Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Wow. Well that's one way to mischaracterize (for your own purposes) what was a fairly nuanced comment. Thanks for helping make the point about the sort of mischaracterizations the opponents seem to want to use to engage on this topic. Very illustrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We love the idea of building a 'green' pool deck. DPR should commit to using grass instead of concrete, or at least use the lattice framing with permeable green cover rather than cement. Also, the pool house should be buried into the slope and have a green roof to reduce green space loss.

Yes, grass is green in color, but it is certainly not the most environmentally friendly of surfaces. It is a monoculture—that requires a great deal of care and water to remain lush and green in this area. It certainly does not refer to the varied and life sustaining grasses found in grasslands. While I prefer it to turf (and will advocate for the soccer field to remain grass), if we wanted to be seeking real wildlife benefitting improvements, we would be calling for DPR to work with various other agencies that have very different missions than DPR, to start managing the space to create more native habitat for native populations and species. I don't hear any of the nearby neighbors clamoring for that.

They just want their artificial slice of "nature" to be protected for their pleasure, and they're attempting to build alliances with others by creating an environment of fear by continuing to repeat untruths. And what's their goal? Their goal is to prevent a community serving facility such as a pool. How terrible a pool would be. Especially one with a beautiful view of mature oak trees.

Now, if those same nearby neighbors want to begin a conversation about turning the soccer field, tennis courts, and surrounding area (which is mainly invasive trees) into something more natural that better provides for wildlife (both migratory and resident) then we're getting to a point where the conversation seems to have some merit—it's worth discussing at least (though I would caution, such a project is not in DPR's mission). They won't of course, because they know how marginalized they would become. So, they will continue the drumbeat of untruths in order to try to preserve their alliances, and even so, they're dramatically outnumbered. This community wants an outdoor pool. This is the best site. I'm so sorry if increased property values caused by a very desirable amenity nearby is so scary to those nearby neighbors that oppose it.


This poster argues a concrete pool is more natural than grass and the eighty-year-old trees are not valuable because they are invasive. I have no words. It's something I imagine that Trump would say. "Who needs grass and trees in parks -that's not why people go to parks for - concrete and tall wire fences is better nature stuff."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see a multilane freeway built from Friendship Heights, through Chevy Chase DC and the Palisades to help me get to work. How about extending 270 south to the river? I would get all the benefit and none of the impacts from the freeway. Should we put this to majority vote in DC? Who cares what the NIMBY residents of those neighborhoods think, as they'd probably be deep in the minority. The majority of us want a faster route to get downtown and beyond!

The Congress and USDOT already tried that and DC residents stood up against having a road used by Marylanders going through our neighborhoods. The difference here is that this is DC controlled property and a DC agency providing benefits to DC residents. YOU DO NOT OWN THE PARK.

That was also 45 years ago, and traffic has only gotten worse, so it's time to re-look at our highway network. Besides, why should other wards have freeways and not Ward 3? Ward 1, Ward 2, Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8 all have freeway access. Why should we have to drive to Ward 2 to find a freeway? Ward 3 needs a freeway, too!

[Anonymous]

Except that the freeways are all being converted to boulevards. See the Embarcadero in San Francisco. Over time, the same will happen with whats left of Highways in DC.

Way to blunder a point.

[Anonymous]

Seriously? Of course not seriously, because while this is a serious topic, it's a group of people (and it seems to be mainly the anti-pool crowd from what I can tell) not interested in engaging in an honest dialogue with the goal being something constructive.

But let's pretend you were... self-driving cars will make existing roadways far far far more efficient. And, we've come to recognize that we're destroying the only home we have. We're destroying it because we have overpopulated it, we've over consumed it, we've relied on gas powered cars and let them define how we thought about the design of communities leading to absurdly wasteful building of sprawl, all while being very poorly educated as to what the earth needs (and we need it to be) in order to support us. So, in the not too distant future we will—in fact—be reducing the overall coverage of our land with roadways, even as we make those roads that remain carry far more capacity, all while beginning the process of consolidating populations as the land area available decreases. And as we have more and more people in more condensed spaces the need to provide recreational activities for them will only increase (just as has been occurring gradually very decade). Our cities will have to be more efficient and will have to do more, and we will need to be smarter and more cooperative.

