' This is one of them:

Upzone wealthy neighborhoods in DC to fight displacement? Interesting idea…

I"n April, David Alpert wrote about an idea that was floating around on Twitter. Why not upzone wealthy, established neighborhoods in DC and use some of the created value to fund anti-displacement measures in areas like Wards 7 and 8? Readers had a lot of questions (Will this work politically? What are the right anti-displacement tools to fund?), but fundamentally many thought it was an idea worth pursuing: 103 voted in favor of organizing around this, and 24 voted against."

https://ggwash.org/view/67202/yglesias-upzone-expensive-areas-to-fund-anti-displacement-in-poor-ones

Earlier, Alpert described this idea in more detail, with a map graphic where Upper Northwest was labeled "Upzone here and built tons of houses":

"Matthew Yglesias has a bold idea for DC housing and anti-displacement policy: Build a lot of new homes in areas like west of Rock Creek Park, Dupont/Logan, and Capitol Hill, and use some of the tax revenue to cut property taxes east of the Anacostia River.

Is this something that DC should really do? Should Greater Greater Washington try to organize for it? What do you think?"

Then Alpert made an interesting admission, undercutting the 'trickle down' theory that lots of private development will address housing affordability:

"This isn't the free-market 'build more housing and supply and demand will take care of housing affordability' idea (which I for the record don't think would actually fix the problem). Rather, this is a more explicitly redistributive policy: build more housing in expensive areas specifically to fund other programs that more directly tackle affordability."

https://ggwash.org/view/67202/yglesias-upzone-expensive-areas-to-fund-anti-displacement-in-poor-ones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

DP, but I will simply state that adding more units in general loosens the overall supply constrictions. Supply/demand, duh.

I will also add that when there are PUDs or new development of certain sizes, the IX requirements kick in. Don't like the IZ requirements, then work with the Council to change the laws to make them better for affordable housing. For those of us who fought those battles 10 years ago, the opponents were many of the same people who also fight new development. Finally, the whole appeals process for PUDs is ridiculous when $50 and a boilerplate legal document can hold up what is otherwise years of community engagement and hundreds of thousands of dollars in architecture and legal fees already invested in a community. It is simple extortion and it is wrong.

no, you can't just talk about the invisible hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is all about the affordable housing gravy train going for the handful of developers that have the lawyers and political connections to really gorge on those projects.

GGW's latest mantra is that the way to solve affordable housing and stop gentrification is to upzone the hell out of Upper Northwest. Never mind that Ward 3 contains the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. GGW wants to upzone large swaths and corridors to downtown height and density zones. What this would mean is that a number of non-class A apartment buildings, which currently are rent controlled, could fall to the wrecking ball and be replaced by bigger upscale, high cost projects. GGW claims that these projects will contain 10% "inclusive zoning/IZ" units, which is true, but those are at a much higher price point than most rent controlled dwellings. So the result will be a net loss of affordable housing, not an increase.

It isn't about upzoning the hell out of upper Northwest. It is about the region benefiting from the investment in Metro to expand development on top of metro stations so more people can live in a car free environment. No one, and I mean no one, is talking about replacing the core of single family home neighborhoods that dominate Upper NW. What people ARE talking about is allowing more density in Friendship Heights and Tenleytown, along Wisconsin Avenue, where it belongs. And god forbid a Connecticut Avenue Streetcar ever come back, then it may make sense to look at the commercial nodes in Forest Hills and Chevy Chase that are currently zones low-density commercial. It is silly to have neighborhood fights over 5 stories versus 7 stories when you are talking about new development on the block where a metro entrance already exists. Especially when most of the extra units as a result of the additional square footage would be part of the permanent affordable housing stock.

With all due respect, you are full of B.S. -- or put another way, did you earn a night degree from the Sarah Huckabee Saunders Schools of Truth in Flackery?

Just yesterday, in a piece by GGW's paid housing staffer, GGW listed the "top 5 issues to organize around.' This is one of them:

Upzone wealthy neighborhoods in DC to fight displacement? Interesting idea…

I"n April, David Alpert wrote about an idea that was floating around on Twitter. Why not upzone wealthy, established neighborhoods in DC and use some of the created value to fund anti-displacement measures in areas like Wards 7 and 8? Readers had a lot of questions (Will this work politically? What are the right anti-displacement tools to fund?), but fundamentally many thought it was an idea worth pursuing: 103 voted in favor of organizing around this, and 24 voted against."

https://ggwash.org/view/67202/yglesias-upzone-expensive-areas-to-fund-anti-displacement-in-poor-ones

Earlier, Alpert described this idea in more detail, with a map graphic where Upper Northwest was labeled "Upzone here and built tons of houses":

"Matthew Yglesias has a bold idea for DC housing and anti-displacement policy: Build a lot of new homes in areas like west of Rock Creek Park, Dupont/Logan, and Capitol Hill, and use some of the tax revenue to cut property taxes east of the Anacostia River.

Is this something that DC should really do? Should Greater Greater Washington try to organize for it? What do you think?"

