Anonymous
09/28/2019 17:38
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
“Clear Cut Cheh” (LOL) is toxic in so many ways. It’s way past time to “remediate” her off the DC council.
Anonymous
09/28/2019 14:34
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide the link to the replanting plan and what type of trees will be planted for shade and erosion control?
The parameters of the landscaping are what led this effort. Look at the website.
What does this sentence mean in plain English?
The park looks just awful with the trees gone. At a time when there are demonstrations in the streets about climate change and when DC basically leads the nation in childhood asthma cases, someone (or several people) in the DC government should be fired for this outrage. And responsibility lies with Council Member “Clear Cut” Cheh.
Anonymous
09/27/2019 10:29
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide the link to the replanting plan and what type of trees will be planted for shade and erosion control?
The parameters of the landscaping are what led this effort. Look at the website.
Anonymous
09/27/2019 07:54
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Can someone provide the link to the replanting plan and what type of trees will be planted for shade and erosion control?
Anonymous
09/26/2019 22:35
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It will be re-planted with more native species and plants designed to help with stormwater management. But sure, enjoy the weed and trash-filled hill as an oasis.
Can you cite a source for your assertion about the reforestation plan?
The best carbon sequestration device known is ... a tree. And DC just cut over one hundred of them. And guess what will happen to Hearst’s slopes and water runoff as a result? Erosion and more drainage problems.
Who’s the genius in charge of this fiasco?
These posts amuse me and make me wonder if any of the neighbors ever scrutinized the trees on the hill - many of the trees were already dead and only appeared green because they'd been choked by ivy and most of the other "green" was made up of weedy shrubs and bushes.
But it doesn't surprise me that the people bitching about this never looked at the trees because hardly anyone was ever inside this park.
Anonymous
09/26/2019 21:28
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:It will be re-planted with more native species and plants designed to help with stormwater management. But sure, enjoy the weed and trash-filled hill as an oasis.
Can you cite a source for your assertion about the reforestation plan?
The best carbon sequestration device known is ... a tree. And DC just cut over one hundred of them. And guess what will happen to Hearst’s slopes and water runoff as a result? Erosion and more drainage problems.
Who’s the genius in charge of this fiasco?
Anonymous
09/26/2019 14:43
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
It will be re-planted with more native species and plants designed to help with stormwater management. But sure, enjoy the weed and trash-filled hill as an oasis.
Anonymous
09/25/2019 16:10
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Mary Cheh destroyed Hearst Park. It was a great urban oasis. Not its basically clear cut.
Anonymous
09/25/2019 11:24
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: OMG! What has happened to Hearst park?? I was by there today, and it seems like 75 to 80% of the trees have been removed. Is this for the swimming pool? I liked the idea of a pool — but definitely not if it meant removing so many trees. The DC government certainly was not upfront and transparent with the public about how many trees they planned to cut down Isn’t a major purpose of a park to conserve trees rather than remove them? I’m heartsick. The character of the park has been totally changed
The "trees" that were removed were mostly 60+ years of weedy overgrowth. The city is implementing stormwater management at all corners of the park to mitigate the run off down Springland lane. None of that growth removal is associated with the pool. The city's promise was that none of the healthy statley trees at the park would be taken down. They have heeded that promise. Why are you so enamored with weedy overgrowth?
That’s illogical - forested slopes help with storm water management and deforestation makes storm run off worse. Most of the trees removed were quite large. The look of the park has changed overnight from a green oasis to clear cutting. Does DPL have a plan to restore the tree cover or was the plan all along to remove the tree cover on the south and west sides of the park so that the pool is not in shade? I do feel sorry for the adjacent neighbors because there will be no tree screening from the pool complex.
+1. The park looks totally different, and not in a good way. It's not quite clear cutting, but it's close.
