Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

You think the neighborhood won against Giant? The first proposal was for one story, a 65,000 grocery store and a parking garage that 2Amy's and Cactus Cantina would have been able to use for its patrons.

How did the neighborhood win?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: When the neighborhood decided to try to landmark the old Giant, that was laughable. What we have seen since is just pathetic. Historic urban park? Historic field? Let's put the blades of grass in amber.

This neighborhood does pick its fights. And it just picked another one. Let's see how long it takes to get your kiddie pool. Maybe you should ask Giant about it's experience.

I think Giant and the developers are doing just fine.

When was the last time a neighborhood actually won one of these battles? Oh that's right, when Observatory Circle fought the homeless shelter and foisted it on to Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

It took Giant ten years to build it. And I am one neighbor who would never oppose a homeless shelter unless they wanted to build it in a green open space. homeless families deserve housing. Probably a good place for a pool too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It took Giant ten years to build it. And I am one neighbor who would never oppose a homeless shelter unless they wanted to build it in a green open space. homeless families deserve housing. Probably a good place for a pool too.

Right. And that delay resulted in what? Except a few million dollars more in tax payer concessions for a project that everyone knew would be built. And, blighted a 3 block stretch for several years. So nice job there.

[Anonymous]

Right. And that delay resulted in what? Except a few million dollars more in tax payer concessions for a project that everyone knew would be built. And, blighted a 3 block stretch for several years. So nice job there.

By the time this project gets approved, if it ever gets approved, you will be an empty nester, looking to downsize into a condo at Cathedral Commons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. And that delay resulted in what? Except a few million dollars more in tax payer concessions for a project that everyone knew would be built. And, blighted a 3 block stretch for several years. So nice job there.

By the time this project gets approved, if it ever gets approved, you will be an empty nester, looking to downsize into a condo at Cathedral Commons.

That's even better. At that point I'll have more free time to enjoy the pool. Don't forget to wear sunscreen!

[Anonymous]

Great. Enjoy the wait. Too bad about spending you old age in a run down condo above an old Starbucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think the neighborhood won against Giant? The first proposal was for one story, a 65,000 grocery store and a parking garage that 2Amy's and Cactus Cantina would have been able to use for its patrons.

How did the neighborhood win?

The neighborhood didn't win. They got f---ed in the end. That's what bribery does in big time real estate deals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. And that delay resulted in what? Except a few million dollars more in tax payer concessions for a project that everyone knew would be built. And, blighted a 3 block stretch for several years. So nice job there.

By the time this project gets approved, if it ever gets approved, you will be an empty nester, looking to downsize into a condo at Cathedral Commons.

By that time Cathedral Commons will be razed for something else. It's cheaply build dreck.

[Anonymous]

The Feds investigated whether Giant's partner Streetworks paid bribes in connection with a Cathedral Commons zoning approvals but they weren't able to prove it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's stop all the infighting until we see a proposal.

The only infighting is from the immediate adjacent residents who are proactively coming up with all sorts of reasons to reject the proposal (that doesn't exist yet).

No let's stop the proposal. A holistic approach to this project would have been possible if DC had included the design of a pool when they redesigned the upper playground - a good place for a pool if there is one.

This is sacrosanct ground for Hearst school which is a jewel which belongs to all of the diverse peoples of the a District of Columbia, not your white enclave in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

The sacrosanct ground is actually DPR, not DCPS property.

[Anonymous]

This is sacrosanct ground for Hearst school which is a jewel which belongs to all of the diverse peoples of the a District of Columbia, not your white enclave in Ward 3.

1. Thanks for injecting race into this issue - (we were really missing that element in the civil discussion)

2. No part of Hearst should be eliminated from planning. Every sign on the playground says DPR on it so it is up for grabs in a discussion about the park's future.

3. Planners at last weekend's meeting enthusiastically included broadening the scope of the plan to include the current playground in lists of future considerations.

4. No DPR grounds are sacrosanct - don't ask people to cut down historic trees, accept major construction projects, turf over green space with plastic carpets and declare a playground on the same property as "sacrosanct."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is sacrosanct ground for Hearst school which is a jewel which belongs to all of the diverse peoples of the a District of Columbia, not your white enclave in Ward 3.

1. Thanks for injecting race into this issue - (we were really missing that element in the civil discussion)

2. No part of Hearst should be eliminated from planning. Every sign on the playground says DPR on it so it is up for grabs in a discussion about the park's future.

3. Planners at last weekend's meeting enthusiastically included broadening the scope of the plan to include the current playground in lists of future considerations.

4. No DPR grounds are sacrosanct - don't ask people to cut down historic trees, accept major construction projects, turf over green space with plastic carpets and declare a playground on the same property as "sacrosanct."



Both Hearst playgrounds could use a serious facelift. But, to think they would touch a $1M+ plus turf soccer field that is only 2 years old is unlikely, even by DC standards of waste and fraud.

[Anonymous]

Both Hearst playgrounds could use a serious facelift. But, to think they would touch a $1M+ plus turf soccer field that is only 2 years old is unlikely, even by DC standards of waste and fraud.

Who said anything about the turf field?There is the basketball court - which is the most logical place for a pool and, of course, the playground itself.

Why this pool proposal was not included in the original renovation of the playground, I will never understand.