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:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

[Anonymous]

Person A: I think we should have narrower, safer roads and smaller, more effective, more efficient fire trucks.

Person B: WHY DO YOU HATE SAFETY?!

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Person A: I think we should have narrower, safer roads and smaller, more effective, more efficient fire trucks.

Person B: WHY DO YOU HATE SAFETY?!

Person A: IT IS AESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING TO ME THAT CITIES REQUIRE ROADS TO BE WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE LADDER TRUCKS AND OTHER LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

Person B: You’re insane.

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

So you are just going to ignore what I actually said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Person A: I think we should have narrower, safer roads and smaller, more effective, more efficient fire trucks.

Person B: WHY DO YOU HATE SAFETY?!

Person A: IT IS AESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING TO ME THAT CITIES REQUIRE ROADS TO BE WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE LADDER TRUCKS AND OTHER LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

Person B: You’re insane.

Yes, it's lots of fun to come up with effective rebuttals to arguments you have just made up in your head.

[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’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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

[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:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

[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:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

I’m not sure what you say is true:
https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/fire-apparatus/articles/north-american-vs-european-fire-apparatus-breaking-down-the-differences-zsiTPu2O7PZokQVp/

[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:

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.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/