Tuesday, April 21, 2015

7770 Norfolk flips to condos in Bethesda - Is condomania back? (Photos)

In a somewhat surprising move, developer JBG has switched its 7770 Norfolk luxury apartment tower to condominiums. With delivery of the 17-story building at 7770 Norfolk Avenue just months away, it suggests the market calculations are changing in downtown Bethesda.

Condominium fever lessened during the recent recession. As the real estate market bounced back in the DC area, and cranes reappeared in the downtown Bethesda skyline, luxury apartments and ultra-luxury condos were in favor.

But 7770 was facing a number of competitors in the luxury apartment market, including one current rival (Bainbridge Bethesda) and the future St. Elmo Apartments right on the same block of Fairmont Avenue that runs alongside it. The Gallery Bethesda is just about entirely leased a few blocks away, and JBG itself is planning a second high-rise less than a block away off Woodmont Avenue. Washington Property Company's Solaire Bethesda, and StonebridgeCarras' Flats at Bethesda Avenue and Flats 8300 are in various stages of construction right now.

Of course, Duball has its own 71-unit ultra-luxury condo project in the works at 4990 Fairmont Avenue, at the other end of 7770 Norfolk's block. But it, like The Darcy, The Lauren and 4825 Montgomery Lane, is expected to be at the high-end of the market in condominium pricing (with The Lauren standing alone, with its condos "from the several millions" and $10.5 million penthouse).

JBG, in contrast, is offering a relative bargain (with great emphasis on the word, relative), with 7770's condo units currently being priced from the high $300s for studios, and from the mid $500s for 1 bedrooms. The highest-priced unit, a 3-bedroom, is currently listed starting at $1.4 million. Building amenities are on a par with competitors, it has a prime Woodmont Triangle location near Metro, and the ground floor already has a restaurant tenant, Community.

Is this a brief rethinking of market demand? Or is Condomania starting to catch fire again in downtown Bethesda? Could some of the other stalled, or not yet fleshed-out, projects become predominantly condos? Stay tuned.













171 comments:

Anonymous said...

What are the condo fees like? Seems like the building is high-end meaning people may get stuck paying $500+ in condo fees every year.

Condo fees are required to be listed in the official sales listing for each unit.. is that up yet?

Robert Dyer said...

5:04: I don't believe there are official sales listings yet.

Condo said...

Condo fees usually go up once the building is up and running for awhile and the association figures out how much it costs to run the place and build a reserve

Anonymous said...

Here I was hoping that a greater supply of apartments would drive the rents down.

Any idea if there is more or less of a load on schools from condos versus apartments? My guess would be less.

Anonymous said...

My friend lives in a high-end condo building in Arlington, and his condo fees on a 1-bedroom are $750/month. Yikes.. not tax-deductible either since it's not mortgage interest.

Anonymous said...

It probably depends on the unit mix.
More 2 or 3 bedroom units = more kids
Condos usually have more square footage than rentals.

Anonymous said...

Yes, around $500 is typical for a 1 bedroom in downtown Bethesda. More dependent on what utilities are included.

Anonymous said...

My ~700sqft Bethesda one bedroom from the 1970s has a condo fee over $650/month from what I have been told. The amenities include sub par everything that is broken half the time.

Anonymous said...

"Condo" - that's not how condominiums work, unless the developer is extremely irresponsible. The operating expenses and reserve expenses would be determined before the building opens, regardless of whether the building is a condominium or a rental.

Anonymous said...

"My ~700sqft Bethesda one bedroom from the 1970s has a condo fee over $650/month from what I have been told. The amenities include sub par everything that is broken half the time."

My guess is a building that age includes all utilities in the fee.

Anonymous said...

Steve Hull's "dream team" must have the day off.

Hull just published his own version of Robert's story on Bethesda Magazine with no credit to Robert. Like he did with Community and the Bethesda Theater for sale earlier this year.

Money can't buy class I guess.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:24 AM - The BCC Rescue Squad is sending a Waahmbulance right now.

Anonymous said...

@7:24 I can imagine the editorial meetings at the new site: "Ok, we've made a commitment to increase articles on our site by 3 posts a day. Let's just take what Dyer posts and copy it without attribution!"

Anonymous said...

8:00 AM I guess I have the audacity to expect better.

Anonymous said...

No skin in the game but I'm just curious what makes you guys think the others are copying Dyer's content with credit?

I think this conversion might be a sign that rents are too high and demand isn't there - possibly seeing Bainbridge struggles. Like the other reader, I was definitely hoping for the rental supply to drive down rents too but this move by JBG doesn't help.

Anonymous said...

These condo fees are so irresponsibly high. Sure, amenities are great, but it's not too sustainable, as evidenced by slow condo value appreciation. For a $750 condo fee your property would need to appreciate $9,000 a year just to keep pace with that fee.

Anonymous said...

Did he plagiarize Dyer's content? Or did they just write about the same thing? Not sure there is much to plagiarize here. It's great news reporting for sure, but not original content.

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying the "plagiarize" word, but there's a disturbing pattern developing.

Anonymous said...

I guess the difference b/w what Hull wrote and what Dyer has here is Hull actually cites a source for his information.

Sure Dyer gets some stuff right, but he's also wrong(like the Urban Heights opening date, Smashburger closing), so when Bmag picks up a report he does, it's more of a confirmation of a rumor that Dyer heard, you know, with actual reporting.

Anonymous said...

Hull's "source" was Robert's report. He's acting amateur not stating that. it's a pattern worth watching.

Anonymous said...

Check Dyer's articles on Taylor Gourmet's new menu, and the Apple Watch, and compare the articles that were in Bethesda Magazine and Washingtonian earlier in those same days, and tell us who is "plagiarizing".

Anonymous said...

Sure, see how much better Dyer's reporting is compared to two glossy magazines. :)

Local, local, local my friend.

Anonymous said...

Just curious how you know who Hull's source was?

Anonymous said...

A pattern of local bloggers reporting the same news? That's not surprising..

Can you clarify? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Dyer's shill is still stuck on the "magazine" talking point.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:43 PM - and what is Dyer's source?

Anonymous said...

There are Hull skeptics.
Bethesda has the most intelligent and educated population. You can't fool them.

Robert Dyer said...

1:51: Taylor Gourmet sent out a press release - we all got it. There was no press release about the 7770 Norfolk change. Every tech aficionado in America was looking on the Apple site to find out where the Apple Watch Edition was available. You're talking about completely different situations, and are in desperate need of a Journalism 101 refresher.

Robert Dyer said...

1:19/2:09: Are you suggesting a Great Carnac scenario, where other news outlets intuited the shift to condos via ESP?

I "get some stuff right"? I never published an incorrect opening date for Urban Heights. But I did publish the first report on the chef, menu and other details 10 days before anyone else. Other outlets HAVE reported wrong opening dates recently, and you didn't post a comment like this. I wonder why? Smashburger was a Don Rockwell report, who is a highly credible source, and I linked to his report.

You're using a typical talking point of yours, which is that there somehow is only "actual reporting" on other websites. Delusion is your friend, idiot. My accurate reporting is exactly why readers rely on my blog for the real story, rather than the MoCo political machine's "Everything is Awesome" version of "the truth."

Robert Dyer said...

12:16: "Not original content"? Can you explain that? I know you're frustrated that I broke the biggest real estate story of the year in Bethesda so far, but you're making no sense whatsoever.

Robert Dyer said...

12:13: Actually, it's reporting *without* credit that's the problem. There was no press release.

Anonymous said...

Any reason given why Hull sidelined his "dream team" on this big story?

Anonymous said...

id like to know what grade RD got in journalism 101

Anonymous said...

@ 8:14 PM, 8:17 PM, 8:23 PM -

So what was your source, then?

Robert Dyer said...

4:29: What was Bethesda Magazine's source? There isn't one mentioned in the article. It says JBG confirmed something - it never identified JBG as the source of the original scoop. There was no press release or announcement broadcasting the change. I filed the original report, and broke the story at 8:00 AM yesterday.

Robert Dyer said...

3:06: I'd like to know if Hans Riemer was out as Obama's youth director prior to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

Anonymous said...

why can't RD directly answer a question?

Robert Dyer said...

5:11: Why can't you?

Anonymous said...

5:11: Why can't you?

LOL

Ellis said...

4:59 AM Robert,

Dennis W. Johnson, in his book, "Campaigning for President 2008, Strategies and Tactics: New Voices and New Techniques," lists Leigh Arsenault as Obama's post-primary, full-time youth outreach director. The Democratic National Convention began on August 25th that year. I read elsewhere that Arsenault replaced Riemer as national youth vote director after he vacated in February or March of '08.

