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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Huh? Are you saying all of this about GGWASH?

Because...no: https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/

The Piedmont Environmental Center runs the Coalition for Smart Growth. They are also intricately tied with helping GGW get started. Prior to 2015, PEC managed GGWs finances and filed 990s on their behalf. Only after 2015 did GGW actually legally exist as its own entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Huh? Are you saying all of this about GGWASH?

Because...no: https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/

The Piedmont Environmental Center runs the Coalition for Smart Growth. They are also intricately tied with helping GGW get started. Prior to 2015, PEC managed GGWs finances and filed 990s on their behalf. Only after 2015 did GGW actually legally exist as its own entity.

Any chance you want to provide any cites/sources for your claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Huh? Are you saying all of this about GGWASH?

Because...no: https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/

The Piedmont Environmental Center runs the Coalition for Smart Growth. They are also intricately tied with helping GGW get started. Prior to 2015, PEC managed GGWs finances and filed 990s on their behalf. Only after 2015 did GGW actually legally exist as its own entity.

I see absolutely no evidence of a tie between PEC and GGWASH. And this thread contains other sources that explain the founding of GGWASH.

In fact if you google PEC and GGWASH the ONLY thing that comes up tying them together is this thread...

[Anonymous]

Who is funding the other smart growth so-called “groups”? Some of them were created by political consultants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Huh? Are you saying all of this about GGWASH?

Because...no: https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/

The Piedmont Environmental Center runs the Coalition for Smart Growth. They are also intricately tied with helping GGW get started. Prior to 2015, PEC managed GGWs finances and filed 990s on their behalf. Only after 2015 did GGW actually legally exist as its own entity.

This is false. GGW was started by a guy who went after some grants and grew it into its own non-profit. Piedmont is the conduit for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. There is no relationship between GGW and CSG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is funding the other smart growth so-called “groups”? Some of them were created by political consultants.

Do you have a specific question about a specific group?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

Because they live rent-free in your head. That's a you thing. Evict them from your head, if it bothers you.

[Anonymous]

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.

There's also a growing pushback to the YIMBY movement, which is just trickle-down economics -- which has never worked, ever -- gussied up as "filtering."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

There's also a growout amount of study that shows upzoning doesn't work:

https://betterdwelling.com/broad-upzoning-makes-housing-less-affordable-and-doesnt-add-supply/

"Growing amount of study" and then proceeds to post a link to an opinion article that doesn't cite a goddamn thing and uses a red herring of a tear down to build two SFH rather than what is actually typically proposed which is a tear down to build a freaking multiplex apt building. What a perfect DCUM post! LOL.

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because they live rent-free in your head. That's a you thing. Evict them from your head, if it bothers you.

Maybe the GGW Dirty Dozen funders can simply collude to raise the rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because they live rent-free in your head. That's a you thing. Evict them from your head, if it bothers you.

Maybe the GGW Dirty Dozen funders can simply collude to raise the rent.

That's up to you, isn't it? It's your head.

[Anonymous]

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.

There's also a growing pushback to the YIMBY movement, which is just trickle-down economics -- which has never worked, ever -- gussied up as "filtering."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

There's also a growout amount of study that shows upzoning doesn't work:

https://betterdwelling.com/broad-upzoning-makes-housing-less-affordable-and-doesnt-add-supply/

"Growing amount of study" and then proceeds to post a link to an opinion article that doesn't cite a goddamn thing and uses a red herring of a tear down to build two SFH rather than what is actually typically proposed which is a tear down to build a freaking multiplex apt building. What a perfect DCUM post! LOL.

How about this one: "As such, I demonstrate that the short-term, local-level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices but no additional new housing construction."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb