Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)

The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.

Have you ever seen the "exclusive" Cleveland Park Club and its pool?! This isn't the Chevy Chase Club, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

Wait - so let me get this straight - it is ok for people who need to go to the pool to have to drive all over the region to get to one even though that demographic often includes kids who should be able to go to the pool by themselves in the summer to congregate with their friends but the older tennis crowd should be entitled to a tennis court they can walk to? Does that seem at all equitable or reasonable?

As for available tennis courts I'm not the earlier poster but off the top of my head:

Ft Reno - 2 courts
Turtle Park - 2 courts
Livingston Park - 2 courts
Palisades Park - 2 courts
Volta - 2 courts
Rock Creek Park - 2 courts
Forest Hills Playground - 2 courts
Lafayette - 2 courts
Hardy - 2 courts
Rose Park - 2 courts
Carter Barron - 20 courts?

So I've got 18 courts essentially in Ward 3 and several others nearby.

BTW I've got 2 active over programmed kids and am at all of these parks except Forest Hills at least twice a month in the spring and fall and the tennis courts are never fully utilized.

DPR has an interactive map - if you don't know how to use google it is here:

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=8&query=AND{%278%27.EX.%27Tennis%20Court%27}

Oh wait - and folks who need to use a pool should pay to join one but if that is a great idea then why shouldn't the wealthy folks in Cleveland Park not be required to pay to use the courts at Sidwell or NCS which are within walking distance of the people fighting adding a pool at Hearst?

And on the subject of hypocrisy all the newly minted environmentalists & hydrologists of CP will no doubt be applying their considerable time and energies to getting rid of all of the tennis courts in DC, starting with Hearst, because clearly paved surfaces are bad for the environment?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

Wait - so let me get this straight - it is ok for people who need to go to the pool to have to drive all over the region to get to one even though that demographic often includes kids who should be able to go to the pool by themselves in the summer to congregate with their friends but the older tennis crowd should be entitled to a tennis court they can walk to? Does that seem at all equitable or reasonable?

As for available tennis courts I'm not the earlier poster but off the top of my head:

Ft Reno - 2 courts
Turtle Park - 2 courts
Livingston Park - 2 courts
Palisades Park - 2 courts
Volta - 2 courts
Rock Creek Park - 2 courts
Forest Hills Playground - 2 courts
Lafayette - 2 courts
Hardy - 2 courts
Rose Park - 2 courts
Carter Barron - 20 courts?

So I've got 18 courts essentially in Ward 3 and several others nearby.

BTW I've got 2 active over programmed kids and am at all of these parks except Forest Hills at least twice a month in the spring and fall and the tennis courts are never fully utilized.

DPR has an interactive map - if you don't know how to use google it is here:

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=8&query=AND{%278%27.EX.%27Tennis%20Court%27}

Oh wait - and folks who need to use a pool should pay to join one but if that is a great idea then why shouldn't the wealthy folks in Cleveland Park not be required to pay to use the courts at Sidwell or NCS which are within walking distance of the people fighting adding a pool at Hearst?

And on the subject of hypocrisy all the newly minted environmentalists & hydrologists of CP will no doubt be applying their considerable time and energies to getting rid of all of the tennis courts in DC, starting with Hearst, because clearly paved surfaces are bad for the environment?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

What happened to the 13 tennis courts within a half-mile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

Wait - so let me get this straight - it is ok for people who need to go to the pool to have to drive all over the region to get to one even though that demographic often includes kids who should be able to go to the pool by themselves in the summer to congregate with their friends but the older tennis crowd should be entitled to a tennis court they can walk to? Does that seem at all equitable or reasonable?

As for available tennis courts I'm not the earlier poster but off the top of my head:

Ft Reno - 2 courts
Turtle Park - 2 courts
Livingston Park - 2 courts
Palisades Park - 2 courts
Volta - 2 courts
Rock Creek Park - 2 courts
Forest Hills Playground - 2 courts
Lafayette - 2 courts
Hardy - 2 courts
Rose Park - 2 courts
Carter Barron - 20 courts?

So I've got 18 courts essentially in Ward 3 and several others nearby.

BTW I've got 2 active over programmed kids and am at all of these parks except Forest Hills at least twice a month in the spring and fall and the tennis courts are never fully utilized.

DPR has an interactive map - if you don't know how to use google it is here:

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=8&query=AND{%278%27.EX.%27Tennis%20Court%27}

Oh wait - and folks who need to use a pool should pay to join one but if that is a great idea then why shouldn't the wealthy folks in Cleveland Park not be required to pay to use the courts at Sidwell or NCS which are within walking distance of the people fighting adding a pool at Hearst?

And on the subject of hypocrisy all the newly minted environmentalists & hydrologists of CP will no doubt be applying their considerable time and energies to getting rid of all of the tennis courts in DC, starting with Hearst, because clearly paved surfaces are bad for the environment?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

What happened to the 13 tennis courts within a half-mile?

