Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hydrology, erosion etc are all here

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

It doesn’t say anything about pumping water in perpetuity. And what happens when the pumps fail. And pretty indicative illustrations are not a reforestation or tee canopy restoration plan.

You are reaching now.

She needs to reach for her meds - I'm sure the post blaming this all on Trump is coming any moment now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hydrology, erosion etc are all here

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

It doesn’t say anything about pumping water in perpetuity. And what happens when the pumps fail. And pretty indicative illustrations are not a reforestation or tee canopy restoration plan.

You are reaching now.

Anonymous wrote:Hydrology, erosion etc are all here

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

It doesn’t say anything about pumping water in perpetuity. And what happens when the pumps fail. And pretty indicative illustrations are not a reforestation or tee canopy restoration plan.

Hydrology, erosion etc are all here

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

Anonymous wrote:The hills will be replanted, per the plans posted on the project website.

The hydrology issues were the impetus behind the project and once completed, should be resolved.

This is DGS and DPR responsibility.

Please send us the link. There is no reforestation plan posted on the project website that we can find. How will the hydrology issues be resolved? You seem to be very knowledgeable — pray tell please.

The hills will be replanted, per the plans posted on the project website.

The hydrology issues were the impetus behind the project and once completed, should be resolved.

This is DGS and DPR responsibility.

Speaking of Cheh and Hearst Park, how does she plan to have DC remediate the environmental clusterf#%* of a mess she’s caused? I refer to the denuding of much of the tree canopy of a once-green oasis and the significant hydrology problems from sinking a concrete canyon in part of the park (resulting in the continuous pumping of groundwater 24/7 into the street). Cheh selected the site, which even DC agencies believed wasn’t the most appropriate site for the pool, and she’s responsible for fixing it.

No, her voters, the 20,000 or so, people that vote for her every election.

Why would "funders" care about the quality of life an outdoor pool brings?

Anonymous wrote:You would need to recruit someone who holds the same fundamental positions, who isn't her.

Good luck with that.

Because most people wanted a pool. Most people want new development and viable streetscapes and commercial areas. Most people want what she has done, because, well, she listened to her constituents.

You mean her funders.

You would need to recruit someone who holds the same fundamental positions, who isn't her.

Good luck with that.

Because most people wanted a pool. Most people want new development and viable streetscapes and commercial areas. Most people want what she has done, because, well, she listened to her constituents.

Who is going to challenge Cheh? She’s a stubborn know-it-all who increasingly delegates her job to her staff. Time to be emerita, Prof. Cheh.

We walked by Hearst Park yesterday. All of the tree removal and the ugly building are just so sad and depressing. Hearst used to be such a beautiful green park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool looks SO tiny. I was opposed to that location for the pool, but if you are going to ramrod it through, build a decent pool.

“The food at this place is terrible. And such tiny portions too!”

The pool is so typically Cheh. It pleases nobody, but a small group of well-orchestrated supporters. Either no pool or a real pool. What we got was an ugly little pool that will be empty eight months a year and filled with kiddie pee during the summer.

And at night you can be sure that the pool-plex will be illuminated like I-295 or a prison perimeter. This will be especially nice during the months of the year, when the pool is empty, the leaves fall and the lights reflect off all of the exposed concrete. Thanks, Cheh.

Anonymous wrote:The neighbors made sure it was as small as possible. It is revisionist history to say that is Cheh's fault.

What I don't understand, why couldn't they allow accessibility from Idaho Ave rather than the elevator which seems excessive.

Does anyone know how that came about?

False. DPR never proposed a larger sized pool.

The smarter location, if a pool was to be built at Hearst, would have been to shift the location to the north side of the park, abutting the school property. There is a large site just down a gentle slope from the existing park shelter and north of the field, which is accessible without needing an elevator access, and wouldn't have required cutting any trees. And it would have been more convenient to the Hearst playground and school parking lot (when school is not in session, for example during the summer).

The neighbors made sure it was as small as possible. It is revisionist history to say that is Cheh's fault.

What I don't understand, why couldn't they allow accessibility from Idaho Ave rather than the elevator which seems excessive.

Does anyone know how that came about?