Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No the residents in AU Park WANTED the pool at Turtle Park. It was the NW Little League who fought it and prevailed.

Please understand the facts.

Exactly. AU Park resident here who would LOVE a pool at Turtle Park at the expense of part of the baseball fields.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and a study saying a Ward 3 pool would be great is totally different than a feasibility survey/study looking at a variety of locations. The latter has not happened. Cheh just picked Hearst. This is on her.

[Anonymous]

The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

This isn't asking for MORE studies. This is us asking for the feasibility study that showed Hearst is the best location. There isn't one. DC projects are supposed to have one. It's how the process works. That is the playbook. We do not want a pool at Hearst at the expense of the other features there. And b/c there is no study showing Hearst as the best location, there also are no blueprints showing us how the amenities are going to be kept. There's no plan on the city showing us how existing amenities plus a pool would be maintained. Where's the oversight?

[Anonymous]

FYI. They aren't called blue prints anymore. They used to be blue due to the printing process. Now they're just called drawings.

[Anonymous]

The truth is that neither side of this debate are bad people or have bad motives. Some people want to protect a beautiful park, others want a nearby pool. It seems to me that the answer lies in figuring out how to do both. That would be either finding space at Hearst that is now covered by hard scape or Finding a new place for the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

This isn't asking for MORE studies. This is us asking for the feasibility study that showed Hearst is the best location. There isn't one. DC projects are supposed to have one. It's how the process works. That is the playbook. We do not want a pool at Hearst at the expense of the other features there. And b/c there is no study showing Hearst as the best location, there also are no blueprints showing us how the amenities are going to be kept. There's no plan on the city showing us how existing amenities plus a pool would be maintained. Where's the oversight?

You don't get to decide. DPR has released a report that you probably shared that said that West of Rock Creek Park needs two outdoor pools. Hearst is undergoing a major renovation. It is a good candidate where no others currently exist. If YOU don't like the idea of a pool at Hearst then tough cookies for you. It isn't your decision to make. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

More studies? There wasn't a single study.

There's a reason why Mary Cheh became a professor at a second or third tier law school: she clearly doesn't know anything about calculating dimensions and plotting them on a graph paper site plan. A standard pool simply won't fit at Hearst without tearing out the field, the tennis courts and lots of trees -- probably some combination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

This isn't asking for MORE studies. This is us asking for the feasibility study that showed Hearst is the best location. There isn't one. DC projects are supposed to have one. It's how the process works. That is the playbook. We do not want a pool at Hearst at the expense of the other features there. And b/c there is no study showing Hearst as the best location, there also are no blueprints showing us how the amenities are going to be kept. There's no plan on the city showing us how existing amenities plus a pool would be maintained. Where's the oversight?

You don't get to decide. DPR has released a report that you probably shared that said that West of Rock Creek Park needs two outdoor pools. Hearst is undergoing a major renovation. It is a good candidate where no others currently exist. If YOU don't like the idea of a pool at Hearst then tough cookies for you. It isn't your decision to make. Deal with it.

Thanks, Mary Cheh. We know that you're a disciple of the East German Communist Party system of soliciting public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No the residents in AU Park WANTED the pool at Turtle Park. It was the NW Little League who fought it and prevailed.

Please understand the facts.

Then it's clear that NW Little League parents vote. Stoddert soccer parents similarly need to be energized to save the Hearst field from being bulldozed for a pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and a study saying a Ward 3 pool would be great is totally different than a feasibility survey/study looking at a variety of locations. The latter has not happened. Cheh just picked Hearst. This is on her.

The same way Cheh just picked the site for the Ward 3 homeless shelter on Idaho, without consulting with any DC agency including the police (whose property would be taken for it). She really has the soul of an old style central planner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI. They aren't called blue prints anymore. They used to be blue due to the printing process. Now they're just called drawings.

How about a simple concept plan, showing where the pool will go alongside the other park uses? It boggles the mind that no one has calculated dimensions to come up with a site plan sketch. Unless, of course, Commissar Cheh is keeping the plan a state secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rest of us don't care. There are a handful of parks and Hearst is the one getting the upgrade. We want a pool and don't care exactly where it goes as long as it is closer than Frances and Jelleff.

It is a NIMBY tactic to ask for more studies and seek more delay before a project is realized. That playbook won't work here. Sorry.

This isn't asking for MORE studies. This is us asking for the feasibility study that showed Hearst is the best location. There isn't one. DC projects are supposed to have one. It's how the process works. That is the playbook. We do not want a pool at Hearst at the expense of the other features there. And b/c there is no study showing Hearst as the best location, there also are no blueprints showing us how the amenities are going to be kept. There's no plan on the city showing us how existing amenities plus a pool would be maintained. Where's the oversight?

You don't get to decide. DPR has released a report that you probably shared that said that West of Rock Creek Park needs two outdoor pools. Hearst is undergoing a major renovation. It is a good candidate where no others currently exist. If YOU don't like the idea of a pool at Hearst then tough cookies for you. It isn't your decision to make. Deal with it.

Who said no other candidates exist? Certainly not DPR or DGS. Apparently only Mary Cheh gets to make a decision in this Ward. My decision will be not to vote for her, to let her know why and to argue against this secret "plan."

[Anonymous]

How many tin-foil hats do you have in your collection?

[Anonymous]

We are Democrats but will never vote for Mary Cheh again. How someone can be both so arrogant and clueless at the same time is a real question.