Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best site for a Hearst pool is on the small astroturf field at the northern end of the park. It's flat and accessible and not close to any houses. The past couple of weekends the turf field was being used by groups of men who parked their MD-plated cars next to the playground, so if the pool displaced any users at that spot, they don't seem to be DC residents!

You mean tear up the 3 year old field that cost over $1,000,000 to build? That's the best place?

They built it for kids but its heavily used by men's teams from Maryland. At least the tennis players seem to be D.C. residents because I've seen many walk. Let's balance the features that DC park users want.

I als agree that Turtle Park has a lot more ro M for a pool.

That turf field sees more use on a single school day than those tennis courts probably see in a month. The Hearst kids are out there before school, during recess and after school. Multiply that by 180 school days and that field is probably one of the most utilized rec fields in the city, without even counting weekend use which is also heavy.

You can save the little field but build the pool on thr basketball court. A court can be built on school land, if it's important. Lord knows, if there's one thing that DC doesn't lack for, it's basketball courts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best site for a Hearst pool is on the small astroturf field at the northern end of the park. It's flat and accessible and not close to any houses. The past couple of weekends the turf field was being used by groups of men who parked their MD-plated cars next to the playground, so if the pool displaced any users at that spot, they don't seem to be DC residents!

You mean tear up the 3 year old field that cost over $1,000,000 to build? That's the best place?

They built it for kids but its heavily used by men's teams from Maryland. At least the tennis players seem to be D.C. residents because I've seen many walk. Let's balance the features that DC park users want.

I als agree that Turtle Park has a lot more ro M for a pool.

That turf field sees more use on a single school day than those tennis courts probably see in a month. The Hearst kids are out there before school, during recess and after school. Multiply that by 180 school days and that field is probably one of the most utilized rec fields in the city, without even counting weekend use which is also heavy.

You can save the little field but build the pool on thr basketball court. A court can be built on school land, if it's important. Lord knows, if there's one thing that DC doesn't lack for, it's basketball courts!

This is correct. I was looking at the park over the weekend, and a site east of the little turf field, about where the basketball court is, would be adequately sized for a pool. Moreover, it would have superior accessibility. If the basketball court needs to be replaced, it can be moved onto the DCPS portion of the site, possibly north of the existing shelter.

[Anonymous]

On this past Saturday, when the weather was beautiful, every Hearst tennis court was in use and players were on both the main soccer field and the little turf field. A pool is a nice thought, but absolutely not at the expense of losing these valuable recreational resources. DC needs to go back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On this past Saturday, when the weather was beautiful, every Hearst tennis court was in use and players were on both the main soccer field and the little turf field. A pool is a nice thought, but absolutely not at the expense of losing these valuable recreational resources. DC needs to go back to the drawing board.

I'm with you. When I see how heavily used Hearst Park is, especially on a nice spring day, it seems wasteful and shameful to sacrifice the field and courts for a facility that will be usable at most only three months per year. They should put the pool at a site where existing parks & rec facilities will not be negatively impacted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this past Saturday, when the weather was beautiful, every Hearst tennis court was in use and players were on both the main soccer field and the little turf field. A pool is a nice thought, but absolutely not at the expense of losing these valuable recreational resources. DC needs to go back to the drawing board.

I'm with you. When I see how heavily used Hearst Park is, especially on a nice spring day, it seems wasteful and shameful to sacrifice the field and courts for a facility that will be usable at most only three months per year. They should put the pool at a site where existing parks & rec facilities will not be negatively impacted!

Name the site that hasn't already been rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this past Saturday, when the weather was beautiful, every Hearst tennis court was in use and players were on both the main soccer field and the little turf field. A pool is a nice thought, but absolutely not at the expense of losing these valuable recreational resources. DC needs to go back to the drawing board.

I'm with you. When I see how heavily used Hearst Park is, especially on a nice spring day, it seems wasteful and shameful to sacrifice the field and courts for a facility that will be usable at most only three months per year. They should put the pool at a site where existing parks & rec facilities will not be negatively impacted!

Name the site that hasn't already been rejected.

Name the process that considered other sites. This was specifically the subject of a FOIA request to the DC government, asking for documents reflecting comparative analysis, even consideration, or other sites. DC's official response to the FOIA was that no such records exist.

