Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Hearst is walking distance from Tenleytown - all the more reason why it is a perfectly suitable location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You clearly have no understanding of Cleveland Park history. In the 1960s white and black residents of Cleveland Park were teaming up with less affluent neighborhoods to stop a plan to hollow out D.C. with freeways. Their slogan was "no to white men's freeways through black men's bedrooms." Killing the D.C. Freeway project provided the infusion of funding for Metro. But, oh, those Cleveland Park NIMBYs!

Well, it was two, now deceased attorneys who led the effort to stop the freeways that would have gone through Glover Park (270) to connect to the Three Sisters Bridge (66) and the one that would have gone across Rock Creek near Tilden. It was convenient that they connected with African-Americans from NE who wanted to stop the freeway that would have gone through Takoma and Brookline (95). But to say they teamed up in a proactive manner overstates the condition, dramatically. And it was "No White Man's Road's Through Black Man's Homes" - there weren't too many black man's homes in Cleveland Park back then - I can think of two.

If the Rock Creek freeway spur had been built, Hearst School and perhaps the park itself likely would not be there today. Food for thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You clearly have no understanding of Cleveland Park history. In the 1960s white and black residents of Cleveland Park were teaming up with less affluent neighborhoods to stop a plan to hollow out D.C. with freeways. Their slogan was "no to white men's freeways through black men's bedrooms." Killing the D.C. Freeway project provided the infusion of funding for Metro. But, oh, those Cleveland Park NIMBYs!

Well, it was two, now deceased attorneys who led the effort to stop the freeways that would have gone through Glover Park (270) to connect to the Three Sisters Bridge (66) and the one that would have gone across Rock Creek near Tilden. It was convenient that they connected with African-Americans from NE who wanted to stop the freeway that would have gone through Takoma and Brookline (95). But to say they teamed up in a proactive manner overstates the condition, dramatically. And it was "No White Man's Road's Through Black Man's Homes" - there weren't too many black man's homes in Cleveland Park back then - I can think of two.

If the Rock Creek freeway spur had been built, Hearst School and perhaps the park itself likely would not be there today. Food for thought.

Wrong. Look at the maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called. The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward. If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node? Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools. Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily. The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called. The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward. If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node? Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools. Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily. The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.

Everyone would love for the pool to be as close to the Metro as possible but Hearst is still comfortably walkable from 2 Metro stations. More importantly it is very close to the Wisconsin Avenue and the H buses which means the pool in fact is reachable on transit from as many parts of Ward 3 as a Metro station would be.

There is never going to be a perfect location but pointing out the flaws of a very good location does not make a compelling argument.

I wish the neighbors would just come out and be honest that they don't want the pool near their homes - proponents of the pool will still disagree with you but will at least respect you for having the courage to be honest.

Which to date none of you have had.

[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's a problem because? People in other wards pay taxes, just like you, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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's a problem because? People in other wards pay taxes, just like you, so...

I guess this is why the Ward 3 pool pushers don't think that close Metro access is very important. They really just want their little neighborhood pool.

[Anonymous]

Everyone one else across the city has their own pool. Look at the map on the DPR site. Why would anyone take a metro or drive to Hearst when the likely have a pool within a mile of where they live?

[Anonymous]

There is no way that pool will be built despite what Mary Cheh and her developer do to fix the decision. I didn't know anything about her until this issue erupted and I look forward to seeing her defeated in the next election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called. The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward. If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node? Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools. Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily. The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.

The talk of a "Ward 3 pool" just isn't persuasive. Ward boundaries are just imaginary lines on a map, and they move. Chevy Chase is Ward 4 but used to be Ward 3, and Palisades is Ward 3 but used to Ward 2. Would a pool at Chevy Chase not serve Ward 3 because it's in Ward 4? Does a pool at Hearst serve people in Palisades better than pools at Jelleff or Volta simply because they don't have to cross a ward boundary to get there? It's not like we have passport controls between the wards.

The DPR Master Facilities Plan called for every DC resident to be within one mile of an outdoor pool. For most residents west of Rock Creek that is not currently the case. The plan pointed out that two new pools, one near Ward Circle and one near Chevy Chase, would put almost the entire area within a one-mile radius. A pool at Hearst does not accomplish that; rather it splits the area into smaller northern and southern zones that are still not served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that pool will be built despite what Mary Cheh and her developer do to fix the decision. I didn't know anything about her until this issue erupted and I look forward to seeing her defeated in the next election.

She may not even run. We'll see in about 4 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that pool will be built despite what Mary Cheh and her developer do to fix the decision. I didn't know anything about her until this issue erupted and I look forward to seeing her defeated in the next election.

She may not even run. We'll see in about 4 months.

She is running - was announced in the Spring, and has already raised money. To date, no challengers, so unless someone on this forum who continues to complain about her wishes to run, she will win again very easily.