Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Has ANC 3-C, which surrounds Hearst Park on the east, south and a block to the west, reviewed this and weighed in?

No one has weighted in formally, since there is no proposal to weigh in to.

However, the park is in 3F, so the great weight will go to that ANC.

Actually, great weight goes to both ANCs, because the project is contiguous to both. And many of the immediate neighbors live in 3-C.

ANCs can pass resolutions on whatever they want, so both can in principle do so. While the park is completely within the boundaries of 3F, if 3C makes a big enough stink they will be heard whether or not they have a formal role or not.

ANC 3C would have a formal role because the park is directly across the street(s). The subdistrict's ANC commissioner will likely reflect the views of her constituents on this.

It looks like the current commissioner lives on Ordway Street. I am going to guess that many more people in her SMD would prefer to have a pool than not, even if the handful who live right around there object.

ANCs tend to take into account the views of people who may disproportionately bear the impact of proposed projects. If, for example, one put to a majority vote the notion of building a limited access freeway down the Reno Road corridor to downtown DC, it would probably pass. But that wouldn't exactly be fair to those impacted directly by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

And after the fewer than 100 families that belong to that tiny little pool/club, there are still a few thousand within walking distance who would love to have a free outdoor pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

And after the fewer than 100 families that belong to that tiny little pool/club, there are still a few thousand within walking distance who would love to have a free outdoor pool.

There's a free pool in my trendy neighborhood, and we never go there. You get what you pay for. Like pigs, some rec facilities are more equal than others. I'm VERY glad we joined a nice private pool, it's totally worth the $700+ per summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

And after the fewer than 100 families that belong to that tiny little pool/club, there are still a few thousand within walking distance who would love to have a free outdoor pool.

The CPC pool is like a personal backyard pool in size, it is tiny. you cannot even do laps if it was empty.

[Anonymous]

I walked by Hearst today to try to imagine where a swimming pool would go, as DC has not shared even preliminary sketches yet. The two most likely locations would be (1) where the tennis courts are, which would involve eliminating them and (2) the top of the slope where the Hearst turf field and basketball court are currently located. If DC chooses the current tennis court location, then the courts might be relocated up where the turf field and basketball court are, with those then possibly moved to where the portable classroom building is. In any event, the large grass field is also available to Hearst students, so they would still have play space if the turf field goes entirely if the pool were located where the turf field is, it would be closer to Hearst parking which could be used after school and summer when the school is not in session.

The pool is do-able with these tradeoffs, but the overall site is still small for all of the "program" that DPR wants. A larger park like Turtle Park (which has a neighborhood bursting at the seams with kids) might be a better location overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

+
The Cleveland Park Club pool is maintained by the club. I used it as a mom with elementary school kids, they learned to swim there and met old and new friends there as did I. That little pool is the reason I believe it is essential that the neighborhood either finds a way for the city to build a facility or we duplicate what happened with the Cleveland Park Club facility. (Someone, sometime, will donate or provide in their will, their house to an organization we form. That house can be sold to provide funds to buy an appropriate property for a neighborhood pool.)

We have our kids enrolled in umpteen different schools so that they barely know the other kids on their block. Having a neighborhood pool will go a long way for all ages to have a relaxing and social daily period where long term friendships can form and we get some help keeping kids off the video gaming and, instead, outside exercising.

Have we pushed for the Fort Bayard Park at River Road and Western Avenue. Federally owned and maintained but nearly unused by the neighborhood compared to the amount of land. This Federal land could be handed over to the city. It is not doing the American citizens any good. But the neighborhood could really make use of it. Have we tried to see about Fort Reno and other land around Alice Deal? The Hearst field is already well used and I think a pool would be pushing out soccer players etc, just as would have happened at Turtle Park if a pool had been included in the new design.
Joan, in Friendship Heights

[Anonymous]

Have we pushed for the Fort Bayard Park at River Road and Western Avenue. Federally owned and maintained but nearly unused by the neighborhood compared to the amount of land. This Federal land could be handed over to the city. It is not doing the American citizens any good. But the neighborhood could really make use of it. Have we tried to see about Fort Reno and other land around Alice Deal? The Hearst field is already well used and I think a pool would be pushing out soccer players etc, just as would have happened at Turtle Park if a pool had been included in the new design.
Joan, in Friendship Heights

This is the same argument used by Cliven Bundy to appropriate federal land for himself and his cattle. He is nearby, so why can't he just have it?