Then Alpert made an interesting admission, undercutting the 'trickle down' theory that lots of private development will address housing affordability:

"This isn't the free-market 'build more housing and supply and demand will take care of housing affordability' idea (which I for the record don't think would actually fix the problem). Rather, this is a more explicitly redistributive policy: build more housing in expensive areas specifically to fund other programs that more directly tackle affordability."

https://ggwash.org/view/67202/yglesias-upzone-expensive-areas-to-fund-anti-displacement-in-poor-ones

It is virtually impossible to upzone the single family areas. What can be upzoned are the corridors. And they should be. The Height Act serves no practical purpose in Friendship Heights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers

This.

Again based on what is posted on the blog what is your evidence that this is true? Or even implied?

Do think developers are big fans of their push on affordable housing?

As I posted yesterday you have to go back more than a month to find a post about an individual development proposal.

The push on "affordable housing" is a total canard. GGW isn't concerned about affordable housing (except that its bloggers aspire to live in an affordable glass box on U Street). This is the latest argument developed by Big Development and its echo chamber to force fundamental changes in the comprehensive plan and how it's interpreted, as well as substantial upzoning of single family residential areas of DC. The BigDev/GGW argument goes like this. If DC constrains judicial review of PUD determinations and upzones, denser and taller buildings will mean more 'inclusionary zoning' units. Never mind that inclusionary zoning requirements are minimal in DC, but 'inclusionary zoning' is not at all the same as 'affordable housing.' Indeed, a Big Dev/GGW proposal to upzone the avenues in Upper NW to the same height and density as downtown likely would lead to the tear-down of numerous older apartment buildings which in Ward 3 today provide the second-highest number of rent-controlled units in the District. The other Big Dev/GGW argument is that if DC upzones Palisaides, AU Park, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, that this will somehow eliminate gentrification pressures in other parts of the District. This ignores the fact that housing demand and markets are highly segmented, and few buyers looking for the next Brooklyn in D.C. are likely to want a high-rise condo in the Palisades or a quad-plex in AU Park. It is telling that a number of the affordable housing advocacy groups in DC saw through this charade and testified against the comprehensive plan framework proposals being pushed by the mayor at the behest of BigDev.

1. They are certainly not that segmented. Lots of people move EOTR (including to very unhip areas) because WOTR is so expensive.

2. IZ units are significant, and definitely a source of housing for people who cannot afford market rate

3. Making market rate housing more affordable is a social good. except I suppose to people who are landlords and want rents to increase

4. If you don't want the rent controlled units lost, you could upzone with a requirement that all of them be replaced, and only the added density would be market rate. There are projects like that which have penciled out. Or you could just upzonie on currently non-residential parcels.

5. Substantial upzoning of SFHs - all thats in the cards now, AFAICT, is making ADU's easier, and making popups a little easier. There is no prospect of dense multifamily where existing SFHs, or even THs where existing detached SFHs are. thats a theoretical discussion in the urbanist world. Though it makes a lot of sense, and your horror at it shows that your concern is not really with AH units, since the SFHs are certainly not AH.

6. Reforming the PUD process is different from upzoning. Right now the PUD appeal process is a joke.

7. Housing advocacy groups who don't understand economics, and are ideologically opposed to market rate housing suppy, if not to private property in general oppose the reforms. Their housing advocacy comes down to stopping new housing. Can we get them to engage in gasoline advocacy? because they would oppose the selling of any gasoline that costs more than a dollar a gallon, iin order to make driving affordable, and the net result would be everyone would have to walk bike and use transit

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

If you have actually read GGW, you know about filtering. I don't feel like rehashing it here. Nor am I going to research the studies for you. I know that netiquette generally requires someone making a claim to provide support for their view, but in this case we have an actual website, GGW, that has done a yeoman's job of providing info on that, including research. No reason to make this forum do the job of GGW.

That is aside from A. The IZ units B. The incremental revenue to the District that makes it possible to fund other committed AH C, The fact that the zoning NIMBYs do not ONLY oppose high end market rate units, but also ADU's and, typically, mostly committed AH projects as well. (all your ward 3 friends are freaking about a homeless shelter, for ex).

GGW basically is recycling the tired old trickle down economics. This time it’s to support the proposition that building luxury housing will trickle down into ‘affordable’ housing. Remember that there’s basically one thing that trickles down, and it illustrates the piss-poor intellectual heft of GGW’s position.

The fact that Republicans in the 1980s supported certain tax policies by exaggerating real economic effects, does not mean that the concept of filtering, well established in the literature for generations, is false. And a repeated meme among experienced GGW trolls. Can't you come up with something new, not the same tired attacks that you have posted on GGW a thousand times, and which are regularly rebutted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Privileged gentrifiers, paid by WMATA to ignore the dumpster fire that is Metro and instead post about affordable housing, bike lanes, and dog parks.

What’s not to love?

They do post about metro, but quite frankly I find the stuff about housing and bikes more interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

Bingo. With all the diversity of a Republican intern photo.

Plenty of women, one of their most prolific writers is AA, and they have more people of color writing. But I am sure you only read blogs with sufficient diversity, not based on your interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically having some new development with no parking can work.

Thanks for playing.

Only with draconian restrictions on RPP -- which are rare and becoming rarer in DC. So no, they generally don't work.

In Arlington most new urban style developments are in commercial zones, so residents are not eligible for RPP's. Doesnt work in DC because of the system of ward wide RPP's. You could abolish ward wide RPPs, or you could increase the charge for an RPP to more like a market clearing price. Both have their issues, but seem to be to be better than requiring developers to build massive amounts of parking, which often goes unused.