Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way to place a pool in the park without taking down at least a third of the trees. The designer told me that the trees will be evaluated to determine if they are healthy. If they are unhealthy, they may argue that they need to come down. He said this during the public meeting at Hearst playground earlier this summer.

No doubt this will be how DPR will try play it.

[Anonymous]

Repeating this here for those who may have missed it: Community meeting on Hearst pool and park design Sept. 8 7-9 pm at Chevy Chase community center, 5601 Connecticut Avenue, NW

http://dpr.dc.gov/event/community-meeting-concept-discussion-hearst-park-and-pool-design

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't answer the question. There are gaps city wide in DPR programming and they have a mission to fill.

This is how DPR goes about "filling its mission" (sic). And it doesn't bode well for how it would maintain a new outdoor pool and infrastructure, which is a bit more complex than a playground wooden choo-choo.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/a-broken-piece-of-playground-equipment-turns-into-a-months-long-tangle-with-bureaucracy/2016/08/26/664f8a48-6ba6-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html

That still doesn't answer the question, but nice deflection.

[Anonymous]

The loss of at least 1/3 of the large trees, the tennis courts and probably half the field. That's a steep price to pay for a pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The loss of at least 1/3 of the large trees, the tennis courts and probably half the field. That's a steep price to pay for a pool.

Did you actually receive an urban design degree? Or are you just sptballing it?

[Anonymous]

Urban design degree is a thing?

Is that almost as valuable as Angry Studies?

[Anonymous]

You old rags should shut the hell up. NOBODY cares about your decreased estrogen and need to improve your legacy vis-a-vis your property value.

Your children will sell it anyway!

SHUT UP, you sad harridans.

I've been involved in a lot of pointless threads on DCUM, and this one takes the cake. Why? Because you are useless people.

Here's the rub: you are useless people because you have thousands of hours you could expend to effect change. Instead, you've chosen to b*tch at the internet.

You've taken all of your power and decided to be useless.

You are jokes. YOU ARE JOKES.

[Anonymous]

What we know is that Cheh's staff and DPR have been frantically running around Hearst Park with measuring tapes this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we know is that Cheh's staff and DPR have been frantically running around Hearst Park with measuring tapes this week.

One has to feel sorry for the poor schmo who draws the dirty job of having to tell Cheh that her pool won't fit at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You old rags should shut the hell up. NOBODY cares about your decreased estrogen and need to improve your legacy vis-a-vis your property value.

Your children will sell it anyway!

SHUT UP, you sad harridans.

I've been involved in a lot of pointless threads on DCUM, and this one takes the cake. Why? Because you are useless people.

Here's the rub: you are useless people because you have thousands of hours you could expend to effect change. Instead, you've chosen to b*tch at the internet.

You've taken all of your power and decided to be useless.

You are jokes. YOU ARE JOKES.

Sorry, Ms. Cheh, can you save your comments for the community meeting? M-kay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we know is that Cheh's staff and DPR have been frantically running around Hearst Park with measuring tapes this week.

One has to feel sorry for the poor schmo who draws the dirty job of having to tell Cheh that her pool won't fit at Hearst.

Commissar Cheh no doubt will castrate him with her rusty old Soviet Red Army knife.

[Anonymous]

That meeting one thing clear. This is a debate among neighbors. Some want a pool but others - and it definitely seemed like a majority - oppose it. So DC is going to spend $12 million for a pool supported by 100 families and opposed by 150 families? Why?

[Anonymous]

If you are talking about immediate neighbors, that is a pretty good split, given the thousands of others within a few miles who support the pool.

I was at the meeting tonight, and it is obvious that all who opposed it were there - you could tell because their tired arguments are the same ones that have taken up 81 pages on this forum. All 15 people. Are we really going to let 15 people hold up a pool that hundreds of families can enjoy?

One person there calculated the maximum number of tennis court users over the course of the year and showed that it paled in comparison to the number of potential pool users. And obviously the courts are only used a fraction of the time anyhow.

Notes:
-no loss of mature trees
- soccer field intact
-tennis courts available
-open green space intact

Other than people not wanting "others" coming into their neighborhood, it is hard to see what the issue is. DGS has done a great job coming up with different solutions, all of which include a pool.

Bravo to DGS, Bravo to Mayor Bowser and Bravo to Mary Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about immediate neighbors, that is a pretty good split, given the thousands of others within a few miles who support the pool.

I was at the meeting tonight, and it is obvious that all who opposed it were there - you could tell because their tired arguments are the same ones that have taken up 81 pages on this forum. All 15 people. Are we really going to let 15 people hold up a pool that hundreds of families can enjoy?

One person there calculated the maximum number of tennis court users over the course of the year and showed that it paled in comparison to the number of potential pool users. And obviously the courts are only used a fraction of the time anyhow.

Notes:
-no loss of mature trees
- soccer field intact
-tennis courts available
-open green space intact

Other than people not wanting "others" coming into their neighborhood, it is hard to see what the issue is. DGS has done a great job coming up with different solutions, all of which include a pool.

Bravo to DGS, Bravo to Mayor Bowser and Bravo to Mary Cheh.

That guy was crazy. He also said that it is gender equity issue to put a pool at Hearst bc girls don't use the free field as much and they could get their confidence and self esteem and exercise with a pool. Except look at that field and its usage. Plenty of girls around use it year round.

Who is going to maintain it? Wilson is a dump. The Rec Center is a dump. The current Hearst field is a dump. They don't maintain existing facilities and there is no guarantee that new facilities will be maintained. They couldn't even agree if the pool was 25 yards or 25 meters.

[Anonymous]

I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what not. How ironic. Maybe DGS should develop that solution for Hearst and make these people put their money where their mouth is. It was the same logic by the people who opposed Cathedral Commons 15 years ago and ended up with a development that was much bigger than was originally proposed. Deal with it.

- The neighbors who say "everyone I know is opposed to the pool" aren't getting out much. There is a lot of sad groupthink in that crowd.