Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHERE IS THE DGS HYDROLOGY STUDY? OR IS THAT DPR'S RESPONSIBILITY. CAN ONE OF YOU WITH A PhD IN DC BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS TELL US?
2) The pool isn't being wedged. There are already little-used tennis courts there. Are the courts wedged in? SUPPOSEDLY THE POOL, POOL HOUSE AND SURROUNDING DECK WILL FIT INTO THE FOOTPRINT OF JUST ONE TENNIS COURT. IF THAT'S TRUE, IT'S BEING 'WEDGED.' IF IT'S NOT TRUE, THEN DPR (OR IS IT DGS) IS LYING TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WILL BE SACRIFICED FOR A POOL.
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. IF DC IS BUILDING A POOL TO SERVE A LARGE WARD, YOU'D THINK THEY WOULD DO IT RIGHT. BUT 'THIS IS THE WAY DC HAS ALWAYS DONE IT' IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR DC.
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.
SOMEONE FROM DGS (OR WAS IT DPR?) SAID AT A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD REQUIRE DISTURBANCE OF THE SLOPES AND REMOVAL OF THE TREES.

[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.

This taxpayer is not willing to wait for "someday" when there is an opportunity right now, for this amenity to come to our community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1) The cost is mostly dedicated to stormwater and other improvements to the park.

WHERE IS THE DGS HYDROLOGY STUDY? OR IS THAT DPR'S RESPONSIBILITY. CAN ONE OF YOU WITH A PhD IN DC BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS TELL US?
2) The pool isn't being wedged. There are already little-used tennis courts there. Are the courts wedged in? SUPPOSEDLY THE POOL, POOL HOUSE AND SURROUNDING DECK WILL FIT INTO THE FOOTPRINT OF JUST ONE TENNIS COURT. IF THAT'S TRUE, IT'S BEING 'WEDGED.' IF IT'S NOT TRUE, THEN DPR (OR IS IT DGS) IS LYING TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WILL BE SACRIFICED FOR A POOL. You are being willfully obtuse. Use a google map to measure similar facilities and see how it fits at Hearst
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. IF DC IS BUILDING A POOL TO SERVE A LARGE WARD, YOU'D THINK THEY WOULD DO IT RIGHT. BUT 'THIS IS THE WAY DC HAS ALWAYS DONE IT' IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR DC. There should be multiple community pools, like there are across the rest of the city - so put one at Lafayette too
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.
SOMEONE FROM DGS (OR WAS IT DPR?) SAID AT A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD REQUIRE DISTURBANCE OF THE SLOPES AND REMOVAL OF THE TREES.[b] removal of scrub trees =/= removal of all of the trees

[Anonymous]

A lot of us would rather wait for a proper swimming pool, not some little shit pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of us would rather wait for a proper swimming pool, not some little shit pool.

We've been waiting for a pool in the community for decades. The time is now. If we wait for Ft. Reno and Trump mandates "no," then we will have to wait another 40 years. That is a losing argument. The stars are aligned now to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Unless or until there is a concrete proposal to allow Ft Reno to be managed by the city with funding behind it, this is a losing argument. This could never happen, and certainly won't in the next 2-3 years. Hearst Pool can happen now. Just because YOU don't want a pool near YOUR house, doesn't mean the rest of us should wait til never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

You have no idea what you are talking about or are showing your deluded desperation when you suggest that the federal government is going to turn over one of its Civil War Fort parks, the one that sits on the highest point overlooking the capital city, to DC to put in a community pool. It just isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Unless or until there is a concrete proposal to allow Ft Reno to be managed by the city with funding behind it, this is a losing argument. This could never happen, and certainly won't in the next 2-3 years. Hearst Pool can happen now. Just because YOU don't want a pool near YOUR house, doesn't mean the rest of us should wait til never.

I wouldn't hold my breath. If the pool goes forward, expect the Friends of Hearst Park, likely joined by the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club and Casey Trees Foundation, to file a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Unless or until there is a concrete proposal to allow Ft Reno to be managed by the city with funding behind it, this is a losing argument. This could never happen, and certainly won't in the next 2-3 years. Hearst Pool can happen now. Just because YOU don't want a pool near YOUR house, doesn't mean the rest of us should wait til never.

