anyone else dislike Greater Greater Washington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Still haven't figured it out, huh? That's OK. You shouldn't feel bad. The world needs ditch diggers, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rent control is affordable housing. The question is whether the tenant could pay more - but there's no question its affordable housing. I seriously doubt there are a lot of 1%ers living in rent controlled NW one-bedroom apartments. But if there are, go ahead and show me the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Still haven't figured it out, huh? That's OK. You shouldn't feel bad. The world needs ditch diggers, too.

I know who the mythical figure "Cassandra" is. I also know you used it in a stupid ham-handed way that fell completely flat. So yay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah, that's a pretty laughable claim. It's almost entirely a small group of entitled white people who insist they know best for everyone.

Alpert and many GGW contributors owning cars yet publishing article after article on the evils of car ownership is the essence of hypocrisy. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW thinks everyone should live in places like NoMA ah no thank you

GGW doesn't "think" anything.

It a blog about urban issues in DC with a wide range of different contributors, some of whom disagree with one another.

Many of the contributors do have expertise in the areas they write about though and almost all are personally involved in the issues they post about.

What do you care anyhow? Don't read it if you aren't interested.

nope they are the poster child for "smart growth" which is making mini manhattans at every metro stop in the region

I care because plenty of people in government actually take them seriously

It actually makes sense to have mini-manhattans around each of the of the Metro stations. The region has invested billions of dollars in metro, why not focus population density where it is easiest to use it and provide a car-free option to residents in the region.

If you want to live a car-dependent lifestyle, no one is stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, that's nuts!! No wonder it's so skewed towards "urbanism" that really just makes pretty amenities for people who can afford to live in Dupont ....

Are there any transportation/growth/development websites that are actually geared towards helping the region as a whole?

GGW is geared toward the issues you identify region wide - please go read the blog since apparently you have not.

And "urbanism" is something available to, and utilized by, people throughout our region, not just those in Dupont. And Dupont is a dumb reference point to drop as very little development has happened there in the last 50 years but I get that it is threatening to you for some odd reason.

I'd like to see more writers of color, women, working people, represented on the blog. If you live in Dupont and work from home while your wife takes care of your kid, you have VERY little perspective on what kind of transit and development would be helpful to everyone else in the region. Hint: it's not bike lanes.

Over the years, there have been a wide variety of viewpoints and all of the contributors are people who use mass transit and ride bikes over driving cars as a preference. Not sure your point, they are all working professionals who write in their spare time.

[Anonymous]

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?

If you chose to live somewhere where you have to drive to get your kids to school or to get milk, then that is your choice. No one wants to subsidize your choice, just like you don't want to subsidize mass transit for those who made other choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW thinks everyone should live in places like NoMA ah no thank you

GGW doesn't "think" anything.

It a blog about urban issues in DC with a wide range of different contributors, some of whom disagree with one another.

Many of the contributors do have expertise in the areas they write about though and almost all are personally involved in the issues they post about.

What do you care anyhow? Don't read it if you aren't interested.

nope they are the poster child for "smart growth" which is making mini manhattans at every metro stop in the region

I care because plenty of people in government actually take them seriously

It actually makes sense to have mini-manhattans around each of the of the Metro stations. The region has invested billions of dollars in metro, why not focus population density where it is easiest to use it and provide a car-free option to residents in the region.

If you want to live a car-dependent lifestyle, no one is stopping you.

That makes sense, but it hardly solves the overall issues of transit and affordability. And I get the argument that more housing supply of any kind should in theory increase affordability ... but I can't help but be a wee bit skeptical when I see all the new apartment buildings at $3000 for a studio ...

[Anonymous]

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?

If you chose to live somewhere where you have to drive to get your kids to school or to get milk, then that is your choice. No one wants to subsidize your choice, just like you don't want to subsidize mass transit for those who made other choices.

How is it a choice if you can't afford to live in Dupont Circle?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

This is patently false. On many levels. Actually all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, that's nuts!! No wonder it's so skewed towards "urbanism" that really just makes pretty amenities for people who can afford to live in Dupont ....

Are there any transportation/growth/development websites that are actually geared towards helping the region as a whole?

GGW is geared toward the issues you identify region wide - please go read the blog since apparently you have not.

And "urbanism" is something available to, and utilized by, people throughout our region, not just those in Dupont. And Dupont is a dumb reference point to drop as very little development has happened there in the last 50 years but I get that it is threatening to you for some odd reason.

I'd like to see more writers of color, women, working people, represented on the blog. If you live in Dupont and work from home while your wife takes care of your kid, you have VERY little perspective on what kind of transit and development would be helpful to everyone else in the region. Hint: it's not bike lanes.

Over the years, there have been a wide variety of viewpoints and all of the contributors are people who use mass transit and ride bikes over driving cars as a preference. Not sure your point, they are all working professionals who write in their spare time.

my point is that not all residents of "greater greater washington" have the means or ability to chose between forms of transit or just up and move to a "walkable" area.

[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.

No it doesn't. It is about transportation choices including owning a car. That you are reading into it what you are is more of a reflection of your own biases.

[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.

DP but I will suggest that the Comp Plan proposal helps mitigate the reasons why so many PUDs are being held up in court right now. That is what, 4500 housing units including about 500 affordable units. How does that appeals process help the affordable housing crisis? It is holding up the decent for the perfect, which will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, all that you tick off have been represented as writers for the blog in its history. Sorry to disappoint you but they are all Dupont living, latte sipping Milennials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, that's nuts!! No wonder it's so skewed towards "urbanism" that really just makes pretty amenities for people who can afford to live in Dupont ....

Are there any transportation/growth/development websites that are actually geared towards helping the region as a whole?

GGW is geared toward the issues you identify region wide - please go read the blog since apparently you have not.

And "urbanism" is something available to, and utilized by, people throughout our region, not just those in Dupont. And Dupont is a dumb reference point to drop as very little development has happened there in the last 50 years but I get that it is threatening to you for some odd reason.

I'd like to see more writers of color, women, working people, represented on the blog. If you live in Dupont and work from home while your wife takes care of your kid, you have VERY little perspective on what kind of transit and development would be helpful to everyone else in the region. Hint: it's not bike lanes.

Over the years, there have been a wide variety of viewpoints and all of the contributors are people who use mass transit and ride bikes over driving cars as a preference. Not sure your point, they are all working professionals who write in their spare time.

my point is that not all residents of "greater greater washington" have the means or ability to chose between forms of transit or just up and move to a "walkable" area.

Agree. So the point is to work to make more housing and transit options available to more people, which is exactly the point of the blog. They have been focusing efforts on affordable housing, new walkable development around metro etc. And, while advocating for these amenities, they are also amplifying opinions about how to make specific neighborhoods and aras "better" which is where things like bike facilities, safer streets etc come into play.