Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

You say that like it's something I'd have a problem with. It's your NIMBY attitude that I don't care for. Homeless families do not bother me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

You say that like it's something I'd have a problem with. It's your NIMBY attitude that I don't care for. Homeless families do not bother me.

“The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons.” I’ll bet Giant and it’s co-investors must love that name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

You say that like it's something I'd have a problem with. It's your NIMBY attitude that I don't care for. Homeless families do not bother me.

“The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons.” I’ll bet Giant and it’s co-investors must love that name.

Eh, the Wegmans is gonna put that Giant out of business in like 6 months when it opens up the street in a few years.

[Anonymous]

People won't need to travel from across the city to the Hearst Pool, because all the other neighborhoods already have pools.

[Anonymous]

Mary. Cheh destroyed Hearst Park. She really doesn't care about green space, only development and developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

You say that like it's something I'd have a problem with. It's your NIMBY attitude that I don't care for. Homeless families do not bother me.

“The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons.” I’ll bet Giant and it’s co-investors must love that name.

Eh, the Wegmans is gonna put that Giant out of business in like 6 months when it opens up the street in a few years.

Harris Teeter in Reston, is having issues with homeless spitting on produce. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mary. Cheh destroyed Hearst Park. She really doesn't care about green space, only development and developers.

All of the cleaning out of the weeds and stormwater migitation - what you call destroying the park - was going to be done regardless of a pool. Sorry you don't understand how to help the people on Springland who made stormwater run off a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mary. Cheh destroyed Hearst Park. She really doesn't care about green space, only development and developers.

What does this have to do with a DPR improvement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary. Cheh destroyed Hearst Park. She really doesn't care about green space, only development and developers.

What does this have to do with a DPR improvement?

Right? And Ward 3 has been very stagnant when it comes to development while Cheh has been in office so not sure what favors PP thinks she has done.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.

A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

You say that like it's something I'd have a problem with. It's your NIMBY attitude that I don't care for. Homeless families do not bother me.

“The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons.” I’ll bet Giant and it’s co-investors must love that name.

Eh, the Wegmans is gonna put that Giant out of business in like 6 months when it opens up the street in a few years.

Harris Teeter in Reston, is having issues with homeless spitting on produce. Just saying.

Yuck, that's gross. But you're write that Wegmans is gonna' eat Giant's lunch. We'll be lucky if the giant Giant space isn't a Dollar General in a few years.

[Anonymous]

You're right, not 'write.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.

A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.

A new store would have been built a lot faster if the original 1999 proposal hadn't been opposed by a bunch of NIMBYs, pre-Ahold. It also would have been one story, not touched the north parcel and had openings on Wisconsin Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.

A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.

A new store would have been built a lot faster if the original 1999 proposal hadn't been opposed by a bunch of NIMBYs, pre-Ahold. It also would have been one story, not touched the north parcel and had openings on Wisconsin Avenue.

This would have been great. I loved the shops on the old north parcel, and don't like how Cathedral Commons turned out. Poor design and way too much concrete.