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.

Can you elaborate on why you see them as "failure to launch"? What I see in them does not comport with my understanding of that phrase.

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.

Some of them are too dumb to know any better and some of them are insincere.

Ask Alex Baca what she thinks of Black churchgoers. I've actually heard her talk about them after a few drinks. She's a horrifically racist ghoul.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

One of the WP-CP commissioners stopped using the established neighborhood list serv and now only communicates with “his” constituents through a private email list.

You are allowed to sign up for the emails.

I know I did, and I am not even a 3C resident.

The listserv is a cesspool of groupthink that is highly moderated to project a certain viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

One of the WP-CP commissioners stopped using the established neighborhood list serv and now only communicates with “his” constituents through a private email list.

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

Anonymous wrote:At a recent meeting about a trash enclosure in Woodley Park, one of the commissioners said something like "We already know what we're going to do, so we don't need to hear from you." How's that for serving consituents?

Anonymous wrote:The people in the picture also didn't defend their tweet and apologized for it.

It was a year ago. Time to move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

So mature of them. And GGW and Smart Growth endorsed then all!

Because they support safety changes on a busy street. Are you for a dangerous street? Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.

So mature of them. And GGW and Smart Growth endorsed then all!

Anonymous wrote:This is part of the problem if commissioners distinguish between constituents and constituents that elected them. Once elected, commissioners are supposed to represent all constituents. Not sure many of them understand that.