Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of folks want a pool. So there.

Didn't the Casey Trees Foundation 2015 annual report card state that DC needs to take aggressive steps to preserve District-owned park green space and park tree canopy as a top environmental/conservation priority?

"We ask Mayor Bowser to:

Adopt a 50 percent canopy goal for all Department of Parks and Recreation managed properties.
--Initiate a planning process to create designs for neighborhood parks that incorporate more trees and better growing spaces, make parks safer and increase use.
--Prepare and execute an Open Space Plan that increases residential connections to city greenspace as called for by the Sustainable DC Plan.
--Place conservation easements on city-owned greenspaces to ensure they remain green for the continued benefit of future generations of Washingtonians."

Paving over two acres of Hearst Park for a pool (and the likely loss of mature oaks) would run contrary to this goal.

Casey Trees is not without an agenda of its own.

E
Absolutely. They advocate restoring the city,s tree canopy to improve air quality, save energy, manage storm water runoff and enhance natural habitat, especially for birds. Improving the tree canopy

Plus, they get paid.

I like trees as much as anyone, but the idea that working for a non-profit confers legitimacy doesn't sway me. Perhaps because I'm good at math and can use both sides of my brain.

They're nice people. Trees are good. Yay!

They still have an agenda. (We ALL do.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of folks want a pool. So there.

Didn't the Casey Trees Foundation 2015 annual report card state that DC needs to take aggressive steps to preserve District-owned park green space and park tree canopy as a top environmental/conservation priority?

"We ask Mayor Bowser to:

Adopt a 50 percent canopy goal for all Department of Parks and Recreation managed properties.
--Initiate a planning process to create designs for neighborhood parks that incorporate more trees and better growing spaces, make parks safer and increase use.
--Prepare and execute an Open Space Plan that increases residential connections to city greenspace as called for by the Sustainable DC Plan.
--Place conservation easements on city-owned greenspaces to ensure they remain green for the continued benefit of future generations of Washingtonians."

Paving over two acres of Hearst Park for a pool (and the likely loss of mature oaks) would run contrary to this goal.

Casey Trees is not without an agenda of its own.

E
Absolutely. They advocate restoring the city,s tree canopy to improve air quality, save energy, manage storm water runoff and enhance natural habitat, especially for birds. Improving the tree canopy

Are you the same person who was in charge of coming up with arguments to stop the homeless shelter? You sound annoyingly similar and unpersuasive with your unrelenting hyperbole. Your chicken little act is not doing the anti pool people any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of folks want a pool. So there.

Didn't the Casey Trees Foundation 2015 annual report card state that DC needs to take aggressive steps to preserve District-owned park green space and park tree canopy as a top environmental/conservation priority?

"We ask Mayor Bowser to:

Adopt a 50 percent canopy goal for all Department of Parks and Recreation managed properties.
--Initiate a planning process to create designs for neighborhood parks that incorporate more trees and better growing spaces, make parks safer and increase use.
--Prepare and execute an Open Space Plan that increases residential connections to city greenspace as called for by the Sustainable DC Plan.
--Place conservation easements on city-owned greenspaces to ensure they remain green for the continued benefit of future generations of Washingtonians."

Paving over two acres of Hearst Park for a pool (and the likely loss of mature oaks) would run contrary to this goal.

Casey Trees is not without an agenda of its own.

E
Absolutely. They advocate restoring the city,s tree canopy to improve air quality, save energy, manage storm water runoff and enhance natural habitat, especially for birds. Improving the tree canopy

Are you the same person who was in charge of coming up with arguments to stop the homeless shelter? You sound annoyingly similar and unpersuasive with your unrelenting hyperbole. Your chicken little act is not doing the anti pool people any favors.

The only thing that the Hearst pool and the Idaho homeless shelter have in common is that Mary Cheh chose both sites with zero input and analysis from DC agencies and the public.

[Anonymous]

PP mentions the Ward 3 homeless shelter and suggestes an interesting idea: DC should co-locate the Ward 3 pool at the proposed site of the homeless shelter. The parking lot to be used is already paved, so the tree huggers can relax. No park facilities like fields or tennis courts would be lost. The pool would be in the same geographic location (3 blocks away) and just as convenient to the bus lines. The pool also would be a nice amenity for the shelter as well as the broader community. And there's street and off-street parking (in the nearby Cathedral Commons garage). And if DC builds them together, there are probably some cost savings. Win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of folks want a pool. So there.

Didn't the Casey Trees Foundation 2015 annual report card state that DC needs to take aggressive steps to preserve District-owned park green space and park tree canopy as a top environmental/conservation priority?

