Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful letter in the Northwest Current about Hearst, from a longtime DC soccer family.

That letter had many errors in it.

The trees are not in peril and placing the pool near the tennis courts would not impact the trees.

But whatever, everyone will read into whatever they want in this fake news era.

If the pool is built where the tennis courts are, then it would be under the tree drip line and excavation/earth works will damage the trees, necessitating their removal. And in any case, as the letter writer pointed out, who wants to use a pool that is perpetually in shade?

Someone keeps repeating this and this is simply not true - the tennis courts are above the mature trees elevation wise and a good distance away. Being under the trees drip line does not mean a pool cannot be there - it is the trees roots that need to be protected and if the trees roots were currently an issue the tennis courts current location would be an issue.

There is no logical or sound reason why putting a pool where the tennis courts are will cause any damage so please stop repeating this fallacy - high rise buildings with excavated basements have gone up closer to these trees than anything proposed at Hearst without causing damage so this is just another unsubstantiated falsehood being peddled by neighbors.

I call B.S. The construction of a mere driveway, which does not exactly require deep excavations and retaining walls, caised the demise of several old shade trees next to “Cafritz Commons” in Chevy Chase D.C.

https://currentnewspapers.com/city-arborists-had-opposed-cafritz-driveway-that-killed-trees/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful letter in the Northwest Current about Hearst, from a longtime DC soccer family.

There was not a single factually accurate thing in that letter.

Really? Show us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful letter in the Northwest Current about Hearst, from a longtime DC soccer family.

There was not a single factually accurate thing in that letter.

Really? Show us?

It would be a shorter post to try to point out what is true in the letter but I can barely find anything that is factually accurate. For those who haven't opened the NW Current yet here is the letter in question:

https://currentnewspapers.com/letter-to-the-editor-hearst-park-shouldnt-be-ward-3-pool-site-by-default/

Claim: Neighbors in every location that has been suggested have successfully resisted having this pool built in their community

Truth: The only other location for a pool that has been formally suggested was Ft Reno - back in 1967 - and that was resisted for fears of people of color coming to use the pool - I'm not even aware of an informal suggestion of another location

Claim: We're down to one last little piece of ground... by default because every other proposed site has met with well organized resistance

Truth: See above - there have been no other proposed sites. Also Hearst park is not a "little piece of ground" or at least there are other pools on smaller DPR plots

Claim: Hearst Field is already overcrowded with various types of recreational facilities

Truth: Hearst Park (not field) is barely used - the tennis courts are almost always empty and the soccer fields are used part of the year one day a week. Most of the time Hearst Park is occupied by a couple of off leash dogs and that's it

Claim: Hearst Field is too small to have one more thing added to it

Truth: This is non-sense - other smaller DPR facilities have many more uses designed into them including pools and tennis courts and recreation fields

Claim: For over 60 years it has been the city's only designated soccer specific field. Other fields are designated for football, baseball and softball

Truth: No idea what this even means so maybe someone can provide a citation but I know a fair amount about how DPR works around permitting. While there is only one other formal use at Hearst Park there are many other fields in DC in the DPR inventory where the only formally permitted use of the field is for soccer. I'm a decade into two kids playing soccer in DC and I can cite a list of DPR fields that are only used for soccer, most of which see far more intense use than Hearst does

Claim: Tennis courts, a children's playground and a field house make up the rest of Hearst Park

Truth: There is no playground in Hearst Park - the playground (which is the most used thing on the block and often the only used facility on the block) is part of Hearst ES. In fact much of Hearst Park is not designed for anything which is certainly something one can fairly argue for but that is not what the letter writer stated

Claim: Because of the sharply sloping topography from a high ridge at 37th Street... storm drainage leaves much to be desired. I have watched many soccer games turn into a muddy mess the day after it rained.

