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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off.  He took them hilariously to task.[/quote]

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.[/quote]

Okay.  Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.[/quote]

Bueller?  Bueller?[/quote]

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC.  They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.  [/quote]

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.[/quote]

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants.  They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development.  For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”[/quote]

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.

But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.[/quote]

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power  and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?[/quote]

Go ask your donors and get back to me.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics