Stoddert! My kids played throughout but they don't own the fields. I wish there were more soccer fields cause I'm sick of driving out to Gaithersburg every Saturday

Anonymous wrote:But there are options and opportunity to push for a full size field. But if you get it, don't continue to complain about the constant usage from Stoddert and other leagues. That complaining has been going on for years from the immediate neighbors.

The field is heavily used now, and no one is complaining. The complaints stemmed from (1) years ago, Stoddert would fence-in the field using orange mesh fencing to keep folks off the field all summer, and seasonally when not in use...not a good use of a public field; and (2) Stoddert didn't do a good job of educating parents about parking, so folks would park mostly on Quebec and Rodman, causing parking congestion for the neighbors who lived on those streets, rather than encouraging folks to park on 37th, which means folks have to walk down a flight of stairs...but this just takes regular communications each fall and spring with the new crop of parents.

But there are options and opportunity to push for a full size field. But if you get it, don't continue to complain about the constant usage from Stoddert and other leagues. That complaining has been going on for years from the immediate neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5) "likely", more like a possibility, but not definite

All of the proposals presented so far show a dramatically smaller field. Like half the area.

So it's just "a possibility" until it happens. Then it's "likely."

Once it happens it's not likely, it's accomplished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5) "likely", more like a possibility, but not definite

All of the proposals presented so far show a dramatically smaller field. Like half the area.

So it's just "a possibility" until it happens. Then it's "likely."

Anonymous wrote:5) "likely", more like a possibility, but not definite

All of the proposals presented so far show a dramatically smaller field. Like half the area.

5) "likely", more like a possibility, but not definite

6) again, possible, but three courts is a waste of space, seldom all three are in use;

7) Wrong again.

Anonymous wrote:Look. Putting a pool in a public park has consequences. Why does every concern get knocked down as hyperbole?
1. It will only be open three months a year, six days a week, eight hours a day.

2. DC won't maintain it.

3. It will destroy the vistas in the currently mature natural park

4. It will cost $12 million

5. It likely will result in a significantly smaller playing field.

6. One or more of the tennis courts will be lost.

7. Under basically all of DPR's alternatives, there will be major impact to, and likely removal of, the large oak trees because the pool (without the surrounding infrastructure shown on the plans) is placed very close to them.

1) hundreds or thousands of people will use it; currently there is a limited number who can use the tennis courts by comparison.

2) DC maintains its pools. If anything this will bring more resources to maintain Hearst properly.

3) It isn't a natural park. Natural would be if it were still with old growth trees and slope down from Wisconsin Avenue.

4) The city is investing in the park to update it and deal with the stormwater issues. The pool will cost money, of course, but not $12 Million.

Look. Putting a pool in a public park has consequences. Why does every concern get knocked down as hyperbole?
1. It will only be open three months a year, six days a week, eight hours a day.

2. DC won't maintain it.

3. It will destroy the vistas in the currently mature natural park

4. It will cost $12 million

Anonymous wrote:Graffiti gathering concrete?

In lieu of green field?

Hey, more hyperbole!

No, not hyperbole; fact. There's a guy in the neighborhood that regularly monitors for graffiti and gang tags, and paints over them when he sees them. Ever wonder why the tennis back wall is so green? because it's frequently re-painted by a volunteer so the graffiti is obscured. You can rest assured that DPR is not taking care of it.

Graffiti gathering concrete?

In lieu of green field?

Hey, more hyperbole!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through this what an obnoxious group of people. You want the city to build you a private pool for $12 million? Really?

No, we want the city to build a public pool, the same as exists all over the rest of the District, but not anywhere in upper NW.

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

We want to have nice things too.

I urge anyone weighing in on this issue to use the link to the DPR outpool sites. Click on them with google earth enabled, and check out how these pools have been sited:

(1) typically at the edge of much large parks or rec facilities
(2) tucked out of the way so that do not become attractive nuisances for the 9 1/2 months out of the year that they are closed up and not in use (and...the one day a week that they are closed, since pools are only open 6 days a week even in season, and that season is only when public schools are not in session)
(3) on much larger footprints; the pool shown in the options for Hearst thusfar is much smaller than the smaller DPR-developed pool (Volta) because they are trying to cram too many uses onto the Hearst Park site.

Further, the Mayor has been very vocal about how she expects neighbors to step up and support the landscaping and maintenance of facilities like these pools. For example, the Friends of Volta raise over $50,000 each year (last year, they claimed $65,000) for maintenance. That's because the pool was closed for several years due to lack of maintenance not too long ago, since DPR is chronically underfunded in that regard, and the neighbors organized to take matters into their own hands to repair the pool and reconstruct park features and landscaping so that the visual blight was mitigated. Where is the group that is stepping up to take this on? How do the parents of Hearst school kids feel about losing the park to this fenced in leaf- and graffiti-gathering concrete structure? in lieu of a green field? Are there 500 families willing to pay $100 in perpetuity? or 50 families willing to pay $1000 on an ongoing basis? No, there are a bunch of folks saying, 'I deserve to have a pool a few blocks from my home, build it for me now' with no regard for the long term impacts on the environment, the neighborhood, the school kids, and other users, NOR how it would be maintained going forward. For their efforts in pushing back on the City and trying to get a Ward 3 pool sited responsibly and appropriately, the neighbors are being criticized as being geriatric and worse.

At least, what is there is something that the neighbors can maintain themselves (as they have, for generations) with paint, hammer, rake, mower, and trash bag.

Anonymous wrote:Reading through this what an obnoxious group of people. You want the city to build you a private pool for $12 million? Really?

No, we want the city to build a public pool, the same as exists all over the rest of the District, but not anywhere in upper NW.

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

We want to have nice things too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

I was persuaded by the report of how much the immediate residents do to maintain Hearst Park. Clearly their views should count, too.

Their views will be noted. As will the views of the other 77,000 residents of Ward 3.

This Friends group at Hearst... is it a 501c3? When was it formed? I know other parks in DC have Friends groups that are very active in upkeep and raising funds for the park. Does Hearst have the same kind of friends?

The neighborhood group is incorporating now. There have been past "friends of" groups for Hearst, but very little in the past 10-15 years when the current playground was constructed.