Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, the CPBA fought the farmers market, not the CPCA. But the ANC opposed it for the last time in 2014 so it died.

It would have been nice to close the service lane for a few hours each Sunday to have a place where we could meet as a community, but because of entrenched forced in the neighborhood, we cannot have nice things like farmers markets and neighborhood pools.

Brookville Market opposed a farmers market a few years ago, fearing a loss in sales. Apparently, Brookville will not oppose one now. But markets trying to stifle competition is nothing new. Look at Cathedral Commons, where Giant -- many multiples larger and more powerful than Brookville -- effectively restricts the type of tenants at Cathedral Commons. The reason why we can't have a specialty baker like Paul or a specialty seafood store is because of Giant, which wants people to buy their gluten-enriched puffy bread and farm-raised fish.

So Brookeville denying a public asset on public property that actually draws people to the commercial area is ok but Cathedral Commons having a self-imposed covenant is not?

m'okay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, the CPBA fought the farmers market, not the CPCA. But the ANC opposed it for the last time in 2014 so it died.

It would have been nice to close the service lane for a few hours each Sunday to have a place where we could meet as a community, but because of entrenched forced in the neighborhood, we cannot have nice things like farmers markets and neighborhood pools.

Brookville Market opposed a farmers market a few years ago, fearing a loss in sales. Apparently, Brookville will not oppose one now. But markets trying to stifle competition is nothing new. Look at Cathedral Commons, where Giant -- many multiples larger and more powerful than Brookville -- effectively restricts the type of tenants at Cathedral Commons. The reason why we can't have a specialty baker like Paul or a specialty seafood store is because of Giant, which wants people to buy their gluten-enriched puffy bread and farm-raised fish.

So Brookeville denying a public asset on public property that actually draws people to the commercial area is ok but Cathedral Commons having a self-imposed covenant is not?

m'okay

Brookville has no legal power to prevent a farmers market, but clearly Giant can force Cathedral Commons to enforce non-compete restrictions.

Of course, the notion that someone who shops at Paul or Black Salt would view Giant as a substitute for bread and seafood is hilarious. Comparing these food establishments to Giant is the proverbial difference between chicken salad and chicken shit.

[Anonymous]

I think Cheh has been great, and I hear she has decided to run again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many observers around the District Building feel that Cheh won't run for the Council again. Cheh has also said that she was surprised at the degree of neighborhood opposition to the Hearst pool. The pool proposal is unlikely to survive the studies that the DC government now concedes it will have to do. Even if the studies don't kill the pool outright, it will likely fade away as Cheh leaves the Council.

God I hope this is true. For a lot of reasons, not the Hearst pool particularly.

+1. Very tired of Cheh, who combines an inability to listen to her constituents with an arrogant, know-it-all approach to decision-making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been great, and I hear she has decided to run again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many observers around the District Building feel that Cheh won't run for the Council again. Cheh has also said that she was surprised at the degree of neighborhood opposition to the Hearst pool. The pool proposal is unlikely to survive the studies that the DC government now concedes it will have to do. Even if the studies don't kill the pool outright, it will likely fade away as Cheh leaves the Council.

God I hope this is true. For a lot of reasons, not the Hearst pool particularly.

+1. Very tired of Cheh, who combines an inability to listen to her constituents with an arrogant, know-it-all approach to decision-making.

Ward 3's nasty nanny.

[Anonymous]

My high-schooler son had a game at Hearst on Saturday, so I paced off the field. By my count, the playing surface -- between the lines -- is 60 yards wide and 105 yards long. Please keep keep that in mind as DGS shops plans for replacing it with an elementary-school sized field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My high-schooler son had a game at Hearst on Saturday, so I paced off the field. By my count, the playing surface -- between the lines -- is 60 yards wide and 105 yards long. Please keep keep that in mind as DGS shops plans for replacing it with an elementary-school sized field.

Sunday was a beautiful day with the park heavily used. When I was there two team groups were practicing on the soccer field at the same time, another advantage of a rare large-sized field. All of the tennis courts were in use. It's sad to think that DC would be shortsighted enough to sacrifice one or both of these much utilized recreational assets, not to mention much of the old tree canopy as well. If the pool were built, it would still not open for the season for another seven weeks and then would close again by Labor Day. The rest of the time, it would sit empty, a fenced, concrete enclosure taking up scarce, valuable athletics space in this modest-sized park. The trade-off equation at Hearst just doesn't balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been great, and I hear she has decided to run again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many observers around the District Building feel that Cheh won't run for the Council again. Cheh has also said that she was surprised at the degree of neighborhood opposition to the Hearst pool. The pool proposal is unlikely to survive the studies that the DC government now concedes it will have to do. Even if the studies don't kill the pool outright, it will likely fade away as Cheh leaves the Council.

God I hope this is true. For a lot of reasons, not the Hearst pool particularly.

+1. Very tired of Cheh, who combines an inability to listen to her constituents with an arrogant, know-it-all approach to decision-making.

Ward 3's nasty nanny.

or its caustic commissar.

