Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pool definitely needs a traffic study. If it doesn't need traffic study, it probably doesn't justify demand for a $12 million investment. This pool cannot be built just for immediately adjacent homes - yes I realize the irony.

The only logical place for the pool is the tennis court. I don't support any other location. It's a decent compromise with those of us who love and currently use Hearst Park.

A tennis court located pool would also preserve an important field for soccer and other sports. It's hard to argue there isn't demand for open fields. Any of the three renditions of the pool either eliminates mature trees or dramatically reduces the size of the playable field.

I hope the renditions are posted soon. Most DPR fields are small, Hearst is one of the very few that is decent in size. Shrinking it would be a shame.

Looking at Google Earth, the aerial photo shows a field lined out, the measurement tool puts it at 55 by 90 yards, which is what middle schoolers might use. But it doesn't use all of the space, the space could probably hold a 60x100, which for high school kids would be playable but a little on the small side. If I know my DC government, I fully expect the planners to come back with a half-size field and claim that there has always been a small field there. Remember those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pool definitely needs a traffic study. If it doesn't need traffic study, it probably doesn't justify demand for a $12 million investment. This pool cannot be built just for immediately adjacent homes - yes I realize the irony.

The only logical place for the pool is the tennis court. I don't support any other location. It's a decent compromise with those of us who love and currently use Hearst Park.

A tennis court located pool would also preserve an important field for soccer and other sports. It's hard to argue there isn't demand for open fields. Any of the three renditions of the pool either eliminates mature trees or dramatically reduces the size of the playable field.

All three options from DGS had the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All three options from DGS had the field.

All three options had 'a field' but not the same size field as the one currently there. Again, the options did not show real structures or real fields, but symbolic representations of uses. In two of the options, the fields were quite small and had no discernible space for viewers. In fact there was no discernible sideline whatsoever...so where would the teams go? The options appeared flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All three options from DGS had the field.

All three options had 'a field' but not the same size field as the one currently there. Again, the options did not show real structures or real fields, but symbolic representations of uses. In two of the options, the fields were quite small and had no discernible space for viewers. In fact there was no discernible sideline whatsoever...so where would the teams go? The options appeared flawed.

Thanks. I'm 20:03 above and this is exactly what I'm afraid of. The checklist says "Field" and DGS puts in a postage-stamp sized square of astroturf and calls it good.

[Anonymous]

So why not engage constructively and collaboratively (instead of just seemingly reflexively fighting it) to help develop a solution that maintains the large soccer field (same lined dimensions), adds an outdoor pool, AND keeps the tennis courts? If that could be done, would you support it? I'm sure that kind of honest effort/cooperation would go a long way in bridging the divides that are being built between neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why not engage constructively and collaboratively (instead of just seemingly reflexively fighting it) to help develop a solution that maintains the large soccer field (same lined dimensions), adds an outdoor pool, AND keeps the tennis courts? If that could be done, would you support it? I'm sure that kind of honest effort/cooperation would go a long way in bridging the divides that are being built between neighbors.

No, they wouldn't support it because now they are developing a total BS hydrology issue. Anything to keep "the others" away. Because after all it is THEIR park.

[Anonymous]

The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likely. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likely. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

The run off issues are real, and from the presented plans, it is clear DGS has incorporated significant run off mitigation on the east side of the property as well as along the Idaho Avenue right of way. DOEE will be integrally involved with the stormwater management - they already have seen the plans and know that the Springland residents will be much better off with what has been presented. You clearly have no idea about these issues the way you are describing them. The "stabilization" issue is a total NIMBY red-herring. Sorry, it just is, regardless of what experts you have working on it. It will be a waste of the limited resources the group has raised to try to thwart the pool with this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likely. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likely. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

Another red-herring. Unique circumstance required additional permits. Permits are close and construction will begin accordingly. But, you just keep throwing stuff at the wall. Something will stick at some point, right?

[Anonymous]

"they already have seen the plans and know that the Springland residents will be much better off with what has been presented. You clearly have no idea about these issues the way you are describing them."

The old DC government knows what's best for you argument. Pardon me while I laugh in your face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likeley. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

I really should have read this in total before replying because it is so rich with mis-truths and ill-informed opinions.

1) I addressed the water run off issue. The current plans will be significantly better than current conditions. This is something that needed to be addressed irrespective of a pool. The inclusion of a pool has zero impact on the stormwater management. In fact, in many ways, innovation in sotrmwater management can be incorporated into the pool site to help make it better.

2) The use of a retention pond would be a disaster for Sprngland residents. See Ellicot City as an example for why. Please do not suggest this to the city - they will laugh you and the whole group out of the door.

3) The so called secondary issue is a red-herring as already described. I believe it is a waste of money and energy to pursue this. The field has been in place as is for almost 100 years. There is no significant cracking or shifting of the underlying base. If such were the case, it would be visible to the naked eye.

4) Friendship Park - the project was more complicated because of an unmarked pipe on the base maps. New permits were required, work will resume shortly. If you are trying to equate the "what ifs" of the so called hydrology issue with unmarked pipes on a map from another neighborhood, be my guest to be the worry wort on that one.

5) Fenced off eye sore is subjective - your opinion. You know, there are technologies now that would allow the pool to be covered with a hard, usuable surface for the other 9 months of the year? Why not push DGS into doing that instead of complaining about it.

