Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uh, maybe because there's no good site for a pool there? It was pretty clear from the outreach meeting at Hearst park that the DC agencies wanted it known that they had not chosen the Hearst location. Just like the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter (in which no one consulted the police, in whose parking lot it will be located) , it's pretty clear that the Hearst location is purely a Cheh decision. And Mary Always Knows Best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

me too. it's not just Stoddert. The Hearst Rec T Ball and other rec teams use those fields as do the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec.

Who are the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec. ? I don't know of anyone in North Cleveland park who uses that program. It's hard to see where the demand comes from.

Hearst has 60 kids (60!) in the aftercare program every weekday all school year. They are ALL Hearst students.

[Anonymous]

I think it is WAY more important to ensure that the Hearst Rec building is upgraded to a safe and sanitary place for those 60 kids (DC residents, year after year) to play and learn after school. THAT should be DCR's TOP priority. But it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

me too. it's not just Stoddert. The Hearst Rec T Ball and other rec teams use those fields as do the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec.

Who are the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec. ? I don't know of anyone in North Cleveland park who uses that program. It's hard to see where the demand comes from.

Hearst has 60 kids (60!) in the aftercare program every weekday all school year. They are ALL Hearst students.

Aren't there two programs? Hearst School aftercare and DPR aftercare. Curious why there should be duplicative programs at basically the same site.

[Anonymous]

One is basic, DC out of school time aftercare. The other is more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One is basic, DC out of school time aftercare. The other is more expensive.

Two programs could probably be consolidated into one, particularly if there are competing needs for the rec center space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is WAY more important to ensure that the Hearst Rec building is upgraded to a safe and sanitary place for those 60 kids (DC residents, year after year) to play and learn after school. THAT should be DCR's TOP priority. But it's not.

I disagree. Why not move the program into the recently renovated school (where the kids go to school, natch) and spend the limited recreational funds where they will serve a broader population of users. A win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uh, maybe because there's no good site for a pool there? It was pretty clear from the outreach meeting at Hearst park that the DC agencies wanted it known that they had not chosen the Hearst location. Just like the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter (in which no one consulted the police, in whose parking lot it will be located) , it's pretty clear that the Hearst location is purely a Cheh decision. And Mary Always Knows Best.

+1. The only way to put more than a kiddie wading pool is to rip something substantial out of Hearst Park, like the upper playground. And tearing things out would be unacceptable to park users. Time to go back to school, Professor Cheh. Admit you goofed, big time, and move on. Too bad, instead of going to law school, that you didn't study a little more geometry and perhaps some basic site drawing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uh, maybe because there's no good site for a pool there? It was pretty clear from the outreach meeting at Hearst park that the DC agencies wanted it known that they had not chosen the Hearst location. Just like the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter (in which no one consulted the police, in whose parking lot it will be located) , it's pretty clear that the Hearst location is purely a Cheh decision. And Mary Always Knows Best.

+1. The only way to put more than a kiddie wading pool is to rip something substantial out of Hearst Park, like the upper playground. And tearing things out would be unacceptable to park users. Time to go back to school, Professor Cheh. Admit you goofed, big time, and move on. Too bad, instead of going to law school, that you didn't study a little more geometry and perhaps some basic site drawing.

So let's say just maybe that someone from DCPR has been counting the number of people using the tennis courts over the past four weekends. Carr to guess how many people per day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is WAY more important to ensure that the Hearst Rec building is upgraded to a safe and sanitary place for those 60 kids (DC residents, year after year) to play and learn after school. THAT should be DCR's TOP priority. But it's not.

HIstoric Preservation basically eliminates any possibility of expansion or serious renovation of the stone house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uh, maybe because there's no good site for a pool there? It was pretty clear from the outreach meeting at Hearst park that the DC agencies wanted it known that they had not chosen the Hearst location. Just like the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter (in which no one consulted the police, in whose parking lot it will be located) , it's pretty clear that the Hearst location is purely a Cheh decision. And Mary Always Knows Best.

+1. The only way to put more than a kiddie wading pool is to rip something substantial out of Hearst Park, like the upper playground. And tearing things out would be unacceptable to park users. Time to go back to school, Professor Cheh. Admit you goofed, big time, and move on. Too bad, instead of going to law school, that you didn't study a little more geometry and perhaps some basic site drawing.

So let's say just maybe that someone from DCPR has been counting the number of people using the tennis courts over the past four weekends. Carr to guess how many people per day?

The tennis courts are heavily used every weekend and public courts in the neighborhood are scarce. None at Macomb Park for example. If DPR tore out courts for a pool there would be a veritable shitstorm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is WAY more important to ensure that the Hearst Rec building is upgraded to a safe and sanitary place for those 60 kids (DC residents, year after year) to play and learn after school. THAT should be DCR's TOP priority. But it's not.

HIstoric Preservation basically eliminates any possibility of expansion or serious renovation of the stone house.

It's almost criminal for DPR to crowd 60 kids into that shelter. Just move the after school program into ... The school, where there is lots of modern space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uh, maybe because there's no good site for a pool there? It was pretty clear from the outreach meeting at Hearst park that the DC agencies wanted it known that they had not chosen the Hearst location. Just like the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter (in which no one consulted the police, in whose parking lot it will be located) , it's pretty clear that the Hearst location is purely a Cheh decision. And Mary Always Knows Best.

+1. The only way to put more than a kiddie wading pool is to rip something substantial out of Hearst Park, like the upper playground. And tearing things out would be unacceptable to park users. Time to go back to school, Professor Cheh. Admit you goofed, big time, and move on. Too bad, instead of going to law school, that you didn't study a little more geometry and perhaps some basic site drawing.

So let's say just maybe that someone from DCPR has been counting the number of people using the tennis courts over the past four weekends. Carr to guess how many people per day?

The tennis courts are heavily used every weekend and public courts in the neighborhood are scarce. None at Macomb Park for example. If DPR tore out courts for a pool there would be a veritable shitstorm.

UDC is right in the neighborhood and has all of those tennis courts that used to be open to the public and are now locked on the weekends. Why not open them up again?

[Anonymous]

Stop Mary Cheh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One is basic, DC out of school time aftercare. The other is more expensive.

Two programs could probably be consolidated into one, particularly if there are competing needs for the rec center space.

As an observer, I get the feeling that there are deep historical and sociological divisions between the aftercare offered by PTA's and by DPR. Not speaking about Hearst in particular, but it seems that in general at Ward 3 schools the DPR aftercare is mostly OOB kids and the PTA aftercare is mostly IB. If you were to try and merge them I think you would see yet again how so much of DCPS and DC is still a prisoner of the 1960's.