Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

It is actually DGS job to maintain and repair things, not DPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is actually DGS job to maintain and repair things, not DPR.

This sounds like a response from a bureaucrat. Who the heck cares which part of the DC government is going to maintain the pool? It's the DC government's responsibility, and ultimately the mayor's. The fact that explanations, if not excuses, are offered that it's the job of some other alphabet soup agency (DGS vs. DPR, etc.) gives me no confidence that Hearst pool, like some of the existing park facilities themselves, is going to be well managed and maintained.

[Anonymous]

That's all fine and good, but if you are going to complain, then become educated on how the city currently works and direct your complaints to the right people. Suggesting that DPR needs to do a better job of maintaining the park is useless when you understand that isn't DPR's function or responsibility.

So you come off as ignorant in your complaints, regardless of whether they are baseless or valid.

[Anonymous]

This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

Norton and Sen. Murkowski are pushing legislation enabling DC to enter into cooperative management agreements for certain NPS-owned properties around DC, whereby DC could fund them, improve them with additional recreational facilities and maintain them in whole or in part. The bill provides the legal framework for improvements to properties from Franklin Square to parks, pools, playing fields and playgrounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is actually DGS job to maintain and repair things, not DPR.

I was watching a council hearing on video (yeah, I'm a nerd) and Mary Cheh asked Keith Anderson (DPR Director), "If a light bulb burns out at a DPR facility, is DPR or DGS responsibility to change it?"

His answer: "It depends on what kind of bulb and where it is."

Your city government, ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

Norton and Sen. Murkowski are pushing legislation enabling DC to enter into cooperative management agreements for certain NPS-owned properties around DC, whereby DC could fund them, improve them with additional recreational facilities and maintain them in whole or in part. The bill provides the legal framework for improvements to properties from Franklin Square to parks, pools, playing fields and playgrounds.

OMG is this unlikely legislation the straw the Hearst opponents are grasping at? If so you guys are more desperate and stupid than I thought.

Congress hasn't passed a budget on time in what 20 years and barely manages to pass any legislation at all these days and we are supposed to wait years for something that might not pass and even it does still might not lead to a pool at Ft Reno??

Or we can just get a pool in 2019 at Hearst which is a very good location for a pool.

DC could be retro-ceeded to MD - since that might happen and I'd like my kids to get in-state tuition to the University of Maryland I'm going to have them wait to go to college until that happens! At least they can hone their tennis game at Hearst while they wait!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is actually DGS job to maintain and repair things, not DPR.

I was watching a council hearing on video (yeah, I'm a nerd) and Mary Cheh asked Keith Anderson (DPR Director), "If a light bulb burns out at a DPR facility, is DPR or DGS responsibility to change it?"

His answer: "It depends on what kind of bulb and where it is."

Your city government, ladies and gentlemen.

Dats why we need DC statehood. Then Governor Bowser can create -- and staff (with cronies and supporters, natch) a state-level agency to supervise DPR and DGS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

Norton and Sen. Murkowski are pushing legislation enabling DC to enter into cooperative management agreements for certain NPS-owned properties around DC, whereby DC could fund them, improve them with additional recreational facilities and maintain them in whole or in part. The bill provides the legal framework for improvements to properties from Franklin Square to parks, pools, playing fields and playgrounds.

OMG is this unlikely legislation the straw the Hearst opponents are grasping at? If so you guys are more desperate and stupid than I thought.

Congress hasn't passed a budget on time in what 20 years and barely manages to pass any legislation at all these days and we are supposed to wait years for something that might not pass and even it does still might not lead to a pool at Ft Reno??

Or we can just get a pool in 2019 at Hearst which is a very good location for a pool.

DC could be retro-ceeded to MD - since that might happen and I'd like my kids to get in-state tuition to the University of Maryland I'm going to have them wait to go to college until that happens! At least they can hone their tennis game at Hearst while they wait!

DPR (or is it DGS? ) will spend a lot of money to wedge into the slope a glorified kiddie pool that is half the size of a tennis court -- and in the shade. Or wait, it won't be shaded anymore, because they'll cut down all of the trees on the periphery of the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

Norton and Sen. Murkowski are pushing legislation enabling DC to enter into cooperative management agreements for certain NPS-owned properties around DC, whereby DC could fund them, improve them with additional recreational facilities and maintain them in whole or in part. The bill provides the legal framework for improvements to properties from Franklin Square to parks, pools, playing fields and playgrounds.

