Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the option C, though they should just leave the courts where they are and have more green space around the pool.

They should also do what they do in New York City where the pools are covered and used as open hard space the rest of the time - could be basketball, street hockey type space.

They should also make the pool house into more of a rec center so the Hearst School kids have a better after school space.

I think that we spend enough on free after school programs. Half the kids who go to them actually live in Maryland. I've seen their parents in their Maryland cars picking up around 4:30 or 5 in the afternoon outside Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This slide deck is really interesting. Whatever your position, a lot of analysis has gone into this (probably more than Mary Cheh ever did!).

https://app.box.com/s/jatg8bs2lim0rh66yly895e5xzyits1m

It's nicely done.

The problem is the National Park Service. They don't have a reputation for cooperating with the DC government. The deck points out that most DC DPR rec centers are on NPS property -- including Hearst -- but they were all transferred at the dawn of home rule. It's become almost impossible since then.

If DC had a more effective delegate than Eleanor Holmes Norton on the Hill, then a deal with the Park Service could get done. But unfortunately Norton doesn't even get along with House Democrats, and hasn't figured out how to get anything to closure in years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the option C, though they should just leave the courts where they are and have more green space around the pool.

They should also do what they do in New York City where the pools are covered and used as open hard space the rest of the time - could be basketball, street hockey type space.

They should also make the pool house into more of a rec center so the Hearst School kids have a better after school space.

I think that we spend enough on free after school programs. Half the kids who go to them actually live in Maryland. I've seen their parents in their Maryland cars picking up around 4:30 or 5 in the afternoon outside Hearst.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the option C, though they should just leave the courts where they are and have more green space around the pool.

They should also do what they do in New York City where the pools are covered and used as open hard space the rest of the time - could be basketball, street hockey type space.

They should also make the pool house into more of a rec center so the Hearst School kids have a better after school space.

I think that we spend enough on free after school programs. Half the kids who go to them actually live in Maryland. I've seen their parents in their Maryland cars picking up around 4:30 or 5 in the afternoon outside Hearst.

FALSE

[Anonymous]

According to the Neighbors for Hearst Park website, the DC government's "response to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to DGS and DPR revealed that no studies at all were in fact conducted, despite statements that 3 sites had been considered prior to selecting Hearst as the most suitable. The city was unable to produce a single document related to pool site selection, revealing that Hearst was named as the site prior to studying its feasibility and with no consideration of any other site."

This is quite troubling.

[Anonymous]

Not really.

The majority of the people want the pool there. There is no electoral college on this so....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really.

The majority of the people want the pool there. There is no electoral college on this so....

It is very disturbing if the DC government did no analysis of site alternatives and of the suitability of the Hearst site itself for a pool. Where was the analysis and the process? DC couldn't find a single document. It seems it was all in Mary Cheh's swelled head, with the agencies later tripping all over themselves to figure out how to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really.

The majority of the people want the pool there. There is no electoral college on this so....

I read that the Hearst Park Neighbors group has something like 150 members. That's a lot of nearby households who oppose pool construction, more than can be dismissed as some usual "handful of NIMBYs."

[Anonymous]

I'm so glad to see this thread bubble up again, it restores my faith in humanity. Compared to the other threads it's the height of civic discourse.

[Anonymous]

Well that's quite disturbing. I was hoping they had at least done an EIS on the site. I figured they hadn't done anything to compare sites and Mary Cheh just pulled it out of the air after the Turtle Park groups managed to keep it out of their park. However, I would have expected at the bare minimum an EIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that's quite disturbing. I was hoping they had at least done an EIS on the site. I figured they hadn't done anything to compare sites and Mary Cheh just pulled it out of the air after the Turtle Park groups managed to keep it out of their park. However, I would have expected at the bare minimum an EIS.

No EIS, but DPR is trying to do a CYA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really.

The majority of the people want the pool there. There is no electoral college on this so....

It is very disturbing if the DC government did no analysis of site alternatives and of the suitability of the Hearst site itself for a pool. Where was the analysis and the process? DC couldn't find a single document. It seems it was all in Mary Cheh's swelled head, with the agencies later tripping all over themselves to figure out how to make it work.

That sounds about right. Par for the course.

What I wonder is, why did they pay for the Master Facilities Plan if they have no intention of doing anything remotely close to following it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's quite disturbing. I was hoping they had at least done an EIS on the site. I figured they hadn't done anything to compare sites and Mary Cheh just pulled it out of the air after the Turtle Park groups managed to keep it out of their park. However, I would have expected at the bare minimum an EIS.

No EIS, but DPR is trying to do a CYA.

Indeed they are.

[Anonymous]

Master Facilities Plan calls for two outdoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. Hearst is west of Rock Creek Park.

Voila.

150 NIMBYs compared to thousands of nearby residents who want the pool is in fact a handful.

[Anonymous]

At a community forum yesterday in Cleveland Park, Mayor Bowser went out of her way to note that a pool at the Hearst Park site is a Mary Cheh idea, not something the administration decided.