Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop Mary Cheh

Amen. She is he most arrogant politician in DC. She's always so certain of her views. So tired of her Mary knows best attitude toward ordinary voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you think about it, running two separate programs in basically the same location is duplicative and an inefficient use of facilities, staff and other resources. (A similar situation exits at Eaton and the painfully small nearby Macomb park shelter.) It also, as you suggests, perpetuates divisions. DC agencies are overdue to move beyond their ossified Soviet-era approach to programs and try to modernize a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because it's UDC. But on the bright side, perpetual candidate Vincent Orange's primary defeat means that his bill to rename UDC as "Marion Barry University" is less likely to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you think about it, running two separate programs in basically the same location is duplicative and an inefficient use of facilities, staff and other resources. (A similar situation exits at Eaton and the painfully small nearby Macomb park shelter.) It also, as you suggests, perpetuates divisions. DC agencies are overdue to move beyond their ossified Soviet-era approach to programs and try to modernize a bit.

agree 100%. it is not even clear how families are chosen to be in the DPR aftercare programs. they should not block the development of the site.

[Anonymous]

The site should not be developed. It should be maintained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop Mary Cheh

Is anyone running against her?

[Anonymous]

She has three more years and wins with 70-80% of the vote without trying. In the last election, no one even opposed her in the primary, much less the general election.

Most people really like her and want a pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has three more years and wins with 70-80% of the vote without trying. In the last election, no one even opposed her in the primary, much less the general election.

Most people really like her and want a pool at Hearst.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary, I think the days of your running unopposed are OVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has three more years and wins with 70-80% of the vote without trying. In the last election, no one even opposed her in the primary, much less the general election.

Most people really like her and want a pool at Hearst.

Others are hopping mad around the complete lack of public process concerning the homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons. Another case of Mary Cheh's arrogance. The amazing part is, in her own mind she thinks she's brilliant but she's not that smart when you try to engage her on the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has three more years and wins with 70-80% of the vote without trying. In the last election, no one even opposed her in the primary, much less the general election.

Most people really like her and want a pool at Hearst.

We voted for her. But we won't again. And we definitely do not want a pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Tell it to the other 70,000 voters in the ward who seem to like her and like her agenda for the Ward.

If you think you can get 71,000 votes in a campaign against her, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell it to the other 70,000 voters in the ward who seem to like her and like her agenda for the Ward.

If you think you can get 71,000 votes in a campaign against her, go for it.

What exactly is her agenda for the ward? Top down decision making? She sure hasn't been a good legislator for Cleveland Park -- look how she sits by while Eaton's renovation slips to 2025 or something. But if it's Nanny State dirigisme, Mary's all over it.

[Anonymous]

For every Eaton parent who might be mad, you will have 2 or 3 Hearst, Mann, Janney and Murch parents who are thrilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For every Eaton parent who might be mad, you will have 2 or 3 Hearst, Mann, Janney and Murch parents who are thrilled.

Cheh protected Janney's interests to be sure. But she's not been a particularly strong advocate for Murch and she threw Eaton under the bus when it got forced out of Deal for lesser quality Hardy. I would say that the more IB enrollment in a particular school, the more she pays attention.

[Anonymous]

She certainly cares about GDS where her own kids attended