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]I count myself among the folks who would also enjoy having a pool in Ward 3! Maybe the Upshur pool can send some of their more restive patrons over to enjoy it with you, like the two adult ladies who were whipping each other with belts and pulling each other's hair and closed the pool early this past Sunday? 
But why would anyone pick a fight and try to undermine the families and KIDS that already use the Hearst Rec facility? If the health and safety of DC kids isn't your top priority, what is? Sunning yourself? Perhaps on a deck made from the corpses of the century oaks lining that grass field? 
I wish the people who keep arguing to "move the kids in the rec aftercare program into the school" knew what the heck they were talking about.  There is already an afterschool program in the school, and it is privately run, not DCPS run. It costs $$ and is a hardship for many working families to afford. As had been pointed out here already not every family at Hearst has a SAHP or is walking from a $2 million mansion or even a nice condo in McLean Gardens. 
The private aftercare program monopolizes the gym. 
The Rec parents COULDN'T EVEN GET THE SCHOOL TO GIVE PERMISSION TO LET THE REC KIDS INTO THE GYM DURING THE SNOWSTORMS.  One time they allowed the Rec kids to come inside on an emergency basis - when there was a GAS LEAK in the crummy old rec building! 
When it is raining or too cold out, the rec kids have no place to play outside. The cooperation between Rec and DCPS ends at the playground apparently and neither the department lawyers nor the elected officials nor the current school principal seems to give two farts about it. 
The cottage is too small, out of date, and lacks adequate facilities. 
BTW there is also a preschool coop that operates out of that cramped cottage.
The park deserves a better rec building, that is all I am arguing. That should be the focus and the pool is secondary. I just do not see where they would put the pool without ripping up what is actually a very nice, park-like setting or maybe putting the east side creek into a drainage tunnel which seems dicey - doesn't that land belong to DC DOT?
[/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