Why would anyone landing such a position abandon it -- as early as February/March? He wasn't even there from March through November! Arsenault directed for most of that crucial year instead.

Incidentally, I have seen articles regarding Riemer's past disappear or become "locked" and recently made unavailable for viewing, in the past couple of weeks on Google. (Had to switch search engines to get answers re: "Where the Hans Was That Youth Vote Director Anyway".

Anonymous said...

I've heard that if you wear these special glasses when reading Hans Riemer's campaign material, you will see the words "OBEY", "SUBMIT", "CONSUME" and "THESE ARE YOUR GODS" jump out from among the seemingly innocent boilerplate text.

Ellis said...

At any rate, Bob: You may not have sold the good folks of Montgomery County with such an impressive sounding embellishment, I mean, accomplishment; and you seem to get quite a bit of flack for NOT changing your tune or backing down from your original stances; but I tend to see that as a good thing. You're good on your word. Trustworthy.

Ellis said...

7:31 Gong. Nice try minimizing the facts I just laid out (which are readily verifiable) by attempting to water down the impact with what is clearly fantastic mumbo-jumbo. What did you do, attend Santa Cruz with him back when? Quit talkin' like you're tokin'.

Anonymous said...

Lol. It's like a kid who takes any criticism by comparing to his brother. "But Tommy doesn't have to"

Anonymous said...

Lol I love that you broke the news. But how can you assume he copied you? How do you know his source? What was your source?

Anonymous said...

How do you prove that?

Also, where is your credit?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure which is scarier - Dyer's nonsense, or his groupies like "Ellis" who actually take him seriously.

Anonymous said...

Bethesda residents are too smart to accept comments like 8:05am or Hull's behavior.

Ellis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elm said...

Everyone is welcome on Robert's site.

Even the cranky negative guy :)

That's one reason why the site is popular.

G. Money said...

Don't forget, Dyer also broke the news that the Philippines in now in South Asia.

Robert Dyer said...

7:31: Does that text mention if Riemer was fired by Obama? And if he knew about crimes in the DLC prior to Election Day 2014?

Robert Dyer said...

7:54: The timestamps of the respective articles prove it. Why would I be giving credit? I broke the story! Show me a press release from JBG. Hint: you can't - there wasn't one.

Robert Dyer said...

7:53: He didn't give a source. I AM the source. If he had a source, he would have cited it.

Robert Dyer said...

8:05: The only nonsense is coming from you.

Anonymous said...

So if you "broke the story", then who/what was your source?

Anonymous said...

Surely you don't expect your readers to believe that the notion that 7770 was switching to condo, just randomly popped into your head?

Anonymous said...

5:09am That's exactly what Hull skeptics are asking him. No response yet.

Anonymous said...

No one is going to Bethesda Magazine for hard news. I occasionally read it while waiting in the check out line at Giant.

Robert Dyer said...

5:09: I don't have to reveal my source - I broke the story! The question is, what was the source for other outlets that filed reports after mine? There was no sign in the street, and no press release from JBG.

Anonymous said...

You don't "have to" reveal your source. Why do they "have to" reveal their source?

are you accusing them of stealing from you? Where is your proof? Not saying they aren't.

Anonymous said...

By Dyer's standard of proof, it can be proven that Dyer stole from the other folks.

Robert Dyer said...

7:10: How can the first article steal from later articles? You're in the Hot Tub Time Machine again, man. Do you realize how crazy your arguments sound?

Flynn said...

Lol yeah that was obviously a joke by 7:10, but seriously. Dyer, we have no doubt you are getting great info and posting it early. When your readers ask for a source and you state that you are the source, I guess we mean who did you find out from? Some degree of attribution would be helpful. Was it a random worker? An owner? An inside source? Etc. No one doubts your great scoops (your opinions on the other hand are up for debate, as evidenced by much discussion here on your website).

When you accuse others of stealing from you, simply being first is hardly enough evidence to really prove your theory. Many blogs and news sites do in fact actually cite you as their source regularly. But just because someone posts something after you doesn't necessarily mean they stole anything from you.

Anonymous said...

I usually give the benefit of the doubt, but Hull has done this multiple times already this year with Dyer (see Community and the Bethesda Theater for sale).

