Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

You must have a different elementary school community than us. She is popular at our school. I really can't think of anyone who could beat her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for the next Chen election. When is it?

2018. But she's not running. Start prepping your candidates!

She filed her paperwork to get on the ballot in 2018.

Oh, I hope not. Cheh is just despised in our Ward 3 elementary school community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You must have a different elementary school community than us. She is popular at our school. I really can't think of anyone who could beat her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for the next Chen election. When is it?

2018. But she's not running. Start prepping your candidates!

She filed her paperwork to get on the ballot in 2018.

Oh, I hope not. Cheh is just despised in our Ward 3 elementary school community.

I guess it depends on the school. If you're at Janney and you've had two or three renovations (even with underground parking) and Cheh has protected your school from boundary changes, then you probably think she's ok. If she hasn't gone to bat for resources for your school, or to secure a timely renovation, then you probably think she's worthless.

[Anonymous]

It is almost impossible to defeat an incumbent councilmember. Even so, Cheh is popular enough to win easily if she wants.

[Anonymous]

What is the deal with the editorial in the current that says Cheh is meeting with ANCs on public property but blocking the public and the media from attending?

[Anonymous]

Fake news.

But I was interested in the Letter to the Editor from the Director of DPR who said that the pool should be at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fake news.

But I was interested in the Letter to the Editor from the Director of DPR who said that the pool should be at Hearst.

The one where he claimed that they had analyzed alternatives? And where his claim was undercut another letter pointing out that when a FOIA request asked for studies, even emails, comparing the site to others, DPR's response was 'there were no documents'?! Talk about fake news, at a Bowser intelligence level.

[Anonymous]

Building a pool at Hearst is such a horrible move. Is destroying a park just so a meaningless political subdivision can claim rights to a pool - even though there are several nearby- really something people support?

[Anonymous]

Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

Wilson pool is within walking distance and there are private swim club pools within walking distance from Hearst as well. There are two public outdoor pools a 10 minute drive or bus ride just down Wisconsin Ave. How entitled then to demand yet another public pool, especially when the price is paving much of a quiet, green park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

Wilson pool is within walking distance and there are private swim club pools within walking distance from Hearst as well. There are two public outdoor pools a 10 minute drive or bus ride just down Wisconsin Ave. How entitled then to demand yet another public pool, especially when the price is paving much of a quiet, green park.

It's not a binary choice. Your thinking is antiquated. Similar thinking is killing the commercial strip in Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

I was just thinking that. I'd love to be able to grab a picnic and take a quick dip then eat in the park on a summer evening. Can't do that at Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

Wilson pool is within walking distance and there are private swim club pools within walking distance from Hearst as well. There are two public outdoor pools a 10 minute drive or bus ride just down Wisconsin Ave. How entitled then to demand yet another public pool, especially when the price is paving much of a quiet, green park.

Status quo is KILLING Cleveland Park. The service lane, the restrictions on establishments, the chronic NIMBYism is simply killing the area. It is time for the old timers to understand, this isn't 1972 or 1950. People want to be able to walk to things and have gathering places. Hearst can have all of the things that make it great today - the trees, the grass field, the playground, the basketball court and tennis courts, as well as an outdoor pool where people can gather in evenings and weekends, stay cool and hang out.

It is just the purely selfish old timers who are fighting this. The Mayor wants it, DPR wants it, the Councilmember wants it the ANCs want it and it is just a handful of crotchety old fogies who probably have pools in their backyards who are opposing this on purely selfish grounds. Keep fighting it, all you are doing is making it easier to recruit the proponets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

Wilson pool is within walking distance and there are private swim club pools within walking distance from Hearst as well. There are two public outdoor pools a 10 minute drive or bus ride just down Wisconsin Ave. How entitled then to demand yet another public pool, especially when the price is paving much of a quiet, green park.

Status quo is KILLING Cleveland Park. The service lane, the restrictions on establishments, the chronic NIMBYism is simply killing the area. It is time for the old timers to understand, this isn't 1972 or 1950. People want to be able to walk to things and have gathering places. Hearst can have all of the things that make it great today - the trees, the grass field, the playground, the basketball court and tennis courts, as well as an outdoor pool where people can gather in evenings and weekends, stay cool and hang out.

It is just the purely selfish old timers who are fighting this. The Mayor wants it, DPR wants it, the Councilmember wants it the ANCs want it and it is just a handful of crotchety old fogies who probably have pools in their backyards who are opposing this on purely selfish grounds. Keep fighting it, all you are doing is making it easier to recruit the proponets.

So please, please, show us how we can eat lots of cake and lose weight at the same time. Unless you envision a tiny kiddie pool, please explain how Hearst users will see the large tree canopy preserved and also enjoy the full sized grass field, the playground, the hoops court and the tennis courts -- and an outdoor pool. None of the DPR sketches showed how this is possible, and that's with DC conceding that the plans were simply indicative and didn't include the full dimensions of the pool, surrounding deck, pool house, equipment shed, etc.

As for the mayor, in response to questions on the Hearst pool at a community forum a while back, she made it very clear that this is Mary Cheh's baby, not hers. And if waiting for a Hearst pool or a service road is "killing" Cleveland Park, it seems that neither the real estate market nor the DC tax assessor have gotten the memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Destroying a park? That is your opinion.

Would have been great to be able to walk to a pool last week and weekend.

Wilson pool is within walking distance and there are private swim club pools within walking distance from Hearst as well. There are two public outdoor pools a 10 minute drive or bus ride just down Wisconsin Ave. How entitled then to demand yet another public pool, especially when the price is paving much of a quiet, green park.

Status quo is KILLING Cleveland Park. The service lane, the restrictions on establishments, the chronic NIMBYism is simply killing the area. It is time for the old timers to understand, this isn't 1972 or 1950. People want to be able to walk to things and have gathering places. Hearst can have all of the things that make it great today - the trees, the grass field, the playground, the basketball court and tennis courts, as well as an outdoor pool where people can gather in evenings and weekends, stay cool and hang out.

It is just the purely selfish old timers who are fighting this. The Mayor wants it, DPR wants it, the Councilmember wants it the ANCs want it and it is just a handful of crotchety old fogies who probably have pools in their backyards who are opposing this on purely selfish grounds. Keep fighting it, all you are doing is making it easier to recruit the proponets.

I'm not an old timer and I don't want a pool at Hearst. It's two blocks from my house. My kids play soccer there. Sled there in the winter, go to the playground, I'm about to start teaching the older one to play tennis. There is no physical way all those things can remain atthe site and include a pool. Unless it's the size of a bathtub.

[Anonymous]

All of those things could still be done at Hearst, with a pool.