Initial page text was very short and referenced obstructing of "progressive development."
Revision by SWines objected - "Its opposition to ONE major development in the last 20 years does not make it anti-development."
IMHO, it is acceptable to represent both the internally-held goals of a group (that the OFW is dedicated to historic preservation, in this case) and also the criticisms made of them (in this case, perception of obstructionism), as long as both are presented as viewpoints. Arguing about them - whether certain perceptions are not actually held or not actually true - should be done on the Discussion page attached to the article in question, though. But I could be outargued - the social norms of Arborwiki are still young and malleable.
In my memory, the OFW has objected to the Glen Ann Place project, the initial proposal (or any proposal whatsoever?) replacing the Greek Orthodox Church, and perhaps the Kingsley Lane project? (Though that last one's not _in_ the OFW, so my memory could be off on that one.) On the other hand, the OFW is one of, if not THE densest, most walkable/accessible residential neighborhoods in Ann Arbor, have generally supported the Downtown Residential Task Force and Calthorpe processes, and Chris Crockett, at least, has expressed her support for ideas like accessory dwelling units, so it is not the case that they are, as an organization, amber-freezers.