Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do people make of Greater Greater Washington? Is it a blog or is it a local news source? I used to think it was a good source of updates on local events and such but it politically leans pretty far left. I suppose most publications around here would be.

I know the Elrich people hate it and call it fake news. I am no fan of Elrich, but I'm not sure if the enemy of my enemy is my friend here. I'm not sure if it's meant to be local buzz a la Washingtonian Magazine or if it's a politically motivated blog.

With the exception of the news links, it is an opinion blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's one source among many to get local news if you're interested in housing & transit. But it can't be your only source. And a lot of the bloggers lack any sort of realistic perspective and are just naive "gee gosh the streetcar is nifty!" types, and are completely blind to the fact that transit systems have to serve more people than affluent, able 20-somethings with no kids ...

Uh, most the contributors are not affluent at all, and most of the contributors have young kids now and are writing about that evolution in their perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to hear Bowser talk about developers as if they are oppressed. DC has to have one of the most developer-friendly codes in the country.

Bowser has said that she’s open to requiring civic groups that challenge a development non environmental or historic preservation groups to post a large bond and to set up a taxpayer financed defense fund for developers. If that doesn’t tell you that, for reasons we can only assume, she is shills and whores for big development, than what does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

Increasing density adds more units, thus supply to try to come close to matching demand, so yes, more affordable. And adding that density means adding more tax base, which is necessary to ensure there is enough money for things that make the city livable, like decent schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100% pro developer. They want to build more homes/dwelling units for more people. How about building schools for some of those people? Nothing. Or recreation centers or parks/green space (an urban pocket park doesn't count) or even police or fire stations. Nope, jothering. Just housing. Because that is how the developers who fund the site make a living.

There are plenty of schools and most of them have plenty of open seats. It is only the Ward 3 schools that are over subscribed. Change the boundaries and you won't need more school buildings. There are plenty of rec centers, and even new ones being proposed, like at Hearst, are fought tooth and nail, adding expense and time to the burden. There are plenty of parks and green space. even two rivers and a big wooded valley through NW DC and a big wooded valley through NE DC on the East End. Plenty of police and fire stations too, well covered and funded, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

Actually no. You can add density without displacing people by focusing on infill development. Someone sold the three bedroom house and made a killing to make way for that new condo building. No one forced them to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is totally true about DC too, which is becoming a theme part for young, rich, childless adults:

Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell. It’s a coast-to-coast trend: In Washington, D.C., the overall population has grown more than 20 percent this century, but the number of children under the age of 18 has declined. Meanwhile, San Francisco has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.

Warmed over Kotkin.

Holding down supply, making it MORE expensive, would not keep families in cities.

I mean you could tax brunch I suppose.

You COULD, as some suggested, encourage more large units. But the number of large units, both houses and apts, occupied by roommate groups suggests that won't work - and that large units are taken by singles because there are not enough small units.

Replacing single-family homes with condos favors childless adults over parents -- it basically tells people with kids to go somewhere else.

No its not. There are childless couples in SFH rowhouses in DC, and there are roommate groups in them. And of course families with kids in condos and apts.

And of course upzoning does not require replacement - at most it allows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My big issue is David Alpert's hypocrisy. GGW says we need to get automobiles off the road ... except for David Alpert, who owns a car. GGW says we need more density near transit stations ... except for David Alpert, who lives in a single-family home two blocks from the Dupont Metro station, something his blog has railed against for years now. Doesn't apply to him, though. GGW says we need to take away power from ANCs, who are filled with retired busybodies with nothing else to do in their lives but complain. David Alpert, who holds no discernible job, gets to spend his days complaining in front of various DC committees because ... why? Because he knows better than everyone else? Because he's rich?

And the claim that GGW isn't pro-developer doesn't hold water, considering they take funding from developers.

I think you have a personal axe to grind. I don't think anyone, including GGW is suggesting no one should own cars. What they are supporting is transportation improvements and alternative so people have a CHOICE to live car-light or car-free. There is a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to hear Bowser talk about developers as if they are oppressed. DC has to have one of the most developer-friendly codes in the country.

