Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

You could short-circuit much of this whole debate if you would tell everyone where the pool will go. We're all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Then it seems that you could bring much of this debate to closure, if you would just tell us where the pool will be built. We're all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

+1. I love how it's the pro pool people who keep calling the rest of us "selfish" and keep telling us to just give up. Just because Mary Cheh is playing dictator and clearly ignoring the process, doesn't mean the rest of us need to just roll over and give in. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you recall, opinions are like assholes.

Yes, of course, those who wish to protect the park are vilified. Tree-huggers aren't just selfish, they're NIMBYs/exclusionary/anti-kids/old/obfuscating, etc. This being DC, no doubt race will soon rear its ugly head as well. Or Mary Che[h] might just brand the pro-park faction the "enemies of the people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Then it seems that you could bring much of this debate to closure, if you would just tell us where the pool will be built. We're all ears.

Exactly. What is Cheh hiding? There's no way to out in a pool and keep all other amenities. My kids use the fields for organized sports and pick up sports and we use the tennis courts. DC agencies went out of their way to say Cheh chose this spot without any particular reasoning and without any plans. So please, tell us all how everything can be kept and a pool added? It's clear you are pissed we are challenging you. Perhaps that's because you have no facts to back up your statements. Just like Cheh. This whole thing is outrageous. Who says we are definitely building something on a site, squirrels away money in a budget and then doesn't tell people how or where exactly it will be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Then it seems that you could bring much of this debate to closure, if you would just tell us where the pool will be built. We're all ears.

Exactly. What is Cheh hiding? There's no way to out in a pool and keep all other amenities. My kids use the fields for organized sports and pick up sports and we use the tennis courts. DC agencies went out of their way to say Cheh chose this spot without any particular reasoning and without any plans. So please, tell us all how everything can be kept and a pool added? It's clear you are pissed we are challenging you. Perhaps that's because you have no facts to back up your statements. Just like Cheh. This whole thing is outrageous. Who says we are definitely building something on a site, squirrels away money in a budget and then doesn't tell people how or where exactly it will be built.

While Cheh is not as smart as she clearly believes she is, Cheh is not stupid either. She knows that a pool at Hearst means that something big has gotta' give -- most likely all of the tennis courts, or perhaps much of the field. The upper playground probably is at risk also, but not as much. The slopes and many trees are definitely at risk. Her attitude with the Idaho homeless shelter (another site she personally chose without input from city agencies) was basically, there's going to be opposition so what's the point of having a public process? She seems to be running the same play with Hearst park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Then it seems that you could bring much of this debate to closure, if you would just tell us where the pool will be built. We're all ears.

As if I am DPR? Get real. I am awaiting the same proposal you are. In the meantime, you are showing your true colors and an elitist know it all who wants to keep peop[le out of your own publicly owned "oasis" at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers in your neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Then it seems that you could bring much of this debate to closure, if you would just tell us where the pool will be built. We're all ears.

As if I am DPR? Get real. I am awaiting the same proposal you are. In the meantime, you are showing your true colors and an elitist know it all who wants to keep peop[le out of your own publicly owned "oasis" at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers in your neighborhood.

So now it's "elitist oasis"? It's comical to see that tired old refrain from Klingle Valley being recycled here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

So your green space is better than the green space on UDC campus?

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
While Cheh is not as smart as she clearly believes she is, Cheh is not stupid either. She knows that a pool at Hearst means that something big has gotta' give -- most likely all of the tennis courts, or perhaps much of the field. The upper playground probably is at risk also, but not as much. The slopes and many trees are definitely at risk. Her attitude with the Idaho homeless shelter (another site she personally chose without input from city agencies) was basically, there's going to be opposition so what's the point of having a public process? She seems to be running the same play with Hearst park.

Palisades too.

What she doesn't seem to get is that by being coy about the plan she just intensifies opposition. Park users are a mosaic of interests, and until there is a plan everyone just assumes the worst. Once people have publicly taken a side they become galvanized in their positions. If she had started with a plan, if it's a good plan it would have survived on its own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

So your green space is better than the green space on UDC campus?

There's basically no green space on the UDC campus. It's basically all developed What isn't already paved over is poorly maintained dust bowl. A pool there would actually be an enhancement, not an environmental degredation of green space.

[Anonymous]

I would not have thought this thread would have lasted this long. Of course, here I am, extending it myself.

[Anonymous]

The thread likely would be shorter if the pool proponents explained where the pool site will be. Instead, there are assurances that nothing will be sacrificed for the pool - not the field, not the tennis courts, not the playground, not any trees. But the site is tight, and the fact that no plan has been released leads many to assume that facilities will be torn out to make way for a pool, but no one wants to say it.

[Anonymous]

But you are expecting your neighbors to provide hypotheticals. No one knows. I can guess, but so can you. It isn't worth the 0's and 1's that it would take. I would rather wait and see what the plan is and go from there. Meanwhile, you are just exposing yourself to being an elitist worry wart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you are expecting your neighbors to provide hypotheticals. No one knows. I can guess, but so can you. It isn't worth the 0's and 1's that it would take. I would rather wait and see what the plan is and go from there. Meanwhile, you are just exposing yourself to being an elitist worry wart.

So it's "elitist" to like the playground/soccer field/tennis courts/grass? Wow.