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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people in the picture also didn't defend their tweet and apologized for it.

It was a year ago. Time to move on.

You don't get to tell people when it's time to move on. We're not going to forget their idiocy and disrespect.

Besides the five arrogant ANC commissioners in the middle fingers photo, which ANC member took the photo for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

Talking about an innovation in fire trucks is in no way the same thing as saying buildings do not need to be accessible to fire trucks. It just isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFH also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with big developers, who hid behind them and pretend like they cared about inclusiveness?

And let's get to the meat of the issue: Ward 3 doesn't need greater density. It's not the least populated Ward in DC, nor is it the least in terms of the number of housing units. Where there is an argument to be made is that Ward 3 could be more diverse. If that's the case, people could focus on other policies that could do so in a sustainable and intelligent way because the current plans are neither. We have the wrong policy prescriptions, the wrong policymakers (virtue signalling white people) in the Ward right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

DP. Shouldn't it apply to developers too? Big-money developers *deserve* to have more power and influence than smaller-money people/groups, on account of their big money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

[Anonymous]

Blanket Upzoning—A Blunt Instrument—Won't Solve the Affordable Housing Crisis

https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve-affordable-housing-crisis

UCLA and London School of Economics Professor Michael Storper argues that the bulk of the claims of the trickle-down “housing-as-opportunity” school of thought are fundamentally flawed and lead to simplistic and misguided public policy recommendations. He also notes that there is no clear evidence that local housing regulation is crucial for differences in home availability or affordability across cities, or for interregional mobility, and that many have failed to fully consider the impacts of in-migration to economically prosperous cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blanket Upzoning—A Blunt Instrument—Won't Solve the Affordable Housing Crisis

https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve-affordable-housing-crisis

UCLA and London School of Economics Professor Michael Storper argues that the bulk of the claims of the trickle-down “housing-as-opportunity” school of thought are fundamentally flawed and lead to simplistic and misguided public policy recommendations. He also notes that there is no clear evidence that local housing regulation is crucial for differences in home availability or affordability across cities, or for interregional mobility, and that many have failed to fully consider the impacts of in-migration to economically prosperous cities.

Gosh, it's almost like there isn't one single policy that will solve all problems everywhere, but rather multiple related policies are needed to solve multiple related problems!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

The issue isn’t applying DC concerns to national politics. What’s gobsmacking is pushing the aggressive gerrymandering from polarised national politics down to the local level of ANCs, of all things. But that’s exactly what the smart growth lobby did in Ward 3, with a redistricting scheme led by a Trumpworld functionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

DP. Shouldn't it apply to developers too? Big-money developers *deserve* to have more power and influence than smaller-money people/groups, on account of their big money?

But they do. They bought the mayor’s office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

The issue isn’t applying DC concerns to national politics. What’s gobsmacking is pushing the aggressive gerrymandering from polarised national politics down to the local level of ANCs, of all things. But that’s exactly what the smart growth lobby did in Ward 3, with a redistricting scheme led by a Trumpworld functionary.

Do you agree with the earlier assertion that people with more money DESERVE more influence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

The issue isn’t applying DC concerns to national politics. What’s gobsmacking is pushing the aggressive gerrymandering from polarised national politics down to the local level of ANCs, of all things. But that’s exactly what the smart growth lobby did in Ward 3, with a redistricting scheme led by a Trumpworld functionary.

Do you agree with the earlier assertion that people with more money DESERVE more influence?

No. But this clumsy attempt to shift and defect is, well, so Trumpy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

DP. Shouldn't it apply to developers too? Big-money developers *deserve* to have more power and influence than smaller-money people/groups, on account of their big money?

But they do. They bought the mayor’s office.

And yet you're unhappy about this.