Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Beauvoir has a beautiful pool. You can pay to use it.

You raise a good point. I encourage you to go look at the Beauvoir pool this weekend. When you see the crowds there you will clearly see the need for another outdoor pool in Ward 3. All the chairs are taken about 15 minutes after opening and the pool is packed. Thank goodness for the adult swims!

If they put a pool in Ward 3, put it in a location where the trade-offs of existing facilities and green landscape won't be a stark as at Hearst.

Where do you think there is DC land where the people currently using it or living around it won't make the exact same arguments?

Why should any expensive facility be foisted on a neighborhood that doesn't want it. Better to put the pool on developed land in an area where residents will embrace it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Except all WOTP elementary schools have declining IB enrollment as the kids get older. So a big PK contingent doesn't necessarily mean anything. For all we know, Hearst has had 30 IB kids for PK every year for the past 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Beauvoir has a beautiful pool. You can pay to use it.

You raise a good point. I encourage you to go look at the Beauvoir pool this weekend. When you see the crowds there you will clearly see the need for another outdoor pool in Ward 3. All the chairs are taken about 15 minutes after opening and the pool is packed. Thank goodness for the adult swims!

If they put a pool in Ward 3, put it in a location where the trade-offs of existing facilities and green landscape won't be a stark as at Hearst.

Where do you think there is DC land where the people currently using it or living around it won't make the exact same arguments?

Why should any expensive facility be foisted on a neighborhood that doesn't want it. Better to put the pool on developed land in an area where residents will embrace it.

Hearst is public space. It is not up to the residents who live across the street to decide who public space, supported by the residents across the city and across the ward, want to use it. If you want to control green space across from where you live, move to a place where you can buy it. Otherwise, your selfishness is transparent to everyone who can see it. Oh, and since you want to act this way, please do not use the sidewalk or street near my house, or the local public library. Your exclusionary arrogance is not welcome by the rest of us who are part of the society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Except all WOTP elementary schools have declining IB enrollment as the kids get older. So a big PK contingent doesn't necessarily mean anything. For all we know, Hearst has had 30 IB kids for PK every year for the past 10.

Ha. You must be new here. Welcome to the new Hearst. It's been a great three years and it will continue. Just watch. Trends cannot be ignored. And prior data is all available. It's just dcps is being jerky this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Beauvoir has a beautiful pool. You can pay to use it.

You raise a good point. I encourage you to go look at the Beauvoir pool this weekend. When you see the crowds there you will clearly see the need for another outdoor pool in Ward 3. All the chairs are taken about 15 minutes after opening and the pool is packed. Thank goodness for the adult swims!

If they put a pool in Ward 3, put it in a location where the trade-offs of existing facilities and green landscape won't be a stark as at Hearst.

Where do you think there is DC land where the people currently using it or living around it won't make the exact same arguments?

Why should any expensive facility be foisted on a neighborhood that doesn't want it. Better to put the pool on developed land in an area where residents will embrace it.

Your neighborhs don't think it is being foisted. Your neighbors have asked for a pool. The city is listening.

[Anonymous]

" your selfishness is transparent to everyone who can see it. Oh, and since you want to act this way, please do not use the sidewalk or street near my house, or the local public library. Your exclusionary arrogance is not welcome by the rest of us who are part of the society. "

Interesting that you get to decide what is selfish and what isn't. I think it's selfish to build a $30 million pool for Ward 3 residents while DC under invests in schools, public safety, other dc rec areas and homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" your selfishness is transparent to everyone who can see it. Oh, and since you want to act this way, please do not use the sidewalk or street near my house, or the local public library. Your exclusionary arrogance is not welcome by the rest of us who are part of the society. "

Interesting that you get to decide what is selfish and what isn't. I think it's selfish to build a $30 million pool for Ward 3 residents while DC under invests in schools, public safety, other dc rec areas and homelessness.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Beauvoir has a beautiful pool. You can pay to use it.

You raise a good point. I encourage you to go look at the Beauvoir pool this weekend. When you see the crowds there you will clearly see the need for another outdoor pool in Ward 3. All the chairs are taken about 15 minutes after opening and the pool is packed. Thank goodness for the adult swims!

If they put a pool in Ward 3, put it in a location where the trade-offs of existing facilities and green landscape won't be a stark as at Hearst.

Where do you think there is DC land where the people currently using it or living around it won't make the exact same arguments?

Why should any expensive facility be foisted on a neighborhood that doesn't want it. Better to put the pool on developed land in an area where residents will embrace it.

Hearst is public space. It is not up to the residents who live across the street to decide who public space, supported by the residents across the city and across the ward, want to use it. If you want to control green space across from where you live, move to a place where you can buy it. Otherwise, your selfishness is transparent to everyone who can see it. Oh, and since you want to act this way, please do not use the sidewalk or street near my house, or the local public library. Your exclusionary arrogance is not welcome by the rest of us who are part of the society.

No dog in this fight, but certainly proximate and frequent users of an existing park are an important stakeholder group. I don't see playground moms or Little League dads at Turtle Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades clamoring to sacrifice their local park facilities for a ward-wide pool, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Except all WOTP elementary schools have declining IB enrollment as the kids get older. So a big PK contingent doesn't necessarily mean anything. For all we know, Hearst has had 30 IB kids for PK every year for the past 10.

Ha. You must be new here. Welcome to the new Hearst. It's been a great three years and it will continue. Just watch. Trends cannot be ignored. And prior data is all available. It's just dcps is being jerky this year.

