Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

Clearly you weren't at the meeting in the Hearst gym a couple of weeks ago. There was overwhelming support against. And, I'm a young person with kids at the school and who use the lower fields for sports after school and on the weekends. We also use the tennis courts at least once per weekend when it's not raining. Don't tell me what to fight or not fight. I will fight for what I believe is right. And that is not having a pool at Hearst. If you've attended the meetings you would know that DPR and DGS have both basically said you can't keep your existing facilities and have a pool. And Mary Cheh just says "don't worry, we will just move stuff around." Yeah, b/c that works well. You may continue to fight for, but you absolutely may not tell people with opposing views not to fight it. You sounds like a dictator.

You are right, I wasn't at the meeting. Like hundreds of your neighbors who support this, we are too busy to attend every community meeting, much less any of them. Only people who are motivated against something take the time to show up at those things. We have sent our emails to the Councilmember and will continue to monitor the progress from our new ANC Commissioner, who was steadfast for this during his campaign. We expect him to follow through on that support.

Sorry you disagree.

This is the same, old tired "Silent Majority" argument, that of course the vast majority of people really support ____, but are too busy/successful/time constrained/dealing with kids-work-parents-dogs, etc. to come to meetings.

The Silent Majority was bogus when Nixon invented it and it's largely bogus now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

Clearly you weren't at the meeting in the Hearst gym a couple of weeks ago. There was overwhelming support against. And, I'm a young person with kids at the school and who use the lower fields for sports after school and on the weekends. We also use the tennis courts at least once per weekend when it's not raining. Don't tell me what to fight or not fight. I will fight for what I believe is right. And that is not having a pool at Hearst. If you've attended the meetings you would know that DPR and DGS have both basically said you can't keep your existing facilities and have a pool. And Mary Cheh just says "don't worry, we will just move stuff around." Yeah, b/c that works well. You may continue to fight for, but you absolutely may not tell people with opposing views not to fight it. You sounds like a dictator.

You are right, I wasn't at the meeting. Like hundreds of your neighbors who support this, we are too busy to attend every community meeting, much less any of them. Only people who are motivated against something take the time to show up at those things. We have sent our emails to the Councilmember and will continue to monitor the progress from our new ANC Commissioner, who was steadfast for this during his campaign. We expect him to follow through on that support.

Sorry you disagree.

Has ANC 3-C, which surrounds Hearst Park on the east, south and a block to the west, reviewed this and weighed in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

Clearly you weren't at the meeting in the Hearst gym a couple of weeks ago. There was overwhelming support against. And, I'm a young person with kids at the school and who use the lower fields for sports after school and on the weekends. We also use the tennis courts at least once per weekend when it's not raining. Don't tell me what to fight or not fight. I will fight for what I believe is right. And that is not having a pool at Hearst. If you've attended the meetings you would know that DPR and DGS have both basically said you can't keep your existing facilities and have a pool. And Mary Cheh just says "don't worry, we will just move stuff around." Yeah, b/c that works well. You may continue to fight for, but you absolutely may not tell people with opposing views not to fight it. You sounds like a dictator.

A charitable view of Mary Cheh is that she's not necessarily being deliberately disingenuous, but rather that the Professor is not as smart as she always thinks she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live about a mile away from Hearst. I'm all for a pool there, because it would be an extra place for me and my kids to swim in the summer.

But quite frankly, if I lived in the Hearst neighborhood, I wouldn't want a pool there, because it will draw lots of additional people, cars, trash, maintenance trucks, etc. It's sort of like having a high school in your neighborhood - seems great at first, but it actually is something of a nuisance for people who live there.

Thank you for your refreshing candor - and understanding of others' situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could we give back the $13 million DC is planning to spend on this pool, and instead get $13 million more put into the budget for Deal?

or Murch. Or Eaton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live about a mile away from Hearst. I'm all for a pool there, because it would be an extra place for me and my kids to swim in the summer.

But quite frankly, if I lived in the Hearst neighborhood, I wouldn't want a pool there, because it will draw lots of additional people, cars, trash, maintenance trucks, etc. It's sort of like having a high school in your neighborhood - seems great at first, but it actually is something of a nuisance for people who live there.

Thank you for your refreshing candor - and understanding of others' situation.

I don't understand that comment since there is a high school across the street from Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so we don't let innuendo get in the way of facts, here is the project website: http://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

And within, there is a 16 slide presentation given at the public meeting referenced above.

Note: Construction to begin this winter. There will be no trees removed as part of this project.

These slides say nothing about the preliminary design. It's all motherhood and apple pie...with a heaping helping of process. You can have everything and will give up nothing. Frequent users of the park know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we don't let innuendo get in the way of facts, here is the project website: http://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

And within, there is a 16 slide presentation given at the public meeting referenced above.

Note: Construction to begin this winter. There will be no trees removed as part of this project.

These slides say nothing about the preliminary design. It's all motherhood and apple pie...with a heaping helping of process. You can have everything and will give up nothing. Frequent users of the park know better.

As there are no sketches or concept plans yet, where is the assurance that 'no trees will be removed as part of this project'?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live about a mile away from Hearst. I'm all for a pool there, because it would be an extra place for me and my kids to swim in the summer.