Truth: Who the hell knows - the author certainly doesn't and she is arguing causation about something she appears to have little understanding of. All of the paving around the park and the flat sections of the park (and the impervious tennis courts) are likely what is causing water to pool on the level soccer field. It also doesn't help that much of the field is hard packed dirt which doesn't really drain well. In any case DPR has for the entire time my kids have been playing soccer always cancelled games on grass fields on days when it is raining and usually the day after heavy rains as well so I'd certainly be surprised to learn that the author has observed the oft cited heavy Stoddert use of the field on such days. Also DPR typically addresses water run-off in when parks are renovated - they certainly did that with Turtle Park

Claim: The entire area is encircled by a row of huge willow oaks... these trees would be a tragic sacrifice to shoehorn a pool into this busy recreational area

Truth: What entire area means is vague but only 2 of the 4 sides of the soccer field (which is within the parks boundaries) are bounded by oaks. The northern and western edges of the soccer field (and the park) are not bounded by oaks - in fact the northern edge essentially has no trees and the trees on the western edge are mostly weed trees and bushes many of which are dead others of which are overgrown by ivy (so much for the caring neighbors taking care of the trees). We can argue in circles about this all year but there is absolutely no reason why a pool where the tennis courts are would damage the oak trees to the south of the soccer field - the courts are at a higher elevation than the trees and also about 100 feet away - and not that the neighbors would care but the UFA which is militantly pro tree from my experience supports putting a pool where the tennis courts are. The trees to the south of the tennis courts are also mostly poorly maintained weed trees but there is no reason why a pool at a lower elevation would threaten them. And again this is not a busy or heavily used park - even Stoddert barely uses the field which in any case would not be lost

Claim: Supporters have suggested replacing one tennis court with the pool. The tennis courts are under the oaks which is great for tennis but not a pool

Truth: Supporters have suggested replacing the tennis courts with the pool so this is about the closest thing to a truthful statement in the entire letter. The tennis courts get plenty of light - please go to this PDF and look at page 10:

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/05%2010%2016%20Hearst%20Intro%20Presentation_Final.pdf

And lots of people at the pool love shade - if you haven't noticed it is hot when people go to the pool and lots of parents don't necessarily even go swimming. If you go to the Bethesda Pool (which is the one we go to because we don't have a pool in Ward 3) much of the area around the pool is in the shade and in the afternoon a good part of the pool is as well and it doesn't seem to dampen attendance

Statement: If a pool no bigger than a tennis court will meet the needs of proponents they should join the Cleveland Park Club Pool or put a pool in their own backyards

Response: No doubt the wealthy neighbors of the pool will pay for our pool memberships (and force the Club to take all comers and propose parking solutions for the increased attendance - on the pools website it appears there is currently a waitlist to get in) or alternately buy everyone in Ward 3 a house with a yard big enough for a pool and pay for the installation and maintenance of the pool? Hypocritical that someone who earlier in her letter professed concerns about the environment is now advocating that everyone have their own pool which would be extremely wasteful

Statement: Would a pool no bigger than a tennis court be large enough to serve the rest of Ward 3.

Response: A fair question - probably the pool should be bigger so perhaps the letter writer would be willing to advocate for such a pool but it is the standard size DPR facility and currently Ward 3 residents are in some cases squeezing into the same size pool in other Wards so is it fair that folks in Ward 2 have to share their undersized pool with Ward 3 residents?

Statement: And where would all those eager swimmers park?

Truth: There is plenty of on-street parking on both Quebec and 37th in the summer. Certainly much more on-street parking than there is around other DPR facilities. And in fact if you look in the above referenced URL in both overhead shots of the lot the on-street parking rate in both shots is very low

Statement: Just because every other community successfully resisted this pool is no reason that it must be put in the last remaining, least hospitable space in NW DC

Truth: Unless you go back to the race baiting 1960's no other community successfully resisted any proposal for a pool in Ward 3. This is not the last remaining space in NW DC though this is such a vague statement as to be meaningless but it doesn't matter as this is space in DPR's inventory and the pool needs to go on DPR owned property. And again there is nothing inhospitable about this space - the only thing that is inhospitable here are the Cleveland Park neighbors who think this little used DPR facility is their private park exclusively for their benefit.

