Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better than Ward 3's 82,000 residents driving to other wards or to Maryland to swim.

And with respect to Cheh, she listened to her constituents who, for 12 years, have asked for a pool. She is delivering. Let's make this a campaign issue, if you want to try to get Petar Dmichev to switch his position and oppose the pool (he told me he was for it) - I am sure such a strategy would capture the 50 households against the pool versus, what was that number you cited, 82000?

Why is driving to other wards so terrible?

The way some posters on this thread write, you'd think there are checkpoints at the ward boundaries where we need to show our papers and apply for a visa. There are lots of places in Ward 3 that are a lot closer to other wards than they are to other parts of Ward 3. The whole "Ward 3 pool" argument just drives me crazy. If you live in Glover Park, Georgetown is closer than Cleveland Park. If you live in Chevy Chase, Ward 4 is closer than Hearst.

It’s a matter of equity. Other wards have had the privilege of outdoor pools for decades.

Ward boundaries are invisible, imaginary lines. Not having to cross a ward boundary doesn't make an inconvenient location convenient, nor does crossing a ward boundary make a convenient location inconvenient. Would an outdoor pool in Chevy Chase on the western side of Connecticut Avenue not serve Ward 3 residents, even though it's in Ward 4? No. Does the Jelleff pool not serve Ward 3 residents because it's in Ward 2? No.

Now, are there significant numbers of residents in Ward 3 who don't live within walking distance of a public outdoor pool? Absolutely. But does a pool have to be in Ward 3 to serve them? No, that's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better than Ward 3's 82,000 residents driving to other wards or to Maryland to swim.

And with respect to Cheh, she listened to her constituents who, for 12 years, have asked for a pool. She is delivering. Let's make this a campaign issue, if you want to try to get Petar Dmichev to switch his position and oppose the pool (he told me he was for it) - I am sure such a strategy would capture the 50 households against the pool versus, what was that number you cited, 82000?

Why is driving to other wards so terrible?

The way some posters on this thread write, you'd think there are checkpoints at the ward boundaries where we need to show our papers and apply for a visa. There are lots of places in Ward 3 that are a lot closer to other wards than they are to other parts of Ward 3. The whole "Ward 3 pool" argument just drives me crazy. If you live in Glover Park, Georgetown is closer than Cleveland Park. If you live in Chevy Chase, Ward 4 is closer than Hearst.

It’s a matter of equity. Other wards have had the privilege of outdoor pools for decades.

Ward boundaries are invisible, imaginary lines. Not having to cross a ward boundary doesn't make an inconvenient location convenient, nor does crossing a ward boundary make a convenient location inconvenient. Would an outdoor pool in Chevy Chase on the western side of Connecticut Avenue not serve Ward 3 residents, even though it's in Ward 4? No. Does the Jelleff pool not serve Ward 3 residents because it's in Ward 2? No.

Now, are there significant numbers of residents in Ward 3 who don't live within walking distance of a public outdoor pool? Absolutely. But does a pool have to be in Ward 3 to serve them? No, that's ridiculous.

Then why a homeless shelter in each Ward if the boundaries don’t matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better than Ward 3's 82,000 residents driving to other wards or to Maryland to swim.

And with respect to Cheh, she listened to her constituents who, for 12 years, have asked for a pool. She is delivering. Let's make this a campaign issue, if you want to try to get Petar Dmichev to switch his position and oppose the pool (he told me he was for it) - I am sure such a strategy would capture the 50 households against the pool versus, what was that number you cited, 82000?

Why is driving to other wards so terrible?

The way some posters on this thread write, you'd think there are checkpoints at the ward boundaries where we need to show our papers and apply for a visa. There are lots of places in Ward 3 that are a lot closer to other wards than they are to other parts of Ward 3. The whole "Ward 3 pool" argument just drives me crazy. If you live in Glover Park, Georgetown is closer than Cleveland Park. If you live in Chevy Chase, Ward 4 is closer than Hearst.

It’s a matter of equity. Other wards have had the privilege of outdoor pools for decades.

Ward boundaries are invisible, imaginary lines. Not having to cross a ward boundary doesn't make an inconvenient location convenient, nor does crossing a ward boundary make a convenient location inconvenient. Would an outdoor pool in Chevy Chase on the western side of Connecticut Avenue not serve Ward 3 residents, even though it's in Ward 4? No. Does the Jelleff pool not serve Ward 3 residents because it's in Ward 2? No.

Now, are there significant numbers of residents in Ward 3 who don't live within walking distance of a public outdoor pool? Absolutely. But does a pool have to be in Ward 3 to serve them? No, that's ridiculous.

Then why a homeless shelter in each Ward if the boundaries don’t matter?

Politics, pure and simple. Bowser et al needed to sell the notion that every ward was doing its "fair share." (Never mind that certain wards were disproportionately paying for DC's social spending schemes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better than Ward 3's 82,000 residents driving to other wards or to Maryland to swim.

And with respect to Cheh, she listened to her constituents who, for 12 years, have asked for a pool. She is delivering. Let's make this a campaign issue, if you want to try to get Petar Dmichev to switch his position and oppose the pool (he told me he was for it) - I am sure such a strategy would capture the 50 households against the pool versus, what was that number you cited, 82000?

Why is driving to other wards so terrible?

The way some posters on this thread write, you'd think there are checkpoints at the ward boundaries where we need to show our papers and apply for a visa. There are lots of places in Ward 3 that are a lot closer to other wards than they are to other parts of Ward 3. The whole "Ward 3 pool" argument just drives me crazy. If you live in Glover Park, Georgetown is closer than Cleveland Park. If you live in Chevy Chase, Ward 4 is closer than Hearst.