Bowser has said that she’s open to requiring civic groups that challenge a development non environmental or historic preservation groups to post a large bond and to set up a taxpayer financed defense fund for developers. If that doesn’t tell you that, for reasons we can only assume, she is shills and whores for big development, than what does?

The context are groups associated with two particular attorneys that engage in more or less frivolous lawsuits against any dense development.

And not to fight for existing homes - they do so when the development is on vacant land (which they invariably call a park, even if its never been open to the public)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My big issue is David Alpert's hypocrisy. GGW says we need to get automobiles off the road ... except for David Alpert, who owns a car. GGW says we need more density near transit stations ... except for David Alpert, who lives in a single-family home two blocks from the Dupont Metro station, something his blog has railed against for years now. Doesn't apply to him, though. GGW says we need to take away power from ANCs, who are filled with retired busybodies with nothing else to do in their lives but complain. David Alpert, who holds no discernible job, gets to spend his days complaining in front of various DC committees because ... why? Because he knows better than everyone else? Because he's rich?

And the claim that GGW isn't pro-developer doesn't hold water, considering they take funding from developers.

I think you have a personal axe to grind. I don't think anyone, including GGW is suggesting no one should own cars. What they are supporting is transportation improvements and alternative so people have a CHOICE to live car-light or car-free. There is a big difference.

Exaggerating your opponents position to argue against it is a standard trope in this town. See people claiming AOC would ban meat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people make of Greater Greater Washington? Is it a blog or is it a local news source? I used to think it was a good source of updates on local events and such but it politically leans pretty far left. I suppose most publications around here would be.

I know the Elrich people hate it and call it fake news. I am no fan of Elrich, but I'm not sure if the enemy of my enemy is my friend here. I'm not sure if it's meant to be local buzz a la Washingtonian Magazine or if it's a politically motivated blog.

With the exception of the news links, it is an opinion blog.

Some of the other columns are completely informational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to hear Bowser talk about developers as if they are oppressed. DC has to have one of the most developer-friendly codes in the country.

Bowser has said that she’s open to requiring civic groups that challenge a development non environmental or historic preservation groups to post a large bond and to set up a taxpayer financed defense fund for developers. If that doesn’t tell you that, for reasons we can only assume, she is shills and whores for big development, than what does?

That is how many other places do it. There are way too many frivolous lawsuits and challenges to otherwise reasonable development. The people who held up "Cathedral Commons" for over a decade or the people who are holding up McMillan, now for almost ten years, is a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% pro developer. They want to build more homes/dwelling units for more people. How about building schools for some of those people? Nothing. Or recreation centers or parks/green space (an urban pocket park doesn't count) or even police or fire stations. Nope, jothering. Just housing. Because that is how the developers who fund the site make a living.

There are plenty of schools and most of them have plenty of open seats. It is only the Ward 3 schools that are over subscribed. Change the boundaries and you won't need more school buildings. There are plenty of rec centers, and even new ones being proposed, like at Hearst, are fought tooth and nail, adding expense and time to the burden. There are plenty of parks and green space. even two rivers and a big wooded valley through NW DC and a big wooded valley through NE DC on the East End. Plenty of police and fire stations too, well covered and funded, thanks.

Plenty of schools! Plenty of open seats! Ha. You obviously don't have kids. The reason there are schools with "plenty of open seats" is because they are such terrible schools that no one wants to send their kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

But wait! Who is moving into those condos? People from the suburbs of course. That then opens up spots in their old places in the suburbs, which is great if you want to live in Manassas, although I thought the point of increasing density in the city is to create affordable housing in the city, and not in some far-off suburb.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

Increasing density adds more units, thus supply to try to come close to matching demand, so yes, more affordable. And adding that density means adding more tax base, which is necessary to ensure there is enough money for things that make the city livable, like decent schools.

We’ve seen a lot of density added - 13000 new units alone in the last fiscal year according to CBRE - yet they mostly seem to be high end studios and one bedrooms. When does the affordability start ?