Anonymous
09/22/2019 12:08
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: OMG! What has happened to Hearst park?? I was by there today, and it seems like 75 to 80% of the trees have been removed. Is this for the swimming pool? I liked the idea of a pool — but definitely not if it meant removing so many trees. The DC government certainly was not upfront and transparent with the public about how many trees they planned to cut down Isn’t a major purpose of a park to conserve trees rather than remove them? I’m heartsick. The character of the park has been totally changed
The "trees" that were removed were mostly 60+ years of weedy overgrowth. The city is implementing stormwater management at all corners of the park to mitigate the run off down Springland lane. None of that growth removal is associated with the pool. The city's promise was that none of the healthy statley trees at the park would be taken down. They have heeded that promise. Why are you so enamored with weedy overgrowth?
That’s illogical - forested slopes help with storm water management and deforestation makes storm run off worse. Most of the trees removed were quite large. The look of the park has changed overnight from a green oasis to clear cutting. Does DPL have a plan to restore the tree cover or was the plan all along to remove the tree cover on the south and west sides of the park so that the pool is not in shade? I do feel sorry for the adjacent neighbors because there will be no tree screening from the pool complex.
Anonymous
09/21/2019 17:55
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote: OMG! What has happened to Hearst park?? I was by there today, and it seems like 75 to 80% of the trees have been removed. Is this for the swimming pool? I liked the idea of a pool — but definitely not if it meant removing so many trees. The DC government certainly was not upfront and transparent with the public about how many trees they planned to cut down Isn’t a major purpose of a park to conserve trees rather than remove them? I’m heartsick. The character of the park has been totally changed
The "trees" that were removed were mostly 60+ years of weedy overgrowth. The city is implementing stormwater management at all corners of the park to mitigate the run off down Springland lane. None of that growth removal is associated with the pool. The city's promise was that none of the healthy statley trees at the park would be taken down. They have heeded that promise. Why are you so enamored with weedy overgrowth?
Anonymous
09/21/2019 15:37
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
OMG! What has happened to Hearst park?? I was by there today, and it seems like 75 to 80% of the trees have been removed. Is this for the swimming pool? I liked the idea of a pool — but definitely not if it meant removing so many trees. The DC government certainly was not upfront and transparent with the public about how many trees they planned to cut down Isn’t a major purpose of a park to conserve trees rather than remove them? I’m heartsick. The character of the park has been totally changed
Anonymous
09/19/2019 15:52
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.
A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.
A new store would have been built a lot faster if the original 1999 proposal hadn't been opposed by a bunch of NIMBYs, pre-Ahold. It also would have been one story, not touched the north parcel and had openings on Wisconsin Avenue.
This would have been great. I loved the shops on the old north parcel, and don't like how Cathedral Commons turned out. Poor design and way too much concrete.
Then blame the people who live around there who were so focused on opposing the project, they ignored the details of what ultimately was approved.
There was quite a bit of design-related testimony presented at the hearings, but the BZA approved the project with barely any changes. This led a
BZA hearing clerk to remark to various attendees that couldn't recall a hearing process that seemed so greased in advance.
Anonymous
09/19/2019 07:33
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.
A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.
A new store would have been built a lot faster if the original 1999 proposal hadn't been opposed by a bunch of NIMBYs, pre-Ahold. It also would have been one story, not touched the north parcel and had openings on Wisconsin Avenue.
This would have been great. I loved the shops on the old north parcel, and don't like how Cathedral Commons turned out. Poor design and way too much concrete.
Then blame the people who live around there who were so focused on opposing the project, they ignored the details of what ultimately was approved.
Anonymous
09/18/2019 16:44
Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the Giant is in a new building, but that took a decade.
A new store would have been built a lot faster had Giant/Ahold not breached a 2002 agreement with the Williams Administration under which they agreed to build the new store. At the time, Ahold was under investigation from securities fraud, so perhaps it lost focus. The breach showed that Giant's word stinks about as much as its fish, and delayed a new store for several years.
A new store would have been built a lot faster if the original 1999 proposal hadn't been opposed by a bunch of NIMBYs, pre-Ahold. It also would have been one story, not touched the north parcel and had openings on Wisconsin Avenue.
This would have been great. I loved the shops on the old north parcel, and don't like how Cathedral Commons turned out. Poor design and way too much concrete.
This. And who had the dumb idea to build a smaller Starbucks that what existed on the site previously?