Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

I don't live in a city. I live in an area with a bunch of farms, but YIMBYs are trying to rezone and pave over the entire county that I live in. There is not a single upzoning proposal that these people don't like. I don't buy their BS about moving people, this is a ridiculous flippant comment telling me to move because you want to change the area other people live in (where you don't live). You have no right to change the community for everyone else because you don't like it. If you don't like the place you can move somewhere else. Oh right I forgot, you already don't live here and you are trying to force this on other people when no one that lives in my rural community actually wants it. That is circular reasoning, there will be no where to move to if YIMBYs have their way and destroy everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Crime goes down when more people have legitimate options for a life relatively free of desperation.

Stable affordable/attainable housing can be a part of expanding those options, but would need to be part of a more holistic solution set, including food security, employment, education and healthcare. This doesn't mean the housing needs to be a particular type or in particular locations (the great debate in the current moment), but sufficiency of the one and accessibility of the other (either current or coincident with housing availability) to those items in the set of needs would be necessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Crime goes down when more people have legitimate options for a life relatively free of desperation.

Stable affordable/attainable housing can be a part of expanding those options, but would need to be part of a more holistic solution set, including food security, employment, education and healthcare. This doesn't mean the housing needs to be a particular type or in particular locations (the great debate in the current moment), but sufficiency of the one and accessibility of the other (either current or coincident with housing availability) to those items in the set of needs would be necessary.

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad that someone bumped this throwback thread. Some people knew exactly what was going to happen, even thought the county sold it as no big deal.

Now the corridor plans and AH plans are here without any details or guardrails yet again, and we are supposed to trust planning and the council?

Maybe the lawsuit shouldn’t be about attainable housing initiative, it should be about Thrive.

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad that someone bumped this throwback thread. Some people knew exactly what was going to happen, even thought the county sold it as no big deal.

Now the corridor plans and AH plans are here without any details or guardrails yet again, and we are supposed to trust planning and the council?

Maybe the lawsuit shouldn’t be about attainable housing initiative, it should be about Thrive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.