Folks are calling Hull out on this now. Presumably Hull is desperate for more web traffic to his magazine and make a name for himself. That's great, but don't take from Dyer. Everyone in Bethesda reads Dyer's stuff, so he's not fooling anyone.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:16 PM -

Since you believe that publishing a "not-first" article is a priori proof of plagiarism, going forward, we will conclude that every time you are scooped, your belated coverage constitutes plagiarism, as well.

Anonymous said...

"Folks are calling Hull out on this now."

"Everyone in Bethesda reads Dyer's stuff."

LOL

Chase said...

I'm one of the Hull skeptics. He read Dyer and then hit the phones. Out comes the article. No one was fooled.

Robert Dyer said...

Flynn, this has been addressed before. If a company sends out a press release, or posts a sign out front, that is public information. There was no public announcement from JBG about the change. I'm not obligated to reveal sources, as I broke the story. It's the later articles that have to cite a source. Or was it just ESP?

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess count me in as a Hull skeptic too. I noticed Hull had no source but he slipped up and said he had to confirm someone's report (obviously Dyer's)

Robert Dyer said...

8:54: It's not "plagiarism" - please refer to a dictionary definition of plagiarism. This was not a case of plagiarism, but rather that I should have been cited as the source who brought this unannounced information to light.

Flynn said...

"I'm not obliged to reveal sources". Certainly we get that, but it sure would go a long way to help silence your critics.

And if you aren't "obliged to reveal sources" then why do you seem it a requirement/necessity for other articles to cite a source? Which I do believe all articles should do, but that's another question.

That's part of what rubs folks the wrong way and incites them to lash out at you. Your content is great! But your self-declared "rules" are a bit wonky and self-serving.

Keep up the good content, though!

Anonymous said...

Does he use Dyer's work and link to it? Or is it coincidentally the same news Dyer reports? Because one thing is not like the other.

Anonymous said...

Since you don't give up your inside source, how do you expect someone else to as well?

Robert Dyer said...

9:46: None of the 3 articles 8:45 mentioned linked to me or mentioned "as first reported by blogger Robert Dyer", despite there being no public announcement of any of the three topics covered.

Robert Dyer said...

10:24: I broke the story. There was no public announcement. Therefore, the only way to show you haven't ripped off the original story is to cite a source, or at least acknowledge the effort of the other journalist. So, what was the source for the later article?

Anonymous said...

LOL, the story didn't just pop into your head.

Who was YOUR source, given that there was no public announcement, and given that you don't work for JBG?

Anonymous said...

How do you know they didn't talk to someone and get the info just as you did?

Anonymous said...

You didn't list a source. They didn't list a source. And you say with such confidence they stole from you? That's insane logic.

May be true, sure, but you have no proof.

Anonymous said...

Your news certainlyay be breaking news, and that's fantastic, but original content hardly. And if someone posts the same news later, that hardly means they copied you. The "news" did happen after all and more than one source can report on it.

Anonymous said...

And where is your proof of that? Sigh.

Anonymous said...

I meant to write originally "without".

How do you know? Please prove it with actual evidence versus just timing.

Robert Dyer said...

4:58: "LOL" I don't have to give a source. I had it first. The later article needs a source. Otherwise, anyone could take credit for a New York Times investigative piece, and just say they didn't copy the NYT report, but just coincidentally got it later in the day from a mysterious source they can't name. Not credible whatsoever. Time for a Journalism 101 refresher. What was the source? And why do you care anyway? What's your personal stake in defending the later article over mine? You're spending hours arguing over something that the average Joe wouldn't bother defending, the behavior in this particular case.

Robert Dyer said...

5:24: You're saying that incredible coincidence happened not just once, but 3 times in 8 weeks (Community restaurant, Bethesda Theatre for sale, and now 7770)? And each time an article appears on the other website a couple of hours later, and mysteriously not written by the regular, full-time reporter for the site? I just want you to confirm that that is your assertion, for all intelligent people who are following the debate here.

Anonymous said...

I think you misunderstand "news" in the sense that it happens and yes it's awesome you are first but then others report on the thing that happened later and it doesn't mean they stole it from you. They could have seen a listing or a report or interviewed someone or anything later. Or even scheduled a post later. Or heard about it from a friend (who maybe even read it from you) and then followed up on it. That's not plagiarism.

Anonymous said...

What if they found out the same way you did? Asking someone or whatever. And don't want to cite a source like you don't either?

You have to at least consider some alternatives versus jumping to conclusions.

Anonymous said...

So if it's raining and you report it first and someone else reports it second, does that mean they stole the news from you?