Hah - I didn't post that but since I doubt the crowd fighting the pool are walking half a mile to play tennis no reason to not inventory the courts they can quickly drive to.

[Anonymous]

What I find really rich is the insistence that Ward 3 has to have its own pool, and then a PP grandly cites tennis courts that are in other wards altogether, as supposed substitutes for tearing out the perfectly good tennis courts that are there today at Hearst! (Rose, Volta, Carter Barron, Hardy for example).

[Anonymous]

Elementary logic:

Volta - 2 courts = "essentially in Ward 3"

Therefore:

Volta - public outdoor pool = "essentially in Ward 3."

Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

There are also courts in McLean Gardens behind the police station that are always empty. I use the UDC courts and have never paid a dime. Ok, so there are a lot of courts within a mile or so of Hearst. Most of them are almost never used. Thanks for making the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find really rich is the insistence that Ward 3 has to have its own pool, and then a PP grandly cites tennis courts that are in other wards altogether, as supposed substitutes for tearing out the perfectly good tennis courts that are there today at Hearst! (Rose, Volta, Carter Barron, Hardy for example).

Ummm no it is the anti-pool advocates who've come up with a bunch of hypocritical and contradictory positions.

If it is ok for pool users to have to drive to a pool then should it not be ok for neighbors of Hearst to drive to a tennis court - courts that in this case are much closer than any comparable pool.

If this is really about the environment or the Soapstone watershed then surely the purpose of this entire process should be to restore as much of that watershed as possible and in that case then the logical place to start would be by restoring Hearst Park to its original state right?

The Hearst neighbors only care about the environment to the extent that it gives them reasons to oppose any change to what they consider to be their own private park.

The Hearst neighbors only believe other people should have to drive to recreational resources, not themselves - that is environmental hypocrisy!

The Hearst neighbors can point out how many pools there are in DC but chafe when someone points out that in fact there is an excess of tennis courts in their immediate neighborhood.

So is it do as I say not as I do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elementary logic:

Volta - 2 courts = "essentially in Ward 3"

Therefore:

Volta - public outdoor pool = "essentially in Ward 3."

Am I missing something?

But the anti-pool Hearst neighbors are the ones who introduced this argument and logic! But suddenly it doesn't suite you - so yes what you are missing is that you are a clueless hypocrite!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

There are also courts in McLean Gardens behind the police station that are always empty. I use the UDC courts and have never paid a dime. Ok, so there are a lot of courts within a mile or so of Hearst. Most of them are almost never used. Thanks for making the point.

The UDC website says that the public has to pay approx. $300 for an annual membership to use the courts. So much for public use. Do you just ignore the membership requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find really rich is the insistence that Ward 3 has to have its own pool, and then a PP grandly cites tennis courts that are in other wards altogether, as supposed substitutes for tearing out the perfectly good tennis courts that are there today at Hearst! (Rose, Volta, Carter Barron, Hardy for example).

Ummm no it is the anti-pool advocates who've come up with a bunch of hypocritical and contradictory positions.

If it is ok for pool users to have to drive to a pool then should it not be ok for neighbors of Hearst to drive to a tennis court - courts that in this case are much closer than any comparable pool.

If this is really about the environment or the Soapstone watershed then surely the purpose of this entire process should be to restore as much of that watershed as possible and in that case then the logical place to start would be by restoring Hearst Park to its original state right?

The Hearst neighbors only care about the environment to the extent that it gives them reasons to oppose any change to what they consider to be their own private park.

The Hearst neighbors only believe other people should have to drive to recreational resources, not themselves - that is environmental hypocrisy!

The Hearst neighbors can point out how many pools there are in DC but chafe when someone points out that in fact there is an excess of tennis courts in their immediate neighborhood.

So is it do as I say not as I do?

What a great idea! Build a soft pond-bottom, spring-fed natural pool at Hearst! That way, DC does something innovative and avoids pouring more concrete at Hearst. What do people think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

There are also courts in McLean Gardens behind the police station that are always empty. I use the UDC courts and have never paid a dime. Ok, so there are a lot of courts within a mile or so of Hearst. Most of them are almost never used. Thanks for making the point.

If you mean the ones next to the dog park/pen, isn't that where Mary Cheh is putting the homeless shelter, behind the police station?

[Anonymous]

Homeless shelter is going on the parking lot, not the tennis courts. It wouldn't matter, those courts are always open. Just like the ones at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Quick quiz: Fill in the blanks in the following paragraph, using the words "swimming," "tennis" and "soccer."

My favorite recreational activity is ________. I like it so much more than ________ and ________ that I think more public space should be devoted to ________ so that I will have the opportunity for ________ at a location that is convenient to my house. It's OK if people who like ________ and ________ have to get in their cars and drive, and pay lots of money to use private facilities.