Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

What words and phrases start with ‘B’ ?

Big developers;

Bribes; and

Bowser.

[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.

Why doesn’t DC require that development projects above a certain size pay into an infrastructure fund, to pay for additional school capacity, playgrounds and transportation infrastructure? This is what many jurisdictions, whether urban or suburban, require. But you won’t see Bowser and the Office of Planning proposing it. Indeed, OP has proposed cutting language in the comprehensive plan that requires the capacity and impact on infrastructure to be considered in approving development. But what Bowser and OP care about is cutting developer costs and increasing their profits.

[Anonymous]

They take money from Metro, don’t disclose it, and mysteriously have nothing to say about the shitshow it has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...as long as they advance the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...as long as they advance the agenda.

Which agenda is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...as long as they advance the agenda.

Which agenda is that?

More laissez faire big development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...as long as they advance the agenda.

Which agenda is that?

More laissez faire big development.

No, they are not laissez faire. Nor do they support every development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why doesn’t DC require that development projects above a certain size pay into an infrastructure fund, to pay for additional school capacity, playgrounds and transportation infrastructure? This is what many jurisdictions, whether urban or suburban, require. But you won’t see Bowser and the Office of Planning proposing it. Indeed, OP has proposed cutting language in the comprehensive plan that requires the capacity and impact on infrastructure to be considered in approving development. But what Bowser and OP care about is cutting developer costs and increasing their profits.

Duh - that is what taxes are.

And people who live in dense developments pay much more in taxes than they collect in city services.

DC hasn't done a great job on improving transportation infrastructure but that is because Mendelson won't fund it.

But on schools, parks/rec centers, water and electric infra, fire stations and even roads DC has been spending gobs of money on all of them the last 10 years. And DC is able to spend all of that money because it has a growing tax base enabled by new & dense housing.

[Anonymous]

I have news for you, GGW is also pushing their pro-developer agenda on Montgomery County where we have many overcrowded schools I believe the last count I saw was 100, and many of those are severely overcrowded. All we hear about from GGW is that we need more housing! Nothing about schools for all the students that will move to their new housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Making up for years of slow construction and increasing demand.

But yes, new units are going to be high end. Adding luxury touches is not that costly and commands a premium in the market. You get affordable units out of new development when they draw people from older buildings, which become more affordable - and from committed AH units as part of IZ.

And they are small units because that is what demand is for.

[Anonymous]

Look do you want this area to grow or die those are your choices

If you aren't in favor of development you don't have any common sense

Now that we agree this area needs to continue to grow the question is how

Suburban sprawl just adds to traffic and destroys the environment

So adding more mass transit and growth centered in these areas is common sense

Any questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look do you want this area to grow or die those are your choices

If you aren't in favor of development you don't have any common sense

Now that we agree this area needs to continue to grow the question is how

Suburban sprawl just adds to traffic and destroys the environment

So adding more mass transit and growth centered in these areas is common sense

Any questions?

Building more and more sleek efficiency and one bedroom apartments/condos in DC (few developers want to build three bedroom apartments) will have negligible impact on suburban sprawl. The regional housing market is highly segmented. Those who need the space - or simply seek a modest standalone house with a modest yard for two kids and a dog - are not going to consider The Lofts at Upscale Commons, no matter what fusion fast casual dining options await nearby.

[Anonymous]

Why does it seem like there is one person in this thread who writes for GGW and is relentlessly defending their agenda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The regional housing market is highly segmented.

Not as much as you think. Lots of people choose between a unit in DC and one in the inner suburbs. Some people looking at condos in DC are suburban empty nesters who might stay far into sprawl land otherwise. And many people in houses (and large apts) in DC are groups of roommates, who might free up those units if there were more small units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it seem like there is one person in this thread who writes for GGW and is relentlessly defending their agenda?

There are at least two, maybe more. And probably no more than one or two relentlessly attacking GGWash.