[Anonymous]

Better start humming this tune then, because the rest of the ward will reelect Mary Cheh just because she got an outdoor pool in ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been great, and I hear she has decided to run again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many observers around the District Building feel that Cheh won't run for the Council again. Cheh has also said that she was surprised at the degree of neighborhood opposition to the Hearst pool. The pool proposal is unlikely to survive the studies that the DC government now concedes it will have to do. Even if the studies don't kill the pool outright, it will likely fade away as Cheh leaves the Council.

God I hope this is true. For a lot of reasons, not the Hearst pool particularly.

+1. Very tired of Cheh, who combines an inability to listen to her constituents with an arrogant, know-it-all approach to decision-making.

Ward 3's nasty nanny.

or its caustic commissar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high-schooler son had a game at Hearst on Saturday, so I paced off the field. By my count, the playing surface -- between the lines -- is 60 yards wide and 105 yards long. Please keep keep that in mind as DGS shops plans for replacing it with an elementary-school sized field.

Sunday was a beautiful day with the park heavily used. When I was there two team groups were practicing on the soccer field at the same time, another advantage of a rare large-sized field. All of the tennis courts were in use. It's sad to think that DC would be shortsighted enough to sacrifice one or both of these much utilized recreational assets, not to mention much of the old tree canopy as well. If the pool were built, it would still not open for the season for another seven weeks and then would close again by Labor Day. The rest of the time, it would sit empty, a fenced, concrete enclosure taking up scarce, valuable athletics space in this modest-sized park. The trade-off equation at Hearst just doesn't balance.

The slopes surrounding the field could be excavated to create enough extra square footage to allow for the pool and the field. This isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high-schooler son had a game at Hearst on Saturday, so I paced off the field. By my count, the playing surface -- between the lines -- is 60 yards wide and 105 yards long. Please keep keep that in mind as DGS shops plans for replacing it with an elementary-school sized field.

Sunday was a beautiful day with the park heavily used. When I was there two team groups were practicing on the soccer field at the same time, another advantage of a rare large-sized field. All of the tennis courts were in use. It's sad to think that DC would be shortsighted enough to sacrifice one or both of these much utilized recreational assets, not to mention much of the old tree canopy as well. If the pool were built, it would still not open for the season for another seven weeks and then would close again by Labor Day. The rest of the time, it would sit empty, a fenced, concrete enclosure taking up scarce, valuable athletics space in this modest-sized park. The trade-off equation at Hearst just doesn't balance.

The slopes surrounding the field could be excavated to create enough extra square footage to allow for the pool and the field. This isn't rocket science.

Which would mean that much of the park then would sit in a bathtub with 20 - 25 foot concrete retaining walls up to the 37th St sidewalk (with another chain link fence on top). It would look like a prototype of Trump's border wall. And the excavation you propose to create more flat surface area at the field level would no doubt result in the removal of a number of mature oaks. When will people just acknowledge that Hearst is just too small a site for even a smallish pool, without major sacrifices of existing park recreational uses?! The only reason that DC DPR is even talking about Hearst is Cheh, who without much thought and no analysis, decided to attach pool funds to a planned park project because it was the bureaucratically easiest path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high-schooler son had a game at Hearst on Saturday, so I paced off the field. By my count, the playing surface -- between the lines -- is 60 yards wide and 105 yards long. Please keep keep that in mind as DGS shops plans for replacing it with an elementary-school sized field.

Sunday was a beautiful day with the park heavily used. When I was there two team groups were practicing on the soccer field at the same time, another advantage of a rare large-sized field. All of the tennis courts were in use. It's sad to think that DC would be shortsighted enough to sacrifice one or both of these much utilized recreational assets, not to mention much of the old tree canopy as well. If the pool were built, it would still not open for the season for another seven weeks and then would close again by Labor Day. The rest of the time, it would sit empty, a fenced, concrete enclosure taking up scarce, valuable athletics space in this modest-sized park. The trade-off equation at Hearst just doesn't balance.

The slopes surrounding the field could be excavated to create enough extra square footage to allow for the pool and the field. This isn't rocket science.

Yet none of the sketches proposed by DGS show anything of the kind.

[Anonymous]

And no one, particularly the city, is suggesting the removal or alteration of the mature oaks. They are heritage trees and are not going anywhere, so please stop misusing the cannard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And no one, particularly the city, is suggesting the removal or alteration of the mature oaks. They are heritage trees and are not going anywhere, so please stop misusing the cannard.

DGS tells everyone that everything will be wonderful. Eat cake and lose weight at the same time. The reality is that even if you confined a rather small pool to the footprint of a tennis court, the pool would require excavation and construction under the drip line of a number of large trees -- which would then be compromised and need to come down. Of course, this ignores the reality that the pool installation of a pool house, surrounding pool deck, support infrastructure, etc. will extend well beyond the pool's footprint, thereby impacting more trees. And that's before anyone talks about altering the topography, including the slopes.

You can call it a canard all you want, but it's hard to ignore a quacking duck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And no one, particularly the city, is suggesting the removal or alteration of the mature oaks. They are heritage trees and are not going anywhere, so please stop misusing the cannard.

DC has said that some trees may need to come down for safety reasons.

[Anonymous]

^^^^

If that is the case, then it would be regardless if there were a pool or not. If some of the trees are past peak maturity and pose a danger, then so be it, but don't blame it on a pool.