Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Here is the email, it was sent on November 28th at 11:45:

Dear Neighbors: If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey. I must confess, I was put off (and very angry) by the fact that it requires you to pick a pool and pool option even if you chose the no pool option – in fact, I haven’t filled out my own survey yet. But see the note we received back after our complaints about the survey, and make sure you and yours fill it out despite the problems. (Each device is allowed one response.) Please, read further down the fantastic letter put out by the Cleveland Park Historical Society. Also, Harry Martin raised our concerns at the Community Meeting with Mayor Bowser two weeks ago, and she promised to meet with us (stayed tuned for scheduling details.) And Hans Miller scheduled a meeting for us with newly-elected ANC 3C Commissioner Emma Hersh on Sunday, Dec. 11 at 2 PM at Hearst Park. (Please meet near the Idaho Avenue entrance to Hearst.) Finally, while I haven’t seen it, the NW Current ran an article Nov. 23 entitled “Park Service nixes alternative site,” which is about our proposed alternative site at Glover Archbold. Recall that we proposed multiple alternative sites and are in the process of reaching out to the National Park Service to follow up. So we keep on keeping on and can’t imagine a better group of people to be associated with - and for that I am very thankful.

So please don't cast dispersion on your neighbors who were playing by the rules when the opponents are the ones who were stacking the votes. Yes, the anti's ARE the Trumpkins here. Own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member of the the CP historical society, and I believe that the board IS reflecting the membership. They're spot on in pointing out that DC did no analysis of the site versus alternatives and are concerned about the loss of greenspace and especially the old tree canopy. And the historic district wraps around the park on two sides

I don't believe that the historical society took a stand on Cathedral Commons, but it's surprising that you mention it as an example, given how crappy the design turned out.

SO true. I originally looked forward to Cathedral Commons opening, but unfortunately the design turned out to be rather ugly and the construction is cheap looking. There's so much concrete. It looks like a project that a developer would put up while hedging its bet in a transitional neighborhood, not in a prime location in one of the strongest real estate markets in the city. With 20/20 hindsight, I wish that more local groups had weighed in when this came up for review and permits.

i don't understand the hate for Cathedral Commons. it's certainly no uglier than the strip of retail on CT Ave, and much much more functional for a typical family. There's a grocery store, several restaurants that aren't too fancy to bring the kids to, and parking.

"Hate" is a strong word, methinks. But there is a lot of disappointment at how cheap-looking and concrete-y Cathedral Commons looks when compared with the design, construction detail and finishes are nearby projects like the new Park Van Ness and The Woodley. Not to mention Bethesda Avenue (whose original inspiration, by the way, was the Connecticut Ave. shopping strip in Cleveland Park). Cathedral Commons, particularly the taller block, looks like they just borrowed the design of a budget-suites hotel next to a major airport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the email, it was sent on November 28th at 11:45:

Dear Neighbors: If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey. I must confess, I was put off (and very angry) by the fact that it requires you to pick a pool and pool option even if you chose the no pool option – in fact, I haven’t filled out my own survey yet. But see the note we received back after our complaints about the survey, and make sure you and yours fill it out despite the problems. (Each device is allowed one response.) Please, read further down the fantastic letter put out by the Cleveland Park Historical Society. Also, Harry Martin raised our concerns at the Community Meeting with Mayor Bowser two weeks ago, and she promised to meet with us (stayed tuned for scheduling details.) And Hans Miller scheduled a meeting for us with newly-elected ANC 3C Commissioner Emma Hersh on Sunday, Dec. 11 at 2 PM at Hearst Park. (Please meet near the Idaho Avenue entrance to Hearst.) Finally, while I haven’t seen it, the NW Current ran an article Nov. 23 entitled “Park Service nixes alternative site,” which is about our proposed alternative site at Glover Archbold. Recall that we proposed multiple alternative sites and are in the process of reaching out to the National Park Service to follow up. So we keep on keeping on and can’t imagine a better group of people to be associated with - and for that I am very thankful.

So please don't cast dispersion on your neighbors who were playing by the rules when the opponents are the ones who were stacking the votes. Yes, the anti's ARE the Trumpkins here. Own it.

Sorry, while I do see the statement that each device is allowed one response, I don't see an explicit effort to "stack the votes" and "game the results" However, this is exactly what a pool supporter urged on DCUM:

If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey (Each device is allowed one response) so if you want the pool, do what those opposed are doing and be sure to us multiple devices to game the results.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the email, it was sent on November 28th at 11:45:

Dear Neighbors: If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey. I must confess, I was put off (and very angry) by the fact that it requires you to pick a pool and pool option even if you chose the no pool option – in fact, I haven’t filled out my own survey yet. But see the note we received back after our complaints about the survey, and make sure you and yours fill it out despite the problems. (Each device is allowed one response.) Please, read further down the fantastic letter put out by the Cleveland Park Historical Society. Also, Harry Martin raised our concerns at the Community Meeting with Mayor Bowser two weeks ago, and she promised to meet with us (stayed tuned for scheduling details.) And Hans Miller scheduled a meeting for us with newly-elected ANC 3C Commissioner Emma Hersh on Sunday, Dec. 11 at 2 PM at Hearst Park. (Please meet near the Idaho Avenue entrance to Hearst.) Finally, while I haven’t seen it, the NW Current ran an article Nov. 23 entitled “Park Service nixes alternative site,” which is about our proposed alternative site at Glover Archbold. Recall that we proposed multiple alternative sites and are in the process of reaching out to the National Park Service to follow up. So we keep on keeping on and can’t imagine a better group of people to be associated with - and for that I am very thankful.