So, while we certainly do not need a freeway, we do—in fact—need more recreational opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see a multilane freeway built from Friendship Heights, through Chevy Chase DC and the Palisades to help me get to work. How about extending 270 south to the river? I would get all the benefit and none of the impacts from the freeway. Should we put this to majority vote in DC? Who cares what the NIMBY residents of those neighborhoods think, as they'd probably be deep in the minority. The majority of us want a faster route to get downtown and beyond!

The Congress and USDOT already tried that and DC residents stood up against having a road used by Marylanders going through our neighborhoods. The difference here is that this is DC controlled property and a DC agency providing benefits to DC residents. YOU DO NOT OWN THE PARK.

That was also 45 years ago, and traffic has only gotten worse, so it's time to re-look at our highway network. Besides, why should other wards have freeways and not Ward 3? Ward 1, Ward 2, Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8 all have freeway access. Why should we have to drive to Ward 2 to find a freeway? Ward 3 needs a freeway, too!

[Anonymous]

Someone seems to be mocking the "Ward 3 needs its own pool" crowd.

[Anonymous]

And using a bad example that defeats the purpose of trolling.

[Anonymous]

Ward 2 demanding its own Zoo

[Anonymous]

The only place for that pool is to replace the tennis court

[Anonymous]

Who was the guy who wanted to move the pool house so that it would not obstruct his view of the park while he was sunning himself on the (non)deck? #mykindaguy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone want to point out the "irony" of opponents of the pool calling a man who took the time to put together a petition that received more than 800 signatures from supporters, that showed up to attend a meeting he knew would be filled with the typical negativity, and is fighting for women's rights a "wacko" on a discussion forum titled DCUrbanMOMs no less?

It's that kind of name calling, along with the usual litany of red herring arguments that would seem to undermine the credibility of many of the opponents and their arguments.

Hearst is big enough for everyone. Hearst is big enough for three tennis courts, the soccer field to remain the size it is today, to retain most if not all of the great beautiful oaks that line the walkways, AND a BIGGER pool and deck. it is the most ideal location in this area.

And even if ONE tennis court needed to go (while the soccer field remained the SAME SIZE IT IS TODAY), there are loads of nearby public tennis courts within walking distance. Where's the nearest public outdoor pool? Who's walking there?

It's sad that so many of the opponents seem to want to sling mud (speaking of mud, where was this Friends' group when the park could have use some relatively simple upkeep? What, the friends didn't want to organize clean up days, didn't want to get out with some pruning sheers, didn't want to form a group of volunteers to pick up trash on a regular basis? Is that beneath them? But this same "Friends" group wants to suggest they are doing something for our future kids, even as most of us with kids are supportive of an outdoor pool on this site... for our kids (not to mention ourselves, and anyone who wants to exercise in a low impact way—last I heard, that's good for everyone... even the older folks nearby).

And many of the opponents seem not to understand (or simply want to poo poo it in order to "advance" their own interests) that in this day and age issues of social justice and yes "gender equity" are real and many people are focused on them (thankfully). I would like to thank "wacko". We need more wackos to fight for the rights of those that aren't themselves.

+1000

Speaking of wacko everyone should check out the website of the "Neighbors for Hearst Park" which is filled with gems:

http://www.neighborsforhearst.org/

Be sure to go here and check out the parade of horrors in the photo roll from other pools:

http://www.neighborsforhearst.org/renovation

-Trees not maintained
-Beer bottles at Upshur
-Trash, unsafe walkways at Upshur
-Vehicles parked on grass
-Few in the pool at Upshur
-No one in the pool at Francis

But my favorite is the environmental stewardship flag - they include this quote "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

In the case of Neighbors for Hearst the quote should be - "We do not share the earth with our children, we hoard it for the immediate neighbors."

Brought to you by the same crowd that is responsible for so many vacant storefronts in Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Please illustrate in a coherent manner how realistically the pool is going to destabilize that which is under the field."

