Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst Park lies within the boundaries of Cleveland Park.

http://www.cpcadc.org/boundaries/

Never mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad a tiny minority of people can impose their will of having good things for the majority of the people.

Hey, I guess the Hearst residents are the Trumpkins in this issue.

Congrats to the Trumpkins who don't want minorities in their enclave.

In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. The Ward 3 "swimming pool supporters" are obsessed with the idea that they require one or more pools within their ward (where incomes may be more than 7 times the incomes in the poorest wards) because they don't want to have to mix with DC residents at pools in other wards, even nearby ones.

Meanwhile, have a look at the kids who already come from all over to play soccer on Hearst's rare large field, all day every weekend day during many months of the year.

Wrong.

We just want to be able to walk or bike to a neighborhood pool like everyone else in the city, rather than drive or bus.

As a taxpayer, I want recreational parity with my fellow DC residents. Hearst is a public park. Just because you live close to it doesn't mean you get to demand its usage and programming. That is what DPR is there for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst Park lies within the boundaries of Cleveland Park.

http://www.cpcadc.org/boundaries/

Citing the CPCA for anything related to the neighborhood is a losing proposition. Talk about a worthless organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst Park lies within the boundaries of Cleveland Park.

http://www.cpcadc.org/boundaries/

Citing the CPCA for anything related to the neighborhood is a losing proposition. Talk about a worthless organization.

At a recent CPCA public forum, Mayor Bowser declined to support a Hearst pool, clearly distancing herself from what she said was Cheh's idea. It's doubtful a pool will happen there.

[Anonymous]

CPCA is in the dictionary for NIMBY. What do you expect Bowser to say at such an audience.

Are you that naive?

She is pro growth, pro-construction and wants her name on any public works opportunity she can. You don't think she wants a plaque with her name on it at Hearst?

You are deluding yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad a tiny minority of people can impose their will of having good things for the majority of the people.

Hey, I guess the Hearst residents are the Trumpkins in this issue.

Congrats to the Trumpkins who don't want minorities in their enclave.

In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. The Ward 3 "swimming pool supporters" are obsessed with the idea that they require one or more pools within their ward (where incomes may be more than 7 times the incomes in the poorest wards) because they don't want to have to mix with DC residents at pools in other wards, even nearby ones.

Meanwhile, have a look at the kids who already come from all over to play soccer on Hearst's rare large field, all day every weekend day during many months of the year.

Wrong.

We just want to be able to walk or bike to a neighborhood pool like everyone else in the city, rather than drive or bus.

As a taxpayer, I want recreational parity with my fellow DC residents. Hearst is a public park. Just because you live close to it doesn't mean you get to demand its usage and programming. That is what DPR is there for.

McLean Gardens has a neighborhood pool, open to anyone who lives there or in Vaughan Place. Everyone walks to it.

Wilson has a public pool, open all year round. It's a 20 minute walk, 10 minute bike ride and faster bus ride from Hearst.

Cleveland Park has a pool that lots of people walk and bike to. While a private association, it's cheaper than just about any other swim club around.

Beauvoir has a swim club for those willing to pay a bit more for a larger pool. Many users walk or bike there.

There are public pools in Burleith and Georgetown, a short distance to the south.

It's hard to make the case that DC taxpayers should pay to pave under existing park and recreational facilities, to build a small pool for 3 months a year in an area that hardly seems underserved by public and private pool options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CPCA is in the dictionary for NIMBY. What do you expect Bowser to say at such an audience.

Are you that naive?

She is pro growth, pro-construction and wants her name on any public works opportunity she can. You don't think she wants a plaque with her name on it at Hearst?

You are deluding yourself.

It was a well-advertised public meeting. Many people there were not even CPCA members. Bowser may not be the sharpest pencil in the drawer, but even she knows that DC did not site studies for Hearst and that a pool won't fit there without making significant sacrifices of existing park facilities and uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst Park lies within the boundaries of Cleveland Park.

http://www.cpcadc.org/boundaries/

Citing the CPCA for anything related to the neighborhood is a losing proposition. Talk about a worthless organization.

I could care less about the CPCA, but the map states pretty clearly that Hearst lies within Cleveland Park. So it's clearly the business of various Cleveland Park membership groups as to what happens there.

[Anonymous]

Tepid support from city hall aside, upcoming environmental and hydrology studies will end up killing any pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

They just playin' y'all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tepid support from city hall aside, upcoming environmental and hydrology studies will end up killing any pool at Hearst.

Not to mention the later lawsuits, if it gets that far. But I suspect that politics will end up killing the pool earlier and Cheh will look for a face-saving exit, when it becomes abundantly clear that a pool won't fit there without major sacrifices by the fans of the soccer field, the tennis players, the playground parents and the tree huggers.

[Anonymous]

Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

No one believes that for a moment. How can you fit a decent-sized pool, a pool house with changing rooms and lavatories, and an enclosed pool deck and lounging space inside a fenced area the size of one tennis court?! I know that Washington is also the capital of spin, but this is laughable even by those standards. If that were really true that all that could be contained in a tennis court footprint, then the pool would have to be the size of a kiddie pool. And any excavation in the tennis court area, which sits under the beautiful oak canopy would result in the loss of numerous trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

Right. And the soccer field is perhaps the most used asset in the park.