If a store puts up a "going out of business" sign and you report it first and someone else reports it second, does that mean they plagiarized off you?

If a sidewalk is closed and you report it first and someone else reports it second, does it mean they definitely stole it from you?

Etc.?

Robert Dyer said...

8:16: So you are subscribing to the 5:24 commenter's theory that an incredible coincidence like you are describing happened 3 times in about two months? Nobody said it was plagiarism. It is about the journalistic ethics of acknowledging the report that brought something unannounced to light.

Robert Dyer said...

8:29: All the situations you describe are publicly obvious. No one knew 7770 was switching to condos just by walking past the building.

Robert Dyer said...

You also haven't explained what your concern or motivation is in defending the other outlet. What motivation do you have to concoct wild theories about incredible coincidences, and lightning striking thrice in 2 months, to somehow justify their actions?

Anonymous said...

If you asked a JBG rep and reported it first and another news source asks a JBG rep and reported it second, is that stealing?

I have no motivation to defend other outlets. I could care less. Your perspective just could use a little adjustment. Hence all these commenters going buck wild at you (much of it a bit overboard, sure) and voters not voting you in when you run.

Anonymous said...

BethesdaNow, Bethesda Beat, etc acknowledge you all the time. It's fun when they link to your personal blog! A sign of accomplishment which you certainly should be proud of.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's a coincidence. I think that's just normal. Something happened. More than one person reported about it. It's great that you are often first. That's fantastic. No one begrudges you of that fact. But others reporting after you doesn't mean they stole it from you.

Anonymous said...

End of the day, only Dyer and Hull know. Dyer stated what happened and Hull isn't talking.

Check the timeline and the past Community/Bethesda Theater Bethesda Magazine incidents. Come to your own conclusion...just sayin.

Flynn said...

Dyer stated his opinion of what happened - that others are stealing his content without credit.

Has anyone posed the question to Hull? Not that he *has to answer who his sources are, just as Dyer states for himself as well.

I still think it's not exactly coincidence. It's news. It happens and people report on it. However they came to that conclusion via whatever sources. Not just one place has sole rights to a news story.

If someone is stealing, sure, that's wrong. But there's no proof of any theft.

Anonymous said...

Hull just can't link to Robert's big scoops like Community, 7770 Norfolk or the Bethesda Theater sale.

Hull says he had to "confirm a report with JBG." He had to confirm Robert's report, but he conveniently left that part out.

Bethesda residents are too smart for this type of stuff, so folks are calling him out for it. What else is there to say really? It's Hull's personal blog, so I guess he can do what he wants. (Where was the "dream team" though?)

Anonymous said...

"Bethesda residents are too smart for this type of stuff,"

Says the guy who believes Dyer when he claims that HE is the source. The idea just magically popped into his head.

"so folks are calling him out for it."

An Army of two. LOL

Anonymous said...

1:47 PM It's a pattern now for Hull.
It's amateur hour at Bethesda Magazine at this point. But, it's Hull's personal blog, so he can do what he wants.
But, there are Hull skeptics.

Anonymous said...

Well, guys, I guess I consider myself a Hull skeptic now too.

After reviewing the evidence, Hull's claim doesn't past the smell test.

Anonymous said...

100!

Flynn said...

What evidence? Timing? Is that enough on its own to pass verdict?

flynn said...

Good point. It's Hull's blog. Or Dyer's blog. They can do what they want. And they both have skeptics. And fans. So it's a blog. It's opinion and that's totally okay.

Flynn said...

Yeah I agree. dyer isn't the source. He asked someone or got it from a source. So he originated the story, but he is not the source. And sure it's his prerogative not to identify his source. Which opens him up to criticism just the same as he applies to Hull. But that is their choice. Both of them. They just have to take the heat because of it.

Robert Dyer said...

9:32: But if I'm not the source, who is the source for the later article? He said he had confirm with JBG, but didn't say what he was confirming - meaning he didn't know. Criticism that applies to a later story not acknowledging the source is not applicable to the person who broke the story. Can you confirm it is your position that a miraculous coincidence took place 3 times with the same author in 2 months?

Robert Dyer said...

9:37: People would not vote for me because other media outlets are ripping off stories I broke first? Because they don't want a councilman who is too competent, perhaps? Your argument makes no sense. Does Scott Brodbeck's perspective need adjustment, too? He often has the same problem of people using his Arlington blog as a source without acknowledgements, and has complained about it - as have I and many other journalists nationwide. If somebody with a wealthier operation tried to use your work and push you aside, you'd be complaining, too.