Why does it take DCPS a year to get enrollment data out? Or are they overly sensitive politically about the fact that Hearst OOB is falling quickly because some EOTP areas have traditionally relied on Hearst access for their kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Beauvoir has a beautiful pool. You can pay to use it.

You raise a good point. I encourage you to go look at the Beauvoir pool this weekend. When you see the crowds there you will clearly see the need for another outdoor pool in Ward 3. All the chairs are taken about 15 minutes after opening and the pool is packed. Thank goodness for the adult swims!

If they put a pool in Ward 3, put it in a location where the trade-offs of existing facilities and green landscape won't be a stark as at Hearst.

Where do you think there is DC land where the people currently using it or living around it won't make the exact same arguments?

Why should any expensive facility be foisted on a neighborhood that doesn't want it. Better to put the pool on developed land in an area where residents will embrace it.

Hearst is public space. It is not up to the residents who live across the street to decide who public space, supported by the residents across the city and across the ward, want to use it. If you want to control green space across from where you live, move to a place where you can buy it. Otherwise, your selfishness is transparent to everyone who can see it. Oh, and since you want to act this way, please do not use the sidewalk or street near my house, or the local public library. Your exclusionary arrogance is not welcome by the rest of us who are part of the society.

No dog in this fight, but certainly proximate and frequent users of an existing park are an important stakeholder group. I don't see playground moms or Little League dads at Turtle Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades clamoring to sacrifice their local park facilities for a ward-wide pool, either.

This Hearst pool is another case of YIYBY, "yes, in your backyard!" Something that many claim to be for, provided that it's not located in their neighborhood park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Except all WOTP elementary schools have declining IB enrollment as the kids get older. So a big PK contingent doesn't necessarily mean anything. For all we know, Hearst has had 30 IB kids for PK every year for the past 10.

Ha. You must be new here. Welcome to the new Hearst. It's been a great three years and it will continue. Just watch. Trends cannot be ignored. And prior data is all available. It's just dcps is being jerky this year.

Why does it take DCPS a year to get enrollment data out? Or are they overly sensitive politically about the fact that Hearst OOB is falling quickly because some EOTP areas have traditionally relied on Hearst access for their kids?

This is probably partly true. DCPS is in a real bind in the sense that the charters are taking the cream of the crop EOTP and there is no longer room to stash the rest of the EOTP kids in the overly crowded WOTP schools. So for the first time DCPS will be truly exposed as the failure that it is. Interesting the lack of transparency corresponds to the disastrous PARCC scores from last year.

[Anonymous]

What will the total bill be for Mary Cheh's pool? Is it really true there is $18 million in the budget just for planning? What a waste of tax payer money. How much will it cost to maintain this pool every year.

[Anonymous]

I get the sense Cheh really doesn't understand budgeting, construction and the DC government. In her letter posted to the Forest Hills Connection website, where she talks about John Eaton and the new homeless shelter, she says "Eaton is also slated for modernization in 2022, which can be accelerated if necessary to meet the needs of a larger student body." Really? Didn't that modernization just get pushed back another year? This though, is the topic for another thread, but for this one, it's again proof that budgeting isn't her strong suit. Or, she's just not to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the sense Cheh really doesn't understand budgeting, construction and the DC government. In her letter posted to the Forest Hills Connection website, where she talks about John Eaton and the new homeless shelter, she says "Eaton is also slated for modernization in 2022, which can be accelerated if necessary to meet the needs of a larger student body." Really? Didn't that modernization just get pushed back another year? This though, is the topic for another thread, but for this one, it's again proof that budgeting isn't her strong suit. Or, she's just not to be trusted.

That letter was a joke. Accelerate Eaton's renovation? Ha. Given how many times it was an continues to be pushed back, she's in la la land.

But I agree that's a topic for another thread.

On the topic of Mary Cheh, given what seems like her bullseye on forcing everything into Cleveland Park and letting Eaton be "collateral" damage, there's no way we will ever vote for her. When I confronted her about Eaton during the boundary review process she said "I don't really know much about that." At which point I washed my hands of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the sense Cheh really doesn't understand budgeting, construction and the DC government. In her letter posted to the Forest Hills Connection website, where she talks about John Eaton and the new homeless shelter, she says "Eaton is also slated for modernization in 2022, which can be accelerated if necessary to meet the needs of a larger student body." Really? Didn't that modernization just get pushed back another year? This though, is the topic for another thread, but for this one, it's again proof that budgeting isn't her strong suit. Or, she's just not to be trusted.

Not to mention that she doesn't really understand Eaton's constraints. It has to be one of the smallest school properties in DC, certainly the smallest in upper NW. On a square feet per student basis it ranks very poorly. The constrained school grounds consist of a modest-sized playground, a mini-playing field and a blacktop area that is used mostly for loading and service needs. The school building can't really expand its physical footprint without taking more of the small school yard. Underground cut-and-cover expansion might be appropriate for mutlipurpose space but not for classrooms, and that would be quite expensive. There's also the lever of reducing OOB spaces. Eaton is still about 60% OOB, and it doesn't make sense to expand classroom seats without trying to reduce OOB enrollment. None of this detracts from the fact that the building is in great need of modernization and mutli-purpose facilities are constrained and sometimes unavailable for school use (Eaton's lunchroom/gym/assembly/indoor play area is also the local voting precinct.) And, if the Cathedral Commons homeless shelter is built with a possible influx of at-risk students, Eaton will need considerable, additional resources that are programmatic and social service, not just physical space.

But your point is correct. Professor Cheh doesn't get it.