It’s a matter of equity. Other wards have had the privilege of outdoor pools for decades.

Ward boundaries are invisible, imaginary lines. Not having to cross a ward boundary doesn't make an inconvenient location convenient, nor does crossing a ward boundary make a convenient location inconvenient. Would an outdoor pool in Chevy Chase on the western side of Connecticut Avenue not serve Ward 3 residents, even though it's in Ward 4? No. Does the Jelleff pool not serve Ward 3 residents because it's in Ward 2? No.

Now, are there significant numbers of residents in Ward 3 who don't live within walking distance of a public outdoor pool? Absolutely. But does a pool have to be in Ward 3 to serve them? No, that's ridiculous.

The DPR master plan suggested two new outdoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. Hearst is wet of Rock Creek park. Ergo...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better than Ward 3's 82,000 residents driving to other wards or to Maryland to swim.

And with respect to Cheh, she listened to her constituents who, for 12 years, have asked for a pool. She is delivering. Let's make this a campaign issue, if you want to try to get Petar Dmichev to switch his position and oppose the pool (he told me he was for it) - I am sure such a strategy would capture the 50 households against the pool versus, what was that number you cited, 82000?

Why is driving to other wards so terrible?

The way some posters on this thread write, you'd think there are checkpoints at the ward boundaries where we need to show our papers and apply for a visa. There are lots of places in Ward 3 that are a lot closer to other wards than they are to other parts of Ward 3. The whole "Ward 3 pool" argument just drives me crazy. If you live in Glover Park, Georgetown is closer than Cleveland Park. If you live in Chevy Chase, Ward 4 is closer than Hearst.

It’s a matter of equity. Other wards have had the privilege of outdoor pools for decades.

Ward boundaries are invisible, imaginary lines. Not having to cross a ward boundary doesn't make an inconvenient location convenient, nor does crossing a ward boundary make a convenient location inconvenient. Would an outdoor pool in Chevy Chase on the western side of Connecticut Avenue not serve Ward 3 residents, even though it's in Ward 4? No. Does the Jelleff pool not serve Ward 3 residents because it's in Ward 2? No.

Now, are there significant numbers of residents in Ward 3 who don't live within walking distance of a public outdoor pool? Absolutely. But does a pool have to be in Ward 3 to serve them? No, that's ridiculous.

The DPR master plan suggested two new outdoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. Hearst is wet of Rock Creek park. Ergo...

Yes, it sure is! And that's why they need to study the hydrology fully -- but DC seems to have outsourced the hydrology study to the FBI's crack Kavanaugh team.

[Anonymous]

The plan for Hearst are coming together really nicely. Was an interesting meeting and I am looking forward to taking the kids to the pool in 2020.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

[Anonymous]

When are they starting work on the pool? I can’t wait!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are they starting work on the pool? I can’t wait!

Aren’t they required to do the studies first? DGS seems to be dragging its heels on those. Does anyone know why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plan for Hearst are coming together really nicely. Was an interesting meeting and I am looking forward to taking the kids to the pool in 2020.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

I wouldn’t hold my breath. There’s likely a lawsuit in the offing by the park Friends group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan for Hearst are coming together really nicely. Was an interesting meeting and I am looking forward to taking the kids to the pool in 2020.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

I wouldn’t hold my breath. There’s likely a lawsuit in the offing by the park Friends group.

Only if they want to draw the public ire of thousands of their neighbors. I mean, such a lawsuit will do nothing but delay and waste additional taxpayer dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan for Hearst are coming together really nicely. Was an interesting meeting and I am looking forward to taking the kids to the pool in 2020.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

I wouldn’t hold my breath. There’s likely a lawsuit in the offing by the park Friends group.

Only if they want to draw the public ire of thousands of their neighbors. I mean, such a lawsuit will do nothing but delay and waste additional taxpayer dollars.

The thing that wastes taxpayer dollars is not doing the various studies that DGS promised. It will only have to do them in the end, belatedly and probably resulting in project impact and extra cost. DC is still so stubbornly Third World in its inefficiency in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan for Hearst are coming together really nicely. Was an interesting meeting and I am looking forward to taking the kids to the pool in 2020.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

I wouldn’t hold my breath. There’s likely a lawsuit in the offing by the park Friends group.

Only if they want to draw the public ire of thousands of their neighbors. I mean, such a lawsuit will do nothing but delay and waste additional taxpayer dollars.

The thing that wastes taxpayer dollars is not doing the various studies that DGS promised. It will only have to do them in the end, belatedly and probably resulting in project impact and extra cost. DC is still so stubbornly Third World in its inefficiency in many ways.

The studies are total BS. We already know water runs down to Soaprstone Valley. The implementations at Hearst will improve those conditions. The pool has absolutely nothing to do with that, particularly since it will be on the south end and elevated.

[Anonymous]

They could save money and simply turn Lake Cheh into the Hearst Neighborhood Swimming Hole.

[Anonymous]

Didn't DPR promise that none of the mature oak trees would be cut for a swimming pool? Yet this week, workers have cut down at least one healthy willow oak. DC's tree canopy is shrinking. Is this just DC government ineptitude or dissembling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't DPR promise that none of the mature oak trees would be cut for a swimming pool? Yet this week, workers have cut down at least one healthy willow oak. DC's tree canopy is shrinking. Is this just DC government ineptitude or dissembling?

FALSE! DC's tree canopy is growing. You cannot create facts to suit your agenda. I'm sure you're offended when another horrible individual does exactly that. Oh, but that's different, right?...