It's not that the pool will destabilize the field, it's that the shifting field will destabilize the pool. The field is actually fill, which is one of the reasons it is so difficult to maintain. The city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars carefully grooming a soccer field and installing in ground sprinklers at Hearst years ago and that lasted less than two years. The hydrology argument will be a significant part of the debate over the future investment in the park because it is what causes the shifting soil. If Hearst hydrology is as complex as some are saying it could dramatically increase a realistic estimate for putting a pool on the field. I suspect that one reason for keeping the pool small is that the ground is not stable enough to support a larger pool without a dramatic increase in cost.

The field is difficult to maintain because the neighbors use it as a dog toilet for several hours per day and in many cases, do not clean up after their pooches. Maybe if the residents who were so concerned about the park actually helped keep it clean of dog waste and organized volunteer clean ups over the years, they would be taken more seriously. Instead it is all about what DPR has or hasn't done for them (not the park, but them). Only now, you organize into something that tries to be a Friends group with any sort of credibility. Hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a little annoyed that the ANC guy who represents Hearst said he was late to the meeting because he was taking care of his kids. I have kids too. But this is probably the biggest issue he will face during his tenure or least until the proposals come in to redevelop the Fannie Mae site.

You realize being a Commissioner is a volunteer position, right?

Fannie Mae is not in his Single Member District, so why would that be an issue on his plate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see a multilane freeway built from Friendship Heights, through Chevy Chase DC and the Palisades to help me get to work. How about extending 270 south to the river? I would get all the benefit and none of the impacts from the freeway. Should we put this to majority vote in DC? Who cares what the NIMBY residents of those neighborhoods think, as they'd probably be deep in the minority. The majority of us want a faster route to get downtown and beyond!

The Congress and USDOT already tried that and DC residents stood up against having a road used by Marylanders going through our neighborhoods. The difference here is that this is DC controlled property and a DC agency providing benefits to DC residents. YOU DO NOT OWN THE PARK.

That was also 45 years ago, and traffic has only gotten worse, so it's time to re-look at our highway network. Besides, why should other wards have freeways and not Ward 3? Ward 1, Ward 2, Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8 all have freeway access. Why should we have to drive to Ward 2 to find a freeway? Ward 3 needs a freeway, too!

No, it is not time to look at our highway network. It is time to understand that widening roads and building urban highways is a path to failure for our cities. Traffic has gotten worse because there are more people who are dependent on cars who live in the region. If we had a better bike network and more dependable mass transit options, there would be less of a need for cars to get where we need to go. Instead, people fight development near metro station, fight bike lanes and regionally underfund mass transit, while more and more move to the region and are pushed further away from jobs and opportunities.

[Anonymous]

"Save Hearst Park"


Now that is funny. Save it from what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The field is difficult to maintain because the neighbors use it as a dog toilet for several hours per day and in many cases, do not clean up after their pooches. Maybe if the residents who were so concerned about the park actually helped keep it clean of dog waste and organized volunteer clean ups over the years, they would be taken more seriously. Instead it is all about what DPR has or hasn't done for them (not the park, but them). Only now, you organize into something that tries to be a Friends group with any sort of credibility. Hypocritical.

Actually, I have observed that nearby residents have done quite a lot in terms of upkeep to the park, at least for the 50 years that I've been a member of this community (go ahead, bring on the geritol comments). For years, one person kept a container stocked with plastic bags for dog droppings in front of their home; they stopped doing it when people kept leaving the poop filled bags behind on their way home. Another person repeatedly painted over the graffiti that crops up on the green tennis wall. Another has taken hammer to nail and fixed the fence a few times by the ravine into the ROW. Several have picked up trash. Some have raked leaves. Others have mowed the field. Some have picked up downed limbs, chopped into firewood, and stacked for others to take. And many contributed cash donations (to the tune of several hundred dollars a family) to at least one prior failed attempt to properly drain and irrigate the field. Others contributed a lot of time over the years to try to work with DPR to address concern about the trees, the fields, the rec cottage, and the other existing features. More can always be done, and not every person has helped in this way.. But faulting nearby residents for not taking care of park issues is disrespectful to those who have done so much for so long, and just plain wrong.