Reply to Hearst Playground story in Current

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Hearst Playground story in Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The hydrology issue is extremely important to the dozen homes that are directly below Hearst. There are already very significant flooding issues on Springland. Law requires strict water management of any development, including the construction of a pool on public land. I don't live down there but the current plans do include retention ponds to hold water from the field. It remains to be seen if the back of the envelope design is sufficient to retain the run-off.
There is a secondary issue of what needs to be done to stabilize a pool on the field. That will be solved but it will likely be  expensive.

Not a supporter of the pool in part because the project is more complex than supporters admit - especially those mean spirited supporters who don't like to hear alternative view points. I have absolutely no confidence in the city in pulling the construction of the project off in the time frame outlined in the meetings. Just look over at Friendship to see what is likely to happen and nobody is even building a pool over there. And I have absolutely no confidence in DPR to manage and maintain the pool which will be a fenced off eye sore, only available for public use for eight hours a day three months a year. 
As an entire neighborhood, we will be paying a huge price in terms of at least two years and likely many more of construction and loss of access to the field.  It will be expensive for the city - at least $12 million but significant cost overruns are extremely likely. All of this for reduced public access to approximately half of the currently open, natural field. 
I do think that there is a divide between people who currently know Hearst and love its natural beauty and those who just see it as open space to be developed, layered with concrete, artificial turf and additional fencing.
Mary Cheh denied that she had anything to do with choosing this location. But DPR points the finger directly at her. As public citizens, we deserve to at least know how this choice was made. If the pool is going to be developed, it's important that the process is going to be open. Trying to cover the decision making process with a blanket is bad government and bad politics.  If the pools is going to be built, we at least need to see clearly what we are getting into. 
[/quote]

The run off issues are real, and from the presented plans, it is clear DGS has incorporated significant run off mitigation on the east side of the property as well as along the Idaho Avenue right of way. DOEE will be integrally involved with the stormwater management - they already have seen the plans and know that the Springland residents will be much better off with what has been presented.  You clearly have no idea about these issues the way you are describing them. The "stabilization" issue is a total NIMBY red-herring. Sorry, it just is, regardless of what experts you have working on it. It will be a waste of the limited resources the group has raised to try to thwart the pool with this issue.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics