anyone else dislike Greater Greater Washington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite GGW post was when a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the Four Mile Run trail and -- instead of condemning the cyclist, as they do for automobile drivers -- they tried to frame it around whether "on your left!" really works. Some commenters blamed the pedestrian.

https://ggwash.org/view/28013/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-does-calling-on-your-left-not-work

Last year, when another cyclist killed a pedestrian in Downtown DC, there was more pedestrian-blaming and cries of "we can't assign blame until the investigation is complete!" If it had been a car driver who killed the pedestrian, GGW would have screamed that the driver should get the electric chair, no investigation needed:

https://ggwash.org/view/62794/a-tragic-reminder-keeping-our-streets-safe-is-on-all-of-us

They are just so remarkably tin-eared on many, many issues.

omg

+1

What in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is not true - it is mostly volunteer funded and run.

But it's a nice talking point for the paranoid of change crowd.

They rotate acknowledgement of their funders on their website. It definitely includes large developers and zoning law firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite GGW post was when a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the Four Mile Run trail and -- instead of condemning the cyclist, as they do for automobile drivers -- they tried to frame it around whether "on your left!" really works. Some commenters blamed the pedestrian.

https://ggwash.org/view/28013/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-does-calling-on-your-left-not-work

Last year, when another cyclist killed a pedestrian in Downtown DC, there was more pedestrian-blaming and cries of "we can't assign blame until the investigation is complete!" If it had been a car driver who killed the pedestrian, GGW would have screamed that the driver should get the electric chair, no investigation needed:

https://ggwash.org/view/62794/a-tragic-reminder-keeping-our-streets-safe-is-on-all-of-us

They are just so remarkably tin-eared on many, many issues.

omg

GGW seems pro-bike and pedestrian, but when the "rubber hits the road" they're actually not. It it impacts development interests, GGW can be rather hypocritical. Together with the so-called Coalition for Smart Growth, Ward 3 Vision and other groups in the development lobby echo chamber, GGW has been advocating for various amendments to DC's Comprehensive Plan. Among the "smart growth" amendments are those that would de-emphasize DC's traffic calming program for local streets and reduce the weight given to traffic and pedestrian safety impacts in the Comp Plan and zoning decisions made pursuant to its provisions.

[Anonymous]

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

You mean the "Urbanists"?

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all "gee whiz!!" about "transit" without being actually willing to address the issues that face people trying to drop off kids, get to work, and get home again at a decent hour.

I have kids who do tons of stuff and much of that stuff relies on the mechanics of a city & region that GGW discusses at length.

We live close in in a walkable neighborhood so my kids are able to walk to school and many of their activities and because we are close in we have short commutes. My biggest quality of life issues come from traffic and dangerous and aggressive driving from the folks who made different choices but expect the rest of us to accommodate them.

GGW often discusses how to make those lifestyle choices easier and available to more people so I have no idea how the blog doesn't address the issues that you claim it overlooks - as a DC resident it very much matters to our family what sort of transit and biking and walking options we have available to us in DC as we rely on those things every day.

If you want to start a blog about sitting in traffic and cul-de-sac architecture and suburban road design feel free to.

On DCUM urbanites and suburbanites (though why all the suburbanites are on here always eludes me) squabble endlessly about their lifestyle choices.

Well thanks for showing your cards. You made the "choice" to live in a walkable neighborhood where those nasty cars are your biggest problem; the people who have to drive to get to work from the suburbs have made "different choices."

Let them eat cake, in other words?

Nope - let them deal with the consequences of their choices and follow the rules along the way. Lot of the folks cutting through my neighborhood can afford to live in it they just choose not to. Which is fine but I shouldn't have have a stream of cars speeding down my street because they need to make up time.

So you know the incomes and family situations of everyone who commutes through your neighborhood? I don't think so. I mean, I live on the Hill and dislike the cut-through traffic too, but I'm hardly so dense as to think that the people driving in from Landover could have just bought a $900,000 rowhouse instead. One could equally say you're living with the consequences of choosing to live in an urban neighborhood.

Nope - what I know is the law applies to everyone. I'm also pretty sure the folks flying down my street in Range Rovers and Beamers could have made different choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite GGW post was when a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the Four Mile Run trail and -- instead of condemning the cyclist, as they do for automobile drivers -- they tried to frame it around whether "on your left!" really works. Some commenters blamed the pedestrian.

https://ggwash.org/view/28013/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-does-calling-on-your-left-not-work

Last year, when another cyclist killed a pedestrian in Downtown DC, there was more pedestrian-blaming and cries of "we can't assign blame until the investigation is complete!" If it had been a car driver who killed the pedestrian, GGW would have screamed that the driver should get the electric chair, no investigation needed:

https://ggwash.org/view/62794/a-tragic-reminder-keeping-our-streets-safe-is-on-all-of-us

They are just so remarkably tin-eared on many, many issues.

That is your take away? We all get it - you like to drive. And it's ok for some vehicular deaths as collateral damage for your driving.

But we can't discuss how to mitigate collateral deaths in other contexts? Which is what both pieces do?

No, my takeaway is that blaming the pedestrian is an awful, awful look for a group of people who present themselves as saints.

I don't drive, sorry.

Neither article blames the pedestrian - both talk about how can we more safely manage shared spaces.

And Cassandra I'm sure I've seen you driving your Mini around the hood? Or did I imagine that?

Who is Cassandra? Protip: if you think all of your online critics are the same person, you look pretty silly.

Oh dear. I'm embarrassed for you. And it's made even worse by the "protip" snark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Who will save Ward 3 from gentrification!

As you know rent controlled units are a tiny percentage of the cities affordable housing stock.

As you also know Ward 3 contains very few of the cities affordable housing units.

As you also know Ward 3 has had very little new housing built in the last 30 years and was down zoned in previous Comp Plan cycles because the NIMBY's found an ally in Phil "Being There" Mendelson.

You are spouting non-sense and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Who will save Ward 3 from gentrification!

As you know rent controlled units are a tiny percentage of the cities affordable housing stock.

As you also know Ward 3 contains very few of the cities affordable housing units.

As you also know Ward 3 has had very little new housing built in the last 30 years and was down zoned in previous Comp Plan cycles because the NIMBY's found an ally in Phil "Being There" Mendelson.

You are spouting non-sense and you know it.

Upper NW has the least amout of affordable units in the city. Rent controlled units are not based on a persons income, so soemoen could be making 100k and have a rent controlled apartment for years. Thats not an efficient way to deliver affordable units to the people who need them most. But that woudl mean lower income people might move into Upper NW and thats the real concern from a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite GGW post was when a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the Four Mile Run trail and -- instead of condemning the cyclist, as they do for automobile drivers -- they tried to frame it around whether "on your left!" really works. Some commenters blamed the pedestrian.

https://ggwash.org/view/28013/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-does-calling-on-your-left-not-work

Last year, when another cyclist killed a pedestrian in Downtown DC, there was more pedestrian-blaming and cries of "we can't assign blame until the investigation is complete!" If it had been a car driver who killed the pedestrian, GGW would have screamed that the driver should get the electric chair, no investigation needed:

https://ggwash.org/view/62794/a-tragic-reminder-keeping-our-streets-safe-is-on-all-of-us

They are just so remarkably tin-eared on many, many issues.

That is your take away? We all get it - you like to drive. And it's ok for some vehicular deaths as collateral damage for your driving.

But we can't discuss how to mitigate collateral deaths in other contexts? Which is what both pieces do?

No, my takeaway is that blaming the pedestrian is an awful, awful look for a group of people who present themselves as saints.

I don't drive, sorry.

Neither article blames the pedestrian - both talk about how can we more safely manage shared spaces.

And Cassandra I'm sure I've seen you driving your Mini around the hood? Or did I imagine that?

Who is Cassandra? Protip: if you think all of your online critics are the same person, you look pretty silly.

Oh dear. I'm embarrassed for you. And it's made even worse by the "protip" snark.

Uh ,,, ok. Protip: Often times when you think you're being clever, you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Who will save Ward 3 from gentrification!

As you know rent controlled units are a tiny percentage of the cities affordable housing stock.

As you also know Ward 3 contains very few of the cities affordable housing units.

As you also know Ward 3 has had very little new housing built in the last 30 years and was down zoned in previous Comp Plan cycles because the NIMBY's found an ally in Phil "Being There" Mendelson.

You are spouting non-sense and you know it.

Ok well, how about the facts of what PP asserted? Will the proposed plan increase affordable housing for people who need it, or not? PP seemed to make a good argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Who will save Ward 3 from gentrification!

As you know rent controlled units are a tiny percentage of the cities affordable housing stock.

As you also know Ward 3 contains very few of the cities affordable housing units.

As you also know Ward 3 has had very little new housing built in the last 30 years and was down zoned in previous Comp Plan cycles because the NIMBY's found an ally in Phil "Being There" Mendelson.

You are spouting non-sense and you know it.

Ok well, how about the facts of what PP asserted? Will the proposed plan increase affordable housing for people who need it, or not? PP seemed to make a good argument.

No - PP is conflating "rent control" and "affordable housing." They are different concepts, and PP is using a bait and switch to argue that Ward 3 has its fair share of affordable housing. That's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

Really? How many women with kids and daycare drop=offs blog there? Low-income workers who drive in from the suburbs? Disabled people reliant on cars? Section 8 voucher users?