Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, what exactly would be the basis of a lawsuit?

Do tell.

Tortious Interferece with My Dog’s Favorite Toilet

Intentional Infliction of Fun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight. The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields. It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.

Read a PP. People like a shaded area to sit at a pool. It is effing hot in the sun, which is why we need a pool, and why people like to be shaded in the summer.

NPS won't allow a pool on its property.

We have funding now for a pool at Hearst. There is simply no reason not to put it in.

The shade is a non-issue. The only trees that DPR is committed to saving are the very tall trees in the park, which are to the north of the pool site. The smaller trees on the slopes, south and west of the pool will be removed. One of the DGS people said that construction at the foot of the slopes and on the slope itself (the pool house and elevator will be set into the slope) will require most of those trees to come down. So when the pool is constructed, it will be open to the south and west without the heavy screening of trees that exists today. What is very shady today will be quite sunny then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight. The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields. It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.

Read a PP. People like a shaded area to sit at a pool. It is effing hot in the sun, which is why we need a pool, and why people like to be shaded in the summer.

NPS won't allow a pool on its property.

We have funding now for a pool at Hearst. There is simply no reason not to put it in.

The shade is a non-issue. The only trees that DPR is committed to saving are the very tall trees in the park, which are to the north of the pool site. The smaller trees on the slopes, south and west of the pool will be removed. One of the DGS people said that construction at the foot of the slopes and on the slope itself (the pool house and elevator will be set into the slope) will require most of those trees to come down. So when the pool is constructed, it will be open to the south and west without the heavy screening of trees that exists today. What is very shady today will be quite sunny then.

This. The trees on the edges are not great loss.

[Anonymous]

"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

Most of the hill is scrub and weeds that hasn't been properly maintained since at least the 1960's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

Most of the hill is scrub and weeds that hasn't been properly maintained since at least the 1960's.

And scrub is likely invasives, which will be properly landscaped with natives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

Yup - our community wants and deserves a pool.

I can't speak for the community but I would gladly trade some trees for the pool - in any case the trees to both the south and the west of the pool site are not legacy shade trees worth fretting over. In fact some of them are in quite poor shape and have been getting choked by ivy for several years. Not that the activist immediate neighbors have noticed or done anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

Yup - our community wants and deserves a pool.

I can't speak for the community but I would gladly trade some trees for the pool - in any case the trees to both the south and the west of the pool site are not legacy shade trees worth fretting over. In fact some of them are in quite poor shape and have been getting choked by ivy for several years. Not that the activist immediate neighbors have noticed or done anything about it.

It's not the neighbors job to maintain the trees, particularly when DC is not exactly hurting for tax revenue. In any case, I'd take away the opposite lesson from your point. If DPR -- aka the parks people -- can't maintain the trees in what is, after all, a public park, then what confidence do we have that they will maintain well a major facility that won't even be operated 9 months out of the year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And scrub is likely invasives, which will be properly landscaped with natives.

I was just at a presentation for another park today and I was laughing at the way "invasive" has become a synonym for "unwanted." That stuff that grows up when land is left untended? That's the natural flora of the region for the most part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And scrub is likely invasives, which will be properly landscaped with natives.

I was just at a presentation for another park today and I was laughing at the way "invasive" has become a synonym for "unwanted." That stuff that grows up when land is left untended? That's the natural flora of the region for the most part.

Grass is not native to this region. It was brought here from Europe (and much of it originated in Asia).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And scrub is likely invasives, which will be properly landscaped with natives.

I was just at a presentation for another park today and I was laughing at the way "invasive" has become a synonym for "unwanted." That stuff that grows up when land is left untended? That's the natural flora of the region for the most part.

Nope wrong again - I don't know about the trees but the english ivy that is killing the trees in fact are considered invasive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

Yup - our community wants and deserves a pool.

I can't speak for the community but I would gladly trade some trees for the pool - in any case the trees to both the south and the west of the pool site are not legacy shade trees worth fretting over. In fact some of them are in quite poor shape and have been getting choked by ivy for several years. Not that the activist immediate neighbors have noticed or done anything about it.