Robert Dyer said...

9:39: Why would I need validation from recently-started sites? I'm a lifelong resident, and have been publishing since 2006. It's not validation, it's the ethical thing to do when you use someone else's work as your source. 12:30: So someone could have just copied the Woodward and Bernstein scoops without sources, and it wouldn't have been stealing? Just "normal"reporting? The guy in the parking garage was just news, and everybody reports it? A journalism 101 refresher, please.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a lifelong resident"

So you were born, and you have lived in the same house ever since. Whoop-dee-doo. Some "accomplishment".

"I've been publishing since 2006"

I invite the readers to browse the archives of your early years. Good for a few laughs.

Woodward and Bernstein had "Deep Throat". You claim to not have had any source.

"People would not vote for me because other media outlets are ripping off stories I broke first? Because they don't want a councilman who is too competent, perhaps? Your argument makes no sense."

Your straw men make absolutely no sense.

Anonymous said...

The theater sale was in the listing system days before Dyer wrote about it. Just cause he wrote about it first doesn't mean others didn't find it through other means as well. Sigh. Do you not get that?

Anonymous said...

Dyer's site is well established.
6:48 sounds like someone with a miserable life. Way too much negative energy.

Robert Dyer said...

6:48: Wrong on all counts. I do not live in the same place I did when I was born. But I've always lived in Bethesda, and it's that lifelong residency and 2006 blog launch date that hit a raw nerve with you couple of carpetbaggers who troll on here.

You're saying Woodward and Bernstein identified their source in the garage at the time of Watergate? What alternate timeline are you living in? Your position is that someone could have stolen Woodward and Bernstein's story, with their unidentified sources, claimed to have discovered the same information without disclosing their own source, and win a Pulitzer prize for their knockoff report. Again, what reality do you live in?

12:07: Are you doubling down on incredulity? You're saying Bethesda Magazine was aware of a major real estate story like the Bethesda Theatre, and purposely didn't go to press for days with it? Do you realize how absurd you are sounding?

Anonymous said...

You didn't go or press for a few days after we saw it in loop net. Doesn't mean you stole it from anyone.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Timing isn't proof. Say you found out from a random source. You have no idea if they did too. Timing itself is not enough proof on its own. You'd get shot down in a court every single time with all of your evidence.

Anonymous said...

It's Dyerms MO. He can't answer a question without accusing someone else of the same thing. All the while still dodging the questions. Maybe he is a true politician after all. Or 5.

Anonymous said...

"Your perspective just could use a little adjustment."

I think he/she meant that not a lot of people like you or your opinions, and certainly not the way you share them.

Anonymous said...

Who's the anonymous guy who claims to know every house Robert has lived in, what Robert has for breakfast, how many steps Robert takes a day, etc.?

Robert's stalker sounds creepy. Does Prince of Petworth have a stalker?

Anonymous said...

Is not applicable. Lol. Your random rules.

Anonymous said...

Does Dyer's shill think about anything else besides Dyer, PoP, and Bethesda Magazine's "glossy" print edition?

Anonymous said...

Dyer's stalker can't even stalk right. Dyer had to correct him.

He needs to brush up on Dyer's biography I guess.

Anonymous said...

Dyer's shill can't even wait 15 minutes before stalking the skeptics on a week-old thread.

Anonymous said...

The Dyer skeptics or the Hull skeptics?

Anonymous said...

"Glossy" isn't a bad word you know.
Don't be so sensitive.
I like glossy magazines. I just don't have time to read them these days.

Anonymous said...

Yet you magically find time to comment every three minutes here.

Anonymous said...

You have to wonder about the mental state of someone who has to make negative personal attacks on a journalist (Dyer) all day.

Robert Dyer said...

6:26: Who's "we"? So you are saying that they had a huge Bethesda real estate story that was breaking news, and sat on it? And then suddenly decided to post it hours after my report broke the story?

Anonymous said...

We the general public. It was on loop net and other commercial building sites before you posted it on your blog. Only referencing that because you brought it up.

Anonymous said...

I'm be saying whatever you are accusing folks of didn't happen. That's not the point. Just pointing out that you don't have any hard evidence.

If they are stealing, you could take legal action. But would your evidence be sufficient in a court of law? That's the question many of us are asking. Not whether or not they actually are stealing. Just your opinion of the situation being a bit off.