6) So the complaint about lack of access to the site during renovation is valid. But this is going to be the case regardless of whether there i a pool or not. To address the stormwater run off will take about the same period of time, so may as well install a pool while they are at it.

7) Cost - $12 Million. I have never heard that number floated. But I am glad Ward 3 taxpayers will be getting some investment back into the community that will benefit the residents of the area.

8) The field need not be half the size that it currently is. There were options shown that had a full size field.

9) The field may still be natural grass rather than turf, so there is that too.

10) Re "knowing Hearst" versus those that see it as a development site. I have been using Hearst for decades both with and without kids. It is underused and can be so much more for the community. It is YOUR opinion that the natural beauty should supersede any improvements being proposed.

Mary Cheh said at the meeting that she has had countless people asking her for an outdoor pool in the Ward for the last 10 years. She is listening to those constituents. Hearst is a chosen site because it was up for renovation and can fit the programming. Just because a few dozen nearby residents oppose the pool doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of her voters don't support it. They (we) do. No apologies, but there are hundreds who have proactively supported a petition for a pool versus the rigged 62 you have in opposition now. Do you really think that there will be hundreds of people supporting your cause?

Get real.

-Signed a neighbor of yours who disagrees with you and the other opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.

Eight hours a day, six days a week. Most DPR facilities are closed on Sundays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year.
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field. It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likeley. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field.
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics. If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into.

I really should have read this in total before replying because it is so rich with mis-truths and ill-informed opinions.

1) I addressed the water run off issue. The current plans will be significantly better than current conditions. This is something that needed to be addressed irrespective of a pool. The inclusion of a pool has zero impact on the stormwater management. In fact, in many ways, innovation in sotrmwater management can be incorporated into the pool site to help make it better.

2) The use of a retention pond would be a disaster for Sprngland residents. See Ellicot City as an example for why. Please do not suggest this to the city - they will laugh you and the whole group out of the door.

3) The so called secondary issue is a red-herring as already described. I believe it is a waste of money and energy to pursue this. The field has been in place as is for almost 100 years. There is no significant cracking or shifting of the underlying base. If such were the case, it would be visible to the naked eye.

4) Friendship Park - the project was more complicated because of an unmarked pipe on the base maps. New permits were required, work will resume shortly. If you are trying to equate the "what ifs" of the so called hydrology issue with unmarked pipes on a map from another neighborhood, be my guest to be the worry wort on that one.

5) Fenced off eye sore is subjective - your opinion. You know, there are technologies now that would allow the pool to be covered with a hard, usuable surface for the other 9 months of the year? Why not push DGS into doing that instead of complaining about it.

6) So the complaint about lack of access to the site during renovation is valid. But this is going to be the case regardless of whether there i a pool or not. To address the stormwater run off will take about the same period of time, so may as well install a pool while they are at it.

7) Cost - $12 Million. I have never heard that number floated. But I am glad Ward 3 taxpayers will be getting some investment back into the community that will benefit the residents of the area.

8) The field need not be half the size that it currently is. There were options shown that had a full size field.

9) The field may still be natural grass rather than turf, so there is that too.

10) Re "knowing Hearst" versus those that see it as a development site. I have been using Hearst for decades both with and without kids. It is underused and can be so much more for the community. It is YOUR opinion that the natural beauty should supersede any improvements being proposed.

Mary Cheh said at the meeting that she has had countless people asking her for an outdoor pool in the Ward for the last 10 years. She is listening to those constituents. Hearst is a chosen site because it was up for renovation and can fit the programming. Just because a few dozen nearby residents oppose the pool doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of her voters don't support it. They (we) do. No apologies, but there are hundreds who have proactively supported a petition for a pool versus the rigged 62 you have in opposition now. Do you really think that there will be hundreds of people supporting your cause?

Get real.

-Signed a neighbor of yours who disagrees with you and the other opponents.

1)Run-off issues will be decided by hydrologists and other folks with expertise, not anonymous posters with a clear bias.
2)See above.
3)See above
4)Not just the sewer pipe but the rec building at Turtle Park was dramatically over budget and had to be completely redesigned which contributed to delays. You scoff at hydrology issues but it's exactly the kind of problem that causes huge cost overruns and delays.
5) It is a wide open field with no fences now. By definition, new legally mandated fences will be an eyesore. Putting a cover on the pool? Really? Is that really the way you think?
6) I don't understand. The scale of work involving a non-pool vs. pool renovation is vast. No comparison when it comes to construction traffic etc.
7) $12 million is the cost of the project discussed at the meeting.
8) Only option to retain the field would be putting the pool where the tennis courts are now. If there is going to be a pool, that's a logical place to put it.
9)Yes, I agree and it should be natural grass.
10 Eliminating 40 percent of Hearst field for a pool only used 3 months a year 6 days a week is by definition a dramatic reduction in access.

[Anonymous]

New to this "discussion". Forgive me for not having the time to wade through the layers of what looks like repetitious arguments. Has anyone said thank you? An outdoor pool for one of my neighborhood parks??? Awesome! It's about time! Should have happened ten years ago. Finally CM Cheh is giving me a reason to feel motivated to vote for her. Thank you CM Cheh!!!