Well, it’s happening - the House just gave control of RFK field to DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean you can drive to Kingman Island and park your car there, how else do you get to any other park trail? You can also easily bike to it via the Anacostia Riverwalk trail that goes by the Kenilworth Acquatic Garden, Boathouse, down to Navy Yard, etc.,

Unclear what more you want? It's easier to get to Kingman Island than some other parks in DC as the parking is far more plentiful by it and it's immediately accessible off of a protected bike trail.

Accessible by foot from an area of moderate density (rowhouses, apartments, some commercial) with excellent public transit access (Metrorail, bus, etc.). Cars and freeway (or other pedestrian unfriendly access) don’t count towards accessibility.

Rock Creek Park has excellent hiking trails and some small picnic meadows but it is largely a wilderness park mostly accessible from the lowest density parts of the city. The portion of the park in Georgetown is a bit on the narrow side and borders the parkway where it is more of a commuter thruway. The most accessible portion of Rock Creek Park is the zoo itself.

You either don't know where Rock Creek Park is, or you don't know anything about the many areas abutting it. It is accessible from many densely populated areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean you can drive to Kingman Island and park your car there, how else do you get to any other park trail? You can also easily bike to it via the Anacostia Riverwalk trail that goes by the Kenilworth Acquatic Garden, Boathouse, down to Navy Yard, etc.,

Unclear what more you want? It's easier to get to Kingman Island than some other parks in DC as the parking is far more plentiful by it and it's immediately accessible off of a protected bike trail.

Accessible by foot from an area of moderate density (rowhouses, apartments, some commercial) with excellent public transit access (Metrorail, bus, etc.). Cars and freeway (or other pedestrian unfriendly access) don’t count towards accessibility.

Rock Creek Park has excellent hiking trails and some small picnic meadows but it is largely a wilderness park mostly accessible from the lowest density parts of the city. The portion of the park in Georgetown is a bit on the narrow side and borders the parkway where it is more of a commuter thruway. The most accessible portion of Rock Creek Park is the zoo itself.

Just put that fantasy away. A giant parcel of metro-accessible land is not fodder for some Olmstead fantasy. It will be mixed use.

You mean like Central Park?

Central Park is isn’t mixed use …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean you can drive to Kingman Island and park your car there, how else do you get to any other park trail? You can also easily bike to it via the Anacostia Riverwalk trail that goes by the Kenilworth Acquatic Garden, Boathouse, down to Navy Yard, etc.,

Unclear what more you want? It's easier to get to Kingman Island than some other parks in DC as the parking is far more plentiful by it and it's immediately accessible off of a protected bike trail.

Accessible by foot from an area of moderate density (rowhouses, apartments, some commercial) with excellent public transit access (Metrorail, bus, etc.). Cars and freeway (or other pedestrian unfriendly access) don’t count towards accessibility.

Rock Creek Park has excellent hiking trails and some small picnic meadows but it is largely a wilderness park mostly accessible from the lowest density parts of the city. The portion of the park in Georgetown is a bit on the narrow side and borders the parkway where it is more of a commuter thruway. The most accessible portion of Rock Creek Park is the zoo itself.

You either don't know where Rock Creek Park is, or you don't know anything about the many areas abutting it. It is accessible from many densely populated areas.

It’s accessibility and visibility to surrounding neighborhoods are nothing like SF’s Golden Gate Park, NYC’s Prospect or Central Parks, Balboa Park in San Diego, El Retiro Park in Madrid, Bosque de Chapultepec in Mexico City, Patterson Park in Balto., Fairmount Park in Phila., Park La Fontaine in Montreal, Hyde Park or Regent’s Park in London, etc.

Rock Creek park is a wilderness park with pedestrian access via wooded pathways for the most park. Along the parkway there are picnic areas, best accessible via bike or car.

[Anonymous]

Who cares about Rock Creek? The point is that the RFK area has a great opportunity to improve and extend park land, improve Kingman and Heritage Islands with tie ins to Anacostia Park, the Arboretum, etc. and add pedestrian bridges for better access on both sides of the river. An additional metro stop could easily be done at Benning Rd and Oklahoma Ave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about Rock Creek? The point is that the RFK area has a great opportunity to improve and extend park land, improve Kingman and Heritage Islands with tie ins to Anacostia Park, the Arboretum, etc. and add pedestrian bridges for better access on both sides of the river. An additional metro stop could easily be done at Benning Rd and Oklahoma Ave

Yup. It could be our own version of Boston’s famed Emerald Necklace system of parks and recreational ponds and lakes. We can still build some housing around the edges too. With a little vision this can be a truly great park, worthy of a capital city.

[Anonymous]

So of course, republicans will eff the progress on this bill.

Who cares about the local DC citizens who live adjacent to this blighted piece of asphalt that the US Government has no invested interest in owning.

Some senator from Montana who will never go near that property will eff us all in the end.

Party of small government, my *ss. They're all power shills.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/commanders/2024/05/17/rfk-stadium-bill-washington-commanders/73674036007/

[Anonymous]

I literally do not understand Daines's opposition on this. He wants the original logo to remain? Does the Wetzel family get some sort of monetary residuals for use of the logo?

This is so utterly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

I definitely see why the logo on a local NFL team is a matter of pressing national concern for the U.S. Senate 🙄

[Anonymous]

This is a great opportunity for district to improve its standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So of course, republicans will eff the progress on this bill.

Who cares about the local DC citizens who live adjacent to this blighted piece of asphalt that the US Government has no invested interest in owning.

Some senator from Montana who will never go near that property will eff us all in the end.

Party of small government, my *ss. They're all power shills.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/commanders/2024/05/17/rfk-stadium-bill-washington-commanders/73674036007/

Giving away Federal parkland for free to private developers to profit is a bad precedent.

Doesn’t matter why he’s doing it. The outcome is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I literally do not understand Daines's opposition on this. He wants the original logo to remain? Does the Wetzel family get some sort of monetary residuals for use of the logo?

This is so utterly bizarre.

He literally explains in the linked article. You should read it.

[Anonymous]

“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

Do I look like a Republican from a fly over state? If you read the article, it wouldn’t matter anyway if DC had a vote because this type of specific legislation requires unanimous consent.