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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Nadeau’s husband is a healthcare executive.

Definite conflict of interest given his wife is a council member.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

I'm really not sure how this discussion progresses when I am asking for information and you are calling names.

Here are some sources about the origin and funding of GGWASH. Do you have anything that disputes them or adds another color? Again, anything at all linking them to PEC?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/
https://ggwash.org/view/87759/a-look-at-ggwashs-2023-budget-forecast-and-how-you-can-help
https://ggwash.org/view/70367/state-of-ggwash-a-lot-has-been-changing-sustainable-future

Please post a 990 or financial statement from before 2015. I will wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

I'm really not sure how this discussion progresses when I am asking for information and you are calling names.

Here are some sources about the origin and funding of GGWASH. Do you have anything that disputes them or adds another color? Again, anything at all linking them to PEC?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/
https://ggwash.org/view/87759/a-look-at-ggwashs-2023-budget-forecast-and-how-you-can-help
https://ggwash.org/view/70367/state-of-ggwash-a-lot-has-been-changing-sustainable-future

Please post a 990 or financial statement from before 2015. I will wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

I'm really not sure how this discussion progresses when I am asking for information and you are calling names.

Here are some sources about the origin and funding of GGWASH. Do you have anything that disputes them or adds another color? Again, anything at all linking them to PEC?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/03/08/greater-greater-washington-lost-a-big-chunk-of-its-funding-now-what/
https://ggwash.org/view/87759/a-look-at-ggwashs-2023-budget-forecast-and-how-you-can-help
https://ggwash.org/view/70367/state-of-ggwash-a-lot-has-been-changing-sustainable-future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

You guys have a serious problem with truth, which is why no one trusts you. It’s all lies, dissembling and propaganda.

Why don’t you go and ask GGW for their financial statements prior to 2015?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Do you have anything at all to show that the blog was being run "under the auspices of CSG/PEC"? In fact, can you draw any link between GGWASH and PEC?

This is what the poster originally said:

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

That is false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

What is the “animating purpose” of the Piedmont Environmental Council? You seem to lack reading comprehension because that is clearly what the PPP was referring to. This seems like a very common GGW-type of response to things, which is why I dislike the organization, the people who work there and I find their policy positions suspect. They misrepresent the views of those that disagree with them to the extent that it is an intentional propaganda tactic to lie.

It was a “guy with a blog”, but that blog was being run under the auspices of CSG/PEC. Even worse than this, the “guy with a blog” was never upfront about the financials of his “blog”, including donors and when people would raise these issues in the comments of his blog, he would delete the comments and ban those users.

The issue came to a head where GGWs political lobbying activity was looking extremely unethetical and also compromising CSG/PEC and as a result, they had to finally legally separate. To the current GGW leaderships credit, they have been a lot more transparent about this than the “guy with the blog” ever was.

Here are some of the things that GGW has done in the past that have been obviously dubious:
- Receive money from developers and advocate for those developers projects without disclosure of the financial relationship or disclose the political lobbying
- Receive money from WMATA and advocate for public policy on behalf of more WMATA without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying
- Receive money from docked and undocked bike sharing companies and advocate on behalf of docked and undocked bike sharing without disclosure of the financial relationship or the political lobbying

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this group, but I will say that no nonprofit "has" to publicly disclose their donors; any that do are doing so voluntarily and it's a huge minority of them.

They have a long history of intentionally obfuscating their donors going back to their original founding, when they were basically a dba under the Piedmont Environment Center - which is an organization run by the DuPont’s and other gilded age families that own estates in the Piedmont region. Their entire animating purpose was NIMBYism to prevent development near their estates.

To be fair, it makes more sense to develop infil and in parts of the region where infrastructure already exists than to pave under farms ans gentleman estates in the hinterlands, so even if it is protecting their interests, it still makes sense.

Nothing the poster you are responding to has any basis in fact whatsoever. Please ignore.

The "animating purpose" of GGWASH was just some dude who started a blog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

And GGWash goes to some laughable lengths to hide this. Their endorsement of Nadeau failed to note that her husband served on the GGWash board until people (properly) called them out for their shadiness, and even then they only added a very cursory note after like three days of people teeing off on them. And his bio on the GGWash website only says he "lives with his wife and children in Park View," without naming her.

Can you point to any bio like this one that names the spouse? I think not. It would be highly unusual to do that in a bio, ESPECIALLY to call attention to someone in elected office.

When the group in question is issuing endorsements, you need to disclose this. Why are they trying to bury this fact?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

And GGWash goes to some laughable lengths to hide this. Their endorsement of Nadeau failed to note that her husband served on the GGWash board until people (properly) called them out for their shadiness, and even then they only added a very cursory note after like three days of people teeing off on them. And his bio on the GGWash website only says he "lives with his wife and children in Park View," without naming her.

DC Smart Growth has hired MAGA political operatives to steer it. Is it any surprise that GGW tries to conceal conflicts of interest and dirty money sources of funding?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

And GGWash goes to some laughable lengths to hide this. Their endorsement of Nadeau failed to note that her husband served on the GGWash board until people (properly) called them out for their shadiness, and even then they only added a very cursory note after like three days of people teeing off on them. And his bio on the GGWash website only says he "lives with his wife and children in Park View," without naming her.

Can you point to any bio like this one that names the spouse? I think not. It would be highly unusual to do that in a bio, ESPECIALLY to call attention to someone in elected office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brianne Nadeau’s husband is on the board of GGW.

And GGWash goes to some laughable lengths to hide this. Their endorsement of Nadeau failed to note that her husband served on the GGWash board until people (properly) called them out for their shadiness, and even then they only added a very cursory note after like three days of people teeing off on them. And his bio on the GGWash website only says he "lives with his wife and children in Park View," without naming her.