The opponents of the pool need to be smarter or alternately more honest if they want to be taken seriously by people in other parts of the Ward - either come up with some coherent and supportable arguments against the pool at this site or be honest that you just don't want the park to be more intensely used rather than coming up with the nonsense that made up this letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful letter in the Northwest Current about Hearst, from a longtime DC soccer family.

That letter had many errors in it.

The trees are not in peril and placing the pool near the tennis courts would not impact the trees.

But whatever, everyone will read into whatever they want in this fake news era.

If the pool is built where the tennis courts are, then it would be under the tree drip line and excavation/earth works will damage the trees, necessitating their removal. And in any case, as the letter writer pointed out, who wants to use a pool that is perpetually in shade?

Someone keeps repeating this and this is simply not true - the tennis courts are above the mature trees elevation wise and a good distance away. Being under the trees drip line does not mean a pool cannot be there - it is the trees roots that need to be protected and if the trees roots were currently an issue the tennis courts current location would be an issue.

There is no logical or sound reason why putting a pool where the tennis courts are will cause any damage so please stop repeating this fallacy - high rise buildings with excavated basements have gone up closer to these trees than anything proposed at Hearst without causing damage so this is just another unsubstantiated falsehood being peddled by neighbors.

I call B.S. The construction of a mere driveway, which does not exactly require deep excavations and retaining walls, caised the demise of several old shade trees next to “Cafritz Commons” in Chevy Chase D.C.

https://currentnewspapers.com/city-arborists-had-opposed-cafritz-driveway-that-killed-trees/

Umm are you familiar with the site and did you read the article?

I believe there are about 20 trees around the building and most of them seem to have survived the construction and these are trees that in some cases almost touch the building. And apparently the trees that didn't make it are because they installed a driveway which was something that the immediate neighbors asked for and was opposed by DDOT and UFA and yes I realize UFA is part of DDOT but each group opposed the driveway for different reasons.

Or go look at the new AU Law School in Tenleytown where they managed to build a large new project without killing mature trees closer to the buildings than this pool will be.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to 00:41 give who beat me to it. I hope you might be willing to share that information with the Current as a rebuttal to the letter in question.

I would only add per the above discussion that there was an informal request by neighbors of Turtle Park to include a pool and it was successfully fought by the baseball community, but I agree with the PPs on both sides of the pool question that soccer obviously has more demand on space in the District than baseball. It really is a wonder how or why DPR kowtows to this faction so easily.

At this juncture, virtually every park west of Rock Creek and north of Georgetown has been renovated except for Hearst. Hearst is the only place where a pool can be logically and centrally located and it is the proposal on the table.

The Councilmember (who is running unopposed for re-election) has sponsored it because her constituents have asked for it and DPR is agreeing and doing its diligence now.

I challenge any of the opponents of the pool to run against Cheh and make this a central campaign issue if you feel that strongly about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful letter in the Northwest Current about Hearst, from a longtime DC soccer family.

There was not a single factually accurate thing in that letter.

Really? Show us?

It would be a shorter post to try to point out what is true in the letter but I can barely find anything that is factually accurate. For those who haven't opened the NW Current yet here is the letter in question:

https://currentnewspapers.com/letter-to-the-editor-hearst-park-shouldnt-be-ward-3-pool-site-by-default/

Claim: Neighbors in every location that has been suggested have successfully resisted having this pool built in their community

Truth: The only other location for a pool that has been formally suggested was Ft Reno - back in 1967 - and that was resisted for fears of people of color coming to use the pool - I'm not even aware of an informal suggestion of another location

Claim: We're down to one last little piece of ground... by default because every other proposed site has met with well organized resistance

Truth: See above - there have been no other proposed sites. Also Hearst park is not a "little piece of ground" or at least there are other pools on smaller DPR plots

Claim: Hearst Field is already overcrowded with various types of recreational facilities

Truth: Hearst Park (not field) is barely used - the tennis courts are almost always empty and the soccer fields are used part of the year one day a week. Most of the time Hearst Park is occupied by a couple of off leash dogs and that's it

