Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

I don't think any thing is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst would just have to stop accepting out of boundary students. Without out of boundary, it has lots of capacity. It should serve as a neighborhood school. If people around Hearst don't want a pool, the homeless shelter for families is the next most appropriate use, if a shelter has to go somewhere in Ward 3. Then the pool can go in the park next to the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Is it funny at all to throw one group of kids (oob) under the bus for another (homeless)? The mini shelters were a terrible idea to begin with. How bout no mini shelters and a big, nice full service shelter somewhere that does not negatively impact the neighborhood? And bus the kids to school. These are supposed to be 120 day dwellings, not a permanent home .

No dog in this particular horserace, but I'm guessing that large "full service" shelter at the hospital where the girls was killed has influenced some opinions. Grouping gigantic populations of homeless people together may be about as out-of-touch as gigantic groups of section 8 housing: recipe for trouble. You can't really integrate people into the community if what you're really trying to do is isolate them from the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person refers to Hearst as a dust bowl. You are a liar. Anybody can see that. 95% of Hearst Field is covered in green grass. A very small section is bare in front of the soccer goals. That is where most grass fields are worn. Please don't misrepresent in order to destroy what is a beautiful urban oasis. Soccer should be played a Hearst but on natural grass.

You think the city is going to put sod down? You're nuts. That turf is coming. You can delay if you like. But the turf, and probably a pool, are come. Sorry.

Why apologize? It is called putting investment into the community so the public park can be used by more people than just those who want to walk their dogs there. Regular summer day yesterday, no one was using the courts, a small number of people were in the playground area. Total waste of space.

[Anonymous]

It's beautiful park is not a waste of space. The park can be used year round and is. But wouldn't a pool be a waste of space during the winter when by definition it can't be used?

[Anonymous]

A pool can be designed to be covered with a usable surface for off-season use.

[Anonymous]

This is a horrible waste of resources in a city that needs more resources for poor and disadvantaged? I can not believe this happening! A covered deluxe pool in Ward 3 when this city has hungry kids? Horrible values people.

[Anonymous]

It's not starting off well. $5 million in planning money????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a horrible waste of resources in a city that needs more resources for poor and disadvantaged? I can not believe this happening! A covered deluxe pool in Ward 3 when this city has hungry kids? Horrible values people.

Different budgets and resources. Not spending the money on renovating Hearst does not mean more money for poor and disadvantaged. DC spends plenty of money on social services and safety nets. More per capita than any other jurisdiction when apples to apples are compared.

[Anonymous]

That's why if the Hearst neighbors are dead set against a pool, they should welcome the homeless shelter. It's DC owned land, just like the police parking lot.

Anonymous wrote:This is a horrible waste of resources in a city that needs more resources for poor and disadvantaged? I can not believe this happening! A covered deluxe pool in Ward 3 when this city has hungry kids? Horrible values people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a horrible waste of resources in a city that needs more resources for poor and disadvantaged? I can not believe this happening! A covered deluxe pool in Ward 3 when this city has hungry kids? Horrible values people.

Locusts, pestilence, etc.

[Anonymous]

I welcome the homeless shelter. I do think that it should be co located with a pool if there is one

[Anonymous]

+1

Anonymous wrote:I welcome the homeless shelter. I do think that it should be co located with a pool if there is one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not starting off well. $5 million in planning money????

$5 million in "planning money"? I wonder whose campaign the planners donated to...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why if the Hearst neighbors are dead set against a pool, they should welcome the homeless shelter. It's DC owned land, just like the police parking lot.

Actually, Hearst Park is Federal land that the District is allowed to use for 'recreational' purposes. To use it in any other way would mean going back to the Feds and seeking approval. That is unlikely to happen. The Idaho Ave Police site, however, is District land, and they can use it as they see fit. So, DC could opt to co-locate police, homeless and pool complex at Idaho Ave. Police and homeless, however, can't be located at Hearst Park.

[Anonymous]

So then the pool should be the first choice, but if the neighbors insist, DC should surely seek federal permission for the shelter, assuming this poster is correct. Hard to see why such permission would be "unlikely to happen," except that some neighbors don't want to do their part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why if the Hearst neighbors are dead set against a pool, they should welcome the homeless shelter. It's DC owned land, just like the police parking lot.

Actually, Hearst Park is Federal land that the District is allowed to use for 'recreational' purposes. To use it in any other way would mean going back to the Feds and seeking approval. That is unlikely to happen. The Idaho Ave Police site, however, is District land, and they can use it as they see fit. So, DC could opt to co-locate police, homeless and pool complex at Idaho Ave. Police and homeless, however, can't be located at Hearst Park.