Trees have to be removed. The planners are already preparing an argument that they are sick and need to come down. Then there are people hear who say they are invasive species.

If the current budget for this pool is $12 million, it will dramatically increase once the hydrology is reviewed. If the city builds the pool and folks on Springland get worse flooding, the city is going to be on the hook for additional millions because Springland will be able to argue that changes to Hearst made the situation worse.

Thanks Mary Cheh for thinking this through.

Anonymous wrote:Still think that the best place for a Ward 3 pool is on the UDC campus. It's relatively centrally-located, on the Red Line and has lots of parking. And the campus is kind of a concrete sh#%house anyway, a developed 'brownfield' site in which a new pool would be an aesthetic enhancement.

UDC is not part of the executive branch of the DC government. They are congressionally chartered and overseen by an independent board of trustees. Any use of the site would have to approved by the board, it's hard to imagine they would approve a public pool because it's not part of their mission.

Anonymous wrote:None of the mature trees will be lost.

Again, hyperbole.

Actually, only Option 1 appears to preserve all of the mature trees. Options 2 and 3 appear to require the removal of at least 4 of the willow oaks. Admittedly, no one pointed this out at the meeting, and the drawings are vague. But that is how I read it. Of course, I might need stronger reading glasses.

None of the mature trees will be lost.

Again, hyperbole.

DPR doesn't control the UDC campus. They cannot just claim space to place a public pool. And proximity to the red line means nothing for this facility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if course, anyone familiar with the environmental issues will know that the stormwater retention and run off at Hearst is a critical issue for Hazen tributary, and that needs to be dealt with.

Exactly. And the best way to deal with that is to pave two acres of the park with an impermeable surface. Like destroying the village in order to save it. Right.

This land has already been paved over. 80 years ago. This ain't the redwood forests. Now is a chance to correct the mistakes of the past and build new recreational opportunities for the future.

The only paving is on the tennis courts, the Hearst school basketball and a walkway. That's not like two acres of concrete. Don't destroy Hearst's green space Casey Trees, in its annual report, singles out the importance of conserving the tree canopy and green space in DC parks as a top civic priority. It may not be the Redwood forest, but 100+ year-old oaks are pretty significant here.

The proposal to put the pool at UDC is a good one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if course, anyone familiar with the environmental issues will know that the stormwater retention and run off at Hearst is a critical issue for Hazen tributary, and that needs to be dealt with.

Exactly. And the best way to deal with that is to pave two acres of the park with an impermeable surface. Like destroying the village in order to save it. Right.

This land has already been paved over. 80 years ago. This ain't the redwood forests. Now is a chance to correct the mistakes of the past and build new recreational opportunities for the future.

Still think that the best place for a Ward 3 pool is on the UDC campus. It's relatively centrally-located, on the Red Line and has lots of parking. And the campus is kind of a concrete sh#%house anyway, a developed 'brownfield' site in which a new pool would be an aesthetic enhancement.

Anonymous wrote:And if course, anyone familiar with the environmental issues will know that the stormwater retention and run off at Hearst is a critical issue for Hazen tributary, and that needs to be dealt with.

Exactly. And the best way to deal with that is to pave two acres of the park with an impermeable surface. Like destroying the village in order to save it. Right.

Anonymous wrote:Of course the area was modified by man. It as originally a natural slope from Ridge Road (Wisconsin Avenue) down to Rock Creek. The carve ours that are the retaining wall at Sidwell and the steep "sledding hill" slopes that make the field are all part of the man made intervention.

This is all the same tripe we get from all NIMBYs everywhere. Pick 20 different so-called issues and try to make an argument, legal or otherwise, and try to find sympathy where you can.

In this case, trying to put together the environmental lobby, the soccer people etc is a losing propostion because there will still be a soccer field and there will still be the important oak trees.

Why hasn't DPR posted the plans yet? Strange.

And if course, anyone familiar with the environmental issues will know that the stormwater retention and run off at Hearst is a critical issue for Hazen tributary, and that needs to be dealt with.

Of course the area was modified by man. It as originally a natural slope from Ridge Road (Wisconsin Avenue) down to Rock Creek. The carve ours that are the retaining wall at Sidwell and the steep "sledding hill" slopes that make the field are all part of the man made intervention.

This is all the same tripe we get from all NIMBYs everywhere. Pick 20 different so-called issues and try to make an argument, legal or otherwise, and try to find sympathy where you can.

In this case, trying to put together the environmental lobby, the soccer people etc is a losing propostion because there will still be a soccer field and there will still be the important oak trees.

Anonymous wrote:"Please illustrate in a coherent manner how realistically the pool is going to destabilize that which is under the field."

It's not that the pool will destabilize the field, it's that the shifting field will destabilize the pool. The field is actually fill, which is one of the reasons it is so difficult to maintain. The city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars carefully grooming a soccer field and installing in ground sprinklers at Hearst years ago and that lasted less than two years. The hydrology argument will be a significant part of the debate over the future investment in the park because it is what causes the shifting soil. If Hearst hydrology is as complex as some are saying it could dramatically increase a realistic estimate for putting a pool on the field. I suspect that one reason for keeping pool small is that the ground is not stable enough to support a larger pool without a dramatic increase in cost.

Wait? The field is actually fill, and not the naturally occurring oasis that many are making it out to be? So the area has already significantly been modified by man. Thanks for pointing that out. Guess we already borrowed the natural landscape from our children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Save Hearst Park"


Now that is funny. Save it from what?

From being paved in concrete.

Hyperbole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The field is difficult to maintain because the neighbors use it as a dog toilet for several hours per day and in many cases, do not clean up after their pooches. Maybe if the residents who were so concerned about the park actually helped keep it clean of dog waste and organized volunteer clean ups over the years, they would be taken more seriously. Instead it is all about what DPR has or hasn't done for them (not the park, but them). Only now, you organize into something that tries to be a Friends group with any sort of credibility. Hypocritical.

Actually, I have observed that nearby residents have done quite a lot in terms of upkeep to the park, at least for the 50 years that I've been a member of this community (go ahead, bring on the geritol comments). For years, one person kept a container stocked with plastic bags for dog droppings in front of their home; they stopped doing it when people kept leaving the poop filled bags behind on their way home. Another person repeatedly painted over the graffiti that crops up on the green tennis wall. Another has taken hammer to nail and fixed the fence a few times by the ravine into the ROW. Several have picked up trash. Some have raked leaves. Others have mowed the field. Some have picked up downed limbs, chopped into firewood, and stacked for others to take. And many contributed cash donations (to the tune of several hundred dollars a family) to at least one prior failed attempt to properly drain and irrigate the field. Others contributed a lot of time over the years to try to work with DPR to address concern about the trees, the fields, the rec cottage, and the other existing features. More can always be done, and not every person has helped in this way.. But faulting nearby residents for not taking care of park issues is disrespectful to those who have done so much for so long, and just plain wrong.