But quite frankly, if I lived in the Hearst neighborhood, I wouldn't want a pool there, because it will draw lots of additional people, cars, trash, maintenance trucks, etc. It's sort of like having a high school in your neighborhood - seems great at first, but it actually is something of a nuisance for people who live there.

Thank you for your refreshing candor - and understanding of others' situation.

I don't understand that comment since there is a high school across the street from Hearst.

An independent high school that must operate under a special exception to zoning, which includes current and future restrictions on operations, traffic, parking, event hours, trash removal, etc. District public schools and facilities, including Hearst School and Park, do not require special zoning exceptions and are not subject to such review and restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



Has ANC 3-C, which surrounds Hearst Park on the east, south and a block to the west, reviewed this and weighed in?

No one has weighted in formally, since there is no proposal to weigh in to.

However, the park is in 3F, so the great weight will go to that ANC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

Clearly you weren't at the meeting in the Hearst gym a couple of weeks ago. There was overwhelming support against. And, I'm a young person with kids at the school and who use the lower fields for sports after school and on the weekends. We also use the tennis courts at least once per weekend when it's not raining. Don't tell me what to fight or not fight. I will fight for what I believe is right. And that is not having a pool at Hearst. If you've attended the meetings you would know that DPR and DGS have both basically said you can't keep your existing facilities and have a pool. And Mary Cheh just says "don't worry, we will just move stuff around." Yeah, b/c that works well. You may continue to fight for, but you absolutely may not tell people with opposing views not to fight it. You sounds like a dictator.

You are right, I wasn't at the meeting. Like hundreds of your neighbors who support this, we are too busy to attend every community meeting, much less any of them. Only people who are motivated against something take the time to show up at those things. We have sent our emails to the Councilmember and will continue to monitor the progress from our new ANC Commissioner, who was steadfast for this during his campaign. We expect him to follow through on that support.

Sorry you disagree.

This is the same, old tired "Silent Majority" argument, that of course the vast majority of people really support ____, but are too busy/successful/time constrained/dealing with kids-work-parents-dogs, etc. to come to meetings.

The Silent Majority was bogus when Nixon invented it and it's largely bogus now.

To repeat, a survey was widely shared on local listservs and had a strong majority in favor of the pool. They were not so silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live about a mile away from Hearst. I'm all for a pool there, because it would be an extra place for me and my kids to swim in the summer.

But quite frankly, if I lived in the Hearst neighborhood, I wouldn't want a pool there, because it will draw lots of additional people, cars, trash, maintenance trucks, etc. It's sort of like having a high school in your neighborhood - seems great at first, but it actually is something of a nuisance for people who live there.

Thank you for your refreshing candor - and understanding of others' situation.

I don't understand that comment since there is a high school across the street from Hearst.

Yes, and from what I hear from friends who live near there, having Hearst and the private school there is a bit of a PITA because of the extra traffic. Fortunately, from what I'm told, both Hearst and the private school are pretty good neighbors and work to minimize disruption by pressuring the families driving there to be respectful of the neighbors. But a public pool is just adding on another layer of potential disruption. And also, in contrast to the schools' students, the people visiting the pool are transitory visitors who won't be as subject to encouragement to respect the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

So here are the tactics that the neighoborhood can try to use to stop this:

1) Environmental Law - nope, particularly since the proposals will include advanced stormwater management practices;

2) Historic preservation - nope, the field has already proven to not have significant archeological significance, and there is no intention of doing anything near the historic stone house;

3) Site geology - nope, nothing there.

4) Loss of green space. How would this even be an argument. There is significant green space there and throughout the area. The result of this renovation will be a more environmentally sensitive park than what is there now, even with a pool.

5) Traffic. We live in a city.

6) Parking. There is plenty of free parking all over the place. See number 5.

Any sort of court battle or public relations campaign will make those opposed to the pool look like nothing more than elitist snobs who don't want the riff-raff in their neighborhood.


So far, no one commenting in this forum have demonstrated anything different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Has ANC 3-C, which surrounds Hearst Park on the east, south and a block to the west, reviewed this and weighed in?

No one has weighted in formally, since there is no proposal to weigh in to.

However, the park is in 3F, so the great weight will go to that ANC.

Actually, great weight goes to both ANCs, because the project is contiguous to both. And many of the immediate neighbors live in 3-C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So here are the tactics that the neighoborhood can try to use to stop this:

1) Environmental Law - nope, particularly since the proposals will include advanced stormwater management practices;

2) Historic preservation - nope, the field has already proven to not have significant archeological significance, and there is no intention of doing anything near the historic stone house;

3) Site geology - nope, nothing there.

4) Loss of green space. How would this even be an argument. There is significant green space there and throughout the area. The result of this renovation will be a more environmentally sensitive park than what is there now, even with a pool.

5) Traffic. We live in a city.

6) Parking. There is plenty of free parking all over the place. See number 5.

Any sort of court battle or public relations campaign will make those opposed to the pool look like nothing more than elitist snobs who don't want the riff-raff in their neighborhood.


So far, no one commenting in this forum have demonstrated anything different.

Wasn't aware that the riff-raff lived in Ward 3.