Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Because school grounds do not equal DPR, duh.

Look at the map.

(DP posting)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

A pool needs sun and shouldn't be in shadow much of the day. A much better spot for a pool at Hearst would be south of the basketball court and west of the shelter house. The site is gently sloped but level in part. It's a short gradual walk from the Hearst school parking lot, which is perfect for pool parking when school is not in session in the summer. It's also near the playground, which is perfect for families with kids. The site gets sun for much of the day. Best of all, a pool would not displace anything there -- no tennis courts, fields, tall trees, etc. would be harmed by the construction . There's also a good buffer from adjacent homes. A win-win site.

The problem is that's not DPR land. Looking at the DC Atlas and the Google satellite photos, it looks like DPR's land only extends as far north as about the northern edge of the soccer field. To the west the right-of-way for Idaho Avenue goes up to the back of the bleachers. So what you're talking about is a combination of DCPS and DDOT land. You'd think it wouldn't be a big deal to get agencies to work together, but it is.

The location immediately south of the basketball courts and immediately west of the DPR shelter in not in the old idaho Ave right of way. Even if were, DDOT is not going to extend Idaho Ave and routinely has surrendered old rights of way for recreational purposes (see old Klingle Road, now a trail). If you look at DPR's plans, their programming and renovations include all of Hearst Park and playground basically up to the school area.

Don't take my word for it. Go look in the DC Atlas, http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov/ . Set the base map to DC Property Basemap. The land assigned to DPR is square 1905, lot 802. The land assigned to DCPS is square 1905, lot 8. The right-of-way for Idaho Avenue isn't assigned a lot and square but you can see where it runs.

DDOT didn't surrender the ROW for Klingle Road. It's a trail, but it's still administered by DDOT.

DPR's plan encompasses renovation of all of Hearst Park, except for the school grounds themselves.

So if the Idaho right of way still exists, why is DPR planning renovations and improvements on it?,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

Yup -if she had any backbone she would have stood up to the ridiculous Hearst neighbors years ago and we'd have been enjoying a pool in our own neighborhood rather than having to drive 20 minutes and spend money.

Petar Dimtchev is running against her: https://petarforward3.com/home/

I'm ready for someone new but his website is just about useless - what does he even stand for? Would he, for example, stand up to the NIMBYIST neighbors of Hearst Park and do what Cheh hasn't done and get this project to the finish line which would more broadly benefit the Ward he wants to represent?

Or would he say the issue needs to be studied more and a greater effort to listen to the neighbors is needed and we should waste a few more years hoping for a different answer from NPS?

If we cross paths I'll ask and post his response here.

Dear All,

Nice to virtually meet you. I am happy to discuss my platform and vision for the ward. If you send an email to petar [at] petarforward3.com we can set up a time to chat.
-Petar

[Anonymous]

Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.
Ft Reno belongs to the National Park Service. DC cannot just place a pool there and NPS has no interest in hosting one there.

Thus, Hearst it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.

Sunk cost fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.

Sunk cost fallacy.

For the twentieth time in this thread Turtle Park is not a good option for a pool.

Unlike Hearst Turtle Park is intensely used already, particularly in the summer.

And it is not as good of a location - much less central, poor access to transit (both bus and rail) and much less available on-street parking.

Opponents can keep repeating bad ideas but it doesn't change the fact that they remain bad ideas.

Since Cheh has an opponent maybe he can force her out of the shadows on this issue and get her to publicly commit to supporting a pool at Hearst - it would be nice to stop talking about this as it has been more than 5 years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.

Sunk cost fallacy.

For the twentieth time in this thread Turtle Park is not a good option for a pool.

Unlike Hearst Turtle Park is intensely used already, particularly in the summer.

And it is not as good of a location - much less central, poor access to transit (both bus and rail) and much less available on-street parking.

Opponents can keep repeating bad ideas but it doesn't change the fact that they remain bad ideas.

Since Cheh has an opponent maybe he can force her out of the shadows on this issue and get her to publicly commit to supporting a pool at Hearst - it would be nice to stop talking about this as it has been more than 5 years now.

Just because you say it, doesn't make your B.S. true. For example, Google maps shows that is a faster walk from the Tenley Metro to the main entrance of Turtle Park, versus to Hearst Park. As you concede, Turtle Park is quite popular with families with kids, making it a more logical location for a pool. Finally, Turtle Park is more handicapped accessible than Hearst (as alll of the park's facilities are at the Van Ness street level), thus eliminating the need for a costly elevator structure to convey users down a steep slope to the proposed Hearst pool level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.

Sunk cost fallacy.

For the twentieth time in this thread Turtle Park is not a good option for a pool.

Unlike Hearst Turtle Park is intensely used already, particularly in the summer.

And it is not as good of a location - much less central, poor access to transit (both bus and rail) and much less available on-street parking.

Opponents can keep repeating bad ideas but it doesn't change the fact that they remain bad ideas.

Since Cheh has an opponent maybe he can force her out of the shadows on this issue and get her to publicly commit to supporting a pool at Hearst - it would be nice to stop talking about this as it has been more than 5 years now.

And for the twentieth time on this thread, no baseball diamond in the city is heavily utilized compared to the rectangular fields. We've got two thirds of the land being used for 15% of the players for baseball, and one third of the land being used for the other 85% for all other sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petar, yes or no question...do you support the DGS proposal for a pool at Hearst Park?

It's a foolish location. Fort Reno or Turtle Park would be superior.

Turtle Park has already been renovated, so that is off the list.

Sunk cost fallacy.

For the twentieth time in this thread Turtle Park is not a good option for a pool.

Unlike Hearst Turtle Park is intensely used already, particularly in the summer.

And it is not as good of a location - much less central, poor access to transit (both bus and rail) and much less available on-street parking.

Opponents can keep repeating bad ideas but it doesn't change the fact that they remain bad ideas.

Since Cheh has an opponent maybe he can force her out of the shadows on this issue and get her to publicly commit to supporting a pool at Hearst - it would be nice to stop talking about this as it has been more than 5 years now.

And for the twentieth time on this thread, no baseball diamond in the city is heavily utilized compared to the rectangular fields. We've got two thirds of the land being used for 15% of the players for baseball, and one third of the land being used for the other 85% for all other sports.

That stat is particularly galling considering that virtually no girls play baseball and other sports have a much better gender balance.

[Anonymous]

Kinda ironic that people who live close to Turtle Park wanted a pool and were trumped by the baseball community.

Turtle Park is off the list, no matter how many times the Heart opponents try to suggest it.

Same with Ft Reno.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Kinda ironic that people who live close to Turtle Park wanted a pool and were trumped by the baseball community.

Turtle Park is off the list, no matter how many times the Heart opponents try to suggest it.

Same with Ft Reno.

[/quote]

Fort Reno is not off the list at all. There are discussions ongoing with NPS staff about use.

[Anonymous]

God I hope so. Ft Reno would be an awesome location for the Ward 3 pool.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Kinda ironic that people who live close to Turtle Park wanted a pool and were trumped by the baseball community.

Turtle Park is off the list, no matter how many times the Heart opponents try to suggest it.

Same with Ft Reno.

[/quote]

Fort Reno is not off the list at all. There are discussions ongoing with NPS staff about use.[/quote]

Uh huh - sure it is - what is your source for this? NPS has repeatedly stated that it is off the table.