Claim: Hearst Field is too small to have one more thing added to it

Truth: This is non-sense - other smaller DPR facilities have many more uses designed into them including pools and tennis courts and recreation fields

Claim: For over 60 years it has been the city's only designated soccer specific field. Other fields are designated for football, baseball and softball

Truth: No idea what this even means so maybe someone can provide a citation but I know a fair amount about how DPR works around permitting. While there is only one other formal use at Hearst Park there are many other fields in DC in the DPR inventory where the only formally permitted use of the field is for soccer. I'm a decade into two kids playing soccer in DC and I can cite a list of DPR fields that are only used for soccer, most of which see far more intense use than Hearst does

Claim: Tennis courts, a children's playground and a field house make up the rest of Hearst Park

Truth: There is no playground in Hearst Park - the playground (which is the most used thing on the block and often the only used facility on the block) is part of Hearst ES. In fact much of Hearst Park is not designed for anything which is certainly something one can fairly argue for but that is not what the letter writer stated

Claim: Because of the sharply sloping topography from a high ridge at 37th Street... storm drainage leaves much to be desired. I have watched many soccer games turn into a muddy mess the day after it rained.

Truth: Who the hell knows - the author certainly doesn't and she is arguing causation about something she appears to have little understanding of. All of the paving around the park and the flat sections of the park (and the impervious tennis courts) are likely what is causing water to pool on the level soccer field. It also doesn't help that much of the field is hard packed dirt which doesn't really drain well. In any case DPR has for the entire time my kids have been playing soccer always cancelled games on grass fields on days when it is raining and usually the day after heavy rains as well so I'd certainly be surprised to learn that the author has observed the oft cited heavy Stoddert use of the field on such days. Also DPR typically addresses water run-off in when parks are renovated - they certainly did that with Turtle Park

Claim: The entire area is encircled by a row of huge willow oaks... these trees would be a tragic sacrifice to shoehorn a pool into this busy recreational area

Truth: What entire area means is vague but only 2 of the 4 sides of the soccer field (which is within the parks boundaries) are bounded by oaks. The northern and western edges of the soccer field (and the park) are not bounded by oaks - in fact the northern edge essentially has no trees and the trees on the western edge are mostly weed trees and bushes many of which are dead others of which are overgrown by ivy (so much for the caring neighbors taking care of the trees). We can argue in circles about this all year but there is absolutely no reason why a pool where the tennis courts are would damage the oak trees to the south of the soccer field - the courts are at a higher elevation than the trees and also about 100 feet away - and not that the neighbors would care but the UFA which is militantly pro tree from my experience supports putting a pool where the tennis courts are. The trees to the south of the tennis courts are also mostly poorly maintained weed trees but there is no reason why a pool at a lower elevation would threaten them. And again this is not a busy or heavily used park - even Stoddert barely uses the field which in any case would not be lost

Claim: Supporters have suggested replacing one tennis court with the pool. The tennis courts are under the oaks which is great for tennis but not a pool

Truth: Supporters have suggested replacing the tennis courts with the pool so this is about the closest thing to a truthful statement in the entire letter. The tennis courts get plenty of light - please go to this PDF and look at page 10:

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/05%2010%2016%20Hearst%20Intro%20Presentation_Final.pdf

I

And lots of people at the pool love shade - if you haven't noticed it is hot when people go to the pool and lots of parents don't necessarily even go swimming. If you go to the Bethesda Pool (which is the one we go to because we don't have a pool in Ward 3) much of the area around the pool is in the shade and in the afternoon a good part of the pool is as well and it doesn't seem to dampen attendance

Statement: If a pool no bigger than a tennis court will meet the needs of proponents they should join the Cleveland Park Club Pool or put a pool in their own backyards

Response: No doubt the wealthy neighbors of the pool will pay for our pool memberships (and force the Club to take all comers and propose parking solutions for the increased attendance - on the pools website it appears there is currently a waitlist to get in) or alternately buy everyone in Ward 3 a house with a yard big enough for a pool and pay for the installation and maintenance of the pool? Hypocritical that someone who earlier in her letter professed concerns about the environment is now advocating that everyone have their own pool which would be extremely wasteful

Statement: Would a pool no bigger than a tennis court be large enough to serve the rest of Ward 3.