So please don't cast dispersion on your neighbors who were playing by the rules when the opponents are the ones who were stacking the votes. Yes, the anti's ARE the Trumpkins here. Own it.

Sorry, while I do see the statement that each device is allowed one response, I don't see an explicit effort to "stack the votes" and "game the results" However, this is exactly what a pool supporter urged on DCUM:

If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey (Each device is allowed one response) so if you want the pool, do what those opposed are doing and be sure to us multiple devices to game the results.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K

Then you are being willfully obtuse, just like the Trumpkins.

Like I said, own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the email, it was sent on November 28th at 11:45:

Dear Neighbors: If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey. I must confess, I was put off (and very angry) by the fact that it requires you to pick a pool and pool option even if you chose the no pool option – in fact, I haven’t filled out my own survey yet. But see the note we received back after our complaints about the survey, and make sure you and yours fill it out despite the problems. (Each device is allowed one response.) Please, read further down the fantastic letter put out by the Cleveland Park Historical Society. Also, Harry Martin raised our concerns at the Community Meeting with Mayor Bowser two weeks ago, and she promised to meet with us (stayed tuned for scheduling details.) And Hans Miller scheduled a meeting for us with newly-elected ANC 3C Commissioner Emma Hersh on Sunday, Dec. 11 at 2 PM at Hearst Park. (Please meet near the Idaho Avenue entrance to Hearst.) Finally, while I haven’t seen it, the NW Current ran an article Nov. 23 entitled “Park Service nixes alternative site,” which is about our proposed alternative site at Glover Archbold. Recall that we proposed multiple alternative sites and are in the process of reaching out to the National Park Service to follow up. So we keep on keeping on and can’t imagine a better group of people to be associated with - and for that I am very thankful.

So please don't cast dispersion on your neighbors who were playing by the rules when the opponents are the ones who were stacking the votes. Yes, the anti's ARE the Trumpkins here. Own it.

It's distressing in neighborhood debates when someone starts using the Bannon/Stone/Mannafort political tricks manual -- publishing purloined email and labeling your adversaries as cheaters and fraudsters. Is a little public pool open barely 12 weeks a year that would fundamentally alter the park really worth all that to you?

[Anonymous]

It's a public park designed to maximize public good. If they take one court to put something in that will have maximum community benefit with minimal impact that will fundementally improve the park and community. You don't get to control public assets, it isn't your property.

Is it really worth all that to you?

[Anonymous]

Purloined email? It went to everyone in the neighborhood asking them to game the system. Is that ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a public park designed to maximize public good. If they take one court to put something in that will have maximum community benefit with minimal impact that will fundementally improve the park and community. You don't get to control public assets, it isn't your property.

Is it really worth all that to you?

There is precisely zero chance a pool, a pool deck, changing rooms, and pool equipment for a public pool fit in the space of one tennis court. You are dreaming. I grew up with a pool in my backyard (not here) that covered more space than a tennis court and that was for a private personal inground pool with brick decking and a shed for equipment. One that requires the chemicals and filtering equipment for a public pool simply is not feasible. Unless, of course, the maximum capacity of the pool is to be 20 or fewer patrons at a time. In which case I would argue that's hardly a benefit to the community if a max of 5 family units could use the pool at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a public park designed to maximize public good. If they take one court to put something in that will have maximum community benefit with minimal impact that will fundementally improve the park and community. You don't get to control public assets, it isn't your property.

Is it really worth all that to you?

DPR and DGS already said that the sketches are indicative, and the various options presented do not include all of the pool infrastructure, such as a pool house/changing rooms/bathrooms, mechanical shed, concrete pool deck, lounge area, walkways, all within an enclosed cyclone fence area. In all, it is beyond obvious that all this would be way larger than the footprint of one tennis court.

[Anonymous]

'Swimming pool supporters'.

[Anonymous]

Kudos to the board of directors of the Cleveland Park Historical Society for its decision to support preservation of Hearst Park's mature large tree canopy and the park's landforms and against siting a pool there.

[Anonymous]

It was very nice of Stoddert to support Option 1, which includes a full size field and a pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was very nice of Stoddert to support Option 1, which includes a full size field and a pool.

Option One includes a 4th-grade sized field. Stoddert said they could get behind Option One if it was modified to maintain the size of the existing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was very nice of Stoddert to support Option 1, which includes a full size field and a pool.

What's interesting is that Stoddert has not publicly released the letter they sent to Director Anderson. So this posting is presumably by someone in the Director's office.

[Anonymous]

Is there any movement at all to talk about the new owners of the Fannie Mae property about putting a public pool in there?