NPS will stand firm against this sort of provincial nonsense; it's a non-starter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I walked by Hearst today to try to imagine where a swimming pool would go, as DC has not shared even preliminary sketches yet. The two most likely locations would be (1) where the tennis courts are, which would involve eliminating them and (2) the top of the slope where the Hearst turf field and basketball court are currently located. If DC chooses the current tennis court location, then the courts might be relocated up where the turf field and basketball court are, with those then possibly moved to where the portable classroom building is. In any event, the large grass field is also available to Hearst students, so they would still have play space if the turf field goes entirely if the pool were located where the turf field is, it would be closer to Hearst parking which could be used after school and summer when the school is not in session.

The pool is do-able with these tradeoffs, but the overall site is still small for all of the "program" that DPR wants. A larger park like Turtle Park (which has a neighborhood bursting at the seams with kids) might be a better location overall.

Turtle Park is not far from Hearst Park, it is hard to argue they are vastly different neighborhoods. This is not about school zones despite this thread being in the schools section.

[Anonymous]

Re Turtle Park: NWLL was able to get a loud group together and squash any discussion of a pool at Turtle park. There were MANY AU Park residents who wanted it there but their voice was fragmented and not heard in the process.

[Anonymous]

The city tried turtle park already. The baseball (NWLL) people had enough power to kill the idea, even though there were regular people who wanted it there.

Ft Bayard is NPS property and not centrally located. Non-Starter.

I believe the other potential sites across the ward were examined, and it was determined by DPR that Hearst was the most viable site.

There are hundreds of nearby households who want it there and it is already funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I walked by Hearst today to try to imagine where a swimming pool would go, as DC has not shared even preliminary sketches yet. The two most likely locations would be (1) where the tennis courts are, which would involve eliminating them and (2) the top of the slope where the Hearst turf field and basketball court are currently located. If DC chooses the current tennis court location, then the courts might be relocated up where the turf field and basketball court are, with those then possibly moved to where the portable classroom building is. In any event, the large grass field is also available to Hearst students, so they would still have play space if the turf field goes entirely if the pool were located where the turf field is, it would be closer to Hearst parking which could be used after school and summer when the school is not in session.

The pool is do-able with these tradeoffs, but the overall site is still small for all of the "program" that DPR wants. A larger park like Turtle Park (which has a neighborhood bursting at the seams with kids) might be a better location overall.

Why not let the planning team and the city come back to the community with whatever the proposal or proposals might be before imagining as a lay person what can't be.

DPR seems to understand that the field, the tennis courts, the beautiful mature trees that line the park and the pool are all important community assets. Let them figure out how the space works and then there can be a rational discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

And after the fewer than 100 families that belong to that tiny little pool/club, there are still a few thousand within walking distance who would love to have a free outdoor pool.

There's a free pool in my trendy neighborhood, and we never go there. You get what you pay for. Like pigs, some rec facilities are more equal than others. I'm VERY glad we joined a nice private pool, it's totally worth the $700+ per summer.

And you will still be able to pay $700 per summer to self-segregate. Others are not so fortunate to have that disposable income, yet pay taxes to the District and would like a community asset like a neighborhood pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
ANCs tend to take into account the views of people who may disproportionately bear the impact of proposed projects. If, for example, one put to a majority vote the notion of building a limited access freeway down the Reno Road corridor to downtown DC, it would probably pass. But that wouldn't exactly be fair to those impacted directly by it.

They tried that once and lost, which is why there is no extension of either 270 or 95 though DC. But it is an apples to oranges comparison, because an expanded Reno Road would be a benefit to Maryland drivers. A community pool would be a benefit to the community. There are hundreds of these in Maryland and the city, outside of Ward 3, is dotted with outdoor pools. Why should the residents of Ward 3 have to pay to join a private pool or drive/commute to some other part of town to get some free exercise or relief from the brutal DC summers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city tried turtle park already. The baseball (NWLL) people had enough power to kill the idea, even though there were regular people who wanted it there.

Ft Bayard is NPS property and not centrally located. Non-Starter.

I believe the other potential sites across the ward were examined, and it was determined by DPR that Hearst was the most viable site.

There are hundreds of nearby households who want it there and it is already funded.

I think this should be reiterated, this plan is underway and there are many, many people who support it wholeheartedly.