Response: A fair question - probably the pool should be bigger so perhaps the letter writer would be willing to advocate for such a pool but it is the standard size DPR facility and currently Ward 3 residents are in some cases squeezing into the same size pool in other Wards so is it fair that folks in Ward 2 have to share their undersized pool with Ward 3 residents?

Statement: And where would all those eager swimmers park?

Truth: There is plenty of on-street parking on both Quebec and 37th in the summer. Certainly much more on-street parking than there is around other DPR facilities. And in fact if you look in the above referenced URL in both overhead shots of the lot the on-street parking rate in both shots is very low

Statement: Just because every other community successfully resisted this pool is no reason that it must be put in the last remaining, least hospitable space zin NW DC

Truth: Unless you go back to the race baiting 1960's no other community successfully resisted any proposal for a pool in Ward 3. This is not the last remaining space in NW DC though this is such a vague statement as to be meaningless but it doesn't matter as this is space in DPR's inventory and the pool needs to go on DPR owned property. And again there is nothing inhospitable about this space - the only thing that is inhospitable here are the Cleveland Park neighbors who think this little used DPR facility is their private park exclusively for their benefit.

The opponents of the pool need to be smarter or alternately more honest if they want to be taken seriously by people in other parts of the Ward - either come up with some coherent and supportable arguments against the pool at this site or be honest that you just don't want the park to be more intensely used rather than coming up with the nonsense that made up this letter.

We appreciate your honesty in conceding that Hearst was the only site considered for a pool (so much for those who claim that other sites were considered and ruled out, including National Park Service property). This is also exactly what the FOIA response confirmed. And, as you put it, s far as hydrology and other feasibility assessments at Hearst, “who the hell knows?”

[Anonymous]

I would certainly defer to the author of the letter on soccer-related statements. Her husband was a longtime soccer official and involved with DC youth soccer for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Claim: For over 60 years it has been the city's only designated soccer specific field. Other fields are designated for football, baseball and softball

Truth: No idea what this even means so maybe someone can provide a citation but I know a fair amount about how DPR works around permitting. While there is only one other formal use at Hearst Park there are many other fields in DC in the DPR inventory where the only formally permitted use of the field is for soccer. I'm a decade into two kids playing soccer in DC and I can cite a list of DPR fields that are only used for soccer, most of which see far more intense use than Hearst does

This ties into the discussion upthread about baseball. DPR regulations give preference to the "intended" use of a field. On the DPR website there is an inventory of fields, organized by type. (https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Athletic%20FIeld%20Inventory_0.pdf)

The types of field that DPR recognizes are:
Grass Infield 60' Diamond
Grass Infield 70' Diamond
Grass Infield 90' Diamond
Skinned Infield 60' Diamond
Skinned Infield 70' Diamond
Rectangular Field (Multi-Use)

The only "intended" use of a field that DPR recognizes is baseball!

Spring 2017 permits are online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nI_SyOmN6-c4n8CA0CDpL_gz3EDHH9UZ9jpyvIg7_DQ/edit#gid=1307556571, you'll see that Hearst is used for T-Ball and Ultimate Frisbee in addition to soccer.

[Anonymous]

And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We appreciate your honesty in conceding that Hearst was the only site considered for a pool (so much for those who claim that other sites were considered and ruled out, including National Park Service property). This is also exactly what the FOIA response confirmed. And, as you put it, s far as hydrology and other feasibility assessments at Hearst, “who the hell knows?”

Not the PP you are appreciating, but quite frankly, I don't care what other sites might have been formally or informally suggested. We know that the residents around Turtle Park WANTED a pool and were rebuffed. At this juncture, given the cycle of money and park rehab projects, it is Hearst or nothing for a another generation. The voters and taxpayers have worked with their elected officials, Cheh, the ANCs and the Mayor to get a public outdoor pool somewhere west of Rock Creek Park and North of Georgetown and they have listened.