"We ask Mayor Bowser to:

Adopt a 50 percent canopy goal for all Department of Parks and Recreation managed properties.
--Initiate a planning process to create designs for neighborhood parks that incorporate more trees and better growing spaces, make parks safer and increase use.
--Prepare and execute an Open Space Plan that increases residential connections to city greenspace as called for by the Sustainable DC Plan.
--Place conservation easements on city-owned greenspaces to ensure they remain green for the continued benefit of future generations of Washingtonians."

Paving over two acres of Hearst Park for a pool (and the likely loss of mature oaks) would run contrary to this goal.

Casey Trees is not without an agenda of its own.

E
Absolutely. They advocate restoring the city,s tree canopy to improve air quality, save energy, manage storm water runoff and enhance natural habitat, especially for birds. Improving the tree canopy

Are you the same person who was in charge of coming up with arguments to stop the homeless shelter? You sound annoyingly similar and unpersuasive with your unrelenting hyperbole. Your chicken little act is not doing the anti pool people any favors.

No, not the same person at all. I have no idea who or what you're talking about. Homeless shelters are important, I'd prefer not to live near one (yeah, NIMBY, whatever), and if you're honest you don't want to either.

I like trees. Everyone likes trees. My point is simply that EVERYONE has an agenda. The idea that someone shows up with an objective opinion is laughable. We all have agendas, and some of us are honest enough to admit it.

That's all.

[Anonymous]

PP mentions the Ward 3 homeless shelter and suggestes an interesting idea: DC should co-locate the Ward 3 pool at the proposed site of the homeless shelter. The parking lot to be used is already paved, so the tree huggers can relax. No park facilities like fields or tennis courts would be lost. The pool would be in the same geographic location (3 blocks away) and just as convenient to the bus lines. The pool also would be a nice amenity for the shelter as well as the broader community. And there's street and off-street parking (in the nearby Cathedral Commons garage). And if DC builds them together, there are probably some cost savings. Win-win.

This is the right way to go. Many of us thinking of coming out in support of the homeless shelter/pool combination as a workable compromise. Pool or no pool, I still support the homeless shelter as proposed. I don't believe it is something we need in our neighborhood but it would be inconsistent with my values to oppose it. People need homes al lot more than they need pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP mentions the Ward 3 homeless shelter and suggestes an interesting idea: DC should co-locate the Ward 3 pool at the proposed site of the homeless shelter. The parking lot to be used is already paved, so the tree huggers can relax. No park facilities like fields or tennis courts would be lost. The pool would be in the same geographic location (3 blocks away) and just as convenient to the bus lines. The pool also would be a nice amenity for the shelter as well as the broader community. And there's street and off-street parking (in the nearby Cathedral Commons garage). And if DC builds them together, there are probably some cost savings. Win-win.

This is the right way to go. Many of us thinking of coming out in support of the homeless shelter/pool combination as a workable compromise. Pool or no pool, I still support the homeless shelter as proposed. I don't believe it is something we need in our neighborhood but it would be inconsistent with my values to oppose it. People need homes al lot more than they need pools.

Very well articulated proposal, PP. Does Silverman (sp?) know about it? I wouldn't really trust Cheh, it's too elegant for her.

[Anonymous]

Silverman wouldn't care about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP mentions the Ward 3 homeless shelter and suggestes an interesting idea: DC should co-locate the Ward 3 pool at the proposed site of the homeless shelter. The parking lot to be used is already paved, so the tree huggers can relax. No park facilities like fields or tennis courts would be lost. The pool would be in the same geographic location (3 blocks away) and just as convenient to the bus lines. The pool also would be a nice amenity for the shelter as well as the broader community. And there's street and off-street parking (in the nearby Cathedral Commons garage). And if DC builds them together, there are probably some cost savings. Win-win.

Yes that is what we want, to take our kids to a homeless shelter's bath tub. You're maybe the smartest person alive.

[Anonymous]

Definitely the best post on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Wow, talk about an entitled pool supporter. Wants tax money to build her a "public" pool, even if it means taking a public park, fields, courts, trees. But put the pool next near a homeless shelter and it's like no way! Not at my pool!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, talk about an entitled pool supporter. Wants tax money to build her a "public" pool, even if it means taking a public park, fields, courts, trees. But put the pool next near a homeless shelter and it's like no way! Not at my pool!

Now THAT is funny.

[Anonymous]

If there is room to develop the pool at the homeless shelter it should get serious consideration. I would go from an opponent to a very strong supporter.

[Anonymous]

Of course, because NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, because NIMBY.

Ward 5 used to have a SCHOOL next to a homeless shelter. Suck it up Ward 3, it's only a pool. You have Wilson pool anyway.