Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course, 2 out of 3 Hearst parents don't even live in Cheh's ward.

Since you don't attend our school and haven't watched the trends of the last three classes, maybe don't comment. All it does is make it clear how outdated you are. If you'd like more info, by all means, come to our open houses next year. All of this information was given out at those events.

Perhaps it would be useful to cite to official DCPS enrollment numbers?

DCPS hasn't updated but there have been many threads about what the principal has said at the open houses. All 39 PK spots went IB this year. A few aren't accepting a 5 OOB with sibling got them. The K class is mostly IB and no one taken off the waitlist or got in via lottery. And the rising 1st is a whopping 51 kids, now mostly IB too. The tide has turned on Hearst and everyone here knows it. We at the school couldn't care less who attends as long as they are committed to the school. It's only on DCUM where this is an issue. Petition DCPS to release the new numbers. Otherwise, come visit our lovely school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She certainly cares about GDS where her own kids attended

It's a little more complicated than that. The thing about Mary Cheh is she doesn't see anything special about public education. She sees DCPS parents as just another special interest, just like GDS parents or developers -- except not as reliable a source of campaign cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh won with over 70% because she ran unopposed in the Dem primary. That is not likely to happen again because she is suffering from incumbentisis. She is behaving like she has a mandate on issues which never surfaced before the election. I am no longer a supporter.

Exactly. No one even wanted to challenge her in the primary last time because people are happy with her. If there had been people unhappy with her, they would have run, or encouraged someone to run. They didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh won with over 70% because she ran unopposed in the Dem primary. That is not likely to happen again because she is suffering from incumbentisis. She is behaving like she has a mandate on issues which never surfaced before the election. I am no longer a supporter.

Exactly. No one even wanted to challenge her in the primary last time because people are happy with her. If there had been people unhappy with her, they would have run, or encouraged someone to run. They didn't.

Another illustration why one party rule is not a healthy thing.

[Anonymous]

I'm not happy with Mary Cheh. So that's at least one person. I suspect she is alienated a few others my driving around Ward three with her council member wand and designating various places for city facilities.

[Anonymous]

Great. Organize the revolution and put your own neck out and run against her.

You can't claim there isn't a silent majority for the pool and at the same time claim there are all of the people who hate Mary Cheh and think she isn't doing good for the voters of the Ward.

Most people want a pool and they want a pool at Hearst, because it is the most central of the location options, and it was being renovated anyhow.

If you don't like it, or the one party system in the city, I am sure there will be more than a few people very happy to spend seven figures on your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. Organize the revolution and put your own neck out and run against her.

You can't claim there isn't a silent majority for the pool and at the same time claim there are all of the people who hate Mary Cheh and think she isn't doing good for the voters of the Ward.

Most people want a pool and they want a pool at Hearst, because it is the most central of the location options, and it was being renovated anyhow.

If you don't like it, or the one party system in the city, I am sure there will be more than a few people very happy to spend seven figures on your house.

I'm just not sure where you are getting "most people" and "at Hearst." There are two very vocal groups - one for and one against. Even the DC agencies made it clear Hearst wasn't their choice - it was Cheh's. How about a door to door poll? The fix is in and Mary Cheh is part of the problem. Hearst is a terrible place for the pool for the aforementioned reasons. Alas, our fight will continue for the next few years. Should be fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not happy with Mary Cheh. So that's at least one person. I suspect she is alienated a few others my driving around Ward three with her council member wand and designating various places for city facilities.

+1, so there's at least two of us. javascript:emoticon('');

[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.

It's hard to criticize the need for the pool while defending the tennis courts. Tennis courts are a terribly inefficient form of recreation. 8000+ sq/ft of impervious concrete used by 2 or at most 4 people for hours at a time. Tennis courts are the Hummers of recreation. The number of people who would use the pool in one summer weekend is probably equal to several months use of the tennis courts.

[Anonymous]

Agree. Tennis is an elitist sport and inefficient land use, and to previous commenters points, NCS, Sidwell and St Albans have private courts people can pay to use, if they want.

[Anonymous]

A door to door poll. Ok, how far out are you going to go? Idaho Ave? Quebec? 37th Street? ordway? Van Ness? Albemarle?

Who gets to decide where and how the city services get spent and deployed? Just because you own a house at or near a public park doesn't mean you get to dictate how that park is programmed. You are one voice among many voices. We all get an equal say. Proximity doesn't carry more weight.

[Anonymous]

It's hard to criticize the need for the pool while defending the tennis courts. Tennis courts are a terribly inefficient form of recreation. 8000+ sq/ft of impervious concrete used by 2 or at most 4 people for hours at a time. Tennis courts are the Hummers of recreation. The number of people who would use the pool in one summer weekend is probably equal to several months use of the tennis courts.

Tennis courts are not being built in the middle of field. They are existing source of recreation. Not new construction....dumbass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course, 2 out of 3 Hearst parents don't even live in Cheh's ward.

The incoming PM4 class at Hearst is 82% IB. Get with the times.

Hearst overall is still above 70% out of boundary. Stick to the facts.

Your knowledge of the school is as outdated as your wishes for the park.

DCPS apparently is not going to update the school Profiles pages until August but if you request demographic info on specific schools often they will respond to your request. I requested the info on Hearst and got the reaponse that for SY 15 - 16 as of count day (Oct '15) Hearst overall was 33% IB with total enrollment of 316. Based on what principal has said about the lottery slots for rising PK class it would be reasonable to assume a net 30 additional IB kids for SY '16 - 17 which would result in estimated 42% IB (assuming total enrollment stays constant which it may or may not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's hard to criticize the need for the pool while defending the tennis courts. Tennis courts are a terribly inefficient form of recreation. 8000+ sq/ft of impervious concrete used by 2 or at most 4 people for hours at a time. Tennis courts are the Hummers of recreation. The number of people who would use the pool in one summer weekend is probably equal to several months use of the tennis courts.

Tennis courts are not being built in the middle of field. They are existing source of recreation. Not new construction....dumbass.

You make a distinction without a difference. If one of the goals of the project is to improve runoff, then the tennis courts will most definitely get looked at. Turf fields have great drainage, which is why the Seahawks use it.

[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.

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.

Many families cannot afford the private aftercare. It's not the lower cost DCPS run version that you'd find in a typical Title 1 school.