Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would posit that combined, the DC Little League organizations, (NW, Cap Hill, Cap CIty, Banneker, Satchel Paige) are charged just as much for renting baseball and softball fields as Stoddert. And I don't think any of the baseball field times are 'provided' for free by the city.

None of the Little Leagues rent fields. They use DPR fields. The permit fee for DPR fields has been $26 per season., same for baseball as soccer. In addition to the DPR time it gets, Stoddert pays an average of $150 per game for over 2,000 games per year. It's not at all comparable.

This year the DPR fees are going up, to $5 per hour.

What this really shows is the disparity between how DPR treats soccer and baseball.

You can see the inventory of DPR fields here:
http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Athletic%20FIeld%20Inventory_0.pdf

Citywide, DPR has 65 baseball fields and 48 fields of all other types. Just looking at the categories of the inventory is telling, the categories are:
GRASS INFIELD - 60' DIAMOND
GRASS INFIELD - 70' DIAMOND
GRASS INFIELD - 90' DIAMOND
SKINNED INFIELD - 60' DIAMOND
SKINNED INFIELD - 70' DIAMOND
RECTANGULAR FIELDS (MULTI-USE)

Yes, anything that’s not a baseball field is just “other.”

DPR policy is that baseball fields can only be permitted for baseball, softball or kickball.

Basically the distribution of facilities represents the popularity of sports circa 1950. In DC today, in rough numbers, there are about 10,000 kids registered with US Youth Soccer and about 1500 registered with all the Little Leagues. It was Sam Serebin who first pointed out to me that there is roughly three times as much public land in ward 3 that is reserved for baseball (or “diamond sports” in DPR parlance) as soccer, even though there are roughly six times as many youth soccer players as baseball players. So each baseball player in effect gets 18 times as much public space. (Sam’s issue is gender equality, you can read his piece here:
http://greatergreatereducation.org/post/20864/-are-our-sports-spaces-serving-both-genders/)

There are some real effects to this disparity. My son has played Little League, and when kids play LL all of their games and practices are on city-owned facilities, which the leagues essentially get for free. Not so for soccer.

[Anonymous]

Well at least we have outed that Stoddert is behind the effort to pave over Hearst. Seriously distrust Stoddert for hiding the ball on this. It's a program for little kids. No need to rip up Hearst for Stoddert. Ten years ago Stodsert proposed putting a big fence around Hearst and restrict its usage. I have disliked the leadership ever since. I love soccer as much as the next parent but Stoddert needs to chill out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well at least we have outed that Stoddert is behind the effort to pave over Hearst. Seriously distrust Stoddert for hiding the ball on this. It's a program for little kids. No need to rip up Hearst for Stoddert. Ten years ago Stodsert proposed putting a big fence around Hearst and restrict its usage. I have disliked the leadership ever since. I love soccer as much as the next parent but Stoddert needs to chill out

No such thing is true. As was pointed out earlier, Stoddert is ambivalent about turf because it almost certainly would mean them losing access.

You've spent all day making up "facts" to conform to your preconceived notions. Have you thought about working for Fox?

[Anonymous]

Total crap. Stoddert wants that field covered in turf. It has for years. Now that you stupidly outed yourself, no going back under cover

[Anonymous]

This is too funny. A past director of Stoddert personally told me years ago that Stoddert doesn't want Hearst turfed because it is one of the few fields they have almost sole access to because of the lack of demand (because it is such a crappy field).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Stoddert wants a field it should buy one. Go buy Fannie Mae. All of my kids played Stoddert. It's a fine low key program. It should not be allowed to take over fields owned by DC Taxpayers and cover them in plastic. The organization has been trying to get its hands on HEasrt for more than a decade. Stay out. Keep out. It makes me want to oppose your current permits. Little kids can play on grass. The heat is bad for them. Cancer is bad for them. Destroying nature is bad for them.

Translation: My kids have aged out of needing Stoddert anymore, so instead of supporting them like I did in the 1980's, I am blasting them.



You are a total hypocrite. You don't have the right to dictate how public space is programmed, any more than Stoddert does. You are a tax payer, just like I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Stoddert wants a field it should buy one. Go buy Fannie Mae. All of my kids played Stoddert. It's a fine low key program. It should not be allowed to take over fields owned by DC Taxpayers and cover them in plastic. The organization has been trying to get its hands on HEasrt for more than a decade. Stay out. Keep out. It makes me want to oppose your current permits. Little kids can play on grass. The heat is bad for them. Cancer is bad for them. Destroying nature is bad for them.

Translation: My kids have aged out of needing Stoddert anymore, so instead of supporting them like I did in the 1980's, I am blasting them.



You are a total hypocrite. You don't have the right to dictate how public space is programmed, any more than Stoddert does. You are a tax payer, just like I am.

