Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the users of Turtle Park vetoed a pool, the Palisades Park community vetoed a pool and now folks want to use some non-scientific on-line survey to run roughshod over the needs and desires of the neighborhood that directly borders Hearst park?

All of the people who live in the area immediately on the border of the park were part of the same listserv that I am on, the Springland Farm. The link to the survey was posted there several times, as well as the Cleveland Park and Tenley Yahoo groups. It was also emailed out to block lists. No one is running roughshod, but rather you re just in the very deep minority. Almost everyone who responded wants the pool. The city has responded by dedicated about 12 million dollars to the renovation of the Hearst Park including a pool.

Sorry you don't like it. I am sure there will be many families lined up to spend 1.5 to 2 million dollars for your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.

Why does DC need more elementary schools when John Eaton is 60% OOB and Hearst is significantly higher than that. If more school capacity is needed, DCPS needs to throttle back OOB spots as kids move through the school.

In any case, DC is not going to locate a new school on a small site (even if they did own it) on the MD border on Western Ave.
A much more appropriate site for a new school, if one is needed, is the Second District police station site on Idaho Ave. But not DC is doubling down there by building a 50 unit homeless shelter, so that site will never be a school.

Nope Hearst is already down to 50 percent and falling (I say this without saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just a fact). Both of these schools are also on the small side for Ward 3. Janney and Murch are near 700 with no ability to get bigger, and many of the other Ward 3 schools like Key and Stoddert are also bursting. I don't think another school is likely in Ward 3, but it could relieve overcrowding if it could be made to happen. VERY unlikely that it would happen on NPS land though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Interesting that no one seems to be able to respond to these basic questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.

Why does DC need more elementary schools when John Eaton is 60% OOB and Hearst is significantly higher than that. If more school capacity is needed, DCPS needs to throttle back OOB spots as kids move through the school.

In any case, DC is not going to locate a new school on a small site (even if they did own it) on the MD border on Western Ave.
A much more appropriate site for a new school, if one is needed, is the Second District police station site on Idaho Ave. But not DC is doubling down there by building a 50 unit homeless shelter, so that site will never be a school.

Nope Hearst is already down to 50 percent and falling (I say this without saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just a fact). Both of these schools are also on the small side for Ward 3. Janney and Murch are near 700 with no ability to get bigger, and many of the other Ward 3 schools like Key and Stoddert are also bursting. I don't think another school is likely in Ward 3, but it could relieve overcrowding if it could be made to happen. VERY unlikely that it would happen on NPS land though.

Cite? DCPS reported data is very different, showing much higher OOB numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Interesting that no one seems to be able to respond to these basic questions.

Anyone can guess, but you know what? The city hired some professionals to do this, so why don't we wait and see what they present as options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.

Why does DC need more elementary schools when John Eaton is 60% OOB and Hearst is significantly higher than that. If more school capacity is needed, DCPS needs to throttle back OOB spots as kids move through the school.

In any case, DC is not going to locate a new school on a small site (even if they did own it) on the MD border on Western Ave.
A much more appropriate site for a new school, if one is needed, is the Second District police station site on Idaho Ave. But not DC is doubling down there by building a 50 unit homeless shelter, so that site will never be a school.

Nope Hearst is already down to 50 percent and falling (I say this without saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just a fact). Both of these schools are also on the small side for Ward 3. Janney and Murch are near 700 with no ability to get bigger, and many of the other Ward 3 schools like Key and Stoddert are also bursting. I don't think another school is likely in Ward 3, but it could relieve overcrowding if it could be made to happen. VERY unlikely that it would happen on NPS land though.

Cite? DCPS reported data is very different, showing much higher OOB numbers.

New poster.

Hearst is 73 percent OOB, 27 percent IB, most recent data:

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hearst+Elementary+School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Interesting that no one seems to be able to respond to these basic questions.

Anyone can guess, but you know what? The city hired some professionals to do this, so why don't we wait and see what they present as options?

It's hard to see how a pool gets built without someone's ox being gored: recreational soccer teams players, if the field size is cut in half; tennis players if the courts are torn out and not replaced; or Hearst students and parents of little kids in the neighborhood, if the turf field and basketball courts are removed. Pick your poison.

[Anonymous]

Why is this discussion in the schools forum??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Interesting that no one seems to be able to respond to these basic questions.

Anyone can guess, but you know what? The city hired some professionals to do this, so why don't we wait and see what they present as options?

It's hard to see how a pool gets built without someone's ox being gored: recreational soccer teams players, if the field size is cut in half; tennis players if the courts are torn out and not replaced; or Hearst students and parents of little kids in the neighborhood, if the turf field and basketball courts are removed. Pick your poison.

And the city understands that all of those are important as well as the trees. Maybe they can put courts on the roof of the pool house, who know, so let's wait and see rather than assume that any of our interests are getting gored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.

Why does DC need more elementary schools when John Eaton is 60% OOB and Hearst is significantly higher than that. If more school capacity is needed, DCPS needs to throttle back OOB spots as kids move through the school.

In any case, DC is not going to locate a new school on a small site (even if they did own it) on the MD border on Western Ave.
A much more appropriate site for a new school, if one is needed, is the Second District police station site on Idaho Ave. But not DC is doubling down there by building a 50 unit homeless shelter, so that site will never be a school.

Nope Hearst is already down to 50 percent and falling (I say this without saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just a fact). Both of these schools are also on the small side for Ward 3. Janney and Murch are near 700 with no ability to get bigger, and many of the other Ward 3 schools like Key and Stoddert are also bursting. I don't think another school is likely in Ward 3, but it could relieve overcrowding if it could be made to happen. VERY unlikely that it would happen on NPS land though.

Cite? DCPS reported data is very different, showing much higher OOB numbers.

New poster.

Hearst is 73 percent OOB, 27 percent IB, most recent data:

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hearst+Elementary+School

Key being most recent data. The lower grades are all 50% or more IB, and the incoming pre-K lottery class was all IB. By the time the pool is ready the overall school number will be closer to 50%.

[Anonymous]

What does Hearst's OOB percentage have to do with a pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this discussion in the schools forum??

Because (1) the school playground probably will be impacted, directly or indirectly, by the siting of the pool and (2) sometimes Hearst kids use the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Interesting that no one seems to be able to respond to these basic questions.

Anyone can guess, but you know what? The city hired some professionals to do this, so why don't we wait and see what they present as options?

It's hard to see how a pool gets built without someone's ox being gored: recreational soccer teams players, if the field size is cut in half; tennis players if the courts are torn out and not replaced; or Hearst students and parents of little kids in the neighborhood, if the turf field and basketball courts are removed. Pick your poison.

And the city understands that all of those are important as well as the trees. Maybe they can put courts on the roof of the pool house, who know, so let's wait and see rather than assume that any of our interests are getting gored.

Don't worry: Mary Cheh will consider the needs of park users and ensure that all interests are protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does Hearst's OOB percentage have to do with a pool?

nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does Hearst's OOB percentage have to do with a pool?

Because some idiot tried to claim that the "community" was the school and not "neighborhood" in denying that people wanted the pool. She was a pool denier.