It's not the neighbors job to maintain the trees, particularly when DC is not exactly hurting for tax revenue. In any case, I'd take away the opposite lesson from your point. If DPR -- aka the parks people -- can't maintain the trees in what is, after all, a public park, then what confidence do we have that they will maintain well a major facility that won't even be operated 9 months out of the year?

Well no its not but sometimes if something needs to be done in DC you need to do it yourself and not wait around for someone else.

We have the neighbors (presumably) on this thread making all sorts of claims about the conditions in and merits of the trees in this park but they themselves are not actually aware of them. Nor does it appear any of these "advocates" for the park have made any effort to get the trees taken care of.

I, in fact, have managed to get DGS out to do a number of both major and minor landscape things at two different DPR parks in Upper NW. Both parks, unlike Hearst, are staffed full time but no one had ever made the requests.

But making the requests themselves were pretty easy - some photos on the phone, a 311 request and a couple of follow up emails. Probably in total about 15 minutes of my time.

It does not appear any of the advocates/Hearst Park lovers are similarly inclined to make a similar effort. Or alternately they simply may not have spent enough time in the actual park to notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

Yup - our community wants and deserves a pool.

I can't speak for the community but I would gladly trade some trees for the pool - in any case the trees to both the south and the west of the pool site are not legacy shade trees worth fretting over. In fact some of them are in quite poor shape and have been getting choked by ivy for several years. Not that the activist immediate neighbors have noticed or done anything about it.

It's not the neighbors job to maintain the trees, particularly when DC is not exactly hurting for tax revenue. In any case, I'd take away the opposite lesson from your point. If DPR -- aka the parks people -- can't maintain the trees in what is, after all, a public park, then what confidence do we have that they will maintain well a major facility that won't even be operated 9 months out of the year?

Well no its not but sometimes if something needs to be done in DC you need to do it yourself and not wait around for someone else.

We have the neighbors (presumably) on this thread making all sorts of claims about the conditions in and merits of the trees in this park but they themselves are not actually aware of them. Nor does it appear any of these "advocates" for the park have made any effort to get the trees taken care of.

I, in fact, have managed to get DGS out to do a number of both major and minor landscape things at two different DPR parks in Upper NW. Both parks, unlike Hearst, are staffed full time but no one had ever made the requests.

But making the requests themselves were pretty easy - some photos on the phone, a 311 request and a couple of follow up emails. Probably in total about 15 minutes of my time.

It does not appear any of the advocates/Hearst Park lovers are similarly inclined to make a similar effort. Or alternately they simply may not have spent enough time in the actual park to notice.

Bowser would rather give DC tax dollars away to families from PG and elsewhere who sneak their kids into DC public schools. Sorry, folks, if you care about your parks, you're on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This. The trees on the edges are not great loss."

How did this city become a place where people who say things like this live?

Are these Trump administration people moving into the neighborhood.

They want their pool. And they want it now. With bright pole lights for nighttime. And cut down the trees, they'll just drop leaves on the pool and block the sunlight.

Yup - our community wants and deserves a pool.

I can't speak for the community but I would gladly trade some trees for the pool - in any case the trees to both the south and the west of the pool site are not legacy shade trees worth fretting over. In fact some of them are in quite poor shape and have been getting choked by ivy for several years. Not that the activist immediate neighbors have noticed or done anything about it.

It's not the neighbors job to maintain the trees, particularly when DC is not exactly hurting for tax revenue. In any case, I'd take away the opposite lesson from your point. If DPR -- aka the parks people -- can't maintain the trees in what is, after all, a public park, then what confidence do we have that they will maintain well a major facility that won't even be operated 9 months out of the year?

One of the things you have to know about DPR is that they think of themselves as being in the business of providing programs, not facilities. Rec center staff are tasked to organize activities, primarily for kids. Maintaining the facility isn't their thing.