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly, I don't care about the process that selected sites. I know the city has the money and will to put a public pool close to where I live and I support it. It will be a major community focus for people of all ages and be an amenity - ie something that people would want to live near- for the neighborhood.

We can agree to disagree, but I find it horrid that people like you want to hide behind process and BS hydrology issues to block something that the majority of your neighbors want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this past Saturday, when the weather was beautiful, every Hearst tennis court was in use and players were on both the main soccer field and the little turf field. A pool is a nice thought, but absolutely not at the expense of losing these valuable recreational resources. DC needs to go back to the drawing board.

I'm with you. When I see how heavily used Hearst Park is, especially on a nice spring day, it seems wasteful and shameful to sacrifice the field and courts for a facility that will be usable at most only three months per year. They should put the pool at a site where existing parks & rec facilities will not be negatively impacted!

Name the site that hasn't already been rejected.

Name the process that considered other sites. This was specifically the subject of a FOIA request to the DC government, asking for documents reflecting comparative analysis, even consideration, or other sites. DC's official response to the FOIA was that no such records exist.

Here was the DC "process": Mary Cheh heard from some constituents that they wanted their own Ward 3 pool. Hearst was already slated for a renovation project, so she put in an extra earmark for a pool. Hearst was basically the next train leaving the station so she jumped on. There wasn't much more analysis than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, I don't care about the process that selected sites. I know the city has the money and will to put a public pool close to where I live and I support it. It will be a major community focus for people of all ages and be an amenity - ie something that people would want to live near- for the neighborhood.

We can agree to disagree, but I find it horrid that people like you want to hide behind process and BS hydrology issues to block something that the majority of your neighbors want.

"Horrid"?! Get a life, hon. The only thing that separates us from truly being dysfunctional is a logical and fair governmental process and when that breaks down, it's a problem. You clearly need more than a pool to chill out in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, I don't care about the process that selected sites. I know the city has the money and will to put a public pool close to where I live and I support it. It will be a major community focus for people of all ages and be an amenity - ie something that people would want to live near- for the neighborhood.

We can agree to disagree, but I find it horrid that people like you want to hide behind process and BS hydrology issues to block something that the majority of your neighbors want.

Funny the unsubstantiated claim that a "majority" of neighbors (how is the neighborhood defined?) want a Hearst pool, when it seems that the Cleveland Park neighborhood groups (CP Historical Society, CPCA) are expressing major concerns if not opposition outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here was the DC "process": Mary Cheh heard from some constituents that they wanted their own Ward 3 pool. Hearst was already slated for a renovation project, so she put in an extra earmark for a pool. Hearst was basically the next train leaving the station so she jumped on. There wasn't much more analysis than that.

I think you're basically right, but I'm not sure it started with anyone wanting a "Ward 3" pool. Normal people (ie not politicians) don't think that way. Why would someone in Palisades care if a pool was added in Chevy Chase? What normal people care about is being able to walk to a pool. I think it was Cheh herself that noticed that Ward 3 was the only ward without an outdoor pool. From there, it was next train leaving the station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, I don't care about the process that selected sites. I know the city has the money and will to put a public pool close to where I live and I support it. It will be a major community focus for people of all ages and be an amenity - ie something that people would want to live near- for the neighborhood.

We can agree to disagree, but I find it horrid that people like you want to hide behind process and BS hydrology issues to block something that the majority of your neighbors want.

Most of the discussion so far has centered on what will be lost if a pool is built.

[Anonymous]

The polling showed an overwhelming support for the pool, despite the opponents efforts to stack the votes against it. The neighborhood groups are pariahs that no one listens to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't room for a pool on the upper area so I wouldn't worry about that. An outdoor pool down below would be a great asset for the community.

Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

And that is bad becaaaaaaaaaaause?....: ..............................?

Are those "visitors" unworthy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The polling showed an overwhelming support for the pool, despite the opponents efforts to stack the votes against it. The neighborhood groups are pariahs that no one listens to.

"Pariahs"? Both neighborhood organizations have substantial membership. I suspect that you don't actually live in Cleveland Park, so stop claiming to speak for what the neighborhood wants or doesn't want?