Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growth isn’t just about affordable housing. It’s about vibrancy, diversity, equity, inclusion, and welcoming everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

I read it less as a takedown and more a listing of facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not an ANC 3C resident but you spend your time specifically following a 3C commissioner and a listserv that you dismiss as a “cesspool of groupthink”? Okay.

I used to live in Cleveland Park and still frequent some of the businesses there. Is that a problem for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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.

I think you know not the meaning of the word "gerrymandered" given how you are trying to use it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not an ANC 3C resident but you spend your time specifically following a 3C commissioner and a listserv that you dismiss as a “cesspool of groupthink”? Okay.

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.