Robert Dyer said...

2:35: I didn't bring up Loopnet. But to the central issue - are you claiming they knew the Bethesda Theatre was for sale but sat on the story? Yes or no question. Also, "the general public" doesn't frequent commercial real estate listings. You sound like you've got something personal at stake in this ethics dispute. If not, why all the desperate justifications and rationalization? The average person doesn't care.

Robert Dyer said...

6:32: Confirm your position - you're claiming 3 incredible coincidences in 2 months? Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

@ 4:49 AM -

"You're saying Woodward and Bernstein identified their source in the garage at the time of Watergate?"

LOL, nope. Their reporting consistently noted that they had an anonymous source.

You, on the other hand, are claiming to have no source at all.

Robert Dyer said...

4:43: Of course I had a source. And like Woodward & Bernstein, I've declineed to identify it. Now answer the yes or no question you keep dodging - Could someone have simply stolen their work, claimed to have their own anonymous source, and win a Pulitzer prize? Answer the question.

Anonymous said...

Hull didn't know. He wrote he had to call JBG to confirm a report. That report was Dyer's.

Why can't Hull and his dream team admit that he was confirming Dyer's report?

Why is it so hard to give credit to Robert Dyer? Serious question. No agendas.

Anonymous said...

Do you have proof that report was Dyer's? If not, then it's simply conjecture.

And it don't really care one way or the other on the issue. Just the argument.

Anonymous said...

Was there proof the work was stolen? Verified by a court of law?

Anonymous said...

Dyer and most of the commenters on this site are a bunch of kids.

I think what dyer and his side are missing the point of is whole one opposing faction argues his points, the other is simply arguing his logic.

Anonymous said...

I don't care about the coincidences. Simply that you have no proof. Get enough proof to take them to court and the world will believe you. Until then, it's all conjecture and circumstantial.

Anonymous said...

Why should one cite the other if you are unwilling to cite as well? And that's assuming you are the report Hull or whoever references.

Anonymous said...

The "proof" is right in Hull's article. He wrote that he had to call JBG to *confirm* a report. He didn't know first hand. This is in his own words! Read the article again.

He happened to publish this a few hours after Robert Dyer's scoop was published. There were no other reports that morning other than Robert Dyer's.

Hull was *confirming* Dyer's report.

Hull did the same exact thing for Community and Bethesda Theater. Robert Dyer has loyal readers who are asking questions.

Why is it so hard to give a hat tip or credit to Robert Dyer? Legitimate question. No agenda.

Robert Dyer said...

7:38: Why can't you answer the questions? Don't tell me, the Freshbikes flood story was on Loopnet, too? 4 Pinocchios, pants on fire fact check award to you. If people think they're going to use my blog as an uncredited source, capitalize on my work without credit, and not be called on it publicly, they are wrong.

Robert Dyer said...

7:36: If you don't care, then why are you expending so much energy defending the 7770 Norfolk story posted *after* I broke the story? How can you generate more skepticism toward the originator of the story than the imitator?

Robert Dyer said...

6:31: "Not a lot of people like you or your opinions." What evidence do you have to back up that statement?

Anonymous said...

Would a court of law uphold that "proof" as enough evidence?

If you truly do believe so, I think there's no point in further discussion and we will have to agree to disagree.

If Dyer truly believes so, has he either discussed this with Hull vs. simply complaining about it in his own post comments or thought to take legal action? If Dyer and his supporters truly believe there is enough proof, the legal action should be a cakewalk. If not, then why would you truly believe it?

Anonymous said...

8:56 AM I guess I have the audacity to expect better [than to expect Bethesdians, which supposedly is the most intelligent in America, to just blindly believe that kind of hypothesis without proper and fully investigated and proven evidence].

Certainly questioning fishy circumstances (by your standards, sure) is welcome but without taking it further via proper channels, simply complaining about it on a blog comments doesn't really say much for you or help your actual cause.

Anonymous said...

We don't post comments like this because the other authors don't bash the other authors, nor do they make blind accusations without supporting evidence, nor does their logic flow seem completely flawed, etc.

If you are so adamant about your position, do something about it. And if no one believes you, well maybe your commenters are onto something...

Anonymous said...

Dyer is obsessed.

Maybe 7770 Norfolk should be re-named The White Whale.

Anonymous said...

I don't care about the story. I care about your logic and thinking.