Really Stoddert douche? No, if you follow my posts it should be apparent that I have a kid who plays soccer now but at a level that is Stoddert can't support because it is an "everyone gets a trophy league." It's not competitive for the very good players. That said, I have also noted that Stoddert has been after the public fields at Hearst for decades. It wants to restrict access so seven-year-olds can play Saturday games there. I love Hearst. It's a great field -as is- for current uses, including Stoddert. It's douches like you who want to change it and force other folks to bend to your desired activities. I am serious about the heat. The field will be unusable for the summer if DPR puts in cancerous plastic grass - replacing a beautiful field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with kids getting a little dusty or muddy? It's kind of fun, and it beats cancer.

THIS!!!! agree. Fully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Stoddert wants a field it should buy one. Go buy Fannie Mae. All of my kids played Stoddert. It's a fine low key program. It should not be allowed to take over fields owned by DC Taxpayers and cover them in plastic. The organization has been trying to get its hands on HEasrt for more than a decade. Stay out. Keep out. It makes me want to oppose your current permits. Little kids can play on grass. The heat is bad for them. Cancer is bad for them. Destroying nature is bad for them.

Translation: My kids have aged out of needing Stoddert anymore, so instead of supporting them like I did in the 1980's, I am blasting them.



You are a total hypocrite. You don't have the right to dictate how public space is programmed, any more than Stoddert does. You are a tax payer, just like I am.

Really Stoddert douche? No, if you follow my posts it should be apparent that I have a kid who plays soccer now but at a level that is Stoddert can't support because it is an "everyone gets a trophy league." It's not competitive for the very good players. That said, I have also noted that Stoddert has been after the public fields at Hearst for decades. It wants to restrict access so seven-year-olds can play Saturday games there. I love Hearst. It's a great field -as is- for current uses, including Stoddert. It's douches like you who want to change it and force other folks to bend to your desired activities. I am serious about the heat. The field will be unusable for the summer if DPR puts in cancerous plastic grass - replacing a beautiful field.

Revised translation: my kids are too good for Stoddert so I have them play on turf fieids in other people's neighborhoods. I doubt your kid made Stoddert Red or Blue so you are just bitter.

[Anonymous]

WHY IS THIS STUPID THREAD HERE?!

Approximately two people give a damn.

[Anonymous]

Revised translation: my kids are too good for Stoddert so I have them play on turf fieids in other people's neighborhoods. I doubt your kid made Stoddert Red or Blue so you are just bitter.

Actually, I think Stoddert is a great soccer program for developing soccer players. It gets kids and their parents invested in the game. But it is a parent-coached little kid league. It was never designed for kids who want to play at the club level. Stoddert is just not a factor when it comes to tournaments or regional play. Other area clubs benefit from Stoddert and as much as I oppose Stoddert's efforts to seize Hearst field, I believe it plays a critical role in developing very young players. You are still the Stoddert douche...douche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is too funny. A past director of Stoddert personally told me years ago that Stoddert doesn't want Hearst turfed because it is one of the few fields they have almost sole access to because of the lack of demand (because it is such a crappy field).

One reason that it is such a crappy field is that there are regular pickup games of grown men who show up (lots of Maryland plates, by the way) and are very rough on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well at least we have outed that Stoddert is behind the effort to pave over Hearst. Seriously distrust Stoddert for hiding the ball on this. It's a program for little kids. No need to rip up Hearst for Stoddert. Ten years ago Stodsert proposed putting a big fence around Hearst and restrict its usage. I have disliked the leadership ever since. I love soccer as much as the next parent but Stoddert needs to chill out

I'm no big fan of Stoddert soccer, but one reason why Stoddert wanted to restrict access to Hearst (this was more than 10 years ago) is that Stoddert paid for the rehabilitation of the field. Dysfunctional City couldn't or wouldn't put any money in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is too funny. A past director of Stoddert personally told me years ago that Stoddert doesn't want Hearst turfed because it is one of the few fields they have almost sole access to because of the lack of demand (because it is such a crappy field).

One reason that it is such a crappy field is that there are regular pickup games of grown men who show up (lots of Maryland plates, by the way) and are very rough on the field.

As a neighbor, I'm not opposed to the field getting used by anybody. I do think that the permit process should be respected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well at least we have outed that Stoddert is behind the effort to pave over Hearst. Seriously distrust Stoddert for hiding the ball on this. It's a program for little kids. No need to rip up Hearst for Stoddert. Ten years ago Stodsert proposed putting a big fence around Hearst and restrict its usage. I have disliked the leadership ever since. I love soccer as much as the next parent but Stoddert needs to chill out

I don't want to see an artificial turf field at Hearst. But it is not Stoddert that wants to pave over Hearst. It is Mary Cheh who intends to pave it, with her pool at an undisclosed location in the park.