GGWash?

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of dislike for GGWash.org on this forum.

I'm new here - wondering why folks don't like them...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of dislike for GGWash.org on this forum.

I'm new here - wondering why folks don't like them...

They are all the kids who went away to college and came back and ruined everyone's Thanksgiving with their smug know-it-all attitudes.

[Anonymous]

Personal opinion here...

I think just the narrow perspective they offer regarding the dynamics of the places we live, where we've invested a great deal of personal and financial effort in many cases, and the arrogance with which they deliver it.

Plus, and this is my personal opinion, they've fallen in with the recent social trends that tend to taint reasonable discussion about what the right decision is today. I really dislike that some of their commentary sounds like developer press releases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of dislike for GGWash.org on this forum.

I'm new here - wondering why folks don't like them...

They are all the kids who went away to college and came back and ruined everyone's Thanksgiving with their smug know-it-all attitudes.

Best. Description. Ever.

[Anonymous]

I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:<b>I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. <b> Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

With regard to the way historical designation works in DC, I resent that neighbors DON'T have a say in allowing change to the character of their neighborhoods. I have appreciated GGWash coverage of the messed up, any application gets approved, process in DC.

[Anonymous]

It’s local Vox. Even on the issue of transportation, which it frequently diverges from into every other leftist issue, you’re much better off reading any other local source.

Better are often the actually studies for a particular project that they reference and sometimes link. You’ll then notice that what they say or spin isn’t even close to what was actually said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

"Character" us often code for 'keeping it white and rich" - that may not apply to you, but it does for many in DC and the region. You may have more altruistic reasons, but for many, the idea that the rich people have their nice neighborhoods and want to preclude new development (where it is legal) to keep others out is a red flag.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that anyone who disagrees with them (high density everywhere), they label as a racist, bigot, NIMBY.

And, that these know-it-all GGWs are funded by developers, who have a vested interest in building, building, building, and tax payer exemptions/incentives only help line the developers wallets, not County citizens/DC residents. The developers have created their own lobbying group dressed up as concerned citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<b>I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. <b> Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

With regard to the way historical designation works in DC, I resent that neighbors DON'T have a say in allowing change to the character of their neighborhoods. I have appreciated GGWash coverage of the messed up, any application gets approved, process in DC.

Neighbors have all sorts of say, both individually and through their ANC and Councilmembers. But having a say doesn't mean you get to exert a taking on someone else's property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that anyone who disagrees with them (high density everywhere), they label as a racist, bigot, NIMBY.

And, that these know-it-all GGWs are funded by developers, who have a vested interest in building, building, building, and tax payer exemptions/incentives only help line the developers wallets, not County citizens/DC residents. The developers have created their own lobbying group dressed up as concerned citizens.

The people already wanted this, the developers are hopping on. Just because the baby boomers wanted single family homes like the ones their parents bought in the post war era, doesn't mean that was the best set of decisions to make for a sustainable future. I, for one, am on older person, who appreciates that the Millennials and Gen Z are on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

"Character" us often code for 'keeping it white and rich" - that may not apply to you, but it does for many in DC and the region. You may have more altruistic reasons, but for many, the idea that the rich people have their nice neighborhoods and want to preclude new development (where it is legal) to keep others out is a red flag.

How "many?" How do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<b>I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. <b> Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.

With regard to the way historical designation works in DC, I resent that neighbors DON'T have a say in allowing change to the character of their neighborhoods. I have appreciated GGWash coverage of the messed up, any application gets approved, process in DC.

Neighbors have all sorts of say, both individually and through their ANC and Councilmembers. But having a say doesn't mean you get to exert a taking on someone else's property.

Meh, and the Office of Planning and Historical Preservation Board will do whatever it wants regardless. Been through this, didn't mean a hoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that anyone who disagrees with them (high density everywhere), they label as a racist, bigot, NIMBY.

And, that these know-it-all GGWs are funded by developers, who have a vested interest in building, building, building, and tax payer exemptions/incentives only help line the developers wallets, not County citizens/DC residents. The developers have created their own lobbying group dressed up as concerned citizens.

The people already wanted this, the developers are hopping on. Just because the baby boomers wanted single family homes like the ones their parents bought in the post war era, doesn't mean that was the best set of decisions to make for a sustainable future. I, for one, am on older person, who appreciates that the Millennials and Gen Z are on this.

Millennials prefer single family homes just like their baby boomer parents. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But it is true that the margin of difference in preferences is very small.

[Anonymous]

For the most part, I like the site, especially the contributors who do interesting things with data. I also think that the overriding thesis of the project is more or less right.

What the people who write things like "they just want more housing because they can't afford the hippest neighborhoods" are missing is that the main reasons these neighborhoods are popular are entirely factors under our control. We can afford to build neighborhoods with the amenities and lifestyles that people want and that are also sustainable. In fact, absent regulatory differences, denser neighborhoods are actually much more affordable to build and maintain. The only reason that we don't build such neighborhoods, and the only reason that they are more expensive, is that we allow individual existing homeowners more influence than the generations of residents that will deal with the consequences of these decisions in the future. The neighborhoods that result are unsustainable. We spent decades making poor planning choices by being short-sighted in this way, and now we're stuck trying to shoehorn in a liveable lifestyle amidst the world we built that doesn't involve spending our entire lives in our cars or destroying the planet. I don't think it's a bad thing that GGWash is pointing that out.

The people who I find most annoying are people who pretend that retaining the status quo somehow isn't making a decision while changing anything is, or that only current owners have the right to have their opinions count. Every neighborhood layout in this city and in virtually every metro is the result of deliberate planning and regulation by central authorities. There is no natural law here; the individual rights that we have over our own property only exist because they have been granted after the planning was complete, and within the scope of that planning. We can and should all lobby and vote for what we want, but what other authority does any of us have to say that governments should listen to some citizens more than others when it comes time to augment those plans?

And claiming that allowing the status quo isn't making a choice is like claiming that trolley problems just aren't problems. As if it doesn't really matter what harm comes to others as long as we didn't touch the zoning laws to make it so. Total BS.

I agree that the site could be more transparent about their funding sources and their relationships to developers. It takes money to keep the lights on everywhere, and nobody really donates the big bucks for free, but I think that GGWash makes itself an easy target sometimes because it's easy to paint as being a mouthpiece.

Before anyone asks, I own a house in a very hip neighborhood, thanks.