I wouldn't hold my breath. If the pool goes forward, expect the Friends of Hearst Park, likely joined by the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club and Casey Trees Foundation, to file a lawsuit.

The only things I know about the Friends of Hearst Park are the ridiculous arguments its members make at the public meetings and presumably here on DCUM so I certainly can't argue against the notion that they will file a lawsuit though it remains unclear about what and on what basis they would file a lawsuit?

I do, however, happen to be very familiar with both Casey Trees and the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club having volunteered with both and served on two different committees of the Sierra Club and I've crossed paths with the leadership of both groups and am confident there is zero chance of either group jumping in on this issue as 1)Both groups have limited funds and more important issues to be concerned with and 2)Wait - what is the issue that either group would be concerned with here?

As has been written up thread so long as DGS completes the required Environmental studies (and they have done so on other recent projects in Ward 3) there will be zero basis for anyone to appeal the issuing of permits in this case or to sue about it. There are no jurisdictional, ownership, appropriation or process arguments and there are no zoning or public space rulings about which to file an appeal.

I'm not sure who you think might be intimated by these ridiculous threats and while you might find a neighbor with some time and a law degree to take this up there is zero chance that such a lawsuit will succeed and it will only cost the city money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has no interest in Fort Reno Park, one way or another. I agree with PP, let’s do it right and put a real outdoor aquatic center at Fort Reno, where there’s lots of space. Why build some half-baked little pool at a challenged site?. A Hearst pool-ette is the wrong sized facility crammed into the wrong spot. This seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Unless or until there is a concrete proposal to allow Ft Reno to be managed by the city with funding behind it, this is a losing argument. This could never happen, and certainly won't in the next 2-3 years. Hearst Pool can happen now. Just because YOU don't want a pool near YOUR house, doesn't mean the rest of us should wait til never.

I wouldn't hold my breath. If the pool goes forward, expect the Friends of Hearst Park, likely joined by the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club and Casey Trees Foundation, to file a lawsuit.

The only things I know about the Friends of Hearst Park are the ridiculous arguments its members make at the public meetings and presumably here on DCUM so I certainly can't argue against the notion that they will file a lawsuit though it remains unclear about what and on what basis they would file a lawsuit?

I do, however, happen to be very familiar with both Casey Trees and the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club having volunteered with both and served on two different committees of the Sierra Club and I've crossed paths with the leadership of both groups and am confident there is zero chance of either group jumping in on this issue as 1)Both groups have limited funds and more important issues to be concerned with and 2)Wait - what is the issue that either group would be concerned with here?

As has been written up thread so long as DGS completes the required Environmental studies (and they have done so on other recent projects in Ward 3) there will be zero basis for anyone to appeal the issuing of permits in this case or to sue about it. There are no jurisdictional, ownership, appropriation or process arguments and there are no zoning or public space rulings about which to file an appeal.

I'm not sure who you think might be intimated by these ridiculous threats and while you might find a neighbor with some time and a law degree to take this up there is zero chance that such a lawsuit will succeed and it will only cost the city money.

No dog in this fight. I don't even have a dog. But one important observation is that the reason that DC pays damages or spends unnecessary funds is not because of 'ridiculous' lawsuits. It's because, time and time again, the DC government often doesn't follow the proper process. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

It blows my mind that some people don't want a pool. It's a walkable amenity that will only improve nearby property values and is a huge plus for nearby families with kids.

I can't get over this 173 page debate.

[Anonymous]

So what process hasn't been followed here?

I would argue that DGS has conducted many more public engagement opportunities than is required. And there is no reason to believe that the permit process will have been done improperly.

[Anonymous]

At a recent Chat with Cheh event in Ward 3, a Cheh staffer said that Fort Reno is definitely on the table as a W-3 pool site. Also noteworthy is the fact that DPR just refurbished the Hearst practice court and spiffed up the regular courts, which is not exactly consistent with an intention to rework that area for a pool. We're glad to see DC coming to their senses on this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that some people don't want a pool. It's a walkable amenity that will only improve nearby property values and is a huge plus for nearby families with kids.

I can't get over this 173 page debate.

People want a pool in the ward. They just don't want to wreck a lot of what is special about Hearst to put it there.