Anonymous said...

If someone is acting unprofessional, you don't sue them..lol. That's not a crime or legal offense.
You can call them out, which Dyer and his readers did.

Robert Dyer said...

10:06: You don't find Journalism 101 ethics logical? Tell me more!

Robert Dyer said...

9:19: I just broke the story. It's other people who are obsessed with stealing scoops and trying to take credit for my work. You mysteriously are passionate about defending their unethical actions from criticism, severely undermining your credibility.

Robert Dyer said...

5:20: In fact, I had not said anything about the ripoff of my 7770 article. Then you came in and started bashing me, and bizarrely tried to justify the theft through some kind of supernatural explanation. You bet I'm going to respond to that.

Flynn said...

I'm not 9:19 but I am obsessed with clarity of view and logic coming from you. All these things everyone argues about - to me the opinion is second to whether or not each argument presents sound fact based logic and validated sources and research. Which IMHO and my perspective you have this far failed to accomplish on any number of points.

Anonymous said...

The Freshbikes story rip earlier this week shows we'll probably have more of the same at this mag.

Anonymous said...

@ 6:27 AM -

"Someone else reported it, therefore they stole it from Dyer."

This is called the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Anonymous said...

Ooh thanks! Finally wrapping a term around it.

Anonymous said...

Not just me but supernatural explanation what?

Anonymous said...

Surely it is important. But my conversation and many others is focused on you only.

Anonymous said...

Again Robert the questions have nothing to do with their actions but your statements and logic.

Anonymous said...

In English, that's "after this, therefore because of this."

Anonymous said...

Skeptical folks are questioning Hull's actions. It's a pattern now.

Lovely that Hull gave no credit to Dyer on the Freshbikes story.

Robert Dyer said...

Flynn,7:36: So you are saying it was 3 magical, mysterious coincidences in 2 months? And that logic dictates favoring a virtually impossible scenario over the most obvious one?

Robert Dyer said...

7:22: You're saying if somebody copied Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate, but wouldn't identify how they got the same information, that a Latin phrase would restore the thief's eligibility for the Pulitzer? Would love to hear a Journalism school panel discussion of your theory.

Anonymous said...

"You're saying if somebody copied Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate..."

Nope. Quit putting words in others mouths.

Flynn said...

Simply saying innocent until proven guilty. And this far there hasn't been enough proof to render a guilty verdict. Not in the eyes of the majority public (your readership itself being split on the issue), not has it been presented to any sort of authority with the actual ability to render legal verdict. So court of public opinion seems split, and no authority has passed judgement.

Robert Dyer said...

7:34: Isn't that always the problem, that you are applying one standard to me, and another to competitors of mine?

Robert Dyer said...

5:00: Yep. Your argument justifying the theft of my scoop is exactly like the Woodward and Bernstein scenario I presented. So by sticking to your eccentric argument, those absolutely do become your words.

Anonymous said...

No one is "justifying theft of a scoop".

We're saying that you have no actual proof that it was stolen.

Two people publishing the same story does not mean that one stole from the other.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that. This reader understands what everyone keeps saying.

Anonymous said...

You know what I find rather odd, Watson? (Stepping in at this proverbially late hour to peruse the discussion):

While it certainly is not absolutely inconceivable that "lightning strikes twice" ...

What is the actual likelihood that the later story was blissfully ignorant of the existence of the earlier one?

Wouldn't Hull have to be rather dim, to be clueless over Dyer's earlier, breaking report?

So many here were aware; why NOT the competition? (But perchance if he does not see an earlier report, then it can be as if it did not exist, and he can at least say that he was completely unaware when he wrote his own ...)

Why the double standard? Why not pester Hull over his source? Did Dyer copy him?! Not likely, having released the story first. So next time Dyer puts out a story second, are you guys going to avidly support that he may have independently come up with the same story?

No. You will razz him for being "Scooped." You don't care about ethics.

Anonymous said...

@ 6:35 AM -

The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad has a nice new Waahmbulance.

I urge you to you call Whine-One-One, now.

Anonymous said...

1:25 PM:

And you know all about it. Nice allocation of funds.


Robert Dyer said...

1:25: Would love to sit in when you discuss your disreputable ethical position with a panel of journalism professors.

Zem Karlos said...

Awesome article, I am regular visitor of this website, keep up the excellent work, and I will be a regular visitor for a very long time..Golden beach homes for sale