Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sidwell Friends has to live under restricitve special exception conditions. While Hearst may be well-meaning, it doesn't have to do jack for the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Cleveland Park >>> Other Ward 3 Riff Raff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ANCs can pass resolutions on whatever they want, so both can in principle do so. While the park is completely within the boundaries of 3F, if 3C makes a big enough stink they will be heard whether or not they have a formal role or not.

[Anonymous]

Not true. Read the Great Weight provision of the home rule charter.

ANC 3C can raise a stink, but as the park is in 3F, they have no more standing than a resident of Georgetown or Petworth in this matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Read the Great Weight provision of the home rule charter.

ANC 3C can raise a stink, but as the park is in 3F, they have no more standing than a resident of Georgetown or Petworth in this matter.

Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The Internet is your friend. See 647 A.2d 793 (1994), NEIGHBORS UNITED FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, Respondent, and Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., Intervenor.

In that case, the DC Court of Appeals had to consider "whether the BZA, in considering the written reports of the "affect[ed]" Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ("ANCs"), afforded the ANCs' views the statutorily-required 'great weight'.... [S]ince the proposed adult rehabilitation home would be located on the street which forms the boundary line between ANC 6C and ANC 7B, but on the side which is within the area represented by ANC 6C, we must decide whether ANC 7B is an 'affect[ed]' ANC whose written recommendations are entitled to 'great weight.'" The court went on to find, "the Applicant urges this court to construe the statutory requirement narrowly by limiting it to that area represented by the ANC 6C where the property is located.... We are not persuaded. In our view, it would be manifestly unreasonable to conclude that the area represented by an ANC which is physically located directly across the street from the proposed facility ... would not be affected by it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Read the Great Weight provision of the home rule charter.

ANC 3C can raise a stink, but as the park is in 3F, they have no more standing than a resident of Georgetown or Petworth in this matter.

Sorry, Charlie.

[Anonymous]

What ANC action can be adopted that would prompt the removal of the pool from the plans?

The ANC didn't oppose the budget that included the pool, so at this point the money is programmed.

And you are making an assumption that "everyone" is opposed to this. Quite the opposite, there was plenty of organization around this almost two years ago where people were surveyed and the overwhelming majority of people proactively requested a pool be a part of the plans.

So, that there are a handful of neighbors who now don't want it won't trump the process that has already unfolded.

Go ahead and try to get your ANC Commissioner to take this on, but you cannot assume they will agree with you.

In fact, unless they live on Idaho Avenue, I am willing to bet they will support this. It is a great amenity for the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Read the Great Weight provision of the home rule charter.

ANC 3C can raise a stink, but as the park is in 3F, they have no more standing than a resident of Georgetown or Petworth in this matter.

Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The Internet is your friend. See 647 A.2d 793 (1994), NEIGHBORS UNITED FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, Respondent, and Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., Intervenor.

In that case, the DC Court of Appeals had to consider "whether the BZA, in considering the written reports of the "affect[ed]" Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ("ANCs"), afforded the ANCs' views the statutorily-required 'great weight'.... [S]ince the proposed adult rehabilitation home would be located on the street which forms the boundary line between ANC 6C and ANC 7B, but on the side which is within the area represented by ANC 6C, we must decide whether ANC 7B is an 'affect[ed]' ANC whose written recommendations are entitled to 'great weight.'" The court went on to find, "the Applicant urges this court to construe the statutory requirement narrowly by limiting it to that area represented by the ANC 6C where the property is located.... We are not persuaded. In our view, it would be manifestly unreasonable to conclude that the area represented by an ANC which is physically located directly across the street from the proposed facility ... would not be affected by it."

We'll get the pro-growth ANC 3E on this then!

[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.

how many people were at this ONE meeting? was there even a vote taken for/against?

how many people filled out the online survey for/against the pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're near Turtle Park in AU Park. We'd like to see the pool located over here. Lots of kids in the neighborhood.

+1

there are lots of kids in the Hearst neighborhood plenty replied to the listserv survey in favor of the pool.

[Anonymous]

I'd be more than happy to live in one of the adjacent houses and have a pool across the street.

#firstworldproblems

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What ANC action can be adopted that would prompt the removal of the pool from the plans?

The ANC didn't oppose the budget that included the pool, so at this point the money is programmed.

And you are making an assumption that "everyone" is opposed to this. Quite the opposite, there was plenty of organization around this almost two years ago where people were surveyed and the overwhelming majority of people proactively requested a pool be a part of the plans.

So, that there are a handful of neighbors who now don't want it won't trump the process that has already unfolded.

Go ahead and try to get your ANC Commissioner to take this on, but you cannot assume they will agree with you.

In fact, unless they live on Idaho Avenue, I am willing to bet they will support this. It is a great amenity for the community.

So why would people on Idaho Ave. oppose a pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be more than happy to live in one of the adjacent houses and have a pool across the street.

#firstworldproblems

#thirdworldposter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're near Turtle Park in AU Park. We'd like to see the pool located over here. Lots of kids in the neighborhood.

+1

there are lots of kids in the Hearst neighborhood plenty replied to the listserv survey in favor of the pool.

Aren't 80%+ of Hearst kids out of boundary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be more than happy to live in one of the adjacent houses and have a pool across the street.

#firstworldproblems

#thirdworldposter

Go ahead with that snobby attitude!