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

[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.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

[Anonymous]

Now GGW’s business editorial model is to let Trump functionaries cynically write that more and more upscale development somehow will advance diversity, equity and inclusion. How rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

And GGWash goes to some laughable lengths to hide this. Their endorsement of Nadeau failed to note that her husband served on the GGWash board until people (properly) called them out for their shadiness, and even then they only added a very cursory note after like three days of people teeing off on them. And his bio on the GGWash website only says he "lives with his wife and children in Park View," without naming her.

DC Smart Growth has hired MAGA political operatives to steer it. Is it any surprise that GGW tries to conceal conflicts of interest and dirty money sources of funding?

You are going to have to name names and associations to back this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

There is and was never any association between the founder of the GGW blog and CSG/Piedmont. That is simply a lie. And the guy with the blog was one of the early computer scientists at Google, so their funding sources were their own.

Please just stop with the lies and besmirching of bootstrap organizations that actually have advocates that care about our region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

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.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

LOL, there were none because it was a self funded enterprise/hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

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.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

I'm really not sure how this discussion progresses when I am asking for information and you are calling names.

Here are some sources about the origin and funding of GGWASH. Do you have anything that disputes them or adds another color? Again, anything at all linking them to PEC?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/
https://ggwash.org/view/87759/a-look-at-ggwashs-2023-budget-forecast-and-how-you-can-help
https://ggwash.org/view/70367/state-of-ggwash-a-lot-has-been-changing-sustainable-future

There is nothing in these articles that indicate any relationship between GGW and CSG.

I hope the person who keeps falsely asserting it stops.

And, as I posted just before, and as indicated in the 2019 GGW article above, before 2015, GGW was a self funded hobby.

[Anonymous]

I remain very confused and intrigues by the assertion that GGW was founded by PEC.

That is just so very bizarre...and wholly without evidence. I'm perplexed by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You astroturfers need to translate your babble into English if you want whatever you are propagandizing to convince people.

Accusing the people who won elections of not actually being popular maks you look a little silly.

This argument falls flat. Many of the GGW ANC chairs ran unopposed and voters weren't paying attention. They are now extremely unpopular and started off on the wrong foot by flipping off the very constituents who elected them.

[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.

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

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remain very confused and intrigues by the assertion that GGW was founded by PEC.

That is just so very bizarre...and wholly without evidence. I'm perplexed by it.

Simple explanation: The poster got confused between Organization They Hate #1 and Organization They Hate #2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GGW people: out doing stuff
people weirdly obsessed with GGW: complaining anonymously on an internet message board

Also GGW: on same internet board complaining anonymously about people complaining anonymously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

Good. Will be glad to see Nadeau re-elected again in 2026.

If she survives the recall vote.

Did the recall even get enough signatures? I haven't heard anything about it since like March.

Nice try. It can't launch until Jan.

[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.

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

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

So by this I assume you are referring to electeds who have some connections to GGW, not the organization as a whole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

They have no respect for their constituents. They are carpetbagging, failure-to-launch types who want to turn Ward 3 in to Neverneverland.

So by this I assume you are referring to electeds who have some connections to GGW, not the organization as a whole?

They are an extension of the organization. The organization wants to impose changes to Ward 3 that are not needed or wanted. Take Connecticut Ave for example. It already has a bus route and metro route. There's no shortage of public transit options. There are parallel bike lanes in Rock Creek Park. And say you throw all of that out the door, there's still no evidence of demand for bike lanes. But what we do know is that the businesses that would be affected by the bike lanes don't want them. Greater density. Who in Ward 3 want this? People live in Ward 3, pay higher property taxes, etc. to escape the density. Beyond that, many of the existing multifamily units struggle to find tenants. So I see GGW as trying to ruin Ward 3.