As to the hydrology issues, the residents of Springland Lane have made it quite clear that run off from storms is unacceptable. The sooner it gets addressed the better, but a pool has zero impact on mitigating the runoff. In fact, the longer folks fight the pool, the more risk the Springland residents face due to delays.

There are thousands of us and a handful of you.

Please fight it vocally and make it a cornerstone campaign issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We appreciate your honesty in conceding that Hearst was the only site considered for a pool (so much for those who claim that other sites were considered and ruled out, including National Park Service property). This is also exactly what the FOIA response confirmed. And, as you put it, s far as hydrology and other feasibility assessments at Hearst, “who the hell knows?”

Not the PP you are appreciating, but quite frankly, I don't care what other sites might have been formally or informally suggested. We know that the residents around Turtle Park WANTED a pool and were rebuffed. At this juncture, given the cycle of money and park rehab projects, it is Hearst or nothing for a another generation. The voters and taxpayers have worked with their elected officials, Cheh, the ANCs and the Mayor to get a public outdoor pool somewhere west of Rock Creek Park and North of Georgetown and they have listened.

As to the hydrology issues, the residents of Springland Lane have made it quite clear that run off from storms is unacceptable. The sooner it gets addressed the better, but a pool has zero impact on mitigating the runoff. In fact, the longer folks fight the pool, the more risk the Springland residents face due to delays.

There are thousands of us and a handful of you.

Please fight it vocally and make it a cornerstone campaign issue.

This is nonsense. The mayor made very clear at a neighborhood forum last year that the Hearst pool was Cheh’s idea and the mayor distanced herself from it. The District agencies will tell you the same thing unofficially, which is why they did not study, weigh or recommend Hearst as a suitable pool site. This is all on Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We appreciate your honesty in conceding that Hearst was the only site considered for a pool (so much for those who claim that other sites were considered and ruled out, including National Park Service property). This is also exactly what the FOIA response confirmed. And, as you put it, s far as hydrology and other feasibility assessments at Hearst, “who the hell knows?”

Not the PP you are appreciating, but quite frankly, I don't care what other sites might have been formally or informally suggested. We know that the residents around Turtle Park WANTED a pool and were rebuffed. At this juncture, given the cycle of money and park rehab projects, it is Hearst or nothing for a another generation. The voters and taxpayers have worked with their elected officials, Cheh, the ANCs and the Mayor to get a public outdoor pool somewhere west of Rock Creek Park and North of Georgetown and they have listened.

As to the hydrology issues, the residents of Springland Lane have made it quite clear that run off from storms is unacceptable. The sooner it gets addressed the better, but a pool has zero impact on mitigating the runoff. In fact, the longer folks fight the pool, the more risk the Springland residents face due to delays.

There are thousands of us and a handful of you.

Please fight it vocally and make it a cornerstone campaign issue.

“There are thousands of us.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is nonsense. The mayor made very clear at a neighborhood forum last year that the Hearst pool was Cheh’s idea and the mayor distanced herself from it. The District agencies will tell you the same thing unofficially, which is why they did not study, weigh or recommend Hearst as a suitable pool site. This is all on Cheh.

Like I said, she has been in office for several years now, and apparently this has been a common refrain since day one. She has listened to her constituents who have continued to put her into office and repeatedly asked for a DPR facility in the Ward.

If you think there are that many more than the handful of residents right around Hearst, then run a candidate and make it a central theme of the campaign.

The polling that had been done on this issue had been pretty decisive in favor of a pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is nonsense. The mayor made very clear at a neighborhood forum last year that the Hearst pool was Cheh’s idea and the mayor distanced herself from it. The District agencies will tell you the same thing unofficially, which is why they did not study, weigh or recommend Hearst as a suitable pool site. This is all on Cheh.

Interesting, I have heard her say otherwise. Same with DPR. Maybe they are just telling everyone what they want to hear?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the mayor promised a pool for all.
Like “Alice Deal for all.”
Or “Wilson honors for all.”

Platitudes to the people!