OMG is this unlikely legislation the straw the Hearst opponents are grasping at? If so you guys are more desperate and stupid than I thought.

Congress hasn't passed a budget on time in what 20 years and barely manages to pass any legislation at all these days and we are supposed to wait years for something that might not pass and even it does still might not lead to a pool at Ft Reno??

Or we can just get a pool in 2019 at Hearst which is a very good location for a pool.

DC could be retro-ceeded to MD - since that might happen and I'd like my kids to get in-state tuition to the University of Maryland I'm going to have them wait to go to college until that happens! At least they can hone their tennis game at Hearst while they wait!

Isn't UDC good enough for your kids? It's YOUR neighborhood university, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't so much a comment on Hearst, but I was over by Wilson H.S. yesterday and feel strongly that the outdoor ward pool should be at Fort Reno. When you think of it, the 'circus maximus' in front of Wilson is like Ward 3's central square. It's truly in the middle of the ward. The ward's only high school is right there, as well as the indoor aquatic facility. There's a busy Metro stop there, and it's a central bus area, with perhaps the most bus lines going through or by it in Ward 3. The ward's largest schools besides Wilson, Deal and Janney, are there. There's a major branch library, for activities before or after swimming. Fort Reno is one of the largest outdoor athletic and recreation areas in the ward. Much additional density in the form of apartments and condos are being added within a short walking distance, some of it right by Fort Reno. There are many food and retail options nearby. There's lots of garage, offstreet and street parking right there. By any logical measure, it is the best location for a best-in-class, outdoor pool that serves our ward.

It would be the best place for a pool. However it has unequivocally been ruled out and we need to move on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread Hearst is still a pretty good location for a pool. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

BTW the community fought locating putting a pool at Ft Reno in the late 1960's.

This party line to shut down discussion of Fort Reno has to stop. There are discussions underway, including through E.H. Norton's office and the National Park Service, to lease or enter into use agreements for a DC pool and other recreational facilities at Fort Reno and other properties owned by NPS. Mary Cheh is aware of these discussions. This isn't a question of the perfect versus the good. It's a matter of what makes the most sense from a planning, transportation, recreational, fiscal responsibility, engineering and environmental perspective. It's not even close.

No there are not on-going discussions. This is simply not true.

Reps from both Cheh and Norton's staff did, as promised, make additional inquiries about the possibility of locating a pool at Ft Reno. Both staffs got the same response from NPS that had previously been given to DGS - a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

Hearst makes perfectly good sense as a location for a pool even if it is not the ideal location.

None of the issues you cite are actual issues at Hearst, despite opponents listing them as concerns ad nauseum.

Norton and Sen. Murkowski are pushing legislation enabling DC to enter into cooperative management agreements for certain NPS-owned properties around DC, whereby DC could fund them, improve them with additional recreational facilities and maintain them in whole or in part. The bill provides the legal framework for improvements to properties from Franklin Square to parks, pools, playing fields and playgrounds.

And even if something comes of this, it doesn't mean a project that is 5 years, or whatever, in the works should simply disappear. The studies have been done, the community has been engaged, the money has been allotted, it's time to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DPR (or is it DGS? ) will spend a lot of money to wedge into the slope a glorified kiddie pool that is half the size of a tennis court -- and in the shade. Or wait, it won't be shaded anymore, because they'll cut down all of the trees on the periphery of the park.

So much hyperbole packed into two sentences, bravo.

1) The cost is mostly dedicated to stormwater and other improvements to the park.
2) The pool isn't being wedged. There are already little-used tennis courts there. Are the courts wedged in?
3) The proposed pool is the same size as many other DPR pools in the city. If you want an 8 lane 50 meter pool with a diving well, join one of the Montgomery County Community Pools.
4) No one is cutting down "all" of the trees on the periphery of the park. The scrub trees on the hill around the proposed pool will likely get cleaned up, for the first time in two generations.